Skip to main content

Openness: A Key Factor for Smart Cities

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Smart Cities

Abstract

Smart cities incorporate a variety of technologies into the urban fabric and provide services based on these technologies, different types of data, and its analysis. How these technologies, services, data, and analyses are designed and governed has far-reaching implications for how a smart city operates and how its citizens experience it. Proprietary technologies, opaque analyses, and closed data can have a negative impact on acceptance, inclusion, sovereignty, and innovation. Conversely, opening up data and analysis as well as facilitating easy access and interoperability have the potential to positively affect these factors. In this chapter, the concept of openness in the context of smart cities is introduced. The concept describes on multiple levels how open (or closed) a city is. Openness in smart cities incorporates three key dimensions – transparency, participation, and collaboration – which affect various domains such as data processing or service provision. Using examples from ongoing and previous research, this chapter also discusses how to realize openness in practice and what benefits and drawbacks can result from different degrees of openness. Based on these considerations, a number of key issues are highlighted that are important to take into account in the design of smart cities and in the transformation process towards a sustainable, smart, and open city.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acedo, A., & Johnson, P. A. (2020). Home range and habitat: Using platial characteristics to define urban areas from the bottom up. Transactions in GIS, 24(4), 819–841.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acedo, A., Painho, M., & Casteleyn, S. (2017a). Place and city: Operationalizing sense of place and social capital in the urban context. Transactions in GIS, 21(3), 503–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acedo, A., Mendoza, G., Painho, M., & Casteleyn, S. (2017b). One tool to spatialize all: Sense of place, social capital and civic engagement. In A. Bregt, T. Sarjakoski, R. Lammeren, & F. Rip (Eds.), Societal Geo-Innovation: Short papers, posters and poster abstracts of the 20th AGILE Conference on Geographic Information Science (p. 5). Wageningen: Wageningen University & Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acedo, A., Painho, M., Casteleyn, S., & Roche, S. (2018a). Place and city: Toward urban intelligence. ISPRS International Journal of GeoInformation, 7(9), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acedo, A., Santa, F., Painho, M., & Henriques, R. (2018b). Do people develop activities at places in which citizens have a sense of place? In A. Mansourian, P. Pilesjö, L. Harrie, & R. von Lammeren (Eds.), Geospatial technologies for all: Short papers, posters and poster abstracts of the 21th AGILE conference on geographic information science, Lund, Sweden. Lund: Lund University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acedo, A., Oliveira, T., Naranjo-Zolotov, M., & Painho, M. (2019). Place and city: Toward a geography of engagement. Heliyon, 5(8), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Acedo, A., Santa, F., & Johnson, P. A. (2020). Place and people: Spatializing degrees of bonding and bridging social capital in Lisbon (Portugal). Geo-Journal. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-020-10224-1

  • Appio, F. P., Lima, M., & Paroutis, S. (2019). Understanding smart cities: Innovation ecosystems, technological advancements, and societal challenges. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 142, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aricat, R. G., & Ling, R. (2016). Civic engagement in Myanmar: The promise and threat of mobile communication and the Internet. In R. Wei (Ed.), Mobile communication in Asia: Local insights, global implications (pp. 123–142). Dordrecht: Springer Science & Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Attard, J., Orlandi, F., & Auer, S. (2016). Data driven governments: Creating value through open government data. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), 9860 LNCS(May 2018), 84–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, C. (2009). What is transparency? Public Integrity, 11(4), 293–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2011). The trouble with transparency: A critical review of openness in e-Government. Policy & Internet, 3(1), 158–187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benedict, S., Rumaise, P., & Kaur, J. (2019). IoT blockchain solution for air quality monitoring in smartcities. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Advanced Networks and Telecommunications Systems (ANTS), pp. 1–6. IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benitez-Páez, M. F. (2018). A user-centric framework to improve the reusability of open geodata in cities. Ph.D. thesis, Universitat Jaume I, Castelló de la Plana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benitez-Paez, F., Comber, A., Trilles, S., & Huerta, J. (2018). Creating a conceptual framework to improve the re-usability of open geographic data in cities. Transactions in GIS, 22, 806.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bibri, S. E., & Krogstie, J. (2020). The emerging data–driven smart city and its innovative applied solutions for sustainability: The cases of London and Barcelona. Energy Informatics, 3(1), 1–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonney, R., Cooper, C. B., Dickinson, J., Kelling, S., Phillips, T., Rosenberg, K. V., & Shirk, J. (2009). Citizen science: A developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. Bioscience, 59(11), 977–984.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brabham, D. C. (2009). Crowdsourcing the public participation process for planning projects. Planning Theory, 8(3), 242–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Branco, R. M., Quental, J., & Ribeiro, Ó. (2016). Playing with personalisation and openness in a codesign project involving people with dementia. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 1, 61–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardullo, P., & Kitchin, R. (2018). Being a ‘citizen’ in the smart city: Up and down the scaffold of smart citizen participation in Dublin, Ireland. GeoJournal 84, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castell, N., Dauge, F. R., Schneider, P., Vogt, M., Lerner, U., Fishbain, B., Broday, D., & Bartonova, A. (2017). Can commercial low-cost sensor platforms contribute to air quality monitoring and exposure estimates? Environment International, 99, 293–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapurlat, V., & Daclin, N. (2012). System interoperability: Definition and proposition of interface model in MBSE context (Vol. 45). IFAC. Bucharest.

