smart cities

Review
Exploring the Symbiotic Relationship between Digital
Transformation, Infrastructure, Service Delivery, and
Governance for Smart Sustainable Cities
Dillip Kumar Das

Discipline of Civil Engineering, Sustainable Transport Research Group (STRg), University of KwaZulu-Natal,
Durban 4041, South Africa; [email protected]; Tel.: +27-848529260

Abstract: Infrastructure, service delivery, governance, and digital transformation stand as indispens-
able cornerstones, playing pivotal roles in the establishment of intelligent and sustainable urban
centers. While the extant literature has underscored the significance of each of these elements, their
interconnected and symbiotic relationship demands a more profound exploration. Grounded in a
systematic review of the existing literature and relevant case studies, this paper explored the intricate
interplay between digital transformation, infrastructure development, service delivery, and gover-
nance in contemporary society, all in the pursuit of cultivating smart sustainable cities. It contends
that by collaboratively working together, these four pillars possess the transformative potential to
turn cities into smart and sustainable cities. Digital transformation emerges as the catalyst, propelling
innovation and efficiency, while infrastructure forms the bedrock for the seamless delivery of services.
Effective governance, in turn, ensures alignment with the evolving needs of citizens. In essence, this
study underscores the transformative power of combined action, asserting that the interdependent el-
ements within can transform cities beyond merely having smart or sustainable status to become smart
sustainable cities. This paradigm shift harmonizes technological advancements with the foundational
goals of sustainable development, steering towards a holistic and inclusive urban future.

Keywords: digital transformation; governance; infrastructure; service delivery; sustainable cities;

smart cities; smart sustainable cities
Citation: Das, D.K. Exploring the
Symbiotic Relationship between
Digital Transformation, Infrastructure,
Service Delivery, and Governance for
1. Introduction
Smart Sustainable Cities. Smart Cities The shift in discourse towards sustainable development has evolved from singular
2024, 7, 806–835. https://doi.org/ environmental concerns to a comprehensive focus on environmental, social, and economic
10.3390/smartcities7020034 development [1]. The notion of sustainable cities emerged as a response to growing con-
Academic Editor: Pierluigi Siano
cerns about environmental degradation, efficient use of scarce resources, and the imperative
to create inclusive and resilient urban spaces [2]. This evolution led to the United Nations
Received: 16 February 2024 formally incorporating the development of sustainable cities and communities as one of its
Revised: 18 March 2024 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 11).
Accepted: 19 March 2024 Sustainable cities, defined as inventive urban centers with a triple-bottom-line ap-
Published: 25 March 2024
proach, prioritize social, economic, and environmental impact [3]. They aim to provide a
sustainable and resilient habitat for the existing population while ensuring the potential
for future generations to enjoy a similar quality of life [4–7]. The United Nations SDG
Copyright: © 2024 by the author.
11 outlines these cities as dedicated to achieving environmental, social, and economic
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. sustainability, with inclusivity, safety, and resilience.
This article is an open access article In practical terms, sustainable cities commit to fortifying societies and economies,
distributed under the terms and cultivating employment and entrepreneurial opportunities, and providing accessible and
conditions of the Creative Commons affordable housing. These cities focus on inclusivity and sustainable economic growth,
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// minimizing resource consumption, waste, and emissions. Moreover, they prioritize in-
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ vestments in public transportation, the creation of green public spaces, and participatory
4.0/). governance, planning, and decision making [4–8].

Smart Cities 2024, 7, 806–835. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities7020034 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/smartcities

Smart Cities 2024, 7 807

Lately, running parallel to the sustainable cities movement is the emergence of smart
cities, defined diversely based on attributes and contexts [9,10]. According to one perspec-
tive, smart cities employ technologies, pervasive computing, and digital tools to govern
and manage information and resources, fostering real-time engagement with places, ac-
tivities, and people [11]. They are characterized by economic efficiency, environmental
sustainability, distinctive urban identity, favorable living conditions, and inclusive gover-
nance [8–10,12–17]. For example, smart cities prioritize intelligent infrastructure, energy
conservation, enhanced mobility, and advanced waste management facilitated by smart
technology [12–15]. Another perspective characterizes smart cities by six key attributes: a
smart economy, smart people, smart mobility, smart environment, smart governance, and
smart living [16,18–21]. This perspective focuses on smart humans, encompassing social
innovation, smart citizenry, knowledge capital, and inter-organizational collaboration.
While the term ‘sustainable city’ has traditionally been favored, ‘smart city’ has
gained momentum and is increasingly becoming the leading driver of urban sustainability
and regeneration initiatives [22]. However, both models pose challenges and engender
issues in alignment with the foundational goals of sustainable development [23]. The
smart city concept, in particular, has faced criticism for being a technocentric approach to
sustainability [24–27].
Numerous studies explored sustainable and smart cities separately, unveiling critical
nuances for each type [8,24]. In response to the challenges of each concept, recent research
focuses on integrating sustainability into smart city approaches and making sustainable city
models smarter [4–7,23,24,26,28–30]. Beyond ‘smart’ and ‘sustainable cities’, the concept of
‘smart sustainable cities’ was introduced by the United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe (UNECE). Scholars argue that these innovative urban centers leverage Information
Communication Technologies (ICTs) to enhance the quality of life across economic, social,
environmental, and cultural dimensions [4–8,27].
In recent years, research on the intersection of concepts of smart and sustainable cities
known as smart sustainable cities has emerged. For example, Freeman (2017) probed into
the origin and implementation of the smart sustainable city concept [23], while Bibri and
Krogstie (2019) proposed a novel model for future smart sustainable cities [24]. Trindade
et al. (2017) contributed a theoretical basis, emphasizing the relationship between sus-
tainable urban development and smart cities [31]. Ahvenniemi et al. (2017) explored the
difference between smart and sustainable cities, underlining that technologies in smart
cities should enable sustainable development [32]. Martin et al. (2018) examined tensions
in the visions and practices of smart sustainable cities, advocating for empowerment and
inclusion [27]. Ibrahim et al. (2018) offer a roadmap for transforming a city into a smart
sustainable entity [33].
However, three prominent challenges emerge concerning smart sustainable cities.
Firstly, the impact of digital technology on environmental and social sustainability remains
marginal [34–37]. Secondly, the fragmented approach to smart city development lacks
inclusivity and consideration for local contexts [38–42]. Thirdly, existing research on smart
sustainable cities primarily focuses on philosophies and conceptualization, neglecting to
explore the models and relationships between foundational city elements—infrastructure,
technology, service delivery, and governance [16,26,43,44]. While acknowledging the
importance of the first two aspects, which have been explored to a certain extent both
philosophically and empirically, this study focuses on addressing the third challenge. This
is because there exists a significant research gap in understanding how the four vital city
elements—infrastructure, digital technology, service delivery, and governance—synergize
to transform a city into a smart sustainable entity. Consequently, this study explored the
symbiotic relationship among these four key aspects to drive the development of smart
sustainable cities, departing from the current trend in research in the field. In this context,
the study initially conceptualizes the smart sustainable city, followed by delineating the
roles of infrastructure, service delivery, governance, and digital transformation, along with
their alignment. Furthermore, it analyzes the symbiotic linkages among these aspects,
Smart Cities 2024, 7 808

unravelling how these relationships manifest within the context of smart sustainable cities.
For this purpose, the key research questions explored are as follows:
• How is a smart sustainable city conceptualized in the wake of existing two categories
such as smart city and sustainable city?
• What roles do infrastructure, serviced delivery, digital transformation, and governance
play in ‘smart cities’ and ‘sustainable cities’?
• What are the interconnectedness and symbiotic relationships between the four aspects—
infrastructure, service delivery, governance, and digital transformation—in the context
of smart sustainable cities?
The novelty of this paper lies in elucidating how digital transformation, serving as a
catalyst for innovation, can enhance infrastructure efficiency to facilitate effective and seam-
less service delivery, as well as foster effective governance. It is thus theorized that these
aspects collectively contribute to the transformation of cities into smart sustainable entities.

2. Materials and Methods

The research adopted a qualitative methodological approach, with an extensive ex-
ploration of the extant literature and case studies to unravel the complexities inherent in
smart sustainable cities. Given the interdisciplinary nature of the field, the sources of the
literature span a diverse range, encompassing scholarly journal articles, books, book chap-
ters, conference proceedings, reports, news articles, web articles, etc. The imperative was to
gather the most pertinent literature from these varied sources, tailored to the study’s focus.
This investigation involved the formulation of a thorough search strategy, the curation
of scholarly sources, the establishment of inclusion and exclusion criteria, the systematic
organization of literature based on thematic elements, and the subsequent application of
thematic analyses.

2.1. Search Strategy and Scholarly Sources

A comprehensive exploration of scholarly literature was undertaken to investigate
published works centered on the primary domains of smart cities, sustainable cities, and
smart sustainable cities, along with their associated elements. Given the study’s specific
focus on the interplay between infrastructure, service delivery, governance, and digital
transformation, the search was extended to encompass these interconnected facets within
the aforementioned primary domains.
While scholarly peer-reviewed journal articles constituted the primary sources, valu-
able insights were also derived from diverse sources such as conference proceedings, books,
reports, and online articles. Multiple databases, including Elseveie (Science Direct, Scopus),
Wiley Online, Taylor and Francis/Routledge, Sage, Springer, EbscoHost, Google Scholar,
Research Gate, Academia.edu, etc., were meticulously explored. Scholarly articles from
the above-mentioned sources were systematically gathered, categorized, and subjected to
critical assessment.
The search employed a strategic use of keywords, such as sustainable cities, smart
cities, smart sustainable cities, ICT use in cities, Artificial Intelligence (AI) application in
cities, digital transformation, infrastructure, service delivery, city flow, smart governance,
strategies for smart sustainable cities, and opportunities and challenges of smart sustain-
able cities, to ensure a comprehensive and targeted retrieval of the relevant literature.
While compiling the articles, four criteria—authenticity, credibility, representation, and
meaning [45]—were employed to assess the quality of the articles.

2.2. Inclusion and Exclusions

The inclusion and exclusion criteria were guided by the research questions posed
in this study. The inclusion criteria encompassed diverse dimensions of smart cities,
sustainable cities, and smart sustainable cities. Additionally, it considered elements such as
ICT use, digital transformation, infrastructure, service delivery, city flow, smart governance,
Smart Cities 2024, 7 809

dimensions, indicators, factors, challenges, opportunities, strategies, and other relevant

aspects for the three city types—smart city, sustainable city, and smart sustainable cities.
Conversely, aspects that did not directly contribute to the investigation of interconnect-
edness and symbiotic relationships, as outlined in the research questions, were excluded.
This entailed excluding considerations of economic, environmental, social, and cultural
aspects from the scope of the study.

2.3. Organisation of the Literature

The initial search, involving screening keywords and abstracts, yielded over 500
articles. Following a scrutiny of the articles based on inclusion and exclusion criteria,
and their subsequent organization under themes and subthemes, 184 articles emerged as
pertinent and were selected for the final review and analysis. These chosen articles comprise
65.82% peer-reviewed journal articles, 6.63% conference proceedings, 8.67% books, 5.61%
book chapters, 12.76% reports, and 0.51% theses (Table 1).
Furthermore, the selected articles were categorized according to the type of cities
such as smart, sustainable, and smart sustainable cities. In addition to this, articles were
categorized under various aspects such as infrastructure, service delivery, governance, and
digital transformation. However, it was observed that many of the articles investigated
multiple and overlapping aspects. However, a breakdown of the articles was conducted
on the seven aspects mentioned above irrespective of the fact that an article might have
investigated overlapping or multiple aspects. Figure 1 presents the distribution of articles
across different elements/aspects of smart sustainable cities. An aspect-wise breakdown
reveals that articles belonging to aspects related to smart cities, sustainable cities, and smart
sustainable cities are 16.84%, 10.20%, and 8.16%, respectively. Infrastructure and service
delivery were covered in 30.61% and 27.04% of articles, while digital transformation and
governance were examined in 27.04% and 11.73%, respectively. This indicates a reasonable
distribution of articles from varied authentic sources; therefore, the results are suitable for5
Smart Cities 2024, 7, FOR PEER REVIEW
review and further analyses.

Figure 1. Articles under various elements/aspects of smart sustainable cities.

Figure 1. Articles under various elements/aspects of smart sustainable cities.

2.4. Analyses
The collected literature underwent systematic review and analysis, employing spe-
cific themes and subthemes within each theme. The analytical framework comprised the
following themes and sub-themes.
• Defining smart sustainable cities.
 Smart cities;
 Sustainable cities;
Smart Cities 2024, 7 810

Table 1. Sources of the literature.

Literature Source Numbers Share (%)

Journal articles 130 65.82
Conference Proceedings 13 6.63
Books 17 8.67
Book chapters 11 5.61
Report 25 12.76
Thesis 1 0.51
Total 196 100.00

2.4. Analyses
The collected literature underwent systematic review and analysis, employing specific
themes and subthemes within each theme. The analytical framework comprised the
following themes and sub-themes.
• Defining smart sustainable cities.
■ Smart cities;
■ Sustainable cities;
■ Smart sustainable cities.
• Conceptual Framework for Smart Sustainable Cities.
• Role of infrastructure, serviced delivery, digital transformation and governance in
‘smart cities’ and ‘sustainable cities’.
• Interconnectedness and symbiotic relationships between the four aspects-infrastructure,
service delivery, governance and digital transformation.
■ Digital Transformation and Infrastructure;
■ Infrastructure and Service Delivery;
■ Digital transformation and service delivery;
■ Service Delivery and Governance;
■ Governance and Digital Transformation;
■ Case Studies of successful symbiotic relationships.
The subsequent sections offer in-depth discussions of the findings within each thematic
category.
Moreover, the thematic analyses derived from the literature review were substantiated
with evidence and examples drawn from case studies on symbiotic relationships observed
in five countries: Singapore, Estonia, India, the UK, and Rwanda. Although no specific
examples from individual cities were identified, the interdependent and symbiotic relation-
ships observed across various sectors in the aforementioned countries demonstrated how
their implementation at the city level could catalyze the transformation of cities into smart
sustainable entities.

