Solving Urban Infrastructure Problems Using Smart City Technologies: Handbook on Planning, Design, Development, and Regulation

Part I

Overview of smart cities and infrastructure technologies: a comprehensive introduction

Outline

1 Introduction to the critical success factors of E-government adoption of the utilization of emerging smart cities technologies

2 Smart-city infrastructure components

3 Smart buildings and urban spaces

4 Urban mobility systems components

5 Coupling of the mobility and energy infrastructures as urban mobility needs evolve

6 Smart urban mobility traffic control system components

7 Urbanization and smart cities

8 Priority activities for smart cities and the infrastructure

1

Introduction to the critical success factors of E-government adoption of the utilization of emerging smart cities technologies

Nasser A. Saif Almuraqab,    Dubai Business School, University of Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Abstract

Mobile technologies are one of the pillars of smart cities; however, technologies that are available to use are not very welcomed by the end-users. Mobile technologies have huge potential to be one of the governments’ most effective and efficient tools to offer their services to public, also to oversee, control, and manage societies’ requirements and justice as well as enhancing their happiness. In order for the governments to offer acceptable and attainable mobile services, these services have to be utilized by citizens. This chapter will address the major factors that influence user acceptance of digital government services. As smart government is a new field, there is limited amount of research that could assist in identifying the factors that affect acceptance of these smart services. This study aimed to identify the factors that will improve end-users’ acceptance of E-government services via smart devices and thereby guide successful implementation of smart government and smart city.

Keywords

Adoption; smart government; E-government; M-government; acceptance; smart city; innovation; technology; UTAUT

1.1 Introduction

A city that screens and integrates its critical infrastructures, including roads, bridges, tunnels, rail/subways, airports, seaports, communications, water, and power can better optimize its resources, plan its preventive maintenance activities, and monitor security aspects while maximizing services to its citizens [1]. It is a city that is managed by a network and provides its citizens with services and content via the network using both fixed and mobile smart-city infrastructure, based on higher performance information and communication technology (ICT) [2].

In the smart-city age, government services aim to provide many benefits such as humanizing the processes and operations of government services and improving information sharing between the government and community. It also delivers citizens the services in professional means, securely, safely, expediently, and with significant time savings. However, implementing smart government requires its citizen to understand and accept these services to achieve the intended plan of the government initiative [3]. Mobile government (M-government) is seen as a class of E-government applications and refers to any transaction thru mobile technologies. For the purpose of this chapter, the terms M-government and smart government are used interchangeably.

The research aims to discuss the M-government services available in various countries. With this aim, this chapter identifies the factors that affect the successful adoption of mobile services from the academic perspectives. Mobile technologies are one of the pillars of smart cities; however, technologies that are available to use are not very welcomed by the end-users. The study will help to understand the key issues surrounding the mobile applications that hamper the successful operations of M-government. If the technologies of M-government cannot smoothly operate then the vision of having a smart city in place will be impossible. In fact, one of the main digital government project failure is lack of awareness of the potential factors that may help people or citizens to adopt the services, because smart government require engagement and use by people. Therefore this research work will provide a theoretical framework or conceptual model to help us to pursue further empirical research for successful implementation of smart government and smart cities.

1.2 E-government and M-government

There is a strong relationship between E-government and M-government. The main reasons that influence the move from E-government to M-government are mobile devices penetration, appearance of mobile Internet, mobile applications, and services [4]. Internet-enabled mobile devices’ penetration rates are growing compared to the traditional wired personal computers (PCs) as well as Internet penetration rates. This spectacular growth has changed how citizens perceive the mobile phones functionality [5]. It is no longer used only for voice communication anymore, but also as a way for convenient connectivity to the Internet used for transferring information, exchanging instant messages, and emails as well as doing business transactions.

E-government involves a multidimensional approach embracing the consideration (from the strategic layer to the technical layer) of distinct aspects (organizational, cultural, economic, social, and political) and the core phases of E-government (from information to personalization level of E-government maturity). Among other things, enumeration of success factors that are crucial for adopting E-government is becoming an important task. Most governments around the globe utilize the latest ICT to improve services’ delivery to citizens by introducing E-government [6,7].

