Smart Cities, Sustainable Cities, or Both?

A Critical Review and Synthesis of Success and Failure Factors

Rasha F. Elgazzar

and Rania F. El-Gazzar

Department of Architectural Engineering and Environmental Design, College of Engineering,

Arab Academy for Science, Technology and Maritime Transport, Alexandria, Egypt

Department of Economics, Marketing and Law, School of Business,

University College of Southeast Norway, Hønefoss, Norway

Keywords: Smart, Smart City, Sustainable, Sustainability, Sustainable Development.

Abstract: As the majority of world population will be living in cities by 2050, it became a necessity for societies to

build cities that are capable of meeting the needs of current and future generations in a smart way. There have

been initiatives toward smart/sustainable cities that had succeeded, and others had failed. Being sustainable

and smart had been used in a quite confusing way. In this paper, we attempt to understand related concepts,

such as smart, sustainable, sustainable development, and sustainability. Then, we analyse five examples of

existing initiatives of smart/sustainable cities to understand the factors behind their success or failure, by

applying SMART criteria as a managerial perspective on those initiatives. Finally, we conclude the paper

with key implications and possibilities for future research.

1 INTRODUCTION

It is speculated that 70% of the world’s population

will live in cities by 2050 (ITU, 2015). As cities have

more opportunities for education and work to offer,

populations in cities, especially in emerging

economies, are speculated to reach 4 billion by 2030

(Deloitte, 2015). Consequently, the consumption of

resources and services in cities will grow massively.

To accommodate this growth, there is a need for

innovation in managing cities' resources. Thus,

sustainable urbanization became a key concern for

societies in terms of environmental efficiency and

intelligent employment of resources. Hence, the

notion of "a technologically interconnected city" or

Internet of Things (IoT) using Big Data is promoted

to achieve the efficiency and intelligence in managing

cities' resources (Bonomi et al., 2014; Deloitte, 2015).

Societies are becoming increasingly oriented

toward achieving sustainability and improving the

quality of life with the use of Information and

Communication Technology (ICT). Then, the

concept of “smart sustainable city” is put forward to

ensure that “sustainability” is not overlooked at the

expense of fancying ICT (ITU, 2015). In the

literature, sustainability in societies is usually

emphasized from the environmental aspect in terms

of how ICT can reduce carbon emissions and support

intelligent use of energy (Gholami et al., 2015;

Watson et al., 2010; Brandt et al., 2013), while the

other important aspects (i.e., economic, social, and

cultural) were under-researched.

We argue that ICT is a means of achieving

intelligent resource management in a city, but it does

not necessarily presuppose that the city is successful

in being smart and sustainable. Thus, the purpose of

this article is to clarify key concepts (i.e., smart,

sustainable development, sustainability and smart

cities) that have been used conjointly and separately

in some occasions. The objective is to understand

“what are the key success and failure factors of smart

sustainable cities?” by analysing examples of existing

initiatives.

This paper is organized as follows: in Section 2,

we introduce and discuss relevant concepts. In

Section 3, we analyze and discuss real examples of

smart/sustainable city initiatives. Section 4 concludes

the key contributions and limitations of the paper and

higlights opportunities for future research.

250

Elgazzar R. and El-Gazzar R.

Smart Cities, Sustainable Cities, or Both? - A Critical Review and Synthesis of Success and Failure Factors.

DOI: 10.5220/0006307302500257

In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems (SMARTGREENS 2017), pages 250-257

ISBN: 978-989-758-241-7

2 BACKGROUND

2.1 Smart

The word "smart" has been treated as an adjective,

instrumental concept, or a normative concept (Höjer

and Wangel, 2015). As an adjective, smart had

several meanings in Oxford and Merriam-Webster

dictionaries, such as “mentally alert”, “very good at

learning or thinking about things”, “showing

intelligence”, “knowledgeable”, and “programmed so

as to be capable of some independent action”. These

meanings apply for persons, objects, or places. A

smart person is interpreted as either a mentally

intelligent and alert or using ICT.

