Business & Information Systems Engineering

, Volume 61, Issue 6, pp 665–678 | Cite as

Hearing the Voice of Citizens in Smart City Design: The CitiVoice Framework

  • Anthony SimonofskiEmail author
  • Estefanía Serral Asensio
  • Johannes De Smedt
  • Monique Snoeck
Research Paper


In the last few years, smart cities have attracted considerable attention because they are considered a response to the complex challenges that modern cities face. However, smart cities often do not optimally reach their objectives if the citizens, the end-users, are not involved in their design. The aim of this paper is to provide a framework to structure and evaluate citizen participation in smart cities. By means of a literature review from different research areas, the relevant enablers of citizen participation are summarized and bundled in the proposed CitiVoice framework. Then, following the design science methodology, the content and the utility of CitiVoice are validated through the application to different smart cities and through in-depth interviews with key Belgian smart city stakeholders. CitiVoice is used as an evaluation tool for several Belgian smart cities allowing drawbacks and flaws in citizens’ participation to be discovered and analyzed. It is also demonstrated how CitiVoice can act as a governance tool for the ongoing smart city design of Namur (Belgium) to help define the citizen participation strategy. Finally, it is used as a comparison and creativity tool to compare several cities and design new means of participation.


Smart cities Citizen Participation Framework Evaluation 


  1. Adepetu A, Ahmed K, Abd Y Al (2012) CrowdREquire: a requirements engineering crowdsourcing platform. In: AAAI spring symposium on Wisdom Crowd, pp 2–7Google Scholar
  2. Albino V, Berardi U, Dangelico RM (2015) Smart cities: definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives. J Urban Technol 22:3–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amsterdam City (2015) About Amsterdam Smart City. Accessed 1 Dec 2015
  4. Anthopoulos L, Janssen M, Weerakkody V (2016) A unified smart city model (USCM) for smart city conceptualization and benchmarking. Int J Electron Gov Res 12:77–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plan 35:216–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Axelsson K, Melin U (2008) Citizen participation and involvement in eGovernment projects: an emergent framework. In: Wimmer MA, Scholl HJ, Ferro E (eds) Electronic government: Proceedings of the 7th [IFIP WG 8.5] international conference, EGOV 2008. Turin, Italy, pp 207–218Google Scholar
  7. Baccarne B, Mechant P, Schuurman D (2014) Empowered cities? An analysis of the structure and generated value of the smart city Ghent. In: Dameri R, Rosenthal-Sabroux C (eds) Smart city: how to create public and economic value with high technology in urban space. Springer, Cham, pp 157–182Google Scholar
  8. Berntzen L, Johannessen MR (2016) The role of citizen participation in municipal smart city projects: lessons learned from Norway. In: Gil-Garcia J, Pardo T, Nam T (eds) Smarter as the New Urban Agenda. Springer, Cham, pp 299–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Callahan K (2007) Citizen participation: models and methods. Int J Public Adm 30:1179–1196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Caragliu A, Del Bo C, Nijkamp P (2011) Smart cities in Europe. J Urban Technol 18:65–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cocchia A (2014) Smart and digital city: a systematic literature review. In: Dameri R, Rosenthal-Sabroux C (eds) Smart city: how to create public and economic value with high technology. Springer, Cham, pp 13–43Google Scholar
  12. Criado JI, Sandoval-Almazan R, Gil-Garcia JR (2013) Government innovation through social media. Gov Inf Q 30:319–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dameri RP (2014) Comparing smart and digital city: initiatives and strategies in Amsterdam and Genoa. Are they digital and/or smart? In: Dameri R, Rosenthal-Sabroux C (eds) Smart city: how to create public and economic value with high technology in urban space. Springer, Cham, pp 45–88Google Scholar
  14. Dameri RP, Rosenthal-Sabroux C (eds) (2014) Smart city and value creation. In: Smart city: how to create public and economic value with high technology in urban space. Springer, Cham, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  15. Dolson J, Young R (2012) Explaining variation in the e-Government features of municipal websites: an analysis of e-Content, e-Participation, and social media features in Canadian municipal websites. Can J Urban Res 21:1–24Google Scholar
  16. Drever E (1995) Using semi-structured interviews in small-scale research. A teacher’s guide. Scottish Council for Research in Education, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  17. Du G, Degbelo A, Kray C (2017) Public displays for public participation in urban settings: a survey. In: Proceedings of the 6th ACM international symposium on pervasive displays, p 17Google Scholar
  18. European Commission (2009) Living Labs for user-driven open innovation. Accessed 26 Nov 2016
  19. Falagas ME, Pitsouni EI, Malietzis GA, Pappas G (2008) Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: strengths and weaknesses. FASEB J 22:338–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Følstad A, Jørgensen HD, Krogstie J (2004) User involvement in e-government development projects. In: Third Nordic conference on human–computer interaction. ACM Press, Tampere, pp 217–224Google Scholar
  21. Friedewald M, Raabe O (2011) Ubiquitous computing: an overview of technology impacts. Telemat Inf 28:55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Galvagno M, Dalli D, Galvagno M (2014) Theory of value co-creation: a systematic literature review. Mark Serv Qual 24:643–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gent City (2014) Smart City Gent. Accessed 26 Nov 2016
