1 Introduction
The idea of transferring urban areas into more sustainable, accessible, and eco-friendly spaces can be to better our standard of living with the visionary idea of developing the “city of the future.” Smart or “intelligent” cities, which in fact embody the success of past development, are characterized by how human settlements have evolved the fields and dimensions of public management, urban planning, mobility, and transportation in terms of environmental and social cohesion.
With the mass exodus of people moving from rural to urban towns and cities over the last century, this globally observed phenomenon has made these areas extremely congested, polluted, and resource scarce. These severe problems are a challenge that cannot be ignored and necessitate action from all levels of society. Moreover, such problems cannot be resolved by onetime operations but rather by wide-ranging international strategies that embrace long-term and forward-looking processes.
In this context, the underlined role of the United Nations (UN) is evident, as stated in the UN Charter Preamble. Dating back to the 1970s, the UN identified the growing global difficulties and problems connected to ever-increasing crowded urban areas as the harbinger of the broader debate on the magnitude and consequences of urbanization (UN, 1976). The manifestation of the issue was, among others, included in the city-related challenges of the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDG s) and its successor, the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG s).
The SDG s were established in 2015 with the target of achieving them in accordance with Agenda 2030. Needless to say, according to internationally reconciled and accepted assumptions, the Agenda constitutes the most future-looking and comprehensive approach of the 21st century to tackle the key
SDG 11 specifically is focused on fostering sustainability together with inclusion, safety, and resilience by making cities and urban space more livable as “incubators for innovation and growth” (UN, 2015a) by 2030. This leads to a better understanding of how to develop “intelligent” cities as well as to provide a high-quality standard of living as described by various international bodies and relating international indices.
Among international agreements underlining the importance of supporting smart city initiatives, the European Union (EU) continues to play a vital role in developing its “urban well-being” mission by allocating funds for various smart city projects and initiatives by its member states. The funds, which are aimed in particular at financing such projects, include the Smart Cities Marketplace, which merges two former platforms, the Marketplace of the European Innovation Partnership on Smart Cities and Communities and the Smart Cities Information System.
Progress in implementing the smart city concept has also been achieved in Poland – both within large agglomerations and small and medium-sized cities. Mainly thanks to EU funding (e.g., the Technical Assistance Operational Program [OP], the European Structural and Investment Fund [ESIF], and the European Regional Development Fund [ERDF]), numerous projects have been effective in implementing and modernizing Polish urban settlements. This includes an upgrading in the quality of the life which is irrefutable and visible in numerous aspects of Polish cities’ everyday functioning. Positive changes are centered on urban planning and management, technological advancement of urban grids and public transport, digitalization of local administration, and social behavioral progress.
In this context, the chapter is structured in three main sections. Section 1 assesses the state of the art of both concepts, i.e., sustainability and city smartness. Section 2 explores how these two concepts are interrelated by definition and through the goals they serve. Section 3 gives special attention to the contribution and implementation of the smart city concept in Poland.
In reference to the title of this book and its key issues, it should be noted that measuring and reporting progress in achieving such targets is a manifestation of the actual practical engagement of the given international organization in the real world. As such, indicators from the following key indices, i.e., IMD – SUTD Smart City Index (SCI), IESE Cities in Motion Index (CIMI), EasyPark Cities of the Future Index (CFI), and the CITYkeys project, will be used to evaluate city smartness.
Case research in Polish cities can elucidate various projects financed from EU funds and focus on projects linking sustainability and city smartness to show how they can be commonly and concurrently realized in practice. Utilizing Polish cities pinpoints the progress made in respect to upgrading the level of sustainability of urban development and showcases the improvements and efficiency of local management in a relatively short period of time in comparison to wealthier Western cities.
In short, a breakdown of the chapter identifies the state-of-the-art literature, the relationship between sustainability and city smartness concepts and indicators, case research on Poland in terms of financial opportunities and progress in creating smart settlements, and concluding recommendations on how they can be commonly and concurrently put into practice.
2 The State of the Art of Sustainability and City Smartness
The relationship between sustainability and city smartness is fairly new in the literature. Their intertwining rapidly developed about a decade ago when a few authors argued how the smart city agenda contributes to sustainability (Al-Hader, 2009; Al Nuaimi et al., 2015; Bifulco et al., 2016; Vilajosana et al., 2013). De Jong et al. (2015) showed that the linkages between the “smart city” and the “sustainable city” had been relatively weak up to this time. In most cases, the methodology used to study the issue was based on qualitative surveys and interviews (Alawadhi et al., 2012).
A discursive connection between the two is highlighted and has been more intensively researched during the last 5 years (Cowley & Caprotti, 2019; Trindade et al., 2017). As such, some studies analyzing real-world projects and investments found little empirical evidence that smartness contributes to the sustainability of the cities (Yigitcanlar & Kamruzzaman, 2018). For example, Kramers et al. (2014) explored the opportunities of using information and communication technology (ICT) solutions targeting climate goals to reduce urban energy use. It was concluded that reaching climate targets for cities by way of ICT was primarily focused on the operation of transport and heating of
One of the first to propose a specific combination of both concepts in relation to cities is Ahvenniemi et al. (2017), who recommended the use of a more accurate term “smart sustainable cities” instead of “smart cities.” This approach is consistent with the concept proposed by Girardi and Temporelli (2017) and also developed by Kramers et al. (2014), who examine how smart cities pursue sustainability-oriented goals based on the so-called “smartainability” methodology.
