Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar
ABSTRACT
The growth of smart cities is forcing governments to focus their efforts on the increase of public value creation. Based on a literature review of prior research and on a questionnaire about the perception of city practitioners in European smart cities included in the EUROCITIES network, this paper seeks to analyze the public value creation under the context of the smart cities, examining the model of citizen participation, the responsibility of smart city development and the outcomes to be achieved in smart cities. Results indicate that public value creation surpass the capacities, capabilities, and reaches of their traditional institutions and their classical processes of governing, and therefore new and innovative forms of governance are needed to meet it. This way, the creation of public value under the context of the smart cities is based on smart urban collaboration, which promotes the use of new technologies to adopt a more participative model of governance.
- A. Albert, and E. Passmore. 2008. Public Value and Participation {electronic Resource}: A Literature Review for the Scottish Government. Scottish Government.Google Scholar
- A. Alkandari, M. Alnasheet, and I. F. T. Alshekhly. 2012. Smart Cities: Survey. Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Technology Research 2, 2 (2012), 79--90.Google Scholar
- M. Batty, K.W. Axhausen, F. Giannotti, A. Pozdnoukhov, A. Bazzani, M. Wachowicz, G. Ouzounis, and Y. Portugali. 2012. Smart Cities of the Future. European Physical Journal, 214 (2012), 481--518.Google Scholar
- J. Benington. 2011. From private choice to public value. Public value: Theory and practice, (2011), 31--49.Google Scholar
- L. Berntzen, and M. R. Johannessen. 2016. The role of citizen participation in municipal smart city projects: Lessons learned from Norway. In Smarter as the New Urban Agenda. Springer International Publishing, 299--314.Google Scholar
- J. C. Bertot, P. T. Jaeger, and D. Hansen. 2012. The impact of policies on government social media usage: Issues, challenges, and recommendations. Government Information Quarterly 29, 1 (2012), 30--40.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. M. Bryson, B. C. Crosby, and M. M. Stone. 2006. The design and implementation of Cross-Sector collaborations: Propositions from the literature. Public administration review 66, s1, (2006), 44--55.Google Scholar
- A. Caragliu, C. Del Bo, and P. Nijkamp. 2009. Smart Cities in Europe. In Proceedings to the 3rd Central European Conference on Regional Science. Košice, Slovak Republic.Google Scholar
- W. Castelnovo, G. Misuraca, G., and A. Savoldelli. 2015. Smart Cities Governance. The Need for a Holistic Approach to Assessing Urban Participatory Policy Making. Social Science Computer Review, 0894439315611103. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Coe, G. Paquet, and J. Roy. 2001. E-governance and smart communities: A social learning challenge. Social Science Computer Review 19, 1 (2001), 80--93. Google ScholarDigital Library
- A. Cordella, and C. M. Bonina. 2012. A public value perspective for ICT enabled public sector reforms: A theoretical reflection. Government Information Quarterly 29, 4 (2012), 512--520.Google ScholarCross Ref
- E. Cosgrave, T. Tryfonas, and T. Crick. 2014. The Smart City from a Public Value Perspective. In ICT4S, Stockholm, Sweden.Google Scholar
- B. Crabtree, and W. Miller (Eds.). 1999. Doing Qualitative Research. Sage, London.Google Scholar
- R. P. Dameri. 2012. Defining an evaluation framework for digital cities implementation. In Information Society (i-Society), 2012 International Conference on Information Society. IEEE, June, NY, USA, 466--470.Google Scholar
- R. P. Dameri. 2014. Comparing Smart and Digital City: Initiatives and Strategies in Amsterdam and Genoa. Are They Digital and/or Smart?. In Smart City. Springer International Publishing, 45--88.Google Scholar
- R. Dvir, and E. Pasher. 2004. Innovation engines for knowledge cities: an innovation ecology perspective. Journal of knowledge management 8, 5 (2004), 16--27.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M., J. Epstein, and K. Yuthas. 2014. Measuring and Improving Social Impacts. Greanleaf Publishing Limited, Sheffiled, UK.Google Scholar
- Ernst & Young. 2014. Creating public value. transforming Australia's social services. Ernst & Young, Australia.Google Scholar
- EUROCITIES. 2011. Developing Europe Urban's model. 25 years of EUROCITIES. December, 2011. Available at http://nws.eurocities.eu/MediaShell/media/Developing_Europe_s_urban_model_-_25_years_of_EUROCITIES-NVAT_12212.pdf, December.Google Scholar
- European Parliament (EP). 2014. Mapping Smart Cities in the EU. EP, Directorate General for internal policies, Brussels.Google Scholar
- D. Farrell., and A. Goodman. 2013. Government by design: Four principles for a better public sector. McKinsey Company.Google Scholar
