Smart or Knowledge Cities: Which are more relevant for India?
Surinder Batra
Professor
Institute of Management Technology, Ghaziabad
sbatra@imt.edu
With the burgeoning growth of world’s urban population, the importance of a
better quality of living in the cities can’t be overemphasized. The concept of smart
cities is not new, as it reflects the urge to adopt technology to find smart solutions to
the perennial problems of city life. The concept has been around for several years,
and many examples exist of Governments and corporate sector organizations aiming
to build new smart cities and revitalize existing cities by making them smart through
technology. The renewed focus on smart cities in the Indian context is attributed to the
dominating view in the Government that substantial investment in technology to
reengineer city infrastructure for citizens’ essential basic needs such as water, power,
traffic, education and healthcare is critical.
There also exist alternative and supplementary schools of thought for
developing cities which are not critically dependent on technology. For example, the
concept of “knowledge cities” has been propounded in the literature of knowledgebased development for over a decade now. The “Knowledge City Capital Framework”
was conceptualized and first put into practice by identifying “Most Admired Knowledge
Cities” in the world in 2007. This framework aims at a balanced and sustainable
development of the city population by identifying eight types of capital for cities. The
concept is operationalized by making relative comparisons among nominated cities on
the degree to which the cities attained the eight capital types using Delphi technique.
Despite accelerated growth in the urban population, the rural habitat will
continue to have a formidable presence in the next 30-40 years in India. The concept
of a “Knowledge Village” in the Indian context using a Knowledge Village Capital
Framework has also been derived by adaptation of its city counterpart. This framework
was tested by the author in a pilot study in two States of India, and appears to provide
an initial framework of knowledge-based rural development.
1
Two perspectives have been discussed in this conceptual paper. Firstly,
considering that ‘inclusive development’ is enshrined into the development paradigm
of India and that rural population is an important dimension of inclusiveness, the paper
discusses whether it is adequate to focus only on cities (whether knowledge or smart
cities). Secondly, it examines whether the concept of technology-based smart cities
offers a better approach for India than the knowledge cities capital framework in terms
of relevance and practicality of use.
Key Words: Smart Cities; Digital Cities; Urbanization; Knowledge Based
Development; Knowledge Cities; Knowledge Cities Capital Framework; Knowledge
Village; Knowledge Village Capital Framework
Introduction
The phenomenon of rapid urbanization globally has been highlighted by several
population and development studies world over. In 2003, 48% of the world population
constituting nearly 3 billion people lived in urban areas and by 2020, it is projected that
55% of world population constituting 4.1 billion people will be urban (World Bank,
2008). According to another projection, 86% of the global population in the developed
countries and 67% in less developed countries will be urban by 2050 (KEN, 2012). It
is projected that 2.9 billion additional people will be required to be accommodated in
cities by 2050, requiring existing cities to grow and expand and hundreds of new cities
to be built (Hodgkinson, 2011). The rise in this phenomenon of rapid urbanization has
been attributed to the scope for increasing mass production and service industry in
urban areas, societal values, mode of governance and configuration and functionality
of human settlements (UN Habitat Report, 2008).
In the Indian context, it is projected that the urban population will be nearly 40%
of the total population of the country by 2030. By that year, India will have 86 cities
with a population of over 1 million (McKinsey, 2010). One of the key reasons of rapid
urbanization in the Indian context is the existence of sharp urban-rural divide with
regard to the availability of physical and social infrastructure and livelihood
opportunities leading to extensive migration from rural to urban areas (Planning
Commission, Govt. of India, 2007). It is estimated that “every minute, 20 Indians move
into cities” (Spizzchino, 2013)
2
The unprecedented growth of urban population globally has led to a sense of
urgency to find smart solutions to address the challenges of growth and tackle a
‘variety of risks, concerns and problems’ associated with rapid urbanization. The key
concern is to make the cities liveable in a sustained manner. In fact, the search for
cities meeting the demand for more liveable cities is perpetual (Nam & Pardo, 2011).