As an instrumental concept, smart means creating

“products, services and product-service systems in

which ICT play a major role” (Höjer and Wangel,

2015), and this concept is more focused on the means,

and not the final outcome. As ICT started to reshape

our society and “the way we interact with our friends,

communities, transportation modalities, homes,

offices, and even our bodies” nowadays, smart word

is often related to the use of ICT that provides a level

of intelligence and coordination of information

around us through sensor-based technology

(Stimmel, 2015, p.6). However, using a smart phone

without being connected to the Internet and

interconnected with other mobile devices and/or

computers does not mean any smartness; “the novelty

is thus not so much the individual technologies,

products or services but the interconnection and the

synchronization of these and the systems they

include, so that they work in concerted action.”

(Höjer and Wangel, 2015).

Hence, a smart object (e.g., smart phone) is

programmed to act autonomously and intelligently by

being connected and interconnected with other

objects. A smart place, either a city or a building, is

often described as being capable of managing its

resources intelligently, and it is often based on the

notion of technologically-interconnectedness (i.e.,

IoT) (Bonomi et al., 2014; Deloitte, 2015).

Contrarily, smart as a normative concept is

focused more on the desired outcome mirrored in the

efforts to improve (Höjer and Wangel, 2015).

Accordingly, smartness is determined by achieving

an intended outcome as specified priori. Doran (1981)

has set SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable,

Relevant, and Time-bound) criteria for writing

management's goals. SMART criteria model suggests

that a goal should be (1) Specific: precisely defined,

(2) Measurable: progress towards the goal can be

measured, (3) Achievable: realistic and attainable

within constraints of available resources, knowledge,

and timeframe, (4) Relevant: bring the desired social,

economic, or environments outcomes, and (5) Time-

bound: have clearly stated deadlines.

To conclude, the word smart is interpreted

differently (i.e., intelligent, ICT-supported, outcome,

or criteria) and at different levels (i.e., vocabulary,

concept, and model). This has to do with the context

(i.e., persons and their use of ICT, places managing

their resources intelligently, and objects and their

autonomy and interconnectedness).

2.2 Sustainability, Sustainable

Development, and Sustainable

Cities

The word “sustainable development” emerged in the

1980s to include various aspects (i.e., economic,

urban, rural, industrial, agricultural, technological)

(Hembd and Silberstein, 2011). Then, sustainable

development was defined by the World Commission

on Environment and Development as (Butlin, 1987):

“Sustainable development is development that meets

the needs of the present without compromising the

ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

There have been research efforts to identify indicators

for sustainable development employed in Europe,

which include socioeconomic development, social

inclusion, demographic changes, public health,

climate change and energy, sustainable consumption

and production, natural resources, sustainable

transport, good governance, and global partnership

(Steurer and Hametner, 2013). Sustainable

development goals are deemed to be interconnected

(Le Blanc, 2015) and require an integration of

thinking across all sectors of the city and providing

incentives for collaboration between national and

international organizations as well as citizens to

participate in the sustainable development decision-

making, policy-making, and governance (Dassen et

al., 2013; Martin et al., 2014).

In dictionaries, the word “sustainability”, means

the ability to be used without being completely used

up or destroyed. Sustainability, as a concept, has been

used at the corporate-level (Baumgartner and Ebner,

2010), industry-level (Erol et al., 2009), and

community-level (Dempsey et al., 2011). Sustainable

communities are defined as “places where people

want to live and work, now and in the future. They

meet the diverse needs of existing and future

residents, are sensitive to their environment, and

contribute to a high quality of life. They are safe and

inclusive, well planned, built and run, and offer

equality of opportunity and good services for all”

Smart Cities, Sustainable Cities, or Both? - A Critical Review and Synthesis of Success and Failure Factors

251

(UK Government Web Archive, 2010). Communities

are striving to continuously achieve the goal of

sustainability that refers to “the ability of humans and

human society to continue indefinitely within a finite

natural world and its underlying natural cycles”

(Hembd and Silberstein, 2011). This definition of

sustainability is focused more on the natural world

(i.e., water, energy and food); however, the

environmental view on sustainability of the

community is no longer accepted (Dempsey et al.,

2011). The United Nations Educational, Scientific

and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) has defined

sustainability as “a paradigm for thinking about the

future in which environmental, societal and economic

considerations are balanced in the pursuit of an

improved quality of life” (UNESCO, 2016). The

UNESCO’s definition of sustainability emphasized

the economic and societal dimensions of our world.