3. Conceptualizing a Smart Sustainable City

3.1. Smart Cities
The global discourse on smart cities lacks a universal consensus due to varying inter-
pretations rooted in context and function. One perspective defines a smart city through the
lens of ICT utilization, AI use, universal connectivity, extensive data use, social capital, busi-
ness innovation, intelligent communities, and ecological sustainability [10,14,46]. Within
this paradigm, a smart city is envisaged as an interconnected, instrumented, and intelligent
urban space optimizing functionalities through ICT and advanced technologies such as
AI [10,14,47–49]. Another viewpoint adopts a holistic approach, suggesting a city is smart
if it excels in one or more of six key attributes: economy, mobility, people, environment,
governance, and living conditions [16,18–20,50,51]. Cities in Europe and North America
exemplify smartness by fostering entrepreneurship, innovation, ICT usage, connectivity,
mobility, participatory governance, sustainability, and resident empowerment [33,52,53].
Smart Cities 2024, 7 811

In the Global South, two distinct smart city models have emerged. One prioritizes
specialized cities with ICT connectivity, sustainable infrastructure, and advanced trans-
portation to foster entrepreneurship and economic activities [10,16,48,54]. The second
model focuses on improving existing cities by enhancing infrastructure, services, trans-
portation, environmental sustainability, and overall quality of life, emphasizing ICT con-
nectivity, energy efficiency, an entrepreneurial ecosystem, aesthetic urban environments,
and participatory governance [9,10,48,55].
Essentially, smart cities might have six characteristics that include smart governance,
smart people, smart mobility, smart economy, smart environment, and smart living. How-
ever, the overarching and catalytic role of shaping these characteristics in a city is performed
through the ubiquitous use of ICT. Thus, a smart city seamlessly integrates technologies,
ubiquitous computing, and digital instruments into urban life [11,25,56]. This integration
enables real-time precision in managing functions, processes, and engagements, resulting
in enhanced economic efficiency, improved environmental sustainability, enhanced quality
of life, effective service delivery, and distinctive urban images [32,56–58]. Moreover, smart
cities are governed by participatory and inclusive governance models [9,14,16–18,33,55,59].

3.2. Sustainable Cities

The conceptualization of a sustainable city is diverse, with varying definitions [44,60].
The sustainable development of a city has been a primary focus in the last decades. Rogers
(1998) defines a sustainable city as an urban area where an enhanced quality of life coexists
with policies effectively curbing demands on external resources [61]. It evolves into a self-
sufficient economic, social, and environmental system. Brugmann (1997) [62] and Meadows
(1999) emphasize environmental performance, prioritizing measurement, and reduction
in pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, energy, water consumption, and land loss, while
improving water quality, recycling rates, green-space ratios, and forest preservation [63].
Contrastingly, Rode and Burdett (2011) advocate for socio-economic aspects, empha-
sizing social equity and a greener living environment for sustainable city development [64].
They argue for proximity, density, and variety to foster productivity and innovation. In
essence, a sustainable city is environmentally safe, socially inclusive, and economically pro-
ductive, enabling citizens to meet their needs without degrading the natural world [65,66].
The sustainable city advocates a systematic approach, recognizing vital relationships be-
tween people, socio-economic activities, and the environment [32,67]. Thus, a sustainable
city has to achieve a dynamic balance among economic, environmental, and socio-cultural
development goals, framed within a local governance system characterized by greater
citizen involvement and inclusiveness [68]. Consequently, the sustainable city can be
conceptualized in terms of four dimensions: environment, economy sociocultural, and
governance. These dimensions given their interdependence, synergy, and equal importance
should work in tandem to enable the attainment of sustainable city goals. This holistic
perspective underscores the interconnectedness of ecological, social, and economic factors
in sustainable urban development.

3.3. Smart Sustainable Cities

The term ‘smart sustainable city’ gained prominence in urban development around
2015 [26,44,69]. Despite the abundance of discourse on ‘smart’ and ‘sustainable cities’,
specific studies on ‘smart sustainable cities’ are relatively scarce in academic journals.
However, notable contributions from Scandinavian countries, especially Sweden and
Norway, have emerged [26,43,44].
Investigations in this field, notably the scholarly contributions of Bibri and Krogstie
(2017), have primarily focused on formulating precise definitions and enhancing the con-
ceptual framework, specifically probing the intricate landscape of the smart sustainable
cities field [44]. Höjer and Wangel (2015) envisage smart sustainable cities as an aggregate
concept, asserting that smartness, sustainability, and urbanity must coexist for a city to
qualify as smart sustainable [26]. This implies that cities can be sustainable or incorporate
Smart Cities 2024, 7 812

smart technologies independently, emphasizing the necessity for their amalgamation to

define a smart sustainable city. Another approach combines sustainable development with
ICT infrastructure and smartness in an urban environment, giving rise to the idea of a smart
sustainable city [26,67,69]. Consequently, the dimensions of a smart sustainable city include
the dimensions of a sustainable city performed and managed by digital technologies.
In the context of sustainability of smart cities, the focus of smart cities is on utilizing
clean, climate-friendly technology to mitigate carbon emissions, a significant contributor to
climate change and environmental degradation [34–36]. However, this emphasis on carbon
reduction often overshadows other ecological concerns such as habitat loss, water scarcity,
and ecosystem disruptions [36]. Despite technological advancements and reduced carbon
emissions, the overall environmental impact of smart cities remains marginal. Additionally,
challenges related to the supply chain influence the environmental sustainability of smart
cities. For example, the development of smart devices needs the extraction of a wide range
of resources (such as raw materials, minerals, metals, etc.) and the use of large amounts
of oil and gas for energy production to power processes of production and distribution.
The impact of such processes on the environment is enormous; moreover, it destabilizes
the ecosystem.
While smart city initiatives prioritize economic and partially environmental factors,
they often neglect social aspects [36]. Critics argue that smart cities and ICTs fail to address
environmental and social challenges; instead, they contribute to them [37]. Moreover, it
was argued that the sustainability of cities adopting smart technologies may be contingent
upon the exploitation of resources and livelihoods elsewhere [37].
Furthermore, smart city initiatives typically adhere to a homogenous, systematic
approach in theory but exhibit heterogeneity and fragmentation in practice, particularly
in the Global South [38,39]. Many projects are implemented on a small scale, resulting
in isolated urban bubbles that exacerbate socio-spatial struggles [40]. This fragmented
development often lacks coordination and comprehensive planning, leading to a lack of
inclusivity and consideration for local contexts [39,41,42].
Also, administrative geography significantly influences the deployment of smart city
technologies, resulting in disparities in service accessibility among people [41]. In other
words, local contexts and demands play a crucial role in shaping smart sustainable cities.
Moreover, the integration of smart technologies with neoliberal urbanism presents sustain-
ability challenges, as it prioritizes monetizable activities over holistic development [39].
Achieving sustainability in smart cities requires addressing economic, social, and environ-
mental factors while considering local contexts and challenges. Thus, an effective high-level
overview roadmap is crucial for planning this transformation process [67].
Nevertheless, a joint definition by the United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe (UNECE) and the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) describes a smart
sustainable city as an innovative urban center using ICTs to enhance the quality of life,
improve urban operations and services, and boost competitiveness across economic, social,
environmental, and cultural dimensions [23]. Transforming cities into smart sustainable
cities requires an efficient process, considering city context, local interests, citizen well-being,
readiness for change, and delivery of smart and sustainable solutions at all levels [33].

3.4. A General Conceptual Framework for Smart Sustainable Cities

Figure 2 presents a conceptual framework for a smart sustainable city. The major
considered determinants of a sustainable city are economy, environment, socio-cultural as-
pects, and governance. On the other hand, infrastructure, service delivery, and governance
all enabled and managed by digital technology are pivotal for smart cities. Despite the
environmental and social sustainability challenges of smart cities [37–39], infrastructure,
service delivery, governance, and digital technology contribute to both the sustainability
and smartness of the cities [9,10,16,32,48,54,55,67,68]. Therefore, in this framework, it was
considered that city infrastructure serves as the backbone, influencing socio-economic
functions and impacting the environment. Efficient service delivery is essential for urban
 the environmental and social sustainability challenges of smart cities [37–39], infrastruc-
ture, service delivery, governance, and digital technology contribute to both the sustaina-
bility and smartness of the cities [9,10,16, 32,48,54,55,67,68]. Therefore, in this framework,
Smart Cities 2024, 7 it was considered that city infrastructure serves as the backbone, influencing socio-eco-
813
nomic functions and impacting the environment. Efficient service delivery is essential for
urban life’s smooth flow. Effective governance manages the economy, society, city dy-
namics,
life’s and service
smooth delivery.
flow. Effective Digital transformation
governance acting as society,
manages the economy, a catalyst
citybecomes
dynamics,a vital
factor in enhancing the efficiency of these dimensions to benefit society. Thus,
and service delivery. Digital transformation acting as a catalyst becomes a vital factor in the study
theorized the
enhancing thatefficiency
a symbiotic relationship
of these dimensions exists between
to benefit infrastructure,
society. service
Thus, the study delivery,
theorized
governance,
that a symbioticand digital transformation
relationship exists betweenininfrastructure,
crafting a smart sustainable
service city. However,
delivery, governance,
sincedigital
and the focus is on infrastructure,
transformation in crafting service
a smart delivery,
sustainableand governance
city. enabled
However, since the by digital
focus
is on infrastructure, service delivery, and governance enabled by digital technologies,
technologies, the conceptualization of smart sustainable cities was kept within the context the
conceptualization of smart sustainable
of the four above-mentioned aspectscities
andwas kept within
detailed the context
discussion on theofenvironmental
the four above- and
mentioned aspects and
social sustainability detailed
and impact discussion on the approach
of fragmented environmental and social
was kept out ofsustainability
the scope of the
and
study.impact of fragmented approach was kept out of the scope of the study.

Figure2.2.Conceptual
Figure Conceptualframework ofof
framework a smart sustainable
a smart city.city.
sustainable
4. Role of Infrastructure, Serviced Delivery, Governance, and Digital Transformation in
‘Smart Cities’ and ‘Sustainable Cities’
The scholarly literature emphasizes the pivotal roles of infrastructure, service delivery,
governance, and digital transformation, in shaping ‘sustainable’ and ‘smart cities’ [70,71].
The United Nations (2018) [72] underscores infrastructure as crucial for economic growth
and improved urban quality of life, emphasizing its role in minimizing environmental
impact and enhancing resilience against climate change [73].
Given the importance of efficient service delivery, emphasizing its impact on citizen
satisfaction and social equity within urban areas has been highlighted [74–76]. Governance
plays a critical role in sustainable urban development [77–80] with stakeholder engagement,
adaptive management, and collaborative decision-making contributing to resilient and
sustainable cities [81].
The realm of digital transformation is increasingly acknowledged as a catalyst for sus-
tainability in cities [81–84]. Meng et al. (2023) emphasize digitalization competitiveness and
enhanced productivity [85]. Nam and Pardo (2011) highlighted how digital transformation
optimizes resource utilization, enhances connectivity, and augments the overall efficiency
of urban systems [86]. The holistic integration of these elements proves indispensable in
the pursuit of sustainable urban development [12].
Smart Cities 2024, 7 814

Similarly, the literature consistently affirms that infrastructure, service delivery, gover-
nance, and digital transformation collaboratively shape smart cities, fostering innovation
and efficiency [70–80]. Infrastructure is a linchpin, facilitating advanced technology deploy-
ment [70,71,83], while well-designed infrastructure is integral for seamless connectivity
and smart solutions integration [50]. Service delivery optimization through technology is
highlighted in smart cities [87] enhancing the experience of city inhabitants [86]. Effective
governance is pivotal for smart cities’ success [9,88], with collaboration and data-driven
decision-making playing a crucial role in realizing smart city initiatives [89,90]. Digital
transformation, which leverages technology, is at the core of smart cities [83,90], transform-
ing cities into dynamic and responsive environments [19]. These interconnected elements
substantiate the multifaceted approach essential for the development and sustenance of
smart cities.
Therefore, well-planned, designed, and efficient infrastructure, as well as optimized
service delivery, proficient governance, and innovative digital solutions are indispensable
for developing both ‘smart’ and ‘sustainable’ cities [12] and consequently smart sustain-
able cities.
The diverse elements related to infrastructure, service delivery, governance, and digital
transformation influencing smart sustainable cities as adapted from the United for Smart
Sustainable Cities (U4SSC) Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) project [91] are presented in
Table 2. The amalgamation of these elements collectively propels environmental sustain-
ability, economic prosperity, and an improved quality of life in urban areas. Therefore, in
this study, a synergistic integration, emphasizing a harmonious approach to creating smart
sustainable cities, is theorized.

Table 2. Diverse elements of infrastructure, service delivery, governance, and digital transformation.