    Google Scholar 

  • CKAN. https://ckan.org/ckan-resources/. Accessed 17 Oct 2020.

  • Curley, M., & Salmelin, B. (2013). Open innovation 2.O: A new paradigm (Technical report). EU Open Innovation Strategy and Policy Group (OISPG).

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawes, S. S., Pardo, T. A., & Cresswell, A. M. (2004). Designing electronic government information access programs: A holistic approach. Government Information Quarterly, 21(1), 3–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Decidim. https://decidim.org/. Accessed 17 Oct 2020.

  • Degbelo, A., Granell, C., Trilles, S., Bhattacharya, D., Casteleyn, S., & Kray, C. (2016a). Opening up smart cities: Citizen-centric challenges and opportunities from giscience. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 5(2), 16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Degbelo, A., Bhattacharya, D., Granell, C., & Trilles, S. (2016b). Toolkits for smarter cities: A brief assessment. In Ubiquitous computing and ambient intelligence (pp. 431–436). Cham: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Degbelo, A., Bhattacharya, D., Trilles, S., Canut, C. G., Kray, C., & Schiestel, N. (2016c). Designing a semantic API for open city data. JeDEM-eJournal of eDemocracy and, Open Government, 8(2), 21–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dey, N., Hassanien, A. E., Bhatt, C., Ashour, A., & Satapathy, S. C. (2018). Internet of things and big data analytics toward next-generation intelligence. Cham: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dollinger, S. J. (2012). Openness to experience (pp. 2522–2524). Boston: Springer US.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enkel, E., Gassmann, O., & Chesbrough, H. (2009). Open R&D and open innovation: Exploring the phenomenon. R and D Management, 39(4), 311–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finch, K., & Tene, O. (2018). Smart Cities: Privacy, Transparency, and Community. In E. Selinger, J. Polonetsky, & O. Tene (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Consumer Privacy (Cambridge Law Handbooks, pp. 125–148). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316831960.007

  • Foster, K. A., & Hipp, J. A. (2011). Defining neighborhood boundaries for social measurement: Advancing social work research. Social Work Research, 35(1), 25–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster, K. A., Smith, R. J., Bell, B. A., & Shaw, T. C. (2019). Testing the importance of geographic distance for social capital resources. Urban Affairs Review, 55(1), 231–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fowler, C. S., Frey, N., Folch, D. C., Nagle, N., & Spielman, S. (2020). Who are the people in my neighborhood?: The contextual fallacy of measuring individual context with census geographies. Geographical Analysis, 52(2), 155–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • G8. (2013, June). G8 Open Data Charter. G8 Lough Erne 2013, pp. 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geo-C: Enabling Open Cities. http://www.geo-c.eu/. Accessed 17 Oct 2020.

