Smart Cities and Associated Risks: Technical v/s Non-technical
Perspective
Priyanka Singh
1 a
and Markus Helfert
2 b
1
School of Computing, Dublin City University Glasnevin, Dublin 9, Ireland
2
School of Business, Lero - The Irish Software Research Centre, Maynooth University, Maynooth, Co. Kildare, Ireland
Keywords: Smart City, Risks, Sociotechnical Perception.
Abstract: The new era of smart city is accompanied by Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and many
other technologies to improve the quality of life for the citizen of the modern city, that in turn, has brought
immense opportunities as well as challenges for government and organizations. These challenges often
introduce risks with smart city services on which citizens are heavily reliant. The connotation of smart city
services introduces risks not only with the technology but also with non-technical aspects like process and
management where a human element is involved. However, there are only limited attempts to investigate risk
in the context of process and management while the literature of technology-oriented risks is relatively
comprehensive. This paper aims to reveal the significance of technical versus non-technical elements in smart
city services, and how to integrate both views with the help of Enterprise Architecture (EA) for addressing
the impact of risks. On the basis of this review, this paper argues that for an effective risk assessment process,
it is vital to consider both technical and non-technical components together which would lead to improved
governance strategies for risk mitigation approach.
1 INTRODUCTION
The term smart city is not something that has acquired
attention in the area of research for the first time. It has
been evolved for over many years and now when it’s
an era of Internet of Things (IoT), sensors, power grids,
machine learning, cloud and fog computing, and many
other technologies, we aim to create much smarter
cities. Smart cities are different from the normal cities
in the context of services that are being delivered in the
cities. These services include not only technical
components such as sensors, devices, actuators but also
some other important elements as data, applications,
and stakeholders across those technologies. Innovative
technologies increase uncertainty and complexity, and
there is a need to look beyond technology for effective
managerial and policies to deal with the risk (Jennings,
2010). As highlighted by Nam and Pardo (2011), the
implication of smartness in the urban or metropolitan
context not only specifies employing cutting-edge
information and communication technologies (ICTs),
but also policy and management related concerns. It
a
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6182-6111
b
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6546-6408
has also been pointed out that more than 50 percent of
IT projects fail due to the non-technical aspects such as
policy, organization, and management- associated
risks. Hence, addressing risk only at technical level
does not solve the issues at other levels like process and
management where behavioural element is also
involved. Therefore, it becomes important to address
these factors, which can further lead to some form of
risks in today’s smart cities.
This paper contains a discussion and review of
existing risk emergent areas in the smart cities. The
purpose is to provide an overview of research in the
field, identify possible factors that existing literature is
not addressing adequately from the risk assessment
point of view for smart cities. Later on, in the
discussion section we highlight the need for
sociotechnical perception for the risk assessment
process, and tried to examine this perception from the
lens of enterprise architecture. The structure of this
paper is as follows: Firstly, we describe the review
methodology and results of the search (Section 2).
Secondly, we classify the risks in smart cities, and
influencing factors for them (Section 3). Thirdly we
Singh, P. and Helfert, M.
Smart Cities and Associated Risks: Technical v/s Non-technical Perspective.
DOI: 10.5220/0008494402210228
In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications (CHIRA 2019), pages 221-228
ISBN: 978-989-758-376-6
Copyright
c
2019 by SCITEPRESS – Science and Technology Publications, Lda. All rights reser ved
221
discuss the missing factors from risks assessment point
of view and how can we include them to minimise the
impact of risks (Section 4) and Finally, we conclude
our findings for the future research (Section 5).