However, the idea to redefine smart cities into smart sustainable cities originates from earlier works, in particular Giffinger et al. (2007), who conceptualized six characteristics which are often referenced and used today. They theorized indicators to measure city smartness and found specific metrics where sustainability is embedded, distinguishing in particular sustainable resource management in a sort of smart environment and sustainable transport system via the concept of smart mobility.
These methods are derived from the Guidelines for Conducting a Cost-Benefit Analysis of Smart Grid Projects (Giordano et al., 2012) and Smart Cities – Ranking of European Medium-Sized Cities (Giffinger et al., 2007), a publication from a project based on the assets – functionalities – benefits approach. An extent of the research examines how the “enabling technologies” are transferred into practical functionalities (i.e., services) which in turn find practical realization in benefits evaluated via qualitative and quantitative performance indicators.
Ahvenniemi et al. (2017) referred to this as the “smartability” concept in their broad analysis on how basic sustainability domains (i.e., environment, social, economic, and energetic) interlace. They looked at 16 sets of city assessment frameworks (i.e., eight smart city and eight urban sustainability assessment frameworks) covering 958 indicators and found a large number of indicators measuring environmental sustainability while smart city frameworks lacked environmental indicators. A strong focus was put on modern technologies and “smartness” in smart city frameworks compared to urban sustainability frameworks.
The state of the art of the concepts of sustainability and city smartness also include wider studies completed by Bibri and Krogstie (2017) and Lim et al. (2020, 2021). The former conducted a wide analysis examining the terms “smart sustainable cities” versus “sustainable smart cities” and found that the first category scored higher results, i.e., 403 to 321. Lim et al.’s (2020) first approach examined a “human driven method” and aimed to address the environmental and social aspects of the smart city. The second, i.e., a technology-driven study, targeted ICT and data challenges in building sustainable agglomerations (Lim et al., 2021).
In reference to these developments, it was found that ISO 37120:2014 is an index for measuring urban sustainability, i.e., utilizing indicators at the local level, that lacks standardization, consistency, or comparability over time or across different cities. To better focalize the index, indicators for city services and quality of life have been inserted as a contribution to the sustainability of a city – constituting part of the series of international standards – to uphold a holistic and integrated approach for the development of smart and resilient cities (ISO, 2022). The index itself is heavily discussed in the literature with both supporters and critics alike. Berman and Orttung (2020), for example, examined the index’s content using Arctic cities and proposed some potential modifications of the standard that might improve its performance. They showed only half of ISO 37120:2014’s 128 indicators actually measure future-oriented concerns – noting the importance of characteristic features of Arctic cities that produce unique sustainability challenges otherwise not appraised.
The terminology of smartability has been adopted by some European (i.e., CEN-CENELEC, 2015) and ETSI, 2015) and international (i.e., ITU, 2016) standardization bodies and plays an important role in piecing together the most recent developments of the two title concepts in the real world. Today,
3 General Concepts and Indicators Used in Interlinking Sustainability and Smart Cities
3.1 Premises
Smartness of cities can be identified by the broad understanding of the quality of life of everyday citizens – i.e., how they feel psychologically, mentally, and physically as inhabitants of a given urban area – constituting a geographical, structurally defined, and administratively controlled residential environment. Sustainability, in turn, literally means the ability of something to maintain or “sustain” itself over time. This, however, is contemporarily defined as the need for economic and civilizational development in terms of the natural resources people have been “equipped” with as well as their ability to secure those resources for future generations. It can, ultimately, be conceived as a synonym of the widely understood term of well-being or “good” existence lived in concordance with nature, society, and to the satisfaction of broadly seen human needs in environmental, social, and economic perspectives (Elkington, 2018).
However, as both concepts are related to socioeconomic categories, defined quantitatively and qualitatively, and presented in various sources to understand how actually “sustainability” and “smart cities” are intertwined, the details of measuring them is explored. It is indispensable to investigate their relationship in both conceptual and practical terms, i.e., how they are denoted and reflected by indicators and data. Progress in measuring reflects, among many benefits, the real practical engagement of international and global bodies in realizing their functionality and best practices.
To examine a stricter conceptual axis of the interrelation between sustainability and smart cities, it is necessary to assess the current state of global goods. Moreover, to identify this, a direct reference to Agenda 2030, as an indisputable pillar of the global sustainability strategy, should be acknowledged. Established by the UN General Assembly in 2015, the SDG s and specifically SDG 11 (“Sustainable cities and communities”) interconnect with Agenda 2030. It is divided into five areas of critical importance for humanity and the planet (i.e., the so-called 5Ps) via 17 SDG s and their related 169 targets.