While the social and economic dimensions of

sustainability are recognized, less research attention

has been given to these dimensions (Lam et al., 2014;

Salahodjaev, 2016; Dempsey et al., 2011). The

concepts “sustainable development” and

“sustainability” can be easily confused with each

other, but the UNESCO has solved this confusion by

acknowledging sustainability as a “long-term goal”,

or a “desired end-state” that can be sustained over

time (Weingaertner and Moberg, 2014; Höjer and

Wangel, 2015), while sustainable development is the

series of “processes to achieve that goal of

sustainability”.

The components of a community are represented

as economy (physical built capital, such as machinery

and buildings), society (human capital, such as

knowledge and health), and environment (natural

capital, such as water and energy) (Hembd and

Silberstein, 2011). From a systems-based view,

putting emphasizes on relationships among economy,

society, and the environment is paramount to

sustainability of a community, as the relationships

between these three parts constitute the properties of

systems (i.e., communities) (Hembd and Silberstein,

2011).

These relationships have been explained in three

different views that evolved over time (Hembd and

Silberstein, 2011): (1) unconnected view: in which

the priority is given to the economic development, for

instance, over the environmental and societal

considerations. (2) interconnected view: in which all

the economic, environmental, and societal

considerations need to be taken into account for

development decisions and sustainability lies in the

overlap between the three components. This

interconnected view better resembles the concept of

sustainable development, as it has to consider

economy, society, and environment in meeting the

needs of current and future generations. (3)

interdependent view: in which “economy exists and

functions within society, and together they exist and

function within a finite environment and depend on

it” (Hembd and Silberstein, 2011); this view is said to

hold true for the concept of sustainability that the

more economy and society grow, the more important

it becomes to preserve the finite natural environment.

To conclude, “sustainability” is a goal that can be

achieved by the “sustainable development” processes

with focus on economy, society, and environment

components of a community and the relationships

between these three. Additionally, strategies to

achieve the goal of sustainability need to reflect the

notion of “Think Globally, Act Locally” (Hembd and

Silberstein, 2011). A sustainable city (or eco-city)

must be built on social development, economic

development, environmental management, and urban

governance to ensure having “low ecological

footprint” and eliminate transferring economic, social

and environmental hazards to other locations and

future generations (UN, 2013).

2.3 Smart Cities and Smart Sustainable

Cities

Traditional cities are going through serious urban

challenges, nowadays, ranging from environmental

(i.e., climate change, energy, and pollution),

economic (i.e., globalization), to social (i.e.,

urbanization) (Mosterman and Zander, 2013). These

challenges make cities more consumers than

preservers of the environmental resources, which

threatens the sustainability of the cities for the years

to come. The increasing density of population in cities

may increase their economic significance; however,

this may have unlikely social and environmental

impacts (UN, 2015). According to figures from the

United Nations (UN), 80% of the world’s urban

population will be in Asia and Africa and,

particularly, in the developing countries in the

becoming 15 years (UN, 2013). World’s cities

significantly contribute to 70% of global greenhouse

gas emissions (UN-Habitat, 2011) as well as 60-80%

of global energy consumption and 75% of carbon

(CO2) emissions (UN, 2016).

To achieve sustainability, cities need to

implement smart solutions enabled by smart

technology. These smart technology solutions require

“smart city initiatives” from the society (Albino et al.,

2015). Smart city initiatives have to involve citizens,

government, businesses, and non-government

SMARTGREENS 2017 - 6th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems

252

institutions in collaboration and partnership efforts

(Vanolo, 2014; Mosterman and Zander, 2013). This

social involvement has to focus on organizing a team

with a dedicated manager, diagnosing the current

situation with regard to urban challenges specific to

the city and current ICT infrastructure, identifying

smart technological solutions, setting action plan (i.e.,

goals, schedules, costs, and performance indicators),

financing the smart city action plan, implementing

smart city project, and evaluating the smart city

project (Bouskela et al., 2016). Several indicators

have been proposed to measure the performance of a

smart city project (ISO/IEC JTC 1, 2015; Albino et

al., 2015). The widely cited indicators for the

“smartness” of a city are mapped to six

characteristics: smart economy, smart people, smart

governance, smart mobility, smart environment, and

smart living (Giffinger et al., 2007).