E-government has been defined as the application of ICTs to transform the efficiency, effectiveness, transparency, and accountability of informational and transactional exchanges within government units, between government units at state and local levels, citizens, and businesses; and to empower citizens through access and use of public information and public services. Previous researches and other works allow us to draw the following concept of E-government. E-government represents:

• E-administration: Improving government processes by using ICTs and government process management.

• E-government services: Providing government services electronically for citizens, businesses, employees, and other stakeholders.

• E-democracy: Improving transparency and democratic decision making as well as citizen’s participation.

• E-governance: Developing cooperation, networking, and partnerships between government units, citizens, and business.

In the last decade, some of the governments have observed the rapid progression of wireless technologies and the extensive of Internet-enabled mobile devices in many countries [4]. This encouraged these governments to move naturally toward mobile government as a next step to improve the quality and delivery of their services [8,9]. M-government is an added value to the E-government, since citizens will be able to access E-government services using mobile technologies such as mobile phones as well as Wi-Fi enabled devices and wireless networks in delivering public services [10].

1.3 M-government adoption in developing countries

M-government is essential for socio-economic development of a country with such support that a government cannot efficiently operate. In the many countries, mobile services such as M-payment and M-banking are available. To my knowledge, the adoption of M-government in many developing countries is generally not taken seriously by academia and practitioners. By reviewing the existing literature, the chapter will identify the determinants of the success acceptance of M-government that expedite the successful establishment of smart city.

This study has analyzed many research papers to identify success factors. Academics have identified various E-government adoption success factors (e.g., [11]; [12]).

Additionally, there is a lack of proven scientific theories on and experience in the adoption of M-government in developing countries. These countries face challenges in making ICTs work over time and institutionalizing them in daily routines within their government units. Among other things, it is very important to identify success factors for successful E-government adoption. Having reviewed the relevant literature, the possible success factors for adopting M-government are shown in Tables 1.1 and 1.2.

Table 1.1

Table 1.2

1.4 Smart government in developing counties: the case of United Arab Emirates

Nowadays, government sectors aim to provide citizens with more accessible, accurate, real-time, and high-quality services and information. In the United Arab Emirates (UAE), His Highness Shaikh Mohammad Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice-President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, has declared a project to convert Dubai into a smart city, linking the emirate’s government services and the public through the use of smart devices accessed freely using high-speed wireless Internet connections. He directed all the government services to create mobile services within 2 years, and they have spent a lot to achieve his objective. Dubai Smart Government (DSG) is an inventive initiative that provides a wide array of online services for both business and personal requirements. Shaikh Mohammed stated his move toward smart government on March 22, 2013. DSG mission is to formulate and implement policies and initiatives for innovative and smart ICT usage contributing to economic welfare, social progress, and global competitiveness of Dubai. According to His Highness, I want UAE Government services to be delivered to the public through mobile phones. In May 2013, he formally broadcasted a new vision for the future following a meeting with government officials. The project M-government followed an earlier E-government initiative announced in 2000 to bring all the government services online. Shaikh Mohammed tweeted at the time. DSG department offers services to government entities and employees through its corporate website, and many smart mobile applications The government of the future works 24/7 and 365 days a year. A successful government is one that goes to the people and does not wait for them to come to it [48].

Telecommunication manufacturing especially in mobile phones are moving into an era where data and video usages will be as important as voice practices. In 2015 the number of mobile phone users reached up to 4.4 billion, this reflects the potential of mobile business. Smart government has become a present focus of government efforts in many countries. Some of these countries have proceeded to implement and adopt their smart government mobile applications and services. It replicates the target for public organizations and governments to take advantage of the communications improvements made possible by the ICT revolution. In recent years, Smart devices entered the market and somehow replacing computers, and laptops, as a result, governments aligned its strategy on with these technologies. For the next stage of government strategies, there was a big jump from being E-governments serving citizens from web pages over Internet browsers using desktop or laptops, to serving users from the mobile smart devices. Therefore the M-government is an essential part of the E-government. M-government definition is the strategy to taking advantage of all resources such as services, applications, wireless mobile technologies, and devices for providing benefits to end-users of E-government.

The Telecommunication Regulatory Authority [49] report mentioned that UAE ICT development considered the fastest growing segment globally moving from rank 45 to 33 in 2013, and now they moved one place to be 32 in 2014 (TRA Sixth Annual Market Review). The report presented that UAE is second to Bahrain in terms of mobile services readiness. The TRA confirmed that more than 85% of UAE population is using mobile services and accessing Internet from their smart devices. The total number of broadband subscribers increased by 4.6% between 2013 and 2014. UAE Vision 2021: it is found out about the services that users want to get it and deliver them easy services that surpass their expectations via mobile phones [50].