2 METHODLOGY
In this paper we follow a systematic approach
presented in Webster and Watson (2011), for
reviewing the existing literature on smart cities and
associated risks with them. We selected relevant
journals and conferences on the basis of electronic
database Scopus and our search strategy revolved
around the terms “Smart City”, “risks”,
“Management”, “Process” and “Governance” and by
using advanced search criteria, we restricted the
academic discipline to computer science, social
sciences, engineering and business management and
accounting. We reviewed 182 papers after applying the
mentioned filters, and then selected those papers which
discuss risks emerging domains and triggering factors
for them in existing smart cities. Total 248 articles
were generated, and after screening of title and
abstracts, 66 articles were discarded. Only 182 papers
remained to be examined in depth. This process has
been summarised in Fig. 1.
Figure 1: Summary of the Literature Review Process.
3 SMART CITIES AND
ASSOCIATED RISKS
Before discovering the risks associated with smart
cities, we need to recognize its core conceptual
elements defined as “a smart sustainable city is an
innovative city that uses information and
communication technologies (ICTs) and other means
to improve quality of life, efficiency of urban
operations and services, and competitiveness, while
ensuring that it meets the needs of present and future
generations with respect to economic, social and
environmental aspects” (ITU-T Focus Group, 2014,
cited in Mohanty, Choppali & Kougianos, 2016, p.41).
Despite the facts that the concept of smart city is
not only about technological aspects but also about
social and environmental perspectives, existing studies
mainly focus on risks from a technological perception
and abandoning the existence of social element. The
most important element in smart cities is the way
services are being delivered and that is not only about
the technology but about service transformation and
improvement (Nam & Pardo, 2011). When it is about
service transformation and improvement, it’s
noteworthy to understand the importance of several
stakeholders who are part of governing authorities in
the city. Also they do not only take important decisions
with regards to the city but also are involved in
management of key processes contributing towards the
effective delivery of smart city services. Therefore, it
becomes important to consider them while addressing
risks for city services.
When it comes to risk then, there are many
defnitions for it in the literature and it differes with
respect to the context, but as we are talking about smart
cities thus, we tried to look into its definitions from the
city council perspective as they are the main governing
authorities to deal with any kind of risks in the city. We
selected one of the defnitiotns of risk, documented by
Waterford city council risk management group in
Ireland. And it is defined as “Risk can be defined as the
probability or threat of damage, injury, liability, loss,
or any other negative occurrence that is caused by
external or internal vulnerabilities, and that may be
avoided through pre-emptive actions” (“Waterford
City and County Council Risk Management Policy
June”, 2017, p.2). Another definiton of risk has been
given as: “Risk is often expressed in terms of a
combination of the consequences of an event
(including changes in circumstances) and the
associated likelihood of occurrence” (Standardization,
2009, p.2). We are trying to examine different factors
causing risk in today’s smart cities and how can we
include them while carring out risks assessment
process. Risk assessment process is defined as “Overall
process of risk identification, risk analysis and risk
evaluation” (Standardization, 2009, p.5). We are not
focusing on any specific type of risk rather trying to
examine all factors along with the technology which
can icrease the probabilty of risk in different domains,
and should be considered during risks assessment
process.
CHIRA 2019 - 3rd International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications
222
3.1 Technology Oriented Risks and
Effecting Factors
The objective of Johnsen (2018) is to provide a review
of systemic risks in smart cities reliant on intelligent
autonomous transport systems. Smart city has been
addressed as “software ecosystem (SEC)” which
defines the complex environment of a smart city.
Safety, security and resilience have been considered as
a main concerning areas from the risk assessment point
of view. This paper identifies that the smart cities not
only deal with information but at the same time with
actual critical complex processes, and it require
methods which can include technology, human
elements and organisational issues. It has been pointed
out that there is a very less focus on emerging risk,
safety, security and societal consequences associated
with modern smart city services. Similarly process and
technology have been found as major elements causing
information security related risk (Wu et al., 2018).
According to authors, there could be disastrous
consequences due to all kinds of information security
problems, specifically it constitutes great challenges to
traditional information security systems. Authors
presented the case of Taiwan’s city where it faces
many security issues and it has been emphasised that
the construction of smart cities should consider macro-
level perspective along with technology, data, public
infrastructure, security protection, services, and human
resources. As per Taiwan’s iThome 2018 Enterprise
Information Security Survey , employees’ lack of
knowledge of advanced security processes and
technology ranked highest with 63.1% towards
security related risks (Wu et al., 2018).