To date, UN member states commit themselves to working towards the main targets such as the eradication of poverty and hunger, fulfillment of human individual potential in terms of dignity and equality, and living in a healthy
Hence, looking for the commonalities between two concepts is an obligatory start to see how city smartness can play an important role for urban inhabitants and their well-being. SDG 11’s official mission is to “make cities inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable” (UN, 2015a). The idea of building intelligent cities is to provide primarily high-quality conditions for living by linking the two concepts and, ultimately, satisfying urban space by providing a “good life” for its inhabitants. This, in turn, comes down to the factors that can assure mental and physical health in which organizational, infrastructural, and technical (i.e., in conjunction with modern technologies) favor city development (Russo & Cirella, 2020). In sum, this fully responds to sustainability’s ultimate goal – the well-being of human beings.
Such an approach also complies with the primary vision of the smart city model as represented by Lazaroiu and Roscia (2012, p. 327), i.e., a community “of average technology size, interconnected and sustainable, comfortable, attractive, and secure.” As Girardi and Temporelli (2017, p. 810) stressed, the smart city paradigm “aims to improve citizens’ quality of life in a scenario where the percentage of people living in urban areas is getting higher and higher.”
The issue of creating good space for living is underlined by Addanki and Venkataraman (2017) who addressed the issue of developing new sustainable, accessible, and well-connected cities of future. The approach stressing the role of smart cities in creating widely understood, sound urban space complies with the definition presented by Anand et al. (2017, p. 211). They recognized the “efficient city center providing high quality of life by optimally using its resources.” Calvillo et al. (2016, p. 273) described the smart city as “a sustainable and efficient urban center that provides a high quality of life to its inhabitants through optimal management of its resources.”
Ahvenniemi et al. (2017) underlined that the general goal of smart cities is to improve sustainability with help of technologies. Moreover, it corresponds to the way a smart sustainable city is understood by many international bodies. For example, the International Telecommunication Union defines it as “an innovative city that uses ICT s and other means to improve quality of life, efficiency of urban operation and services, and competitiveness, while ensuring that it meets the needs of present and future generations with respect to economic, social, environmental as well as cultural aspects” (ITU, 2016).
It should be mentioned that smart cities are conditioned by the development of digitalization, ICT s, and eco-friendly transport; the concept – as a whole – is still relatively new. Considering this, the conditions or factors responsible for satisfying community mental and physical health are directly a result of the organizational, spatial, and structural aspects of city smartness. Table 16.1
Mental and physical health factors that affect organizational, spatial, and structural aspects of sustainability and city smartness
| City inhabitants | Factor | Definition |
|---|---|---|
| Mental health |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Physical health |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SOURCE: OWN ELABORATION
A practical examination of the commonalities between the two concepts, viewed through concrete indicators and data collected by various international organizations, pinpoints unique combinations inhabitants of a city may find essential to live adequately. The detailed analysis of the indicators reflecting the two concepts is based on the following sources: (1) the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations (DESA) indicators of sustainable development (i.e., the precursor indicators of the SDG s) and Eurostat sustainable development indicators to represent sustainability and (2) SCI, CIMI, CFI, and CITYkeys to evaluate city smartness. From an overarching standpoint, steps to improve mental and physical health should also be taken into account by way of city planning and the modernization of management, infrastructure, and digital solution processes. Based on the collated data a “general typology” is formulated to summarize the indicators used by categorizing them within defined common areas.
3.2 Sustainability Indicators
Sustainability is recognized and implicit to represent the three pillars of sustainability – i.e., environmental, social, economic principles. To observe and record the effects of implementing these principles a wide variety of metrics, indicators, and indices as well as different benchmarks, audits, sustainability standards, reporting, and certification systems have been tried and tested, and continue to the developed and improved. Some of the more comprehensive and complicated aspects of these measures is that they are applied over a wide range of spatial and temporal scales (Alawadhi et al., 2012; Anand et al., 2017) and are usually treated in various combinations since environmental, social, and economic facets interrelate.
Furthermore, they are also addressed in different disciplines and fields of work, e.g., environmental, social, and governance reporting and triple bottom line (TBL) accounting focus on enterprises and the corporate business sector, while the World Sustainability Society environmental sustainability index and environmental performance index refer to the governance of individual countries. As an alternative approach, the UN Global Compact Cities Programme explicitly utilizes the Circles of Sustainability method to assess sustainability and manage projects connected with socially sustainable outcomes.
In terms of global metrics and how they fit into the bigger picture of sustainability, example metrics of the three pillars exhibit the multidimensional nature of what is functional (or dysfunctional) in society and how a system is
Hence, in order to organize the disorder in selecting the metrics, specific organizations have grouped them into different categories and defined methodologies to implement specific measures. Several modeling techniques and indices compare and convert the scientific measures into easy-to-understand terms. In this case, the SDG s will be interrelated with the System of Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting to formulate the primary source data in measuring the Agenda 2030 plan. Secondary sources will collate the Eurostat sustainable development indicators, i.e., a database structured along the SDG s, in which each particular goal is given a set of indicators, making the database both exhaustive, overall, and detailed. Over the past two decades, sustainability indicators have substantially evolved and show promise in better establishing sustainable development processes. The growing number of sustainability indicators is an evolving process that correlates with human – nature relations (i.e., at the ethos level), scientific discovery, and technological advancement to measure them.