On the other hand, when it comes to M-government utilization, Khaleej Times (newspaper) reported based on a survey in May 2015 that 65% of the respondents have never used the M-government applications, while 96% of them have smartphones, and furthermore they also found out that 71% installed less than 10 apps, which is an indicator that there is a problem in M-government services adoption in the UAE [51]. This problem required to be researched and to reveal the main factors influencing endusers’ behavior to use or accept the M-government services in the GCC.

1.5 Conceptual model of smart government adoption

From the literature, it was found that citizen’s satisfaction; information accuracy; information exchange; security; privacy and trust; support from the government; ICT skills; and facilities that were offered, were some of the factors for the success of M-government. This research attempted to clarify the concept of smart government and reviews key success factors of E-government and M-government as mentioned by scholars in the existing literature. Based on the previous work, the researcher gathered the key success factors for adopting smart government are identified and the model of success factors is proposed as a theoretical framework, taking in consideration the gaps found in literature especially the social-cultural values as argued by Ref. [52] such as gender, age and education, as shown in Fig. 1.1. The conceptual model is an extended UTAUT (Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology) with some major factors and moderators found from literature.

Figure 1.1 Smart government conceptual framework.

1.6 Conclusion and future research

This research explored the relevant issues around smart government; adoption by citizens; and, their relationship to the publics’ intention to accept these services. The successful adoption of E-government using the emerging technologies or smart government means the successful implementation of the services by all stakeholders (government employees, citizens, and businesses). However, it requires:

• the coordination of many activities of government units and

• close cooperation of employees, managers, IT specialists as well as citizens and businesses ([15,24]).

In the future, it is important to test the developed model in the context to examine the success factors that influencing such digital government services adoption.

1.7 Summary

This chapter focused on the smart services adoption generally and more specific on government new smart initiatives; it is critical to investigate the predictors to provide better insight of the factors required for better implementation and to achieve the government objectives, people must accept and use these digital services. Governments moved to smart-city era due to the high penetration of smart devices. The extensive literature review summarized in Table 1.2 explained the major determinants of digital government acceptance, which also should be considered in any smart-city technology or system for better acceptance. The study suggested a conceptual model based on UTAUT with additions of major variables and moderators drawn from previous studies in order to understand these services from citizens/people point of view, or in other words from bottom-up direction for better perception. In addition, it covered one of the major gaps found in literature that is socio-cultural values because it is critical to understand citizens’ acceptance predictors of digital government services.

Finally, let us move on to the real interactive part of this chapter: review questions/exercises, hands-on projects, case projects, and optional team case project. The answers and/or solutions by chapter can be found in Appendix G.

1.8 Chapter review questions/exercises

1.8.1 True/False

1. True or False? In the smart-city age, government services aim to provide many benefits such as humanizing the processes and operations of government services and improving information sharing between the government and community.

2. True or False? E-government involves a single-dimensional approach that embraces the consideration of distinct aspects and the core phases of E-government.

3. True or False? M-government is essential for socio-economic development of a country with such support that a government can efficiently operate.

4. True or False? Nowadays, government sectors aim to provide citizens with more accessible, accurate, real-time, and high-quality services and information.

5. True or False? The successful adoption of E-government using the emerging technologies or smart government means the unsuccessful implementation of the services by all stakeholders (government employees, citizens, and businesses).

1.8.2 Multiple choice

1. Most governments around the globe utilize the latest:

a. Transparency and accountability technology

b. Informational and transactional technology

c. Aggregate technology

d. Information and communication technology

e. Silo model technology

2. E-government represents:

a. E-administration

b. E-government services

c. E-democracy

d. E-governance

e. All of the above

3. There is a lack of proven scientific theories on and experience in the adoption of ________________ in developing countries.

a. M-government

b. E-government

c. I-government

d. U-government

e. S-government

4. What is moving into era where data and video usages will be as important as voice practices?

a. Wireless mobile technologies

b. Mobile services readiness

c. Telecommunication manufacturing

d. M-government services

e. All of the above

5. What is an extended UTAUT (Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology) with some major factors and moderators?

a. Silo model

b. Conceptual model

c. Session model

d. Virtual model

e. Flexible model

1.8.3 Exercise

1.8.3.1 Problem

What are the critical success factors of E-government policy formulation, implementation, and execution?

