Journal of Cleaner Production 215 (2019) 730e743

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Towards sustainable smart cities: An empirical comparative

assessment and development pattern optimization in China
Xia Li a, *, Patrick S.W. Fong b, Shengli Dai c, Yingchun Li c
a
School of Information Management, Central China Normal University, Wuhan, 430079, PR China
b
Department of Building and Real Estate, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, 999077, PR China
c
College of Public Administration, Central China Normal University, Wuhan, 430079, PR China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Dramatically increased societal demands on the municipal services that contradict environmental pro-
Received 20 August 2018 tection and information processing capability oriented to resource utilization efficiency suffer from
Received in revised form opposing simultaneous requirements. The smart city provides better solutions for urban areas which are
12 November 2018
increasing at an unprecedented speed. This paper presents an empirical study carried out to assess and
Accepted 6 January 2019
Available online 9 January 2019
analyze the development pattern of 35 smart cities in China using the principal component analysis
(PCA) and back propagation (BP) neural network techniques. The proposed PCA-BP neural network
assessment processing model is applied with six dimensional factors and twenty-two operating indices.
Keywords:
Sustainable smart city
With the feature extraction and performance score calculated via PCA, BP neural network is adopted for
Principal component analysis city classification to recognize the development differences in smart cities. The results indicate that the
BP neural network factor-driven impetus evolves into innovation-driven impetus, narrowing the gap from the holistic
Assessment processing model perspective between the first and middle-ranking groups, while two middle-ranking groups show a
Development pattern similar upward trend in terms of developing a smart economy through sustainable productivity in
innovative enterprises and high-tech industry. To some extent, in response to a similar improving trend
in the application of smart services, a distinct advantage of an individual index can be a complementary
offset to unapparent holistic highlighting the reception of the lowest average points. Unbalanced
development exists in two subaverage groups that are deficient in the initial inventory of smart infra-
structure and demands. A relatively large difference exists in the smart mobility index among cities,
whereas the opposite case is found concerning the smart environment index. Finally, corresponding
optimized development pattern are recommended for building a sustainable smart city.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In accordance with the accelerating pace of city development,
the spatial distribution of the population has been changed due to
the continuous migration from rural to urban. Currently, 55% of the
world's population lives in urban areas, while this proportion is
expected to reach 68% in 2050. Compared with the most urbanized
regions clustered in parts of developed countries, including North
America (82%), Europe (74%) and Oceania (68%), the level of ur-
banization in developing countries in Asia and Africa is lower, close
to 50% (United Nations, 2018). However, most developing countries
are experiencing a far more rapid urbanization process, and large
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ086 15872405182.
E-mail address: lixia@mail.ccnu.edu.cn (X. Li).
numbers of people have moved to urban areas from rural areas
(Zhang, 2016). In China, the urban population proportion is
currently approximately 57.35% (National Bureau of Statistics of
China, 2017). This observation has led to great challenges with
respect to dramatically increased societal demands for urban
infrastructure and municipal services in addition to an expansion of
urban areas. While protecting the urban environment, the utiliza-
tion efficiency of resources suffers from conflicting requirements
accompanying the rapid growth of the urban population, such as
alleviating urban traffic congestion, telecommunications and re-
sources consumption, on the other hand, while maintaining sus-
tainable urban development.
