digital city vs. smart ci

7/25/2019 Digital City vs. Smart Ci

1/7

Digital City vs. Smart City: a fuzzy debate

Marco Tregua, Anna DAuria, Francesco Bifulco

Department of Economics, Management, Institutions - University of Naples Federico II

Naples, [email protected]

AbstractThe conceptualisations of digital city and smart city

are several and sometimes they overlap one another. They share

the idea of ICT interventions in urban and metropolitan contexts

to achieve a higher quality of life and better services. The two

conceptualisations are considered as connected by some authors,

as they state smart city is an evolution of digital city. Some

other literati are not aligned with these meanings, so the aim of

this work is to depict the usage of both terms and their

connections. In order to achieve this goal we perform a content

analysis based on reports issued by both Central and Local

Institutions, and big corporations operating in this quite new

business context. The results show the distinction between digital

city and smart city in the reports and the cases in which the

public institutions make the two notions collapsing. Moreover we

focus on the evolutionary path proposed in literature through the

usage of the several labels linked to a city and all reports

demonstrate an alignment to such a relation.

Keywords I CT; digi tal city; smart city; content analysis;

urban context

I. INTRODUCTION

Nowadays cities are more and more involved in challengesdue to an irrational usage of the available resources [1] and anincreasing quantity and variety of services to be provided [2] tocitizens, businesses, and all stakeholders shaping urban andmetropolitan contexts. The increase in services to be set up bycity managers depends on the differences among allstakeholders and on the willingness to enhance the quality oflife in cities [3]. Quality is hard to be assessed in theseinitiatives, but it is surely linked to the provision of improvedservices tied to citizens and businesses, with reference toculture, tourism, leisure, environment, energy, mobility,education, justice, health services, and so on.

In recent years several definitions about new ways inapproaching and managing cities are being widespread byliterati, Central and Local Institutions, and big corporations.These definitions are sometimes overlapping and some othertimes they differ one each other, giving the chance to describea path towards their present conditions or towards theachievement of asmartizationprocess.

These definitions about city are digital, intelligent,ubiquitous, wired, hybrid, information, creative, learninghuman, knowledge,andsmart[4]. It is not easy to disentanglesuch a series of notions, neither to depict a path to relate all ofthem, but it is possible to state how each of theseconceptualisations can be linked to one or more topic. More indetail ICT plays a central role in some of them, like digital,intelligent, wired, and information city, whilst people is pivotalin learning, knowledge, and humane city.

Even among these definitions sometimes literati tried todescribe an evolutionary path [4, 5]. By the way the idea ofsmart city is comprehensive of different issues and it can beconsidered as a milestone in setting and analysing initiativesaiming to the improvement of life conditions and services incities. Finally when just some of the aspects linked to smartcities and listed in the beginning of this paragraph arealready recognizable in urban and metropolitan contexts someof the above cited definitions are taken into account as smartcities at an early stage [6].

II. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

A.

The role of ICT in urban contexts

Today technological infrastructures and ICTs are widelyspread in urban context. New technologies development is

pivotal in cities growth, mainly because of the role of ICTs inconnecting different stakeholders and offering a better service(informatizationand digitalization) [3].

Spread of new technologies and ICTs in cities'governance

started in 2000 with the definition of digital city [7, 8],meaning a city focused on hardware features, such astechnological infrastructures and Information andCommunication Technologies

Increasing use of technology by people (web marketing, e-

commerce, social networks, etc.), made ICT an instrument toimprove social participation in managing a city [9]. Citizens

participate even more in urban decision-making through digitalinfrastructures, thanks to the so-called e-democracy, as theycan express their ideas or make proposals through the web andthey can impact on the way the city managers act [10]. This isthe reason why new technologies are rapidly and systematically

being included in urban structures and deployed among citizensand potential users generating enormous amounts of data [11].

When scanning literature and reports [9, 13, 12], it ispossible to find many contributions about the role of ICT inurban context, that show the importance of e-governance andopen government in new cities context.

We considered some relevant definitions about the themechoosing the first among the reports and the second one amongliterature contributions.

This work has been supported by the project OR.C.HE.S.T.R.A.(ORganizational of Cultural HEritage for Smart Tourism and Real-time

Accessibility) in the Italian National Operative Program 2007-13.

