Cities 119 (2021) 103406

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cities
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

Smart city research: A holistic and state-of-the-art literature review

Fang Zhao a, *, Olushola I. Fashola b, Tolulope I. Olarewaju c, Ijeoma Onwumere d
a
Staffordshire Business School, Staffordshire University, Leek Road, Stoke-on-Trent ST4 2DF, UK
b
QA Higher Education, Birmingham, UK
c
Keele Business School, Keele University, Keele, UK
d
Manchester Metropolitan University

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This literature review provides a systematic review of smart city research between 2000 and 2019. The aim of the
Smart city review is to provide a comprehensive picture of the state-of-the-art of research in smart cities by addressing
Literature review major issues and identifying gaps and areas for future research. The analysis of 191 publications drawn from
Urban planning and governance
high-quality journals and the most influential or highly cited smart city literature highlights four major chal­
Technology diffusion
Strategy
lenges for small city research: (a) smart city research is often fragmented and technology-driven; (b) many
Entrepreneurship studies are on the perceived benefits of smart cities and fewer on the downsides of technologies and failed
projects; (c) there is a need to build new theories for smart city research; and (d) there is a lack of empirical
testing of the conceptual frameworks developed in smart city research. The research insights of this literature
review may encourage practitioners, including city councillors, urban planners, and business managers, to
consider smart city strategies in a holistic way when building vibrant, sustainable, and resilient cities of the
future.

1. Introduction EU27 countries.

Although smart city research can be traced back to the 1990s, the
past decade has witnessed an exponential growth and expansion of
multidisciplinary fields, taking on many perspectives (Kummitha &
Crutzen, 2017; Trencher, 2019). The publication volume on smart cities
has more than doubled since 2009 (Ojo et al., 2015). The research
usually touches on four areas: the technological aspect, including the
technological infrastructure and support network for building smart
cities, the sociocultural aspect, or citizen engagement, the political-
institutional aspect, such as government support and policies, and the
economic-business aspect, namely business models and profitability.
The concept of the smart city has been seen as a strategy to tackle
challenges that city governments face, such as rapid urbanisation and
significant demographic changes, climate and environmental changes,
economic restructuring and reforms, and digital technology disruptions
(Tompson, 2017). It is generally agreed that the objective of smart cities
is to enhance economic growth and social development through in­
novations in technology and heightened collaboration (Sarma & Sunny,
2017). The study by Caragliu et al. (2011) demonstrated positive asso­
ciations between smart cities and urban wealth using urban audit data in
Recent research (Trencher, 2019) indicates that the concept of smart
cities has seen the emergence of its second generation, the so-called
‘smart city 2.0’. Unlike the first generation ‘smart city 1.0’, which was
largely techno-economically driven and was more interested in digital
technology diffusion and the economic and corporate potential of smart
city projects, smart city 2.0 has shifted towards a decentralised,
anthropocentric approach and ways to foster collaboration and com­
munity involvement. This shift is seen to respond to the critiques of
smart city focus and strategy (Colding & Barthel, 2017; Glasmeier &
Christopherson, 2015; Viitanen & Kingston, 2014). Among the critiques,
some contest that the neoliberal economic interests in smart city plan­
ning and strategies are prevailing at the expense of environmental and
social concerns (Cardullo & Kitchin, 2019; Hollands, 2015; Kitchin,
2015). The study by Hollands (2008) questioned critically the under­
lying assumptions and labelling process of the concept of smart cities
and called for a more progressive and inclusive smart city. Others point
out that the top-down tendency of many smart cities to privilege the
introduction of corporation-serving technologies is the key cause of
many smart city project failures, because of a lack of understanding of
what the citizens want (Carrasco-Sáez et al., 2017; McFarlane &

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: fang.zhao@staffs.ac.uk (F. Zhao), Olushola.Fashola@qa.com (O.I. Fashola), t.olarewaju@keele.ac.uk (T.I. Olarewaju), i.c.onwumere@gmail.
com (I. Onwumere).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103406
Received 24 May 2020; Received in revised form 18 July 2021; Accepted 30 July 2021
Available online 9 August 2021
0264-2751/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F. Zhao et al.
Söderström, 2017; Trencher & Karvonen, 2018; Zuzul, 2019).
Corresponding to the dynamic smart city research are standalone
smart city literature reviews. To get a fair glimpse of the latest de­
velopments in smart city literature reviews, we performed a random
search in high-quality journals relevant to the study fields and found
eleven literature reviews published between 2015 and 2019. Among
these eleven literature reviews, five concentrated on smart city con­
ceptualisation, four on smart city governance or planning, and two took
a holistic approach without any particular focus.
Five of the literature reviews that we found dealt with what a smart
city is. After reviewing 78 academic papers, Yigitcanlar et al. (2018)
found that the extant literature has not been able to adequately
conceptualise what a smart city is meant to be, and most of the existing
conceptual frameworks are limited in advancing our understanding of
the smart city concept. In a more recent literature review of 38 studies
published up to June 2018, Yigitcanlar et al. (2019) reiterate their
previous findings and argue that cities cannot be truly smart without
being sustainable. Likewise, the literature review by Kummitha and
Crutzen (2017) categorised 161 articles into four schools of thought
using a framework called 3RC, which means restrictive school, reflective
school, rationalistic school and critical school. The review found that
conflicting views exist as to what a ‘real’ smart city is, and its implica­
tions for building creative and inclusive urban space. Taking a biblio­
metric methodology approach, De Jong et al. (2015) analysed 1430
articles retrieved from the Scopus database, focusing on how the twelve
most frequent city categories relating to smart cities are conceptualised
individually and in relation to one another in the academic literature.
The review finds that the ‘sustainable city’ is ‘the largest and most
interconnected node, linked closely to the ‘eco-city’ and ‘green city’
concepts’ and there is a need for rigor and nuance in the use of these
terms (De Jong et al., 2015. p.25). The review of Camero and Alba
(2019) focused on the smart city concept and covered the largest volume
of publications among the nine literature reviews, totalling around 2700
works published up to 2017. However, it included only the publications
in the computer science and IT literature indexed by JCR. Using data
analytical techniques, the review found no consensus on defining the
concept of smart cities.
Four of the literature reviews found in our search focused largely on
smart city governance or planning. After analysing a corpus of 51 arti­
cles in the topic area, Meijer and Bolívar (2016) argue for a compre­
hensive perspective on current smart urban governance research and
redefining the concept of smart city governance. Likewise, the literature
review of Ojo et al. (2015) was conducted with a particular interest in
smart city governance issues, although the sources of literature reviewed
extended to multiple disciplinary research on smart cities. Their litera­
ture review maps the trend and key themes of a total of 170 works
published up to 2013, and identifies the gap between current smart city
research and well-established disciplines such as urban planning and,
more recently, urban informatics. Ruhlandt (2018) studied 62 articles
with a focus on the conceptualisation of smart city governance. This
literature review finds that extant research on smart city governance
appears to ‘be even more ambiguous and disintegrated than that carried
out on smart cities, more broadly’ (Ruhlandt, 2018, p.11). The literature
review by Lim et al. (2019) focused on urban-planning-related studies.
The review sampled 53 articles published between 2005 and 2017 and
analysed the positive and negative results of smart city development.
The review found 12 positive and 4 negative results. However, most of
the results were hypothetical, suggesting a need for empirical research
and evidence.
Among the eleven literature reviews we found, only two took a ho­
listic approach, not focusing on any particular aspect of smart cities or
field of study. One is the literature review by Mora et al. (2017). The
review covered 1067 documents published between 1992 and 2012. By
taking a bibliometric study, Mora et al. (2017) suggest that smart city
research is centred largely around what a smart city should be like, and,