Such challenges have generated significant quantities of
research in search of solutions. Therefore, ‘smart’ as a concept has
been well accepted in both theory and practice across diverse ap-
plications in different sectors (IBM, 2009). Information and

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.046
0959-6526/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 X. Li et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 215 (2019) 730e743
communication technologies (ICT) have been deeply embedded in
our society, and urban areas feature environments with real-time
information and responses thanks to smart phone, radio fre-
quency identification devices (RFID) embedded facilities, and the
Internet of things (Komninos et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2013). Intelli-
gent decision making in terms of city variables, potential trend
prediction focusing on the exponential growth of heterogeneous
data sets and the capability to access information anytime and
anywhere (Li et al., 2015; Hashem et al., 2016) have contributed to
the emergence of smart cities. The ‘smart city’ concept has attracted
great attention recently as a solution for the better management of
cities and the global population (Adapa, 2018), and investments in
human and social capital and ICT-based infrastructure fuel sus-
tainable economic growth and a high quality of life, along with the
wise management of natural resources through participatory gov-
ernment (Caragliu et al., 2011). The technologies push and demand
pull are two driving forces behind the construction of smart cities,
which can be traced to the theory of economic development
(Schumpeter, 1942). The smart city configures sociotechnical chal-
lenges that foster technological learning and societal embedding
(Carvalho, 2015). The smart city has been urgently introduced into
the global market as a better digital technology solution to boost
competitiveness and create new engines of economic growth,
while the urban technological achievement of scientific research is
to be continuously developed in response to society utilization
requirements.
One must also note that there are currently efforts to realize
smart cities, although there is no consensus regarding the smart
city concept, which is found in ubiquitous cities programs in Korea,
‘U-Japan’ in Japan, iN-2015 Masterplan of an ‘Intelligent Nation
Singapore’ (Streitz, 2011) and ‘iSapiens’ platform in Italy (Cicirelli
et al., 2017). The ‘Smart Cities Mission’ for spearheading 100
smart cities in India is enabled with the latest in technology and
infrastructure (Praharaj et al., 2018). It is a considerable disadvan-
tage for India that it fails to provide a clear definition for the
development of a smart city. Smart construction leans heavily upon
the government's general guide for clearly critical issues, although
digital transformations are based on probing technology adaptation
within established building directions and models rather than
within an isolated venture.
We are glad that the Chinese government has come out with the
smart city concept to develop approximately 311 cities in China as
model cities, this includes all cities above the sub-provincial level
and 89% of cities at the prefectural level (PDSF, 2014). However,
these cities often have overlapping construction or conflicting
policy. Consequently, they cannot yield the desired deliverables
such that there are serious consequences for the efficient man-
agement of urban resources and infrastructure (Praharaj et al.,
2018). The smart development direction and model are inevitably
discrepant owing to the heterogeneous factor endowments that are
relevant to urban scales, economic level, local culture and digital
infrastructure. Therefore, this research paper sets out to explore the
following research questions: (i) How are the concepts of smart city
and development initiatives envisaged in Chinese cities? (ii) What
factors should considered that reflect the development perfor-
mance and that could be assessment indicators to conduct a
comparative evaluation of a smart city in China? (iii) What are the
development differences and relative advantages of smart cities
from the empirical analysis in China? (iv) What is the effectiveness
of the optimized development pattern corresponding to these dif-
ferences and relative disadvantages.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2
reviews some relevant literature and elaborates the combined in-
dicator system. Section 3 proposes the assessment process model of
731
principal component analysis (PCA) and the back propagation (BP)
neural network to comprehensively evaluate the smart city. Section
4 offers the comparative empirical application of the PCA-BP model
with a detailed analysis of an eigenvector and a ranking score, as
well as the classification of 35 sample cities in China for a further
understanding of different development patterns. Section 5 pre-
sents a series of optimized developing patterns to build a sustain-
able smart city corresponding to the result analysis of section 4.
Section 6 concludes with final remarks and limitations.
2. Construction of the smart indicator system
2.1. Conceptualizing “smart city”
It is evident that there is no universally accepted definition of
the smart city. However, there is a rational level of general char-
acteristics, and essential aspects arise in the smart city definitions
outlined by academic scholars and government reports. In the
existing academic literature, most smart cities studies are struc-
tured around the technological characteristics, with a focus on
electronic and digital technologies (Komninos, 2008), while others
adopt adaptation perspectives to consider cities as complex sys-
tems (Portugali, 2000). Researchers have identified the imple-
mentation of smart technologies as core factors in achieving
smartness and sustainability, such as RFID technology for machine
to machine (M2M) communications (Chen, 2012; Gope et al., 2018),
a sensor network for smart traffic monitoring (Calderoni et al.,
2014), an accelerated-time simulation for smart traffic flow
(Gala
n-García et al., 2014), the approach of the mutual exclusion of
the intersection in intelligent transport (Ni et al., 2017), a cloud
computing model for designing smart city logistics infrastructure
that is easily adaptive to changing transport demands (Nowicka,
2014), and ubiquitous technologies utilized in developing urban
infrastructure to provide access to urban services through con-
ceptual systematization (Anttiroiko et al., 2013). The pervasive
infrastructure interacts with the surrounding environment (Mitton
et al., 2012).