SECTION

Smart Technology

I TICInformation and Communication

Technologies

The 3rd International Virtual Conference

http://www.ictic.sk

Conference of Informatics and Management Sciences

March, 24. - 28. 2014

- 393 -


2/7

TABLE I. MOST RELEVANT DEFINITIONS OF E-GOVERNMENT

References Definitionsa

UNPAN,

2011

E-governance can be defined as the application of ICT

tools in the interaction between government and citizens and

businesses, and in internal government operations tosimplify and improve democratic governance.

Dawes, 2008,

p. s36

E-governance comprises the use of information andcommunication technologies (ICTs) to support publicservices, government administration, democratic processes,

and relationships among citizens, civil society, the private

sector, and the state.

a. Source: Our elaboration from UNPAN, 2011 [14]; Dawes, 2008 [15]

More in detail, ICT represents a support for the citymanager [16] in city government in improving services for

people (citizens, tourists, workers, students, etc.). That is why itis considered both in digital city and smart cityconceptualisations. In the following parts, we will analyse thedifferent role of ICT in the two city development strategiesfrom a theoretical point of view.

B.

What is a digital city?Digital city is a definition frequently considered in modern

urban and social studies. This concept was introduced from2001 [17] meaning a city that based its government on ICT[18].

One of the first definition about the concept talks about akind of city that is substantively an open, complex andadaptive system based on computer network and urbaninformation resources, which forms a virtual digital space for acity. It creates an information service marketplace andinformation resource deployment center[17].

This description represents an urban strategy that aims toimprove quality of life for citizens [19] looking at the standardframeworks of a city in a different and new way beginningfrom people (inhabitants, tourists, workers, students) - thatfrom usersbecame cre-actors- to the infrastructures that in thedigital cities are mainly represented by ICT - especiallytechnologies such as Internet of Things, cloud and ubiquitouscomputing, Web 2.0, etc. [18].

Concerning urban context, in digital city spaces lose theirboundaries, city land is mainly considered as a virtualrepresentation of the city, in which people can share data,information and knowledge each other in a networking

perspective [20].

C.Digital city vs. smart city

When scanning contributions in literature about digital andsmart cities, is possible to observe the differences betweenthese two concepts and identify a different evolution.

In our research, we chose to consider the most relevantdefinitions about digital cityand smart cityemerging bothfrom our theoretical framework and from the most citedauthors in this domain, such as Komninos and Schaffers.

TABLE II. MOST RELEVANT DEFINITIONS ABOUT DIGITAL CITY ANDSMART CITY

Authors Definitionsb

Komninos,

2008

Digital city denotes an area that combines broadband

communication infrastructure with flexible, service-

oriented computing systems. These new digital

infrastructures seek to ensure better services for citizens,

consumers and business in a specific area

Caragliu et

al., 2009

We believe a city to be smart when investments in human

and social capital and traditional (transport) and

modern (ICT) communication infrastructure fuelsustainable economic growth and a high quality of life,

with a wise management of natural resources, through

participatory governance

b. Source: Our elaboration from Komninos, 2008 [21]; Caragliu, et a l., 2009 [22]

The first evidence is that while digital city considers mainlythe technological aspects, smart cities concerns differentfeatures of everyday life, such as energy savings, urban greenareas care, reduction of air pollution, and sustainable growth.

Obviously, ICT has a main role in both conceptualisationsof a city, this is the reason why often digital city and smart

city are used as synonyms; anyway when scanning literaturecontributions it is possible to notice that in the digital

perspective ICT represents all the infrastructures at the basis

of,whilein the smart one it should represent an instrument for

implementing a better urban space and offering new services

through innovative technologies thanks to the support of

technological platform [3, 5] in the definition of smartization

processes.

III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

A.Aim and research questions

The aim of our research is to compare definitions aboutdigital and smart cities from different sources; first of all wedefined the two conceptualisations from the above performedliterature review which are the meaning we took intoconsideration for the two notions. Then we started from thesetwo ways of conceiving a city to understand if the Central andLocal Institutions, and the big corporations use them in adifferent meaning from our reference point; this juxtapositiontakes place thanks to the analysis of the official reports released

by these actors as they lead projects to enhance cities servicesand management. From this first comparison our first researchquestion arises:

RQ1: Are digital and smart cities considered in literati

contributions and in reports published by projects leaders inthe same ways?