Several definitions have been put forward for

“smart city” concept; these definitions were

generated from many different disciplines (i.e., ICT

and urban planning) and communities (i.e., academic

and industry) (Nam and Pardo, 2011; Chourabi et al.,

2012; Albino et al., 2015). Additionally, various

keyword terms have been used as synonymous to

“smart city”, which makes the concept of smart city

quite blurry (Albino et al., 2015; Nam and Pardo,

2011). A smart, or smarter, city is a city that is

characterized as an “instrumented, interconnected,

and intelligent” (IBM, 2010; Kehoe et al., 2011;

Albino et al., 2015). These characteristics are enabled

by the use of ICT. The “instrumented” layer refers to

sensor-based systems that provide real-time data

through sensors, meters, cameras, and unstructured

data. The inputs from the instrumented layer are

integrated and transformed into event-related

information at the “interconnected” layer to provide

rich insights for decision-making. Business

intelligence and analytics are applied to the

information provided by the interconnected layer and

other city-relevant data and, then, the analysed

information is visualized to understand the city

requirements and city policies at the “intelligent”

layer to allow making informed decisions and taking

actions. These three layers that build up the smartness

in a smart city are constructed by smart technology

solutions and ICT infrastructure, such as IoT, Big

Data, and Internet. It is worthy to note that despite

ICT is a key ingredient of a smart city initiative

(Negre and Rosenthal-Sabroux, 2015), ICT in itself

does not denote an “intelligent or smart” city

(Kondepudi and Kondepudi, 2015). ICT should have

a degree of autonomy and intelligent devices, and

services have to be linked to the ICT infrastructure

through IoT that is defined as (Botterman, 2009,

p.12):

“A global network infrastructure, linking

physical and virtual objects, through the exploitation

of data capture and communication capabilities. This

infrastructure includes existing and evolving Internet

and network developments. It will offer specific

object-identification, sensor and connection

capability as the basis for the development of

independent federated services and applications.

These will be characterized by a high degree of

autonomous data capture, event transfer, network

connectivity and interoperability.”

Smart cities are not so smart without a reliable and

superfast Internet that connects and integrates

sensors, meters, cameras, other smart devices as well

as data/information/knowledge systems throughout

the city to communicate people with those devices,

systems and other people promoting the concept of

IoT (Atzori et al., 2010). The other key smart

technology solution in a smart city is Big Data that

maximizes computation power and algorithmic

capability to analyse and identify patterns in large

data sets, and provide a form of intelligence along

with accurate and objective truth (De Mauro et al.,

2015). Several definitions have been set for big data;

however, it has been defined as “the information

assets characterized by such a high volume, velocity

and variety to require specific technology and

analytical methods for its transformation into value.”

(De Mauro et al., 2015).

From an ICT perspective, the term “smart” in a

smart city implies the use of Internet, ICT, IoT, and

Big Data. However, from the perspective of urban

planning and development, “smart” implies that a city

has a key goal to achieve its economic, social, and

environmental sustainability and, thus, improve the

quality of life (Albino et al., 2015; Kondepudi and

Kondepudi, 2015). A major critique to many smart

city initiatives was that these cities had focused on

using ICT to address environmental issues and

ignored the social aspects (Albino et al., 2015), and

the fact that smart cities are built for people to

improve the quality of life, which is defined as “an

individuals’ perception of their position in life in the

context of the culture and value systems in which they

live and in relation to their goals, expectations,

standards and concerns” (WHO, 1997, p.1).

