The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A critical review of selected smart city assessment tools and indicator sets
Abstract
Abstract In the era of digital revolution many cities around the world have invested significantly in the design and implementation of smart city projects and initiatives to provide solutions to the challenges of climate changes and urbanization. At the same time, various efforts have been made to evaluate performance and outcomes of those projects and initiatives. This study provides a critical analysis of 34 selected smart city assessment tools to highlight their strengths and weaknesses and to examine their potential contribution to the evolution of the smart city movement. The selected tools are evaluated against an analysis framework that covers criteria related to comprehensiveness, stakeholder engagement, context sensitivity, strategic alignment, uncertainty management, interlinkages and interoperability, temporal dynamism, flexibility, feasibility, presentation and communication of the results, and action plans. Results indicate that selected tools have achieved limited success in addressing these criteria. In particular, only few tools have addressed criteria related to stakeholder engagement, uncertainty management, interlinkages, and feasibility. The paper argues that assessment tools should capitalize on the advancements in smart solutions and big data analytics to develop better strategies for addressing these criteria. In addition to highlighting weaknesses that need to be addressed in the future, results of this study can be used by interested target groups such as smart city developers, planners, and policy makers to choose tools that best fit their needs.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives
Albino, V., Berardi, U., & Dangelico, R. M. (2015) · Journal of Urban Technology · doi:10.1080/10630732.2014.942092 · Cited by 3,536
Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., & Nijkamp, P. (2011) · Journal of Urban Technology · doi:10.1080/10630732.2011.601117 · Cited by 3,409
Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people, and institutions
Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2011) · Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference: Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times · doi:10.1145/2037556.2037602 · Cited by 2,802
Governing the smart city: a review of the literature on smart urban governance
Meijer, A., & Bolívar, M. P. R. (2016) · International Review of Administrative Sciences · doi:10.1177/0020852314564308 · Cited by 1,797
What are the differences between sustainable and smart cities?
Ahvenniemi, H., Huovila, A., Pinto-Seppä, I., & Airaksinen, M. (2017) · Cities · doi:10.1016/j.cities.2016.09.009 · Cited by 1,378
Smart city policies: A spatial approach
Angelidou, M. (2014) · Cities · doi:10.1016/j.cities.2014.06.007 · Cited by 986
Smart cities: A conjuncture of four forces
Angelidou, M. (2015) · Cities · doi:10.1016/j.cities.2015.05.004 · Cited by 863
Towards an effective framework for building smart cities: Lessons from Seoul and San Francisco
Lee, J. H., Hancock, M. G., & Hu, M.-C. (2014) · Technological Forecasting and Social Change · doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.033 · Cited by 842
Zygiaris, S. (2013) · Journal of the Knowledge Economy · doi:10.1007/s13132-012-0089-4 · Cited by 681
A critical review of selected tools for assessing community resilience
Sharifi, A. (2016) · Ecological Indicators · doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2016.05.023 · Cited by 642
Self-citation
Cited by
Smart city trends: A focus on 5 countries and 15 companies
Kim, J. (2022) · Cities · doi:10.1016/j.cities.2021.103551 · Cited by 126
Metadata
- Authors
- Sharifi, A.
- Venue
- Journal of Cleaner Production
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2019-10
- Volume
- 233
- Pages
- 1269-1283
- ISSN
- 0959-6526 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2950713130
- Cited by
- 312
- References
- 38
- FWCI
- 21.54
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A critical review of selected smart city assessment tools and indicator sets. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.172
- The paper
- Sharifi, A. (2019). A critical review of selected smart city assessment tools and indicator sets. Journal of Cleaner Production. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.172
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.