The results useful to give an answer to our first researchquestion are even the starting point to define a more detailedanalysis of the ways in which these notions are used. Indeed wewant to understand if the reports releasers are acting differentone another. In this way a sub-question derives from RQ1 as itfollows:

SECTION

Smart Technology


Technologies


http://www.ictic.sk


March, 24. - 28. 2014

- 394 -


3/7

RQ1.1: Which typology ofprojects leaders is using digital

and smart city ideas in a way more similar to literatidefinitions?

Moreover from our literature review a path to define smartcity from a theoretical point of view seems to emerge. Thecontributions we analysed are quite all unanimous inconsidering the digital city as an ancestor of the smart city; thus

we want to understand if this idea is conceived in a similarperspective even in the reports we analysed. So our additionalresearch question is:

RQ2: Are reports conveying digital city elements as

something supporting the development of a smart city?

Finally we can shed some more light on the linkagesbetween the two terms by focusing on the typology of reportshighlighting a path starting from digital city and goingtowards smart city.This sub-question will give us the chanceto understand which projects leader conveys this message.

RQ2.1: Which reports contain a definition of digital city

as an antecedent of smart city?

B.Method and context of investigation

We chose to perform a content analysis, first of all as it isthe most suitable way to compare official documents, like thereports, with the definitions we deduced from the literaturereview, as stated when describing the aim of our research. Thecontent analysis can support our investigation based on theresearch questions stated above, as we want to focus on theway the conceptualisations are used and on the subjects usingthem in an empirical context when projecting and reporting.

The reports collected can be classified as raw materials tobe used in investigation [23], and this support our choice to

perform a content analysis, aiming to achieve meaningfulconsiderations and to let hidden meanings and approachemerge from the documents. Moreover the reports we decidedto analyse are social reporting and for such a kind of content,the methodology we adopted is above all suitable [24]. Finallythis approach is even suggested as it is unobtrusive [25], as it

begins thanks to the research of documents available on theofficial websites of the projects leaders and they can beachieved without interactions and influence by the subjectsissuing them.

In line with the above cited approach we set up a range ofreports and we directly selected them on the basis of thelanguage, by discarding the ones in a language different than

English, to have an homogenous data set. Then we made aselection among them on the basis of three criteria; firstly wefocused on the most cited ones, as emerging from research ononline databases and in our literature review; secondly wechose the reports belonging to the interventions carried on bythe most important institutional operators, as cited in theliterature; thirdly we opted even for the reports issued by thetop companies in the business of enhancing interventions forcities, thus we had 41 reports to be scanned through a contentanalysis.

Due to the large amount of information provided by thesedocuments, the content analysis let us infer from data in a waythat is not easily achievable without a software, and with atechnique appearing as not too costly [26], in terms of time.

The software we used for our investigation is Concordance,belonging to the list of suggested tools for a content analysis[27]. It gave us the chance to perform different kinds ofanalysis compared to other ones. More in detail we needed tohave a general overview on the contents available in thereports, then to analyse the linkages among theconceptualisations shaping our literature review and ourresearch questions. Moreover we wanted to focus on the waythe above cited issues are used in the reports, so we had to

build three different databases, namely one collecting all thereports, one consisting of the documents issued by Central andLocal Institutions (e.g. European Union), and one composed byinformation released by big corporations leading projects inurban contexts.

The analyses are performed in two different ways, knownasfull concordanceandselective concordance. The first one is

based on the listing of all words contained in the documentsand it gives the chance to investigate the context in which aword is used each time. The second one allows the focus on aspecific word and the identification of all related topics in acertain range of words. This kind of analysis has to be followed

by a careful selection to discard the useless matches, as ithappens when words are linked one another even if they belongto different sentences. Finally, words shaping titles of reportsor of its parts have to be removed as they lack in information.

IV. FINDINGS

In relation to our RQ1 we started with an activity known aslemmatization, useful to group all words belonging to aspecific semantic area, due to their meaning. As the word

digital shapes our first RQ we individuated similar wordsemerging but none among them was used in connection tocity or cities, apart from digitization. It appears three timesand it is always aligned with the definition we have chosen

before.

Then we focused on the connections between the worddigital and the words city or cities; they emerge thanks toa process known as selective concordance, putting together amain topic (digital in our case) with other notions in a range to

be set by the investigators. In this case we set the limit of theresearch to couple the word in 2 terms. The usage of digitaltogether with city or cities happened 80 times, known asoccurrences. We discard some occurrences as the words are

one close to the other, but they belong to different sentences.About 3 out of 4 couples we take into account show a usage ofthe notion digital city aligned with the definition we havechosen from literature. In the other cases there is anoverlapping between digital city and smart city, leading to amisunderstanding and to something contrasting with what wehave selected from literature.