Infrastructure Service Delivery Governance Digital Transformation

Citizen participation in
Household internet access, fixed
Basic water supply system Drinking water quality decision-making and
broadband subscriptions
implementation
Potable water supply system Water consumption Responsiveness Wireless broadband subscriptions
Wastewater collection system Freshwater consumption Emergency service response time Wireless broadband coverage
Wastewater treatment solid Waste
Household sanitation system Police service Availability of WIFI in public areas
treatment
Electricity consumption, Fire service, Household internet access, fixed
electricity system outage time, crime prevention, traffic facilities broadband subscriptions, student
Electricity including renewable electricity system outage childcare availability, ICT access,
energy infrastructure frequency, renewable energy natural disaster-related activities, electronic health records,
consumption, residential thermal disaster-related economic plans, digital financing/banking/payment
energy consumption resilience plans system
Public transport network EMF exposure, noise exposure
Bicycle network Bicycling
Transportation mode share Efficient transportation
Shared bicycles Bicycling
Shared vehicles Ride share
Low-carbon emission passenger
Low air pollution
vehicles
Public transport network
Travel time index
convenience
Pedestrian infrastructure Public building sustainability
Public building energy
Public buildings
consumption
Integrated building
management systems in public Sustainable and efficient buildings
buildings
Cultural infrastructure Cultural activities
Smart Cities 2024, 7 815

Table 2. Cont.

Infrastructure Service Delivery Governance Digital Transformation

Residential facilities for
Informal settlements
bioadvected groups
Open green spaces/green areas Green area accessibility
Protected natural areas Environmental sustainability
Recreational facilities Outdoor recreation

5. Interconnectedness and Symbiotic Relationships between the Four

Aspects—Infrastructure, Service Delivery, Governance, and Digital Transformation
The linkage and symbiotic relationship among the four pivotal aspects are explored in
the following sections. Figure 3 presents the conceptualized symbiotic relationship among
the four facets of smart sustainable cities with digital transformation serving as a catalyst.
Each of these dimensions engages in reciprocal cause-and-effect or feedback relationships,
fostering mutual enhancement and higher efficiency. Furthermore, the synergy of digital
transformation and the optimized utilization of ICT serves as a dynamic catalyst, propelling
Smart Cities 2024, 7, FOR PEER REVIEW
the augmentation of the three aspects—infrastructure, service delivery, and governance. 11
The symbiotic relationships among these aspects are presented in the following subsections.

Figure 3. A
Figure 3. Aconceptual
conceptualframework
frameworkforforthe
thelinkage
linkageand symbiotic
and relationships
symbiotic between
relationships infrastructure,
between infrastruc-
ture, service
service delivery,
delivery, governance,
governance, and digital
and digital transformation.
transformation.

5.1. Digital Transformation and Infrastructure

5.1.1. Defining Digital Transformation and Its Significance
Digital transformation encompasses the seamless integration of digital technologies,
primarily ICT, Internet of Things (IoT), and AI, into an organization’s operational frame-
work. This integration fundamentally transforms how the organization delivers value to
its stakeholders, customers, and employees [92,93]. While ICT and IoT have been exten-
sively employed in city functions with evident success, the adoption of AI has been more
recent. The advancements in AI are ushering in autonomous technologies for city man-
Smart Cities 2024, 7 816

5.1. Digital Transformation and Infrastructure

5.1.1. Defining Digital Transformation and Its Significance
Digital transformation encompasses the seamless integration of digital technologies,
primarily ICT, Internet of Things (IoT), and AI, into an organization’s operational frame-
work. This integration fundamentally transforms how the organization delivers value to its
stakeholders, customers, and employees [92,93]. While ICT and IoT have been extensively
employed in city functions with evident success, the adoption of AI has been more recent.
The advancements in AI are ushering in autonomous technologies for city management,
heralding the advent of autonomous cities. These spaces, born out of years of experimenta-
tion with eco and smart-city concepts, witness diverse artificial intelligence, ranging from
service robots to digital platforms, orchestrating urban activities traditionally performed
by humans.
Evidence suggests that AI-enabled smart cities offer various benefits, including en-
hanced efficiency and performance, better risk identification and monitoring, improved
economic prospects, streamlined data and information processing, enhanced service deliv-
ery, more informed decision-making, increased engagement and interaction, and greater
sustainability. However, alongside these benefits come challenges related to data man-
agement, organizational and managerial adaptation, skill acquisition, interpretation of AI
outputs, ethical considerations, legitimacy concerns, political dynamics, legal frameworks,
policy formulation, social and societal implications, and economic ramifications [94].
Despite the challenges, the transformative process utilizes technology to optimize
internal processes, enhance decision-making capabilities, improve customer experiences,
and drive innovation [95–97]. The impact of digital transformation is particularly evident
in many spheres of society and infrastructure. For example, in the government sector,
the adoption of digital tools and online platforms enhances service delivery, streamlin-
ing processes and improving accessibility. Data analytics play a crucial role in informed
decision-making, performance monitoring, and resource allocation, contributing to en-
hanced policy development and implementation [98,99]. Initiatives like e-government and
open data platforms further reinforce transparency and accountability in governmental
processes, transforming organizational culture [100,101].
Similarly, in healthcare, digital transformation revolutionizes patient care through
technologies such as electronic health records, telemedicine, and remote patient moni-
toring [92–94]. This not only improves the coordination of care but also enables timely
interventions, ultimately enhancing patient outcomes. Operational efficiency is achieved
through streamlined data management and the implementation of data analytics, leading
to cost reduction and optimized resource allocation. Additionally, the integration of AI and
machine learning (ML) supports research, diagnostics, and personalized treatment plans,
fostering innovation [102–104].
In the education sector, digital tools including AI and online platforms create personal-
ized learning experiences, enhancing engagement and accessibility [105–107]. Administra-
tive processes, ranging from enrolment to grading, are streamlined, enabling educational
institutions to allocate resources effectively and focus on improving educational outcomes.
Digital transformation in education also facilitates global collaboration and connectiv-
ity, allowing students to engage with international peers, access educational resources
worldwide, and participate in collaborative projects [106–108].
Thus, the overarching impact of digital transformation is manifested in its ability to
enhance efficiency, improve services, foster innovation, and increase connectivity across
diverse sectors. Embracing digital technologies is imperative for organizations and conse-
quently, the cities to remain competitive, respond to evolving demands, and better serve
their stakeholders and society.

5.1.2. Influence of Digitalization on the Development of Physical and Virtual Infrastructure

Öhman (2010) [109] and Ablyazov (2021) [110] underscore the societal and material
facets of infrastructure, highlighting its role in shaping spatial localizations and influ-
Smart Cities 2024, 7 817

encing various socioeconomic factors, which was also supported by several other schol-
ars [111–114]. Digital technology has broken the physical barrier and become a pervasive
presence across space and time. Ablyazov (2021) [110] suggests using Internet of Things
(IoT) technology to overcome barriers to digital transformation, enabling the intricate
integration of physical and digital urban infrastructure.
In the context of physical infrastructure, digitalization integrates smart technologies
with infrastructure to make them smart and efficient. For example, it assists in creat-
ing smart grids for optimizing energy distribution and efficient traffic management sys-
tems [115]. Similarly, IoT plays a crucial role by providing real-time data through embedded
sensors for predictive maintenance and lifespan extension of the physical infrastructure.
The concept of digital twins has also emerged, creating virtual replicas for real-time monitor-
ing and simulation, enhancing decision-making and proactive maintenance [111–114,116].
In the virtual infrastructure domain, digitalization drives the widespread adoption of
cloud computing, creating a flexible and scalable virtual environment [117]. Massive data
centers, a product of digitalization’s growth, serve as the backbone of virtual infrastructure,
supporting the global-scale deployment of applications and services. Digitalization also
leads to the development of software-defined infrastructure and AI, abstracting hardware
functionalities into software for enhanced adaptability and scalability. The rise of digital-
ization facilitates the development of virtual networks, exemplified by the expansion of
5G networks, which provide high-speed and low-latency connectivity for various appli-
cations [117,118]. However, the increasing reliance on virtual infrastructure necessitates
robust cybersecurity measures to protect virtual assets, sensitive data, and critical systems.
The integration of digital technologies including AI transforms both physical and
virtual infrastructure, enhancing efficiency, resilience, and adaptability, aligning with the
demands of modern society and the dynamic forces embedded in economic structures.
This transformative evolution shapes the interconnected and intelligent world in which the
systems are built, operated, and interact with infrastructure [109–111].

5.1.3. Digital Technologies for Optimizing Infrastructure Planning, Construction,

and Maintenance
Digital technologies play a crucial role in enhancing infrastructure planning, construc-
tion, and maintenance, yielding efficiencies, cost reductions, and improved decision-making
throughout the project lifecycle [12,83]. In the planning phase, data analytics tools, such
as Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Augmented/Virtual Reality, etc., aid informed
decision-making for optimal project location and design [115,116]. Predictive analytics fore-
casts future infrastructure needs, valuable in urban planning for accommodating evolving
demands. Simulation and modelling tools empower planners to conduct simulations on
various aspects such as traffic movement, environmental impact assessments, structural
analyses, and more. These tools help in identifying challenges and optimizing designs
for enhanced efficiency and effectiveness. Public engagement is enhanced through digital
technologies such as virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR), allowing stakeholders
to visualize projects, provide feedback, and participate in decision-making [115,119,120]. In
construction, Building Information Modelling (BIM) aids collaboration, coordination, and
error reduction [115]. Drones and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) assist in optimizing
resource allocation, provide real-time aerial surveys and monitoring sites and enhance
safety [121].
Furthermore, digital technologies, including IoT and data analytics, enable monitor-
ing infrastructure conditions in real-time, identifying potential issues before they become
critical and extending asset lifespan [122]. Remote monitoring and control enable mainte-
nance teams to detect faults and perform diagnostics without physical inspection. Asset
management systems provide a centralized platform for tracking and managing infras-
tructure assets, including maintenance history, replacement schedules, and overall health.
Augmented Reality (AR) applications assist maintenance teams by overlaying digital in-
Smart Cities 2024, 7 818

formation onto the physical environment, enabling visualization of repair instructions,

schematics, and data during tasks [122–125].
Similarly, AI holds significant potential for enhancing infrastructure across various
sectors including energy, water, wastewater, transport, and telecommunications. It can
not only facilitate but also bring agility and efficiency in forecasting, routing, maintenance,
security, network quality management, etc. [111]. With its data-driven approach and
inherent flexibility, AI can effectively address challenges across different network sizes and
geographical scales.
Thus, digital transformation contributes to a more efficient, sustainable, and resilient
infrastructure development and management, empowering people and decision-makers to
meet societal demands.

5.2. Infrastructure and Service Delivery

5.2.1. Relationship between Robust Infrastructure and Effective Service Delivery
The nexus between robust infrastructure and effective service delivery is crucial for
societal and organizational advancement [126]. It forms the foundation for reliable provi-
sion across various services for example electricity, education, healthcare, water supply,
etc. [126,127]. However, the challenges in public services provisions, which stem from
governance and management issues related to infrastructure, underscore the necessity of ad-
dressing institutional structures, internal organizational processes, financial management,
and personnel economics [128,129].
In addition to physical infrastructure, information plays a critical role in public service
provision, which assists in effective monitoring, feedback mechanisms, and citizen coordi-
nation [130,131]. For example, information constraints affect citizens’ awareness of service
location, eligibility, and quality, influencing service efficiency [131]. In this context, digital
technology enhances the efficiency and quality of infrastructure and transforms public
service provision by automating tasks, enhancing monitoring, and overcoming information
barriers [12,115,116,131].

5.2.2. The Influence of Well-Designed Infrastructure on Service Accessibility and Quality

Well-designed infrastructure significantly enhances service accessibility and quality
across various sectors [132–134]. For example, High-speed Rail (HSR) networks in trans-
portation reduce travel time, increase mobility, and improve environmental sustainability,
enhancing service quality for passengers [135,136]. Fiber-optic broadband networks in digi-
tal infrastructure contribute to economic opportunities, employment, and online activities,
providing faster internet speeds and improved reliability [137–139]. Educational infrastruc-
ture, represented by well-designed e-learning platforms, enhances accessibility and service
quality through interactive content and personalized learning experiences [138]. In health-
care, telemedicine platforms connect patients with healthcare professionals, particularly
benefiting those in remote areas, improving access, and elevating service quality [140,141].
Similarly, effective urban planning and public spaces, incorporating well-designed public
transportation and pedestrian-friendly infrastructure, enhance city accessibility, reduce
congestion, and improve residents’ quality of life [142,143].
In each instance, careful and optimal infrastructure planning not only enhances acces-
sibility but also enhances overall service quality, emphasizing the critical role it plays in
the cities.

5.2.3. Aligning Infrastructure Development with Evolving Service Demands

Aligning infrastructure with evolving service demands creates challenges and oppor-
tunities [144,145]. Among the critical challenges, rapid technological advancements risk
project obsolescence [145] and budget constraints may impede necessary investments [146].
Coordinating diverse stakeholders in infrastructure development is complex, and meeting
service demands may strain resources, contributing to environmental degradation if not
managed sustainably.
Smart Cities 2024, 7 819

However, data-driven decision-making, adaptive designs, and collaborations with

the private sector through Public–Private Partnerships (PPPs) offer opportunities [147,148].
Exploring financing models like green bonds and community crowdfunding provides alter-
natives [149–151]. Community involvement ensures local alignment, and integrating AI
and IoT enhances service efficiency [152–154]. Resilient infrastructure ensures continuous
service delivery despite challenges. Addressing these dynamics requires a strategic, collab-
orative, and adaptive approach, emphasizing flexibility, sustainability, and technological
innovation [152–154].

5.3. Digital Transformation and Service Delivery

5.3.1. Relationship between Service Delivery and Digital Transformation
Digital transformation strategically integrates technologies, streamlining processes,
and enhancing organizational efficiency through the adoption of tools, data analytics, and
optimized workflows [94]. This integration leads to improved customer experiences via
online platforms, mobile apps, and self-service options, fostering stronger interactions.
The data-driven nature of digital transformation facilitates informed decision-making in
service delivery [155], providing insights into customer preferences, anticipating needs, and
refining services [156–158]. This transformative impact underscores the intrinsic connection
between digital transformation and enhanced service delivery.