3.3 City Smartness Indicators
In terms of urban environments, the idea of creating smart cities corresponds with the growing changes to sustainability indicators and shows promise for developing indicators in line with people’s values as well as exposure level to understanding what is being measured. In this case, an overview of the four indices used to examine city smartness takes into account a wide perspective structured on mental and physical health of city inhabitants in Poland. First, SCI is presented as an index that collects data and information based on five indicators, i.e., from a list of 15, perceived as the most urgent. To perform this, information on the indexed cities is categorized according to UN Human Development Index and its three components: education. life expectancy, and per capita income. The methodology is formulated into two questionnaire pillars for which perceptions from residents are solicited: the “Structures” pillar, referring to the existing infrastructure of the city, and the “Technology” pillar, which describes the technological provisions and services available to the inhabitants. Then, priority areas (i.e., health and safety, mobility, activities,
Second, CIMI examines 101 indicators for 174 cities, across 80 countries, of which 79 are capital cities. The index aggregates nine key dimensions: human capital, social cohesion, economy, governance, environment, mobility and transportation, urban planning, international projection, and technology. Each field is represented by a set of indicators which is cross-referenced with another source (e.g., UNESCO, World Happiness Index, Euromonitor, OpenStreetMap, Numbeo, Walk Free Foundation, Nomad List, etc.) and linked strategically to create a novel economic and social perspective of each city’s entrepreneurial spirit, innovation, and social cohesion (IESE, 2020).
Third, EasyPark CFI integrates ICT to evaluate the level of technological advancement of cities using four categories: digital life, mobility innovation, business tech infrastructure, and environmental footprint. This index aims to find the most intelligent and future-proof cities in the world to unveil which cities are “best adopting new technological solutions to improve their sustainability and livability” (EasyPark, 2022). The index ranks the top 50 smart and future-proof cities worldwide in each category and cross-references its data from leading sources, such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.
Fourth, the CITYkeys project ranks European cities using six characteristics: smart economy (i.e., economic competitiveness as innovation, entrepreneurship, trademarks, productivity, and flexibility of the labor market), smart people (i.e., education, social interactions, and openness towards the “outer” world), smart governance (i.e., political participation, services, and local and international accessibility), smart mobility (i.e., availability of ICT and transport), smart environment (i.e., natural conditions, pollution, resource management, and environmental protection), and smart living (i.e., quality of life, culture, health, safety, housing, and tourism).
It is worth mentioning that the four indices utilize different measuring techniques to formulate their overall score. Nonetheless, in doing so, they all hold strong to the premise that city smartness can be improved and through accurate and controlled measure make things better for urban development and city life.
3.4 Building a General Typology of the Two Title Concepts
As a result of the investigated databases and indices used to assess commonality between sustainability and smart cities, Table 16.2 interlaces mental and physical health conditions as a requisite to defining a general typology of the two concepts. A typological breakdown is illustrated by intertwining “through the lens” of human mental and physical health (i.e., understood as the ultimate
General typology of sustainability and city smartness
| Dimension | Concept | Index | Indicator |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ecological safeguard | Sustainability | DESA |
|
| Eurostat |
|
||
| Smart cities | SCI |
|
|
| CIMI |
|
||
| CFI |
|
||
| CITYkeys |
|
||
| Quality of housing and living | Sustainability | Eurostat |
|
| Smart cities | SCI |
|
|
| CIMI |
|
||
| Transport and accessibility | Sustainability | DESA |
|
| Eurostat |
|
||
| Smart cities | SCI |
|
|
| CIMI |
|
||
| CFI |
|
||
| Safety | Sustainability | Eurostat |
|
| Smart cities | CIMI |
|
|
| Technological advancement | Sustainability | DESA |
|
| Eurostat |
|
||
| Smart cities | SCI |
|
|
| CIMI |
|
||
| CFI |
|
||
| CITYkeys |
|
||
| Social environment | Sustainability | Eurostat |
|
| Economic development | Sustainability | DESA |
|
| Eurostat |
|
||
| Smart cities | SCI |
|
|
| CIMI |
|
||
| CFI |
|
Abbreviations for sources: BCE = Butterfly Conservation Europe; CMEMS = Copernicus Marine Environment Monitoring Service; DG CLIMA = Directorate-General for Climate Action; DG CNECT = Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology; DG COMM = Directorate-General for Communication; DG ENV = Directorate-General for the Environment; DG MOVE = Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport; DG SANTE = Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety; EBCC = European Bird Census Council; EEA = European Environment Agency; EIGE = European Institute for Gender Equality; EIONET = European Environment Information and Observation Network; JRC = Joint Research Centre; OECD = Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; STECF = Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries
SOURCE: OWN ELABORATION
The broader categories of the topology are defined in seven dimensions: ecological safeguard, quality of housing and living, transport and accessibility, safety, technological advancement, social environment, and economic development. Specifically, within each dimension, the two concepts have divided the indices accordingly, i.e., sustainability (DESA and Eurostat) and smart cities (SCI, CIMI, CFI, and CITYkeys). The exact metrics of each indicator is not presented in full due to the length and explanation each individual indicator uses to calculate its measure.
The analysis can lead to further studies that may identify what the most commonly used smart city indices lack in view of sustainability, e.g., which indicators are least or not considered, so as to make the measures better focused and sustainability oriented. This, however, is outside the scope of this chapter and should be considered in the future. As such, this framing can be applied in other research aimed at analyzing the activities or projects implemented in settlements in other countries. For sake of space ands focus, Section 3 deals with a case research in Poland identifying projects and best match examples of interlinking sustainability and city smartness in Polish cities.