  • Granell, C., Bhattacharya, D., Casteleyn, S., Degbelo, A., Gould, M., Kray, C., Painho, M., & Trilles, S. (2018). GEO-C: Enabling open cities and the open city toolkit. International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing & Spatial Information Sciences, 42, 61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granell, C., Kamilaris, A., Kotsev, A., Ostermann, F. O., & Trilles, S. (2020). Internet of things. In Manual of digital Earth (pp. 387–423). Singapore: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Grootaert, C., Narayan, D., Jones, V. N., & Wool-cock, M. (2004). Measuring social capital: An integrated questionnaire. Washington, DC: World Bank.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, S., Hamzin, A., & Degbelo, A. (2018a). A low-cost open hardware system for collecting traffic data using Wi-Fi signal strength. Sensors, 18(11), 3623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, S., Pebesma, E., Degbelo, A., & Costa, A. C. (2018b). Optimising citizen-driven air quality monitoring networks for cities. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 7(12), 468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, S., Pebesma, E., Mateu, J., & Degbelo, A. (2018c). Air quality monitoring network design optimisation for robust land use regression models. Sustainability, 10(5), 1442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, S., Degbelo, A., & Pebesma, E. (2018d). Connecting citizens and housing companies for fine-grained air-quality sensing. GI_Forum, 6, 275–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagen, L., Keller, T. E., Yerden, X., & Luna-Reyes, L. F. (2019). Open data visualizations and analytics as tools for policy-making. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haklay, M. (2013). Citizen science and volunteered geographic information: Overview and typology of participation. In Crowdsourcing geographic knowledge: Volunteered geographic information (VGI) in theory and practice (pp. 105–122). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, M., Köhntopp, K., & Pfitzmann, A. (2002). The open source approach – Opportunities and limitations with respect to security and privacy. Computers and Security, 21(5), 461–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hipp, J. R. (2007). Block, tract, and levels of aggregation: Neighborhood structure and crime and disorder as a case in point. American Sociological Review, 72(5), 659–680.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, M., Muönster, S., & Noennig, J. R. (2020). A theoretical framework for the evaluation of massive digital participation systems in urban planning. Journal of Geovisualization and Spatial Analysis, 4(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hsu, H. Y., Liu, F. H., Tsou, H. T., & Chen, L. J. (2019). Openness of technology adoption, top management support and service innovation: A social innovation perspective. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing, 34(3), 575–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, G. J., Wachowicz, M., & Bregt, A. K. (2003). Understanding spatial data usability. Data Science Journal, 2(Special issue), 79–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irvin, R. A., & Stansbury, J. (2004). Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort? Public Administration Review, 64(1), 55–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Is data the new oil?. https://www.forbes.com/sites/perryrotella/2012/04/02/is-data-the-new-oil/. Accessed 17 Oct 2020.

  • Janssen, M., Matheus, R., Longo, J., & Weerakkody, V. (2017). Transparency-by-design as a foundation for open government. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 11(1), 2–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, B., & Thill, J. C. (2015). Volunteered geographic information: Towards the establishment of a new paradigm. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 53, 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jochen Scholl, H. J. (2005). Interoperability in e-Government: More than just smart middleware. In Proceedings of the annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, 00(C), p. 124.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, J. P. (2006). Collaboration, peer review and open source software. Information Economics and Policy, 18(4), 477–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, P. A., Robinson, P. J., & Philpot, S. (2020a). Type, tweet, tap, and pass: How smart city technology is creating a transactional citizen. Government Information Quarterly, 37(1), 101414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, P. A., Acedo, A., & Robinson, P. J. (2020b). Canadian smart cities: Are we wiring new citizenlocal government interactions? The Canadian Geographer/Le Géographe canadien, 64, cag.12623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jorgensen, B. S., & Stedman, R. C. (2001). Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshore owners attitudes toward their properties. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21(3), 233–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, S., & Lee, J. (2017). Citizen participation and transparency in local government: Do participation channels and policy making phases matter? In Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (2017), pp. 2742–2750.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kök, İ., Şimşek, M. U., & Özdemir, S. (2017). A deep learning model for air quality prediction in smart cities. In 2017 IEEE international conference on Big Data (Big Data), pp. 1983–1990. IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • La Ctedra Govern Obert. https://catgo.webs.upv.es/. Accessed 17 Oct 2020.

  • Las Naves. https://www.lasnaves.com/. Accessed 17 Oct 2020.