5.3.2. Influence of Digital Transformation on Service Delivery

Digital transformation significantly impacts service delivery as mentioned previously
by optimizing processes and enhancing efficiency [154,159,160]. In addition to streamlining
operations, it assists in improving service quality [160,161]. The shift to online platforms,
mobile apps, and self-service options, driven by digital transformation, enhances customer
experiences [151,152]. The integration of AI into public services also holds promise for
enhancing service efficiency and quality for citizens [162]. Specifically, it can improve
decision-making processes in public healthcare and educational culture, while also offer-
ing practical tools for streamlining different management processes, for example, online
motor vehicle registration, driver’s license renewal, passport renewal, obtaining copies
of birth/marriage certificates, etc. [163]. Nevertheless, the data-driven decision-making
power of digital technology empowers organizations to understand preferences, predict de-
mands, and enhance services [156–158]. This amalgamation significantly boosts operational
efficiency and people’s and stakeholders’ satisfaction [154,159,160,164].

5.3.3. Aligning Digital Transformation with Service Delivery Demands

Aligning digital transformation with service delivery entails navigating a landscape
rife with challenges and opportunities. Some major challenges include the integration
of digital technologies seamlessly into existing processes poses a significant hurdle. For
example, implementing unified systems like Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
across diverse departments could be very complex [158,165]. Similarly, ensuring the se-
curity of customer data, especially in sectors like healthcare, is paramount during digital
transformations [159]. Also, overcoming organizational resistance to change is another chal-
lenge, as employees may hesitate to adopt new tools or workflows, potentially impeding
successful digital implementation [154]. Furthermore, while certain services provided by
AI are preferred, there are still specific services that remain exclusively within the domain
of human capabilities [163]. Despite these challenges, digital transformation opens avenues
for enhanced people/stakeholder engagement. Real-time and personalized interactions can
be facilitated. For example, service delivery organizations can be accessed by e-platform
using chatbots for instant support and addressing the challenges faced by the people. Digi-
tizing processes also enhances efficiency and reduces service delivery times. For instance, a
logistics company can provide real-time visibility of the freight through a digital tracking
system. Furthermore, organizations can make informed decisions and optimize service
delivery strategies based on predictive data analytics and simulated scenarios [155]. Thus,
Smart Cities 2024, 7 820

despite the challenges, digital transformation offers significant opportunities to enhance

service delivery.

5.4. Service Delivery and Governance

5.4.1. Linkage between Efficient Service Delivery and Good Governance
The nexus between effective service delivery and good governance is a cornerstone for
the functionality of public institutions and societal well-being. Good governance, embody-
ing principles such as transparency, accountability, responsiveness, and the rule of law,
significantly shapes the efficacy, equity, and quality of public services. Transparency and
accountability are also two important pillars of good governance [166–168]. Public partici-
pation is integral to good governance, considers community needs in decision-making, and
enhances service solutions [9]. The rule of law provides a stable environment for service
delivery, ensuring fairness, rights protection, and dispute resolution. Elements like strategic
vision, planning, institutional capacity, and performance monitoring, inherent to good
governance, collectively enhance service delivery efficiency and adaptability [169]. This
commitment to principles establishes a governance framework, where effective governance
practices optimize service delivery, creating a reinforcing relationship that, in turn, upholds
the principles of good governance, promoting citizens’ well-being through responsive
service delivery.

5.4.2. Importance of Transparent Accountable Governance Practices for Improved

Service Provision
Transparent and accountable governance practices are pivotal for enhancing service
provision, fostering trust, and aligning public services with citizens’ needs [167]. Trans-
parency, involving the disclosure of information and decision-making processes, cultivates
citizen trust by providing insight into resource allocation and decision-making [9,55,166,168].
Accountability mechanisms reinforce confidence in governance integrity, emphasizing that
public services prioritize peoples’ interests [9,55].
This governance approach facilitates responsive decision-making, incorporating pub-
lic input for decisions that better reflect peoples’ needs [9,55,156]. This commitment leads
to enhanced service quality, enabling individuals to evaluate standards with the assur-
ance of accountability mechanisms ensuring compliance. Inclusive citizen participation
is facilitated, allowing citizens to engage in decision-making. Additionally, transparent
communication about policy objectives, combined with accountability mechanisms, en-
courages officials to implement policies efficiently. Moreover, they have deterrent effects on
corruption, as transparency and accountability make illegal activities difficult to cover. For
instance, transparent budgetary processes enable people to track public fund allocation,
identify inefficiencies, and prevent corruption, with audits ensuring officials are account-
able for resource use [170,171]. Overall, transparent and accountable governance practices
create an environment conducive to improved service provision, trust, people participation,
effective resource allocation, and a resilient, people-centric service delivery system.

5.4.3. People/Stakeholder Engagement and Data-Driven Decision-Making in

Enhancing Governance
People/stakeholder engagement and data-driven decision-making play pivotal roles
in advancing governance, emphasizing transparency, accountability, and responsiveness.
People/stakeholder engagement, involving active public participation in decision-making,
ensures well-informed choices by incorporating diverse community perspectives, needs,
and preferences [172]. This engagement while enhancing transparency and responsiveness,
makes governance activities understandable and accessible, fostering trust and accountabil-
ity [55,167]. Responsive governance soliciting public input enables governance structures
to effectively address citizen needs, aligning policies and services with community expecta-
tions [55,172–174].
Simultaneously, data-driven decision-making involves leveraging data and analytics
to inform policies and strategies [175]. This evidence-based approach reduces reliance
Smart Cities 2024, 7 821

on intuition, ensuring well-informed and impactful policies. Data analytics enhances the
efficiency of resource allocation by identifying trends, patterns, and areas of need, directing
efforts to maximize impact [155,161,165,175–177]. Consequently, predictive planning be-
comes possible, anticipating future challenges and trends, and enhancing the resilience and
adaptability of governance structures [155,176].
The dynamic collaboration between citizen engagement and data-driven approaches
ensures a comprehensive consideration of both quantitative data and qualitative insights.
Technological advancements, particularly digital platforms, facilitate people/stakeholder
engagement and enable real-time feedback, thereby contributing to more responsive gov-
ernance. A significant outcome of this collaboration is the empowerment of people, as
engagement instils a sense of ownership, while data-driven decision-making supports
community-led initiatives with objective information [153,178]. This cooperative approach
promotes continuous improvement in policy evaluation and iteration. Such collaboration
supports adaptive governance structures that can effectively respond to changing needs and
challenges. In essence, this transformative synergy equips governance structures to address
complex challenges with efficacy, enhancing overall governance effectiveness, fostering a
sense of community ownership, and building trust in the decision-making process.

5.5. Governance and Digital Transformation

5.5.1. The Influence of Digital Tools and Platforms on Governance Structures and Processes
Digital tools and platforms exert a significant impact on governance structures and pro-
cesses, catalyzing transformative changes in government operations, people engagement,
and service delivery [179,180]. The integration of digital technologies facilitates enhanced
communication between governments, people, and stakeholders through platforms like
social media, websites, messaging apps, chatbots (AI-powered), etc. [178,181]. Real-time
updates and feedback mechanisms promote transparency and responsiveness, dismantling
traditional communication barriers and fostering a more informed and engaged commu-
nity [178]. Moreover, digital platforms play a crucial role in championing open government
and transparency. Initiatives such as open data and online portals provide easy access
to government information, including budgets, policies, and performance data [155,164].
This digital transparency builds public trust by allowing people to scrutinize government
actions and hold officials accountable for their decisions.
Data analytics and decision-making are currently undergoing a revolution with the
advent of digital tools such as AI, including big data analytics and machine learning. These
tools have the capacity to process vast amounts of data, providing invaluable insights for
evidence-based decision-making. For instance, by leveraging AI, government institutions
can reap numerous benefits from access to real-time information, enabling informed policy
decisions and regulatory control. The timely processing of data enhances decision-making
efficiency and facilitates more effective management practices. Furthermore, it promotes
better dissemination of regulatory norms, resulting in improved outcomes in regulatory
mechanisms such as taxation [163]. Essentially, governance structures now can enhance
policy formulation, allocate resources more efficiently, and implement programs effectively
by identifying trends, measuring policy impact, and adapting strategies based on real-time
information, ultimately contributing to smart sustainable urban development [165,182,183].
Furthermore, remote collaboration tools, such as collaboration platforms, video confer-
encing, and cloud-based services, facilitate effective remote work and collaboration among
various stakeholders. These tools promote flexibility and resilience, ensuring service
continuity during emergencies and fostering an adaptable and efficient workforce.
Thus, digital tools and platforms have become integral to governance, fostering trans-
parency, efficiency, and citizen engagement. Their integration into governance structures
enhances public administration effectiveness, improves service delivery, and promotes a
more responsive and accountable government.
Smart Cities 2024, 7 822

5.5.2. The Potential of E-Governance and Digital Platforms in Enhancing Citizen

Participation and Accountability
E-governance and digital platforms have the potential to significantly enhance citizen
participation and accountability within governance structures [9,150]. Additionally, access
to current and real-time information enabled by AI contributes to higher performance
across social sectors like health, education, and social welfare, ultimately cultivating a
positive perception of a modern and dynamic government among the public [163]. The
rise of e-government services streamlines service delivery by enabling people to access
government services, submit applications, and conduct transactions digitally. Simultane-
ously, digital platforms, including social media, online forums, and participatory platforms,
facilitate people/stakeholder’s engagement and participation. These tools empower people
to voice opinions, participate in consultations, and engage with policymakers, fostering
inclusive decision-making and contributing to a sense of ownership and accountability
among the public. This digital transformation not only reduces bureaucratic hurdles but
also enhances efficiency, improving the overall user experience and providing people with
faster and more convenient access to essential services [177,182]. Transparency in gover-
nance is augmented through e-governance initiatives, including open data initiatives and
online access to government information. Open data initiatives involve the publication
of government datasets and budgets, allowing citizens to scrutinize government actions
and monitor public service performance, building trust [183]. Accountability mechanisms,
such as online grievance redressal, performance dashboards, and digital audits, enhance
accountability by providing people with avenues to report problems and track the per-
formance of governance agencies. Real-time reporting of governance activities on digital
platforms keeps citizens informed and promotes transparency, enabling rapid responses to
emerging issues [161,183].

5.5.3. Addressing the Challenges Related to Data Privacy, Cybersecurity, and Inclusivity in
Digital Governance
Digital governance, while providing numerous benefits, grapples with significant
challenges in various domains, including data privacy, cybersecurity, inclusivity, interoper-
ability, ethical technology use, and trust and transparency [159,161,184].
Concerns regarding data privacy stem from invasive practices leading to the collection,
storage, and potential misuse of personal information. Integrating privacy by design princi-
ples, which involve anonymizing data, obtaining informed consent, and limiting personally
identifiable information collection, is a crucial consideration. User empowerment through
clear consent mechanisms and transparent privacy policies further helps build trust and
respect user rights [159,160].
Cybersecurity challenges involve the vulnerability of digital governance systems to
cyber threats like hacking, data breaches, and ransomware attacks. Robust cybersecurity
measures, including encryption, regular security audits, and incident response plans,
are essential for protection. Addressing insider threats requires continuous user training on
cybersecurity best practices and implementing monitoring systems to detect unusual activities.
Inclusivity challenges encompass the digital divide, where unequal access to digital
platforms may exclude certain citizens, particularly vulnerable groups. Bridging the
digital divide necessitates strategies such as internet infrastructure development, digital
literacy programs, and ensuring access to affordable devices. Designing digital platforms
with a user-centric approach, focusing on accessibility features, is crucial for overcoming
challenges related to the exclusion of vulnerable groups.
Ethical use of technology challenges involves biased algorithms in decision-making
processes and surveillance concerns. Ethical AI practices, including guidelines implemen-
tation and regular audits, help mitigate biases in algorithms [164,176]. Legal safeguards,
oversight mechanisms, and clear frameworks are crucial for addressing concerns related to
widespread surveillance.
Smart Cities 2024, 7 823

Trust and transparency challenges manifest in citizens’ hesitancy to engage with digital
governance platforms due to concerns about data privacy, security, and opaque decision-
making processes [159,176,185]. Transparent communication about data practices, security
measures, and the purpose of digital initiatives is essential for building trust. Striving for
algorithmic transparency in decision-making processes ensures that citizens understand
how decisions are reached, promoting accountability and trust.
Addressing challenges related to data privacy, cybersecurity, inclusivity, interoper-
ability, ethical technology use, and trust and transparency requires a comprehensive and
proactive approach. Despite these challenges, e-governance and digital platforms offer sub-
stantial benefits in transforming governance by increasing citizen participation, promoting
transparency, and fostering accountability.

5.6. Case Studies of Successful Symbiotic Relationships

5.6.1. Singapore
Singapore’s Smart Nation Initiative stands as a testament to the city-state’s commit-
ment to comprehensive digital transformation [186]. The key pillars are digital society,
digital economy, and digital governance. Focused on leveraging technology across sectors,
the initiative has seen substantial investments in smart infrastructure, incorporating sen-
sors, IoT devices, and a nationwide broadband network [187]. This smart infrastructure
has significantly improved public services. For example, traffic flow in the city is optimized
through traffic management systems.
Moreover, the government harnesses data analytics for evidence-based policymaking
and citizen engagement, contributing to efficient and responsive governance. One of the
major smart service delivery efforts, Singapore implemented a digital health passport,
‘HealthCerts,’ during the COVID-19 pandemic. Built upon the nation’s advanced digital in-
frastructure, including secure databases and a national digital identity system, HealthCerts
allowed individuals to securely prove their health status, facilitating entry to public spaces
and events [188]. This proactive approach underscores the synergy between technology
and effective governance, adaptability and innovation for effective service delivery.

