城市规划外文翻译

A KNOWLEDGE-BASED CONCEPTUAL VISION OF THE SMART CITY

Elsa NEGRE Camille ROSENTHAL-SABROUX Mila GASCó

LAMSADE LAMSADE Center for Innovation in Cities

Paris-Dauphine University Paris-Dauphine University Institute for Innovation SIGECAD Team SIGECAD Team and Knowledge Management

France France ESADE-Ramon Llull University

elsa.negre@dauphine.frcamille.rosenthal-sabroux@dauphine.fr

mila.gasco@https://www.docsj.com/doc/9c14960529.html,

1

Abstract

The term smart city is a fuzzy concept, not welldefined in theoretical researches nor in empiricalprojects. Several definitions, different from eachother, have been proposed. However, all agree on thefact that a Smart City is an urban space that tends toimprove the daily life (work, school,...) of its citizens(broadly defined). This is an improvement fromdifferent points of view: social, political, economic,governmental. This paper goes beyond thisdefinition and proposes a knowledge-basedconceptual vision of the smart city, centered onpeople’s information and knowledge of people, inorder to improve decision-making processes andenhance the value-added of business processes of themodern city.

1. Introduction

Over the past few decades, thechallenges facedby municipal ,such as urban growthor migration, have become increasingly complex andinterrelated. In addition to the traditional land-useregulation, urban maintenance, production, andmanagement of services, governments are required tomeet new demands from different actors regardingwater supply, natural resources sustainability,education, safety, or transportation (Gascóet al,2014). Innovation, and technological innovation inparticular, can help city governments to meet thechallenges of urban governance, to improve urbanenvironments, to become more competitive and toaddress sustainability concerns.Since the early 90s, the development of Internetand communication technologies has facilitated thegeneration of initiatives to create opportunities forcommunication and information sharing by localauthorities. This phenomenon appeared in the UnitedStates then moved to Europe and Asia. Indeed, in oureveryday life, we are more and more invaded by dataand information. This flow of data and information isoften the result of Information and CommunicationTechnologies (ICT). Moreover, potentialities of ICT,that have almost exponentially increasedhave givenrise to a huge mass of data to treat (Batty, 2013). Theworld is becoming increasingly digital and people areaffected by these changes. Also, the digitalinfrastructure infers an information environment thatis “as imperceptible to us as water is to a fish”(McLuhan & Gordon, 2011).There exists a kind of parallelism betweentechnologies and humans. On one hand, people usetechnologies more and more and are hyperconnected,and, on the other hand, (numeric) systemsare more and more user-centered (Viitanen &Kingston, 2014). Thus,

within cities, systems have toadapt to hyper-connected citizens, in a very particularenvironment, the one of cities in constant evolutionwhere systems and humans are nested.The advent of new technologies also confronts thecity to a large influx of data (Big Data) fromheterogeneous sources, including social networks. Itis also important to note that much information and /or knowledge flow between different people (withdifferent uses and backgrounds) and betweendifferent stakeholders (Kennedy, 2012). In thisrespect, the city sees that numerous data circulate viathe internet, wireless communication, mobilephones,…Finally, smart cities are exposed to technologicalissues tied to the huge mass of data which pass withinthem. These data can carry knowledge and, by theway, the smart city, and de facto, the smart city,aware of the existence and of the potential of thisknowledge, can exploit and use them.

Note that, for a city, all citizens become

knowledgecitizens,especially those whose knowledge is thecrucial factor enabling them to improve theirdecision-making processes. In this respect,knowledge is fundamentally valuable to make betterdecisions and to act accordingly.Given this context, this paper focuses onknowledge in the smart city. The paper discussesboth explicit knowledge (knowledge extracted fromdata which flows within the city) and tacit knowledge(that is, citizen’s knowledge). Our argument is twofold:on one hand, we believe that, due to theimportance for the city management of tacitknowledge, the city should be closer to its citizens(Bettencourt, 2013). On the other, a city can becomesmarter by improving its decision-making processand, therefore, by making better decisions. ICT canhelp in this respect: more data and better-manageddata result in, not only more information, but alsomore knowledge. More knowledge gives rise tobetter decisions (Grundstein et al, 2003; Simon,1969).The remainder of this paper is organized asfollows. Next, we present some literature on smartcities and knowledge. Subsequently, we describe theopportunities and challenges smart cities offer forcities development and growth. The City’sInformation and Knowledge System is thenintroduced. Finally, we bring to a close, drawingsome conclusions on what a knowledge-based smartcity is.

