Smart Cities: The Role of Entrepreneurship for Urban Leftover

Spaces

Jasim Azhar

and Sidra Ahmed Qureshi

Department of Architecture, King Fahd University of Minerals and Petroleum, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia

Department of Computing, National University of Science and Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan

Keywords: Smart Cities, Entrepreneurship, Urban Leftover Spaces.

Abstract: Smart City focuses on smarter solutions for the future to promote quality of life. Thus, the role of ICT

interventions, innovations and creativity are emphasised to sustain economic and urban growth. The literature

highlights business-led urban development is a major aspect of smart cities for entrepreneurship and identifies

their inter-dependent role in economically efficient solutions. A barrier would be unused urban spaces as an

inefficient allocation of resources. Entrepreneurship encourages innovation while smart cities adopt

interventions that provide opportunities and a supporting environment for entrepreneurial activities. This

paper explores the prospective relationship of using urban leftover spaces for entrepreneurial activities in

smart cities. The study evaluates and analyses key attributes of entrepreneurship as to develop smart spaces

for social sustainability.

1 INTRODUCTION

According to World Bank, urban population is

expected to double by year 2030. With this rise in

urbanization, globally researchers have started to talk

about time-relevant solutions. One such attempt is the

concept of smart cities, which has gained more

attention in recent times. Smart city has been defined

in various perspectives having multiple dimensions

by respective stakeholders. Overall, a smart city can

be defined as one that wisely uses natural and

economic resources enhancing the social and human

capital, employing tech-based solutions, to deliver

improved quality of life by dealing with public issues

and providing sustainable environmental solutions

(Fernandez-Anez, 2016). Urban leaders have argued

that smart cities have a lot more to do with “people”

and not just “technological advancements”. Whereas,

the aim is to make cities more sustainable achieving

improved quality of life with the smart and efficient

use of modern technology (Stimmel, 2015). Woetzel

et al., (2018) argues that smartness cannot be

achieved by just installing an Information and

Computer Technology (ICT) based infrastructure,

rather a purposeful use of technology has to be

ensured. To achieve this purposefulness, the role of

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9047-7467

human capital and urban planning is repeatedly

emphasized for smart cities. The words “smart” and

“purposeful” here indicate the value and necessity of

human element that complements the employed

technologies for smart cities. Thus, a smart city can

assist and interest entrepreneurs, not just a digital city

with high technological advancements. In fact,

research has highlighted how digital cities differ from

smart cities, focusing on the role of human capital for

latter (Kummitha, 2019; Neirotti et al., 2014).

Various researchers have divided broader objectives

of a smart city into several components, such as smart

governance, smart living, smart economy and smart

environment (Giffinger and Gudrun, 2010; Lombardi

et al., 2012). Yin et al. (2015) has defined a domain

for smart cities that focuses at achieving growth for

governments, citizens, businesses and sustainable

environment. The importance of human capital and

urban planning is highlighted for smart cities.

Entrepreneurship encouragement is seen as a key

attribute of a smart city to fuel innovation, which can

lead to greater use of technology. Besides, Kummitha

(2019) has highlighted the lack of attention in prior

research on the relationship and potential of

entrepreneurship to urban planning and as how it can

be exploited.

Azhar, J. and Qureshi, S.

Smart Cities: The Role of Entrepreneurship for Urban Leftover Spaces.

DOI: 10.5220/0011104500003203

In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems (SMARTGREENS 2022), pages 165-172