4.1 Progress, Financial Opportunities, and European Union Support
As an interlinking example of sustainability and city smartness, the EU has been at the forefront of this effort to develop responsibly in a forward-thinking manner. The implementation of the sustainability and smart city agenda specifically in Poland has been picking up nationally as well as from a top-down EU perspective.
Recently, Polish cities have made enormous progress in their use of ICT in several dimensions, including urban social, public, and economic life. It is fair to say that almost everything in the country has become digitalized. To achieve these high standards and performance Polish settlements and cities have strived to be “smart” by implementing a variety of solutions in line with the indicators presented in Table 16.2.
Moreover, since Poland has only been a market-oriented economy for about 25 years (i.e., dating back to the collapse of communism in 1989 and then being transformed from a centrally planned to market-oriented economy in the early 1990s), most changes took place only after it joined the EU in 2004 and started receiving enlargement support. EU funds kick-started the country by offering trade concessions, economic and financial assistance, and assistance for reconstruction, development, and stabilization. Polish municipalities significantly made a giant leap forward in terms of their development. It meant that settlements and cities inadvertently transitioned into “the smart city era” with novel public systems, administration, governance, etc. In short, key steps to Polish settlement and city smartness truly started with the introduction of EU-funded projects.
Projects related to city smartness have become popular throughout Poland. They are financed from a variety of public resources with substantial support from EU funds. In the period 2014–2020, mention can be made to the Technical Assistance OP, OP Infrastructure and Environment, and OP Intelligent Development.
Poland as the largest beneficiary of EU funds in terms of all its member states was allocated €67.3 billion in 2007–2013 and €105.8 billion in 2014–2020. According to the Ministry of Funds and Regional Policy, from 2004 Poland has effectively used €154.44 billion of the allocated funds to realize more than 273,000 projects (i.e., with public subsides totaling approximately €265.2 billion). Out of these projects, Polish cities realized 17,427 of them in which 722 initiatives were categorized as a part of the smart city agenda.
It is important to underline that the projects associated with smart cities “belong” in fact to different scopes and priorities and are “categorized” under
In addition, the Ministry of Investment and Development in 2017 announced the program-based competition called “Human Smart Cities” in which smart cities co-created by residents account for €18 billion that are aimed at making cities friendly via intelligence-based solutions. In this case, residents are co-responsible for their city’s urban space and take an active participation in its management and co-decide on how it should be developed.
Human Smart Cities are financed from the Technical Assistance OP 2014–2020 and have benefited 25 projects Poland-wide (i.e., they are divided into three categories of cities: two large cities, 15 medium cities, and eight small cities). At present, the process of their implementation has been prolonged due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The idea of most Polish settlements and cities progressing (i.e., transforming) sustainably in a smart city manner is shared by many researchers and scholars. According to Sikora-Fernandez (2018, p. 57), “the development of advanced technologies, as well as increasing expenditures on research and development in Poland are an important contributor to the pursuit of making cities smarter.” Janecki and Karoń (2014, p. 100) stressed that in Poland “the intelligent city is characterized by investments in social capital, transport, communication infrastructure, fuel and sustainable economic development, and quality of life. A key determinant of these characteristics is cost-effective use of natural limited resources.”
Furthermore, it cannot be understated that in Poland the rudimentary definition for city smartness, the sustainability of a city’s economy, and its areas of operation are based on social participation and focused on high-quality two-way communication between city authorities and its inhabitants
4.2 Positive Sustainability and Smart City Development in Poland
In terms of sustainability-based initiatives and projects in Poland, extensive use of digital solutions both in larger cities and smaller settlements have been advancing all over the country. These projects are developed mostly in the areas of transport combined with ecology and energy efficiency (e.g., environmentally friendly public transportation), intelligent municipal grids, tourism, public administration, and urbanization initiatives. In terms of transport design, several fundamental improvements, funded by the EU, have paralleled Poland’s extremely fast development, which has increasingly demanded better transport accessibility. For instance, in 2018 Poland had 1.6 million new passenger cars – an increase of 6.7% from the year precedent. In comparison, a decade earlier, in 2008 the increase was 50% less, i.e., 3.3%. This type of change has complemented its expanded highway network and urban reconstruction of settlements and cities towards a fast-tracked smart way of thinking.
In the era of sustainable development in Europe (i.e., versus pre-implemented sustainability-based principles), Poland’s timely entry into the EU and its cohesion as a nation to develop and follow EU guidelines allowed it to modernize and advance smartly and efficiently as one of the fastest growing pre-COVID pandemic member states (European Commission, 2019; Eurostat, 2020). Several other positive changes Polish cities have experienced include the replacement of diesel-fueled motor vehicles with electric ones. This has helped in bettering urban air quality devices that operate via the Internet of Things and advanced public communication directives.
Additional change has sparked the modernization of tram lines and additional bus and trolleybus lines, i.e., in some cities, by integrating them into one supratransportation network. Moreover, the network can include bicycling (e.g., bike lanes) and pedestrian systems (e.g., pedestrian paths) to help facilitate smarter and more sustainable city designs. In effect, EU funds have supplemented domestic governmental resources to reduce (and eliminate) obsolete, old-fashion, and unecological rolling stock to be replaced with comfortable, clean, and eco-friendly transportation vehicles using advanced technological steering systems.
