Francisco J. Gallardo-Amores, Cristina Del-Real, Antonio M. Díaz-Fernández
{"title":"评估城市安全和安全智慧:关键绩效指标的系统审查","authors":"Francisco J. Gallardo-Amores, Cristina Del-Real, Antonio M. Díaz-Fernández","doi":"10.1049/smc2.70000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <p>The smart city framework has become a key approach to addressing urbanisation challenges over the last 2 decades. While KPIs have been developed for various smart city dimensions, security and safety remain underexplored. This paper addresses this gap through a systematic review of KPIs. The study examines how urban security and safety smartness is assessed, focusing on three questions: (RQ1) What indicators measure urban security and safety smartness? (RQ2) In which smart city dimensions are these KPIs located? (RQ3) How are these KPIs defined and quantified? Using PRISMA guidelines, databases including Web of Science, Scopus, and IEEE Xplore were searched, yielding 2369 sources. After screening, 38 studies were analysed. A total of 182 unique KPIs were identified and categorised into crime prevention and control (53), perceptions of safety (11), emergency and disaster management (50), and cybersecurity (68). Most KPIs focus on city outcomes, with fewer addressing smart technology functionalities. Definitions and measurement approaches lack consensus. This review identifies gaps in defining and measuring smart urban security and safety. Standardising KPIs and incorporating technology-specific metrics are key directions for future research.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":34740,"journal":{"name":"IET Smart Cities","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1049/smc2.70000","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing urban security and safety smartness: A systematic review of key performance indicators\",\"authors\":\"Francisco J. Gallardo-Amores, Cristina Del-Real, Antonio M. Díaz-Fernández\",\"doi\":\"10.1049/smc2.70000\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <p>The smart city framework has become a key approach to addressing urbanisation challenges over the last 2 decades. While KPIs have been developed for various smart city dimensions, security and safety remain underexplored. This paper addresses this gap through a systematic review of KPIs. The study examines how urban security and safety smartness is assessed, focusing on three questions: (RQ1) What indicators measure urban security and safety smartness? (RQ2) In which smart city dimensions are these KPIs located? (RQ3) How are these KPIs defined and quantified? Using PRISMA guidelines, databases including Web of Science, Scopus, and IEEE Xplore were searched, yielding 2369 sources. After screening, 38 studies were analysed. A total of 182 unique KPIs were identified and categorised into crime prevention and control (53), perceptions of safety (11), emergency and disaster management (50), and cybersecurity (68). Most KPIs focus on city outcomes, with fewer addressing smart technology functionalities. Definitions and measurement approaches lack consensus. This review identifies gaps in defining and measuring smart urban security and safety. Standardising KPIs and incorporating technology-specific metrics are key directions for future research.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":34740,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"IET Smart Cities\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1049/smc2.70000\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"IET Smart Cities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/smc2.70000\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IET Smart Cities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/smc2.70000","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在过去20年里,智慧城市框架已成为应对城市化挑战的关键途径。虽然已经为智慧城市的各个维度开发了kpi,但安全性仍未得到充分探索。本文通过对kpi的系统回顾来解决这一差距。该研究考察了如何评估城市安全和安全智慧,重点关注三个问题:(RQ1)哪些指标衡量城市安全和安全智慧?(RQ2)这些关键绩效指标位于智慧城市的哪些维度?(RQ3)这些kpi是如何定义和量化的?使用PRISMA指南,检索了Web of Science、Scopus和IEEE explore等数据库,得到2369个来源。筛选后,对38项研究进行分析。总共确定了182个独特的关键绩效指标,并将其分为预防和控制犯罪(53个)、安全感知(11个)、应急和灾害管理(50个)以及网络安全(68个)。大多数kpi关注的是城市成果,较少关注智能技术功能。定义和度量方法缺乏共识。本综述指出了在定义和衡量智慧城市安全和安全方面存在的差距。标准化kpi和结合特定于技术的度量是未来研究的关键方向。
Assessing urban security and safety smartness: A systematic review of key performance indicators
The smart city framework has become a key approach to addressing urbanisation challenges over the last 2 decades. While KPIs have been developed for various smart city dimensions, security and safety remain underexplored. This paper addresses this gap through a systematic review of KPIs. The study examines how urban security and safety smartness is assessed, focusing on three questions: (RQ1) What indicators measure urban security and safety smartness? (RQ2) In which smart city dimensions are these KPIs located? (RQ3) How are these KPIs defined and quantified? Using PRISMA guidelines, databases including Web of Science, Scopus, and IEEE Xplore were searched, yielding 2369 sources. After screening, 38 studies were analysed. A total of 182 unique KPIs were identified and categorised into crime prevention and control (53), perceptions of safety (11), emergency and disaster management (50), and cybersecurity (68). Most KPIs focus on city outcomes, with fewer addressing smart technology functionalities. Definitions and measurement approaches lack consensus. This review identifies gaps in defining and measuring smart urban security and safety. Standardising KPIs and incorporating technology-specific metrics are key directions for future research.