Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 416

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Smart Cities and Green Growth: Outsourcing Democratic and Environmental Resilience to the Global Technology Sector

Open access
Viitanen, Jenni, Kingston, Richard·2014·Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space

Abstract

Climate change and advances in urban technology propel forward the ‘smart city’. As decision makers strive to find a technological fix, smart city strategies are often based on technological orthodoxies which are conceptually and empirically shallow. The motivation behind this paper is to address the conceptual adolescence which relates to the wholesale digitisation of the city by pursuing a twin argument about the democratic and environmental consequences. The authors draw on interdisciplinary theory and insights from urban studies, infrastructure, informatics, and the sociology of the Internet to critique the way the ‘smart city’ is taken forward. It is concluded that private firms market smart city services and solutions based on an ideological legacy of ‘ubiquitous computing’, ‘universal infrastructure’, and ‘green technology’. Based on evidence from three UK cities—Manchester, Birmingham, and Glasgow—it is argued that the underlying principle of future city strategies is to expand the market for new technology products and services to support ‘green growth’ with disregard for their wider impacts. For citizens, becoming a consumer of the technologies is often presented as progressive ‘participation’ or ‘empowerment’ with unknown or hidden consequences both political and environmental. The city systems become a digital marketplace where citizen-consumers' participation is increasingly involuntary and the hegemony of global technology firms is inflated. What follows is that the city's ‘intelligent systems' are defined through a digital consumer experience that has inherent biases and leaves parts of the city and its population unaccounted for. This renders the city less resilient in the face of future social and climatic risks.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1068/a46242

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 48 references

Research works printed but not linked: 32

  1. Anderson C, 2006, The Long Tail
  2. BCC, 2012, “Birmingham Smart City Vision”
  3. Beck E E, 2002, Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 14, 1
  4. Bryan C, 1998, Cyberdemocracy, 152
  5. 10.1007/978-0-387-72804-9_3 · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-72804-9_3
  6. 10.1080/0042098984646 · doi:10.1080/0042098984646
  7. 10.1080/0042098966673 · doi:10.1080/0042098966673
  8. 10.2139/ssrn.1325255 · doi:10.2139/ssrn.1325255
  9. Danziger J, 1982, Computers and Politics: High Technology in American Local Governments
  10. DCMS, 2012, “Ten super-connected cities announced”
  11. Dekker S, 2006, The Field Guide to Human Error
  12. Deva S, 2007, George Washington International Law Review, 39, 255
  13. Dominelli L, 2012, Green Social Work: From Environmental Crises to Environmental Justice
  14. Dutton W H, 1987, Wired Cities: Shaping the Future of Communications
  15. 10.1080/01972240902848583 · doi:10.1080/01972240902848583
  16. GCC, 2012, “Glasgow future cities demonstrator proposal”
  17. Graham S, 2004, The Cybercities Reader
  18. Guy S, 2011, Urban Transitions: Intermediaries and the Governance of Socio-technical Networks
  19. Hall R, Bowerman B, Braverman J, Taylor J, Todosow H, von Wimmersperg U, 2000, “The vision of a smart city”, working paper presented at the 2nd International Life Extension Technology Workshop, 28 September, Paris, http://www.osti.gov/bridge/purl.cover.jsp?purl=/773961
  20. 10.1080/01900690601117770 · doi:10.1080/01900690601117770
  21. Kasperson R E, 1977, Public Participation in Planning, 173
  22. 10.1016/j.cities.2011.12.004 · doi:10.1016/j.cities.2011.12.004
  23. Leadbeater C, 2008, WE-think: Mass Innovation, Not Mass Production
  24. McHarg I L, 1972, Design with Nature
  25. MCC, 2012, “Manchester future city: A showcase for green growth”
  26. 10.1080/00420988720080771 · doi:10.1080/00420988720080771
  27. Oboler A, 2012, First Monday, 17
  28. ODI, 2013, “Keep PAF public”
  29. RTPI, 2012, “RTPI response to Lord Taylor Review of planning guidance”
  30. Shirky C, 2011, Foreign Affairs, 90, 28
  31. Threlfall A, 2011, “Understanding the costs and benefits of fuel poverty interventions: A pragmatic economic evaluation from Greater Manchester”
  32. Viitanen J, 2011, Citizenship in the Electronically Networked City

Cited by

See all 416

Metadata

Authors
Viitanen, J., & Kingston, R.
Venue
Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space
Published
2014-01-01
Volume
46
Issue
4
Pages
803-819
ISSN
  • 0308-518X (ISSN-L)
  • 1472-3409
OpenAlex
W2124691976
Cited by
416
References
48
FWCI
21.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)

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: Smart Cities and Green Growth: Outsourcing Democratic and Environmental Resilience to the Global Technology Sector. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1068/a46242
The paper
Viitanen, J., & Kingston, R. (2014). Smart Cities and Green Growth: Outsourcing Democratic and Environmental Resilience to the Global Technology Sector. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space. https://doi.org/10.1068/a46242

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.