  • Lathrop, D., & Ruma, L. (2010). Open government: Collaboration, transparency, and participation in practice (1st ed.). California: O’Reilly.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lv, Z., Li, X., Wang, W., Zhang, B., Hu, J., & Feng, S. (2018). Government affairs service platform for smart city. Future Generation Computer Systems, 81, 443–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magalhaes, G., & Roseira, C. (2017). Open government data and the private sector: An empirical view on business models and value creation. Government Information Quarterly, 37, 101248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martín-Garín, A., Millán-García, J. A., Baïri, A., Millán-Medel, J., & Sala-Lizarraga, J. M. (2018). Environmental monitoring system based on an open source platform and the internet of things for a building energy retrofit. Automation in Construction, 87, 201–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Misterek, F. (2017). Digitale Souveränität: Technikutopien und Gestaltungsansprche demokratischer Politik (MPIfG discussion paper 17/11). Cologne: Max-Planck-Institut für Gesellschaftsforschung.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A guided tour. New York: Oxford University Press.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Molina, L. T., Molina, M. J., Slott, R. S., Kolb, C. E., Gbor, P. K., Meng, F., Singh, R. B., Galvez, O., Sloan, J. J., Anderson, W. P., et al. (2004). Air quality in selected megacities. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 54(12), 1–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Najafabadi, M. M., & Luna-Reyes, L. F. (2017). Open Government Data Ecosystems: A Closed-Loop Perspective. In 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2017, pp. 2711–2720. https://doi.org/10.24251/HICSS.2017.327

  • Narayan-Parker, D. (1995). The contribution of people’s participation: Evidence from 121 rural water supply projects. Pages viii, 108 p. Bibliography: pp. 105–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • OK Labs. (2018). Data archive. https://archive.luftdaten.info. Last accessed 10 Sept 2020.

  • Okai, E., Feng, X., & Sant, P. (2018). Smart cities survey. In 2018 IEEE 20th international conference on high performance computing and communications; IEEE 16th international conference on smart city; IEEE 4th international conference on data science and systems (HPCC/SmartCity/DSS), pp. 1726–1730. IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Oliveira T. H. M., Painho M. (2021) Open Geospatial Data Contribution Towards Sentiment Analysis Within the Human Dimension of Smart Cities. In: Mobasheri A. (eds) Open Source Geospatial Science for Urban Studies. Lecture Notes in Intelligent Transportation and Infrastructure. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58232-6_5

  • Ott, D. K., Kumar, N., & Peters, T. M. (2008). Passive sampling to capture spatial variability in PM10–2.5. Atmospheric Environment, 42(4), 746–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peled, A. (2013). Re-designing open data 2.0. eJournal of eDemocracy & Open Government, 5(2), 187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peters, M. A. (2014). Openness and the intellectual commons. Open Review of Educational Research, 1, 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pozen, D. E. (2019). Seeing transparency more clearly. Public Administration Review, 80, 326–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ros-Tonen, M. A. F., Bitzer, V., Laven, A., Ollivier de Leth, D., Van Leynseele, Y., & Vos, A. (2019). Conceptualizing inclusiveness of smallholder value chain integration. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 41, 10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlagwein, D., Conboy, K., Feller, J., Leimeister, J. M., & Morgan, L. (2017). “Openness” with and without Information Technology: A framework and a brief history. Journal of Information Technology, 32(4), 297–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, P., Castell, N., Vogt, M., Dauge, F. R., Lahoz, W. A., & Bartonova, A. (2017). Mapping urban air quality in near real-time using observations from low-cost sensors and model information. Environment International, 106, 234–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sennett, R. (2018). Building and dwelling. London: Penguin Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shelton, T., & Poorthuis, A. (2019). The nature of neighborhoods: Using big data to rethink the geographies of Atlanta’s Neighborhood Planning Unit system. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 109(5), 1341–1361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sieber, R. E., & Johnson, P. A. (2015). Civic open data at a crossroads: Dominant models and current challenges. Government Information Quarterly, 32(3), 308–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Son, J., & Lin, N. (2008). Social capital and civic action: A network-based approach. Social Science Research, 37(1), 330–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spielman, S., Xiao, N., Cockings, S., & Tanton, R. (2017). Statistical systems and census data in the spatial sciences. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 63, 1–2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart, B. (2013). Massiveness+ openness= new literacies of participation. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 9(2), 228–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sudantha, B. H., Warusavitharana, E. J., Ratnayake, G. R., Mahanama, P. K. S., Cannata, M., & Strigaro, D. (2018). Building an open-source environmental monitoring system-a review of state-of-the-art and directions for future research. In 2018 3rd International Conference on Information Technology Research (ICITR), pp. 1–9. IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • The European Data Portal. (2016). Analytical report 6: Open data in cities 2 (Technical report 860). European Data Portal.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Open Data Institute. https://theodi.org/. Accessed 17 Oct 2020.

