A Viability Model for Digital Cities: Economic and Acceptability Factors

  • Leonidas G. AnthopoulosEmail author
  • Theologis E. Tougountzoglou
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 1)


Digital cities concern metropolitan environments, where the ICT contribute to various local challenges and to the improvement of everyday life. These environments have evolved from usual broadband environments to mesh social spaces, which combine e-services, collaboration applications, crowd sourcing, and information and communications technology (ICT) infrastructures. Digital cities vary from web to smart ones and their implementation is based on particular strategic priorities. Today, most digital cities focus on ubiquitous computing and on Web 2.0 applications for the delivery of various e-services (e.g. e-tourism, e-security, e-health, and tele-care services) in the city area. In this context, digital cities are more likely to be considered as favorable environments for entrepreneurship and for social participation. However, a digital city is a complex and large-scale project; it demands viable analysis and planning in order to secure its sustainability and its adoption by the local community. In contrast to other ICT projects, managers have enough opportunities to revise and to transform their strategy, their plans, and their templates during its implementation. This chapter focuses on the economic and to the social considerations in the uses of Web 2.0 applications by Governments. It summarizes the most accepted forms of digital cities and their Web 2.0 applications. Moreover, it presents the most significant considerations for economic and social success of a digital city and it determines a viability model for such a project. The viability model contains qualitative decision factors and it is adaptive for different digital city cases.


