概念化智慧城市

IF 1.8 4区 经济学 Q2 URBAN STUDIES
Rob Kitchin
{"title":"概念化智慧城市","authors":"Rob Kitchin","doi":"10.1080/17535069.2022.2031143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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.","PeriodicalId":46604,"journal":{"name":"Urban Research & Practice","volume":"21 1","pages":"155 - 159"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Conceptualising smart cities\",\"authors\":\"Rob Kitchin\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17535069.2022.2031143\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46604,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Urban Research & Practice\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"155 - 159\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Urban Research & Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2022.2031143\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"URBAN STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Urban Research & Practice","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2022.2031143","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"URBAN STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

Soe等人的论文《将智慧城市研究与创新制度化》的中心前提是,智慧城市的概念仍然不明确,文献中存在几种定义,确定智慧城市参数的一种方法是检查全球研究团队的重点和方法,他们研究并为智慧城市议程做出贡献。然而,在绘制了大约50个研究所和中心的工作图表后,作者得出结论,“智慧城市的概念化与实际的智慧城市研究之间存在不匹配”(第128页)。换句话说,文献中智慧城市的框架与中心和研究所如何处理和促进智慧城市并不一致。得出这样的结论后,这种不匹配的解决方案并不明确。据推测,智慧城市的定义需要改变,以符合研究中心和研究所的观点,或者他们需要改变他们的重点,以更紧密地与智慧城市的主要描述保持一致。无论如何,研究研究中心和机构如何构建和处理智慧城市似乎并不是定义智慧城市的好方法。接下来的关键问题是,为什么这种不匹配存在,以及确定什么构成智慧城市的更好方法是什么,这在本文中没有得到检验或回答。后者假设概念化需要一个非模糊的定义,这也是一个值得考虑的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Urban Research & Practice
Urban Research & Practice URBAN STUDIES-
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
4.80%
发文量
47
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信