Today’s information and communications
technologies (ICT) permit interconnection,
collaboration, and communications between devices
and machines without need for direct human
intervention (Hosu et al., 2015). The new array of
security/privacy issues requires inventive solutions in
an era where data collections are far away from
expectations (Yorgos et al., 2019). The citizens/users
must be ensured that their data and private life are
secure, although most of the issues arise when data are
shared with third parties, who do not follow the strict
security/privacy requirements of the original provider
(Yorgos et al., 2019). It has been pointed out that
periodic and emergency procedures should be part of a
coherent security policy, irrespective of its original
secured design. Authors also mentioned that with the
participation of key public and private actors, there is a
need for complex risk analysis process and subsequent
policy and engineering design to reduce risk. Also,
human factor has been considered as one of the
important elements to analyse safety associated risk.
Autonomous vehicles industry has recently
acquired a lot of attention, and most of the cities are
planning to introduce it soon, but before introducing
such services, it is also important to consider its impact
on society and how governing authorities are going to
take actions during any kind of disastrous situations
which may pose some type of risk. “Since the
introduction of autonomous vehicles (AVs) in 2010,
their development and appeal has increased
significantly. However, the successful operation of
AVs and their impact on society depend significantly
on their management and on addressing risks
associated with them” (Lim & Taeihagh, 2018, p.2). In
this paper, authors focus on privacy and cybersecurity
related risks which are crucial to the development of
smart and sustainable cities, and examine actions taken
by the government for addressing these risks
worldwide. These actions are taken in the form of
legislations, guidelines and further research is in
progress to come up with a more specific laws and
regulations. It has been pointed out that the
autonomous system will have a control of AV, not the
human, so the responsibility for car accidents will
move from the occupants to manufacturers. Along with
that, manufacturers and software providers face greater
risk of lawsuits resulting from accident compensation,
which may discourage innovation if systematically
allocation of responsibility is not addressed by liability
laws. Boeglin (2015) explained that there would be
dynamic wireless exchange of data among immediate
vehicles with the help of Vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V)
technology which would permit self-driving cars to
recognise threats and hazards, and calculate risks or to
take required actions to avoid and mitigate crashes.
However, there is a risks that information shared about
users can be compromised or improperly used by
attackers. It has also been highlighted that there is an
impact on social values, such as freedom and privacy,
or the questions for legal liability because of the usage
of self-driving cars. This is another instance where
social impact has not been considered and technology
is ready to be used in the future planning of the smart
cities.
Another type of risk has been highlighted with
respect to the data usage and surveillance in
autonomous vehicles by (Rannenberg, 2016, cited in
Lim & Taeihagh, 2018) as: (a) there are “no explicit
rules to consider certain data special and have special
hindrances for their usage”, the data collected in AVs
may be misused in several ways that hindrance AV
passengers. (b) Author argues there are many ways by
which personal data can be exploited using
Smart Cities and Associated Risks: Technical v/s Non-technical Perspective
223
geographical locations and destination of AV users, for
an instance if people are participating in any interest
group or travelling for a political meeting, then it could
decrease their participation due to the fear that such
kind of recordings can “expose them to risks”.
Similarly, there could be less impartial society, greater
social turbulence due to enabling AVs of extensive
surveillance which potentially hinder the development
of smart government and influencing policy making
(Lim & Taeihagh, 2018). Furthermore, it has been
pointed out there is a need of proper governance
frameworks for managing privacy associated risks
required for endorsing the continuous usage of
connected infrastructure and information and
communication technology (ICT) towards socio-
economic expansion.