ISBN: 978-989-758-572-2; ISSN: 2184-4968

165

City characteristics are defined by urban

development (Snieska & Zykiene, 2015). Urban

design and planning concentrate not only at

operational, structural planning and land usage but

also on designing the physical features of the city to

establish a relationship between the built environment

and people (Shahreen & Voghera, 2019). Between

stages of formal development, there are often spaces

left unused, with unassigned functions, such spaces

are generally termed as loose, vacant or leftover and

are often perceived negatively (Azhar & Gjerde,

2016). These are indicative of inefficient usage of the

physical infrastructure in a city, posing a socio-

economic threat. Depending on the nature of such

spaces, they have been classified into different

categories, one of these leftover spaces after planning

phase. Such leftover spaces emerge as a consequence

of planning practices that leave gaps between urban

fabrics. As a result, prior research has highlighted the

potential of urban leftover private and public (semi)

spaces which further raise questions to ensure their

optimal use to minimise their potential negative threat

due to staying idle. This paper attempts to fill this gap

by focusing on urban planning and design as a tool

for facilitating entrepreneurial activities in smart

cities. It not only suggests a path for exploiting the

relationship between the two, but also helps in

stepping towards the goals of smart cities. This study

will specifically focus on the goal to make businesses

prosperous by creating enabling environment for

entrepreneurs. There is an extant literature on smart

cities, but it evidently leaves a void for research to

explore more on how the human element in smart

cities can further be utilised. Thus, this exploratory

study attempts to explore the prospective relationship

of urban leftover spaces and entrepreneurial activities

for smart usage.

The paper begins by explaining a step-by-step

method on how the study aims are achieved and

followed by a comprehensive review of smart city

definitions. To establish context, first it highlights the

role of entrepreneurship for smart cities, the restricted

role of ICT to facilitate entrepreneurship and literary

evidence on urban planning and design as a tool for

developing smarter city. This is followed by

highlighting the need for optimal utilization of a

city’s built environment and leftover spaces in smart

cities. In light of all these points, the paper

consolidates the idea and presents how “smarter

urban entrepreneurship” can be facilitated in smarter

economies.

1.1 Research Methods

The study is elaborated in the following steps as:

Step 1 – Identifying the Aim of Research: the aim

for this research is to propose the utilization of urban

leftover spaces for entrepreneurial activities in smart

cities.

Step 2 – Review of Extensive Literature: search

engines are used as a starting point to search articles,

several keywords related to the subject i.e., need for

smart cities, resource management, entrepreneurship,

economic growth and urban leftover spaces. After

reviewing the abstracts/introductions/conclusions,

relevant articles were shortlisted.

Step 3 – Identifying the Gap: there is sound

literature on urbanism, entrepreneurship and how

much entrepreneurship is stressed upon in relation to

smart cities. However, there is a limited research on

how this relationship can be exploited. As far as the

tools of achieving smart city objectives are

concerned, a majority of the emphasis is laid on ICT

interventions, little focus is laid on the role of urban

planning and human capital for the purpose. Research

also establishes that even though entrepreneurship

has key importance in smart cities, use of modern

technology alone has a restricted part to play for it.

This leaves behind ample space to explore the role of

urban planning and design to encourage or facilitate

entrepreneurship in smart cities.

Step 4 – Filling the Gap: this study focuses on the

potential of urban planning and design as a

mechanism to fill the gap identified in Step 3 by

proposing the smart use of urban leftover spaces for

entrepreneurial activities in future cities.

2 REVIEW OF EXISITING

LITERATURE

The section briefly examines the existing literature

and relationship of smart cities, entrepreneurship and

urban leftover spaces.

2.1 Defining Smart Cities

There is no conclusive definition of smart cities,

however, prior research shows researchers have

defined smart cities from various perspectives. The

definitions proposed by researchers have evolved

over time and these definitions vary depending on

fields in which the researcher is involved in (Wenge

et al., 2014). Researchers (Giffinger & Gudrun, 2010

and Lombardi et al., 2012) comprehensively

SMARTGREENS 2022 - 11th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems

166

identified six characteristics of a smart city. The six

characteristics are related to smart economy, smart

human capital, smart governance, smart mobility,

smart environment, and smart living. Here, the

smartness implies an ambition to move toward an

improved efficient urban development by wisely

combining the existing planning tools. The term

“smart” is referred to smarter planning, industry,

inhabitants and use of technology.