The investigation about the usage of the word smarttogether with city or citiesis performed in the same way asdescribed above for the digital city. The lemmatization doesnot lead us to interesting cases, as the word similar to smart

SECTION

Smart Technology


Technologies


http://www.ictic.sk


March, 24. - 28. 2014

- 395 -


4/7

(e.g. smartization, smarter) are just linked to proper nouns.Differently from the previous analysis, this time we have about2900 occurrences, leading us to an outstanding usage of theterm smart city. After removing the useless cases due to theappearance of the words in different sentences, we have our setof couples of words to be analysed. Apart from few cases,almost all of them show a coherent usage of the word smartin connection with city or cities.

Figure 1. Example of Content analysis, selective concordance for RQ1

The evidence about the usage of digital city shows a shortseries of misunderstanding between this tag and the notion ofsmart city, because this latter embodied the former; hence insome cases the essence of digital city can vanish due to itsconvergence into the perception of the idea of smart city.Moreover it is interesting to underline how these overlaps only

happen when empirical evidences from project designed orimplemented in urban and metropolitan areas are described intoreports.

The sub-question we tagged as RQ1.1 is directly connectedto the previous one and it gives us the opportunity tounderstand which projects leaders are more frequentlyreleasing reports containing statements leading to amisunderstanding between the two definitions emerging fromliterature. Therefore we scan more in-depth the evidencesemerging from the results of the RQ1. We have already statedin the previous lines the overlaps take place when empiricalevidences are described into reports.

Figure 2. Example of Content analysis, selective concordance for RQ1.1

The projects leaders creating some terminologicalmisunderstandings when using smart city and digital cityare always Central and Local Institutions, whilst industrial

players are using the two conceptualizations in a way totallyaligned with what we have highlighted in our literature review.As it concerns the missing assonance between the usage ofsmart city in literature and reports, there are no relevantevidences about this kind of misunderstanding. By the way wedo analyse the few occurrences related to this missingalignment and they are not polarized in one of the two kinds ofreports.

As it regards our RQ2 we took into account the occurrencesrelated to digital city elements in order to understand how arethey linked to smart city idea and if these linkages showdigital elements as something supporting the creation and thelaunch of smart city projects. We performed a lemmatization,as we had done even in RQ1, but the results were not useful to

empower our analysis as the words similar to digital, likedigitalized, digitalization, and so on, were all linked to propernouns or to the nouns of some projects.

We obtained a wide set of occurrences about digitalelements from our full concordance, but this was just the first

part of the investigation for our RQ2. Indeed, we had to startfrom this set of evidences to look for the occurrences in whichthere were some ties with conceptualisations on smart. Theusage of Concordancelet us define a range of words in whichthe research had to be carried out; firstly we chose a range of10 words; then we tried to do again the selective concordancein a wider range, namely in a space of 20 words before andafter the citation of a digital element. This second kind ofresearch did not give us some more insights about the linkageswe were looking for, so we decided to stop our analysis in arange of 10 words around the description of a digital element.

The set of occurrences from the range identified asdescribed above was composed by 81 evidences. We discardedthe evidences observed just because the words were closer oneeach other but they belonged to different sentences.

The necessary focus on the ties proposed by the differentleaders issuing a report, showed a high usage of these linkages

by Central and Local Institutions and just short number ofoccurrences from the big corporations. These evidences wereall useful for our analysis as they showed a total assonance inconsidering digital city features as something preparing theway for smart city interventions. This total correspondencedepends both on Central and Local Institutions, and bigcorporations operating in smart city business.


Hence, our RQ2.1 can be answered by underlining the totalalignment of Public institutions to the path from digital tosmart arising from our literature review. The sameconsiderations can be done when considering the evidencesfrom businesses reports, even if the number of occurrences isso low to support the idea of an alignment between theirapproach and the one suggested by several literati.