Some of the issues found in Lim and Taeihagh
(2018) relate to Marie et al., (2018) where authors
explained risks and challenges associated with the
automation of urban green infrastructure (UGI). These
risks have been identified by examining six case
studies of vertical farming, virtual fencing, health
monitoring, youth-driven citizen science, automated
tree stewardship and robotic tree-care. It has been
emphasised that these types of risks are addressed by
providing technological fixes to all societal problems
without considering the social and economic cause of
the problem. Various health associated risks have also
been identified such as technostress caused by over
usage of smart phones, obesity, asthma and stress along
with the ethical concerns regarding data sharing and
privacy of health app users, and due to the increased
surveillance. Consequently, there is a critical necessity
to question what specifically is being made sustainable,
for whom, and by which criteria it needs to be made
(Marie et al., 2018). These are the questions that
government and local authorities need to answer before
deploying such projects where human intervention is
almost negligible and consequence of these services
has been neglected. Hence it becomes important to
analyse how citizens would react to this new era of
technology where fully automated services are going
to replace the existence of human element.
There are some other types of risks classified in
the literature due to the disastrous situations as natural
disasters or any other kinds of emergency situations.
“Emergency Management (EM) deals with the risk and
consequences of an emergency event and aims at
reducing or avoiding negative effects and
implementing an effective recovery action” (De
Nicola, Melchiori & Villani, 2019, p.2). Authors
considered smart cities case study for EM analysis as it
is a challenging domain due to the fact that smart cities
are characterized by interconnected physical and
virtual services establishing complex ecosystems. It
has been pointed out that during the planning of cities,
aspects like social implications, the impact on the
environment, and respect for diversity does not hamper
innovation but enhance it. Falco (2015) suggested the
similar factors required to be taken into consideration
for the effective risk management process and better
resilience plan. It has been stated that technology-
centric resilience plans might lead to a lack of
significance on societal consequences and historical
context for capturing the cause and effects of disastrous
events.
All these studies emphasise the fact that there are
more factors to consider other than solely the
technology while addressing risk in smart cities. Cities
can only be recognised as smart when there is an
investment in the growth of human along with the
social and environmental capitals (Yigitcanlar et al.,
2019). We argue that this perception should be
considered for the risk assessment process as well.
Another important component in smart cities is
“governance”, local government and council play a
vital role in addressing any kinds of risks. Therefore,
we tried to examine disparate aspects from the
governance point of view to understand the risk from
their end as well.
3.2 Governance Oriented Risks and
Effecting Factors
There are numerous research and solutions to address
risks in different domains of smart city services from
the technology viewpoint, but there are very limited
attempts to discuss the processes and management
which take place in the backend of those services and
how they can influence the different types of risks.
There are several stakeholders involved starting from
planning to delivery of services such as council, local
government, private companies etc. and eventually
they are the ones who are responsible for taking any
kind of crucial decision either during any disastrous
situation or during any kinds of
security/privacy/health/safety related issues resulting
from smart city services. Therefore, it is worth
understanding risks coming from the governance
perspective and how these risks can influence the other
form of risks in the city.
Techatassanasoontorn and Suo (2010) found five
types of risks in the smart city infrastructure projects
from the governance viewpoint directed by local
government summarised as:
(a) Socio-political Risks: These risks are associated
with regulations, policy as well as with social and
political forces. Also city council’s vote and political
CHIRA 2019 - 3rd International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications
224
support is required to start any kind of project. There
are various solutions in the form of policy and
regulations to address risks associated with security
and privacy (Lim & Taeihagh, 2018). However, if
necessary policies are not passed due to the internal
conflicts of interest among stakeholders then it can
result in some other form of risk as security or privacy.
(b) Approval Risks: Approval risks are those which
intercept from receiving any kind of a formal
permission or approval to start the project or to further
make any progress. A good business plan and an
appropriate feasibility analyses are required to avoid
risk for successful completion of project.