2. Related Work

2.1. On smart cities

The origins of the smart city concept are relatedto the European Union’s energetic efficiencyprograms that aimed at making cities sustainable(AMETIC, 2013). However, important conceptualtrends have also

contributed to the emergence of thisterm. In particular, the influence of open innovationhas been key. Chesbrough (2006 & 2003) definesopen innovation as a strategy by which firmscommercialize external (as well as internal) ideas bydeploying outside (as well as in-house) pathways tothe market. In addition, “ideas can also originateoutside the firm’s own labs and be brought inside forcommercialization. In other words, the boundarybetween a firm and its surrounding environment ismore porous, enabling innovation to move easilybetween the two”(Chesbrough, 2003: 37).Despite open innovation was born in relation tothe industry and the business world, several authorsthink this theory can be easily implemented indifferent fields. In this respect, while historically thepublic sector has lagged on the innovation curve,today information technology is opening up newopportunities to transform governance and redefinegovernment-citizen interactions, particularly withincities (Chan, 2013; Pyrozhenko, 2011; Almirall &Wareham, 2008). In this context, a smart city can beunderstood as an environment of open and userdriveninnovation for experimenting and validatingICT-enabled services (Schaffers et al., 2011).A second relevant stream of theory that hascontributed to the development of smart cities isurban planning and urban development (Trivellato etal., 2013). Ferro et al. (2013) state that the term smartcity probably finds its roots in the late nineties withthe smart growth movement calling for smart policiesin urban planning. According to Anthopoulos &Vakali (2011), urban planning controls thedevelopment and the organization of a city bydetermining, among other, the urbanization zones andthe land uses, the location of various public networksand communal spaces, the anticipation of theresidential areas, and the rules for buildingsconstructions. Traditionally, urban planners havebeen concerned with designing the physicalinfrastructure of communities, such as transportationsystems, business districts, parks and, housingdevelopment (Fernback, 2010). Currently, in doingso, urban planners find in technology an enormousopportunity to shape the future of a city (Townsend,2013), particularly for urban planning is a complextask requiring multidimensionalurbaninformation, which needs to be shared andintegrated(Wangetal.2007).

Regardless of its origins, various attempts havebeen made to academically define and conceptuallydescribe a smart city. AlAwadhi & Scholl (2013)state that, actually, these definitions depend ondifferent types and groups of

practitioners think aboutwhat a smart city is. In this respect, although nogenerally accepted academic definition has emergedso far, several works have identified certain urbanattributes that may characterize what a smart city is.To start with, Giffinger et al. (2007) rank 70European cities using six dimensions: smart economy(competitiveness), smart people (human and socialcapital), smart governance (participation), smartmobility (transport and ICT), smart environment(natural resources), and smart living (quality of life).As a result, they define a smart city as “ a city wellperforming in a forward-looking way in these sixcharacteristics, built on the ‘smartcombination ofendowments and activities of self-decisive,independent and aware citizens”(p. 11).Moreover, Nam & Pardo (2011) suggest threeconceptual dimensions of a smart city: technology,people, and community. For them, technology is keybecause of the use of ICT to transform life and workwithin a city in significant and fundamental ways.

However, a smart city cannot be built simply throughthe use of technology. That is why the role of humaninfrastructure, human capital and education, on onehand, and the support of government and policy, onthe other, also become important factors. These threevariables considered, the authors conclude that “acity is smart when investments in human/socialcapital and IT infrastructure fuel sustainable growthand enhance a quality of life, through participatorygovernance”(p. 286).In turn, Leydesdorff & Deakin (2011) introduce atriple helix model of smart cities. They argue thatcan be considered as densities in networksamong three relevant dynamics: the intellectualcapital of universities, the wealth creation ofindustries, and the democratic government of civilsociety. Lombardi et al. (2011) build on this modeland refer to the involvement of the civil society asone of the key actors, alongside the university, theindustry and the government. In Lombardi’swords(2011)“this advanced model presupposes that thefour helices operate in a complex urban environment,where civic involvement, along with cultural andsocial capital endowments, shape the relationshipsbetween the traditional helices of university, industryand government. The interplay between these actorsand forces determines the success of a city in movingon a smart development path”(p. 8).Yet, so far, one of the most comprehensive andintegrative framework for analyzing smart cityprojects has been presented by Chourabi et al. (2012).The authors present a set of eight dimensions, bothinternal and external, that affect the design,implementation, and use of smart cities initiatives:

1) Management andorganization:Organizational andmanagerial factors suchas project size, leadership or changemanagement.

2)Technology:Technological challenges suchas lack of IT skills.

3) Governance: Factors related to theimplementation of processes withconstituents who exchange informationaccording to rules and standards in order toachieve goals and objectives.

4) Policy context: Political and institutionalcomponents that represent various politicalelements and external pressures.

5) People and communities: Factors related tothe individuals and communities, which arepart of the so-called smart city, such as thedigital divide or the level of education.

6) Economy: Factorsaround economic variablessuch as competitiveness,

innovation,entrepreneurship, productivity or flexibility.