Hence, the concept of “smart sustainable cities”

was suggested after analysing about 100+ definitions

of smart cities by the International

Telecommunication Union (ITU)’s focus group

(ITU-T Focus Group on Smart Sustainable Cities,

2014; ITU, 2015). The analysis indicated some

Smart Cities, Sustainable Cities, or Both? - A Critical Review and Synthesis of Success and Failure Factors

253

attributes that have been claimed to characterize

smart cities belong primarily to the concept of

sustainability, such as quality of life and sustainable

development (Vesco and Ferrero, 2015), which gave

rise for the concept of “smart sustainable cities

(SSC)s” that emphasizes the sustainability as a goal

to be achieved after iterations of sustainable

development efforts (i.e., economic, social, and

environmental). It is worthy to note that: (1) cities are

not necessarily made sustainable using smart ICT, (2)

using ICT in cities does not necessarily contribute to

sustainable development, (3) smart ICT can be used

for sustainable development in other settings than

cities, such as industries or buildings, and (4) SSCs

exist only when smart ICT is used for making cities

more sustainable (Höjer and Wangel, 2015).

An SSC is defined as “an innovative city that uses

information and communication technologies (ICTs)

and other means to improve quality of life, efficiency

of urban operation and services, and competitiveness,

while ensuring that it meets the needs of present and

future generations with respect to economic, social,

environmental as well as cultural aspects” (ITU,

2015). An SSC has three key characteristics:

sustainability (i.e., governance, pollution, climate

change, etc.), quality of life (i.e., financial and

emotional well-being), and intelligence (i.e.,

improving economic, social, and environmental

standards) (ITU, 2014).

3 ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

We selected five examples of smart/sustainable cities

that we found providing insights into key criteria to

consider when making decisions to build smart

sustainable cities, especially that this is the common

trend nowadays to be equipped for the needs of the

future generation. The five examples include cities,

such as Masdar, Dongtan, Sino-Singapore Tianjin

Eco-city, Songdo, and Busan (see Table 2). We

applied SMART criteria model to understand the

success and failure factors of existing smart city

example initiatives from a managerial perspective,

which need to be considered by governments when

investing in and implementing smart city projects in

the future.

The examples introduced with regard to their

location, area/capacity timeframe, goals, expected

outcomes, challenges faced, and achievements done

so far. From the descriptions in Table 1, it appears that

the most struggling smart/sustainable cities are

Masdar and Dongtan. Masdar had set a goal that is not

possible to achieve that is “to be zero-carbon city”

and it was not able to attract the exact population that

was intended to inhabit it. According to Table 1,

Masdar does not fulfill three important SMART

criteria: the achievability of its unrealistic goal “zero-

carbon”, the relevance of its goal in bringing desired

social outcomes that it could only attract 300 people

out of intended population 50000 people, and thus,

being unable to finish the project on the pre-set

deadline 2016. However, the goal of Masdar has been

rectified to reduce carbon emission by 50%.

For Dongtan, major challenges related to the

corruption of local politicians and greedy

consultancies who overlooked practicalities in

designing the city. According to SMART criteria in

Table 1, Dongtan made the same mistake as Masdar

by setting an unrealistic goal of reducing the

ecological footprint to 2.2 hectares per person, which

is beyond the maximum of 1.9 hectares per person.

The unrealistic goal of Dongtan has not been

rectified, which creates blurriness around the

measurability of the goal. Furthermore, due to

corruption and greediness, the project had stopped for

a long while, despite its valid timeframe, with only a

wind turbines farm and the city ended up with zero

inhabitants. Thus, Dongtan did not bring in relevance

to desired economic development outcomes that the

city was intended to achieve.

Sino-Singapore Tianjin Eco-city, Songdo, and

Busan appeared to fulfill the SMART criteria and

provide examples of successful smart/sustainable

cities. The goals of the three cities considered the

social development including culture and aimed at

harmonizing it with the environmental and economic

developments, along with employing ICT

advancements. Despite this harmonization poses a

challenge for the three cities, the goal is still

achievable and the cities recorded a progress. This

finding corroborates the claim in the literature that the

success of smart/sustainable city initiatives has to do

with the focus on the social development beside the

environmental and economic developments, as this

will pave the way to achieving sustainability (Albino

et al., 2015). The key of building a successful

smart/sustainable city is to have clear vision and well-

Table 1: Mapping the examples to SMART criteria.

SMARTGREENS 2017 - 6th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems

254

Table 2: Analysis of examples for smart/sustainable cities.