(c) Financial Risks: Funding related problems for
instance lack of preliminary funding, failure to produce
enough revenue, lack of money to substitute or upgrade
equipment, with unpredictable implementation costs
that may threaten project existence and success.
(d) Technical Risks: Technical risks are risks
associated with technology selection and
implementation. There are three types of risks
identified in terms of technology as geographical
difficulties of network coverage, discontinued
technology, and a questionable technology choice.
(e) Partnership and Resource Management Risks:
Partnership and resource management risks deal with
various stakeholders who may have conflicting goals
and interests, partnerships issues, asset rights, human
resources, marketing, and poor performance of
networks.
Heaton and Parlikad (2019) identified another type
of risk from the digitalisation of the built environment
and found that there is a risk as information flowing
between various platforms and rapidly becomes
unmanageable, and the value of that information also
becomes lost. Moreover, authors argued that people
element is often neglected at the cost of technology and
strategic development which is critical component for
developing a successful smart city. Governance is
noteworthy challenge for the development of a smart
city and some of those challenges are less transparency,
standalone city services, absence of human resources
and liability (Sujata et al., 2016, cited in Heaton &
Parlikad, 2019). It is important to note that these types
of challenges further lead to some form of risks already
discussed by (Techatassanasoontorn & Suo, 2010).
Hence it is significant to consider such viewpoints
while addressing risks in the smart city context. The
most important factor is examining social factors along
with the technology while conducting a risk
assessment process to gain better understanding of the
impact on society as well as on governance.
There are some other challenges from the
governance side when it comes to emergency
situation, and one of them is information sharing
during such scenarios, which has been considered as
a significant factor by (Cohen et al., 2017). In this
paper authors addressed the importance of effective
communication between governance and public to
handle crisis situations in an effective manner for
achieving better resiliency. This information becomes
very important when decision makers and local
leadership have to design policy for planning
communication with the citizens and resilience
building processes. Hence it is worth communicating
such information with a proper communication
channel and the value of such information should not
be lost, so that such disastrous situations do not cause
any kind of safety or health-related risks. It can be
observed that people involved in such processes are
key players to handle such crises and are also
responsible for taking important decisions during any
kinds of emergency situations. This is what we have
been pointing out throughout our discussion. The
“Social Factor”, which is not only important from the
citizen’s viewpoint but also from the different
stakeholders’ point of view who are directly or
indirectly engaged with people and the services.
Gonzalez et al., (2017) emphasised that there is a
requirement of risk assessment and mitigation tools
which can take account of multi-stakeholder’s
perception involved in city resilience, and how
mitigation policies best support the resilience
planning. Bolton and Foxon (2015) discuss the
similar issue in infrastructure transition projects from
a socio-technical system viewpoint, based on
electricity and heat distribution networks in the UK.
This paper addresses different challenges such as lack
of local level leadership and coordination, lack of risk
averse business culture etc. from the governance side.
It has also been pointed out that project couldn’t make
much progression due to the disintegrated sector
structures and a deficiency of clear and persistent
framework for low carbon infrastructure governance.
Similar findings were highlighted with respect to
the complexity of multi-stakeholders and actors
involved in risk-related decision making process which
creates highly complicated and fragmented structure of
society (Hermans, Fox & Van Asselt, 2005). This
research found that risk assessment process deals with
three major challenges described as ‘complexity’,
‘uncertainty’ and ‘ambiguity’. Multi-stakeholder
related issues have been highlighted by many
researchers within the governance. Another instance of
this issue has been revealed by Simonofski and Snoeck
(2019), and it has been emphasised that due to the
various stakeholders, planning of development process
becomes complex and difficult in e-government
Smart Cities and Associated Risks: Technical v/s Non-technical Perspective
225
projects. Consequently, the work of integrating
feedback from stakeholders or the essential signatures
of the superiors causing risk to the software as it
becomes antiquated by the time all stakeholders are
associated. On the similar note, Pierce and Andersson
(2017) identified that there are many challenges faced
by municipal decision makers which are related with
non-technical issues such as collaboration, governance
and many others whereas security is not considered as
a major challenge. It has been further pointed out that
the risks of cities are too much dependent on
technology and there is a technological lock-in effects
caused by solution providers. Comparison of these
findings with those of other studies confirms that to
minimise risk and challenges associated with smart
city services there is a requirement to include both
technical and non-technical viewpoints instead of just
focusing on technology and neglecting the other
factors around it. These risks have been categorised
along with the influencing factors for them in Table 1
and Table 2.