7)Built infrastructure:Availability and qualityof the ICT infrastructure.

8) Natural environment: Factors related tosustainability and better management ofnatural resources.Finally, according to Dameri (2013), within theEuropean Union, the concept of smart city is basedon four basic elements that composed the city: 1) Land: The territorial dimension is notlimited to the administrative boundaries ofthe city but may extend to the region.Sometimes, cities group together and form anetwork to share knowledge and bestpractices to tackle urban problems. The cityis subjected to influences and regulations ofthe nation, which itself is affected by moreglobal prerogatives.

2)Infrastructures:Buildings, streets, traffic andpublic transports impact the quality of urbanlife and urban environment.

3) People: All the stakeholders who are linkedto the city (students, workers, neighbors,friends, tourists, …).

4) Government: Urban policies are defined atthe local level, and also at the central level,or even at a more global level, such as theEuropean level, depending on the topic, theaction, the project, However, a definition of a smart city isindispensable to define its perimeter and tounderstand whichinitiatives can be considered smartand which cannot. Moreover, a standard definition isalso the first step for each city to specify its ownvision of a smart city strategy. The definition and thecomprehensive smart city framework(threats,opportunities,…) are the necessary basis on which tobuild the smart city goals system. That is why, in thispaper, we agree with theChourabi, et al’

sframework(2012) and theCaragliu, etal.’s definition(2009) andconsider that cities are smart when investments inhuman and social capital and traditional (transport)

and modern (ICT) communication infrastructure fuel

sustainable economic growth and a high quality of

life, with a wise management of natural resources,

through participatory governance.

2.2. On knowledge

As mentioned in the introduction, the smart citymust be able to exploit knowledge that result fromdata management. This knowledge will result inbetter decisions in order for the 21st century city toaddress its main challenges (Negre & Rosenthal-Sabroux, 2014).We suggest an approach to digital informationsystems centered on people’s information andknowledge of people, in order toimprove decisionmakingprocesses and enhance the value-added ofbusiness processes of the city.

ICT allow people located outside a city tocommunicate with other people and to exchangeknowledge. These observations concerningknowledge in the city context highlight theimportance of tacit knowledge. It points out theinterest of creating a favorable climate for both theexchange and sharing of tacit knowledge and itstransformation into explicit knowledge and thereforeextending the field of knowledge which will comeunder the rules and regulations governing industrialproperty (Negre & Rosenthal-Sabroux,

2014).Moreover, we should emphasize the fact thatcapitalizing on city’sknowledge is an ongoing issue,omnipresent in everyone’s activities, whichspecifically should have anincreasing impact onmanagement functions of the city.Polanyi (1967) classifies the human knowledgeinto two categories: tacit knowledge and explicitknowledge. He says: “tacit knowledge is personal,context-specific, and thereforehard to formalize andcommunicate. Explicit or 'codified' knowledge, onthe other hand, refers to knowledge that istransmittable in formal, systematic language" (p.301). Our point of view can be found in the work ofNonaka & Takeuchi (1995), with reference toPolanyi (1967), considering that “tacit knowledgeand explicit knowledge are not totally separated butmutually complementary entities”(Nonaka &Takeuchi, 1995: 61). For Nonaka & Takeuchi (1995),explicit knowledge can be easily expressed in writtendocuments but is less likely to result in majordecisions than tacit knowledge, which is to say thatthe decision process stems from knowledge acquiredthrough

experience, albeitdifficult to express inwords.Tangible elements are “explicit knowledge”.Heterogeneous, incomplete or redundant, they areoften marked by the circumstances under whichknowledge was created. They do not express theunwritten rules of those who formalized knowledge,the “unspoken words”. They are stored anddisseminated in archives,cabinets, anddatabases, ...(Polanyi, 1967).Intangible elements are “tacit knowledge”.Acquired through practice, they are adaptable to thesituations. Explicitly or non-explicitly, they are oftentransmitted by implicit collective apprenticeship orby a master-apprentice relationship. They are locatedin people's minds (Polanyi, 1967).By analogy with the works of Polanyi (1967),Nelson and Winter (1982), Davenport & Prusak(1998) and Grundstein et al. (2003), the city’sknowledge consists of tangible elements (databases,procedures, drawings, models, documents used foranalyzing and synthesizing data, …) and intangibleelements (people's needs, unwritten rules ofindividual and collective behavior patterns,knowledge of the city’s history and decision-makingcontexts, knowledge of the city environment(citizens, tourists, companies, technologies,influential socio-economic factors, …). All theseelements characterize the city’s capability toinnovate, produce, sell, and support its services. Theyare representative of the city’s experience andculture. They constitute and produce the added-valueof the city.

These observations concerning knowledge in thecity context highlight the importance of tacitknowledge. They point out the interest in taking intoaccount tacit knowledge in decision processes. As areminder, we believe that the decision in the contextof smart cities, where data and knowledge flow, ispermanent and important.