  24. Gil-Garcia JR, Zhang J, Puron-Cid G (2016) Conceptualizing smartness in government: an integrative and multi-dimensional view. Gov Inf Q 33:524–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gutierrez V, Galache JA, Sanchez L, Munoz L, Hernandez-Munoz JM, Fernandes J, Presser M (2013) SmartSantander: internet of things research and innovation through citizen participation. Lect Notes Comput Sci (including Subser Lect Notes Artif Intell Lect Notes Bioinformatics) 7858 LNCS:173–186Google Scholar
  26. Harrison C, Donnelly I (2011) A theory of smart cities. In: Proceedings of the 55th annual meeting of the ISSSGoogle Scholar
  27. Hartwick J, Barki H (1994) Explaining the role of user participation in information system use. Manag Sci 40:440–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hevner AR, March ST, Park J (2004) Design science in information systems research. MIS Q 28:75–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hollands RG (2008) Will the real smart city please stand up? City 12:303–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Irvin RA, Stansbury J (2004) Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort? Public Adm Rev 64:55–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Janssen M, Charalabidis Y, Zuiderwijk A (2012) Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of open data and open government. Inf Syst Manag 29:258–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Johannessen M (2010) Genres of participation in social networking systems: a study of the 2009 Norwegian parliamentary election. In: Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics), pp 104–114Google Scholar
  33. Khan Z, Kiani SL (2012) A cloud-based architecture for citizen services in smart cities. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/ACM 5th international conference utility and cloud computing UCC 2012, pp 315–320Google Scholar
  34. L’avenir (2015) Fonds FEDER – Namur obtient plus de 29 millions d’euros de subsides pour neuf projets. Accessed 26 Nov 2015
  35. Lee G, Kwak YH (2012) An open government maturity model for social media-based public engagement. Gov Inf Q 29:492–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Linders D (2012) From e-government to we-government: defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Gov Inf Q 29:446–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lombardi P (2011) New challenges in the evaluation of smart cities. Netw Ind Q 13:8–10Google Scholar
  38. Mahaux M, Maiden N (2008) Theater improvisers know the requirements game. IEEE Softw 25:68–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Merli M, Bonollo E (2014) Performance measurement in the smart cities. In: Dameri R, Rosenthal-Sabroux C (eds) Smart city: how to create public and economic value with high technology in urban space. Springer, Cham, pp 139–155Google Scholar
  40. Nam T, Pardo TA (2011) Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people, and institutions. In: Proceedings of the 12th annual international digital government research conference on digital government innovation in challenging times – dg.o’11. ACM Press, New York, p 282Google Scholar
  41. Pallot M, Trousse B, Senach B, Scapin D (2010) Living lab research landscape: from user centred design and user experience towards user cocreation. Technol Innov Manag Rev 1:19–25Google Scholar
  42. Perera C, Zaslavsky A, Christen P, Georgakopoulos D (2014) Sensing as a service model for smart cities supported by internet of things. Trans Emerg Telecommun Technol 25:81–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rosener JB (1978) Citizen participation: Can we measure its effectiveness? Public Adm Rev 38:457–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schaffers H, Komninos N, Pallot M, Trousse B, Nilsson M, Oliveira A (2011) Smart cities and the future internet: towards cooperation frameworks for open innovation. Lect Notes Comput Sci (Subser Lect Notes Artif Intell Lect Notes Bioinf) 6656:431–446Google Scholar
  45. Scholl HJ, Scholl MC (2014) Smart governance: a roadmap for research and practice. In: Kindling M, Greifeneder E (eds) Proceedings of the 9th iConference. Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship (IDEALS), Berlin, pp 163–176Google Scholar
  46. Schön E-M, Thomaschewski J, Escalona MJ (2016) Agile requirements engineering: a systematic literature review. Comput Stand Interfaces. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schuler D, Namioka A (1993) Participatory design: principles and practices. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  48. Simonofski A, Serral Asensio E, Desmedt J, Snoeck M (2017a) Citizen participation in smart cities: evaluation framework proposal. In: 2017 IEEE 19th conference bus informatics, pp 227–236Google Scholar
  49. Simonofski A, Vanderose B, Snoeck M, Crompvoets J, Habra N (2017b) Reexamining E-participation: systematic literature review on citizen participation in E-government service delivery full paper. In: AIS (ed) 2017 23rd Americas conference on information systems, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  50. TRAKK (2014) Activités. Accessed 1 Feb 2016
  51. Vácha T, Přibyl O, Lom M, Bacúrová M (2016) Involving citizens in smart city projects: systems engineering meets participation. 2016 Smart Cities Symp Prague, SCSP 2016.
  52. van Velsen L, van der Geest T, ter Hedde M, Derks W (2009) Requirements engineering for e-Government services: a citizen-centric approach and case study. Gov Inf Q 26:477–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Weber EP (2000) A new vanguard for the environment: grass-roots ecosystem management as a new environmental movement. Soc Nat Resour 13:237–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zissis D, Lekkas D (2011) Securing e-Government and e-Voting with an open cloud computing architecture. Gov Inf Q 28:239–251CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anthony Simonofski
    • 1
    Email author
  • Estefanía Serral Asensio
    • 1
  • Johannes De Smedt
    • 2
  • Monique Snoeck
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Economics and BusinessKU LeuvenLouvainBelgium
  2. 2.Management Science and Business Economics GroupUniversity of EdinburghEdinburghScotland, UK

Personalised recommendations