2.2 Significance of Entrepreneurship

Although there is widespread consensus that ICT

adoption would assist cities in becoming smart cities,

there is no model to adopt or a smart city which has

completely established as such. Yin et al. (2015)

categorises the definition of smart cities into four

perspectives i.e., technical infrastructure, application

domain, system integration and data processing.

Whereas, the application aspect focuses on providing

sustainable solutions for governments, businesses,

citizens, and environment. In making businesses

more prosperous, one of the key sub-domains is to

facilitate and promote entrepreneurship, with better

logistics and encourage innovation. Problems of

current era require time-based solutions, therefore,

the role of innovation as a tool for smarter solutions

has gained more focus (Dirks et al., 2010).

Caragliu et al., (2011) highlights six

characteristics of utilizing networked infrastructure to

achieve improved economic growth and urban

development, business led urban development, social

inclusion of urban growth, the use of technology and

innovation for long run growth, importance of dealing

with social and relational issues and finally, achieving

social and environmental sustainability. Kummitha &

Crutzen (2019) argues that key stake holders need to

be brought together to achieve inclusiveness in smart

cities. This can be done through (a) the government

that has to formulate an effective plan to distribute

resources and form market policies, (b) corporate

entrepreneurship can be enhanced by providing

technological expertise and knowledge, (c) Small and

Medium Enterprises (SMEs) and social enterprises

can be created through small-scale developmental

interventions, and lastly, (d) citizens not only have to

smart but an active participation for entrepreneurial

activities is needed to address local problems with

innovative but sustainable strategies. According to

(Luke et al., 2007), the entrepreneurial activities can

take place at an individual and organisational level.

The individual entrepreneurs implement certain

activities which can be innovative, and grows with

time but involves risk in case of SMEs. However, in

the organizational level, the entrepreneurship can be

viewed from two perspectives – individual business

entities within an organization or ‘intrapreneurship’

and the organization as a whole or ‘corporate

entrepreneurship’. Business-led urban development

focuses on providing a suitable enabling environment

for businesses. Cities with a higher level of business

activity show better socio-economic performance.

Under the broader aim of smart cities to achieve

sustainable growth, one of key objectives is to

achieve it through promoting innovation and

facilitating entrepreneurship (Bjørner, 2021).

2.3 Restricted Use of ICT for

Entrepreneurship

Neirotti et al., (2014) classifies smart cities into hard

domains and soft domains, this classification is based

on the importance of ICT (see Table 1). Hard domains

are the ones for which sustainable solutions rely

significantly on ICT systems, along with urban

planning and policy interventions, also includes

transport, natural resources, buildings, environment,

and energy grids. Soft domains are the ones for which

ICT system has a limited part to play and includes

areas such as education, culture, policies that foster

entrepreneurship, innovation and social inclusion, as

well as communication between local public

administrations and the citizens (e-government).

Table 1: Neirotti et al. (2014)’s characterization of smart

city domains based upon role of ICT.

Hard Domains Soft Domains

Ener

rids Education and culture

Public lighting, natural

resources and water

management

Entrepreneurship,

innovation, social

inclusion and welfare

Waste Management Public administration

and

(

)

overnment

Environment Econom

Transport, logistics and

mobilit

Office and residential

uildings

Healthcare

Public security

2.4 Urban Planning as a Tool for

Encouraging Entrepreneurial

Activities

Kourtit and Nijkamp (2012) highlights the

importance of smart urban planning and defines as a

promising mix of human, social and entrepreneurial

Smart Cities: The Role of Entrepreneurship for Urban Leftover Spaces

167

capital. This structure ought to be supported by

adequate government interventions and citizens who

look forward to innovation driven growth. The urban

theory put forward by International Business

Machines (IBM) explains that the smart city concept

stands on three pillars i.e., people, management, and

infrastructure. ‘People’ is categorised to provide

human services in education, social programs and

healthcare for citizens. Management and planning

services are further divided into urban planning and

smarter buildings, public safety, and governance

(Söderström et al., 2014). To sum up, smart cities are

distinct from digital cities, the role of ICT is to

develop a city’s digital nervous system that obtains

and manages data centrally. Research highlights the

importance of human capital and planning, to ensure

“smart” use of ICT for transforming cities (Neirotti et

al., 2014). Caragliu et al., (2011) argue that a city can

be characterized as smart, where efficient allocation

of social and human capital along with use of ICT

ensures sustainable solutions for the future having

government’s monitoring role. Overall, smart cities’

