Smart City pp 45-88 | Cite as

Comparing Smart and Digital City: Initiatives and Strategies in Amsterdam and Genoa. Are They Digital and/or Smart?

  • Renata Paola DameriEmail author
Part of the Progress in IS book series (PROIS)


The objective of this research is to investigate the relations between Smart city and Digital city concepts and strategies. The author examines the international literature about these topics, comparing smart city and digital city definitions, components and goals. This survey shows that a clear definition of both smart city and digital city still lacks and that these two topics are often overlapped or confused. The same thing happens in empirical implementation of smart and/or digital strategies in cities. The research methodology includes the study and comparison of two important empirical implementations of Smart/Digital strategies in Europe: Amsterdam and Genoa. The results show that smart city and digital city are not the same, even if they are strictly linked each other and sometimes merged in common initiatives. Moreover, this empirical research highlights the key role of players, programs and governance in realizing smart/digital cities really effective for a best quality of life in the urban space.


Smart city Digital city Digital agenda Case study 


  1. 1.
    Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., & Nijkamp, P. (2011). Smart cities in Europe. Journal of Urban Technology, 18(2), 65–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anthopoulos, L., & Fitsilis, P. (2010). From digital to ubiquitous cities: Defining a common architecture for urban development. In 2010 Sixth International Conference on Intelligent Environments (IE). IEEE.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dameri, R. P. (2013). Searching for Smart City definition: a comprehensive proposal. International Journal of Computers and Technology, 11(5), 2544–2551.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shin, Y., & Shin, D.-H. (2012). Community informatics and the new urbanism: incorporating information and communication technologies into planning integrated urban communities. Journal of Urban Technology, 19(1), 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Morganti, L., & Donders, K. (2013). A digital agenda in search of evidence. info 16(1), 1.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kim, J., & Steenkamp A. L. (2013). Analysis of smart city models and the Four-Foci taxonomy for smart city design. The Visibility of Research, (2013), 637. Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dameri, R. P. (2012). Defining an evaluation framework for digital cities implementation. In 2012 International Conference on Information Society (i-Society). IEEE.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dameri, R. P., & Ricciardi, F. (2014). Using social networks in smart city: organizational challenges, synergies and benefits. In Proceedings of European Conference on Social Media, Brighton.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dameri, R. P., D’Auria B., & Ricciardi F. (2014). Knowledge and intellectual capital in smart city. In Proceedings of European Conference on Knowledge Management, Santarem Portugal.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bosker, M., Buringh, E., & van Zanden, J. L. (2013). From Baghdad to London: unraveling urban development in Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa, 800–1800. Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(4), 1418–1437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhang, L. Y. (2013). City development strategies and the transition towards a green urban economy. In The Economy of Green Cities (pp. 231–240). Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stigt, R., Driessen, P. P. J., & Spit, T. J. M. (2013). Compact city development and the challenge of environmental policy integration: a multi-level governance perspective. Environmental Policy and Governance, 23(4), 221–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bowerman, B., et al. (2000). The vision of a smart city. In 2nd International Life Extension Technology Workshop, Paris.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    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
  15. 15.
    Ramaswami, A., et al. (2012). A social-ecological-infrastructural systems framework for interdisciplinary study of sustainable city systems. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 16(6), 801–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2011). Smart city as urban innovation: Focusing on management, policy, and context. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance. ACM.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ricciardi, F., Rossignoli, C., & De Marco, M. (2013). Participatory networks for place safety and livability: organisational success factors. International Journal of Networking and Virtual Organisations, 13(1), 42–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Yuan, Y. M., et al. (2012). Architecture and data vitalization of smart city. Advanced Materials Research, 403, 2564–2568.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lombardi, P., et al. (2012). Modelling the smart city performance. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 25(2), 137–149.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cocchia, A. (2013). Smart and digital city: a systematic literature review. In: NOSTRO LIBRO.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jenks, M., & Dempsey, N. (Eds.). (2005). Future forms and design for sustainable cities. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Komninos, N. (2006). The architecture of intelligent clities: integrating human, collective and artificial intelligence to enhance knowledge and innovation. In 2nd IET International Conference on Intelligent Environments, IE 06. (Vol. 1). IET.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ishida, T. (2002). Digital city kyoto. Communications of the ACM, 45(7), 76–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Komninos, N. (2008). Intelligent cities and globalisation of innovation networks. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Camagni, R., Capello, R., & Nijkamp, P. (1998). Towards sustainable city policy: an economy-environment technology nexus. Ecological Economics, 24(1), 103–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Sorrentino, M., Niehaves, B. (2010, January 5–8). Intermediaries in E-Inclusion: a literature review. Paper presented at the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-43), Kauai, Hawaii. IEEE.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    McCarthy, S. (2007). Planning for health and wellbeing: city of greater Dandenong wonders of Dandenong and the walking revolution. Planning News, 33(5), 14.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    OECD. (2013). Functional urban areas in OECD countries. Paris.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Il riordino delle province e delle città metropolitane, Camera dei deputati-XVI Legislatura—Dossier di documentazione. Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Guerrini, A., Romano, G., & Campedeli, B. (2013). Economies of scale, scope, and density in the Italian water sector: a two-stage data envelopment analysis approach. Water Resource Management, 27(1), 4559–4578.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Guerrini, A., Martini, M., & Campedelli, B. (2013). Measuring the efficiency of the Italian construction industry. International Journal of Business Performance Management, 14, 307–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zardini, A., Rossignoli, C., Mola, L., & De Marco, M. (2014). Developing municipal e-Government in Italy: the city of Alfa case. In M. Snene & M. Leonard (Eds.), Exploring Services Science (Vol. 160, pp. 124–137)., Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., & Nijkamp, P. (2009). Smart cities in Europe. 0048.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Etzkowitz, H., Loet, L. (1997). The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and Mode 2 to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Research policy, 29.2(2000), 109–123.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of GenoaGenoaItaly

Personalised recommendations