as a result, no consensus has been reached. Drawing on the same
2
Cities 119 (2021) 103406
database as their first literature review, Mora et al. (2019) conducted a
second bibliometric study and found that there is a ‘deep-rooted divi­
sion’ in the existing smart city research which is represented by sets of
dichotomies, such as: (1) technology-led or holistic strategy; (2) double
or quadruple-helix model of collaboration; (3) top-down or bottom-up
approach; and (4) mono-dimensional or integrated intervention logic.
However, their literature review was limited to a bibliometric method­
ology with a focus on mapping and quantitatively analysing the patterns
and trends of literature growth (e.g. authors and publications), citations,
and geographic coverage of authors and organisations of the publica­
tions reviewed. By doing so, the literature review did not look in depth at
the contents and themes of the literature studied. The literature review
by Bibri and Krogstie (2017) is also holistic and multidisciplinary,
covering a wide range of research outputs published between 2005 and
2016. It reviewed various existing sustainable city models and smart city
approaches and identified a number of research gaps. Among the gaps,
the most prominent one was the lack of a theoretically sound and
practically convincing model for strategic smart sustainable urban
planning and development. The review proposed a holistic approach to
smart city research with a particular emphasis on cross-disciplinary
issues.
The eleven literature reviews on smart city research indicate the
dynamic nature and rapid growth of smart city research. But we also see
the limitations and the need for further literature review for three rea­
sons. First, as acknowledged by the literature reviews we have discussed
above, smart city research is fragmented, divergent and takes on many
perspectives. Only two out of the eleven literature reviews that we found
take a holistic approach. There is a clear need for more holistic literature
reviews to capture the overall picture and the essence of smart city
research. Second, in-depth insight into the current research and prac­
tices about smart cities is vital for both researchers and practitioners.
Based on our review, few have been able to capture both the scope and
the depth of the prominent areas of smart city research. Third, the most
recent literature review on smart cities that we found covers the liter­
ature only up to June 2018 (Yigitcanlar et al., 2019). Our literature
review seeks to address these gaps with the objectives of investigating
three research questions below:
1. What are the noticeable developments in smart city research?
2. What are the major focus areas of smart city research and what has
been achieved in these areas?
3. What are the most important research areas that have been over­
looked but need to be developed for future smart city research as well
as for practitioners?
Following this introduction, we first outline the methods that we use
to conduct the literature search and categorise and analyse the data
collected through the search. After that, we present and discuss the
findings of our exploration. We then identify the research gaps and
limitations and propose research questions aimed at guiding future
research on smart cities based on our findings. We then concluded the
paper by outlining the contributions of this study.
2. Methodology
2.1. Keywords search and database
Smart city is a fuzzy concept, with variant conceptualisations such as
‘intelligent city’ and ‘digital city’ commonly encountered (Albino et al.,
2015). A smart city can therefore be seen as an amorphous term that
cannot be cast in the rigidity of a one-size-fits-all definition (O'Grady &
O'Hare, 2012). This realisation has underpinned the choice of search
terms that form the basis of our literature review. The search terms
‘smart city’, ‘smart cities’, ‘intelligent city’, ‘intelligent cities’, ‘digital
city’, ‘digital cities’ and ‘smart sustainable cities’ were used on three
research databases, namely - Scopus, Business Source Complete (EBSCO)
F. Zhao et al.
and Emerald eJournals Collection. Scopus was chosen for its expansive
multidisciplinary coverage, which suits a cross-disciplinary phenome­
non such as smart cities. Although the Web of Science (WOS) and Scopus
are both considered the most widespread databases covering different
scientific fields, they are commonly used in search of literature (Guz &
Rushchitsky, 2009), Scopus covers a wider range of journals, especially
post-1990 publications (Aghaei et al., 2013; Vieira & Gomes, 2009).
Scopus' post-1990 comprehensive publication coverage makes it more
relevant to smart cities – a phenomenon whose emergence as a distinct
research strand took off in the late 90s. Business Source Complete
(EBSCO) and Emerald were used as supplementary databases for their
business focus and the opportunity to offer a cross-mapping or trian­
gulation check on Scopus.
2.2. Search process and sample selection
The search for this review was undertaken ‘without’ and ‘with’
specified criteria. The pattern of evidence on search without criteria (see
Fig. 1 for sample pattern) informed our choice of searching with criteria
that included publication years between 2000 and 2020 alongside other
criteria such as availability of full text, references, and peer-reviewed
publications in business, management, or accounting journals. The
limitation of smart city reviews to post-2000 literature is not uncommon
(see Yigitcanlar et al. (2018) and Richter et al. (2015)) and is supported
by the volume and growth of smart city literature in the post-millennium
era (see Fig. 1).
A cross-mapping of academic articles across all three databases was
undertaken. All 759 academic articles from Business Source Complete
(EBSCO) were found duplicated with those in Scopus. Articles in
Emerald and Scopus subsequently became the focus of our sample se­
lection. To ensure we reviewed only peer-reviewed and high-quality
research works, we decided to use the Chartered Association of Busi­
ness School (ABS) journal ranking as a benchmark for journal quality.
Articles from journals with at least a 2* (two-star) ranking out of a
possible four on the ABS-2019 journal ranking list were initially
selected. Scopus had a bigger corpus of articles published in two-star or
above journals than Emerald (see Appendix 3). After the elimination of
duplicates in Emerald, we had 373 articles left. After scanning the titles,
some of the abstracts and keywords of the articles and taking out du­
plicates in different outlets, editorial works, calls for papers etc., we
found a total of 185 articles that were directly relevant to our smart city
literature review. Highly cited and influential smart city publications
Fig. 1. Trend of smart city publications in Scopus over the period 1997 - 2019.
3
Cities 119 (2021) 103406
outside of our selection criteria were added to our dataset due to their
popularity, thus resulting in 191 publications included in our final
dataset for this literature review. Fig. 2 illustrates our sampling process.
2.3. Coding process
Consistent with Vaismoradi et al. (2016)'s conceptualisation of
qualitative content analysis, the coding process for this smart city litera­
ture review was achieved through a simplification of vast amounts of
written data (hundreds of smart city articles) using thematic classifica­
tion to generate categories. A summary sheet was generated to record
general information on publication year, authors, citations, methodol­
ogy, and discipline of research through reading the abstracts of the 191
articles by every member of the review team. This formed the basis of
the secondary review. Three members of the coding team undertook a
detailed review of the abstract, content and conclusion of each article,
which resulted in the refinement of the initial general coding produced
by the whole review team. This led to the identification of six main focal
points of smart city research. The third member of the coding team
further reviewed articles in each of the main areas to confirm a common
thread of focus and content. Fig. 3 illustrates the coding process.
3. Findings
3.1. Overview of smart city research development
This section seeks to answer our first research question, focusing on
the noticeable developments in smart city research. When analysing the
year of the publications, we find that only 23 ‘early’ smart city research
journal articles (pre-2010) were published in journals ranked 2* or
above, while there is a clear upward trend post-2010, and a significant
growth between 2018 and 2019. Fig. 4 illustrates the trend based on the
articles reviewed. The sharp rise in 2018 and 2019 smart city research
provides new empirical evidence to support the findings of the literature
reviews by Kummitha and Crutzen (2017) and Trencher (2019) that
smart city research has been gaining momentum in urban studies.
Among the 191 smart city research works that we have reviewed,
there is a strong indication of the multidisciplinary nature of smart city
research evidenced by the outlets that published the works (see Ap­
pendix 4). The 191 publications were spread across 56 journals and 2
conference proceedings in different disciplinary areas, ranging from
technology, management, entrepreneurship, urban government and
F. Zhao et al. Cities 119 (2021) 103406