An important aspect of the “smartness” of Polish settlements is their “eco-friendliness,” i.e., environmental protection and energy efficiency to reduce energy consumption and emission levels. Among the energy-smart systems, in conjunction with eco-transport, there has been several changes to the street light systems in Poland by adopting energy-efficient technologies such as the 1 watt system (e.g., Sitraffic One introduced by Siemens) used for traffic lights, controllers, pedestrian buttons, and acoustic devices. Many cities, e.g., Wroclaw, replaced their municipal light bulbs with LED s. Such tools bring not only less air pollution but also financial savings for the municipalities.
Moreover, Polish metropoles started to implement and run “smart grid” solutions. Smart electric grids are elements that are intelligently connected to enhance the overall functionality of the power delivery system, ensure reliability, optimize energy usage, and minimize environmental impact (Gontar, 2018). Other programs involve installing renewable energy facilities on public buildings, implementing intelligent building solutions, and supporting local energy utilities in new energy demand programs (e.g., the deployment of advanced metering solutions) (Gontar, 2018). Correspondingly, in Wroclaw, a modern water supply network system, called SmartFlow, was implemented in 2014, to save water. In its first year of operation, the city conserved about 500 million liters of water and reduced losses in the water supply network by 9% (SmartFlow, 2021).
In the field of municipal waste management numerous Polish cities have introduced eco-friendly ICT solutions, e.g., Warsaw, Cracow, Wroclaw, and Tychy. Throughout the country, a disposal system that utilizes a free app on a smartphone can inform the date of removal of waste from individual districts as well as rebound bulky waste and waste segregation. Such apps also contain links to environmental organizations and information about ecological events (Kola-Bezka et al., 2016). Wroclaw participates in the Smart Waste Management project, which aims, among other things, to optimize waste collection and reduce the related exhaust emissions.
On another front, tourism throughout Polish cities has integrated several smart-oriented projects in which most link ICT solutions (i.e., mobile solutions) such as QR codes, mobile timetables, city guides, virtual museums, and public hotspots with a growing e-tourism market. Similarly, most Polish
Progress in ICT advancement has specialized the digitalization and computerization of public administration to the point where most communities today use easily available systems that operate via two-way communication with public offices. Computerization of social activities enables public institutions to operate dedicated systems and municipal apps for different devices. Most Polish cities offer apps for online payments for public transport and parking fees. Examples of projects in this area include e-bike rentals and public transport apps that allow for the payment of e-tickets by using one’s smartphone.
Considering the institutional procedures and services of various public administration offices throughout Poland, user services made by schools and universities, municipal sport facilities, the health-care system, social pensions and benefits, the court system, libraries, and transport and communication the trend for digitalization and use of modern ICT solutions has substantially accelerated. In all, the use of mobile apps, in conjunction with relatively cheap access to the internet in Poland, has allowed its citizenry to positively integrate and modernize an EU-centric transition.
The majority of Polish settlements and cities have successfully implemented “participation budgeting” (i.e., the practical realization of the Smart City 3.0 concept), in which any inhabitant can create his/her own proposal for investments and projects in his/her city and apply for its financing from public sources. The inhabitants themselves vote online for the chosen projects and decide on the most desired ones. In this way, local communities have a tangible opportunity to be included in the decision-making process, in managing their life space, and in actively participating in city governance and strategic planning.
In terms of smart projects, settlements, and cities in Poland, the last decade has bolstered a strong focus on sound sustainability and forward-moving smart city design to enrich the standard of living – inclusive of mental and physical health – and to facilitate public good provision with the support of international and supranational bodies. The long list of urban projects implemented, and ongoing, link the two researched concepts of sustainability and city smartness and show positive signs for current and future generations in Poland.
5 Conclusions
Referencing the case research from Polish cities, smart city projects that are co-financed with EU funds is an example of how the proposed typological
It should be mentioned that in this case priority for investments in transport, especially rolling stock, was indispensable and observable with Poland’s accession in joining the EU in 2004. Other investments of high importance include accessibility and diminishing traffic congestion – both necessary for the ecological safeguarding of cities. Key development in this field revolves around intelligent transport systems implementation, which can also include eco-vehicles like city bikes and bike paths, electric scooter rentals, and hybrid and electric car-sharing systems. To date, several infrastructure projects combining city smartness with sustainability (such as intelligent municipal grids, new sewage treatment plants, installing renewable energy facilities on public buildings, and intelligent building solutions) elucidate the importance of combining the “ecological safeguard” and “quality of housing and living” dimensions to facilitate and improve inhabitant health and well-being.
In sum, the conclusions have identified the most important EU co-financed projects in Polish cities. However, a long, exhaustive list of smaller and less significant projects and programs have all contributed to developing a link between sustainability and city smartness since Poland became an EU member state in 2004.
As a result, the typological framework elaborated in this chapter, together with the discussed case research, create a base for further detailed studies concerning all actions and initiatives to make cities more smart, intelligent, and sustainable. It is recommended that future research continues to evaluate organization oversight by collecting data on projects that can detail and systematically categorize interconnectedness between the two analyzed concepts. This should include project information, e.g., cost of the project, organization contribution, and impact on well-being.
