SMART CITY PROFILES
Deliverable 2.1 Part 1
Introduction
Authors:
Rudolf Giffinger
Hans Kramar
Nataša Pichler-Milanović
Florian Strohmayer
May 2014
Theoretical background1
For various reasons, cities aim at improving their competitiveness and their position in
comparison to other cities (Begg 1999). Since the European integration process has
diminished, differences in economic, social and environmental standards (PichlerMilanovic 2005), cities have converged in their basic conditions for competition, which
is increasingly scaled down from the national level to the level of cities and regions
(Storper 1995). However, socio-economic inequalities are still considerable on a
regional level, although the efforts of Cohesion Policy have largely succeeded in reducing
disparities between the richer and the poorer countries. Nevertheless new member
states face a growing economic gap between central urban areas and remote rural
regions (Kramar 2006). This trend enhances the importance of specific local
characteristics, which provide comparative advantages competing for increasingly
footloose and mobile global enterprises, investors, tourists and capital (Parkinson et al.
2003, Giffinger et al. 2003). Facing this development, urban competitiveness and
corresponding strategic approaches have become important efforts of urban politics.
In this situation, city rankings have experienced a remarkable boom and increasingly
attract public attention. In these comparative studies, cities are evaluated and ranked
with regard to different economic, social and geographical characteristics in order to
reveal the best (and the worst) places regarding either quality of life or conditions for
economic activities. In this way, the comparison of cities can support stakeholders on
the one hand, but it can also be an important guide for future city development on the
other. Having realized these specific potentials of city rankings, policymakers
increasingly make use of their results. Thus, city rankings have become an important
empirical base for disclosing comparative advantages and sharpening specific profiles
and consequently for defining goals and strategies for future development. Secondly,
positive results in a widely published and approved city ranking can also be
used as a central part of a city’s marketing strategy as a top rank in a highly reputed
ranking definitely helps to improve the international image of a city. As part of this
process, city rankings reinforce the competitive perspective steering urban
development; their placing focuses the strategic efforts of urban politics mostly on
strengths, neglecting weaknesses.
The Smart Cities’ Approach
Smart City projects are developed as a consequence of increasing city competition in
Europe, which has been induced by economic globalisation and political integration
processes (Begg 1999) and which very obviously enforced cities to steer urban
development in a more strategic way: Since European cities are characterised by
diverging historic backgrounds, different functions and conflicting interests, a specific
positioning within the European urban system is a rather complex challenge, which
demands well-reflected strategic planning and governance endeavours based on local
conditions. Hence, the specific strengths and weaknesses of a city are the central base
for defining future development options.
1
This chapter was published as “Introduction” in Giffinger et al. 2010.
2
The “European Smart Cities” approach, which was elaborated by Vienna University of
Technology (Centre of Regional Science) in 2007 and revised for the specific
requirements of the PLEEC project in 2013, concentrates on medium-sized cities and
their perspectives for competitive and sustainable development. Even though the vast
majority of the urban population lives in such cities, the main focus of urban research
tends to be on ‘global’ metropolises. As a result, the challenges of medium-sized cities,
which can be rather different, remain unexplored to a certain degree. Medium-sized
cities, which have to compete with larger metropolises on corresponding issues, appear
to be less equipped in terms of resources and organizing capacities. In order to enforce
endogenous development and to achieve a good position, these cities have to identify
their strengths and opportunities even more carefully and to ensure comparative
advantages in various key resources against other cities of the same level.
City rankings and city profiles describing a broad variety of characteristics can be
helpful tools to identify specific assets of a city in a benchmarking process. Rankings,
which have become quite common recently, largely differ in their approaches or
methods: Due to diverging objectives and methodological approaches, they often
produce deviating results. Therefore, the following chapter does not primarily aim at
providing a ranking of cities, but at elaborating individual city profiles, which allow and
support comparative benchmarking from different perspectives.
These “Smart City”-profiles aim at supporting a forward-looking and evidence-based
strategic planning considering two different components of urban development: First,
the evaluation of cities has to consider issues as awareness, flexibility, transformability,
synergy, individuality and self-decisive behaviour. Especially awareness seems
important for a “smart” city as certain potentials can only be mobilised if inhabitants,
companies or administrations are well aware of the cities’ position. This kind of
assessment must not be confined to the internal structure of the city but has to consider
its surrounding regions and its position in the regional system of cities. Second, the
profiles should not only focus on single aspects, but consider all fields of urban
development, which requires a clear and transparent identification of characteristics for
the evaluation (Giffinger et al. 2007). In this context the “Smart City”-profiles identify six
key fields of urban development (see Figure 2) incorporating the main aspects of
“Smartness”, as indicated in the following definition:
“Smart City is a city well performing in [relevant key fields of urban development],
built on the ‘smart’ combination of endowments and activities of self-decisive,
independent and aware citizens.” (Giffinger et al. 2007)
Accordingly, ‘smart’ implies the implicit or explicit ambition and intention of the citizens
and stakeholders to improve its performance in the given characteristics (Giffinger et al.
2007).
3
The evaluation of Smart Cities’ profiles
Six ‘smart’ key fields of urban development
were identified as the relevant characteristics
of Smart City: economy, people, mobility,
environment, living and governance (see
Figure 1). They are broken down into 28
relevant factors together with the selection of
81 components/indicators from publicly
available databases (EUROSTAT, URBAN
AUDIT, EUROBAROMETAR, ESPON) which
reflect the most important aspects of every
(smart) key characteristic (see figure 2).