5.6.2. Estonia
Estonia has undergone a significant digital transformation, marked by a commit-
ment to e-governance initiatives aimed at enhancing the efficiency of public services [189].
The country has created a robust digital infrastructure, featuring secure digital IDs and
a national e-governance platform. This infrastructure enables Estonian citizens to conve-
niently access a diverse array of public services online, spanning healthcare and voting.
The government’s dedication to digital governance has not only increased transparency
but also fostered peoples’ participation and facilitated effective decision-making through
data-driven insights. Central to Estonia’s digital prowess is the X-Road, a secure data
exchange platform connecting various government databases and systems. This innovation
ensures the secure and interoperable exchange of data, significantly improving governance
efficiency by reducing bureaucracy, minimizing data duplication, and enhancing the over-
all responsiveness of public services. The integration of X-Road has reinforced Estonia’s
reputation as a pioneer in the realm of e-governance leading to a smart sustainable society.

5.6.3. India
India’s digital landscape has been reshaped by the Aadhaar system, despite its chal-
lenges and criticisms. A biometric-based digital identity initiative that has revolutionized
peoples’ access to services and identity authentication in the country. Supported by a
robust digital infrastructure, Aadhaar facilitates secure identity verification, streamlining
service delivery in critical areas such as financial services and government subsidies [190].
Further, the introduction of digital payment systems, particularly the Unified Payments
Interface (UPI), has furthered financial inclusion, providing people with convenient and
efficient tools for transactions, specifically in urban areas. This digital transformation
Smart Cities 2024, 7 824

has not only enhanced governance efficiency but has also contributed to transparency by
reducing fraud and ensuring targeted service delivery [191]. In tandem with Aadhaar,
India has experienced a significant digital payment revolution, spurred by initiatives like
demonetization and the widespread adoption of digital wallets and UPI. The development
of a comprehensive digital payments infrastructure, including mobile banking apps and
secure transaction gateways, has supported the surge in digital transactions. This shift in
payment methods has transformed financial transactions, making it easier for people to
pay bills, make purchases, and receive government subsidies. Beyond the convenience
factor, the transition to digital payments is argued to play a pivotal role in improving
governance, reducing corruption, increasing financial inclusion, and furnishing the govern-
ment with valuable transaction data for informed policymaking. This offers an example
of the influence of the transformation of digital infrastructure towards creating a smart
sustainable society.

5.6.4. United Kingdom

The United Kingdom’s Gov.uk stands as a cornerstone in the country’s digital trans-
formation, serving as a centralized platform that consolidates government information and
services, fostering a unified digital experience for citizens [192]. Supported by a robust
digital infrastructure ensuring reliability, accessibility, and security, Gov.uk provides a
diverse range of online services, encompassing tax filing and healthcare information. This
centralized and user-friendly portal simplifies peoples’ access to government services,
offering a streamlined digital interface [193]. Beyond enhancing service delivery, Gov.uk
plays a vital role in governance by promoting transparency, simplifying interactions be-
tween citizens and the government, and facilitating data-driven decision-making. The
integration of digital services through Gov.uk not only reduces administrative burden but
also contributes to a more transparent and efficient governance framework in the United
Kingdom that would contribute to forming a smart sustainable society.

5.6.5. Rwanda
Rwanda has undergone a significant digital transformation with the implementation
of a digital land registry, aimed at modernizing and securing land ownership records [194].
This initiative is supported by a robust digital infrastructure designed to store, manage,
and update land-related information efficiently. The digital land registry simplifies land
transactions, mitigates fraud, and enhances the accuracy of land records, contributing to
a more efficient and transparent real estate sector. The adoption of digital technology in
land management has not only streamlined processes but also had positive implications
for governance [194,195]. It has played a crucial role in reducing corruption, fostering
increased accountability, and facilitating informed decision-making in urban planning.
Rwanda’s embrace of digital innovation in land registry reflects a commitment to leveraging
technology for improved governance and efficiency in the management of vital public
records and land infrastructure.

6. Discussion and Implications

6.1. Discussions
The symbiotic linkage between infrastructure, service delivery, governance, and dig-
ital transformation is a complex interplay that shapes the modern landscape of public
administration and societal progress. An example of such interplay is presented in Figure 4.
The interplay suggests that there are two-way relationships between infrastructure, service
delivery, and governance, and that digital transformation plays a catalytic role.
Digital transformation, marked by the integration of advanced technologies including
AI into organizational processes, plays a pivotal role in reshaping service delivery across
sectors such as government, healthcare, education, etc. [92,93]. The adoption of digital
tools and platforms enhances transparency, efficiency, and decision-making, creating a
foundation for responsive governance. This transformative impact is particularly evident in
Smart Cities 2024, 7 825

Smart Cities 2024, 7, FOR PEER REVIEW 21

the optimization of internal processes, improvement in peoples’/stakeholders’ experiences,
and innovation in service provision [97,163,196].

Figure 4.
Figure Example of
4. Example of aa symbiotic
symbiotic relationships.
relationships.

Digital transformation, marked by the integration of advanced technologies includ-

ing AI into organizational processes, plays a pivotal role in reshaping service delivery
across sectors such as government, healthcare, education, etc. [92,93]. The adoption of dig-
ital tools and platforms enhances transparency, efficiency, and decision-making, creating
Smart Cities 2024, 7 826

In parallel, the material and societal facets of infrastructure, as emphasized by Öhman

(2010) [109] and Ablyazov (2021) [110], play a crucial role in shaping spatial development
and socioeconomic factors. The integration of digital technologies into physical and virtual
infrastructure, for example, by the use of IoTs and smart technologies, enhances efficiency,
resilience, and adaptability [115,117]. This interconnected and intelligent world breaks
physical barriers over space and time [112,114].
The impact of digital transformation on infrastructure planning, construction, and
maintenance is substantial. Leveraging data analytics, GIS data analysis, and modelling
tools in the planning phase facilitates informed decision-making and optimal project
design [12,115]. Technologies such as BIM, drones, and UAVs enhance collaboration,
coordination, and safety in construction [121]. Real-time monitoring through IoT and
data analytics enables proactive maintenance, extending asset lifespan and optimizing
resource allocation [123]. Augmented Reality applications assist maintenance teams by
overlaying digital information onto the physical environment [124]. This integration of
digital technologies contributes to more efficient, sustainable, and resilient infrastructure
development and management.
The nexus between infrastructure and effective service delivery is fundamental for soci-
etal advancement. Well-designed infrastructure significantly enhances service accessibility
and quality across various sectors, including transportation, digital networks, education,
healthcare, etc. [127,136,138]. Challenges in public service provision, often rooted in politi-
cal and governance issues, necessitate addressing internal organizational workings and
economic factors [129,130]. Digital technologies, in this context, play a critical role in
overcoming information constraints, enhancing monitoring, and automating tasks [12,116].
The connection between infrastructure and service delivery extends to the principles
of good governance, which embody transparency, accountability, responsiveness, and the
rule of law. Transparent and accountable governance practices are crucial for fostering trust,
enhancing public service provision, and aligning policies with peoples’ demands [166,168].
The integration of digital tools and platforms into governance structures amplifies trans-
parency, efficiency, citizen engagement, and public trust [164,179,180].
The synergy between effective service delivery and good governance underscores
the transformative impact of people/stakeholder engagement and data-driven decision-
making. People/stakeholder engagement ensures well-informed choices, incorporating
diverse perspectives and preferences, while data-driven approaches reduce reliance on in-
tuition for evidence-based decision-making [172,175]. Moreover, the collaboration between
people’s engagement and data-driven approaches reinforces transparency, responsiveness,
and accountability, contributing to a more effective and adaptive governance structure.
Despite the benefits, the integration of digital technologies into governance structures
faces challenges related to data privacy, cybersecurity, inclusivity, interoperability, ethi-
cal technology use, and trust and transparency. Overcoming these challenges requires a
comprehensive and proactive approach [159,161,184].
Thus, the symbiotic linkage between infrastructure, service delivery, governance,
and digital transformation is a multifaceted relationship that shapes the contemporary
landscape of cities. Embracing digital technologies in infrastructure development, service
delivery, and governance is imperative for organizations and governments in the cities to
remain competitive, responsive to people/stakeholder demands, and adaptable to evolving
challenges. The combined effect of the symbiotic relationship is likely to transform the
cities into smart sustainable cities. However, it is acknowledged that addressing concerns
regarding the impact of digital technology [34–37], as well as the non-homogeneity and
fragmented approach of smart cities [38–42], is crucial for ensuring the environmental and
social sustainability of smart sustainable cities.
Smart Cities 2024, 7 827

6.2. Implications
The implications drawn from the symbiotic linkage between infrastructure, service
delivery, governance, and digital transformation underscore the transformative impact of tech-
nology on contemporary cities. Several key implications emerge from this complex interplay:
• Digital Transformation as a Catalyst for Change: Digital transformation, characterized
by the integration of advanced technologies including AI, is pivotal in reshaping
service delivery across government, healthcare, and education sectors. The adoption
of digital tools would enhance transparency, efficiency, and decision-making, laying
the foundation for responsive governance, which is pivotal for smart sustainable cities;
• Interconnected and Intelligent Infrastructure: The integration of digital technologies
into physical and virtual infrastructure, such as IoT and smart technologies including
AI, leads to an interconnected and intelligent world. This evolution breaks physical
barriers and enhances the efficiency, resilience, and adaptability of infrastructure
in cities;
• Impact on Infrastructure Planning and Construction: Digital transformation signifi-
cantly impacts infrastructure planning, construction, and maintenance. Technologies
like data analytics, GIS analysis, and BIM contribute to informed decision making,
collaboration, and safety. Real-time monitoring through IoT and AR applications
contribute to more efficient, sustainable, and resilient infrastructure development
in cities;
• Infrastructure’s Role in Effective Service Delivery: Well-designed infrastructure plays a
fundamental role in enhancing service accessibility and quality across various sectors.
Challenges in public service provision, rooted in governance issues, can be addressed
through digital technologies, overcoming information constraints and enhancing
monitoring in smart sustainable cities;
• Contribution to Good Governance Principles: The nexus between infrastructure and
effective service delivery aligns with principles of good governance, including trans-
parency, accountability, responsiveness, and the rule of law. Digital tools and platforms
amplify transparency, efficiency, and citizen engagement within governance structures,
fostering public trust;
• Transformative Synergy of People’s Engagement and Data-Driven Decision-Making:
The collaboration between people engagement and data-driven decision-making
enhances transparency, responsiveness, and accountability in governance structures.
This transformative synergy empowers people/stakeholders, promotes continuous
improvement in policy evaluation, and supports adaptive governance structures.
Thus, the symbiotic linkage between infrastructure, service delivery, governance,
and digital transformation highlights the dynamic nature of contemporary urban society.
Recognizing the multifaceted relationship among these elements is essential for fostering
innovation, enhancing public services, and building a resilient and adaptive governance
framework in the digital age and consequently transforming cities into smart sustainable cities.

7. Conclusions
The trajectory from the early focus on singular environmental concerns to the compre-
hensive embrace of environmental, social, and economic development reflects a paradigm
shift in sustainable cities discourse culminating in the formal incorporation of sustainable
cities and communities as a key component of the United Nations SDG (SDG 11). Defined
by a triple-bottom-line approach, sustainable cities prioritize social, economic, and environ-
mental impact, aiming to provide resilient habitats for current and future generations. The
commitment to inclusivity, safety, resilience, and sustainability translates into tangible ini-
tiatives such as accessible housing, investments in public transportation, and participatory
urban planning.
Parallel to the sustainable cities movement is the emergence of smart cities, character-
ized by advanced digital technologies and a focus on intelligent infrastructure, and their
application to deliver services and perform socioeconomic activities. The term ‘smart city’
Smart Cities 2024, 7 828

has gained momentum and is seen as a leading driver of urban sustainability, although it
has faced criticism for its perceived technocentric approach. This criticism has prompted
recent research efforts to integrate sustainability more effectively into smart city approaches
and make sustainable city models smarter.
The convergence of smart and sustainable cities gives rise to the concept of smart
sustainable cities, which leverage digital technology to enhance the quality of life, optimize
urban functions, infrastructure and services, and fulfil the needs of current and future
generations across economic, social, environmental, and cultural dimensions. Several
studies have explored these concepts separately and in intersection, exploring their nuances,
challenges, and potential. However, a noticeable gap exists in understanding how the vital
elements of city development—infrastructure, service delivery, governance, and digital
technology—synergize to transform a city into a smart sustainable city.
This study addressed this gap by exploring the symbiotic relationship among infras-
tructure, service delivery, governance, and digital transformation—the key aspects of city
development. It emphasizes that digital transformation serves as a catalyst for innovation
and efficiency, infrastructure provides the foundation for seamless service delivery, and
effective governance ensures alignment with the needs of citizens. By working together,
it is thus theorized that these four pillars can transform cities into thriving places of sus-
tainability and livability, thereby fostering the emergence of smart and consequently smart
sustainable cities. However, a significant limitation of the study is that the specific impact of
digital technologies, including AI, and the fragmented approach to smart city development
on the social and environmental sustainability of smart sustainable cities has been kept out
of this paper’s scope. Recognizing the importance of these aspects for establishing smart
sustainable cities, this will be considered in the scope of future research.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement: No data are associated with this paper.
Conflicts of Interest: The author declares no conflicts of interest.