1.8.4 Hands-on projects

1.8.4.1 Problem

Why is E-government implementation not straightforward?

1.8.5 Case projects

1.8.5.1 Problem

How is the meta-ethnography method used for synthesizing qualitative findings?

1.8.6 Optional team case project

1.8.6.1 Problem

With regards to E-government implementation, how do researchers seek to describe, understand, and translate phenomena through the meanings that people assign to them?

References

1. R.E. Hall, B. Bowerman, J. Braverman, J. Taylor, H. Todosow, U. Von Wimmersperg, The Vision of a Smart City (No. BNL-67902; 04042). Brookhaven National Lab., Upton, NY, 2000.

2. Lee JH, Phaal R, Lee SH. An integrated service-device-technology roadmap for smart city development. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2013;80(2):286–306.

3. M. Kaliannan, H. Awang, M. Ramann, Technology adoption in the public sector: an exploratory study of e-government in Malaysia, in: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, ACM, December 2007, pp. 221–224.

4. M. Hassan, T. Jaber, Z. Hamdan, Adaptive mobile-government framework, in: Proceedings of the International Conference on Administrative Development: Towards Excellence in Public Sector Performance, November 2009.

5. I. Kushchu, H. Kuscu, From E-government to M-government: facing the inevitable, in: The 3rd European Conference on e-Government, MCIL Trinity College Dublin Ireland, July 2003, pp. 253–260.

6. J. Choudrie, Y. Dwivedi, A survey of citizens adoption and awareness of e-government initiatives, the government gateway: a United Kingdom perspective, in: E-Government Workshop, Brunel University, West London, 2005.

7. Mofleh SI, Wanous M. Understanding factors influencing citizens adoption of e-government services in the developing world: the case for Jordan. INFOCOMP. 2008;7(2):1–11.

8. S. Al-khamayseh, E. Lawrence, A. Zmijewska, Towards understanding success factors in interactive mobile government, in: The Proceedings of Euro mGov, December 2006.

9. L. Antovski, M. Gusev, M-government framework, in: Euro mGov, vol. 2005, July 2005, pp. 36–44.

10. A.F. Ghyasi, I. Kushchu, m-Government: Cases of Developing Countries. M-GovLab Intl. Univ. Japan. Electron. Ref., 2004 (Retrieved September 19, 2009).

11. Almarabeh T, AbuAli A. A general framework for e-government: definition maturity challenges, opportunities, and success. Eur J Sci Res. 2010;39(1):29–42.

12. Almuraqab NAS. M-Government adoption factors in the UAE: a partial least squares approach. Int J Bus Inf. 2017;11.

13. Ifinedo P, Singh M. Determinants of eGovernment maturity in the transition economies of Central and Eastern Europe. Electron J e-government. 2011;9(2):166.

14. Nfuka EN, Rusu L. The effect of critical success factors on IT governance performance. Ind Manag Data Syst. 2011;111(9):1418–1448.

15. Choudrie J, Weerakkody V, Jones S. Realising e-government in the UK: rural and urban challenges. J Enterp Inf Manag. 2005;18(5):568–585.

16. Ebrahim Z, Irani Z. E-government adoption: architecture and barriers. Bus Process Manag J. 2005;11(5):589–611.

17. Davison RM, Wagner C, Ma LC. From government to e-government: a transition model. Inf Technol People. 2005;18(3):280–299.

18. Marche S, McNiven JD. E-government and e-governance: the future isn’t what it used to be. Can J Adm Sci. 2003;20(1):74–86.

19. Reddick CG. A two-stage model of e-government growth: theories and empirical evidence for US cities. Gov Inf Q. 2004;21(1):51–64.

20. Moon MJ, Norris DF. Does managerial orientation matter? The adoption of reinventing government and e-government at the municipal level. Inf Syst J. 2005;15(1):43–60.

21. Oyomno GZ. Towards a framework for assessing the maturity of government capabilities for ‘e-government’. Afr J Inf Commun. 2003;2003(4):77–97.

22. Kachwamba M, Hussein A. Determinants of e-government maturity: do organizational specific factors matter?. J US-China Public Adm. 2009;6(7):1–8.