V. DISCUSSION

Thanks to our research questions we can make someconsiderations related to the conceptualisations of two of themost important topics in innovation in cities and in theirmanagement. The evidences representing misunderstandings

between the two definitions has arisen from reports issued byCentral or Local Institutions, hence there is a risk of conveyinga bad conceptualisation. This risk is related to quite a widerange of actors as reports are written in a simple way, made

SECTION

Smart Technology


Technologies


http://www.ictic.sk


March, 24. - 28. 2014

- 396 -


5/7

available in the net, and they are addressed to citizens, localagencies, businesses, and so on. In this context literaticontributions can act as a support in conveying a correctdefinition when setting projects and in giving information to allinvolved people, especially as a multi-stakeholder approach tosmart projects [28] has to be necessarily taken into account.

This evidence leads us to state that the wider spread of theidea of smart city created a higher level of awareness aboutwhat this means compared to other definitions that could be insome way related to this topic, as it happens with digital city.

Smart city projects can start from a digital city approach butthis is not a necessary step, as the logic of jumping [29]emerges. It represents the direct application of more innovative

projects compared to the ones in the past thanks to theimprovement achieved by technology in the meanwhile [30].This is what happened in some cases, where even if a digitalcity approach was missing a smart city arose.

Big corporations acting as project's leaders are well aware

of the conceptual difference, showing that they have a deeperfocus in defining the smartizationprojects, while Central and

Local Institutions are more concentrated on the financialaspects, leading to the above described misunderstandings. So,thanks to their well defined approach both to digital city andsmart city conceptualisations, big corporations can beconsidered as the most suitable actors when processes allowingcities to switch from digital to smart have to be set. By the waythe usage of both conceptualisations in reports takes placehardly ever as the focus of these companies is on the specificapproach of each project, digital or smart, without thenecessity to focus on the potential or verified process linkingone to the other.

VI. LIMITATIONSANDFURTHERRESEARCH

In our content analysis we chose the most-cited andrelevant reports issued by different actors, but a wider samplecan empower our results, especially as it concerns digital cityconceptualisation, while the sample referred to smart city isquite large.

As reports convey some cases of overlapping between thetwo conceptualisations an in-depth investigation on empiricalevidences is suggested, to understand which are the reasonsleading to this terminological confusion. This investigation can

be performed by looking at the cases emerging from reportsand by depicting the evolutionary path each of the cities had.

A call for research with a similar approach is suitable, dueto the necessity to compare smart city notion with the other

conceptualisations, like intelligent, ubiquitous, as these are themost cited ones in literature [4, 6].

Finally some more researches can be done in contentanalysis domain by using a different software measuring theso-called cluster analysis, coupling terms and assigning anindex to each couple to measure the relevance of the relation

REFERENCES

[1] X. Yang, Advanced public transport system in Singapore IEEEInternational Conferences on Info-Tech and Info-Net, 2003.

[2] J. Blissent, Getting clever about smart cities: new opportunitiesrequire new business models,Forrester, 2010.

[3] A.-V. Anttiroiko, P. Valkama, and S. J. Bailey, Smart cities in the newservice economy: building platforms for smart services, ArtificialIntelligence & Society, available online June 2013.

[4] T. Nam and T. A. Pardo, Smart city as urban innovation: focusing onmanagement, policy, and context, ICEGov 2011, Tallinn, Estonia, 26-28 September, 2011.

[5] J. H. Lee, M. G. Hancock, and M.-C. Hu, Towards an effective

framework for building smart cities: Lessons from Seoul and SanFrancisco, Technological Forecasting & Social Change, availableonline October, 2013.

[6] J. H. Lee, R. Phaal, and S.-H. Lee, An integrated service-device-technology roadmap for smart city development, TechnologicalForecasting & Social Change, 80, pp.286-306, 2013.

[7] R. E. Hall, The vision of a smart city, in Proceedings of the 2ndInternational Life Extension Technology Workshop (Paris, France, Sep.28), 2000.

[8] J. Hartley, Innovation in governance and public services: Past andpresent, Public Money & Management, 25(1),pp. 27-34, 2005.

[9] A. Coe, G. Paquet, G., and J. Roy, E-governance and smartcommunities: A social learning challenge, Social Science ComputerReview, vol. 19(1), pp. 8093, 2001.

[10] L. Blomgren Bingham, T. Nabatchi, and R. OLeary, The new

governance: practices and processes for stakeholder and citizenparticipation in the work of government, Public AdministrationReview, vol. 65(5), pp. 547558, 2005.