Some of the challenges associated with rapid urbanization as observed by various
authors include: (a) deteriorating quality of atmospheric air, (b) transportation
challenges; (c) urban unemployment; (d) scarcity of resources; ( e) inadequate and
poor infrastructure; (f) energy shortages; (g) price instability; (h) global environmental
concerns; and (i) human health concerns (Nam & Pardo, 2011).
A smart city has been offered as a technology-based solution to this key
challenge. A typical perception of a smart city is a city which uses information and
communication technologies (ICT) to build and integrate critical infrastructure and
services of a city (Nam & Pardo, 2011). IBM (2010) defines smart city as an
instrumented; interconnected and intelligent city, effectively connecting physical and
virtual world The Knowledge Economy Network (2012) views a smart city as a city
having successful application of knowledge and technology in a consistent framework,
benefitting from the growing importance of ICT. Another definition of smart city
emphasizes six characteristics, namely, smart economy, smart people, smart
governance, smart mobility, smart environment and smart living (Report by Vienna
University of Technology, University of Ljubljana and Delft University of Technology,
2007).
A smart city can be expected to incorporate the key attributes associated with
the term, ‘smartness’. These include (a) adaptability to users needs; (b) ability to
achieve policy success in respective jurisdictions; and (c) automatic computing
principles facilitated through technology such as self-configuration, self-healing and
self-optimization (Nam & Pardo, 2011). In a smart city, the condition of its critical
infrastructure is monitored through self-monitoring and self-response systems (Hall,
2000)
Typical sub-systems which are controlled by the technology behind smart cities
are: buildings, household appliances, production machinery, process plants, traffic
and transportation systems, electrical grids, water supply, waste removal network, life
safety and security system, etc. (Nam & Pardo, 2011). Other authors also include subsystems such as education, energy, health care, telecommunication coordination,
3
virtual tourism, logistics and gas supply (Spizzchino, 2013). An important theme
across the use of technology in cities is to formulate technology master plans and
develop citywide command and control network to monitor and optimize the delivery
of services (Spizzchino, 2013). A smart city is expected to use sensors to provide real
time inputs to a control centre on clean water, energy, public transport, public safety,
education and healthcare. Intelligent communication tools are expected to be used to
provide real-time inputs to those managing the infrastructure and respond to
emergencies (Spizzchino, 2013).
Other Ways of Visualizing Futuristic Cities
Academicians and practitioners world over have visualized other ways in which
futuristic cities can be designed or re-engineered. Table 1 provides an overview of a
selected nomenclature of futuristic cities based on an analysis of the paper of Nam &
Pardo (2011).
Well-known nomenclatures from a technology perspective include
digital city, intelligent city and information city. From people perspective, the popular
nomenclatures are knowledge city, creative city and learning city.
Table 1
Selected nomenclature of futuristic cities
(Extracted from Nam & Pardo, 2011)
S. No. City
Definition/ Attributes
Originator/ Source
Nomenclature
1
Digital City
broadband “An
Combines
communication
and
architectural
flexible framework…for digital
computing cities…
service-oriented
infrastructure to meet the needs (Yovanof & Hazapis,
of governments, citizens and 2009)
businesses
2
Intelligent City
A city with IT infrastructure to “Intelligent Cities…”
transform
significant
life
and
and
work
in (Komninos & Sefertzi,
fundamental 2009)
ways, and to support learning,
technology development
and
innovation procedures
4
S. No. City
Definition/ Attributes
Originator/ Source
Nomenclature
3
Ubiquitous city
A digital city with ubiquitous “From
accessibility and infrastructure
digital
to
ubiquitous cities…”
(Anthopoulous
&
Fitsilis, 2010)
4
Virtual City
A city in which city functions are “Cyberinfrastructures
and smart world cities”
implemented in cyberspace
(Boulton
et
al,
forthcoming)
5
Hybrid City
A combination of real city with “Ambient intelligence
real inhabitants and a virtual city landscapes
of counterpart virtual citizens
for
realizing the cities of
the future…”
(Streitz, 2009)
6
Information City An urban centre for commerce, “Making
information
social and civic services and cities liveable”
social interaction among people, (Sproull & Patterson,
business
and
government 2004)
institutions
7
Creative City
A
city
having
a
suitable “The
rise
of
the
environment for creative people, creative class…”
knowledge networks, voluntary (Florida, 2002)
organizations and crime free
environment
8
Learning City
A city engaged in building a “What is smart about
skilled
information
economy the smart communities
movement?”