23. Pina V, Torres L, Royo S. E-government evolution in EU local governments: a comparative perspective. Online Inf Rev. 2009;33(6):1137–1168.

24. Beynon-Davies P. Models for e-government. TGPPP. 2007;1(1):7–28.

25. Abu-Shanab E, Haider S. Major factors influencing the adoption of m-government in Jordan. Electron Govern Int J. 2015;11(4):223–240.

26. Abdelghaffar H, Magdy Y. The adoption of mobile government services in developing countries: the case of Egypt. Int J Inf. 2012;2(4):333–341.

27. Althunibat A, Sahari N. Modelling the factors that influence mobile government services acceptance. Afr J Bus Manag. 2011;5(34):13030–13043.

28. A. Babullah, Y.K. Dwivedi, M.D. Williams, Saudi citizens’ perceptions on mobile government (mGov) adoption factors, in: UKAIS, April 2015, p. 8.

29. Jasimuddin SM, Mishra N, Almuraqab NAS. Modelling the factors that influence the acceptance of digital technologies in e-government services in the UAE: a PLS-SEM Approach. Prod Plan Control. 2017;28(16):1307–1317.

30. Dahi M, Ezziane Z. Measuring e-government adoption in Abu Dhabi with technology acceptance model (TAM). Int J Electron Gov. 2015;7(3):206–231.

31. S. Sabraz Nawaz, S. Thelijjagoda, Sri Lankan Citizens’ Use Behaviour Towards E-Government Services, 2015.

32. Khalil OE. The adoption of the traffic violation E-payment system (TVEPS) of Kuwait. Electron J E-Government. 2014;12(1):3.

33. M. Alsaif, Factors Affecting Citizens’ Adoption of E-government Moderated by Socio-cultural Values in Saudi Arabia (Doctoral dissertation), University of Birmingham, 2014.

34. Ovais Ahmad M, Markkula J, Oivo M. Factors affecting e-government adoption in Pakistan: a citizen’s perspective. TGPPP. 2013;7(2):225–239.

35. M. Alshehri, S. Drew, R. AlGhamdi, Analysis of Citizens Acceptance for E-government Services: Applying the UTAUT Model. arXiv preprint arXiv:1304.3157, 2013.

36. Alomari M, Woods P, Sandhu K. Predictors for e-government adoption in Jordan: Deployment of an empirical evaluation based on a citizen-centric approach. Inf Technol People. 2012;25(2):207–234.

37. Rehman M, Esichaikul V, Kamal M. Factors influencing e-government adoption in Pakistan. TGPPP. 2012;6(3):258–282.

38. Hussein R, Mohamed N, Rahman Ahlan A, Mahmud M. E-government application: an integrated model on G2C adoption of online tax. TGPPP. 2011;5(3):225–248.

39. Shareef MA, Archer N, Dwivedi YK. Examining adoption behavior of mobile government. J Comput Inf Syst. 2012;53(2):39–49.

40. Sang S, Lee JD, Lee J. E-government adoption in Cambodia: a partial least squares approach. TGPPP. 2010;4(2):138–157.

41. Carter L. E-government diffusion: a comparison of adoption constructs. TGPPP. 2008;2(3):147–161.

42. L. Carter, F. Belanger, Citizen adoption of electronic government initiatives, in: Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE, January 2004, 10pp.

43. Carter L, Bélanger F. The utilization of e-government services: citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors. Inf Syst J. 2005;15(1):5–25.

44. S. AlAwadhi, A. Morris, The use of the UTAUT model in the adoption of E-government services in Kuwait, in: Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE, January 2008, p. 219.

45. Suki NM, Ramayah T. User acceptance of the e-government services in Malaysia: structural equation modelling approach. Interdiscip J Inform Knowl Manag. 2010;5:395–414.

46. Carter L, Weerakkody V. E-government adoption: a cultural comparison. Inf Syst Front. 2008;10(4):473–482.

47. S. Al-Shafi, V. Weerakkody, Factors Affecting E-government Adoption in the State of Qatar, 2010.

48. Dubai smart government. <http://www.dsg.gov.ae/en/AboutUs/Pages/VisionMission.aspx>, 2018.

49. TRA, UAE telecommunications sector developments & indicators, 2010–2013, 5th Annual Sector Review. <http://www.tra.gov.ae/en/open-data/annual-market-review.aspx>, 2014.