space can be defined as using ICT interventions,

policy mediation and urban planning procedures for

wiser management of resources to attain sustainable

socio-economic solutions.

Figure 1: Detailed outlook of Smart Cities.

Above figure 1 summarizes the definition of

smart cities, where the broader aim of a smart city is

attaining higher and sustainable growth. The focus is

to ensure all major stakeholders of a city i.e., the

government, citizens, businesses, and environment

are better off in the future. In literature, the

connection that is made between these three, from a

smart city perspective is, to focus on the use of

modern technologies and innovation to encourage

entrepreneurship for steady growth, having citizens

who open-mindedly accept and adapt to it. This setup

further needs a government’s contributory and

monitoring role to be played efficiently through urban

planning and policy interventions. The growth in

context of a smart city thus must be smart,

sustainable, and inclusive (Arroub et al., 2016).

3 EFFICIENT UTILIZATION OF

PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Smart cities claim to provide solutions for emerging

city problems, especially the increased pressure on

environment and economic infrastructure. This

suggests sustainable solutions imply minimum

wastage of resources (Bjørner, 2021) and efficient use

of abandoned land. Stimmel (2015) introduces the

concept of smart city that focuses on most efficient

utilization and management of resources, while

ensuring minimum wastage. As it is expensive to

build smart cities (Ejaz and Anpalagan, 2019), the

analysis suggested that the emphasis on utilization of

resources in the most efficient ways can be a part of

the core vision of smart cities. A key component of

smart cities is a well-integrated ICT infrastructure for

which urban planning and urban design play an

important role. Urban planning for smart cities

suggests little about green urban spaces and

consequently how environmental sustainability will

be achieved (Anguluri & Narayanan, 2017). As

discussed earlier, along with an integrated ICT

structure, a smart city also needs adequate

governance and inhabitants with open and growth

mindset, but relatively little focus is laid on

governance and change in mindset of human resource

(Tay et al., 2018). Chourabi et al., (2012) discusses

the role of ICT for smart cities but pinpoints the need

to explore the importance of organization and

management of smart cities. The limited research on

perceived challenges associated with smart cities

highlight the technical issues, economic costs, and

threats to natural environment. Even though smart

cities promise to put forward sustainable solutions,

but the question stands, are they really sustainable?

The beautification of built environment at the cost of

deteriorating natural environment may not lead to the

desired results of improving quality of life for people.

Where broad research can be found on the

architecture of smart cities, little is known about the

geography and spatial planning for them (Yigitcanlar,

2015).

Smart cities promise efficient utilisation of the

physical infrastructure, encouraging citizen

participation, learning to innovate and adapt, hence

responding to changing environments and situations

swiftly (Jaššo & Petríková, 2019). This implies it is

important to ensure urban spaces are most efficiently

SMARTGREENS 2022 - 11th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems

168

utilized in a smart city. The study urges urban leaders

to concentrate especially on such spaces which

emerge amid planning and design of city, are

obsolete, having no use. This is where the concept of

place branding comes in which entails assigning some

significance to a place. Strategic branding of a place

can lead to generation of its economic value and

contribution to the city (Bašová & Štefancová, 2017).

3.1 Connecting the Dots

The definition of smart cities can be divided into two

components: their objectives and the tools that can be

employed to attain smart city goals (see figure 1).

Broadly discussing, the objective of a smart city is to

enhance the quality of life by providing smarter

answers for the future and attaining efficient and

sustainable social, economic and environmental

solutions. Specifically, the aim is to take advantage of

technology to help all major stakeholders of an

economy, i.e., government, businesses, and citizens

cope better with the challenges of tomorrow.