workforce
(Moser, 2001)
9
Humane City
A
city
providing
opportunities
to
multiple “Why are smart cities
exploit
its growing…?”
human potential and lead a (Winters, 2010)
creative life
5
S. No. City
Definition/ Attributes
Originator/ Source
Nomenclature
10
Knowledge City A city purposefully designed to “Aspects on the City
encourage
nurturing
knowledge
of as
a
Knowledge
Tool…”
(Edvinsson, 2006)
The Concept of Knowledge Cities
The concept of knowledge cities is embedded in the overarching framework of
knowledge-based development (KBD). Considerable literature already exists on what
knowledge cities are and how they can be developed. The Knowledge Cities Capital
Framework developed by the World Capital Institute & Teleos Ltd. (2008) forms the
basis of Most Admired Knowledge Cities (MAKCi) Awards instituted by the World
Capital Institute. The definitions of knowledge cities emphasize continuous creation,
sharing, evaluation, renewal and updation of knowledge in the cities (Ergazakis et al,
2004). The salient features of a knowledge city as summarized from various definitions
of a knowledge city cited in the literature are as follows:
a) A Knowledge City is purposefully designed to encourage nurturing of
knowledge and its sharing among citizens
b) In a knowledge city, the citizens are actively involved in city’s development,
identity and unique character.
c) In a knowledge city, knowledge creation and deployment is contingent upon
highly educated and skilled creative people and the communities continually
educate their population.
d) In a knowledge city, talented individuals are highly mobile and can reward the
regions that attract them and the city offers attraction to knowledge workers.
e) A knowledge city taps the knowledge assets in its midst and benefits from the
attracted talent to focus on value creation.
(Batra et al, 2013)
The Knowledge Cities Capital Framework
In the MAKCi Framework (World Capital Institute, 2008), a knowledge city is
defined as a city that has undertaken a deliberate initiative to identify and develop the
city’s capital base in a balanced sustainable manner. The capital base comprises of
6
eight types of capital summarized with their explanations at Table 2. The capital base
of knowledge cities has some resemblance with the capital framework proposed by
Pricewaterhouse Coopers Report (2005), which stipulates six types of capital for any
futuristic city. These are: (a) intellectual and social capital; (b) democratic capital; (c)
cultural capital; (d) financial capital; (e) technological capital; and (f) environmental
capital.
Table 2
Capital Base of a Knowledge City
(Adapted from WCI & The Teleos, “The MAKCi Framework,” 2008)
Capital Type
Identity Capital
Explanation
Capability to create and evolve a distinctive and well
positioned urban personality
Intelligence Capital
Capability to identify/ foresee and adequately respond to
significant events
Relational Capital
Capability to develop quality interactions with all significant
internal and external agents
Financial Capital
Capability to generate and sustain a healthy monetary base
Human Capital
Capability to create conditions for full biological and
Individual
psychological development of residents
Human Capital
Capability to enhance the goal-achievement potential of its
Collective
constituent communities
Instrumentation
Capability to take advantage of location and build and renew
Material Capital
a world class physical infrastructure
Instrumentation
Capability to transfer knowledge and foster innovation in all
Intangible Capital
major areas of city life
Creating New Cities and/or Transforming Existing into Knowledge Cities
The Knowledge City Capital Framework is not a prescriptive tool; it doesn’t provide
guidelines on how to de novo create an ideal knowledge city or to transform an
existing city into a knowledge city. However, the concept is useful in enabling the city
planners to take up initiatives which help in joint optimization of all types of capitals in
the capital base of a city.
7
Key Differences in the concepts of Smart and Knowledge Cities
From what has been stated above, the key differences in the concepts of
smart and knowledge cities can be summarized as in Table 3.
Table 3
Key Differences in the concepts of Smart and Knowledge Cities
S.