50. Dubai.ae. <http://www.dubai.ae/SiteCollectionDocuments/UAE_Vision_2021_English.pdf>, 2016.

51. Khaleej Times.<http://www.khaleejtimes.com/nation/government/96.3-marks-for-m-government-initiative-in-41-entities>, 2015.

52. Almuraqab NAS, Mansoor W. Does gender matter on mobile government (M-government) services acceptance? An exploratory study. Int J Eng Technol Manag Appl Sci. 2017;5(4):2349–4476.

2

Smart-city infrastructure components

Amir Hoshang Fakhimi¹, Ali Hossein Khani² and Javad Majrouhi Sardroud³,    ¹1Department of Civil Engineering, Kashan University, Islamic Azad University, Kashan, Iran,    ²2Department of Civil Engineering, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran,    ³3Department of Civil Engineering, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Nowadays, with the growth of population and urban amenities, the population of cities, urbanization, and the need for urban infrastructures are increasing. The infrastructures are essential to make cities more efficient and have undeniable effects on cities’ productivity, economy, and security. On the other hand, with the development of digital technologies, their use in different aspects of people’s lives and society’s welfare has increased. What is now called the smart city has been created by the implementation of digital technologies in different aspects of urban management and is considered as one of the pillars of the Industry 4.0. The ultimate goal of smart city is to create a new urban management perspective that focuses on all aspects of urban real life. To this end, this chapter described the main components of the smart-city infrastructure, in the form of social, physical, and digital platforms with 12 domains and 48 main components.

Keywords

Smart-city infrastructure; smart digital; smart physical; smart society

2.1 Introduction

Anytime, Smart cities necessitate the infrastructure that need to perform the functions they are intended for. Since there is no single definition for smart city yet [1], its infrastructure cannot be considered as a single and unique set. Therefore, different references have introduced various sets and categories of infrastructure for a smart city. Infrastructure has different definitions which, each of them based on its own context. Infrastructure includes core systems and services that are essential to the productivity of an organization or country (an overall view), support growth and prosperity (business perspective), and are based on the interconnection of various equipment over a networked platform (IT technology perspective) [2]. Infrastructures are crucial to boosting the efficiency of cities and have undeniable effects on boosting productivity and supporting the national economy. Therefore, it can be argued that the main goals of infrastructure in cities are to improve local, regional, national, and international communications for the people by expanding the physical systems needed and utilizing new information technologies. Since infrastructures have a major impact on sustainable urban development, quality of life, and economics in urban communities [1], their development is one of the most important functions of governments around the world.

In addition to infrastructure, the word smart also has different meanings. Intelligence in the economic environment is focused on the people (users) and differs in consciousness because of its user friendly and applicability [3]. Intelligence can be explored and defined from different perspectives. Intelligence for smart cities focuses on strategic orientation in smart growth of people and statesmen (urban planning perspective) with the use of intelligent technologies based on intelligent services and artificial intelligence (technological perspective) to achieve the main goals of the smart city [3]. Today industry is transitioning from the Third Industrial Revolution to the Fourth Industrial Revolution. In the fourth industrial revolution, known as Industry 4.0, the parameters are based on the use of intelligence as its main parameters. Thus smart cities are expected to be one of the main pillars of the Fourth Industrial Revolution [4].

Researchers, standards, and guidelines for smart city have made different definitions. Each of them has defined the smart city based on their ideas and perceptions and has provided various subcategories such as base, scope, core components, subcomponents, and identications (IDs). For example, the EU has introduced 6 characters, 31 parameters, and 74 identifiers for smart cities [5]. In this chapter, first of all, based on the realities of smart cities, an academic literature review based on journal articles and conference proceedings, case studies, standards, and business reports, smart city is defined and then its platforms, domains, and the main components with its subcomponents have been developed. Since the main purpose of this chapter is to explain the smart-city infrastructure components, the platforms, domains, and main components of the smart city have been explained and other items including subcomponents, and identifiers are not described in detail.