3.1.1 Smarter Entrepreneurship

It is important to understand that the concept of smart

city is not only confined to the existence of a well-

integrated ICT infrastructure, rather the planning and

use of this infrastructure is also important for

enabling smarter solutions. Thus, “smart” in smart

cities is an indicative of use of technology to provide

better solutions for futuristic problems, it is important

to establish that having a well-integrated ICT system

is a part of the smart city concept and not the entire

concept. Innovation and entrepreneurship are the key

contributors to discovery of sustainable solutions.

Most of the literature lays great emphasis on both to

develop smart cities. Smart cities and

entrepreneurship in fact have a bi-directional

relationship, where each complements the other. The

aim of smart cities provides better, time relevant

solutions for tomorrow through efficient utilization of

ICT that needs to be backed by innovation and

entrepreneurship. In return, establishment of smarter

cities promises to provide an enabling environment

for entrepreneurs. In a smart city, whether it is social

inclusion, social and environmental sustainability,

business-led development, use of ICT, high-tech

industries or relational capital, all contribute to

encouraging entrepreneurship (Yin et al., 2015;

Neirotti et al., 2014; Dirks et al., 2010; Hollands,

2008; Richter et al., 2015).

Figure 2: The bi-directional relationship between smart

cities and entrepreneurship established in literature and

proposed by this study (in blue color).

Henderson & Weiler (2010) put forward

empirical evidence validating that the advantages of

entrepreneurship in urban economies are more

eminent. Among a few major reasons for this are low

transaction costs and bigger markets in urbanized

cities. Greater number of skilled individuals in cities

means a greater chance of entrepreneurial activities.

The role of human capital is highlighted for urban

development, as entrepreneurship attracts skilled

labour by creating greater labour demand, this is why

higher skill levels could lead to more growth in cities

(Caragliu et al., 2011; Berry & Glaeser, 2005). As

discussed earlier, a distinction can be made of the

things that rely heavily on ICT and those that rely on

ICT to a much lesser extent. Among the latter are

innovation and entrepreneurship, which even though,

hold great importance in the futuristic problem-

solving approach, have limited role of ICT to

influence from. Figure 2 illustrates the relationship

established in literature of smart cities and

entrepreneurship. However, the opportunity for

finding a relationship can be exploited.

3.1.2 Smarter Usage as Tactical Approach

In cities, the tactical urban movement can be seen as

a smart solution for individual entrepreneurs, wherein

people improve urban design and bringing about a

positive change in their surroundings by providing

certain functions, culminating in cities

to become even more sustainable (Planning Tank,

2016). Minor improvements to vacant urban spaces

might be the first step in this direction. This method,

which would be low risk but potentially highly

rewarding, becomes a deliberate or phased strategy to

instigate change by offering local ideas for local

planning challenges, short-term commitment, and

realistic outcomes, and it could become a deliberate

or phased approach to instigate transformation by

offering local ideas for local planning challenges,

Smart Cities: The Role of Entrepreneurship for Urban Leftover Spaces

169

short-term commitment, and realistic outcomes

(Pfeifer, 2013). The tactical approach provides low-

cost, adaptable processes that transform the cityscape

into such an urban laboratory where people could test

out their differing ideas. Making gradual changes in

voids could result in a new opportunity for the

entrepreneurs and planners to explore and experiment

with multiple ideas. There are primarily two types of

this approach. Temporary interventions are lighter,

quicker, and less expensive, but they are nevertheless

effective tool for creating better urban settings

(Turner, 2013). Most of these initiatives are small in

scale, such as impromptu seating along roadways and

tiny parks, but some have converted whole parking

lots and roads into temporary green spaces, offering

users a glimpse of what is possible (Voigt, 2015).

These bottom-up approach may appear to become a

coordination issue for municipalities and other

agencies, but they could potentially coincide with

long-term planned policies and last at least a year.