3. Opportunities and challenges of thesmart cities

Cities are confronted to a continuousimprovement process and have to become smarterand smarter (Negre & Rosenthal-Sabroux, 2014). Indoing so, they are confrontedwith threats andopportunities.

Opportunities in cities are given by innovation,education, culture, companies, public organizationsand public spaceswhere people can exchange, makesport, share experiences, meet each other, …

On the other side, difficulties related tourbanization, environment protection, pollution,inefficient public transports, traffic, lack of greenspaces, social differences, …are threats to city.

To deal with these threats and opportunities,questions regarding knowledge in the city arise: Howshould we link knowledge management to the smartcity strategy? What activities should be developedand promoted? What organizational structures shouldbe put in place? How should we go about creatingthem? How can we implement enabling conditionsfor knowledge management initiatives? What impactand benefit evaluation methods should be installed?How can we go about provoking cultural changetowards a more knowledge-sharing attitude? Withinthis perspective, we must keep in mind that citiesneed to evolve through their own efforts, byintensifying diversity and creating new foundationsfor thought and behavior.

A knowledge-based city requires that each citizentakes responsibility for objectives, contributions tothe city and, indeed, for behavior as well. Thisimplies that all citizens are stakeholders of the city.

This vision places strong emphasis on theultimate goal of the digital information system whichis providing knowledge-citizens, engaged in a dailyrelated decision process, with all the informationneeded to understand situations they will encounter tomake choices - which is to say, to make decisions –to carry out their activities, capitalizing theknowledge produced in the course of performingthese tasks.

The use of high technology help to improve abetter way of life in the city because citizens aremore informed, connected and linked. Moreover,using Information and Communication Technology(ICT) is essential to create social inclusion, socialcommunication, civil participation, higher educationand information quality.

Finally, it is important to note that if smart citiesare too connected/linked, they can become ICTaddicts(Viitanen & Kingston, 2014). In that case, itis possible that, one day, some smart cities will beconfronted to problems of cyber-security and/orresilience, such as in the new video game “WatchDogs”(Ubisoft) in which the player is at the heart ofa smart and hyper-connected city in which hissmartphone gives him/her control of allinfrastructures of the CTOs (Central OperatingSystem - high performance system that connectsinfrastructures and facilities of public security of thecity to a centralized exchange pole). The player canhandle the traffic lights to create a huge pile or stop atrain to board and escape the forces ... Everythingthat is connected to the network can become aweapon.

Opportunities and challenges should be morerelated to knowledge in the smart city. Therefore, inthe next section, we

propose to adapt the concept ofEnterprise’s Information and Knowledge System(EIKS) introduced by Grundstein & Rosenthal-Sabroux (2009) to smart cities to address challengesrelated to knowledge in the smart city.

4. The Smart City’s Information andKnowledge System

In general, an information system “is a set ofelements interconnected which collect (or recover),process, store and disseminate information in order tosupport decision and process control” (Laudon &Laudon 2006). Grundstein & Rosenthal-Sabroux(2009) introduced the notion of knowledge into theinformation system and proposed the concept ofEnterprise’s Information and Knowledge System(EIKS). In this section, by analogy, we propose ourSmart City’s Information and Knowledge System(CIKS) where data and knowledge flow within.

Under the influence of globalization and theimpact of Information and CommunicationTechnologies (ICT) that modify radically ourrelationship with space and time, the city increasinglydevelops its activities in a planetary space with threedimensions:

?A global space covering the set of cities (thenation).

?A local space corresponding to the citylocated in a given geographic area.

?An area of influence that covers the field ofinteraction of the city with the other cities.

The city locked up on its local borders istransformed into an extended city, without borders,opened and adaptable. The land is the territorialdimension of a city, with different levels. Theselevels range from the local dimension, to regional,network, national and finally the global dimension.

Furthermore, this city is placed under theascendancy of the unforeseeable environment thatleads towards uncertainty and doubt.

The city meets fundamental problems ofinformation exchange and knowledge sharing among,on the one hand, its formal entities distributed in theworld and on the other hand, the city's people(nomadic or sedentary), bearers of diversified valuesand cultures according to the origin.Two networks of information overlap:

?A formal information network between theinternal or external entities, in which dataand explicit knowledge circulate. Thisnetwork is implemented by means ofintranet and extranet technologies.

?An informal information network betweennomadic or sedentary peoples. This networkfavors information exchange and tacitknowledge sharing. It is implementedthrough converging Information andCommunicationTechnologies (for examplethe new IPOD with Web 2.0).

The problems occur when nomadic people(tourists or students for example) placed in new,unknown or unexpected situations, need to get“active information”, that is, information andknowledge they need immediately to understand thesituation, solve a problem, take a decision, and act.