[11] M. Finger and M. A. Mahfouz, Intelligent governance of large urbansystems, Network Industries Quarterly, Vol. 13, 3, p. 3, 2011.

[12] F. Bannister and R. Connolly, The trouble with transparency: a criticalreview of openness in e-government, Policy &Internet, Vol. 3, 1, pp.158-187, 2012.

[13] G. Paquet and J. Roy, Smart cities in Canada through e -governance,Journal of Canadian Studies, 2002.

[14] UNPAN (2011) On-line Glossary on Governance and PublicAdministration. Available at: www.unpan.org

[15] P. Dawes, Journal of High Technology Management Research, Volume14, pp. 1-20, 2003.

[16] C. Harrison and I. A. Donnelly, A theory of smart cities, in

Proceedings of the 55th

Annual Meeting of the ISSS, 2011.[17] L. Qi and L. Shaofu, Research on Digital City Framework

Architecture, IEEE International Conferences on Info-Tech and Info-Net, Volume 1, pp. 30-36, 2001.

[18] L. Anthopoulos and T. Tougountzoglou, A viability model for DigitalCities: economic and acceptability factors, Web 2.0 Technologies andDemocratic Governance, Volume 1, pp. 79-96, 2012.

[19] R. P. Dameri and A. Cocchia, Smart City and Digital City: twentyyears of terminology evolution Available at: www.cersi.it, 2013.

[20] T. Ishida and K. Isbister, (eds.), Digital cities: technologies,experiences, and future perspectives, New York: Springer, 2000.

[21]N. Komninos, Intelligent Cities and Globalization of InnovationNetworks, Routledge, London, 2008.

[22] A. Caragliu, C. Del Bo, and P. Nijkamp, Smart cities in Europe, inProceedings of the 3rd Central European Conference in Regional Science

(Koice, Slovak Republic, Oct 7-9), 2009.[23] A. Bryman and E. Bell, Business research methods, Oxford, UK:

Oxford University Press, 2003.

[24] J. Guthrie and I. Abeysekera, Content analysis of social, environmentalreporting: What is new?, Journal of Human Resource Costing &Accounting, vol. 10 (2), pp. 114-126, 2006.

[25] E. J. Webb, D. T., Campbell, R. D., Schwartz, and L. Sechrest,Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Research in the Social Sciences.Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, 1996.

[26] K. Krippendorff, Content Analysis: An Introduction to ItsMethodology. Sage, Newbury Park, CA, 1980.

[27] K. A. Neuendorf, The content analysis guidebook, 2nd Edition, S age,2002.

SECTION

Smart Technology


Technologies


http://www.ictic.sk


March, 24. - 28. 2014

- 397 -


6/7

[28] F. Bifulco, M. Tregua, and C. C. Amitrano, Smart Cities andInnovation: a multi-stakeholder perspective, in Journal of Managementand Marketing, 2014, article in press.

[29]N. Imparato and O. Harari, Jumping the curve: innovation and strategicchoice in an age of transition , San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers,1994.

[30] E. von Hippel, Democratizing innovation, Cambridge, MA: MITPress, 2005.

[31] M. Tregua and M. Colurcio, Practices for users' engagement ininnovation, in The Proceedings of 13th International ConferenceMarketing Trends, Venice, 2014.

SECTION

Smart Technology


Technologies


http://www.ictic.sk


March, 24. - 28. 2014

- 398 -


7/7

Published by: EDIS - Publishing Institution of the University of Zilina

Univerzitna 1

01026 Zilina

Slovak Republic

Editors: Ing. Michal Mokrys; Ing. Stefan Badura, Ph.D.; Ing. Anton Lieskovsky, Ph.D.

ISBN: 978-80-554-0865-1

ISSN: 1339-231XPages: 398

Printed in: 150 copies

Publication year: 2014

All published papers undergone single blind peer review.

All published papers are in English language only. Each paper had assigned 2 reviewers and each paper went

through two-tier approval process.

Open Access Online archive is available at: http://www.ictic.sk/archive

(proceedings will be available online one month after the publication release).

In case of any questions, notes or complaints, please contact us at: info(at)ictic.sk.

Warning:

All rights reserved. Reproduction or publication of this material, even partial, is allowed only with the editors permission. Unauthorized duplication is a violation of applicable laws.


Technologies


http://www.ictic.sk


March, 24. - 28. 2014

- 399 -

digital city vs. smart ci

Documents