The 'planned' approach, on the other hand,

involves strategically modifying spaces and

concentrates on initiatives such as infill development

and drafting of guidelines. Permanent projects, have

far greater expenditures and require a longer and

more sophisticated approach. One of the most

difficult obstacles that the strategically planned

method faces is actively engaging the community

(Voigt, 2015). The idea is primarily a collaborative

one, in which local residents must discover

possibilities for tiny moves or projects rather than

introducing fundamentally new forms of

transformation on a wider scale. Letting space, City

Lab, Street-Plans New York, Do-It-Yourself

urbanism, and City repair are all projects that

highlight the importance of empty spaces by creating

spaces that are designed to be used by the public.

Thus, the urban landscape should not be considered

as something static, but as something vital with the

need to achieve a coherent design solution at each

change point that is considered beneficial for the

community and generates economy.

Bjerke (2010) discusses the connection between

spaces and entrepreneurship, and also identifies three

types of entrepreneurial situations and their

respective spatial needs. There is entrepreneurship

going in market, institutions and public. Azhar et al.

(2020) highlights a potential of public and private

urban leftover spaces that may pose a threat to the

social, spatial and environmental setting of a city and

identifies several positive uses of them by classifying

them into different types. Leftover spaces are defined

and seen as abandoned spaces, which have no

particular use or functionality. The threat they pose

and the potential they hold may vary for each. The

existence of public and private leftover spaces in

cities would indicate inefficient spatial management.

Specific to the context of smart cities, leftover spaces

can be seen as spaces of potential to contribute

positively due to limited land in cities. This proposal

of utilising such obsolete spaces present in a smart

city would yield the following benefits:

1) Better resource management: Categorizing

leftover spaces as a resource in smart cities, their

positive utilization through design interventions

would mean lesser wastage and more efficient

resource management.

2) Cost-effective solution: As the solutions smart

cities offers are critiqued to be expensive, utilisation

of leftover spaces could provide much cost-effective

solution. It could, in-fact become a source of income

generation for whoever holds property rights to the

spaces.

3) Support entrepreneurship: Entrepreneurs need

space to operate, availability of leftover spaces for

them could provide them a lost-cost space to operate

in. Further research needs to done on what type of

leftover spaces would be preferred for supporting

entrepreneurial activities.

The proposal laid forward by this study not only

directs a phenomenal way of utilising wasted

resources in smart cities to attain their objectives but

also paves the way for a whole new area of research

related to smart usage of urban leftover spaces. Some

of the eminent research agendas related to this are

given below:

1. First, the entrepreneurs and their preferences

towards the features and specific types of

leftover spaces need to be tapped. These

preferences are related to design transformation

of the vacant spaces to make them useful for

entrepreneurial activites.

2. Second, considering smart cities and what they

aim to achieve, the uses of smart urban vacant

spaces can further be explored in multiple

dimensions. This will be especially insightful if

the leftover spaces are categorized into different

types according to their potential usage for

entrepreneurship.

3. Needs of entrepreneurial spaces and the

perception of urban leftover spaces needs to be

further exploited.

SMARTGREENS 2022 - 11th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems

170

4 CONCLUSION

Smart city is a concept that has gained significant

attention by researchers in recent times, however the

focus as majorly been on the ICT side. The role of

urban planning has been emphasized and the need to

dig deeper into exploring potential of urban planning

and its contribution to smart cities has been raised.

This paper reviews literature on smart cities

particularly highlighting the objective of smart cities

to provide improved quality of life by employing

efficient and sustainable means. In addition, it focuses

on the need to utilise resources, particularly the

physical infrastructure as an urban planning strategy

for smart cities. Among the characteristics of smart

cities is to encourage entrepreneurship and

innovation, this study suggests the use of obsolete

urban spaces in efficient ways for entrepreneurship.