Attribute
Smart City
Knowledge City
Role of
ICT has the most
Technology does not have a
Technology
predominant role; use of
pivotal role
No.
1
smart features for selfmonitoring and selfresponse is in-built.
2
Application
Usually referred to in the
Usually referred to in the
Area
context of creating new
context of existing cities
cities
3
4
5
Sectoral and
Focused on specific
Not focused on specific
infrastructural
sectors and
sectors but on the city as a
focus
infrastructure critical to a
whole; doesn’t delve into nitty-
city (e.g., energy, water,
gritties of individual sectors
traffic etc.)
and how they are related
People
People as citizens would
People especially knowledge
dimension
benefit, but are not
workers are key to the success
actively engaged in
of a knowledge city and are
providing critical inputs
actively engaged
Health and
These may form part of
These are at the core of the
education
the sectoral and
knowledge city concept and
infrastructural focus, to
contribute directly to the
the extent technology
augmentation of human
can support, and to the
resource capital of the city
extent, interdependence
is envisaged, with other
sectors and components
of infrastructure
8
S.
Attribute
Smart City
Knowledge City
Identity
No significant role
Identity capital of the city is an
Capital of the
envisaged for the
important component of the
City
identity capital of a city
city development framework
Focus on
Not explicitly stated as
Explicitly stated as an
long term
an important objective
important objective; continual
No.
6
7
sustainability
futuristic thinking in the form of
intelligence capital is in-built
8
Focus on
Innovative use of smart
Innovation considered an
innovation
technologies is pivotal;
essential output of the
but innovation not seen
knowledge city, adding to the
as an output getting
city’s competitiveness
generated from the city
9
Focus on
Economic leverage in
Though not explicitly stated,
economic
the form of increased
knowledge city would facilitate
leverage
employment and growth
knowledge economy and
in the products and
knowledge-based
services produced in the
development through
city.
increased employment and
growth in the city
Key Commonalities in the concepts of Smart and Knowledge Cities
Though smart and knowledge cities may appear as two totally different concepts,
considerable convergence between them is being brought out in the recent years.
Some of the points of convergence are as follows:
a) Current thinking about smart cities is increasingly emphasizing the people and
institutional factors, apart from technology. For example, Nam & Pardo (2011)
suggest adoption of a socio-technical view on smart cities, in which human factors
(such as language, culture, disabilities, skill development and education) and
institutional factors (such as collaboration among Government, citizens and other
stakeholders) are considered as important as technology factors.
b) Both concepts emphasize purposeful design of the city with clear goals.
9
Smart Cities in Indian Context
In the current fiscal’s annual budget, the Government of India has visualized
developing 100 smart cities as satellite towns of larger cities and by modernizing the
existing mid-sized cities; and a provision of INR 7060 crores has been made for the
same. The Delhi-Bombay Industrial Corridor is expected to be populated with seven
smart cities, which would utilize digital technology across power, water, safety and
transport needs (Spizzchino, 2013). These will be world-class, self-sustaining habitats
with minimal pollution level, maximum recycling, optimized energy supply, efficient
mass rapid public transportation with bicycle and walking tracks, eco-friendly, 24 hours
power supply, systems for smart grids with smart metering, digitally managed systems
to control energy consumption and drinking water etc. (Agentschap NL, 2012) Other
smart city initiatives driven by state governments include creation of smart cities at
Kochi, Ahmedabad, Aurangabad, Manesar, Khushkera, Krishnapatnam, Ponneri and
Tumkur. Many of these cities will include special investment regions or special
economic zones with modified regulations and tax structures to make it attractive for
foreign investment (Puri, 2014). Besides, examples have been cited of selected Indian
cities using ICT to solve specific urban problems related to traffic control, water supply,
waste management and energy management in smart buildings, though these
represent development in silos than holistically (Spizzchino, 2013).
However, it is not known if any standard templates exist or can be developed
for creating new smart cities. One can perhaps design technological component of a
smart city on some common lines which are dependent on proposed population, city’s
size and local geo-climatic conditions. These may be scaled up with increased city
size in terms of geography and population. However, it is unlikely that such
infrastructure-focused development can capture the soul of a city and provide it a
distinct identity of its own.