- M. Fazekas, and T. Burns. 2012. Exploring the Complex Interaction between Governance and Knowledge in Education. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 67, OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
- F. Gains, and G. Stoker. 2009. Delivering 'public value': Implications for accountability and legitimacy. Parliamentary Affairs 62, 3 (2009), 438--455.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. Giffinger, C. Fertner, H. Kramar, E. Meijers, and N. Pichler-Milanović. 2007. Smart Cities: Ranking of European medium-sized cities. Vienna.Google Scholar
- J. R. Gil-García, T. A. Pardo, and T. Nam. 2016. A comprehensive view of the 21st century city: Smartness as technologies and innovation in urban contexts. In Smarter as the New Urban Agenda. Springer International Publishing, 1--19.Google Scholar
- T. Giuffrè, S. Marco Siniscalchia, and G. Tesorierea. 2012. A novel architecture of Parking management for Smart Cities. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 53, 3 (2012), 16--28.Google ScholarCross Ref
- S. Hagy, G. M. Morrison, and P. Elfstrand. 2017. Cocreation in Living Labs. In Living Labs. Springer International Publishing, 169--178.Google Scholar
- T. M. Harrison, S. Guerrero, G. B. Burke, M. Cook, A. Cresswell, N., Helbig, and T. Pardo. 2012. Open government and e-government: Democratic challenges from a public value perspective. Information Polity 17, 2 (2012), 83--97. Google ScholarDigital Library
- S. T. Kim. 2004. Toward a New Paradigm of E-government: from bureaucracy model to governance model. In Unpublished conference paper on E-governance: Effects on civil society, transparency and democracy, presented at the: 26th International Congress of Administrative Sciences. Seoul.Google Scholar
- N. King. 2004. Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In C.Cassell and G.Symon (Eds.) Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research. Sage, London, 256--270.Google Scholar
- J. Kooiman, M. Banvick, R, Chuenpadgee, R. Mahon, and R. Pullin. 2008. Interactive Governance and Governability: An Introduction. The Journal of Transdisciplinary Environmental Studies 7, 1 (2008), 1--11.Google Scholar
- J. Kooiman. 2003. Governing as governance. Sage, London.Google Scholar
- K. Kourtit, P. Nijkamp, and D. Arribas. 2012. Smart cities in perspective -- a comparative European study by means of self-organizing maps. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research 25, 2 (2012), 229--246.Google ScholarCross Ref
- H. Kudo, and B. Granier. 2016. Citizen Co-designed and Co-produced Smart City: Japanese Smart City Projects for Quality of Life and Resilience. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance. ACM, 240--249. Google ScholarDigital Library
- V. M. Larios, L. Gomez, O. B. Mora, R. Maciel, and N. Villanueva-Rosales. 2016. Living labs for smart cities: A use case in Guadalajara city to foster innovation and develop citizen-centered solutions. In Smart Cities Conference (ISC2), 2016 IEEE International. IEEE, 1--6.Google Scholar
- J. H. Lee, R. Phaal, and S-H. Lee. 2013. An integrated service-device-technology roadmap for smart city development. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 80, 2 (2013), 286--306.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. Linders. 2012. From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly 29, 4 (2012), 446--454.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. S. Matell, and J. Jacoby. 1971. Is there an optimal number of alternatives for Likert Scale Items? Study I: Reliability and Validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement 31, 3 (1971), 657--674.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Meijer., and M. P. Rodríguez Bolívar. 2016. Governing the smart city: a review of the literature on smart urban governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences 82, 2 (2016), 392--408.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Mintrom, and J. Luetjens. 2017. Creating Public Value: Tightening Connections between Policy Design and Public Management. Policy Studies Journal 45, 1 (2017), 170--190.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. H. Moore. 1995. Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Harvard university press.Google Scholar
- G. Norman, 2010. Likert scales, levels of measurement and the "laws" of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education 15, 5 (2010), 625--632.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Pearsall. 2016. Concise Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford: Oxford university press.Google Scholar
- S. Pinnegar, J. Marceau, and B. Randolph. 2008. Innovation for a carbon constrained city: Challenges for the built environment industry. Innovation 10, 2--3 (2008), 303--315.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. P. Rodríguez Bolívar. 2017a. Policy makers' perceptions on the transformational effect of Web 2.0 technologies on public services delivery. Electronic Commerce Research 17, 2 (2017a), 227--254. Google ScholarDigital Library