Examples

Description

Masdar City

(Zero Carbon City)

Location: Abu Dhabi, UAE

Area/Capacity: 6 Km2 / 50000 residents

Time frame: started in 2006 and it is scheduled to be completed this year 2016, but the completion date has been further

extended to 2030

Goal: to be a zero-carbon city

Expected outcomes:

-100% renewable energy (solar panels, wind turbines, etc.), 80% of water is recycled

-It is a car free city provided with green transportation systems, such as rapid transit system, biking and walking

Challenges:

-Run out of the scheduled finishing time

-The set goal will not be achieved “to be a zero carbon city”, even after the project is finished, it will reduce it only 50%

Achievements:

-5% of the city is completed

-The city is inhabited by only 300 people all of them are students at Masdar Institute of Science and technology

Dongtan City

(Eco-City)

Location: Island of Chongming near Shanghai, China

Area/Capacity: 84 Km2 / 600000 residents

Time frame: started in 2005 and expected completion by 2040 on two phases

Goal:

-To make Dongtan low carbon and zero waste city as possible by reduce the ecological footprint to 2.2 hectares per person,

while according the World Wide Fund for Nature WWF 1.9 hectares is the maximum for achieving sustainability

-To develop a new paradigm of economic development

Actual outcomes: self-sufficient city by using renewable energy (solar panels, wind turbines and bio-mass fuels)

Challenges: corruption and greediness

Achievements: The city remains as a ghost city with only 10 large wind turbines standing in the air with no buildings

Sino-Singapore

Tianjin Eco-city

Location: between Singapore and China; the city located in China near to Beijing

Area/Capacity: 30 Km2 / 350000 residents

Time frame: started in 2007 and expected completion by 2020

Goal: to be socially harmonious, environmentally-friendly and resource-efficient

Expected outcomes:

-Use of non-motorized modes of transport such as light rail system and bicycles

-Renewable energy, water conservation, and effective waste management

Challenges: making balance between achieving three harmonies ([people-environment], [people-economy], and [people-

people]) and three abilities (practicability, replicability, and scalability)

Achievements: Only 3 Km2 of the city are completed so far, the city is inhabited by 6000 people in 2014 and is still

growing but still no hospitals or shopping malls

Songdo Smart City

Location: 65 km southwest of Seoul, South Korea

Area/Capacity: 86 Km2 / 75000 residents

Time frame: started in 2005 and completed in 2015

Goal:

-To be Aerotropolis (centrality of its airport infrastructure)

-To be Ubiquitous City (U-City) (integration of information systems with social systems through wireless networks

Actual outcomes:

-Qualified for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)

-Over 120 buildings intend to achieve LEED certification, making Songdo the largest private LEED development in the

world

-Co-generation and waste management systems relying on a network of tubes that suck in the garbage and transport it

efficiently to treatment facilities

Challenges:

-Occupancy rate is lower than expected

-Balancing its sustainable development goals with environmentalists’ calls for preserving bird habitats

Achievements: the city is finished since 2015

Busan Green

U-City

Location: southeast of Korea, fifth busiest sea port in the world and first IoT-Based smart city in Korea

Area/Capacity: 765.64 Km2 /3 540098 residents

Time frame: started the shifting and retrofitting to next generation of technology program in 2005 and the project is done

on 2 phases, Phase 1 (2006-2011) and phase 2 (2012-2016)

build a city with a 'smart' economy, 'smart' lifestyle, 'smart' culture, and 'smart' green environment

Expected outcomes:

Improve the structure of local industries, boost the local economy and enhance the quality of life for Busan residents by

integrating the latest next-generation ubiquitous technology into the city’s major infrastructure (logistics, transportation,

tourism, health, disaster prevention and safety and environment). Promote Busan City’s status in the international

community by creating the world’s first-ever U-city

Challenges: In developing business models to ensure that new city technologies and services are profitable

Achievements: currently Busan U-city in its final phase and when it is finished, it will be a role model of U-City (Smart

City) according to Young-Sik Kim, Director General, Planning and Financing of Busan Metropolitan City: “When the

implementation of the Busan U-City is complete, it will usher in a new era in urban mobility around the city, with education,

medical service, and public welfare all benefiting from the creation of a smart community environment.” (Cisco, 2016)

Smart Cities, Sustainable Cities, or Both? - A Critical Review and Synthesis of Success and Failure Factors

255

defined and doable goal to achieve. The most

important factor is to not only build many smart or

sustainable cities, the most important is how to get

them fully occupied. ICT and Big Data play a major

role in coordinating the economy, environment and

social and culture factors, and thus achieving

sustainability in a smart manner.