Smart and Knowledge Villages
Cities are considered as engines of growth of a nation and therefore their prime
importance in national development can’t be denied. However, in the context of India
and many other countries of the world, a large segment of population will continue to
be rural. Going by McKinsey report (2010), cities would have 40% of India’s population
by 2030, which implies that 60% of the Indian population will still be rural. The holistic
and inclusive development of a country can’t ignore the rural perspective. A singular
focus on creation of smart cities has the risk of polarized development. Besides, no
10
amount of futuristic thinking about smart cities can cope with the accelerated and
uncontrollable migration of people from rural to urban areas. It is therefore equally
important to visualize and strive towards creating (or transforming existing villages
into) smart villages and/or knowledge villages which compliment smart and knowledge
cities.
The concept of a smart village through applications of ICT in the rural context
has not been explored globally. In the Indian context, the National Informatics Centre,
Government of India introduced the concept of smart village several years back, but
not much headway appears to have been made towards that end. In a recent paper,
the concept of smart village in Indian context was explored and an approach to
designing smart village was suggested (Viswanadham & Vedula, 2010).
Knowledge Village as a concept has been explored and a knowledge village
capital framework on the lines of knowledge city capital framework has been tested
(Batra et al, 2013). The focus of a knowledge village is to strive for development at the
village level utilizing knowledge resources by identifying and harnessing a variety of
knowledge capitals. These are (a) Identity capital; (b) Intelligence capital; (c)
Relational Capital; (d) Human Capital (e ) Financial capital; (f) Material capital and (g)
Innovation capital. It is envisaged that collectively these capital types at the village
level would lead to the generation of three output factors, namely (a) creation of
products and services for economic growth at the village level; (b) environmentally and
socially sustainable development of the village and (c) well being of the living
population (Batra, 2013)
Building Smart Knowledge Villages
As suggested by Viswanadham & Vedula (2010), designing smart villages
would require adoption of smart technologies at the village level to address the key
sectors of water, power, housing, education, training, employment. Various state,
district and local level institutions will be required to provide the governance framework
and will be supported by IT-enabled service delivery mechanisms at the village level.
However, technology-induced smartness alone will not suffice to make the villages
hub of grassroots level development. It will be necessary to harness the knowledge
dimension of the village by developing the competence of local population through
education and skill development and engaging them in generation of local products
11
and services through entrepreneurship and innovation. Like in the smart city, the
sustainability dimension will be an important output factor for the knowledge village.
Creating Smart Knowledge Habitats
Looking at the conceptual frameworks related to smart cities and villages and
knowledge cities and villages, it can be observed that these are not mutually excusive
options. The paradigm of inclusive development and the current urban rural divide
makes it imperative that the rural areas are given as much importance as urban areas
in making them liveable on a sustained basis. A singular focus on urbanization with
the underlying belief that cities are engines of growth for the future may actually further
aggravate the rural urban divide, sharply increase the migration from rural to urban
areas and negate the gains from adopting smart (technology-based)
and/or
knowledge-based reengineering of city life. Therefore, rural and urban development
are not mutually exclusive, but parts of the same continuum.
Secondly, the connotation of smartness as the capacity to self-regulate and
self-monitor through technology is an attribute worth adopting. This provides a means
to ensure that the key infrastructure components (notably, energy, water supply, traffic
and other utilities) continue to meet the demands of the cities on a long term
sustainable and coordinated basis. However, singular focus on technology-based
solutions without the proactive involvement of citizens will not lead to viable options.
On the other hand, relying almost totally on “knowledge”-based processes to enhance
various types of Capitals as defined in the respective knowledge city or knowledge
capital framework without taking recourse to technology-based solutions would not be
workable. It is therefore important to blend technology and knowledge based
development thinking to develop what can be called as smart knowledge habitats.
The proposed smart knowledge habitats would have the following
characteristics appropriate to the scale of the habitat:
(a) Attributes of smartness to provide ICT based integrated smart solutions focused
on key sectors, including health, education, energy,
water supply,
telecommunication, transportation and buildings & offices.
