{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021206096752816435, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0033134526176275677, 'mean_word_length': 4.94488188976378, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Conceptualising smart cities

The central premise of Soe et al’s paper, ‘Institutionalising Smart City Research and Innovation’, is that the notion of a smart city remains unclear, with several definitions existing within the literature, and that one way to determine the parameters of smart cities is to examine the foci and approach of research groups globally who study and contribute to the smart city agenda. However, in charting the work of 50 or so institutes and centres, the authors conclude that there is ‘a mismatch between conceptualisation of smart city and actual smart city research’ (p. 128). In other words, the framing of smart cities within the literature does not align with how centres and institutes approach and contribute to smart cities. Having reached such a conclusion, the solution to this mismatch is not clear. Presumably, the definition of smart cities needs to change to match that held by research centres and institutes, or they need to alter their focus to align more closely with the predominant delineation of smart cities. Regardless, examining how research centres and institutes frame and approach smart cities does not appear to be a good means of defining them. The key questions then, which are not examined or answered in the paper, is why does this mismatch exist, and what would be a better way of determining what constitutes a smart city? The latter assumes that the conceptualisation requires a non-fuzzy definition, which is also a question worth considering.