Fig. 2. Sample selection process

*Business Source Complete articles duplicated in Scopus were thus eliminated.

Fig. 3. Team-based coding process.

Fig. 4. Smart city publications in ABS 2-star and above journals.

planning, intellectual capital, transportation, supply chains, tourism,
and many more. The interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary or multi-
variate nature of smart city research has been acknowledged by other
researchers (e.g. Angelidou, 2014; Neirotti et al., 2014). The most
popular publication outlets for smart city research are those with an
urban/city development focus, with Cities (48 publications) being the
single largest source in this category, followed by journals that have a
link with technology (i.e. Technological Forecasting and Social Change
(44) and the Journal of Cleaner Production (21) (see Appendix 4 for more
detail). However, highly cited and influential works on smart cities are
not necessarily restricted to highly ranked journals. Journals with
modest rankings and conference proceedings were prominent among the
most cited smart city publications (see Appendix 5). This was an
important justification for looking beyond two-star ABS-ranked journals
in constituting a final dataset of publications for this review. The in­
adequacy of research on the social and cultural challenges associated

4
F. Zhao et al.
with smart city realities (Mora et al., 2017) was another important piece
of evidence from analysis of major publications on smart cities.
In terms of geographic context, around 66% of the 191 articles
specify their geographical context, while the rest (about 34%) do not
(see Appendix 6). While smart city research undertaken with a European
focus (57 studies) is dominant among publications, followed by an Asian
focus (29 studies), global and inter-continental studies that straddle two
or more continents have emerged as a common geographical interest of
smart city scholars. This strong interconnection between geography and
smart city discourse is consistent with the position of Angelidou (2014,
p.4) that ‘innovation has a geographical locus and knowledge has a
geographical stickiness’. The dominance of European studies is not
surprising given that more smart city projects are undertaken in Europe
than in any other part of the world (Lee & Hancock, 2012, cited in
Ahvenniemi et al., 2017). European smart city projects may therefore
offer more empirical evidence and conceptual development for re­
searchers who seek to advance smart city research.
3.2. Most prominent areas of smart city research
What are the major focus areas of smart city research and what has
been achieved in these areas? We seek to address this question in this
section. We have identified six prominent areas of smart city research
based on the volume of publications. Fig. 5 illustrates the growing trend
of high-quality publications in each of the focus areas between 2000 and
2019. The data for 2000-2010 is aggregated due to the limited number
of publications ranked 2* and above prior to 2011. From 2000 to 2015,
the smart city digital technology diffusion literature was the most
dominant focus area, often complemented by the smart city planning
and governance, and smart city strategy and implementation areas. In
2015, those three areas were joined by the smart city entrepreneurship
and innovation, and smart city evaluation and measurement areas, but
by 2019, smart city planning and governance has become the most
dominant focus area in the smart city literature. This finding provides
empirical evidence to partially support the argument made by Trencher
(2019) that smart city research has shifted from being techno-
economically driven to a more people-centred approach. However, our
finding indicates clearly that research has given more attention to urban
planning and governance issues. The following discusses each of the key
focus areas.
Fig. 5. Development of smart city research by focus area.
5
Cities 119 (2021) 103406
3.2.1. Smart city planning and governance
Among the articles we reviewed, 61 articles focused on urban plan­
ning and governance of smart cities. This corpus of literature centres
around the determinants, challenges, and impacts of smart cities on urban
planning and governance. The determinants range from macro to micro
factors. From a micro perspective, studies focus on technology use,
namely, how important using big data (Kourtit et al., 2017; Kummitha,
2018; Lim et al., 2018; Ruhlandt et al., 2020; Shang et al., 2018) and
software, hardware, platforms, and information systems (Camero &
Alba, 2019; Cohen & Amorós, 2014; Harrison et al., 2010; Heaton &
Parlikad, 2019; Viale Pereira et al., 2017) is for urban planning and
governance. While a very few of these studies suggest the importance of
human interaction with technology, the dynamics between community
knowledge and technology are generally overlooked in urban planning
and governance (Kummitha, 2018).
From a macro perspective, environmental determinants such as
economic development (Neirotti et al., 2014), political and economic
context (Popescu, 2015), government policies and other institutions
(Heaton & Parlikad, 2019) and infrastructure (Offenhuber & Schecht­
ner, 2018) are widely identified as key factors in urban governance.
However, we would argue that these macro factors are specific to the
countries and the cities they study. Therefore, practitioners and re­
searchers must consider the specific macro factors in smart city planning
and governance. Stakeholder involvement in urban planning is another
area that some studies have focused on. The studies by Batty et al.
(2012) and Biswas (2019) highlighted the importance of empowering
citizens to ensure inclusivity and improve the efficiency, equity, and
quality of life for citizens. Ardito et al. (2019) discussed the role of
universities, whereas Edge et al. (2020) investigated the role of politi­
cians, business leaders, and the community in smart city governance and
planning. While stakeholder involvement could be vital, this area is
relatively underexplored. Fernandez-Anez et al. (2018) suggested that
understanding the views of stakeholders and aligning them with future
strategies could provide a holistic view of smart city governance. Apart
from these factors, a few studies have investigated the effectiveness of
smart city governance practices, such as urban openness, partnership
formation, smart infrastructure development, e-governance, and sus­
tainability (Aina, 2017; Popescu, 2015; Ruhlandt et al., 2020). However,
we consider that these factors and practices could differ in different
governance models and should be adequately addressed.
While a vast majority of studies focused on the determinants of sound
urban planning, a few studies tackled the challenges of urban planning.
F. Zhao et al.
Among these few, Lam and Ma (2019) identified the potential pitfalls of
technology, such as system information insecurity, leakage of private
information, and information islands as potential challenges in devel­
oping smart city policies; Bunders and Varró (2019) investigated the
tensions between smart city goals and sustainability; Almirall et al.
(2016) highlighted the tensions in the context of shared economies; and
Batty et al. (2012) paid special attention to the challenges of equity,
fairness and widespread uptake of smart city technologies. However, we
notice that these pitfalls and challenges are studied largely from a
technology perspective (e.g. Harrison et al., 2010; Heaton & Parlikad,
2019), overlooking other social and cultural macro- and micro-
challenges (Heaton & Parlikad, 2019). For example, culture and reli­
gion could be an important element to consider in smart city planning
when the city's population is multi-religious and multi-cultural. Simi­
larly, aging populations and educational requirements pose various
challenges for smart cities as well.
Among the corpus, a few studies have investigated the impacts of
smart cities on urban planning and governance. Those studies that dis­
cussed the impacts focus on the areas of energy efficiency (Yu & Zhang,
2019), work and traffic (Hopkins & McKay, 2019), human resource
development (Caragliu et al., 2011; Thite, 2011), health (Wray et al.,
2018), well-being (Colding & Barthel, 2017) and quality of life (De
Guimarães et al., 2020). However, we notice that these studies tend to
deal with issues in a fragmented way, with a limited understanding and
discussion of the wider implications for overall smart city planning and
governance.
3.2.2. Smart city technology diffusion
Technology is the second largest focus of the smart city research
literature with 45 articles. This is not surprising given that technology is
what makes a city smart, in many people's view. For example, the Smart
Cities Council (2014) defines a smart city as one that has digital tech­
nology embedded across all city functions. This is also consistent with
the findings of some of the literature reviews on smart cities (e.g.
Yigitcanlar et al., 2018; Kummitha & Crutzen, 2017; Meijer & Bolívar,
2016. This aspect of smart city research focuses mostly on smart tech­
nologies, applications, systems, architecture, infrastructure as well as
issues relating to technology diffusion in smart cities.
In terms of the user-provider perspective, many articles discussed the
design and development issues of new smart technologies and systems
from a provider perspective (e.g. Mohamed et al., 2018; Sodhro et al.,
2019), while others investigated technology adoption issues from a user
perspective (e.g. Baudier et al., 2020). From a user perspective, the study
of Ylipulli et al. (2014) investigated the adoption of a Wifi network and
interactive displays in the urban public space of the City of Oulu,
Finland, while the study of Cohen and Amorós (2014) discussed the
adoption of sustainable technologies, or clean technologies, by munici­
palities and developed a model of demand-side policy instruments
which could be applied at different stages of technology diffusion. The
study by Bell et al. (2018) demonstrates how important a participatory
approach is in the development of smart technologies through co-
designing with the general public.
From a provider perspective, some studies tend to focus on case
studies of certain technology products, tools, or projects of big corpo­
rations such as IBM and Cisco Systems (e.g. Afzalan et al., 2017; Lee
et al., 2013; Scuotto et al., 2016). Others are more interested in devel­
oping indexes and performance metrics that can be used to benchmark
and measure specific aspects of technology or system performance. For
example, after conducting case studies of 26 cities across the world,
Debnath et al. (2014) proposed a framework to benchmark the tech­
nological maturity of the transportation systems. Likewise, the study by
Chatterjee et al. (2017) developed critical successful factors for 5G
diffusion to improve the performance of network grids in smart cities in
India. However, we find that most technology-oriented research tends to
have a narrower and singular view about the construct of smart cities.
Our finding echoes the results of a study by Mora et al. (2017), which
6
Cities 119 (2021) 103406
challenges the techno-centric focus due to its limitations in addressing
the social and cultural challenges associated with smart city realities. In
practice, a similar trend is seen in many city councils’ strategies, which
are mostly about technology investment and improving urban infra­
structure through technology (Angelidou, 2014). Yigitcanlar et al.
(2018) challenge the monocentric technology focus of the current
common smart city practice in their research.
It is pleasing to see that some of the research has endeavoured to take
a comprehensive and integrative approach to studying smart city tech­
nologies and their diffusion. For example, the study by Adapa, 2018
investigated the drivers and challenges of cleaner production technol­
ogies and developed a framework to address the issues comprehensively
from political, economic, technical, human, social, physical, and ethical
perspectives. The study by Aina (2017) found that local contexts (eco­
nomic, social, cultural, and technological contexts) decide the success of
the adoption of Geoinformation and Communication Technology
(GeoICT). The works of this trajectory are promising, although some of
the studies are prescriptive and need to be supported by empirical
studies.
3.2.3. Smart city strategy and implementation
The third area of research focuses on issues relating to smart city
strategy and implementation, with a total of 18 articles. The majority of
these studies (14) investigated urban innovation strategies and imple­
mentation (e.g. Brorström et al., 2018; Snow et al., 2016; Neirotti et al.,
2014). The study by Abella et al., 2017 developed economic and social
benefit mechanisms for value creation for smart cities and sustainability.
Likewise, Annunziato and Maestosi (2018) studied the new models of
value creation involving the intermediation of public-private partner­
ships, cross-sectorial collaboration, city-led ‘open innovation market­
places’, and other forms of smart city strategy and implementation. The
findings of these studies demonstrate a strong and enduring theme of
collaboration and open innovation, which is critical to smart city
strategy. The study by Snow et al. (2016) investigated smart city stra­
tegies for providing economic growth, mitigating environmental
degradation, and enhancing sustainability. The empirical results of Zhao
and Hu (2019) showcase the significant positive impact that smart city
strategy has on urban innovation measured through patenting activity,
especially in the high-tech industries. However, there are still underly­
ing questions about how conducive these are to sustainability, liveability
and economic growth on a broad scale. A sound smart city innovation
strategy can simultaneously generate benefits for the environment,
stakeholders, and create long-term competitive advantages for organi­
sations. However, there is a lack of empirical evidence to support that.
Some of the studies examined the challenges and implications of urban
innovation and development strategies for smart cities (e.g. Li et al.,
2018; Sandulli et al., 2017; Neirotti et al., 2014; Snow et al., 2016).
Contreras and Platania (2019) argued that governments should leverage
both international and national-level policies which are legally and
politically binding to complement smart city strategy and move from a
‘cowboy economy’ to a ‘spaceman’ economy, namely, from a closed to
an open economy. A few studies have looked at the role of universities in
smart city strategy and implementation in terms of smart city ecosystem
innovation (e.g. Ferraris et al., 2018). Grimaldi and Fernandez (2017)
investigated the role of universities in implementing smart city trans­
formation strategies, applying the complexity theory. Their study ana­
lysed how university curricula and innovative services improve citizens’
quality of life.
We have also noticed that the adoption of smart technology as a
strategy issue is discussed widely (e.g. Paroutis et al., 2014; Zhao & Hu,
2019; Caragliu & Del Bo, 2019; Lecomte, 2019). For example, Paroutis
et al. (2014) examined strategically how smart city technology can be
implemented in the context of a recession. Using IBM's Recession Action
Framework as a case study, the study highlights the importance of
enacting technology as a strategic option in smart city development.
However, as the authors acknowledged, questions remain about how to
F. Zhao et al.