That means that ICT provide the informationneeded by people who are the heart of the city. Byextension, our reflection is: ICT bear potentialities,they bring new uses, they induce a new organization,and they induce a new vision of city, what we call a “smart city”. And, ICT are the heart of the smart city.

Building on this, a city can be seen as aninformation system and because of its hyperconnectednature, smart city can be seen as more thanan information system: an information andknowledge system. In fact, the City’s Informationand Knowledge System (CIKS) consists mainly in aset of individuals (people) and digital informationsystems. CIKS rests on a socio technical context,which consists of individuals (people) in interactionamong them, with machines, and with the very CIKS.It includes:

?Digital InformationSystems (DIS), whichare artificial systems, the artefacts designedby ICT.

?An information system constituted byindividuals who, in a given context, areprocessors of data to which they give a senseunder the shape of information. Thisinformation, depending of the case, is passedon, remembered, treated, and diffused bythem or by the DIS.

? A knowledge system, consisting of tacitknowledge embodied by the individuals, andof explicit knowledge formalized andcodified on any shape of supports(documents, video, photo, digitized or not).Under certain conditions, digitizedknowledge is susceptible to be memorized,processed and spread with the DIS.

We must identify information and knowledge to acity’s activities and for individual and collectivedecision-making processes. The objective could be todesign a Digital Information System (DIS) whichwould allow the city’s stakeholders to receive, to gainaccess to, and to share the greatest variety ofinformation and

knowledge they deem necessary, asrapidly as possible, in order to accelerate decisionmakingprocesses and to make them as reliable aspossible.

5. Conclusion

The city has evolved over time: it started withscattered houses, then these houses were grouped intocities, which were industrialized and mechanicallyconnected to other cities and, now, we have hyperconnected cities (with citizens who are connected,who need access to different information, and withcities that are connected to the rest of the world)(Kennedy, 2012).

In this paper, we propose a conceptual vision ofthe smart city, based on knowledge. Knowledge canbe: explicit knowledge (knowledge extracted fromdata which flows within the city) and/or tacitknowledge (that is, citizen’s knowledge). Accordingto the previous works on the area of smart cities andknowledge management and the study of threats andopportunities of cities, one specific challenge appears(among some): knowledge must be integrated into thecity. Thus, we introduce our Smart City’sInformation and Knowledge System (CIKS) wheredata and knowledge flow within.

The smart city is more than Information andCommunicationTechnologies (ICT), and more thanpeople. It also has to do with knowledge (Kennedy,2012; Negre & Rosenthal-Sabroux, 2014).

Our vision is an approach that takes into accountpeople, information, knowledge and ICT. From ourpoint of view, knowledge is a factor of competence inorder to improve the “smartness”of the city and tohandle the complexity of the cities (du, in part, toICT).

6. References

AlAwadhi, S. & Scholl, H. J. (2013). “Aspirations andrealizations: the smart city of Seattle”. Paper presented atthe 46th Hawaii International Conference on SystemSciences. Maui, HI, January 7-10. Almirall, E. & Wareham, J. (2008). “Living labs and openinnovation: Roles and applicability”. The ElectronicJournal for Virtual Organizations and Networks, 10(special issue): 21-46.AMETIC (2013). Smart cities. Barcelona: AMETIC.

Anthopoulos, L. & Vakali, A. (2012). “Urban planning andsmart cities: Interrelations and reciprocities”. In F. Alvarezet al. (eds.). Future Internet Assembly 2012. From promisesto reality. New York: Springer (pp. 178-189). Batty, M. (2013). “Big data, smart cities and city planning”.Dialogues in Human

Geography, November 2013 vol. 3no. 3 274-279

Bettencourt, L. (2013). “Four simple principles to plan thebest city possible”. New Scientist, 18 (December):30-31.

Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C. & Nijkamp, P. (2009). Smart cities

in Europe. Technical report.Chan, C. (2013): “From open data to open innovationstrategies: Creating e-services using open governmentdata”. Paper presented at the 46th Hawaii InternationalConference on System Sciences. Big Island (HI), January7-10.Chesbrough, H. (2006).