Figure 1: Hierarchical approach. PLEEC model.
Figure 2: Key fields with its domains. PLEEC model.
4
The PLEEC partner cities and the city of Graz collected and provided some missing data
to increase the coverage. About 50% of all indicators are defined on the local (city) level.
Other indicators on the national (NUTS 0) or regional (NUTS 2 or NUTS3) level are
included because they provide additional information not only about the endowment of
cities but also about the perception and assessment of specific developments in wider
urban areas (see Deliverable 2.1 cities’ presentations). Since the selected 81 indicators
show completely different levels and ranges they were standardized through a ztransformation of their values resulting in a distribution with an average value ‘0’ and a
standard deviation of ‘1’. Through this transformation indicators are comparable and
appropriate for any aggregation procedure. Assuming the substitution between
indicators all values (except missing values) are added up to the aggregated value for
every factor and for every of six key fields and for every city in total. In that manner it is
possible to provide specific city profiles, which reflect their performance in the 6 key
fields. The results shown in figure 3 indicate a strong heterogeneity in the city-specific
key fields of urban development, which allow a broad outline of individual
characteristics. Nevertheless, a more detailed analysis of the single domains is necessary
in order to get a more detailed insight into the specific strengths and weaknesses of a
city. These profiles are presented, discussed and commented in detail in the individual
presentations of the 6 PLEEC partner cities.
Figure 3: Final rating. PLEEC model.
The use of Smart City Profiles in strategic planning
The results of the individual Smart City Profiles are designed to be presented and
discussed in city-specific workshops with relevant stakeholders. These meetings may
serve as a platform for disclosing challenges and developing strategic recommendations
in close connection to local decision-makers. The evaluation method used has a highly
flexible structure which allows both improvements of the indicator system and the
5
enlargement of the city sample. Provided the availability of consistent, comparable and
reliable data it is therefore possible to consider new trends or changing requirements
and to integrate comparable cities, which have not been included so far.
An evidence place-based approach needs a detailed description and analysis of the
different fields of urban development and, finally, an assessment in form of strengths
and weaknesses. The Smart City approach allows such an analysis in a rather
differentiated way and on different levels. Accordingly, it provides empirical evidence
regarding the profile of a city in a differentiated way or the identification of groups of
cities with typical profiles – both forms of evidence are a necessary precondition for
policy development and an efficient way of defining relevant priorities. The approach is
an instrument which supports the transformation of information into knowledge-based
strategic efforts. It presumes and needs the active participation of residents as actors
and stakeholders in corresponding governance efforts for implementation of strategic
projects that will support smart city development most effectively. Due to this reason,
the Smart City approach is useful for the selection of cities from which lesson drawing is
expected in an effective way. Again, the multidimensional description of cities through
factors or even indicators respectively the identification of comparable and typical
profiles, for sure, helps to select other cities for learning and transferring relevant
strategies. For instance, it would not make sense that a city tries to learn and to transfer
policies or strategies from cities which have completely different profiles and different
strengths and weaknesses. Therefore, it is highly recommended that cities learn from
cities with similar profiles or in particular from those which have already specific
experiences and evidence about applied strategies regarding distinct characteristics
(Giffinger et al. 2010).
References
Begg, I., 1999. Cities and competitiveness. Urban Studies, 36 (5–6), 795–810.
Giffinger R., et al., 2003. Städtewettbewerb und sozialverträgliche Stadtentwicklung:
Stadtentwicklungspolitik am Beispiel von Wien und Budapest. Wiener Beiträge zur
Regionalwissenschaft, Band 17, Wien: Institut für Stadt- und Regionalforschung.
Giffinger, R., et al., 2007. Ranking of European medium-sized cities. Final report, Vienna.
Available from: http://www.smart-cities.eu/model.html [Accessed 18 Jun 2008].
Giffinger, R., Haindlmaier, G., Kramar, H., 2010. The role of rankings in growing city
competition. In: Urban Research & Practice, vol.3, no.3, S. 299-312.
Kramar, H., 2006. Economic convergence on different spatial levels: the conflict between
cohesion and growth. Raumforschung und Raumordnung, 1/2006, 18–27.
Lloyd, G., and Peel, D., 2008. Functionalism and representationalism in contemporary
urban agendas: a Scottish perspective on city-region branding. Urban research and
Practice, 1 (1), 36–53.
6
Page, E. (2000): Future Governance and the literature on policy transfer and lesson
drawing. ESRC Future Governance Programme Workshop, 28-01-2000, London.
Parkinson, M., et al., eds., 2003. Competitive European cities: where do the core cities
stand? London: ODPM.
Pichler-Milanovic, N., 2005. Ljubljana: from ‘beloved’ city of the nation to Central
European capital. In F.E.I. Hamilton, A.K. Dimitrovska and N. Pichler-Milanovic, eds.
Transformation of cities in Central and Eastern Europe: towards globalization. Tokyo,
New York and Paris: United Nations University (UNU) Press, 318–363.
Robertson, D. and H. Waltham (1992): ‘The Politics of Policy Borrowing’, paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, 3-6
September, Chicago.
Storper, M., 1995. The resurgence of regional economies, ten years later: the region as a
nexus of untraded interdependencies. European Urban and Regional Studies, 2, 191–
221.
Tosics I. (2003): Strategic planning in European cities. Consultancy for the Institute of
Urban Economics, Moscow. Metropolitan Research Institute, Budapest, July 2003
(manuscript)
7