deal with the impact of a recession, shock effect, crisis management, and
post-recession recovery to sustain smart cities. This limitation is
particularly problematic given the current global pandemic crisis (see
further discussion below).
3.2.4. Smart city entrepreneurship and innovation
We identified 23 articles with a focus on entrepreneurship and
innovation relating to smart city research. The discussions in the articles
revolve largely around the interactions between smart cities and
entrepreneurship and innovation. From an entrepreneurship and inno­
vation perspective, a smart city is defined as an urban innovation
ecosystem (Camboim et al., 2019) as smart cities are agglomerated areas
of high concentrations of learning, ICT, and modernization (Richter
et al., 2015). In such areas, creativity and innovation, coupled with
digital infrastructure, lead to entrepreneurship (Kraus et al., 2015).
Smart cities thus result in the creation of new business locations, and this
is reflected in the fact that there is usually a higher degree of entre­
preneurship in smart cities in comparison to other cities (Kummitha,
2018).
Research suggests that smart cities are of particular interest to en­
trepreneurs because they provide ample scope for innovation and
business opportunities. For example, the opportunity to operate within a
smart environment can attract entrepreneurs from other cities that are
not smart (Richter et al., 2015). In addition, the expected access to
venture capital that smart cities promise could be a significant advan­
tage for start-ups (Carè et al., 2018). However, within the dynamic and
challenging innovation ecosystem of smart cities, entrepreneurs have to
play an even more important role than usual in terms of identifying and
exploiting opportunities (Shane & Venkataraman, 2000). To remain
competitive in smart cities, entrepreneurs might require a portfolio of
business models that they could transition from. Lee et al. (2014) suggest
that open-minded and creative regions like smart cities attract human
capital and this movement leads to a higher entrepreneurial dynamic. A
good example of this is Silicon Valley. Thus, the ‘socio-technical
network’ among entrepreneurs within smart cities is likely to stimulate
knowledge spillovers and innovation (Caragliu & Del Bo, 2019). More­
over, the availability of a high-skilled workforce in smart cities is typi­
cally above average, and it is argued that smart cities breed avenues for
the effective collaboration of researchers, designers, and stakeholders,
thus sparking collective innovation for transformative solutions
(Andreani et al., 2019).
However, these location-based advantages are challenged by other
research. For example, what is less explored is that talent might come to
smart cities but choose to lay dormant or even leave, while others
venture into business creation (Roth et al., 2013). Moreover, the
resource-based advantages of smart cities that were once the benefits
could become problematic due to overcrowding, pollution, and
mismanagement (Gascó-Hernandez, 2018). This should be investigated
more adequately. There is also a lack of research on how entrepreneurs
can purposefully and strategically shape their institutional environment
in smart cities to enhance their competitive advantage (Richter et al.,
2015). Institutions refer to the humanly devised constraints that struc­
ture political, economic, and social interactions (van den Buuse & Kolk,
2019). Formal institutions define legal rules, provide incentives and
controls to encourage legal compliance, and establish the infrastructure
for facilitating market transactions and allocating scarce resources.
Informal institutions are denoted by social embeddedness and encom­
pass the culture, or shared values, norms, and practices that shape so­
ciety. Both the formal and informal institutional environments in smart
cities could support entrepreneurship by lowering uncertainties and the
threat of expropriation and business failure. However, what role entre­
preneurs can play in the smart city institutional environment is still not
understood.
3.2.5. Smart city evaluation and measurement
We identified 20 articles with a focus on evaluation and
7
Cities 119 (2021) 103406
measurement of smart city performance. Their major focus seemed to be
the assessment of how well smart cities have benefited from the intended
objectives that drive the decision to go smart through infrastructural
upgrades, and the development that enhances digital capability within
such cities (e.g. Ahvenniemi et al., 2017; Manitiu & Pedrini, 2016;
Romão et al., 2018). There are various measurement frameworks and
indices developed that reflect largely different notions and con­
ceptualisations of smart cities, ranging from internet/digital cities,
sustainable/green cities, to knowledge/intellectual cities and so on.
Some of the assessment tools gauge city-wide usage of modern tech­
nologies or ‘smartness’ (Shen et al., 2018), and some measure environ­
mental, social, and economic performance (Manitiu & Pedrini, 2016).
The latter argued that sustainability performance measurement frame­
works offer templates which may be adapted by smart city evaluators,
since such frameworks have a much more balanced approach to per­
formance, which includes environmental, social, and economic (ESG)
measures. Likewise, Kumar et al. (2018) have generated a multi-
dimensional framework called the Smart City Transformation Frame­
work (SCTF) that can be used in evaluating the extent of smartness via
evaluation of planning, physical infrastructure, ICT infrastructure, and
deployment of smart solutions. This multi-dimensional approach is
espoused by other studies such as Alizadeh and Sipe (2016), Luque et al.
(2014) and Neirotti et al. (2014). Another noticeable measurement
framework is the triple helix model and its extension, the four helices
model, which are proposed to assess knowledge-based innovation sys­
tems in smart cities. The model consists of 60 indicators covering smart
economy, smart people, smart governance, smart environment and
smart living (Lombardi et al., 2012). This is by far the most compre­
hensive and sophisticated measurement framework that we have
reviewed.
However, we notice that many of the frameworks for smart cities
perpetuate a top-down narrative that detracts in some ways from the
real essence of smart cities: the people. Assessment and evaluation tools
with a people focus that capture key environmental, social, and eco­
nomic variables may be much more compatible with the concept of
smart cities. We find that the relationship between technological inno­
vation and people-centred urbanisation in smart city assessment
frameworks remains underexplored. To address this issue, Wang et al.
(2018) and Borsekova et al. (2018) proposed a framework for people-
focused smart community evaluation using mandatory indicators
which are consistent with the four elements proposed by Macke et al.
(2018) for evaluation of smart living: socio-structural relations, envi­
ronmental well-being, material well-being, and community integration.
Collectively, these are considered capable of creating a strong smart city
community.
3.2.6. Smart city supply chains and logistics
We identified 10 articles with a primary focus on supply chains, lo­
gistics, transportation, and operations management in relation to smart
cities. In terms of supply chains, some research discusses the relation­
ships between smart cities, big data and supply networks (Graham et al.,
2015) and posits that smart cities and big data alone have limited ca­
pacity for improving supply chains and the related processes, but when
combined they can support and improve each other. Smart cities can
provide open data systems based on diversified sources that can be
particularly critical in the mobility aspects of the supply chain,
encompassing public and private transport systems (Garau et al., 2016).
Martínez et al. (2017) showed that smart cities grapple with increasing
supply chain complexity, cost, and vulnerability to market forces. They
further reported that the keys to integration between supply chain
members are for top management to be fully invested and committed,
and for supply chains to be flexibly configured for market responsive­
ness. Solano et al. (2017) contributed to this discourse by investigating
the need for smart cities to reduce their impact on the environment, and
for their planners to take consideration of new ethical, cultural, political,
financial, and economic approaches. We argue that such approaches
F. Zhao et al.
could turn sustainability challenges into opportunities, but there is often
insufficient information on how businesses in smart cities balance the
needs of the supply chain with sustainability. This makes it hard for
smart city policymakers to collaborate with businesses towards smart
city sustainability, because smart city businesses do not want to share
their precious intellectual property (Peris-Ortiz et al., 2017).
There can be no smart city without a reliable and efficient trans­
portation system (Yan et al., 2018). There is also promise regarding the
use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) in the supply chain in smart
cities, to reduce traffic congestion and create innovative disruptions
(Mohammed et al., 2014). Logistics initiatives in smart cities are largely
dependent on collecting and managing the right kinds of data, analysing
patterns, and optimising functional systems (Ruhlandt et al., 2020).
Optimists argue that smart cities’ logistics provide an ideal background
for the exploitation of big data to optimise supply chains (e.g. Rathore
et al., 2016). Research also shows that the relationships between smart
cities, big data, and supply chains cannot be described as a linear, cause-
and-effect framework (Graham et al., 2015). From an operations man­
agement perspective, Qi and Shen (2019) argued that the smart city
movement will transition from the tech-oriented stage to the decision-
oriented stage. The authors propounded that a smart city can be
perceived as a range of systems within which planning and operational
decisions are orchestrated at the urban scale, reflective of multi-
dimensional needs, and adaptive to massive data and innovation. This
creates opportunities for cutting-edge methodologies for solving urban
challenges in smart cities.
Although the six focus areas of smart city research stand out
distinctly in the literature we reviewed, we argue that they can be
viewed as integrative parts of a holistic ecosystem of smart cities, as
Fig. 6 illustrates. It is imperative that the outcome of the smart cities’
change agenda be subject to evaluation and measurement in line with
social, economic, and environmental criteria to holistically ascertain
success or failure, and to promote learning and elicit improvement.
4. Discussion
In this section, we seek to address our third question: ‘What are the
most important research areas that have been overlooked but are needed
to be developed for future smart city research as well as for
practitioners?’
4.1. Limitations of the overall literature
While we acknowledge that the literature on smart city research is
Fig. 6. Smart city as a holistic ecosystem.
8
Cities 119 (2021) 103406
growing, we find four main limitations to the overall literature. First, a
fragmented approach dominates smart city research, with a few excep­
tions. For example, based on the exploration of a wide and extensive
array of literature from various disciplinary areas, Chourabi et al.,
(2012) identify eight critical factors of smart city initiatives: manage­
ment and organization, technology, governance, policy context, people
and communities, economy, built infrastructure, and the natural envi­
ronment. The researchers propose that these factors form the basis of an
integrative framework that can be used to examine how local govern­
ments are envisioning smart city initiatives. In the same manner, Nam
et al., (2011) offer strategic principles aligning to three main dimensions
(technology, people, and institutions) of the smart city: integration of
infrastructure and technology-mediated services, social learning for
strengthening human infrastructure, and governance for institutional
improvement and citizen engagement. However, most research in the
field is limited to specific products/services and is highly context-driven,
taking a case study design. Moreover, the few technology-driven ap­
proaches taken to address this issue often fail to consider the importance
of other aspects of technology adoption, such as social and cultural
factors. This finding from our review supports the results of the biblio­
metric analysis of smart city research between 1992 and 2012 by Mora
et al. (2017), but with updated evidence. Realising the limitations, some
researchers urge ICT researchers to consider broader issues such as the
cultural and political life of smart cities, and their environmental and
financial sustainability relating to ICT diffusion (Batabyal & Beladi,
2019). In this regard, we posit that technology integration in smart cities
needs to incorporate social integration, viewing smart cities as a whole
and addressing the challenges of smart technologies in a holistic and
integrative way.
Second, we find that although most studies focus on the positive
functionalities that smart cities can bring to businesses and entrepre­
neurs, very few studies discuss in detail the downsides of technology and
the failure of smart city projects (Martin et al., 2018). The study by Lam
and Ma (2019) critiqued a lack of systematic and empirical studies in the
current literature on four potential pitfalls in the process of technology
diffusion in smart cities: system information insecurity, personal privacy
leakage, information islands, and digital divide. Each of these pitfalls
could derail smart city progress if they were not addressed properly.
Therefore, exemplary future research questions to address this could be:
what are the key factors contributing to the failure of high-profile smart
city projects? and, what lessons can be learnt from them?
Third, less than 20% of the articles that we reviewed have an explicit
theoretical basis. Among the theories that are used are capability theory
(Biswas, 2019), instrument theory (Desdemoustier et al., 2019),
neoliberal ideologies (Grossi & Pianezzi, 2017), organisational theories
(e.g. Nyberg & Yarime, 2017), technology adoption theories (e.g. Yli­
pulli et al., 2014), knowledge management theories (e.g. Ardito et al.,
2019) and the value co-creation concept (Yu & Zhang, 2019) (See
Table 1 for examples). The novel nature of smart cities, there is a need
for smart city research not only to build its research on established
theories but also to develop new theories rigorously.
Fourth, Table 1 shows that 38% of the articles that we reviewed are
conceptual papers. The conceptual papers tend to focus on developing
static and prescriptive conceptual frameworks, models, and methods of
various kinds, but do not test them (e.g. Abella et al., 2017; Matos et al.,
2017; Öberg & Graham, 2016). Among the empirical studies, 47% are
case studies, either single (e.g. Garau et al., 2016) or multiple case
studies (e.g. Anthopoulos, 2017). However, only 27% of the studies have
a quantitative design. There is a need for more breadth so that research
and findings can have a wider impact and inform policymakers and
researchers on a larger scale. These methodological limitations may
adversely affect the rigor and value of smart city research and the ability
to generalise the findings.
F. Zhao et al. Cities 119 (2021) 103406