译文:

基于知识理论角度的智慧城市

作者：艾尔莎内格雷卡米尔·罗森塔尔

摘要

术语智慧城市是一个模糊的概念，没有很好地在理论研究亦或是在实证项目的定义。虽然有几个已经被提出的定义，但都彼此不同。但是所有定义都同意这样一个事实：智慧城市是城市空间趋于改善公民的生活（工作，学校，...）（广义上的）。这是从不同的角度改进：社会，政治，经济，政府。本文超越了这个定义并提出了智慧城市的以知识为基础的概念设想，阐述围绕人的信息和智慧的人为了改善决策过程和提高附加值的现代化城市的业务流程。一、引言

在过去的几十年中，市政方面所面临的挑战，如城市的增长和迁移，已变得越来越复杂、密切。除了传统的土地利用调控、城市维护、生产和管理服务，政府还需要满足不同参与者对供水、自然资源的可持续发展，以及教育、安全和运输（加斯科因等人，2014年新的要求）。创新，特别是技术创新，是可以帮助城市政府，以满足城市管理的挑战，改善城市环境，提高竞争力，并解决可持续性的关注。 90年代初以来，互联网和通信技术的发展提供了便利的举措产生创造地方当局的沟通和信息共享的机会。这种现象出现在美国然后转移到欧洲和亚洲。事实上，在我们的日常生活中，我们更多的是通过数据和信息的流动。数据和信息的这种流动往往是信息和通信技术（ICT）的结果。此外，信息和通信技术的潜力几乎成倍增加，已经引起了数据处理（巴蒂，2013年）的巨大肿块。世界正在变得越来越数字化，人们受这些变化的影响。此外，“水就是以鱼不能不以我们为所”（麦克卢汉和戈登，2011）的数字基础设施推断的信息环境是存在的。有一种技术和人类之间的并行性。一方面，人们使用的技术越来越多，并且超连接，并且，在另一方面，数字系统越来越多的以用户为中心（维伊塔嫩＆金斯敦，2014）。因此，城市内部，系统必须适应

连接的公民，在一个非常特殊的环境中，系统和人类嵌套在不断进化的城市之一。新技术的出现也面临着城市大量涌入异构源，包括社交网络数据（大数据）。同样要注意的是，多的信息/或不同的人们之间的知识流动（具有不同的用途和背景）和不同利益相关者（肯尼迪，2012）之间。在这方面，可以看到，许多数据通过互联网，无线通信，手机流通……最后，其中的技术问题使智慧城市面临捆绑巨大的数据质量。这些数据可以承载知识，顺便说一句，智慧城市，事实上，存在感知和利用这些知识的潜力。

需要注意的是，对于一个城市，所有公民成为智慧公民，尤其是那些知识是使他们能够提高他们的决策过程的关键因素。在这方面，知识是做出更好的决策根本，也是采取行动的支撑。在此背景下，本文重点研究了智慧城市的知识。本文讨论了两个显性知识（知识从城市中流动的数据中提取）和隐性知识（即公民的知识）。我们的观点是双重的：一方面，我们认为，由于隐性知识对城市管理的重要性，城市应该是更接近其公民（贝滕科特，2013年）。另一方面，一个城市可

以成为改善其决策过程，因此，通过更好更聪明的决策，信息和通信技术在这方面可以起帮助作用：更多的数据和更好的管理数据产生，不仅是更多信息，也让我们更了解城市，接受更多的知识，产生更好的决策（西蒙，1969）本文的其余部分安排如下。接下来，我们提出关于智慧城市和知识的一些文献。随后，我们将介绍智慧城市提供城市发展壮大的机遇和挑战。覆盖全市的信息和知识体系，然后引入。最后，我们为大家带来了帷幕，绘制一些以知识为基础的智慧城市是什么的结论。

二、相关工作

2.1就智慧城市而言

智慧城市概念的起源与欧盟，旨在使城市可持续发展（AMETIC，2013），能量效率的方案。然而，重要的概念趋势也促进了这个词的出现。特别是，开放式创新的影响力是关键。切萨布鲁夫（2006年- 2003年）定义了开放式创新作为由企业通过商业化部署之外的外部（和内部）的想法的策略（以及内部）的途径推向市场。此外，“意见也可以发起公司的自己的实验室外进行内部商业化带来的。换句话说，一个企业和它的周围环境之间的界限更加多孔，实现创新两者之间轻松移动“（切斯布罗格，2003：37）。尽管开放式创新诞生相对于工业和商业领域，几个作者认为这种理论可以在不同的领域可以轻松实现。在这方面，虽然历史上公共部门创新曲线上的滞后，今天的信息技术是开放改造治理和重新界定政府的公民的互动，特别

是在城市（陈，2013新的机遇; ALMIRALL＆韦勒姆，2008 ）。在此背景下，智慧城市，可以理解为开放以及用户驱动的创新，为试验和验证信息通信技术的服务的环境（Schaffers等，2011）。一个理论的第二个相关数据流已为智慧的发展作出了贡献城市是城市规划和城市发展（Trivellato 等人，2013）。铁等。（2013）指出，术语智慧城市很可能发现了与智慧增长趋势，要求在城市规划明智的政策九十年代末的根源。据安索普洛斯＆Vakali （2011年），城市规划控制的发展和城市的通过决定，除其他外的组织，城市化区和土地用途，不同的公共网络和公共空间的位置，住宅区的预期，规则建筑物结构。传统上，城市规划者一直关注社区的设计，如交通系统，商业区，公园，住宅开发（Fernback，2010年）的物理基础设施。目前，在这样做，城市规划者在技术上找到塑造一个城市（汤森，2013年）的未来产生巨大的机会，尤其是对城市规划是一项复杂的任务，需要多层面的城市信息化，需要共享和集成（Wangetal。 2007年）。