References
1. Prizzia, R. Sustainable development in an international perspective. In Handbook of Globalization and the Environment; Thai, K.V.,
Rahm, D., Coggburn, J.D., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2007; pp. 19–42.
2. United Nations. Agenda 21. Rio de Janeiro: United Nations. The Triple Bottom Line: What Is It and How Does It Work? 1992.
Available online: www.ibrc.indiana.edu (accessed on 2 October 2019).
3. Slaper, T.F.; Hall, T.J. The Triple Bottom Line: What Is It and How Does It Work? Indiana Bus. Rev. 2011, 86.
4. Bibri, S.E. Smart Sustainable Cities of the Future; The Urban Book Series; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland,
2018.
5. Heinberg, R. What Is a Sustainable City? Edmont. Sustain. Pap. 2010, 5, 1–15.
6. Hassan, A.M.; Lee, H. The paradox of the sustainable city: Definitions and examples. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2015, 17, 1267–1285.
[CrossRef]
7. Girardet, H. Sustainable Cities: A contradiction in Terms? In The Earthscan Reader in Sustainable Cities; Satterthwaite, D., Ed.;
Routledge: London, UK, 2021.
8. Javidroozi, V.; Carter, C.; Grace, M.; Shah, H. Smart, Sustainable, Green Cities: A State-of-the-Art Review. Sustainability 2023,
15, 5353. [CrossRef]
9. Das, D.; Chadchan, J. A proposed framework for an appropriate governance system to develop smart cities in India. Territ. Politics
Gov. 2023. [CrossRef]
10. Praharaj, S.; Han, H. Cutting through the clutter of smart city definitions: A reading into the smart city perceptions in India. City
Cult. Soc. 2019, 18, 100285. [CrossRef]
11. Kitchin, R. The real-time city? Big data and smart urbanism. GeoJournal 2014, 79, 1–14. [CrossRef]
12. Batty, M.; Axhausen, K.W.; Giannotti, F.; Pozdnoukhov, A.; Bazzani, A.; Wachowicz, M.; Ouzounis, G.; Portugali, Y. Smart cities of
the future. Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 2012, 214, 481–518. [CrossRef]
13. Cavada, M.; Hunt, D.V.L.; Rogers, C. Do smart cities realise their potential for lower carbon dioxide emissions? Proc. Inst. Civ.
Eng. Eng. Sustain. 2016, 169, 243–252. [CrossRef]
14. Townsend, A.M. Smart Cities: Big Data, Civic Hackers, and the Quest for a New Utopia; WW Norton & Company: New York, NY,
USA, 2013.
Smart Cities 2024, 7 829

15. Yigitcanlar, T.; O’Connor, K.; Westerman, C. The making of knowledge cities: Melbourne’s knowledge-based urban development
experience. Cities 2008, 25, 63–72. [CrossRef]
16. Das, D. Perspectives of smart cities in South Africa through applied systems analysis approach: A case of Bloemfontein. Constr.
Econ. Build. 2020, 20, 65–88. [CrossRef]
17. Sokolov, A.; Veselitskaya, N.; Carabias, V.; Yildirim, O. Scenario-based identification of key factors for smart cities development
policies. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 148, 119279. [CrossRef]
18. Das, D.; Emuze, F. Smart city perspectives of Bloemfontein, South Africa. J. Constr. Proj. Manag. Innov. 2014, 4, 930–950.
19. Giffinger, R.; Fertne, C.; Kramar, H.; Kalasek, R.; Pichler Milanović, N.; Evert, M. Smart Cities—Ranking of European Medium-Sized
Cities; Final Project Report; Centre of Regional Science, Vienna UT: Vienna, Austria, 2007; Available online: http://smartcity-
ranking.org/download/smart_cities_final_report.pdf (accessed on 24 January 2023).
20. Lombardi, P. New challenges in the evaluation of Smart Cities. Netw. Ind. Q. 2011, 13, 8–10.
21. Kourtit, K.; Nijkamp, P.; Arribas, D. Smart cities in perspective—A comparative European study by means of self-organizing
maps. Innovation. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 2012, 25, 229–246. [CrossRef]
22. de Jong, M.; Joss, S.; Schraven, D. Sustainable-smart-resilient-low-carbon-eco-knowledge cities: Making sense of a multitude of
concepts promoting sustainable urbanization. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 109, 25–38. [CrossRef]
23. Freeman, G. The Origin and Implementation of the Smart-Sustainable City Concept, The Case of Malmö, Sweden. Master’s
Thesis, Lund University—University of Manchester, University of the Aegean, Central European University, Lund, Sweden, 2017.
24. Bibri, S.E.; Krogstie, J. Generating a vision for smart sustainable cities of the future: A scholarly backcasting approach. Eur. J.
Futures Res. 2019, 7, 5. [CrossRef]
25. Hollands, R.G. Will the real smart city please stand up? Intelligent, progressive or entrepreneurial? City 2008, 12, 303–320.
[CrossRef]
26. Höjer, M.; Wangel, S. Smart sustainable cities: Definition and challenges. In ICT Innovations for Sustainability; Hilty, L., Aebischer,
B., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2015; pp. 333–349.
27. Martin, C.J.; Evans, J.; Karvonen, A. Smart and sustainable? Five tensions in the visions and practices of the smart-sustainable
city in Europe and North America. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018, 133, 269–278. [CrossRef]
28. Al-Nasrawi, S.; Adams, C.; El-Zaart, A. A conceptual multidimensional model for assessing smart sustainable cities. J. Inf. Syst.
Technol. Manag. 2015, 12, 541–558.
29. Kramers, A.; Wangel, J.; Höjer, M. Smart sustainable cities: Exploring ICT solutions for reduced energy use in cities. Environ.
Model. Softw. 2014, 56, 52–62. [CrossRef]
30. Shahrokni, H.; Årman, L.; Lazarevic, D.; Nilsson, A.; Brandt, N. Implementing smart urban metabolism in the Stockholm Royal
Seaport: Smart city SRS. J. Ind. Ecol. 2015, 19, 917–929. [CrossRef]
31. Trindade, E.P.; Hinnig, M.P.F.; da Costa, E.M.; Marques, J.S.; Bastos, R.C.; Yigitcanlar, T. Sustainable development of smart cities:
A systematic review of the literature. J. Open Innov. 2017, 3, 11. [CrossRef]
32. Ahvenniemi, H.; Huovila, A.; Pinto-Seppä, I.; Airaksinen, M. What are the differences between sustainable and smart cities?
Cities 2017, 60 Pt A, 234–245. [CrossRef]
33. Ibrahim, M.; El-Zaart, A.; Adams, C. Smart sustainable cities roadmap: Readiness for transformation towards urban sustainability.
Sustain. Cities Soc. 2018, 37, 530–540. [CrossRef]
34. Bulkeley, H.; Castán Broto, V. Government by experiment? Global cities and the governing of climate change. Trans. Inst. Br.
Geogr. 2013, 38, 361–375. [CrossRef]
35. Castán Broto, V.; Bulkeley, H. A survey of urban climate change experiments in 100 cities. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2013, 23, 92–102.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Cugurullo, F.; Ponzini, D. The transnational smart city as urban ecomodernisation: The case of Masdar City in Abu Dhabi. In
Inside Smart Cities: Place, Politics and Urban Innovation; Karvonen, A., Cugurullo, F., Caprotti, F., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK,
2018; pp. 149–162.
37. Kaika, M. Don’t call me Resilient Again! The New Urban Agenda as Immunology . . . or what happens when communities refuse
to be vaccinated with ‘smart cities’ and indicators. Environ. Urban. 2017, 29, 89–102. [CrossRef]
38. Cugurullo, F. The smart city imaginary: From the dawn of modernity to the eclipse of reason. In The Routledge Companion to Urban
Imaginaries; Lindner, C., Meissner, M., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2018.
39. Cugurullo, F. Dissecting the Frankenstein city: An examination of smart urbanism in Hong Kong, In Inside Smart Cities: Place, Politics
and Urban Innovation; Karvonen, A., Cugurullo, F., Caprotti, F., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2019; pp. 30–44.
40. Murray, M.J. Re-Engaging with Transnational Urbanism. In Locating Right to the City in the Global South; Samara, T.R., He, S., Chen,
G., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2013; pp. 285–305.
41. Coletta, C.; Heaphy, L.; Kitchin, R. From the accidental to articulated smart city: The creation and work of ‘Smart Dublin’. Eur.
Urban Reg. Stud. 2019, 26, 349–364. [CrossRef]
42. Prasad, D.; Alizadeh, T.; Dowling, R. Smart city placebased outcomes in India: Bubble urbanism and socio-spatial fragmentation.
J. Urban Des. 2022, 27, 483–503. [CrossRef]
43. Kramers, A.; Wangel, J.; Höjer, M. Governing the Smart Sustainable City: The case of Stockholm Royal Seaport. In Proceedings of
the ICT for Sustainability, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 29 August–1 September 2016. [CrossRef]
Smart Cities 2024, 7 830

44. Bibri, S.E.; Krogstie, J. Smart sustainable cities of the future: An extensive interdisciplinary literature review. Sustain. Cities Soc.
2017, 31, 183–212. [CrossRef]
45. Scott, J. A Matter of Record; University of Cambridge Press: Cambridge, UK, 1990.
46. Harrison, C.; Donnelly, I. A theory of smart cities. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the International Society for the
Systems Sciences, York, UK, 17–22 July 2011.
47. Cavada, M.; Hunt, D.; Rogers, C. Smart cities: Contradicting definitions and unclear measures. In Proceedings of the 4th World
Sustainability Forum, Basel, Switzerland, 1–30 November 2014. Available online: http://www.sciforum.net/conference/wsf-4
(accessed on 16 June 2015).
48. Datta, A. New urban utopias of postcolonial India: Entrepreneurial urbanization in Dholera Smart City, Gujarat. Dialog. Hum.
Geogr. 2015, 5, 3–22. [CrossRef]
49. IBM. A Smarter Planet: The Next Leadership Agenda. Council on Foreign Relations. Council on Foreign Relations. 2008.
Available online: https://www.cfr.org/event/smarter-planet-nextleadership-agenda (accessed on 25 February 2023).
50. Komninos, N. Intelligent Cities: Innovation, Knowledge Systems and Digital Spaces; Spon Press: London, UK, 2002.
51. Shapiro, J.M. Smart cities: Quality of life, productivity, and the growth effects of human capital. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2008, 88, 324–335.
[CrossRef]
52. Cohen, B. The 10 Smartest Cities in North America. 2013. Available online: http://www.fastcoexist.com/3021592/the-10
-smartest-cities-in-north-america (accessed on 18 March 2016).
53. Mercer Study. 2014 Quality of Living Worldwide City Rankings—Mercer Survey. 2014. Available online: https://www.mercer.
com/newsroom/2014-quality-of-living-survey.html (accessed on 18 March 2016).
54. Praharaj, S.; Han, J.H.; Hawken, S. Urban innovation through policy integration: Critical perspectives from 100 smart cities
mission in India. City Cult. Soc. 2018, 12, 35–43. [CrossRef]
55. Das, D. Exploring the Politico-Cultural Dimensions for Development of Smart Cities in India. Int. Rev. Spat. Plan. Sustain. Dev.
2017, 5, 79–99. [CrossRef]
56. Marsal-Llacuna, M.L.; Colomer-Llinàs, J.; Meléndez-Frigola, J. Lessons in urban monitoring taken from sustainable and livable
cities to better address the Smart Cities initiative. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2015, 90, 611–622. [CrossRef]
57. Belanche, D.; Casaló, L.; Orús, C. City attachment and use of urban services: Benefits for smart cities. Cities 2016, 50, 75–81.
[CrossRef]
58. Lee, J.H.; Hancock, M.G.; Hu, M.C. Towards an effective framework for building smart cities: Lessons from Seoul and San
Francisco. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2014, 89, 80–99. [CrossRef]
59. Hancke, G.P.; de Carvalho e Silva, B.; Hancke, G.P., Jr. The Role of Advanced Sensing in Smart Cities. Sensors 2013, 13, 393–425.
[CrossRef]
60. Bouzguenda, I.; Alalouch, C.; Fava, N. Towards smart sustainable cities: A review of the role digital citizen participation could
play in advancing social sustainability. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 50, 101627. [CrossRef]
61. Rogers, R. Cities for a Small Planet, 1st ed.; Westview Press: Boulder, CO, USA, 1998.
62. Brugmann, J. Is there a method in our measurement? The use of indicators in local sustainable development planning. Local
Environ. 1997, 2, 59–72. [CrossRef]
63. Meadows, D. Leverage Points Places, to Intervene in a System; The Sustainability Institute: Hartland, VT, USA, 1999.
64. Rode, P.; Burdett, R. Cities: Investing in energy and resource efficiency. In Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable
Development and Poverty Eradication; UNEP: Nairobi, Kenya, 2011; pp. 453–492.
65. Koh, K.-L.; Gunawansa, A.; Bhullar, L. Eco-Cities and Sustainable Cities—Whither? Soc. Space 2010, 84, 84–92.
66. UN. Planning Sustainable Cities: Policy Directions Global Report on Human Settlements 2009; UN-Habitat: New York, NY, USA, 2009.
67. Watróbski,
˛ J.; Baczkiewicz,
˛ A.; Ziemba, E.; Sałabun, W. Sustainable cities and communities assessment using the DARIA-TOPSIS
method. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2022, 83, 103926. [CrossRef]
68. UN-Habitat. Urbanization and Development: Emerging Futures; World Cities Report Nairobi; UN-Habitat: Nairobi, Kenya, 2016.
69. ITU. Smart Sustainable Cities: An Analysis of Definitions; The International Telecommunication Union: Geneva, Switzerland, 2014.
70. Neuman, M. Infrastructure Is Key to Make Cities Sustainable. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8308. [CrossRef]
71. Plekhanov, D.; Franke, H.; Netland, T.H. Digital transformation: A review and research agenda. Eur. Manag. J. 2023, 41, 821–844.
[CrossRef]
72. UN DESA. E-Government Survey 2018: Gearing E-Government to Support Transformation towards Sustainable and Resilient Societies;
United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs: New York, NY, USA, 2018.
73. Angel, S.; Parent, J.; Civco, D.L.; Blei, A.; Potere, D. The dimensions of global urban expansion: Estimates and projections for all
countries, 2000–2050. Prog. Plan. 2011, 75, 53–107. [CrossRef]
74. Avis, J. Social Justice, Transformation and Knowledge: Policy, Workplace Learning and Skills; Routledge: London, UK, 2016.
75. Bollinger, L.A.; Kruk, M.E. Innovations to Expand Access and Improve Quality of Health Services, In Disease Control Priorities, Third
Edition (Volume 2): Reproductive, Maternal, Newborn, and Child Health; Black, R., Laxminarayan, R., Temmerman, M., Walker, N.,
Eds.; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. [CrossRef]
76. Zeithaml, V.A.; Bitner, M.J.; Gremler, D.D. What Are Services? McGraw Hi Education: New York, NY, USA, 2018.
77. Noring, L.; Ohler, L.P.; Struthers, D. City Government Capacity and Patterns in Urban Development Project Governance. Urban
Aff. Rev. 2021, 57, 1343–1371. [CrossRef]
Smart Cities 2024, 7 831