(b) Attributes of the knowledge dimension, namely:
 developing healthy knowledge workers endowed with education and
skills
 avenues for economic activities for creation of goods and services
 avenues for innovation and creativity
12
 fostering of cohesive knowledge communities with futuristic orientation
 creation of a unique identity of the habitat
These attributes would apply as much to the villages as to the cities; as much to the
existing habitats as to creation of new cities; and would eventually result in phasing
out of the rural urban divide.
Figure 1 describes the concept of a smart knowledge habitat
Conclusion
This conceptual paper provides an overview of the concept of smart city and its
various deviants based on literature survey. It also examines the concepts of
knowledge cities as discussed in the literature of knowledge based development for
over a decade, including the knowledge cities capital framework used to compare city
rankings on eight types of capital. The paper then outlines the concept of a knowledge
village as an adaptation of the knowledge city framework in the Indian context with its
supporting knowledge village capital framework. Hitherto, the concept of smart village
has not been much explored in the literature; however, the concept of a smart village
ecosystem framework available in the literature provides the options of injecting
smartness in village life. The paper concludes that all these are not mutually exclusive
options. A blending of knowledge and smartness related attributes and their adoption
to city and village lives from a long tem sustainable perspective is critical to what can
be considered as smart knowledgeable habitats, whether city or village.
13
Figure 1
Concept of a Smart Knowledge Habitat
Key Knowledge
Attributes
Key Sectors
Identity of
the Habitat
Buildings,
Offices,
Houses
Health
Smart Integrated
ICT Infrastructure
s
Futuristic
Knowledge
Communities
Energy,
Water,
Telecom
pA
Education
Healthy
Knowledge
Workers
Transportation/
Traffic
Avenues for
Innovation
& Creativity
Avenues for
Economic
Activities
14
References
1. Agentschap NL, Ministerie van Economische Zaken. (Date not mentioned)
Smart
Cities
in
India.
accessed
at
http://www.rvo.nl/sites/default/files/Smart%20Cities%20India.pwww, accessed
10 August 2014
2. Anthopoulous, L., & Fitslis, P. (2010). From digital to ubiquitous cities: Defining
a common architecture for urban development. In Proceedings of the 6tg
International Conference on Intelligent Environments (Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia,
Jul 19-21)
3. Batra, S; Payal, R; and Carrillo, F. J. (2013). Knowledge Village Capital
Framework in the Indian Context. International Journal of Knowledge-based
Development Vol. 4 No. 3 pp. 222-244
4. Batra, S (2013). Ingredients of a Successful Knowledge Village in a Global
Context. Proceedings of the Sixth Knowledge Cities World Summit,
KCWS2013, Istanbul, Turkey, 9-12 Sep. 2013 pp 499-507
5. Boulton, A., Brunn, S.D., & Devriendt, L. (2011). Cyberinfrastructures and smart
world cities; Physical, human and soft infrastructures. In Derudder, B; Hoyler,
P. J.; & Witlox, F. (Eds.) International Handbook of Globalization and World
Cities, Edward Elgar Publishing
6. Campbell,
T.
(2009).
Learning
cities:
Knowledge,
capacity
and
competitiveness. Habitat International 33 (2) pp. 195-201
7. Carrillo, F.J. (Ed.) (2006) Knowledge Cities: Approaches, Experiences and
Perspectives, Elsevier, Oxford, UK.
8. Datta, P. (2006). Urbanization in India, Presented at European Population
Conference, University of Liverpool, UK, 21–24 June.
9. Edvinsson, L. (2006). Aspects on the City as a Knowledge Tool. Journal of
Knowledge Management. 10 (5), pp. 6-13
10. Florida, R. (2002). The Rise of the Creative Cities and How it is transforming
Work, Leisure, Community and everyday life. Basic Books, New York
11. Hodgkinson, S. (2011). Is your city smart enough?, Ovum Analyst Insights.
March
12. Hollands, R.G. (2008). Will the real smart city please stand up? City 12 (3), pp.
303-320
15
13. Kalam, A.P.J.A. and Singh, S.P. (2011). Target 3 Billion – PURA: Innovative
Solutions towards Sustainable Development, Penguin Books.