2.2 Smart-city definitions

Cities are places where many people live and work. They are the poles of government, commerce and transportation [6]. Therefore cities are the intersection of people’s lives and infrastructure. Today, urban and urban life is on the rise, and over time the population is increasing. For example, at the beginning of the 20th century, the number of cities with a population of over one million was 371, reaching 548 in 2018 and expected to reach 701 by 2030 [6]. Increasing the urban population increases the need for urban infrastructure. On the other hand, with the advancement of technology and the development of digital technologies, their use in different aspects of people’s lives and welfare has increased. What is now called the smart city has also been created by the use of digital technologies in better city administration. The city of Amsterdam was introduced to the world as the first digital city in 1994, and since then the concept has grown rapidly in the world. Since then various titles such as wired city, ubiquitous city, intelligent city, digital city, smart community, knowledge city, learning city, sustainable city, green city, virtual city, hybrid city, eco city, etc. have been used to integrate digital technology in cities [3,7,8]. In addition, much research has been done on the research from a study in 1994 to 184 articles in 2012 [8] and has reached over 1931 related articles in 2018 [9]. It comes from the multitude of titles and terms used for the concept of smart city that its definition and function have not yet been defined and unified, but they all agree on the intersection of the key parameters in the concept of smart city including urban society, physical infrastructure, and digital technologies. Despite the various definitions that have been provided for the smart city so far, the two procedures are clearly distinguishable in terms of the definition of the smart city. On the one hand, there are a set of definitions that emphasize an urban aspect (technological, ecological, or …) regardless of the other conditions involved in a city. This group does not realize that the ultimate goal of smart city is to create a new urban management perspective that addresses all aspects of urban real life, and improvement in one part of the urban ecosystem does not imply that all problems are resolved. On the other hand, some scholars emphasize that the main difference between smart cities and existing cities is the connection between all aspects of the city.

Problems of urbanization, infrastructure, social, and organizational are reflected at the same time in the concept of smart city. According to this definition, infrastructure is a central element in a smart city and is the technology, which enables it, but to be a truly smart city, the combination, communication, and integration of all systems is essential. From this definition, it can be deduced that the concept of smart city implies a holistic view of urban management and development. It illustrates the equilibrium of technology and the socio-economic factors involved in the urban ecosystem [10]. Based on the second view, some of the definitions proposed for smart cities as shown below by various researchers, are given in terms of these parameters of urban society, physical infrastructure and digital technologies:

Smart cities respond to challenges such as climate change, rapid population growth, and political and economic instability, and fundamentally improve how society participates. Adopts participatory leadership practices, across disciplines and urban systems, work and utilize new data, information and technologies to better deliver services and quality of life to those are in the city (residents, businesses, and visitors) and for the foreseeable future, without harming others or destroying the natural environment [11].

Smart city is a city that integrates technology and the natural environment to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of processes in all aspects of operations, to achieve sustainable development, safety, and health for residents, with the aim of enhancing the quality of life of citizens, society, and the environment [12].

Smart city strives to improve urban performance through the use of data, information, and information technologies to provide more efficient services to citizens, monitor and optimize existing infrastructures, increase collaboration between different economic actors, and innovative business models in both public and private sectors [13].

A smart city is recognized as a distinct geographical area capable of managing sustainably resources (natural, human), equipment, buildings and infrastructure, and waste without causing environmental damage [14].

The application of information and communication technology (ICT) along with its effects on education/human resources, communication and social resources, and environmental issues are often illustrated by the concept of smart city [15].

Smart city is a city that monitors all essential infrastructure needs, including roads, bridges, tunnels, rails, subways, airports, seaports, communications, water, power, and even major buildings, to provide maximum service to citizens. It can optimize its resources, plan preventive activities, and monitor aspects of safety [16].

Given the preceding definitions of smart city, it is possible to provide an integrated definition of smart city that encompasses all major parameters including society, physical infrastructure, and digital technologies. Obviously, neglecting any of the parameters will causes imbalances in functions of the smart city. Therefore, the definition provided by the ISO standard can be taken into account and the definition of smart city is as follows:

A smart city is a city focused on participatory leadership practices, enhancing community participation and united services, facilities, physical, and digital infrastructures to provide better services and a higher quality of life to those are in the city (residents, businesses, and visitors) by looking at the future and avoiding environmental degradation.