  • The Open Group (2011) Interoperability Requirements, The TOGAF® Standard, Version 9.2. Available at: https://pubs.opengroup.org/architecture/togaf91-doc/arch/chap29.html (Accessed: 15 October 2020).

  • Thomson, A. M., & Perry, J. L. (2006). Collaboration processes: Inside the black box. Public Administration Review, 66(Suppl 1), 20–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Toots, M., Mcbride, K., Kalvet, T., & Krimmer, R. (2017). Open data as enabler of public service co-creation: Exploring the drivers and barriers. In 2017 Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government (CeDEM), pp. 102–112. IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trilles, S., Calia, A., Belmonte, Ó., Torres-Sospedra, J., Montoliu, R., & Huerta, J. (2017). Deployment of an open sensorized platform in a smart city context. Future Generation Computer Systems, 76, 221–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trilles, S., Granell, C., Degbelo, A., & Bhattacharya, D. (2020). Interactive guidelines. PLoS One, 15(1), e0228008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wan, J., Hagler, G., Williams, R., Sharpe, R., Brown, R., Garver, D., Judge, R., Caudill, M., Rickard, J., Davis, M., et al. (2016). Community air sensor network (CAIRSENSE) project: Evaluation of low-cost sensor performance in a suburban environment in the southeastern United States. Atmospheric Measurement Techniques, 9(11), 5281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, V., & Shepherd, D. (2020). Exploring the extent of openness of open government data: A critique of open government datasets in the UK. Government Information Quarterly, 37(1), 101405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weller, M. (2007). The battle for open source. London: Ubiquity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willinsky, J. (2005). The unacknowledged convergence of open source, open access, and open science. First Monday, 10(8). https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v10i8.1265

  • Wood, D. J., & Gray, B. (1991). Toward a comprehensive theory of collaboration. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(2), 139–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yigitcanlar, T., Han, H., Kamruzzaman, Md, Ioppolo, G., & Sabatini-Marques, J. (2019). The making of smart cities: Are Songdo, Masdar, Amsterdam, San Francisco and Brisbane the best we could build? Land Use Policy, 88, 104187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yun, J. H. J., Zhao, X., Jung, K. H., & Yigitcanlar, T. (2020). The culture for open innovation dynamics. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(12), 1–21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Y., & Yao, J. (2020). Research on the public transportation space reconstruction of open community from the perspective of collaborative governance: Taking Chenjiahu community as an example. Vol. 416(ICCESE), pp. 402–405.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Simge Özdal Oktay is funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) under grant no. 16SV8478 (SIMPORT). Sergio Trilles has been funded by the postdoctoral Juan de la Cierva fellowship programme of the Spanish Ministry for Science and Innovation (IJC2018-035017-I). Fernando Benitez-Paez has been funded by the postdoctoral fellowship programme APOSTD of the Secretary of Innovation, Universities, Science and Digital Society - DOGV and European Social Fund (ESF) (Grant Agreement number: APOSTD/2020/016). The examples discussed in this chapter as well as the underlying research were funded by the European Commission within the Marie Skodowska-Curie Actions (ITN-EJD) under grant agreement no. 642332 – GEO-C – H2020-MSCA-ITN-2014.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Kray .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Özdal Oktay, S., Oliver, S.T., Acedo, A., Benitez-Paez, F., Gupta, S., Kray, C. (2021). Openness: A Key Factor for Smart Cities. In: Augusto, J.C. (eds) Handbook of Smart Cities. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15145-4_69-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15145-4_69-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-15145-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-15145-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Computer SciencesReference Module Computer Science and Engineering

Publish with us

Policies and ethics