To conclude, the success of a smart/sustainable

city can be related to its goals being measurable,

achievable, relevant to the desired outcomes (i.e.,

social, economic, and environmental), and

accomplished within a certain timeframe.

4 CONCLUSIONS

In this paper, we clarified and discussed related

concepts (i.e., smart, smart city, sustainability,

sustainable development, and smart sustainable city),

that have been used interchangeably and confused

with each other, by highlighting the differentiating

characteristics of each concept. We applied SMART

criteria model by looking at success and failure

factors of existing smart/sustainable city initiatives

from a managerial perspective. Such a perspective

offers important considerations to governments when

investing in and implementing smart city projects in

the future. As any research effort, this study has a

limitation that it relies on a theoretical analysis of

documented data from secondary sources. Thus,

further empirical examinations can provide rich

insights into the outcomes of this study.

REFERENCES

Albino, V., Berardi, U. & Dangelico, R.M., 2015. Smart

Cities: Definitions, Dimensions, Performance, and

Initiatives. Journal of Urban Technology, 22(1), pp.3–

21.

Atzori, L., Iera, A. & Morabito, G., 2010. The Internet of

Things: A survey. Computer Networks, 54(15),

pp.2787–2805.

Baumgartner, R.J. & Ebner, D., 2010. Corporate

sustainability strategies: Sustainability profiles and

maturity levels. Sustainable Development, 18(2),

pp.76–89.

Le Blanc, D., 2015. Towards Integration at Last? The

Sustainable Development Goals as a Network of

Targets. Sustainable Development, 187(April), pp.176–

187.

Bonomi, F. et al., 2014. Big Data and Internet of Things: A

Roadmap for Smart Environments. Studies in

Computational Intelligence, 546, pp.169–186.

Botterman, M., 2009. Internet of Things: An Early Reality

of the Future Internet.

Bouskela, M. et al., 2016. The Road toward Smart Cities:

Migrating from Traditional City Management to the

Smart City.

Brandt, T., Feuerriegel, S. & Neumann, D., 2013. Shaping

a Sustainable Society: How Information Systems

Utilize Hidden Synergies between Green Technologies.

In Proceedings of the International Conference on

Information Systems.

Butlin, J., 1987. Our Common Future. By World

Commission on Environment and Development,

London: Oxford University Press.

Chourabi, H. et al., 2012. Understanding Smart Cities: An

Integrative Framework. In Proceedings of the 45th

Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

Cisco, 2016. City transforms economic sustainability with

public cloud,

Dassen, T., Kunseler, E. & van Kessenich, L.M., 2013. The

sustainable city: An analytical-deliberative approach to

assess policy in the context of sustainable urban

development. Sustainable Development, 21(3), pp.193–

205.

Deloitte, 2015. Smart Cities: Big Data.

Dempsey, N. et al., 2011. The Social Dimension of

Sustainable Development: Defi ning Urban Social

Sustainability. Sustainable Development, 19(May

2009), pp.289–300.

Doran, G.T., 1981. There’s a SMART Way to Write

Management’s Goals and Objectives. Management

Review, 70(11), pp.35–36.

Erol, I. et al., 2009. Sustainability in the Turkish retailing

industry. Sustainable Development, 17(1), pp.49–67.

Gholami, R. et al., 2015. Information Systems Solutions for

Environmental Sustainability. Journal of the

Association for Information Systems.

Giffinger, R. et al., 2007. Smart cities Ranking of European

medium-sized cities,

Hembd, J. & Silberstein, J., 2011. Chapter 16. Sustainable

Communities: Sustainability and Community

Development. In J. W. Robinson & G. P. Green, eds.