2.3 Smart-city key foundations (PILARS)

Smart cities are rapidly expanding in terms of how they deliver services and use of new technologies; thus, smart cities require a certain type of planning, such as dynamic adaptive policy paths, to adapt themselves to changes in unknown environment [17]. Cities in their essence are constantly changing. Technology, on the other hand, is constantly changing. So smart-city planning needs to be fully coordinated with these changes. Today, urban planners for smart cities are interested in their interactions [18,19]. Lack of a well-defined and widely accepted definition of smart city on the one hand and the lack of a standardized plan with specific parameters at all levels, strategic, tactical, and operational, on the other hand has made urban planners operationalize some of the features available to them to take smart parameters in cities. Researchers have done various research to introduce the pillars of smart cities, which have led to different categories for them.

The way researchers look at key pillars of smart cities varies. Some have focused on digital technologies and some have focused on the physical infrastructure needed as key pillars of the smart city. However, some scholars have focused on community-centric, smart cities and emphasized that physical infrastructure and digital technologies support the lifestyle, culture, behavior, and needs of the community [1,20,21]. The Table 2.1 provides a summary of some research in this area.

Table 2.1

From the research cited by various researchers, it can be seen that they all agree on three main pillars: community, physical infrastructure, and digital technologies for the smart city. Therefore, in this chapter, considering the vital role of society, smart society is considered as the basis of smart city. Smart physical infrastructure and digital infrastructure are also considered as two other basic platforms for a smart city (Fig. 2.1).

Figure 2.1 Three main pillars of a smart city.

Urban planning for the smart city has strategic, tactical, and operational levels that will add to its technological richness as we move from strategic level to operational level. The platforms of the smart city lie at the strategic level and at the tactical level finds different domains. Smart-city domains also have their own operational-level components, which is the subject of this chapter. To implement the plans of a smart city, we need to be able to implement each of its components in practice, and that is why some of the components of the smart city will go deeper. The subcomponents for each of the main components fall into this category. In addition, identifiers are defined to measure the performance of the main components and subcomponents and to use feedback from each component of the smart-city subcomponent. The main task of identifiers is to evaluate the effectiveness of the strategies, tactics, and components considered to implement them. Therefore, in this chapter, in order to make it possible to adapt urban planning and its stages, the hierarchical smart-city structure is based on platforms (strategic level), domains (tactical level), main components (operational level), subcomponents, and identifiers.

2.4 Smart-city infrastructure platforms and domains

As it mentioned earlier, infrastructure consist of core systems and services that enhance the country’s productivity by supporting growth and prosperity based on the interconnection of various equipment over the network platform [2]. Given this definition and key factors involved in the creation of smart-city infrastructure, an academic literature review has been conducted in this research, including research papers, case studies, standards, and guidelines and based on it, (1) smart-society infrastructure, (2) smart physical infrastructure, and (3) smart digital infrastructure, were chosen as the basic infrastructures (platforms) of a smart city. In addition to three basic infrastructures for any smart city, research was carried out to find the domains, the main components and the subcomponents of each platform, which resulted in the selection of 12 domains and 48 main components (see Table 2.2). The selection of domains for each platform is based on the identified functions for each platform in literature review. Accordingly, smart-society infrastructure domains include people, governance, economy, and lifestyle, while smart physical infrastructure domains include the environment, mobility, utility, and living. Networks, data, sensors, and communication are considered as the smart digital infrastructure domains of a smart city. The difference between the main components and the subcomponents is whether or not each component is dependent on the other components. Components associated and dependent to each component are considered as subcomponents. Later in this chapter, the main components of the smart city are described in more detail.

Table 2.2

2.4.1 Smart-society infrastructures

The smart society is so intertwined with the concept of the smart city, that it has been accepted as the future of the smart city or the next generation of smart-city initiative by some scholars. Despite extensive research and efforts to make the community smarter, research has not yet been completed on the precise definition of the smart society and its infrastructure and components. Governments of Japan, Singapore, China, and the European Union have done extensive research on the smart society and its infrastructure [70,71]. The concept of Society 5.0 introduced by the Japanese government, is the richest concept for it. In this sense, the capability for richer live by integrating physical and digital infrastructures for the citizens of a smart city is centered on what people consider to be the next generation of information society or Society 4.0 [72]. In addition, a society where digital technology improves people’s well-being, economic power, and effectiveness of organizations is considered a smart society [73]. Infrastructure in the smart society links people’s lifestyles and economies by using facilities that governments have prepared for their well-being. Accordingly, smart people, smart government, smart economy, and smart lifestyles are considered as domains of smart-society infrastructure (Fig.