This will not only ensure proper utilization of smart

urban leftover spaces but will also facilitate

entrepreneurial activities. They paper concludes on

highlighting the significance of urban planning and

urban design as contributors for achieving smart city

objectives and paves way for future research in the

area.

REFERENCES

Anguluri, R., & Narayanan, P. (2017). Role of green space

in urban planning: Outlook towards smart cities. Urban

Forestry & Urban Greening, 25, 58-65.

Anthopoulos, L. G., & Vakali, A. (2012, May). Urban

planning and smart cities: Interrelations and

reciprocities. In The Future Internet Assembly, 178-

189.

Arroub, A., Zahi, B., Sabir, E., & Sadik, M. (2016). A

literature review on Smart Cities: Paradigms,

opportunities and open problems. 2016 International

Conference on Wireless Networks and Mobile

Communications, 180–186.

Azhar, J., & Gjerde, M. (2016). Re-thinking the role of

urban in-between spaces. In J. Zuo, L. Daniel, & V.

Soebarto (Eds.), Fifty years later: Revisiting the role of

architectural science in design and practice: 50th

International Conference of the Architectural Science

Association, 279–288.

Azhar J., Gjerde M., Vale B. (2020) Re-imagining Urban

Leftover Spaces. In: Roggema R., Roggema A. (eds)

Smart and Sustainable Cities and Buildings.

Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-

37635-2_21

Bašová, S., & Štefancová, L. (2017). Creative and smart

public spaces. International Journal of Liberal Arts and

Social Science, 5(1), 17-33.

Berry, C. R., & Glaeser, E. L. (2005). The divergence of

human capital levels across cities. Papers in regional

science, 84(3), 407-444.

Bjerke, B. (2010). Entrepreneurship, space and

place. Frederic, B, Bjerke, B. & Johansson, A (eds), 97-

122.

Bjørner, T. (2021). The advantages of and barriers to being

smart in a smart city: The perceptions of project

managers within a smart city cluster project in Greater

Copenhagen. Cities, 114, 103187.

Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., & Nijkamp, P. (2011). Smart

Cities in Europe. Journal of Urban Technology, 18(2),

65–82.

Chourabi, H., Nam, T., Walker, S., Gil-Garcia, J. R.,

Mellouli, S., Nahon, K., ... & Scholl, H. J. (2012).

Understanding smart cities: An integrative framework.

In 2012 45th Hawaii international conference on

system sciences, 2289-2297.

Dirks, S., Gurdgiev, C., & Keeling, M. (2010). Smarter

cities for smarter growth: How cities can optimize their

systems for the talent-based economy. IBM Institute for

business Value.

Ejaz, W., & Anpalagan, A. (2019). Internet of things for

smart cities: technologies, big data and security (pp. 1-

15). Springer International Publishing.Giffinger, R., &

Gudrun, H. (2010). Smart cities ranking: an effective

instrument for the positioning of the cities? ACE:

architecture, city and environment, 4(12), 7-26.

Fernandez-Anez, V. (2016). Stakeholders Approach to

Smart Cities: A Survey on Smart City Definitions. In E.

Alba, F. Chicano, & G. Luque (Eds.), Smart Cities,

9704, 157–167. Springer International Publishing.

Henderson, J., & Weiler, S. (2010). Entrepreneurs and Job

Growth: Probing the Boundaries of Time and Space.

Economic Development Quarterly, 24(1), 23–32.

Hollands, R. G. (2008). Will the real smart city please stand

up? Intelligent, progressive or entrepreneurial? City,

12(3), 303–320.

Jaššo, M., & Petríková, D. (2019). Towards Creating Place

Attachment and Social Communities in the Smart

Cities. In D. Cagáňová, M. Balog, L. Knapčíková, J.

Soviar, & S. Mezarcıöz (Eds.), Smart Technology

Trends in Industrial and Business Management, 401–

411.

Jawaid, M. F., & Khan, S. A. (2015). Evaluation the need

for smart cities in India, 7.