Table 1 there is only limited discussion of the asymmetric impacts of technology

Summary of theoretical basis and methodology of articles reviewed (N = 185). diffusion on disadvantaged groups/residents in society and institutions
Theoretical basis Methodology such as small businesses. These groups will lag further behind and the
digital divide will widen if these issues are not addressed adequately. In
Have Do not Research No.
have design this regard, research on equality, accessibility, and inclusiveness of new
technologies in smart cities warrants more attention in smart city
36 (19.5%) 149 Conceptual 71
(80.5%) (38%)
literature.
Examples: Case study 87 Third, in terms of smart city strategy, there is limited research on
(47%) crisis management in the smart city literature (Paroutis et al., 2014). We
Capability theory (Biswas, 2019), Qualitativea 102 have now started to see research emerging on how Covid-19 is changing
Instrument theory (Desdemoustier (89%)
how urban residents live, work, and commute, and how this is reshaping
et al., 2019), Quantitativea 31
Neoliberal ideologies (Grossi & (27%) economic structures and business models. In the current global battle
Pianezzi, 2017), Organisational Mixeda 24 against Covid-19, smart cities have a pivotal role to play in responding to
theories (Nyberg and Yarime, 2017), (21%) the crisis in terms of track-and-trace of coronavirus cases using smart
Technology adoption theories (Ylipulli technologies (e.g. Shorfuzzaman et al., 2021), enforcing social
et al., 2014),
Knowledge management theories (
distancing rules, getting homeless people off the streets, and special
Ardito et al., 2019) and value co- emergency measures for care homes, to give just a few examples.
creation concept (Yu & Zhang, 2019) Investigating how smart cities respond to crises and pandemics is a
a
These research methods include the methods used in case studies. In the case
critical part of smart city strategy, to ensure that crises can be tackled
of studies that do not collect empirical data, they are considered as being swiftly and effectively at both strategic and operational levels.
qualitative. Fourth, research tends to emphasise the various advantages and
benefits that smart cities can bring to entrepreneurship and innovation
4.2. Areas for future research from seemingly location-based and resource-based perspectives. How­
ever, less attention is paid to investigating the factors that prompt en­
In addition to the limitations of the overall literature that we have trepreneurs to go dormant or leave smart cities. Equally important, how
reviewed, we have identified specific challenges and areas for future can entrepreneurs purposefully and strategically shape their institu­
research in each of the six foci of smart city research. First, we argue for tional environment in smart cities to enhance their competitive
a more integrative and comprehensive perspective in the literature on advantage?
smart city planning and governance. There is a need for a balanced Fifth, among the various frameworks to assess the smartness of cities,
combination of human, social, cultural, environmental, economic, and there is a common problem with the implementation of the proposed
technological elements to be embedded in the research. Among the key frameworks and indices: a lack of empirical testing and evidence to
elements, a citizen-centric approach (Bătăgan, 2011), is vital to striking demonstrate their validity. Moreover, different cities have different
the balance. It is now not a question of why, but how to enhance in­ priorities and specific issues to address. Therefore, there should not be a
clusive citizen participation in urban planning and governance. Empir­ one-size-fits-all approach because there is no consensus on what
ical research needs to investigate and collect leading practices in ‘smartness’ means in the context of smart cities. Future research could
inclusive stakeholder engagement in urban planning and governance. address these issues through investigating and testing the variables that
Second, in terms of the diffusion of new technologies in smart cities, can be tailored to different urban contexts. Future research could also

Table 2
Proposed key questions for future research.
Focus area Indicative questions for future research References

Overall
Smart city planning and
governance
Smart city technology diffusion
Smart city strategy and
implementation
Smart city entrepreneurship
and innovation
Smart city evaluation and
measurement
Smart city supply chains and
logistics
• What are the key factors contributing to the failure of high-profile smart city projects? Martin et al. (2018)
• What lessons can be learned from them?
• What are the hindrances that smart technologies can bring to residents and institutions in smart
cities? Lam and Ma (2019)
• How can they be addressed?
• How can we enhance inclusive citizen participation in planning, building and governance of SC? Kummitha (2018)
• How can we tackle the challenges when involving and managing various stakeholders in smart city Fernandez-Anez et al. (2018)
planning and governance effectively? Bernardi and Diamantini (2018)
• How do SC governance models work in different sociocultural, historical and political contexts? Wray et al. (2018);
De Guimarães et al. (2020)
• What are the impacts of technology diffusion on disadvantaged groups/residents and institutions
such as micro and small businesses in smart cities?
• How can smart cities address equality, accessibility and inclusiveness of new technologies?
• How can smart cities respond swiftly and effectively to global crises at both strategic and operational Paroutis et al. (2014)
levels?
• What can we learn for future development of SC strategy from the current responses of urban
governments to the pandemic?
• What are the key factors that prompt entrepreneurs to lay dormant or leave smart cities? Kummitha (2018), Nilssen (2019), van
• How can entrepreneurs purposefully and strategically shape their institutional environment in smart den Buuse and Kolk (2019)
cities to enhance their competitive advantage?
• How can various smart city performance measurements be tailored to different urban contexts? Albino et al. (2015)
• What could a people-centred measurement for smart cities look like?
• How can formal and informal governance mechanisms interact with each other and improve network Graham et al. (2015), Berrone et al.
governance in smart city supply chains, transportation, logistics, and operations? (2016), Qi and Shen (2019)
• How can SC businesses share intellectually patented information in an environment of trust to help
develop sustainable supply chains?

Legend: SC = smart city.

9
F. Zhao et al. Cities 119 (2021) 103406

develop a more people-centred measurement approach for smart cities,
such as giving people a voice on what a smart city should be like and
what ‘smartness’ really means to them.
Finally, there is a shortage of smart city research on network
governance in supply chains, transportation, logistics, and operations
management. Network governance is a critical aspect of formal and
informal governance of networks, i.e. the set of mechanisms that support
cooperation among organisations (Alvarez et al., 2009). Formal gover­
nance mechanisms include command structures, incentive systems,
standard operating procedures, and documented dispute resolution
procedures, and are often based on hierarchical controls (Gulati and
Singh, 1998). Informal governance mechanisms, on the other hand, are
characterised by relationships rather than by bureaucratic structures
(Alvarez and Yarcan, 2010). They include information sharing, values,
culture, and social norms. Future research could investigate further how
formal and informal governance mechanisms can interact with each
other and improve network governance in smart city supply chains,
transportation, logistics, and operations. Table 2 presents a snapshot of
our proposed key questions for future research.
5. Conclusion
This literature review makes four contributions to both smart city
research and practice. First, our literature review takes a holistic
approach and provides smart city researchers with an in-depth insight
into the current smart city research from a multidisciplinary perspective
(e.g. technology, governance, strategy, entrepreneurship and innova­
tion, supply chains, etc.). Second, the areas we have identified for future
research would inform researchers to position their research with con­
fidence, due to our systematic and rigorous literature review process.
The research questions that we have proposed should guide researchers
to address the knowledge gaps both comprehensively and in each of the
important research areas. Third, the research insights of our literature
review may encourage practitioners, including city councillors, urban
planners, and business managers, to consider smart city strategies in a
holistic way when building vibrant, sustainable, and resilient cities of
the future. This is particularly important in the wake of Covid-19,
because the challenges exacerbated by the pandemic require coordi­
nated actions from the private, public, and social sectors and the support
of an ecosystem. Fourth, this study updates previous literature reviews
and provides a comprehensive and critical analysis of the developments
in smart city research. This review is timely given the rapid growth in
high-quality smart city research between 2018 and 2019 (see Fig. 4).
Smart city literature boasts a rich, disparate, and interdisciplinary
body of research. It embodies polarised discourses ranging from viewing
smart cities as a panacea for all the problems in modern urban devel­
opment, to sharp critiques from various perspectives, and anything in
between. ‘Yet they also point to a need to transcend polarised discourses
around alternative models of smart cities and appreciate the messy re­
ality of hybrid, on-the-ground smart urbanisation and the co-existence
of contrasting yet complementary visions and approaches’ (Trencher,
2019 p.117). It is our view that researchers and practitioners will enjoy
and appreciate the wealth of smart city research through this critical
literature review.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.

Appendix A
Appendix 1
. Outcome of initial literature search.

Search without criteria Search with criteria

Database Total publications Total academic publications Coverage period Total academic publications Coverage period

Business Source Complete (EBSCO) 10,187 1526 1895–2020 759 2000–2020

Emerald 8567 6195 1972–2020 2374 2000–2020
Scopus 20,724 1568a 1971–2020 1136a 2000–2020
Total 39,478 9289 1895–2020 4269 2000–2020
a
Business, management and accounting only as Scopus covers other disciplines.

Appendix 2
. Summary of the number and percentage of articles published in journals ranked two-star or above.

Databasea Total academic journals No of articles published in journals with at least a two-star ranking Percentage of total publication in two-star journal Coverage period

Emerald 2374 164 6.91% 2000–2020

Scopus 1136 209 18.40% 2000–2020
Total 3510 373 25.31% 2000–2020
a
Articles from Business Source Complete already eliminated during initial cross-mapping.

Appendix 3
. Prominent focus areas of smart city research (N = 191).

Focus area No of Sample articles

articles

Urban planning and governance 61 Harrison et al. (2010); Batty et al. (2012); Neirotti et al. (2014); Abella et al., 2017; Almirall et al. (2016);
Viale Pereira et al. (2017); Russo et al. (2016); Garau et al. (2016); Thite (2011); Martin et al. (2018);
Fernandez-Anez et al. (2018); Huston et al. (2015); March (2018); Wu et al. (2018); Caragliu and Del Bo
(2019)
Smart technology diffusion 45 Debnath et al. (2014); Scuotto et al. (2016); Belanche et al. (2016); Ylipulli et al. (2014); Mosannenzadeh
et al. (2017); Corbett and Mellouli (2017); Aina (2017); Afzalan et al. (2017); Allam and Dhunny (2019)
Entrepreneurship and Innovation 23
(continued on next page)

10
F. Zhao et al. Cities 119 (2021) 103406

Appendix 3 (continued )
Focus area No of Sample articles
articles

Evaluation and measurement
Smart city strategy and implementation
Supply chain, logistics, transportation, operations
Others (conceptualisation, tourism, intellectual capital,
HR, housing, urban space, etc.)
Total
Cohen et al. (2016); Gascó-Hernandez (2018); Bresciani et al. (2018); Roth et al. (2013); Sarma and Sunny
(2017); Carè et al. (2018); Nilssen (2019); van den Buuse and Kolk (2019)
20 Ahvenniemi et al. (2017); Marsal-Llacuna and Segal (2016); Macke et al. (2018); Romão et al. (2018)
Manitiu and Pedrini (2016); Alizadeh (2017)
Shen et al. (2018); Borsekova et al. (2018)
18 Caragliu et al. (2011); Lee et al. (2014); Angelidou (2014); Marek et al. (2017); Sandulli et al. (2017);
Letaifa (2015); Snow et al. (2016); Berrone et al. (2016)
10 Graham et al. (2015); Li et al. (2016); Öberg and Graham (2016); Burnes and Towers (2016); Ahmad and
Mehmood (2016)
14 Hollands (2008); Nam and Pado (2011); Thite (2011); Chourabi et al., (2012); Dameri and Ricciardi (2015);
Grossi and Pianezzi (2017); Kummitha and Crutzen (2017); Wray et al. (2018); Ivars-Baidal et al. (2019);
Ferraris et al. (2019)
191

Appendix 4
. Article distribution across publications (N = 191).