Although the analysis presented in this chapter only touches on the field, it does bring into light important additional deductions to how one might perceive future research implementation. Namely, international organizations have to play a vital role – and in some cases they are absolutely key actors – in helping countries become more resilient, sustainable, and responsible when
Notes: Research presented in this chapter constitutes a part of the implementation of the project “Smart Cities: Modelling, Indexing and Querying Smart City Competitiveness,” funded by the National Science Centre (NCN) in Poland, OPUS 20, Grant no. DEC-2020/39/B/HS4/00579.
References
Addanki, S. C., & Venkataraman, H. (2017). Greening the economy: A review of urban sustainability measures for developing new cities. Sustainable Cities and Society, 32, 1–8. http://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCS.2017.03.009
Ahvenniemi, H., Huovila, A., Pinto-Seppä, I., & Airaksinen, M. (2017). What are the differences between sustainable and smart cities? Cities, 60, 234–245.
Alawadhi, S., et al. (2012). Building Understanding of Smart City Initiatives. In: H. J. Scholl et al. (Eds.), Electronic Government. EGOV 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 7443. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33489-4_4
Al-Hader, M. A. (2009). The smart city infrastructure development & monitoring. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, 4(2), 87–94.
Al Nuaimi, E., Al Neyadi, H., Mohamed, N., & Al-Jaroodi, J. (2015). Applications of big data to smart cities. Journal of Internet Services and Applications, 6(1), 1–15. http://doi.org/10.1186/S13174-015-0041-5/FIGURES/3
Anand, A., Dsilva Winfred Rufuss, D., Rajkumar, V., & Suganthi, L. (2017). Evaluation of sustainability indicators in smart cities for India using MCDM approach. Energy Procedia, 141, 211–215. http://doi.org/10.1016/J.EGYPRO.2017.11.094
Barresi, A., & Pultrone, G. (2013). European strategies for smarter cities. TeMA – Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment, 6(1), 61–72. http://doi.org/10.6092/1970-9870/1455
Berman, M., & Orttung, R. W. (2020). Measuring progress toward urban sustainability: Do global measures work for arctic cities? Sustainability, 12(9). http://doi.org/10.3390/SU12093708
Bibri, S. E., & Krogstie, J. (2017). Smart sustainable cities of the future: An extensive interdisciplinary literature review. Sustainable Cities and Society, 31, 183–212. http://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCS.2017.02.016
Bifulco, F., Tregua, M., Amitrano, C. C., & D’Auria, A. (2016). ICT and sustainability in smart cities management. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 29(2), 132–147. http://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-07-2015-0132/FULL/PDF
Calvillo, C. F., Sánchez-Miralles, A., & Villar, J. (2016). Energy management and planning in smart cities. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 55, 273–287. http://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2015.10.133
CEN-CENELEC. (2015). CEN-CENELEC. Retrieved June 15, 2022. https://www.cencenelec.eu/
Cowley, R., & Caprotti, F. (2019). Smart city as anti-planning in the UK. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 37(3), 428–448. http://doi.org/10.1177/0263775818787506
De Jong, M., Joss, S., Schraven, D., Zhan, C., & Weijnen, M. (2015). Sustainable-smart-resilient-low carbon-eco-knowledge cities: Making sense of a multitude of concepts promoting sustainable urbanization. Journal of Cleaner Production, 109, 25–38. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.02.004
EasyPark. (2022). EasyPark Cities of the Future Index. Retrieved June 16, 2022. https://easyparkgroup.com/studies/cities-of-the-future/en/
Elkington, J. (2018, June 25). 25 years ago I coined the phrase “triple bottom line.” Here’s why it’s time to rethink it. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2018/06/25-years-ago-i-coined-the-phrase-triple-bottom-line-heres-why-im-giving-up-on-it
ETSI. (2015). ETSI – World of Standards. Retrieved June 15, 2022. https://www.etsi.org/
European Commission. (2019). European economic forecast: Summer 2019. European Commission, Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs.
Eurostat. (2020). Which EU countries had the highest GDP in 2019? Retrieved June 17, 2022. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-20200508-1
Gabrys, J. (2014). Programming environments: Environmentality and citizen sensing in the smart city. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 32(1), 30–48. http://doi.org/10.1068/D16812
Giffinger, R., Fertner, C., Kramar, H., Kalasek, R., Pichler-Milanović, N., & Meijers, E. (2007). Smart cities – Ranking of European medium-sized cities. Centre of Regional Science, Vienna UT.
Giordano, V., Onyeji, I., Fulli, G., Jimenez, M. S., & Filiou, C. (2012). Guidelines for conducting a cost-benefit analysis of smart grid projects. Publications Office of the EU. https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/5aba88eb-88b8-4716-99a6-0fea164f9308/language-en
Girardi, P., & Temporelli, A. (2017). Smartainability: A methodology for assessing the sustainability of the smart city. Energy Procedia, 111, 810–816. http://doi.org/10.1016/J.EGYPRO.2017.03.243
Gontar, Z. H. (2018). Smart grid analytics for sustainability and urbanization. SGH Warsaw School of Economics.
