Toward a Methodological Approach to Assess Public Value in Smart Cities

  • Michele OsellaEmail author
  • Enrico Ferro
  • Elisa Pautasso
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 11)


This chapter proposes a novel framework aimed at measuring performances of smart cities. The methodological approach underlying the framework has its roots in an in-depth analysis of the smart city paradigm conducted from the perspective of urban governance. In this context, the notion of public value is seen as a backdrop for exploring the various ways in which a value for society can be created in a smart city. With this respect, a multidisciplinary synthesis of various strands of literature related to smart cities paves the way to the conceptualization of a framework meant to evaluate the “smartness” of a city through the lenses of economic, social, and environmental performances, in line with the “triple sustainability” principle. This vision is subsequently operationalized by means of a harmonized set of key performance indicators (KPIs) that can be grouped into two categories (called “core” and “ancillary”): whilst “core” indicators are identified with the intent to allow international comparability and to help policy makers in benchmarking their city on a global scale, and “ancillary” indicators are crafted considering the peculiarities of the city local context. Finally, the Italian city of Turin is used as a case study for testing the proposed assessment tool.


Smart city KPI Public value Measurement Sustainability 


  1. Alawadhi, S., Aldama-Nalda, A., Chourabi, H., Gil-García, J., Leung, S., Mellouli, S., Nam, T., Pardo, T. A., Scholl, H. J., Walker, S. (2012). Building understanding of smart city initiatives. Electronic Government, 7443, 40–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alford, J., & O’Flynn, J. (2009). Making sense of public value: Concepts, critiques and emergent meanings. International Journal of Public Administration, 32(3–4), 171–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2014). ICT, public values and transformative government: A framework and programme for research. Government Information Quarterly, 31(1), 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bélissent, J. (2011). The key to being a smart city is good governance: “Smart Governance”.–05-15-the_key_to_being_a_smart_city_is_good_governance_smart_governance Accessed 11 June 2014.
  5. Benington, J., & Moore, M. (2011). Public value: Theory and practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Berry, C. R., & Glaeser, E. L. (2005). The divergence of human capital levels across cities. Regional Science, 84(3), 407–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bollier, D. (1998). How smart growth can stop sprawl: A fledgling citizen movement expands. Washington: Essential Books.Google Scholar
  8. Brand, S. (2006). City Planet. Strategy + Business, Issue 42.Google Scholar
  9. Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., & Nijkamp, P. (2011). Smart cities in Europe. Journal of Urban Technology, 18(2), 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chourabi, H., Nam, T., Walker, S., Gil-Garcia, J. R., Mellouli, S., Nahon, K., Pardo, T. A., Scholl, H. J. (2012). Understanding smart cities: An integrative framework. Proceedings of 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 2289–2297). Hawaii: IEEE.Google Scholar
  11. Cole, M., & Parston, G. (2006). Unlocking public value: A new model for achieving high performance in public service organizations. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Cordella, A., & Bonina, C. (2012). A public value perspective for ICT enabled public sector reforms: A theoretical reflection. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 512–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cresswell, A. M., Burke, G. B., & Pardo, T. (2006). Advancing return on investment, analysis for government IT: A public value framework. Albany: Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany.Google Scholar
  14. Danielsen, K. A., Lang, R. E., & Fulton, W. (1999). Retracting suburbia: Smart growth and the future of housing. Housing Policy Debate, 10(3), 513–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dobbs, R., Smit, S., Remes, J., Manyika, J., Roxburgh, C., and Restrepo, A. (2011). Urban world: Mapping the economic power of cities. New York: McKinsey Global Institute.Google Scholar
  16. Donath, J. (2011). Epilogue: The city as information organism. In From social butterfly to engaged citizen: Urban informatics, social media, ubiquitous computing, and mobile technology to support citizen engagement (pp. 485–490). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Dutton, W. H., Kraemer, K. L., & Blumler, J. G. (1987). Wired cities: Shaping the future of communications. Indianapolis: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  18. Elkington, J. (1998). Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st‐century business. Environmental Quality Management, 8(1), 37–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Etzkowitz, H., & Leydesdorff, L. (2000). The dynamics of innovation: From national systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research Policy, 29(2), 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. European Commission. (2001). European governance: A white paper. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.Google Scholar
  21. Ewing, R., Pendall, R., & Chen, D. (2002). Measuring sprawl and its impact. Washington: Smart Growth America.Google Scholar
  22. Ferro, E., Caroleo, B., Leo, M., Osella, M., & Pautasso, E. (2013). The role of ICT in smart cities governance. Proceedings of International Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government (pp. 133–146). Krems: Edition Donau-Universität Krems.Google Scholar
  23. Giffinger, R. (2007). Smart cities—ranking of European medium-sized cities. Vienna: Centre of Regional Science at Vienna University of Technology.Google Scholar
  24. Habermas, J., & Mccarthy, T. (1973). Legitimation crisis. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hall, R. E., et al. (2000). The vision of a smart city. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Life Extension Technology Workshop. ParisGoogle Scholar
  26. Hallsmith, G. (2003). The key to sustainable cities: Meeting human needs, transforming community systems. Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.Google Scholar
  27. Harrison, C. (2010). Foundations for smarter cities. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 54(4), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harrison, C., & Donnelly, I. A. (2011). A theory of smart cities. Hull: ISSS.Google Scholar
  29. Hills, D., & Sullivan, F. (2006). Measuring public value 2: Practical approaches. London: The Work Foundation.Google Scholar
