Cited by 459IoT and Edge/Fog ComputingInternet of Things and AIEnergy Efficiency in Computing

Fog Computing for Sustainable Smart Cities: A Survey

Open access
Perera, Charith, Qin, Yongrui, Estrella, Julio C., Reiff-Marganiec, Stephan, Vasilakos, Athanasios V.·2018·ACM Computing Surveys

Abstract

The Internet of Things (IoT) aims to connect billions of smart objects to the Internet, which can bring a promising future to smart cities. These objects are expected to generate large amounts of data and send the data to the cloud for further processing, especially for knowledge discovery, in order that appropriate actions can be taken. However, in reality sensing all possible data items captured by a smart object and then sending the complete captured data to the cloud is less useful. Further, such an approach would also lead to resource wastage (e.g., network, storage, etc.). The Fog (Edge) computing paradigm has been proposed to counterpart the weakness by pushing processes of knowledge discovery using data analytics to the edges. However, edge devices have limited computational capabilities. Due to inherited strengths and weaknesses, neither Cloud computing nor Fog computing paradigm addresses these challenges alone. Therefore, both paradigms need to work together in order to build a sustainable IoT infrastructure for smart cities. In this article, we review existing approaches that have been proposed to tackle the challenges in the Fog computing domain. Specifically, we describe several inspiring use case scenarios of Fog computing, identify ten key characteristics and common features of Fog computing, and compare more than 30 existing research efforts in this domain. Based on our review, we further identify several major functionalities that ideal Fog computing platforms should support and a number of open challenges toward implementing them, to shed light on future research directions on realizing Fog computing for building sustainable smart cities.

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 · 10.1145/3057266

Cites

121 of 121 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. SIG Bluetooth. 2005. Specification of the Bluetooth system. Core, version 1 (2005), 2005-10.
  2. Rajesh Bordawekar, Bob Blainey, and Ruchir Puri. 2015. Analyzing Analyt- ics. Synthesis Lectures on Computer Architecture 10, 4 (nov 2015), 1-124. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.2200/S00678ED1V01Y201511CAC035 · DOI
  3. Andrea Caragliu, Chiara Del Bo, and Peter Nijkamp. 2009. Smart cities in Europe. In 3rd Central European Conference in Regional Science-CERS. 45-59.
  4. Ajay Mohandas, Khoshrav Doctor, Shubham Jayawant, Mohit Pattni, and Era Johri. 1060. NFC vs Blue- tooth. International Journal of Multidisciplinary and Scientific Emerging Research 4, 1 (1060), 2349- 6037.
  5. National Information Standards Organization. 2004. Understanding Metadata. National Information Stan- dards MD:NISO Press (2004), 20. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0003055403000534 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Arjuna Sathiaseelan, Adisorn Lertsinsrubtavee, Adarsh Jagan, Prakash Baskaran, and Jon Crowcroft. 2016. Cloudrone: Micro Clouds in the Sky. In ACM Mobisys Dronet.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Perera, C., Qin, Y., Estrella, J. C., Reiff-Marganiec, S., & Vasilakos, A. V.
Affiliations
  • The Open University (GB)
  • University of Huddersfield (GB)
  • University of Sao Paulo
  • University of Leicester
  • Luleå University of Technology (SE)
Venue
ACM Computing Surveys
Published
2017-06-29
Volume
50
Issue
3
Pages
1-43
ISSN
  • 0360-0300 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7341
OpenAlex
W2604442880
Cited by
459
References
121
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 32 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 39 · 2021: 71 · 2020: 78 · 2019: 76 · 2018: 55 · 2017: 11
FWCI
40.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACM Computing Surveys (publishedVersion)
  • Leicester Research Archive (University of Leicester) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (submittedVersion)
  • Huddersfield Research Portal (University of Huddersfield) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
European Research Council Advanced (291652 (ASAP))
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › IoT and Edge/Fog Computing
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Internet of Things and AI
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Hardware and Architecture › Energy Efficiency in Computing
Keywords
fog computing, edge computing, smart cities, Internet of Things, cloud computing, resource waste, data analytics, open problems

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