Social Participation Smart City Delphi Method Viability Model Qualitative Factor 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Anthopoulos, L. (2005). Collaborating environments in e-government. PhD Thesis. Retrieved from Aristotle University of Thessaloniki–Psifiothiki. (GRI-2005-690).Google Scholar
  2. Anthopoulos, L., & Fitsilis, P. (2010). From Digital to Ubiquitous Cities: Defining a Common Architecture for Urban Development. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Intelligent Environments- IE’10, Malaysia. Retrieved, Sept. 2011 from:
  3. Anthopoulos, L. & Tsoukalas, I. (2006). The Implementation Model of a Digital City: The Case Study of the Digital City of Trikala, Greece. Journal of E-Government, 2 (2), 91–109.Google Scholar
  4. Anthopoulos, L., Gerogiannis, V. & Fitsilis, P. (2010). Enterprise Architecture for e-Strategy Standardization and Management: Lessons Learnt from Greece. International Journal of Digital Society (IJDS), Volume 1, Issue 4, December 2010.Google Scholar
  5. Ban Ki-Moon, (2009). Better, More Equitable Urban Planning is Essential (On World’s Habitat Day). Vienna: UN Information Service.Google Scholar
  6. Björn, N. (2011). Iceberg ahead: On electronic government research and societal aging. Government Information Quarterly, 28(3), 310–319.Google Scholar
  7. Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C. & Nijkamp, P. (2009). Smart cities in Europe. Series Research Memoranda 0048. VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.Google Scholar
  8. Centre of Regional Science (SRF). (2007). Smart citiesRanking of European medium-sized cities, Final Report. Vienna: Centre of Regional Science.Google Scholar
  9. Daniel, E. M., & White, A. (2005). The future of inter-organisational system linkages: Findings of an international Delphi study. European Journal of Information Systems, 14, 188–203.Google Scholar
  10. Dias, A. Jr. & Ioannou, G. Ph. (1996). Company and project evaluation model for privately promoted infrastructure projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 122 (1), 71–82.Google Scholar
  11. European Commission. (2010). Digital Agenda for Europe: Communication from the Commission. Retrieved, Sept. 2011 from:
  12. Federal Transit Administration. (2007). Construction Project Management Handbook. New York: FTA’s Office of Technology. Retrieved, Sept. 2011 from:
  13. Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N., & Rothengatter, W. (2003). Megaprojects and risk: an anatomy of ambition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Gartner Research. (2009). Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies. Stamford: Gartner Inc. Retrieved, Sept. 2011 from:
  15. Giffinger, R., Fertner, C., Kramar, H., Meijers, e. & Pichler-Milanovic, N. (2007). Smart Cities: Ranking of European medium-sized cities. Retrieved, December, 2011 from:
  16. Gupta, M. C. & Narasimham, S. V. (1998). Discussion of ‘CSFs in competitive tendering and negotiation model for BOT projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 124 (5), 430.Google Scholar
  17. IBM. (2009). How Smart is your city? Helping cities measure progress. New York: IBM Global Business Services.Google Scholar
  18. Ishida, T., & Isbister, K. (2000). Digital Cities: Technologies, Experiences, and Future Perspectives. Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Ishida, T., Aurigi, A., & Yasuoka, M. (2005). World Digital Cities: Beyond Heterogeneity. In P Van den Besselaar & S.Koizumi (eds), Digital Cities 3: Information.technologies for social capital (pp.271–314). Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Ishida, T., Aurigi, A., & Yasuoka, M. (2009). The Advancement of World Digital Cities. In Nakashima, H., Aghajan, H., & Augusto, J.C. (eds.), Handbook on Ambient Intelligence and Smart Environments (pp.23). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Komninos, N. (2002). Intelligent Cities: Innovation, Knowledge Systems and Digital Spaces (1st eds.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Levy, S. M. (1996). Build, operate, and transfer: Paving the way for tomorrow’s infrastructure. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  23. Macintosh, A., & Whyte, A. (2008). Towards an evaluation framework for e-Participation. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 2 (1), 16–30.Google Scholar
  24. McKinsey Global Institute. (2009). Preparing for China’s urban billion. Shanghai: McKinsey & Company.Google Scholar
  25. Murugesan, S. (2007). Understanding Web 2.0. IT Professional, 9 (4), 34–41.Google Scholar
  26. Naphade, M., Banavar, G., Harrison, C., Paraszczak, J. & Morris, R. (2011). Smarter Cities and Their Innovation Challenges. Computer, 44 (6), 32–39.Google Scholar
  27. New Millennium Research Council. (2005). Not In The Public Interest—The Myth of Municipal Wi-Fi Networks. Washington: New Millennium Research Council.Google Scholar
  28. O’Reilly, T., & Battelle, J. (2009). Web Squared: Web 2.0 Five Years On. Retrieved, January, 2012 from:
  29. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2008, June). Policy Guidance for Digital Content. Paper presented at the OECD Ministerial Meeting on the future of Internet Economy, Seoul. Retrieved, Sept. 2011 from:
  30. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). (2011 June). The Internet Economy: Generating Innovation and Growth. Paper presented at the OECD High Level Meeting, Paris. Retrieved, Sept. 2011 from:
  31. Osimo, D. (2008). Web 2.0 in Government: Why and How? Retrieved from Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (IPTS) website:
  32. Ozdoganm, I. D. & Birgonul, M. T. (2000). A decision support framework for project sponsors in the planning stage of build-operate-transfer (BOT) projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 18, 343–353.Google Scholar
  33. PMI. (2008). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge: Pmbok Guide (4th ed). Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute Inc.Google Scholar
  34. Ranasinghe, M. (1999). Private sector participation in infrastructure projects: A methodology to analyze viability of BOT, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 17, 613–623.Google Scholar
  35. Reddick, G. C. (2011). Citizen Interaction and e-government: Evidence for the managerial, consultative and participatory models. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 5 (2), 167–184.Google Scholar
  36. Salman, A. F. M., Skibniewski, M. J. & Basha, I. (2007). BOT viability model for large-scale infrastructure projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 133 (1), 50–63.Google Scholar
  37. Schaffers, H., Komninos, N., Pallot, M., Trousse, M., Nilsson, M., & Oliveira, M. (2011). Smart Cities and the Future Internet: Towards Cooperation Frameworks for Open Innovation, In J. Domingue et al. (Eds.), Future Internet: Achievements and Promises (pp.431–446), Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Schmidt, R. C. (1997). Managing Delphi surveys using nonparametric statistical techniques. Decision Sciences, 28(3), 763–774.Google Scholar
  39. Tiong, R. L. K. (1990). Comparative study of BOT projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 6 (1), 107–122.Google Scholar
  40. Tiong, R. L. K. (1995a). Competitive advantage of equity of BOT tender. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 121 (3), 282–289.Google Scholar
  41. Tiong, R. L. K. (1995b). Impact of financial package versus technical solution in BOT tender. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 121 (3), 304–311.Google Scholar
  42. Tiong, R. L. K. (1996). CSFs in competitive tendering and negotiation model for BOT projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 122 (3), 202–211.Google Scholar
  43. U.N. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. (2010). World Urbanization Prospects: The 2009 Revision. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  44. UNIDO. (1996). Guidelines for infrastructure development through build-operate-transfer (BOT) projects. Vienna: UNIDO.Google Scholar
  45. Van Bastelaer, B., & Lobet-Maris, C. (Eds). (1999). Social Learning regarding Multimedia Developments at a Local Level: The Case of Digital Cities. Namur: CITA—University of Namur.Google Scholar
  46. World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Brundtland, Gro Harlem et al.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leonidas G. Anthopoulos
    • 1
    Email author
  • Theologis E. Tougountzoglou
    • 1
  1. 1.Project Management DepartmentTechnological Education Institute (TEI) of LarissaLarissaGreece

Personalised recommendations