Journal NO Journal NO Journal NO

Cities 48 Academy of Management Journal 1 Journal of Travel Research 1

Technological forecasting and social change 44 Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 1 Journal of Urban Technology 1
Journal of cleaner production 21 Africa Journal of Management 1 M@n@gement 1
California Management Review 5 Business Process Management Journal 1 Middle East Journal of Business 1
Production Planning and Control 4 City 1 Public Management Review 1
Futures 3 Communications of the ACM 1 R&D Management 1
Business Horizons 2 Creativity and Innovation Management 1 Regional studies 1
Economics of Innovation and New Technology 2 Current issues in tourism 1 Research in the Sociology of Organisations 1
European Planning Studies 2 Economics, Management, and Financial Markets 1 Research Policy 1
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small 2 Hawaii international conference on system sciences. 1 South African Journal of Economic and Management 1
Business IEEE Sciences
Journal of business research 2 Human Resource Development International 1 Supply Chain Management: An International Journal. 1
Journal of Intellectual Capital 2 IBM Journal of research and development 1 Systemic Practice and Action Research 1
Journal of Management in Engineering 2 IMP Journal 1 The European Physical Journal Special Topics 1
Management Decision 2 International digital government research 1 The International Journal of Human Resource 1
conference Management
Production and Operations Management 2 Information Systems Journal 1 Total Quality Management and Business Excellence 1
Public Money and Management 2 Information Technology for Development 1 Tourism Management perspective 1
Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 2 International Journal of Public Administration 1 Tourism Planning and Development 1
Sustainability Accounting, Management and Policy 2 Journal of Global Information Management 1 Journal of General Management 1
Journal
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management 2 Journal of High Technology Management Research 1
Technovation 2 Journal of Industrial Relations 1

Appendix 5
. Most cited smart city publications and sources.

Ranking Author and publication year No of citation Source

1 Caragliu et al. (2011) 1377 Journal of Urban Technology

2 Hollands (2008) 1359 City
3 Chourabi et al., (2012) 1188 Hawaii international conference on system Sciences (45th). IEEE
4 Neirotti et al. (2014) 993 Cities
5 Nam and Pardo (2011) 938 International digital government research conference (12th)
6 Batty et al. (2012) 890 The European Physical Journal Special Topics
7 Harrison et al. (2010) 500 IBM Journal of research and development
8 Ahvenniemi et al. (2017) 387 Cities
9 Lee et al. (2014) 374 Technological Forecasting and Social Change
10 Angelidou (2014) 370 Cities
11 De Jong et al. (2015) 366 Journal of Cleaner production
12 Letaifa (2015) 201 Journal of business research
13 Marsal-Llacuna et al., (2015) 187 Technological Forecasting and Social Change
14 Kummitha and Crutzen (2017) 166 Cities
15 Paroutis et al. (2014) 135 Technological Forecasting and Social Change

11
F. Zhao et al. Cities 119 (2021) 103406

Appendix 6
. Geographical context of smart city literature (N =
191).
Geographical context Number
Europe 57
Africa 2 Seoul and Milan. Journal of Cleaner Production, 203, 30–42.
Europe, North America and Oceania 1 Berrone, P., Ricart, J. E., & Carrasco, C. (2016). The open kimono: Toward a general
Oceania 2 framework for open data initiatives in cities. California Management Review, 59(1),
South America 4 39–70.
North America 8 Bibri, S. E., & Krogstie, J. (2017). Smart sustainable cities of the future: An extensive
Asia 29
Europe and North America 1 Biswas, A. (2019). A framework to analyse inclusiveness of urban policy. Cities, 87,
Global 13
Europe and Asia 1
Europe, North America and Asia 3
Middle Easta 4
Asia and North America 2 ambidexterity through alliances in a new context of analysis: Internet of things (IoT)
None 64
Total 191
a sustainable and smart city strategies into performance measurement systems. Public
Subcontinent.
References
Abella, A., Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado, M., & De-Pablos-Heredero, C. (2017). A model for the
analysis of data-driven innovation and value generation in smart cities'
ecosystems. Cities, 64, 47–53.
Adapa, S. (2018). Indian smart cities and cleaner production initiatives–Integrated
framework and recommendations. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 3351–3366.
Afzalan, N., Sanchez, T. W., & Evans-Cowley, J. (2017). Creating smarter cities:
Considerations for selecting online participatory tools. Cities, 67, 21–30.
Aghaei, C., Salehi, H., Yunus, M., Farhadi, H., Fooladi, M., Farhadi, M., & Ale
Ebrahim, N. (2013). A comparison between two main academic literature
collections: Web of Science and Scopus databases. Asian Social Science, 9(5), 18–26.
Ahmad, N., & Mehmood, R. (2016). Enterprise systems and performance of future city
logistics. Production Planning & Control, 27(6), 500–513.
Ahvenniemi, H., Huovila, A., Pinto-Seppä, I., & Airaksinen, M. (2017). What are the
differences between sustainable and smart cities? Cities, 60, 234–245.
Aina, Y. A. (2017). Achieving smart sustainable cities with GeoICT support: The Saudi
evolving smart cities. Cities, 71, 49–58.
Albino, V., Berardi, U., & Dangelico, R. M. (2015). Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions,
performance, and initiatives. Journal of Urban Technology, 22(1), 3–21.
Alizadeh, T. (2017). An investigation of IBM's smarter cites challenge: What do
participating cities want? Cities, 63, 70–80.
Alizadeh, T., & Sipe, N. (2016). Vancouver's digital strategy: Disruption, new
direction, or business as usual? International Journal of E-Planning Research (IJEPR), 5
(4), 1–15.
Allam, Z., & Dhunny, Z. A. (2019). On big data, artificial intelligence and smart cities.
Cities, 89, 80–91.
Almirall, E., Wareham, J., Ratti, C., Conesa, P., Bria, F., Gaviria, A., & Edmondson, A.
(2016). Smart cities at the crossroads: New tensions in city transformation. California
Management Review, 59(1), 141–152.
Alvarez, M. D., & Yarcan, Ş. (2010). Istanbul as a world city: A cultural perspective.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism and Hospitality Research, 4(3), 266–276.
Alvarez, G., Pilbeam, C., & Wilding, R. (2009). Nestle Nespresso AAA sustainable quality
program: An investigation into the governance dynamics in a multi-stakeholder
supply chain network. International Journal of Supply Chain Management, 15(2),
165–182.
Andreani, S., Kalchschmidt, M., Pinto, R., & Sayegh, A. (2019). Reframing
technologically enhanced urban scenarios: A design research model towards human
centered smart cities. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 142, 15–25.
Angelidou, M. (2014). Smart city policies: A spatial approach. Cities, 41, S3–S11.
Annunziato, M., & Maestosi, P. C. (2018). Towards a European vision for the smart cities
to come. TECHNE-Journal of Technology for Architecture and Environment, 12–15.
Anthopoulos, L. (2017). Smart utopia VS smart reality: Learning by experience from 10
smart city cases. Cities, 63, 128–148.
Ardito, L., Ferraris, A., Petruzzelli, A. M., Bresciani, S., & Del Giudice, M. (2019). The role
of universities in the knowledge management of smart city projects. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 142, 312–321.
Batabyal, A. A., & Beladi, H. (2019). The optimal provision of information and
communication technologies in smart cities. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 147, 216–220.
Bătăgan, L. (2011). Smart cities and sustainability models. Informatica Economică, 15(3),
80–87.
Batty, M., Axhausen, K. W., Giannotti, F., Pozdnoukhov, A., Bazzani, A., Wachowicz, M.,
Ouzounis, G., & Portugali, Y. (2012). Smart cities of the future. The European Physical
Journal Special Topics, 214(1), 481–518.
Baudier, P., Ammi, C., & Deboeuf-Rouchon, M. (2020). Smart home: Highly educated
students' acceptance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 153, Article
119355.
Belanche, D., Casaló, L. V., & Orús, C. (2016). City attachment and use of urban services:
Benefits for smart cities. Cities, 50, 75–81.
Bell, S., Benatti, F., Edwards, N. R., Laney, R., Morse, D. R., Piccolo, L., & Zanetti, O.
(2018). Smart cities and M 3: Rapid research, meaningful metrics and co-design.
Systemic Practice and Action Research, 31(1), 27–53.
Bernardi, M., & Diamantini, D. (2018). Shaping the sharing city: An exploratory study on
interdisciplinary literature review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 31, 183–212.
174–184.
Borsekova, K., Koróny, S., Vanová, A., & Vitálišová, K. (2018). Functionality between the
size and indicators of smart cities: A research challenge with policy implications.
Cities, 78, 17–26.
Bresciani, S., Ferraris, A., & Del Giudice, M. (2018). The management of organizational
smart city projects. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 331–338.
Brorström, S., Argento, D., Grossi, G., Thomasson, A., & Almqvist, R. (2018). Translating
Money & Management, 38(3), 193–202.
Bunders, D. J., & Varró, K. (2019). Problematizing data-driven urban practices: Insights
from five Dutch ‘smart cities’. Cities, 93, 145–152.
Burnes, B., & Towers, N. (2016). Consumers, clothing retailers and production planning
and control in the smart city. Production Planning & Control, 27(6), 490–499.
van den Buuse, D., & Kolk, A. (2019). An exploration of smart city approaches by
international ICT firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 142, 220–234.
Camboim, G. F., Zawislak, P. A., & Pufal, N. A. (2019). Driving elements to make cities
smarter: Evidences from European projects. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 142, 154–167.
Camero, A., & Alba, E. (2019). Smart City and information technology. A review. cities,
93, 84–94.
Caragliu, A., & Del Bo, C. F. (2019). Smart innovative cities: The impact of Smart City
policies on urban innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 142,
373–383.
Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., & Nijkamp, P. (2011). Smart cities in Europe. Journal of Urban
Technology, 18(2), 65–82.
Cardullo, P., & Kitchin, R. (2019). Being a ‘citizen’ in the smart city: Up and down the
scaffold of smart citizen participation in Dublin Ireland. GeoJournal, 84(1), 1–13.
Carè, S., Trotta, A., Carè, R., & Rizzello, A. (2018). Crowdfunding for the development of
smart cities. Business Horizons, 61(4), 501–509.
Carrasco-Sáez, J. L., Careaga Butter, M., & Badilla-Quintana, M. G. (2017). The new
pyramid of needs for the digital citizen: A transition towards smart human cities.
Sustainability, 9(12), 2258.
Chatterjee, S., Kar, A. K., & Gupta, M. P. (2017). Critical success factors to establish 5G
network in smart cities: Inputs for security and privacy. Journal of Global Information
Management (JGIM), 25(2), 15–37.
Chourabi, H., Nam, T., Walker, S., Gil-Garcia, J. R., Mellouli, S., Nahon, K., Pardo, T. A.,
& Scholl, H. J. (2012 January). Understanding smart cities: An integrative
framework. In 2012 45th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (pp.
2289–2297). IEEE.
Cohen, B., & Amorós, J. E. (2014). Municipal demand-side policy tools and the strategic
management of technology life cycles. Technovation, 34(12), 797–806.
Cohen, B., Almirall, E., & Chesbrough, H. (2016). The city as a lab: Open innovation
meets the collaborative economy. California Management Review, 59(1), 5–13.
Colding, J., & Barthel, S. (2017). An urban ecology critique on the ‘Smart City’ model.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 164, 95–101.
Contreras, G., & Platania, F. (2019). Economic and policy uncertainty in climate change
mitigation: The London Smart City case scenario. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 142, 384–393.
Corbett, J., & Mellouli, S. (2017). Winning the SDG battle in cities: How an integrated
information ecosystem can contribute to the achievement of the 2030 sustainable
development goals. Information Systems Journal, 27(4), 427–461.
Dameri, R. P., & Ricciardi, F. (2015). Smart city intellectual capital: An emerging view of
territorial systems innovation management. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 16(4),
860–887.
De Guimarães, J. C. F., Severo, E. A., Júnior, L. A. F., Da Costa, W. P. L. B., &
Salmoria, F. T. (2020). Governance and quality of life in smart cities: Towards
sustainable development goals. Journal of Cleaner Production, 253, Article 119926.
De Jong, M., Joss, S., Schraven, D., Zhan, C., & Weijnen, M. (2015).
Sustainable–smart–resilient–low carbon–eco–knowledge cities; Making sense of a
multitude of concepts promoting sustainable urbanization. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 109, 25–38.
Debnath, A. K., Chin, H. C., Haque, M. M., & Yuen, B. (2014). A methodological
framework for benchmarking smart transport cities. Cities, 37, 47–56.
Desdemoustier, J., Crutzen, N., & Giffinger, R. (2019). Municipalities'
understanding of the Smart City concept: An exploratory analysis in Belgium.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 142, 129–141.
Edge, S., Boluk, K., Groulx, M., & Quick, M. (2020). Exploring diverse lived experiences
in the Smart City through creative analytic practice. Cities, 96, Article 102478.