78. Pieterse, E. Urban governance and spatial transformation ambitions in Johannesburg. J. Urban Aff. 2019, 41, 20–38. [CrossRef]
79. United Nations. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Resolution adopted by the General
Assembly on 25 September 2015. 2015. Available online: https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/
generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_RES_70_1_E.pdf (accessed on 25 February 2023).
80. Yin, Z.; Zhu, S. Consistencies and inconsistencies in urban governance and development. Cities 2020, 106, 102930. [CrossRef]
81. Bouckaert, G. Governance between Legitimacy and Efficiency Citizen Participation in the Belgian Fire Services. In Modern
Governance New Government-Society Interactions; Kooiman, J., Ed.; Sage: Washington, DC, USA, 1993.
82. Brenner, B.; Hartl, B. The perceived relationship between digitalization and ecological, economic, and social sustainability. J. Clean.
Prod. 2021, 315, 128128. [CrossRef]
83. Caragliu, A.; Chiara, d.B.; Nijkamp, P. Smart cities in Europe. J. Urban Technol. 2011, 18, 65–82. [CrossRef]
84. Del Río Castro, G.; Fernández, M.C.G.; Colsa, Á.U. Unleashing the convergence amid digitalization and sustainability towards
pursuing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs): A holistic review. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 280, 122204. [CrossRef]
85. Meng, T.; Yu, D.; Ye, L.; Yahya, M.H.; Zariyawati, M.A. Impact of digital city competitiveness on total factor productivity in the
commercial circulation industry: Evidence from China’s emerging first-tier cities. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2023, 10, 927.
[CrossRef]
86. Nam, T.; Pardo, T.A. Smart city as urban innovation: Focusing on management, policy, and context. In Proceedings of the ICEGOV
Proceedings, 5th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, Tallinn, Estonia, 26–28 September
2011. [CrossRef]
87. Anthopoulos, L.; Janssen, M.; Weerakkody, V.A. Unified Smart City Model (USCM) for Smart City Conceptualization and
Benchmarking. Int. J. Electron. Gov. Res. (IJEGR) 2016, 12, 77–93. [CrossRef]
88. Giuliodori, A.; Berrone, P.; Ricart, J.E. Where smart meets sustainability: The role of Smart Governance in achieving the Sustainable
Development Goals in cities. BRQ Bus. Res. Q. 2023, 26, 27–44. [CrossRef]
89. Gil-Garcia, J.R.; Helbig, N.; Ojo, A. Being smart: Emerging technologies and innovation in the public sector. Gov. Inf. Q. 2014, 31,
I1–I8. [CrossRef]
90. Gil-Garcia, J.R.; Pardo, T.A.; Nam, T. What makes a city smart? Identifying core components and proposing an integrative and
comprehensive conceptualization. Inf. Polity 2015, 20, 61–87. [CrossRef]
91. U4SSC. Collection Methodology for Key Performance Indicators for Smart Sustainable Cities, United for Smart Sustainable Cities
(U4SSC) Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) Project, N.D. Available online: https://u4ssc.itu.int/u4ssc-methodology/ (accessed
on 16 October 2023).
92. European Commission. Powering European Public Sector Innovation: Towards a New Architecture. 2013. Available online: https:
//ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/powering-european-public-sector-innovation-towards-new-architecture (ac-
cessed on 16 October 2023).
93. Mergel, I.; Edelmann, N.; Nathalie, H. Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Gov. Inf. Q. 2019,
36, 101385. [CrossRef]
94. Zuiderwijk, A.; Chen, Y.; Salem, F. Implications of the use of artificial intelligence in public governance: A systematic literature
review and a research agenda. Gov. Inf. Q. 2021, 38, 101577. [CrossRef]
95. Ballestar, M.T.; Díaz-Chao, Á.; Sainz, J.; Torrent-Sellens, J. Knowledge, robots, and productivity in SMEs: Explaining the second
digital wave. J. Bus. Res. 2020, 108, 119–131. [CrossRef]
96. Gaglio, C.; Kraemer-Mbula, E.; Lorenz, E. The effects of digital transformation on innovation and productivity: Firm-level
evidence of South African manufacturing micro and small enterprises. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2022, 182, 121785. [CrossRef]
97. Meijer, A.; Bekkers, V. A meta-theory of e-government: Creating some order in a fragmented research field. Gov. Inf. Q. 2015, 32,
237–245. [CrossRef]
98. Berman, S.J. Digital transformation: Opportunities to create new business models. Strat. Leadersh. 2012, 40, 16–24. [CrossRef]
99. Verhoef, P.C.; Broekhuizen, T.; Bart, Y.; Bhattacharya, A.; Qi Dong, J.; Fabian, N.; Haenlein, M. Digital transformation: A
multidisciplinary reflection and research agenda. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 122, 889–901. [CrossRef]
100. Luna-Reyes, L.F.; Gil-Garcia, J.R. Digital government transformation and internet portals: The co-evolution of technology,
organizations, and institutions. Gov. Inf. Q. 2014, 31, 545–555. [CrossRef]
101. Nograšek, J.; Vintar, M. E-government and organisational transformation of government: Black box revisited? Gov. Inf. Q. 2014,
31, 108–118. [CrossRef]
102. Galetsi, P.; Katsaliaki, K.; Kumar, S. Values, Challenges and Future Directions of Big Data Analytics in Healthcare: A Systematic
Review. Soc. Sci. Med. 2019, 241, 112533. [CrossRef]
103. Jahmunah, V.; Sudarshan, V.K.; Oh, S.L.; Gururajan, R.; Gururajan, R.; Zhou, X.; Tao, X.; Faust, O.; Ciaccio, E.J.; Ng, K.H.; et al.
Future IoT tools for COVID-19 contact tracing and prediction: A review of the state-of-the-science. Int. J. Imaging Syst. Technol.
2021, 31, 455–471. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
104. Kaiser, F.K.; Wiens, M.; Schultmann, F. Use of Digital Healthcare Solutions for Care Delivery during a Pandemic-Chances and
(Cyber) Risks Referring to the Example of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Health Technol. 2021, 11, 1125–1137. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
105. Pittaway, J.J.; Montazemi, A.R. Know-how to lead digital transformation: The case of local governments. Gov. Inf. Q. 2020,
37, 101474. [CrossRef]
Smart Cities 2024, 7 832

106. Sousa, M.J.; Cruz, R.; Martins, J.M. Digital Learning Methodologies and Tools—A Literature Review. In Proceedings of the 9th
International Conference on Education and New Learning Technologies, Barcelona, Spain, 3–5 July 2017; pp. 5185–5192.
107. Sousa, M.J.; Rocha, Á. Digital learning: Developing skills for digital transformation of organizations. Future Gener. Comput. Syst.
2019, 91, 327–334. [CrossRef]
108. Sohrabi, B.; Iraj, H. Implementing flipped classroom using digital media: A comparison of two demographically different groups
perceptions. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2016, 60, 514–524. [CrossRef]
109. Öhman, J. Towards a Digital (Societal) Infrastructure? Urban Stud. 2010, 47, 183–195. [CrossRef]
110. Ablyazov, T. Application of digital platforms in the urban infrastructure development. SHS Web Conf. 2021, 106, 01028. [CrossRef]
111. McMillan, L.; Varga, L. A review of the use of artificial intelligence methods in infrastructure systems. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell.
2022, 116, 105472. [CrossRef]
112. Beaudet, G.; Shearmur, R. L’innovation Municipale: Sortir des Sentiers Battus; Les Presses de l’Universite de Montreal: Montréal, QC,
Canada, 2019.
113. Pereira, G.V.; Luna-Reyes, L.F.; Gil-Garcia, J.R. Governance innovations, digital transformation and the generation of public value
in Smart City initiatives. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance,
Athens Greece, 23–25 September 2020; pp. 602–608.
114. Shkabatur, J. Municipalities at crossroads: Digital technology and local democracy in America. Brooklyn Law Rev. 2010, 76, 1413.
115. Lafioune, N.; Poirier, E.A.; St-Jacques, M. Managing urban infrastructure assets in the digital era: Challenges of municipal digital
transformation. Digit. Transform. Soc. 2023, 3, 3–22. [CrossRef]
116. Apraez, B.E.; Lavrijssen, S. Exploring the regulatory challenges of a possible rollout of smart water meters in The Netherlands.
Compet. Regul. Netw. Ind. 2019, 19, 159–179. [CrossRef]
117. Vuchkovski, D.; Zalaznik, M.; Mitr˛ega, M.; Pfajfar, G. A look at the future of work: The digital transformation of teams from
conventional to virtual. J. Bus. Res. 2023, 163, 113912. [CrossRef]
118. Vial, G. Understanding digital transformation: A review and a research agenda. J. Strateg. Inf. Syst. 2019, 28, 118–144. [CrossRef]
119. Liyanage, S.; Abduljabbar, R.; Dia, H.; Tsai, P.W. AI-based neural network models for bus passenger demand forecasting using
smartcard data. J. Urban Manag. 2022, 11, 365–380. [CrossRef]
120. Mortaheb, R.; Jankowski, P. Smart city re-imagined: City planning and GeoAI in the age of big data. J. Urban Manag. 2000, 12,
4–15. [CrossRef]
121. Aiyetan, A.; Das, D. Use of Drones for construction in developing countries: Barriers and strategic interventions. Int. J. Constr.
Manag. 2023, 23, 2108026. [CrossRef]
122. Kano, E.; Tachibana, S.; Tsuda, K. Analyzing the impact of digital technologies on the productivity of road maintenance operations.
Procedia Comput. Sci. 2022, 207, 1623–1632. [CrossRef]
123. Chowdhury, T.; Adafin, J.; Wilkinson, S. Review of digital technologies to improve productivity of New Zealand construction
industry. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. 2019, 24, 569–587. [CrossRef]
124. Ghaffarianhoseini, A.; Tookey, J.; Ghaffarianhoseini, A.; Naismith, N.; Azhar, S.; Efimova, O.; Raahemifar, K. Building Information
Modelling (BIM) uptake: Clear benefits, understanding its implementation, risks and challenges. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2016, 75, 1046–1053. [CrossRef]
125. Solaimani, S.; Sedighi, M. Toward a holistic view on lean sustainable construction: A literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020,
248, 119213. [CrossRef]
126. Wall, K. The right to functioning urban infrastructure—A review. Town Reg. Plan. 2021, 79, 55–66. [CrossRef]
127. Word Bank. Infrastructure Development: The Roles of the Public and Private Sectors World Bank Group’s Approach to Supporting
Investments in Infrastructure; Word Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2005; p. 37554.
128. Batley, R.; Mccourt, W.; Mcloughlin, C. The Politics and Governance of Public Services in Developing Countries. Public Manag.
Rev. 2012, 14, 131–144. [CrossRef]
129. Finan, F.; Benjamin, A.; Pande, R. The Personnel Economics of the Olken the State; NBER Working Papers 21825; National Bureau of
Economic Research, Inc.: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015.
130. Calderón, C.; Serven, L. Infrastructure and economic development in Sub-Saharan Africa. J. Afr. Econ. 2010, 19 (Suppl. S1), 13–87.
[CrossRef]
131. World Bank. World Development Report 2016: Digital Dividends; World Bank Publications: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
132. Coutard, O.; Rutherford, J. Beyond the Networked City, Infrastructure Reconfigurations and Urban Change in the North and South London;
Routledge: London, UK, 2015. [CrossRef]
133. Haque, A.N.; Lemanski, C.; de Groot, J. Is (in)access to infrastructure driven by physical delivery or weak governance? Power
and knowledge asymmetries in Cape Town, South Africa. Geoforum 2021, 126, 48–58. [CrossRef]
134. Lemanski, C. Citizenship and Infrastructure; Practices and Identities of Citizens and the State; Routledge: London, UK, 2019.
[CrossRef]
135. Cheng, J.; Chen, Z. Impact of high-speed rail on the operational capacity of conventional rail in China. Transp. Policy 2021, 110,
354–367. [CrossRef]
136. Zhao, J.; Zhao, Y.; Li, Y. The variation in the value of travel-time savings and the dilemma of high-speed rail in China. Transp. Res.
Part A Policy Pract. 2015, 82, 130–140. [CrossRef]
Smart Cities 2024, 7 833