Table 1: Categories of Risks.
References
Security
Pr
ivacy
Safety
Emergency/
Disaster
Liability
Health
Governance
(Johnsen, 2018)
x
x
(Wu et al., 2018)
x
(Yorgos et al., 2019)
x
x
(De Nicola et al., 2019)
x
(Lim & Taeihagh,
2018)
x
x
x
(Marie et al., 2018)
x
(Simonofski & Snoeck,
2019)
x
(Cook et al., 2018
x
x
x
(Techatassanasoontorn
& Suo, 2010)
x
(Heaton & Parlikad,
2019)
x
(Cohen et al., 2017)
x
(Bolton & Foxon,
2015)
x
(Hermans et al., 2005)
x
(Boeglin, 2015)
x
x
(Gonzalez et al., 2017)
x
(Falco, 2015)
x
x
(Pierce & Andersson,
2017)
x
Table 2: Risks influencing Factors from Literature.
Risks Influencing Factors
Organisational Issues.
Security processes, Technology.
Lack of periodic and emergency
procedures in policy.
Absence of automated models.
Absence of proper governance
framework, Lack of effective
Policy.
Lack of social and economic
consideration.
Requirement of Multi-
stakeholder’s approval.
Absence of prescribed software
standard,
Less secured systems.
Conflicting goals,
Discontinued technology, Absence
of effective policy.
Negligence of social factor,
Absence of human resources.
Lack of effective Communication.
Lack of local level leadership &
coordination.
Complex, uncertain and
ambiguous risk assessment
process.
Liability related issues,
Negligence of societal
consequences.
Unclear accountability, Lack of
perspective from various
stakeholders.
Negligence of social and historical
context.
Weak collaboration, Outdate
regulations, Financial challenges,
Technology awareness issue.
4 RISKS FROM THE LENS OF
ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE
AND DISCUSSION
As it can be seen from the Table 2, that there are
various non-technical parameters influencing risks in
different domain of the city and there is a common
factor among all those parameters. That is “social
factor”, this term includes a wide range of issues and
we classify it from two sides, one is from the governing
authorities and another from the citizen’s perspective.
When we consider governance standpoint, then there
are internal as well as external stakeholders who
influence the execution of processes and policies.
Therefore, the issues related with proper decision
making, collaboration, liability and accountability,
finance, etc. increasing the chance of risks in different
CHIRA 2019 - 3rd International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications
226
domains of smart city services. Another viewpoint is
from the citizen’s side, while introducing new services
with advanced technology oriented solutions, we often
neglect its consequences as highlighted by Marie et al.,
(2018), which increases the probability of risks in
disparate areas and effecting citizens of the city. Hence
it becomes essential to consider these factors before
deploying any new services during the planning phase
itself, so that risks emerging from such services can be
avoided in the future, and even if it occurs then we have
a better plan to mitigate them. Enterprise
Architecture(EA) has been extensively used in
organisations and “It is a holistic approach to systems
architecture with the purpose of modelling the role of
information systems and technology in the
organization, aligning enterprise-wide concepts and
information systems with business processes and
information” (Barateiro, Antunes & Borbinha, 2012,
p.3301). EA framework has also been suggested as a
way to manage complexity, multi-stakeholders and the
service- oriented nature of smart cities in smart cities
(Pourzolfaghar et al., 2018). Also an architected
approach radically reduces the risks, timeline, and
potential mid- project failures in e-Governance model
as compared to other approaches (“The Open Group
Guide Starting an Enterprise Architecture Capability in
the Government Sector,” 2018). Therefore, enterprise
architecture could be a good approach to analyse risk
associated with smart city services while considering
all those non-technical factors which cause risks.