Kourtit, K., & Nijkamp, P. (2012). Smart cities in the

innovation age. Innovation: The European Journal of

Social Science Research, 25(2), 93–95.

Kummitha, R. K. R. (2019). Smart cities and

entrepreneurship: An agenda for future research.

Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 149.

Kummitha, R. & Crutzen,N. (2019) Smart cities and the

citizen-driven internet of things: A qualitative inquiry

into an emerging smart city, Technological Forecasting

and Social Change, 140:44-53.

Lombardi, P., Giordano, S., Farouh, H., & Yousef, W.

(2012). Modelling the smart city performance.

Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science

Research, 25(2), 137–149.

Smart Cities: The Role of Entrepreneurship for Urban Leftover Spaces

171

Luke, B. Verreynne, M. & Kearins, K. (2007). Measuring

the benefits of entrepreneurship at different level of

analysis, Journal of Management & Organization,

eContent Management Pty Ltd, 13(4): 312-330

Neirotti, P., De Marco, A., Cagliano, A. C., Mangano, G.,

& Scorrano, F. (2014). Current trends in Smart City

initiatives: Some stylised facts. Cities, 38, 25–36.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2013.12.010

Pfeifer, L. (2013). The Planner’s Guide to Tactical

Urbanism. Master’s Thesis, McGill School of Urban

Planning, Montreal, Canada.

Planning Tank (2016). Learn about Tactical Urbanism.

Happy, Healthy and Sustainable Human Settlements.

Accessed on 13.02.2017 Retrieved from:

http://planningtank.com/urbanisation/learntactical-

urbanism

Richter, C., Kraus, S., & Syrjä, P. (2015). The Smart City

as an opportunity for entrepreneurship. International

Journal of Entrepreneurial Venturing, 7(3), 211.

https://doi.org/10.1504/IJEV.2015.071481

Shahreen, F., & Voghera, A. (2019). Urban planning and

design methods for sustain able development. Retrieved

April, 22.

Snieska, V., & Zykiene, I. (2015). City Attractiveness for

Investment: Characteristics and Underlying Factors.

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 213, 48–54.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.402

Stimmel, C. L. (2015). Building Smart Cities: Analytics,

ICT, and Design Thinking (0 ed.). Auerbach

Publications. https://doi.org/10.1201/b18827

Söderström, O., Paasche, T., & Klauser, F. (2014). Smart

cities as corporate storytelling. City, 18(3), 307–320.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2014.906716

Tay, K.-C., Supangkat, S. H., Cornelius, G., & Arman, A.

A. (2018). The SMART Initiative and the Garuda Smart

City Framework for the Development of Smart Cities.

2018 International Conference on ICT for Smart

Society (ICISS), 1–10.

Turner, V. (2013). Sustainable Urbanism: An Integrative

Analysis of Master Planned Developments as a Vehicle

for Urban Environmental Sustainability. Doctoral

Thesis, Arizona State University, Arizona, United

States.

Voigt, A. (2015). The power of the economic in view of

nature and Landscape: A discussion of the ecosystem

service approach. In S. Kost and A. Schoenwald (Eds.),

Landscape Change - Change of power structures, 201-

219, Wiesbaden: Springer.

Wenge, R., Zhang, X., Dave, C., Chao, L., & Hao, S.

(2014). Smart city architecture: A technology guide for

implementation and design challenges. China

Communications, 11(3), 56–69.

Woetzel, J., Remes, J., Boland, B., Lv, K., Sinha, S., Strube,

G., Means, J., Law, J., & Cadena, A. (2018). Smart

cities: Digital solutions for a more livable future. 16.

Yigitcanlar, T. (2015). Smart cities: an effective urban

development and management model?. Australian

Planner, 52(1), 27-34.

Yin, C., Xiong, Z., Chen, H., Wang, J., Cooper, D., &

David, B. (2015). A literature survey on smart cities.

Science China Information Sciences, 58(10), 1–18.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-015-5397-4

SMARTGREENS 2022 - 11th International Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems

172