137. Bai, Y. The Faster, the Better? The Impact of Internet Speed on Employment (April 29, 2016). TPRC 44: The 44th Research
Conference on Communication, Information and Internet Policy. 2016. Available online: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2772691
(accessed on 12 October 2019).
138. Grimes, A.; Townsend, W. Effects of (ultra-fast) fibre broadband on student achievement. Inf. Econ. Policy 2018, 44, 8–15.
[CrossRef]
139. Untiliesone The Role of Fiber Optic Cables in High-Speed Internet Connectivity, 28 Aug 2023. 2023. Available online: https:
//utilitiesone.com/the-role-of-fiber-optic-cables-in-high-speed-internet-connectivity (accessed on 18 October 2023).
140. Han, H.; Hai, C.; Wu, T.; Zhou, N. How does digital infrastructure affect residents’ healthcare expenditures? Evidence from
Chinese microdata. Front. Public Health 2023, 11, 1122718. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
141. Minetaki, K.; Akematsu, Y.; Tsuji, M. Effect of e-health on medical expenditures of outpatients with lifestyle-related diseases.
Telemed e-Health 2011, 17, 591–595. [CrossRef]
142. Hamurcu, M.; Eren, T. Strategic Planning Based on Sustainability for Urban Transportation: An Application to Decision-Making.
Sustainability 2020, 12, 3589. [CrossRef]
143. Wey, W.; Huang, J. Urban sustainable transportation planning strategies for livable City’s quality of life. Habitat Int. 2018, 82, 9–27.
[CrossRef]
144. Jerome, J.; Patience Nel, D. Municipal infrastructure management and its impact on service delivery in the City of Ekurhuleni.
Afr. Public Serv. Deliv. Perform. Rev. 2020, 9, a508. [CrossRef]
145. van Veenstra, A.F.; Aagesen, G.; Janssen, M.; Krogstie, J. Infrastructures for Public Service Delivery: Aligning IT governance and
architecture in infrastructure development. e-Serv. J. 2012, 8, 73–97. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/
eservicej.8.3.73 (accessed on 15 September 2023). [CrossRef]
146. Lemos, M.H.; Charles, G. Public Programs, Private Financing. Law Contemp. Probl. 2018, 81, 137–160. Available online:
https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/lcp/vol81/iss3/7 (accessed on 15 September 2023).
147. Cornwall, A. Introduction: New Democratic Spaces? The Politics and Dynamics of Institutionalised Participation. IDS Bull. 2017,
48, 1–10. Available online: https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/20.500.12413/13219/48.1A_10.190881968
-2017.144.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y (accessed on 15 September 2023). [CrossRef]
148. Kashwan, P.; MacLean, L.M.; García, L.; Gustavo, A. Rethinking power and institutions in the shadows of neoliberalism. World
Dev. 2019, 120, 133–146. [CrossRef]
149. Babon-Ayeng, P.; Oduro-Ofori, E.; Owusu-Manu, D.G.; Edwards, D.J.; Kissi, E.; Kukah, A.S.K. Socio-political factors underlying
the adoption of green bond financing of infrastructure projects: The case of Ghana. J. Common Mark. Stud. 2022, 6, 304–319.
[CrossRef]
150. OECD. Report on Green, Social and Sustainability Bonds Issued by Multilateral Development Banks and Its Use for Infrastructure
Financing, Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs, Committee on Financial Markets. 2023. Available online: https:
//one.oecd.org/document/DAF/CMF/AS(2023)3/REV2/en/pdf (accessed on 12 November 2023).
151. Singla, A.; Shumberger, J.; Swindell, D. Paying for infrastructure in the post-recession era: Exploring the use of alternative
funding and financing tools. J. Urban Aff. 2019, 43, 526–548. [CrossRef]
152. Alahi, M.E.E.; Sukkuea, A.; Tina, F.W.; Nag, A.; Kurdthongmee, W.; Suwannarat, K.; Mukhopadhyay, S.C. Integration of IoT-
Enabled Technologies and Artificial Intelligence (AI) for Smart City Scenario: Recent Advancements and Future Trends. Sensors
2023, 23, 5206. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
153. Das, D. Revitalising the Centres of South African Cities through Information Communication Technology. Urban Plan. 2021, 6,
228–241. [CrossRef]
154. Gupta, K.P. Artificial intelligence for governance in India: Prioritizing the challenges using analytic hierarchy process (AHP). Int.
J. Recent Technol. Eng. 2019, 8, 3756–3762. [CrossRef]
155. Janssen, M.; Brous, P.; Estevez, E.; Barbosa, L.S.; Janowski, T. Data governance: Organizing data for trustworthy artificial
intelligence. Gov. Inf. Q. 2020, 37, 101493. [CrossRef]
156. McQuivey, J. Digital Disruption: Unleashing the Next Wave of Innovation; Forrester Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2013.
157. Ross, J.W.; Beath, C.; Mocker, M. Designed for Digital: How to Architect Your Business for Sustained Success; MIT Press: Cambridge,
MA, USA, 2018.
158. Westerman, G.; Bonnet, D.; McAfee, A. Leading Digital: Turning Technology into Business Transformation; Harvard Business Review
Press: Brighton, MA, USA, 2014.
159. Fatima, S.; Desouza, K.C.; Dawson, G.S. National strategic artificial intelligence plans: A multi-dimensional analysis. Econ. Anal.
Policy 2020, 67, 178–194. [CrossRef]
160. Toll, D.; Lindgren, I.; Melin, U.; Madsen, C.Ø. Artificial intelligence in Swedish policies: Values, benefits, considerations and risks.
In Proceedings of the International Conference on Electronic Government, San Benedetto del Tronto, Italy, 2–4 September 2019.
161. Ojo, A.; Mellouli, S.; Ahmadi Zeleti, F. A realist perspective on AI-era public management. In Proceedings of the 20th annual
International Conference on Digital Government Research, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 18–20 June 2019.
162. Gesk, T.S.; Leyer, M. Artificial intelligence in public services: When and why citizens accept its usage. Gov. Inf. Q. 2022, 39, 101704.
[CrossRef]
163. Bokhari, S.A.A.; Myeong, S. Artificial Intelligence-Based Technological-Oriented Knowledge Management, Innovation, and
E-Service Delivery in Smart Cities: Moderating Role of E-Governance. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 8732. [CrossRef]
Smart Cities 2024, 7 834

164. Gomes de Sousa, W.; de Melo, E.R.P.; Bermejo, P.H.D.S.; Farias, R.A.S.; Gomes, A.O. How and where is artificial intelligence in the
public sector going? A literature review and research agenda. Gov. Inf. Q. 2019, 36, 101392. [CrossRef]
165. Kuziemski, M.; Misuraca, G. AI governance in the public sector: Three tales from the frontiers of automated decision-making in
democratic settings. Telecomm Policy 2020, 44, 101976. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
166. Brinkerhoff, D.W.; Hertz, J.C.; Wetterberg, A. Introduction: Governance, Social Accountability, and Sectoral Service Delivery. In
Governance and Service Delivery Practical Applications of Social Accountability Across Sectors; Wetterberg, A., Brinkerhoff, D.W., Hertz,
J.C., Eds.; RTI Press: Research Triangle Park, NC, USA, 2016; pp. 1–8.
167. Brinkerhoff, D.W.; Wetterberg, A. Cross-Sectoral Social Accountability in Practice: Analytical Framework and Background. In
Governance and Service Delivery Practical Applications of Social Accountability Across Sectors; Wetterberg, A., Brinkerhoff, D.W., Hertz,
J.C., Eds.; RTI Press: Research Triangle Park, NC, USA, 2016; pp. 9–30.
168. Thusi, X.; Selepe, M.M. The Impact of Poor Governance on Public Service Delivery: A Case Study of the South African Local
Government. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Res. Rev. 2023, 6, 688–697.
169. Helliwell, J.F.; Huang, H.; Grover, S.; Wang, S. Empirical linkages between good governance and national well-being. J. Comp.
Econ. 2018, 46, 1332–1346. [CrossRef]
170. Moolman, S.; Van Der Waldt, G. The Effectiveness of Financial Governance Structures in the South African Public Sector. Afr. J.
Public Aff. 2022, 13, 1–26. Available online: https://hdl.handle.net/10520/ejc-ajpa_v13_n1_a2 (accessed on 17 September 2023).
171. OECD. Principles of Corporate Governance. 2015. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/daf/ca/Corporate-Governance-
Principles-ENG.pdf (accessed on 12 November 2023).
172. Maela, K.D.; Selepe, M. The Nuts and Bolts of Public Participation and Good Governance in South Africa: A Critical Review. Int.
J. Soc. Sci. Res. Rev. 2023, 6, 238–251. [CrossRef]
173. Hao, C.; Nyaranga, M.S.; Hongo, D.O. Enhancing Public Participation in Governance for Sustainable Development: Evidence
from Bungoma County, Kenya. SAGE Open 2022, 12, 21582440221088855. [CrossRef]
174. Marzuki, A. Challenges of public participation and the decision-making process. Soc. Spas 2015, 53, 21–39.
175. Wirtz, B.W.; Müller, W.M. An integrated artificial intelligence framework for public management. Public Manag. Rev. 2019, 21,
1076–1100. [CrossRef]
176. Alexopoulos, C.; Lachana, Z.; Androutsopoulou, A.; Diamantopoulou, V.; Charalabidis, Y.; Loutsaris, M.A. How machine learning
is changing e-government. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance,
Melbourne, Australia, 3–5 April 2019; pp. 354–363.
177. Ben Rjab, A.; Mellouli, S. Artificial intelligence in smart cities: Systematic literature network analysis. In Proceedings of the 12th
International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, Melbourne, Australia, 3–5 April 2019.
178. Androutsopoulou, A.; Karacapilidis, N.; Loukis, E.; Charalabidis, Y. Transforming the communication between citizens and
government through AI-guided chatbots. Gov. Inf. Q. 2019, 36, 358–367. [CrossRef]
179. McKelvey, F.; MacDonald, M. Artificial intelligence policy innovations at the Canadian Federal Government. Can. J. Commun.
2019, 44, 43–50. [CrossRef]
180. Mikhaylov, S.J.; Esteve, M.; Campion, A. Artificial intelligence for the public sector: Opportunities and challenges of cross-sector
collaboration. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 2018, 376, 20170357. [CrossRef]
181. Sun, T.Q.; Medaglia, R. Mapping the challenges of Artificial Intelligence in the public sector: Evidence from public healthcare.
Gov. Inf. Q. 2019, 36, 368–383. [CrossRef]
182. Ben Rjab, A.; Mellouli, S. Smart cities in the era of artificial intelligence and internet of things: A literature review from 1990 to
2017. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Governance in the Data Age,
Delft, The Netherlands, 30 May–1 June 2018.
183. Dwivedi, Y.K.; Hughes, L.; Ismagilova, E.; Aarts, G.; Coombs, C.; Crick, T.; Duan, Y.; Dwivedi, R.L.; Edwards, J.; Eirug, A.;
et al. Artificial intelligence (AI): Multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research,
practice and policy. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 2019, 57, 101994. [CrossRef]
184. Bullock, J.B. Artificial intelligence, discretion, and bureaucracy. Am. Rev. Public Adm. 2019, 49, 751–761. [CrossRef]
185. Pencheva, I.; Esteve, M.; Mikhaylov, S.J. Big data and AI–A transformational shift for government: So, what next for research?
Public Policy Adm. 2020, 35, 24–44. [CrossRef]
186. Available online: https://www.smartnation.gov.sg/about-smart-nation/digital-government/#the-progress-so-far (accessed on
16 August 2023).
187. Yew, L.K. Singapore’s Smart Nation Initiative—A Policy and Organisational Perspective, National University of Singapore. 2018.
Available online: https://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/166330 (accessed on 16 August 2023).
188. Digital Government. HealthCerts, Singapore. Available online: https://www.healthcerts.gov.sg (accessed on 16 August 2023).
189. Available online: https://e-estonia.com (accessed on 16 August 2023).
190. Nilekani, N. India’s Aadhaar System: Bringing E-Government to Life, Governance Matters Magazine, ND. Available online:
https://www.chandlerinstitute.org/governancematters/indias-aadhaar-system-bringing-e-government-to-life (accessed on
29 December 2023).
191. Ojha, S. Unified Payments Interface: Why Made-in-India UPI is Becoming a Global Favourite? Mint, 23 Oct 2023. 2023.
Available online: https://www.livemint.com/money/personal-finance/unified-payments-interface-why-made-in-india-upi-
is-becoming-a-global-favourite-11698047714911.html (accessed on 29 December 2023).
Smart Cities 2024, 7 835

192. OECD. In Practice, The United Kingdom’s Holistic Approach to Digital Development. 2021. Available online: https://www.oecd.
org/development-cooperation-learning/practices/the-united-kingdom-s-holistic-approach-to-digital-development-0fe713
ee/ (accessed on 29 December 2023).
193. UKRI. £4.5m Digital Transformation Support for SMEs Across the UK, United Kingdom Research Innovation. 11 May 2023.
2023. Available online: https://www.ukri.org/news/4-5m-digital-transformation-support-for-smes-across-the-uk/ (accessed
on 29 December 2023).
194. UNECA. Digital Technology Key to Property Management-Technologies Like Drones Help Collect Land Photos for Image
Analysis, and in the Demarcation of Plot Boundaries. Conference on Land Policy in Africa. 2021. 2021. Available online:
https://www.un.org/africarenewal/magazine/december-2021/digital-technology-key-property-management (accessed on
30 December 2023).
195. Ali, D.; Deininger, K.; Duponchel, M. New Ways to Assess and Enhance Land Registry Sustainability: Evidence from Rwanda.
World Dev. 2017, 99, 377–394. [CrossRef]
196. Alford, J.; O’Flynn, J. Making sense of public value: Concepts, critiques and emergent meanings. Int. J. Public Adm. 2009, 32,
171–191. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.