However, it is an underrepresented area so far, and
need more exploration. We aim to investigate those
factors with the help of enterprise architecture in our
future work.
5 CONCLUSION
There is a plethora of research to investigate risks in
different domains of the smart cities, and most of them
are focusing on technological part. This paper argues
that there are various factors other than the technology
which influence risks, and these factors can be
analysed with the help of EA. However, EA and risk is
not well explored, and there are various factors that can
be responsible for effective risk analysis process.
Therefore, we need to understand the impact of these
factors and their influence on overall risk assessment
process. In particular, as environments and systems in
smart cities become more complex and dynamic, the
understanding of risk resulted from architecture is
important. That is, traditionally risk results from
malfunctioning of software elements or physical
system. With increasing complexity, risk results not
only from this, but also associated with complexity of
these systems.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported with the financial support
of the Science Foundation Ireland grant 13/RC/2094
and co-funded under the European Regional
Development Fund through the Southern & Eastern
Regional Operational Programme to Lero - the Irish
Software Research Centre (www.lero.ie).
REFERENCES
Barateiro, J., Antunes, G., & Borbinha, J. (2012). Manage
risks through the Enterprise Architecture. Proceedings of
the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences, 3297–3306. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.
2012.419
Boeglin, J. (2015). The Costs of Self-Driving Cars:
Reconciling Freedom and Privacy with Tort Liability in
Autonomous Vehicle Regulation. THE YALE JOURNAL
OF LAW & TECHNOLOGY, 17.
Bolton, R., & Foxon, T. J. (2015). Infrastructure
transformation as a socio-technical process - Implications
for the governance of energy distribution networks in the
UK. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
90(PB), 538–550. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.
2014.02.017
Cohen, O., Goldberg, A., Lahad, M., & Aharonson-Daniel,
L. (2017). Building resilience: The relationship between
information provided by municipal authorities during
emergency situations and community resilience.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 121,
119–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.11.008
Cook, D. J., Duncan, G., Sprint, G., & Fritz, R. L. (2018).
Using Smart City Technology to Make Healthcare
Smarter. Proceedings of the IEEE, 106(4), 708–722.
https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2017.2787688
De Nicola, A., Melchiori, M., & Villani, M. L. (2019).
Creative design of emergency management scenarios
driven by semantics: An application to smart cities.
Information Systems, 81, 21–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.is.2018.10.005
Falco, G. J. (2015). City Resilience through Data Analytics:
A Human-centric Approach. Procedia Engineering, 118,
1008–1014.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.08.542
Gonzalez, J. J., Magnus, B., Eden, C., Gimenez, R.,
Hernantes, J., Howick, S., … Sarriegi, J. M. (2017).
Stalking Resilience: Cities as Vertebrae in Society’s
Resilience Backbone Jose. Information Technology in
Disaster Risk Reduction, 501, 31–45. https://doi.org/
10.1007/978-3-319-68486-4
Smart Cities and Associated Risks: Technical v/s Non-technical Perspective
227
Heaton, J., & Parlikad, A. K. (2019). A conceptual
framework for the alignment of infrastructure assets to
citizen requirements within a Smart Cities framework.
Cities, 90(January), 32–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.cities.2019.01.041
Hermans, M. A., Fox, T., & Van Asselt, M. B. A. (2005).
Risk Governance Towards an Integrative Approach.