尽管它的起源，已经进行了各种尝试，在学术定义和概念上都描述了一个智慧城市。AlAwadhi 和绍尔（2013）认为，实际上，这些定义取决于不同类型和从业者的群体状态想想智慧城市是什么。在这方面，虽然没有普遍接受的定义，学术界至今已出现了几部作品已经确定了可以表征一个智慧城市是城市的某些属性。首先，排名采用六个方面进行比较，包括了70个欧洲城市：智慧经济（竞争力），智慧公民（人力和社会资本），智慧管理（参与），智慧移动（运输和信息通信技术），智慧环境（自然资源），和智慧生活（生活质量）。作为总结性结果，他们定义了一个智慧城市作为“一城，在这六个特性前瞻性的方式表现良好，内置自

我决定性的，独立的和了解的禀赋和活动的”智慧组合公民“（第11页）。此外，南与帕尔多（2011年）提出了智慧城市的三个概念性的层面：技术，人员和社区。对于他们来说，技术是关键，因为在利用ICT在显著和基本方法城中改造的生活和工作。

然而，智慧城市，是不能简单地通过使用技术来构建的。这就是为什么基础设施、人力资本和教育都会发挥作用，一方面，政府和政策的支持，另一方面，也成为重要影响因素。考虑这三个变量，作者得出结论说：“一个城市是聪明的，当人力/社会资本和IT 基础设施的燃料可持续增长，生活质量不断提高，且通过参与式治理”引入智慧城市的三重螺旋模型。他们认为，可以被视为在三个相关的动态网络密度：大学的智力资本，财富创造的行业和民间社会的民主政府。的Lombardi

等人。（2011年）建立在这一模式，指的是民间社会的参与为重点的演员之一，旁边的大学，行业和政府。在Lombardi的话（2011年）“这一先进模式的前提是四螺旋在复杂的城市环境中，公民参与，文化和社会资本禀赋一起，塑造大学，产业界和政府的传统螺旋之间的关系进行操作。这些演员和力量之间的相互作用决定着一个城市的成功。到目前为止，分析智慧城市项目的最全面和综合的框架之一，已提交由Chourabi等。（2012）的作者提出的一组含八个维度由内部和外部影响设计、实施和智慧城市的使用：

1）管理和组织：组织和管理因素，如项目规模，领导和变更管理。2）技术：技术挑战，如缺乏IT 技能。

3）治理：相关进程实施与谁根据，以达到目的和目标的规则和标准进行信息交换的成分因素。

4）政策背景：代表各种政治因素和外部压力的政治和体制的组成部分。

5）人民和社区：有关个人和社区，这是所谓的智慧城市的组成部分，如数字鸿沟和教育水平的因素。

6）经济性：各地的经济变量，如竞争力，创新，创业，工作效率和灵活性的因素。7）内置的基础设施：可用性和ICT基础设施的质量。

8）自然环境：有关可持续发展和自然资源的更好的管理因素。最后，根据Dameri（2013年），在欧盟范围内，智慧城市的概念是基于由城市四个基本要素：

1）土地：领土尺寸不局限于城市的行政界限，但可以延伸到的区域。有时，城市群一起，形成一个网络，分享知识和解决城市问题的最佳实践。这个城市受到的影响和国家，这本身是通过更多的全球影响的特权的规定。

2）基础设施：建筑物，街道，交通和公共交通影响城市生活和城市环境质量。

3）人物：谁被链接到市（学生，工人，邻居，朋友，旅游者，...）的所有利益相关者。

4）政府：城市政策在地方层面的定义，以及在中央一级，甚至在更全球一级，如欧洲的水平，根据不同的主题，动作，项目，然而，的定义智慧城市是必不可少的定义它的周长和了解哪些举措可以被视为聪明，哪些不能。此外，一个标

准的定义也是每个城市指定自己的智慧城市战略愿景的第一步。的定义和全面的智慧城市框架（威胁，机会，...）是在其上构建智慧城市的目标体系的必要基础。这就是为什么，在本文中，

我们与Chourabi，等人的框架（2012年）和Caragliu，等人的。定义（2009）同意，并认为城市是聪明的，当投资不人道和社会资本和传统（运输）与现代（ICT）通信基础设施的燃料可持续经济增长和生活质量高，通过参与式治理对自然资源的明智管理。

