Over the past few decades, the challenges faced by municipal administrations, such as urban growth or migration, have become increasingly complex and interrelated. In addition to the traditional land-use regulation, urban... [ view full abstract ]
Over the past few decades, the challenges faced by municipal administrations, such as urban growth or migration, have become increasingly complex and interrelated. In addition to the traditional land-use regulation, urban maintenance, production, and management of services, governments are required to meet new demands from different actors regarding water supply, natural resources’ sustainability, education, safety, or transportation (Naphade et al, 2011; Albrechts, 2006). Furthermore, today, cities are in strong competition for companies, tourists, and most of all talents (Zenker et al, 2013), and they are also experiencing unprecedented socio-economic crises.
Innovation, and technological innovation in particular, can help city governments to meet the challenges of urban governance, to improve urban environments, to become more competitive and to address sustainability concerns. To prevent and manage these challenges, cities need to operate in an innovative way. In this context, the smart city approach is emerging as a way of solving tangled and wicked problems (Nam & Pardo, 2011).
Although the literature is rich in references to the smart city, it is also fragmented: this is still a fuzzy concept that is not being consistently used (Meijer & Rodríguez-Bolívar, 2014). Nevertheless, agreement exists on the fact that “smart cities” is a construct in which to frame local government transformation by using innovative technologies. In this respect, a smart city is one with a strong commitment to innovation in technology but, also, in management and policy (Nam & Pardo, 2011).
This fragmentation is also reproduced in terms of the strategies that different cities follow in order to become smarter. There is no one route to becoming smart and different cities have adopted different approaches that reflect their particular circumstances. According to the Centre for Cities (2014), this is dependent on a number of factors, ranging from the financial and managerial capacity, private sector offerings and what citizens and businesses want.
Given this context, this paper aims at comparing how three European cities, San Sebastián (Spain), Florence (Italy), and Bristol (United Kingdom) are building their smart city agenda. The ultimate goal is to identify the main features of three still developing approaches, which appear to be influenced by the increasing integration of smart dimensions and initiatives in cities’ strategic agendas, and the related opportunities and challenges.
The three cases are of great relevance for Spain, Italy, and the United Kingdom have been particularly hit by the economic crisis. Their cities have a strong need to be (more) innovative in their pursuing of new engines of growth and competitiveness. What’s more, the three cities are part of the European project REPLICATE, whose goal is the development and validation of a sustainable city business model to enhance the transition process to a smart city, particularly, in the areas of energy efficiency, sustainable mobility and ICT/infrastructure.
