4.7 Article

A holistic evaluation of smart city performance in the context of China

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 200, 期 -, 页码 667-679

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.281

关键词

Smart city; Evaluation indicators; Holistic view; China

资金

  1. National Social Science Foundation of China [15AZD025]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Development of smart city has been increasingly accepted as a new technology-based solution to mitigate urban diseases. The Chinese government has been devoting good efforts to the promotion of smart city through introducing a series of policies. However, policies may have limited effectiveness in application if they do not respond to the practice. There is little study examining what results have been achieved in practice by applying policy measures. This study presents a holistic evaluation of smart city performance in the context of China. The evaluation indicators in this study are selected by applying a hybrid research methodology including literature review and semi-structured interviews. Indicator data are collected from 44 sample smart cities. The evaluation was conducted by applying Entropy method and Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) technique collectively. This study highlights that the overall smart city performance in China is at a relatively low level. There is also a significant unbalance in performance between five smart city dimensions including smart infrastructure, governance, people, economy and environment. The smart performance between cities varies significantly since cities implement smart city programs in different ways. These differences impede experience sharing between cities. Actions have been recommended in this study for promoting further development of smart city in the context of China, such as increasing the investment on smart infrastructure, providing training programs, and establishing evaluation mechanism. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据