Handbook of Risk Theory: Epistemology, Decision
Theory, Ethics, and Social Implications of Risk.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1433-5_44
Hosu, A. C., Varga, M., Kiss, Z. I., Polgar, Z. A., & Ivanciu,
I. A. (2015). Integrated ubiquitous connectivity and
centralised information platform for intelligent public
transportation systems. IET Intelligent Transport
Systems, 9(6), 573–581. https://doi.org/10.1049/iet-
its.2014.0206
Jennings, P. (2010). Managing the risks of Smarter Planet
solutions. IBM Journal of Research and Development,
54(4), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1147/jrd.2010.2050540
Johnsen, S. O. (2018). Risks, Safety and Security in the
Ecosystem of Smart Cities. Intech Open, 2, 64.
https://doi.org/10.5772/32009
Lim, H. S. M., & Taeihagh, A. (2018). Autonomous vehicles
for smart and sustainable cities: An in-depth exploration
of privacy and cybersecurity implications. Energies,
11(5). https://doi.org/10.3390/en11051062
Marie, N., Raymond, C. M., Rutt, R. L., Stahl, A., Plieninger,
T., Sandberg, M., … Jönsson, K. I. (2018). Landscape
and Urban Planning ‘ Rage against the machine ’ ? The
opportunities and risks concerning the automation of
urban green infrastructure. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 180(September 2017), 85–92. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.08.012
Mohanty, S. P., Choppali, U., & Kougianos, E. (2016).
Everything You Wanted to Know About Smart Cities,
(August 2016). https://doi.org/10.1109/MCE.2016.
2556879
Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2011). Smart city as urban
innovation. In Proceedings of the 5th International
Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic
Governance - ICEGOV ’11 (p. 185).
https://doi.org/10.1145/2072069.2072100
Pierce, P., & Andersson, B. (2017). Challenges with smart
cities initiatives – A municipal decision makers’
perspective. Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii
International Conference on System Science (HICSS-50),
2804–2813.
https://doi.org/http://hdl.handle.net/10125/41495
Pourzolfaghar, Z., Bastidas, V., Mamkaitis, A., & Helfert, M.
(2018). Standardisation of Enterprise Architecture
Development for Smart Cities, (c), 28–34.
Rannenberg, K. (2016). Opportunities and risks associated
with collecting and making usable additional data. In
Autonomous Driving.
Simonofski, A., & Snoeck, M. (2019). Co-Creating e-
Government Services : An Empirical Analysis of
Participation Methods in Belgium, (February).
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98953-2
Standardization, I. O. for. (2009). GUIDE 73 Risk
management-Vocabulary, 1–5.
Techatassanasoontorn, A. A., & Suo, S. (2010). Exploring
risks in smart city infrastructure projects: Municipal
broadband initiatives. In 14th Pacific Asia Conference on
Information Systems, PACIS 2010 (pp. 13–24). Retrieved
from https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-
s2.0-84856021996&partnerID=40&md5=d04771bb672
569da9f3da1ce9d759c01
The Open Group Guide Starting an Enterprise Architecture
Capability in the Government Sector. (2018).
Waterford City and County Council Risk Management
Policy June. (2017), (June).
Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2011). Analyzing the Past To
Prepare for the Future : Writing a Review. MIS Quartely,
26(2), 12. Retrieved from www.jstor.org/stable/4132319
Wu, S., Guo, D., Wu, Y., & Wu, Y. (2018). Future
Development of Taiwan’s Smart Cities from an
Information Security Perspective. Sustainability, 10(12),
4520. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124520
Yigitcanlar, T., Foth, M., Sabatini-marques, J., & Ioppolo, G.
(2019). Can cities become smart without being
sustainable ? A systematic review of the literature.
Sustainable Cities and Society, 45(June 2018), 348–365.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.11.033
Yorgos, Y. J. S., Golias, M., Dedes, G., Douligeris, C., &
Mishra, S. (2019). Challenges, Risks and Opportunities
for Connected Vehicle Services in Smart Cities and
Communities. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 51(34), 139–144.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2019.01.056
CHIRA 2019 - 3rd International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction Research and Applications
228