Smart City pp 139-155 | Cite as

Performance Measurement in the Smart Cities

  • Mara Zuccardi MerliEmail author
  • Elisa Bonollo
Part of the Progress in IS book series (PROIS)


A successful smart city needs an adequate performance measurement system to have all the information required to develop an effective involvement of stakeholders. Indeed the concept of smart city is connected no longer just to the presence and use of digital infrastructure but also to the role of human, social and relational capital and to the participation of all stakeholders, who, to be really involved, must be adequately informed about goals, activities and results achieved. In this work, after an introduction of the smart city concept, a new model to measure the performance of a smart city is proposed and the results of an empirical study on a sample of smart cities in Italy and Europe are reported. The empirical study aims to analyze how smart cities included in the sample are used to measure their performance and the capability of the new model to meet all the information needs.


Smart city Performance indicators 


  1. 1.
    Harrison, C., & Donnelly I. A. (2011). A theory of smart cities. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the International Society for the Systems Sciences. Hull, UK.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Granelli, A. (2012). Città intelligenti?. Roma: Luca Sassello Editore.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schaffers, H., Ratti, C., & Komninos, N. (2012). Special issue on smart application for smart cities–New approaches to innovations: guest editors’ introduction. Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 7(3), II–IV.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Giffinger, R., Fertner, C., Kramar, H., Kalasek, R., Pichler-Milanović, N., & Meijers, E. (2007). Smart Cities. Ranking of European Medium-Sized Cities. Vienna, Austria: Centre of Regional Science of Vienna, Vienna University of Technology.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Morse, S. (2004). Smart Communities: How Citizens and Local Leaders Can Use Strategic Thinking to Build a Brighter Future. New York: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    California Institute for Smart Communities. (2001). Smart Communities Guidebook. California: San Diego State University.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Steventon, A., & Wright, S. (Eds.). (2006). Intelligent Spaces: The application of Pervasive ICT. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Komninos, N. (2002). Intelligent Cities: Innovation, Knowledge systems and digital spaces. London and New York: Spoon Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., & Nijkamp, P. (2009). Smart Cities in Europe, Series Research Memoranda 0048. Free University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics (2009).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fondazione Ambrosetti. (2012). Smart Cities in Italy: An Opportunity in the Spirit of the Renaissance for a New Quality of Life. ABB-The European House Ambrosetti.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Anttiroiko, A. V., Valiamo, P., & Bailey, S. J. (2013). Smart cities in the new service economy: Building platforms for smart services. AI & Society.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schaffers, H., Komninos, N., & Pallott, M. (Eds.) (212). Smart Cities as Innovation Ecosystems sustained by the Future Internet. White paper, Firewall.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schaffers, H., Komninos, N., Pallott, M., Trousse, B., Nilsson, M., & Oliveira, A. (2011). Smart cities and the future internet: Towards cooperation frameworks for open innovation. In J. Domingue, et al. (Eds.), The Future Internet. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fung, A. (2001). Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Administration Review, 66(S1), 66–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Donato, F. (2010). Le amministrazioni pubbliche verso logiche di governo partecipato. Milano: Giuffrè.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ostrom, E. (1996). Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development. World Development, 24(6), 1073–1087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kickert, W. J. M. (1997). Public governance in the Netherlands: An alternative to Anglo-American managerialism. Public Administration, 75(4), 731–752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kooiman, J., & Van Vliet, M. (1993). Governance and public management. In K. Eljassen & J. Kooiman (Eds.), Managing Public Organizations: Lesson from Contemporary European Experience. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ongaro, E. (2009). Public management reform and modernizations. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rhodes, R. A. W. (1997). Understanding Governance. Policy Networks, Governance, Reflexivity and Accountability. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hughes, O. (2010). Does governance exist? In S. P. Osborne (Ed.), The New Public Governance? Emerging Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lebas, M. J. (1995). Performance measurement and performance management. International Journal of Production Economics, 41, 23–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Behn, R. D. (2003). Why measure performance? Different purposes require different measures. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 586–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bouckaert, G., & Halligan, J. (2008). Managing Performance. International Comparisons. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Komninos, N. (2008). Intelligent Cities and Globalisation of Innovation Networks. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Levi, N. (2004). Il piano di comunicazione nelle amministrazioni pubbliche. Dipartimento della Funzione Pubblica. Napoli: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mussari, R., & Steccolini, I. (2010). Using the internet for communicating performance information. Public Money & Management, 26(3), 193–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Boyne, G., & Law, J. (1991). Accountability and local authority annual reports: The case of welsh district councils. Financial Accountability and Management, 7(3), 179–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ryan, C., Dunstan, D., & Mack, J. (2001). Local Government Annual Reports: Australian Empirical Evidence on Recipients, Paper presented at the APIRA Conference, July, Adelaide.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Taylor, D. W., & Rosair, M. (2000). The effects of participating parties, the public, and size on government departments’ accountability disclosures in annual reports. Accounting, Accountability and Performance, 6(1), 77–97.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rusconi, G. (1988). Il bilancio sociale d’impresa. Problemi e prospettive. Milano: Giuffrè.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Steccolini, I. (2004). Is the annual report an accountability medium? An empirical investigation into italian local governments. Financial Accountability and Management 20(3), 327–350.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Low, W., & Davenport, E. (2001). Parallel lines—The development of social auditing and triple bottom line reporting in New Zealand. In Proceedings of the Governance and Corporate Social Responsibility in the New Millennium. Governance and Social Responsibility Conference: Proceedings of the 2001 Conference, Burwood, Victoria.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and Business StudiesUniversity of GenoaGenoaItaly

Personalised recommendations