Haarstad, H., & Wathne, M. W. (2019). Are smart city projects catalyzing urban energy sustainability? Energy Policy, 129(February), 918–925.
Huovila, A., Bosch, P., & Airaksinen, M. (2019). Comparative analysis of standardized indicators for smart sustainable cities: What indicators and standards to use and when? Cities, 89, 141–153. http://doi.org/10.1016/J.CITIES.2019.01.029
IESE. (2020). IESE Cities in Motion Index 2020. Retrieved June 16, 2022. https://blog.iese.edu/cities-challenges-and-management/2020/10/27/iese-cities-in-motion-index-2020/
IMD. (2021). Smart City Observatory: Smart City Index 2021. Retrieved June 16, 2022. https://www.imd.org/smart-city-observatory/home/
ISO. (2022). ISO 37120:2014 – Sustainable development of communities – Indicators for city services and quality of life. Retrieved June 15, 2022. https://www.iso.org/standard/62436.html
ITU. (2016). ITU-T recommendation database ITU-T Y.4900/L.1600 (06/2016). Retrieved June 15, 2022. https://www.itu.int/itu-t/recommendations/rec.aspx?rec=12627
Janecki, R., & Karoń, G. (2014). Concept of smart cities and economic model of electric buses implementation. In TST 2014: Telematics – Support for Transport, 471, 100–109. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45317-9_11/COVER/
Kitchin, R. (2014). The real-time city? Big data and smart urbanism. GeoJournal, 79(1), 1–14. http://doi.org/10.1007/S10708-013-9516-8
Kola-Bezka, M., Czupich, M., & Ignasiak-Szulc, A. (2016). Smart cities in central and Eastern Europe: Viable future or unfulfilled dream? Journal of International Studies, 9(1), 76–87. http://doi.org/10.14254/2071-8330.2016/9-1/6
Kramers, A., Höjer, M., Lövehagen, N., & Wangel, J. (2014). Smart sustainable cities – Exploring ICT solutions for reduced energy use in cities. Environmental Modelling & Software, 56, 52–62. http://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENVSOFT.2013.12.019
Lazaroiu, G. C., & Roscia, M. (2012). Definition methodology for the smart cities model. Energy, 47(1), 326–332. http://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2012.09.028
Lee, J. H., Hancock, M. G., & Hu, M. C. (2014). Towards an effective framework for building smart cities: Lessons from Seoul and San Francisco. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 89, 80–99. http://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHFORE.2013.08.033
Lim, S. B., Abdul Malek, J., Hussain, M. Y., & Tahir, Z. (2020). Understanding the trends and characteristics of smart urbanism across continents. Smart Cities and Regional Development Journal, 4(1), 23–35. https://ideas.repec.org/a/pop/journl/v4y2020i1p23-35.html
Lim, S. B., Abdul Malek, J., Hussain, M. Y., & Tahir, Z. (2021). Malaysia Smart City Framework: A trusted framework for shaping smart Malaysian citizenship? In J. C. Augusto (Ed.), Handbook of smart cities (pp. 515–538). Springer. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69698-6_34
Martin, C. J., Evans, J., & Karvonen, A. (2018). Smart and sustainable? Five tensions in the visions and practices of the smart-sustainable city in Europe and North America. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 133, 269–278. http://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHFORE.2018.01.005
Russo, A., & Cirella, G. T. (2020). Urban sustainability: Integrating ecology in city design and planning. In G. T. Cirella (Ed.), Sustainable human – nature relations: Environmental scholarship, economic evaluation, urban strategies (pp. 187–204). Springer Singapore. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-3049-4_10
Sikora-Fernandez, D. (2018). Smarter cities in post-socialist country: Example of Poland. Cities, 78, 52–59. http://doi.org/10.1016/J.CITIES.2018.03.011
SmartFlow. (2021). SmartFlow: Water losses monitor. Retrieved June 17, 2022. https://www.smart-flow.eu/en
Stawasz, D., & Sikora-Fernandez, D. (2016). Koncepcja smart city na tle procesów i uwarunkowań rozwoju współczesnych miast. Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego.
Trindade, E. P., Hinnig, M. P. F., Da Costa, E. M., Marques, J. S., Bastos, R. C., & Yigitcanlar, T. (2017). Sustainable development of smart cities: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 3(3), 1–14. http://doi.org/10.1186/S40852-017-0063-2/FIGURES/2
UN. (1976). United Nations Conference on Human Settlements: Habitat I. Retrieved June 14, 2022. https://www.un.org/en/conferences/habitat/vancouver1976
UN. (2015a). SDG 11: Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Retrieved July 14, 2021. https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal11
UN. (2015b). United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Retrieved May 3, 2019. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E
Vilajosana, I., Llosa, J., Martinez, B., Domingo-Prieto, M., Angles, A., & Vilajosana, X. (2013). Bootstrapping smart cities through a self-sustainable model based on big data flows. IEEE Communications Magazine, 51(6), 128–134. http://doi.org/10.1109/mcom.2013.6525605
Yigitcanlar, T., & Kamruzzaman, M. (2018). Does smart city policy lead to sustainability of cities? Land Use Policy, 73, 49–58. http://doi.org/10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2018.01.034