  30. Hollands, R. G. (2008). Will the real smart city please stand up? City: Analysis of urban trends, culture, theory, policy, action, 12(3), 303–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Inayatullah, S. (2011). City futures in transformation: Emerging issues and case studies. Futures, 43(7), 654–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ishida, T., & Isbister, K. (2000). Digital cities: Technologies, experiences, and future perspectives. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Johnston, E., & Hansen, D. (2011). Design lessons for smart governance infrastructures. In D. Ink, A. Balutis, T. F. Buss (Eds.), Transforming American governance: Rebooting the public square? (pp. 197–212.). Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  35. Karunasena, K., & Deng, H. (2012). Critical factors for evaluating the public value of e-government in Sri Lanka. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), 76–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kelly, G., Mulgan, G., & Muers, S. (2002). Creating public value: An analytical framework for public service reform. London: UK Cabinet Office’s Strategy Unit.Google Scholar
  37. Komninos, N. (2009). Intelligent cities: Towards interactive and global innovation environments. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 1(4), 337–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kraay, A., Zoido-Lobaton, P., & Kaufmann, D. (1999). Governance matters. Washington: World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lam, W. (2005). Barriers to e-government integration. The Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 18(5), 511–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lee, J., & Lee, H. (2014). Developing and validating a citizen-centric typology for smart city services. Government Information Quarterly, 31(S1), S93–S105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lombardi, P., Giordano, S., Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., Deakin, M., Nijkamp, P., & Kourtit, K. (2012). An advanced triple-helix network model for smart cities performance. In O. Y. Ercoskun (Ed.), Green and ecological technologies for urban planning: Creating smart cities (pp. 59–73). Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  42. Maslow, A. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 430–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Max-Neef, M. (1989). Human scale development conception application and further reflections. New York: Apex Press.Google Scholar
  44. Meadows, D. H., Meadows, D. L., & Randers, J. (2004). Limits to growth: The 30-year update. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing.Google Scholar
  45. Misuraca, G., Reid, A., & Deakin, M. (2011). Exploring emerging ICT-enabled governance models in European cities. Seville: JRC-IPTS.Google Scholar
  46. Mooij, J. (2003). Smart governance? Politics in the policy process in Andhra Pradesh, India. London: Overseas Development Institute.Google Scholar
  47. Moore, M. H. (1995). Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Nam, T., & Pardo, T. (2011). Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people and institutions (pp. 282–291). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  49. Nam, T., & Pardo, T. (2012). Transforming city government: A case study of Philly311 (pp. 310–319). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  50. Nam, T., & Pardo, T. (2014). The changing face of a city government: A case study of philly311. Government Information Quarterly, April. Volume In Press, Corrected Proof.Google Scholar
  51. Odendaal, N. (2003). Information and communication technology and local governance: Understanding the difference between cities in developed and emerging economies. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 27(6), 585–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. OECD. (1997). Final report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on participatory development and good governance. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  53. OECD. (2001). Citizens as partners: Information consultation and public participation in policy making. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  54. OECD. (2006). Competitive cities in the global economy. Paris: OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Parmenter, D. (2010). Key performance indicators (KPI): Developing, implementing, and using winning KPIs. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  56. Paskaleva, K. A. (2009). Enabling the smart city: The progress of city e-governance in Europe. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 1(4), 405–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rhodes, R. A., & Wanna, J. (2007). The limits to public value, or rescuing responsible government from the platonic guardians. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 66(4), 406–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Savoldelli, A., Misuraca, G., & Codagnone, C. (2013). Measuring the public value of e-Government: The eGEP2.0 model. The Electronic Journal of e-Government, 11(2), 373–388.Google Scholar
  59. Schaffers, H. (2011). Smart cities and the future internet: Towards cooperation frameworks for open innovation. In Future internet (pp. 431–446). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  60. Smart Cities Stakeholder Platform. (2013). Integrated action planReport process & guidelines for smart cities. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  61. Stern, N. (2007). The economics of climate change: The stern review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Stoker, G. (2003). Public value management (PVM): A new resolution of the democracy/efficiency trade-off. Manchester: Institute for Political and Economic Governance, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
  63. Talbot, C. (2011). Paradoxes and prospects of ‘public value’. Public Money & Management, 31(1), 27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. UNDP. (1997). Governance for sustainable human development. New York: UNDP Policy Document.Google Scholar
  65. UN-HABITAT. (2011). Cities and climate change: Global report on human settlements. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  66. Van der Hoeven, M. (2012). Urban energy policy design. Paris: International Energy Agency.Google Scholar
  67. Wallace, J. 2013. The rise of the enabling state: A review of policy and evidence across the UK and Ireland. Dunfermline: Carnegie UK TrustGoogle Scholar
  68. World Bank. (2006). The current status of city indicators. Washington: City Indicators Discussion Paper.Google Scholar
  69. World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  70. World Health Organization & UN-HABITAT. (2010). Hidden cities: Unmasking and overcoming health inequities in Urban settings. Geneva: WHO Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Istituto Superiore Mario BoellaTorinoItaly

Personalised recommendations