Introduction to Community Development: Theory,

Practice, and Service-learning. SAGE, p. 315.

Höjer, M. & Wangel, J., 2015. Smart Sustainable Cities:

Definition and Challenges. In ICT Innovations for

Sustainability, Advances in Intelligent Systems and

Computing 310. pp. 333–349.

IBM, 2010. A vision of smarter cities.

ISO/IEC JTC 1, 2015. Smart cities: Preliminary Report

2014.

ITU, 2015. Focus Group on Smart Sustainable Cities,

ITU, 2014. What is a smart sustainable city? ITU.

ITU-T Focus Group on Smart Sustainable Cities, 2014.

Smart sustainable cities: An analysis of definitions,

Kehoe, M. et al., 2011. Smarter Cities Series:

Understanding the IBM Approach to Smater Cities.

IBM Redguides for Business Leaders, pp.1–30.

Kondepudi, S. & Kondepudi, R., 2015. What Constitutes a

Smart City? In Handbook of Research on Social,

Economic, and Environmental Sustainability in the

Development of Smart Cities. IGI Global, pp. 1–25.

SMARTGREENS 2017 - 6th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems

256

Lam, J.C.K., Walker, R.M. & Hills, P., 2014.

Interdisciplinarity in sustainability studies: A Review.

Sustainable Development, 22(3), pp.158–176.

Martin, N.J., Rice, J.L. & Lodhia, S.K., 2014. Sustainable

development planning: A case of public participation

using online forums. Sustainable Development, 22(4),

pp.265–275.

De Mauro, A., Greco, M. & Grimaldi, M., 2015. What is

big data? A consensual definition and a review of key

research topics. In AIP Conference Proceedings.

Mosterman, P.J. & Zander, J., 2013. Computation for

Humanity: Information Technology to Advance Society,

CRC Press.

Nam, T. & Pardo, T.A., 2011. Conceptualizing Smart City

with Dimensions of Technology, People, and

Institutions. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual

International Conference on Digital Government

Research.

Negre, E. & Rosenthal-Sabroux, C., 2015. Smart Cities: A

Salad Bowl of Citizens, ICT, and Environment. In

Handbook of Research on Social, Economic, and

Environmental Sustainability in the Development of

Smart Cities. IGI Global, p. 18.

Salahodjaev, R., 2016. Does Intelligence Improve

Environmental Sustainability? An Empirical Test.

Sustainable Development, 24(1), pp.32–40.

Steurer, R. & Hametner, M., 2013. Objectives and

Indicators in Sustainable Development Strategies:

Similarities and Variances across Europe. Sustainable

Development, 21(4), pp.224–241.

Stimmel, C.L., 2015. Building Smart Cities Analytics, ICT,

and Design Thinking, CRC Press.

UK Government Web Archive, 2010. What is a Sustainable

Community?

UN, 2016. Goal 11: Make Cities Inclusive, Safe, Resilient

and Sustainable.

UN, 2015. The World Population Prospects: 2015

Revision,

UN, 2013. Towards sustainable cities: World Economic

and Social Survey 2013,

UN-Habitat, 2011. Hot Cities: Battle-Ground for Climate

Change.

UNESCO, 2016. Sustainable Development. Education for

Sustainable Development.

Vanolo, A., 2014. Smartmentality: The Smart City as

Disciplinary Strategy. Urban Studies, 51(5), pp.883–

898.

Vesco, A. & Ferrero, F., 2015. Handbook of Research on

Social, Economic, and Environmental Sustainability in

the Development of Smart Cities, IGI Global.

Watson, R.T., Boudreau, M.-C. & Chen, A.J., 2010.

Information Systems and Environmentally Sustainable

Development: Energy Informatics and New Directions

for the IS Community. MIS Quartely, 34(1), pp.23–38.

Weingaertner, C. & Moberg, Å., 2014. Exploring social

sustainability: Learning from perspectives on urban

development and companies and products. Sustainable

Development, 22(2), pp.122–133.

WHO, 1997. WHOQOL: Measuring Quality of Life. ,

pp.1–15.

Smart Cities, Sustainable Cities, or Both? - A Critical Review and Synthesis of Success and Failure Factors

257