14. Komninos, N. & Sefertzi, E. (2009). Intelligent Cities: R&D offshoring, Web 2.0
product development and globalization of innovation systems. Paper presented
at
the
Second
Knowledge
Cities
Summit
2009.
Available
at
http://www.urenio.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/Intelligent-CitiesShenzhen-2009-Komninos-Sefertzi.pdf., accessed on 20th August 2014
15. Knowledge Economy Network (2012). Knowledge Cities and Smart Cities.
Weekly brief No. 20
16. McKinsey Global Institute (2010). India’s urban awakening: building inclusive
cities,
sustaining
economic
growth.
http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/urbanization/urban_awakening_in_india,
accessed on 10th August 2014
17. Moser, M. A. (2001), What is smart about the smart communities movement?
Ejournal, 10/1(1). Available at http://www.ucalgary.ca/ejournal/archive/v1011/v10-11n1Moser-browse.html, accessed on 10th August 2014
18. Nam, T & Pardo, T. A. (2011). “Conceptualizing Smart City with Dimensions of
Technology, People and Institutions, the Proceedings of the 12th Annual
Conference on Digital Government Research. June 12-15.
19. Narayan, Sunita (2014). How smart is a smart city. CSE's Fortnightly, August 5
20. Pricewaterhouse Coopers (2005). Cities of the Future: Global competition, local
leadership, connected thinking.
21. Puri, A (2014). What are Smart Cities? Article in the Hindu. At
http://www.thehindu.com/features/homes-and-gardens/green-living/what-aresmart-cities/article6321332.ece, accessed on 16th August 2014
22. Spizzichind, T (2013). Smart Cities – The Critical Need of Hour in India.
Energetica India, January-February 2013
23. Sproull, L. & Patterson, J.F. (2004). Information Cities. Communications of the
ACM, 47(2), 28-31
24. Streitz, N. (2009). Ambient intelligent landscapes for realizing the cities of the
future: Introduction and overview. In Proceedings of the 3rd European
Conference on Ambient Intelligence (Salzburg, Austria, Nov 18-21) At
http://www.smart-future.net/4.html, accessed on 10th August 2014
16
25. The World Capital Institute & Teleos (2008). The MAKCi Framework, WCI,
Monterrey.
26. UN Habitat (2012).State of the World Cities 2012-13: Prosperity of Cities.
http://mirror.unhabitat.org/pmss/listItemDetails.aspx?publicationID=3387
accessed on 10th August 2014
27. Urbecon (2002). Creating and Sustaining a Knowledge City August. SGS
Economics & Planning, Australia.
28. Vienna University of Technology, University of Ljubljana and Delft University of
Technology (2007). Smart Cities – Ranking of European Medium-sized Cities”.
Final Report. October 2007.
29. Viswanadham, N & Vedula, S. (2010). Design of Smart Villages: Moving up the
Value Chain. The Centre for Global Logistics & Manufacturing Strategies,
Indian
School
of
Business.
http://drona.csa.iisc.ernet.in/~nv/Mypublications/C/z.pdf,
accessed
At
on
17August 2014
30. Winters, J. V. (2010). Why are smart cities growing? Who moves and who
stays. Journal of Regional Science, 20 (10), 1-18
31. World Bank (2008). Global City Indicators Program Report: A Program to Assist
Cities in Developing an Integrated Approach for Measuring City Performance.
At
http://www.cityindicators.org/Deliverables/Final%20Indicators%20Report%203
_21_08_4-23-2008-924597.pdf accessed on 10th August 2014
32. Yigitcanlar, T., Velibeyoglu, K. and Martinez-Fernandez, C. (2008). Rising
knowledge cities: the role of urban knowledge precincts. Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 12, No. 5, pp.8–20.
33. Yovanof, G. S. & Hazapis, G. N. (2009). An architectural framework and
enabling
wireless
technologies
for
digital
cities
&
intelligent
urban
environments. Wireless Personal Communications. 49 (3), 445-463.
17