12
F. Zhao et al.
Fernandez-Anez, V., Fernández-Güell, J. M., & Giffinger, R. (2018). Smart City
implementation and discourses: An integrated conceptual model. The case of Vienna.
Cities, 78, 4–16.
Ferraris, A., Santoro, G., Bresciani, S., & Carayannis, E. G. (2018). HR practices for
explorative and exploitative alliances in smart cities: Evidences from smart city
managers’ perspective. Management Decision, 56(6), 1183–1197.
Ferraris, A., Erhardt, N., & Bresciani, S. (2019). Ambidextrous work in smart city project
alliances: Unpacking the role of human resource management systems. The
International Journal of Human Resource Management, 30(4), 680–701.
Garau, C., Masala, F., & Pinna, F. (2016). Cagliari and smart urban mobility: Analysis and
comparison. Cities, 56, 35–46.
Gascó-Hernandez, M. (2018). Building a smart city: Lessons from Barcelona.
Communications of the ACM, 61(4), 50–57.
Glasmeier, A., & Christopherson, S. (2015). Thinking about smart cities. Cambridge
Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8(1), 3–12.
Graham, G., Tachizawa, E. M., Alvarez-Gil, M. J., & Montes-Sancho, M. J. (2015). How
‘smart cities’ will change supply chain management. Supply Chain Management: An
International Journal, 20(3), 237–248.
Grimaldi, D., & Fernandez, V. (2017). The alignment of university curricula with the
building of a Smart City: A case study from Barcelona. Technological Forecasting and
Social Change, 123, 298–306.
Grossi, G., & Pianezzi, D. (2017). Smart cities: Utopia or neoliberal ideology? Cities, 69,
79–85.
Gulati, R., & Singh, H. (1998). The architecture of cooperation: Managing co-ordination
costs and appropriation concerns in strategic alliances. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 43, 781–814.
Guz, A. N., & Rushchitsky, J. J. (2009). Scopus: A system for the evaluation of scientific
journals. International Applied Mechanics, 45(4), 351–362.
Harrison, C., Eckman, B., Hamilton, R., Hartswick, P., Kalagnanam, J., Paraszczak, J., &
Williams, P. (2010). Foundations for smarter cities. IBM Journal of Research and
Development, 54(4), 1–16.
Heaton, J., & Parlikad, A. K. (2019). A conceptual framework for the alignment of
infrastructure assets to citizen requirements within a smart cities framework. Cities,
90, 32–41.
Hollands, R. G. (2008). Will the real smart city please stand up? Intelligent, progressive
or entrepreneurial? City, 12(3), 303–320.
Hollands, R. G. (2015). Critical interventions into the corporate smart city. Cambridge
Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8(1), 61–77.
Hopkins, J. L., & McKay, J. (2019). Investigating ‘anywhere working’ as a mechanism for
alleviating traffic congestion in smart cities. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 142, 258–272.
Huston, S., Rahimzad, R., & Parsa, A. (2015). ‘Smart’ sustainable urban regeneration:
Institutions, quality and financial innovation. Cities, 48, 66–75.
Ivars-Baidal, J. A., Celdrán-Bernabeu, M. A., Mazón, J. N., & Perles-Ivars, Á. F. (2019).
Smart destinations and the evolution of ICTs: A new scenario for destination
management? Current Issues in Tourism, 22(13), 1581–1600.
Kitchin, R. (2015). Making sense of smart cities: Addressing present shortcomings.
Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8(1), 131–136.
Kourtit, K., Nijkamp, P., & Steenbruggen, J. (2017). The significance of digital data
systems for smart city policy. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 58, 13–21.
Kraus, S., Richter, C., Papagiannidis, S., & Durst, S. (2015). Innovating and exploiting
entrepreneurial opportunities in smart cities: Evidence from Germany. Creativity and
Innovation Management, 24(4), 601–616.
Kumar, H., Singh, M. K., Gupta, M. P., & Madaan, J. (2018). Moving towards smart cities:
Solutions that lead to the Smart City transformation framework. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 153(119281), 1–10.
Kummitha, R. K. R. (2018). Entrepreneurial urbanism and technological panacea: Why
Smart City planning need to go beyond corporate visioning? Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, 137, 330–339.
Kummitha, R. K. R., & Crutzen, N. (2017). How do we understand smart cities? An
evolutionary perspective. Cities, 67, 43–52.
Lam, P. T., & Ma, R. (2019). Potential pitfalls in the development of smart cities and
mitigation measures: an exploratory study. Cities, 91, 146–156.
Lecomte, P. (2019). What is smart? A real estate introduction to cities and buildings in
the digital era. Journal of General Management, 44(3), 128–137.
Lee, J. H., & Hancock, M. G. (2012). Toward a framework for smart cities: A comparison of
Seoul, San Francisco and Amsterdam. Research Paper (pp. 1–22). Yonsei University
and Stanford University. Available at: http://www.estudislocals.cat/wp-content/upl
oads/2016/11/ComparisonSEOUL-SF-AMSTERDAM.pdf. (Accessed 31 December
2019).
Lee, J. H., Phaal, R., & Lee, S. H. (2013). An integrated service-device-technology
roadmap for smart city development. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 80
(2), 286–306.
Lee, J. H., Hancock, M. G., & Hu, M. C. (2014). Towards an effective framework for
building smart cities: Lessons from Seoul and San Francisco. Technological Forecasting
and Social Change, 89, 80–99.
Letaifa, S. B. (2015). How to strategize smart cities: Revealing the SMART model. Journal
of Business Research, 68(7), 1414–1419.
Li, F., Nucciarelli, A., Roden, S., & Graham, G. (2016). How smart cities transform
operations models: A new research agenda for operations management in the digital
economy. Production Planning & Control, 27(6), 514–528.
Li, K., Yuen, C., Kanhere, S. S., Hu, K., Zhang, W., Jiang, F., & Liu, X. (2018). An
experimental study for tracking crowd in smart cities. IEEE Systems Journal, 13(3),
2966–2977.
Lim, C., Kim, K. J., & Maglio, P. P. (2018). Smart cities with big data: Reference models,
challenges, and considerations. Cities, 82, 86–99.
13
Cities 119 (2021) 103406
Lim, Y., Edelenbos, J., & Gianoli, A. (2019). Identifying the results of smart city
development: Findings from systematic literature review. Cities, 95, Article 102397.
Lombardi, P., Giordano, S., Farouh, H., & Yousef, W. (2012). Modelling the smart city
performance. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 25(2),
137–149.
Luque, A., McFarlane, C., & Marvin, S. (2014). Smart urbanism: Cities, grids and
alternatives? In M. Hodson, & S. Marvin (Eds.), After sustainable cities? (pp. 86–102).
New York: Routledge.
Macke, J., Casagrande, R. M., Sarate, J. A. R., & Silva, K. A. (2018). Smart city and
quality of life: Citizens' perception in a Brazilian case study. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 182, 717–726.
Manitiu, D. N., & Pedrini, G. (2016). Urban smartness and sustainability in Europe. An ex
ante assessment of environmental, social and cultural domains. European Planning
Studies, 24(10), 1766–1787.
March, H. (2018). The Smart City and other ICT-led techno-imaginaries: Any room for
dialogue with degrowth? Journal of Cleaner Production, 197, 1694–1703.
Marek, L., Campbell, M., & Bui, L. (2017). Shaking for innovation: The (re) building of a
(smart) city in a post disaster environment. Cities, 63, 41–50.
Marsal-Llacuna, M. L., Colomer-Llinàs, J., & Meléndez-Frigola, J. (2015). Lessons in
urban monitoring taken from sustainable and livable cities to better address the
Smart Cities initiative. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 90, 611–622.
Marsal-Llacuna, M. L., & Segal, M. E. (2016). The intelligenter method (I) for making
‘smarter’ city projects and plans. Cities, 55, 127–138.
Martinez, L. M., & Viegas, J. M. (2017). Assessing the impacts of deploying a shared self-
driving urban mobility system: An agent-based model applied to the city of Lisbon,
Portugal. International Journal of Transportation Science and Technology, 6(1), 13–27.
Martin, C. J., Evans, J., & Karvonen, A. (2018). Smart and sustainable? Five tensions in
the visions and practices of the smart-sustainable city in Europe and North America.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 133, 269–278.
Matos, F., Vairinhos, V. M., Dameri, R. P., & Durst, S. (2017). Increasing smart city
competitiveness and sustainability through managing structural capital. Journal of
Intellectual Capital, 18(3), 693–707.
McFarlane, C., & Söderström, O. (2017). On alternative smart cities: From a technology-
intensive to a knowledge-intensive smart urbanism. Cities, 21(3–4), 312–328.
Meijer, A., & Bolívar, M. P. R. (2016). Governing the smart city: A review of the literature
on smart urban governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(2),
392–408.
Mohammed, F., Idries, A., Mohamed, N., Al-Jaroodi, J., & Jawhar, I. (2014, May). UAVs
for smart cities: Opportunities and challenges. In 2014 International Conference on
Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS) (pp. 267–273).
Mohamed, N., Al-Jaroodi, J., Jawhar, I., Idries, A., & Mohammed, F. (2018). Unmanned
aerial vehicles applications in future smart cities. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 153, 1–15.
Mora, L., Bolici, R., & Deakin, M. (2017). The first two decades of smart-city research: A
bibliometric analysis. Journal of Urban Technology, 24(1), 3–27.
Mora, L., Reid, A., & Angelidou, M. (2019). The current status of smart city research:
exposing the division. In N. Komninos, & C. Kakderi (Eds.), Smart cities in the post-
algorithmic era. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Mosannenzadeh, F., Bisello, A., Diamantini, C., Stellin, G., & Vettorato, D. (2017). A case-
based learning methodology to predict barriers to implementation of smart and
sustainable urban energy projects. Cities, 60, 28–36.
Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2011, June). Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of
technology, people, and institutions. In Proceedings of the 12th annual international
digital government research conference: digital government innovation in challenging times
(pp. 282–291).
Neirotti, P., De Marco, A., Cagliano, A. C., Mangano, G., & Scorrano, F. (2014). Current
trends in Smart City initiatives: Some stylised facts. Cities, 38, 25–36.
Nilssen, M. (2019). To the smart city and beyond? Developing a typology of smart urban
innovation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 142, 98–104.
Nyberg, R. A., & Yarime, M. (2017). Assembling a field into place: Smart-city development in
Japan. In Emergence: Emerald Publishing Limited.
Öberg, C., & Graham, G. (2016). How smart cities will change supply chain management:
A technical viewpoint. Production Planning & Control, 27(6), 529–538.
Offenhuber, D., & Schechtner, K. (2018). Improstructure-An improvisational perspective
on smart infrastructure governance. Cities, 72, 329–338.
O'grady, M., & O'hare, G. (2012). How smart is your city? Science, 335(6076),
1581–1582.
Ojo, A., Curry, E., Janowski, T., & Dzhusupova, Z. (2015). Designing next generation
smart city initiatives: The SCID framework. In Transforming city governments for
successful smart cities (pp. 43–67). Cham: Springer.
Paroutis, S., Bennett, M., & Heracleous, L. (2014). A strategic view on smart city
technology: The case of IBM smarter cities during a recession. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 89, 262–272.
Peris-Ortiz, M., Bennett, D. R., & Yábar, D. P.-B. (2017). Sustainable smart cities.
innovation, technology, and knowledge management. Cham: Springer International
Publishing Switzerland.
Popescu, G. H. (2015). The economic value of smart city technology. Economics,
Management, and Financial Markets, 10(4), 76–82.
Qi, W., & Shen, Z. M. (2019). A smart-city scope of operations management. Production
and Operations Management, 28(2), 393–406.
Rathore, M. M., Ahmad, A., Paul, A., & Rho, S. (2016). Urban planning and building
smart cities based on the internet of things using big data analytics. Computer
Networks, 101, 63–80.
Richter, C., Kraus, S., & Syrjä, P. (2015). The Smart City as an opportunity for
entrepreneurship. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 7(3), 211–226.
F. Zhao et al.
Romão, J., Kourtit, K., Neuts, B., & Nijkamp, P. (2018). The smart city as a common place
for tourists and residents: A structural analysis of the determinants of urban
attractiveness. Cities, 78, 67–75.
Roth, S., Kaivo-Oja, J., & Hirschmann, T. (2013). Smart regions: Two cases of
crowdsourcing for regional development. International Journal of Entrepreneurship
and Small Business, 20(3), 272–285.
Ruhlandt, R. W. S. (2018). The governance of smart cities: A systematic literature review.
Cities, 81, 1–23.
Ruhlandt, R. W. S., Levitt, R., Jain, R., & Hall, D. (2020). Drivers of data and analytics
utilization within (Smart) cities: A multimethod approach. Journal of Management in
Engineering, 36(2), 04019050.
Russo, F., Rindone, C., & Panuccio, P. (2016). European plans for the smart city: From
theories and rules to logistics test case. European Planning Studies, 24(9), 1709–1726.
Sandulli, F. D., Ferraris, A., & Bresciani, S. (2017). How to select the right public partner
in smart city projects. R&D Management, 47(4), 607–619.
Sarma, S., & Sunny, S. A. (2017). Civic entrepreneurial ecosystems: Smart city emergence
in Kansas City. Business Horizons, 60(6), 843–853.
Scuotto, V., Ferraris, A., Bresciani, S., Al-Mashari, M., & Del Giudice, M. (2016). Internet
of things: Applications and challenges in smart cities. A case study of IBM smart city
projects. Business Process Management Journal, 22(2), 1–11.
Shane, S., & Venkataraman, S. (2000). The promise of entrepreneurship as a field of
research. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 217–226.
Shang, J., Wang, Z., Li, L., Chen, Y., & Li, P. (2018). A study on the correlation between
technology innovation and the new-type urbanization in Shaanxi province.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 135, 266–273.
Shen, L., Huang, Z., Wong, S. W., Liao, S., & Lou, Y. (2018). A holistic evaluation of smart
city performance in the context of China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 200,
667–679.
Shorfuzzaman, M., Hossain, M. S., & Alhamid, M. F. (2021). Towards the sustainable
development of smart cities through mass video surveillance: A response to the
COVID-19 pandemic. Sustainable Cities and Society, 64, Article 102582.
Smart Cities Council. (2014). Definitions and overviews. Retrieved from http://smartciti
escouncil.com/smart-cities-information-center/definitions-and-overviews.
Snow, C. C., Håkonsson, D. D., & Obel, B. (2016). A smart city is a collaborative
community: Lessons from smart Aarhus. California Management Review, 59(1),
92–108.
Sodhro, A. H., Pirbhulal, S., Luo, Z., & de Albuquerque, V. H. C. (2019). Towards an
optimal resource management for IoT based green and sustainable smart cities.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 220, 1167–1179.
Solano, S. E., Casado, P. P., & Ureba, S. F. (2017). Smart cities and sustainable
development: A case study. In In Sustainable Smart Cities (pp. 65-77). Cham: Springer.
Thite, M. (2011). Smart cities: Implications of urban planning for human resource
development. Human Resource Development International, 14(5), 623–631.
Tompson, T. (2017). Understanding the contextual development of smart city initiatives:
A pragmatist methodology. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 3
(3), 210–228.
14
Cities 119 (2021) 103406
Trencher, G. (2019). Towards the smart city 2.0: Empirical evidence of using smartness
as a tool for tackling social challenges. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
142, 117–128.
Trencher, G., & Karvonen, A. (2018). Innovating for an aging society. In Inside smart
cities: Place, politics and urban innovation. Routledge.
Vaismoradi, M., Jones, J., Turunen, H., & Snelgrove, S. (2016). Theme development in
qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis. Journal of Nursing Education and
Practice, 6(5), 100–110.
Viale Pereira, G., Cunha, M. A., Lampoltshammer, T. J., Parycek, P., & Testa, M. G.
(2017). Increasing collaboration and participation in smart city governance: A cross-
case analysis of smart city initiatives. Information Technology for Development, 23(3),
526–553.
Vieira, E. S., & Gomes, J. A. N. F. (2009). A comparison of scopus and web of science for a
typical university. Scientometrics, 81(2), 587–600.
Viitanen, J., & Kingston, R. (2014). Smart cities and green growth: Outsourcing
democratic and environmental resilience to the global technology sector.
Environment and Planning, 46(4), 803–819.
Wang, J., Ding, S., Song, M., Fan, W., & Yang, S. (2018). Smart community evaluation for
sustainable development using a combined analytical framework. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 193, 158–168.
Wray, A., Olstad, D. L., & Minaker, L. M. (2018). Smart prevention: A new approach to
primary and secondary cancer prevention in smart and connected communities.
Cities, 79, 53–69.
Wu, Y., Zhang, W., Shen, J., Mo, Z., & Peng, Y. (2018). Smart city with Chinese
characteristics against the background of big data: Idea, action and risk. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 173, 60–66.
Yan, J., Liu, J., & Tseng, F.-M. (2018). An evaluation system based on the self-organizing
system framework of smart cities: A case study of smart transportation systems in
China. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 119371.
Yigitcanlar, T., Kamruzzaman, M., Buys, L., Ioppolo, G., Sabatini-Marques, J., da
Costa, E. M., & Yun, J. J. (2018). Understanding ‘smart cities’: Intertwining
development drivers with desired outcomes in a multidimensional framework. Cities,
81, 145–160.
Yigitcanlar, T., Kamruzzaman, M., Foth, M., Sabatini-Marques, J., da Costa, E., &
Ioppolo, G. (2019). Can cities become smart without being sustainable? A systematic
review of the literature. Sustainable Cities and Society, 45, 348–365.
Ylipulli, J., Suopajärvi, T., Ojala, T., Kostakos, V., & Kukka, H. (2014). Municipal Wi-Fi
and interactive displays: appropriation of new technologies in public urban spaces.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 89, 145–160.
Yu, Y., & Zhang, N. (2019). Does smart city policy improve energy efficiency? Evidence
from a quasi-natural experiment in China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 229,
501–512.
Zhao, P., & Hu, H. (2019). Geographical patterns of traffic congestion in growing
megacities: Big data analytics from Beijing. Cities, 92, 164–174.
Zuzul, T. W. (2019). “Matter battles”: Cognitive representations, boundary objects, and
the failure of collaboration in two smart cities. Academy of Management Journal, 62
(3), 739–764.