- M. P. Rodríguez Bolívar. 2017b. Governance Models for the Delivery of Public Services Through the Web 2.0 Technologies A Political View in Large Spanish Municipalities. Social Science Computer Review 35, 2 (2017b), 203--225.Google Scholar
- M. P. Rodríguez Bolívar. 2016. Characterizing the role of governments in smart cities: A literature review. In Smarter as the new urban agenda. Springer International Publishing, 49--71.Google Scholar
- M. P. Rodríguez Bolívar, and A. J. Meijer. 2016. Smart Governance Using a Literature Review and Empirical Analysis to Build a Research Model. Social Science Computer Review 34, 6 (2016), 673--692. Google ScholarDigital Library
- L. Rosado, S. Hagy, Y. Kalmykova, G. Morrison, and Y. Ostermeyer. 2015. A living lab co-creation environment exemplifying Factor 10 improvements in a city district. Journal of Urban Regeneration & Renewal 8, 2 (2015), 171--185.Google Scholar
- C. J. Russell, and P. Bobko. 1992. Moderated regression analysis and Likert scales: Too coarse for comfort. Journal of Applied Psychology 77, 3 (1992), 336--342.Google ScholarCross Ref
- H. Schaffers, N. Komninos, M. Pallot, M. Aguas, E. Almirall, T. Bakici, and H. Hielkema. 2012. Smart cities as innovation ecosystems sustained by the future internet.Google Scholar
- H. Scholl. 2009. Profiling the EG research community and its core. In Proceedings of 8th international conference on electronic government, EGOV 2009. Springer LNCS 5693, Berlin/Heidelberg, 1--12. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. Schuurman, L. De Marez, and P. Ballon. 2016. The Impact of Living Lab Methodology on Open Innovation Contributions and Outcomes. Technology Innovation Management Review 1, 6 (2016), 7--16.Google ScholarCross Ref
- C. Shirky. 2011. The political power of social media: Technology, the public sphere, and political change. Foreign affairs, (2011), 28--41.Google Scholar
- K. C. L. Span, K. K. G. Luijkx, J. M. G. A. Schols, and R. Schalk. 2012. The relationship between governance roles and performance in local public interorganizational networks: A conceptual analysis. American Review of Public Administration 42, 2 (2012), 186--201.Google ScholarCross Ref
- M. Uhl-Bien, R. Marion, and B. McKelvey. 2011. Complexity leadership theory: shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. In Leadership, Gender, and Organization. Springer, Netherlands, 109--138.Google Scholar
- E. Vigoda, 2002. From responsiveness to collaboration: Governance, citizens, and the next generation of public administration. Public Administration Review 62, 5 (2002), 527--540.Google ScholarCross Ref
- T. Wakita, N. Ueshima, and H. Noguchi. 2012. Psychological distance between categories in the Likert scale: comparing different numbers of options. Educational and Psychological Measuremen 72, 1 (2012), 533--546.Google ScholarCross Ref
- J. Webster, and R. T. Watson. 2002. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review (Editorial). MIS Quarterly 26, 2 (2002), xiii--xxiii. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. V. Winters. 2011. Why are smart cities growing? Who moves and who stays. Journal of Regional Science 51, 2 (2011), 253--270.Google ScholarCross Ref
- H. J. Scholl, and M. C. Scholl. 2014. Smart governance: A roadmap for research and practice. iConference 2014 Proceedings. 163--176.Google Scholar
- C. Manville, G. Cochrane, J. Cave, J. Millard, J. K. Pederson, R. K. Thaarup, A. Liebe, M. Wissner, R. Massink, and B. Kotterink. 2014.. Mapping smart cities in the EU. European Union, Brussels.Google Scholar
- V. Albino, U. Berardi, and R. M. Dangelico. 2015. Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives. Journal of Urban Technology 22, 1 (2015), 3--21.Google ScholarCross Ref
Recommendations
Mapping Dimensions of Governance in Smart Cities: Practitioners versus Prior Research
dg.o '16: Proceedings of the 17th International Digital Government Research Conference on Digital Government ResearchMany of the challenges to be faced by smart cities surpass the capacities, capabilities, and reaches of their traditional institutions and their classical processes of governing, and therefore new and innovative forms of governance are needed to meet ...
Fostering the Citizen Participation Models for Public Value Creation in Cooperative Environment of Smart Cities
Electronic GovernmentAbstractThe growth of smart cities is forcing governments to focus their efforts on the increase of public value creation. Based on prior research, on the perception of smart city practitioners and on an empirical observation, this paper seeks to analyse ...
Smart governance in the context of smart cities: A literature review
Special issue on Evidence-based Government: Secure, Transparent and Responsible Digital GovernanceThis literature review has focused on smart governance as an emerging domain of study that attracts significant scientific and policy attention. More specifically, this paper aims to provide more insight in the definitions of and relationships ...
Comments