2.2知识理论

正如介绍中提到的，智慧城市必须能够利用从数据管理造成的知识。这方面的知识将导致更好的决策，以便在21世纪城市解决其面临的主要挑战（内格雷与罗森塔尔，2014年）。我们提出一个方法，集中在人们的信息和知识的人的数字信息系统，以提高决策过程，提高附加值城市的业务流程。

信息通信技术让人们位于城外与其他人进行沟通和交流知识。关于在全市范围内的知识这些意见强调隐性知识的重要性。它指出，创造双方交流有利的气氛和共享隐性知识并将其转化成显性知识，因此扩大知识领域，将受到该规则和关于工业产权（内格雷与罗森塔尔，规定的利益， 2014年）。而且，我们应该强调的事实，善用城市的知识是一个持续的问题，每个人的活动，具体应该对城市管理职能的影响越来越大无所不在。波兰尼（1967）的分类，人类的知识分为两类：隐性知识和显性知识。他说：“隐性知识是个人的，针对具体情况的，因此难以形式化和沟通。显式或“编纂的知识，在另一方面，是指知识在正规，系统的语言发送的”（P.301）。我们的观点可以次郎和竹内（1995年）的工作发现，参照波兰尼（1967年），考虑到“隐性知识和显性知识是不能完全分开，但互补的实体”（野中和竹内，1995：61）。对于野中和竹内（1995年），显性知识可以很容易地在书面文件表达，但不太可能导致比隐性知识，这也是说，决策过程从通过经验获得，虽然难以用言语来表达的知识茎重大决策。有形要素是“显性知识”。异类，不完整或多余的，他们是经常在这知识的创建情况的标示。他们不表达这些谁形式化的知识不成文的规则，“潜台词”。它们存储在档案馆，橱柜和数据库传播，...（波兰尼，1967年）.Intangible元素是“隐性知识”通过实践.Acquired，他们适应的情况。明确或不明确的，他们往往是由隐集体学徒或由师徒关系传播。它们位于在人们的印象（波兰尼，1967年）。通过类比波兰尼（1967），纳尔逊和温特（1982），达文波特和普鲁萨克（1998）等人的作品。城市的知识包括有形要素（数据库，程序，图纸，模型，用于分析和综合的数据文件，...）和无形要素（人的需求，个人和集体的行为模式不成文的规矩，全市知识历史和决策背景下，城市环境的知识（市民，游客，企业，技术，有

影响力的社会经济因素……）。所有这些元素刻画城市的创新，生产，销售，并支持其服务的能力。他们有代表性的城市的经验和文化。它们构成，并产生了城市的附加值。

关于在全市范围内的知识这些意见强调隐性知识的重要性。他们指出，在考虑到隐性知识在决策过程中的利益。作为提醒，我们认为，在智慧城市，其中的数据和知识流

动，是永久性的，重要的背景下决定。

三、智慧城市的机遇与挑战

城市正面临一个不断完善的过程，并有可能更聪明。在这个过程中，他们所面临的威胁和机遇也将是空前的。

城市的机会是通过创新，教育，文化，企业，社会团体和公共空间产生，人们可以互相交换，运动，分享经验，满足对方。

在另一边，涉及到城市化，保护环境，污染，低效率的公共交通，交通，缺少绿地，社会差异的困难……是城市的威胁。

为了应对这些威胁，就在城市的知识出现的机会，问题：我们应该如何管理知识链接到智慧城市战略？应该制定什么样的活动和推广？应落实到位什么样的组织结构？我们应该如何去创造呢？我们怎样才能实现使知识管理举措的条件？什么样的影响和效益评价方法应安装？我们怎么可以去朝着更多的知识共享的态度激怒文化上的改变？在这个角度来看，我们必须牢记，城市需要通过自己的努力发展，通过加强多样性和创造思想和行为新的基础。

一个以知识为基础的城市，要求每个公民花费的目标，对城市的贡献的责任，而事实上，对于行为为好。这意味着，所有的公民都是这个城市的利益相关者。

这一构想非常重视其提供知识公民的数字信息系统，从事日常关联决策过程，以了解情况所需的所有信息的最终目标，他们会遇到做出选择- 这是说，要做出决定-to开展活动，在资本执行这些任务的过程中产生的知识。

采用高科技技术有助于提高生活的更好的方式在城市，因为公民更明智，连接和链接。此外，使用信息和通信技术（ICT）必须建立社会包容，社会交往，公民参与，高等教育和信息的质量。

最后，需要注意的是，如果智慧城市太连接/链接，就可以成为ICT成瘾者（Viitanen＆金斯敦，2014年）是非常重要的。在这种情况下，有可能，有一天，有些聪明的城市将面临到网络安全和/或韧性的问题，比如在新的视频游戏“手表狗”（育碧），其中玩家在（- 即基础设施和城市的公共安全设施连接到一个集中交易