An operational definition of the construct and the consistent
evidence on the smart city concerns big data (Carmen et al., 2017;
Khan et al., 2017), the Internet of things (IoT) and open data. The
definition also addresses new relational complexities between ac-
tors, participatory governance and mobility and security, new and
engaging experiences with citizens, which can be derived from the
three elements of contextual data flood, collective societal chal-
lenges and a possible interrelationship for collaborative citizens
(Walravens, 2015).
While these definitions are relevant for benchmarking or for
placing emphasis on specific development aspects, they are based
on merely technology-led views. However, ICT-based infrastructure
is necessary but not sufficient for developing smart cities (Aina,
2017). Another view suggests that smart city technology facili-
tates organizational change through strategic options
(Pinsonneault and Kraemer, 2002), and the strategic phase requires
a different focus for strategizing smart cities (Letaifa, 2015), not
only a technical solution but also a strategic one that can potentially
provide information and communication technologies (ICT) com-
panies with alternative growth initiatives (Paroutis et al., 2014) and
urban solutions for management problems (Kitchin, 2014). At the
application level, IoT is employed in a smart parking systems
(Bechini et al., 2014), the smart home (Hui et al., 2017), mobile
applications and services of municipal organizations (Hielkema and
Hongisto, 2013; Aguilera et al., 2017). This technology represents an
advanced information-centric platform for supporting ICT services
for application in e-government and public administration,
732 X. Li et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 215 (2019) 730e743
intelligent transportation systems, public safety, social dimensions,
health care, education, building and urban planning, environment
and energy and water management (Piro et al., 2014). Canonico
et al (2015) presents the domain fields of integrated applications
that concern location, tourism, public transport, public adminis-
tration services, goods and service, financial services, and customer
loyalty.
The framework has been criticized for its focus on industrial
sector and its greater emphasis on the national level; cities are not
smart at all if they disregard the social conditions of their citizenry
(Batty et al., 2012). Subsequently, Schaffers et al. (2011) developed a
wheel innovation ecosystem that enables citizens to cocreate
innovative scenarios based on technology platforms involving large
enterprises as well as academia from different disciplines. At the
aggregate level, a smart city is composed of a diverse range of
things, including IT devices, industry and business, governance and
urban services, housing and people, education, buildings, lifestyle,
transport and the environment, and interventions adopted from
small-scale and fledgling examples of participatory and citizen-
based types of smart initiatives. A smart city built on service de-
livery refers to quality of life, public services to catalyze sustainable
development, and innovative services for economic development
(Budde, 2014; Bibri and Krogstie, 2017). Another smart model
highlights the importance of interdependence and interaction in
smart city among the four factors of policy, citizens (Gardner and
Hespanhol, 2018), research and private partners (Baccarne et al.,
2014). Driven by the profit motive of global high-technology com-
panies and in collusion with the trend towards city governance
being wedded to a competitive form of ‘urban entrepreneurialism’,
critical intervention considering smartness for small-scale and
fledgling examples of participation have been discussed (Hollands,
2015). Online participatory tools for the user community (Afzalan
et al., 2017), ecosystem actors, stakeholders, and socioeconomic
and political agents are discussed to create economic value and
solve societal problems through local entrepreneurs (Sarma and
Sunny, 2017).
The smart city is an urbanization process that uses a smart in-
formation infrastructure to ensure the centrality of citizens in a
sustainable environment and promote the competitiveness of
diverse functions by integrating different dimensions of urban
development and investments (Sta, 2017). The smart city, at least
currently, is on the path to becoming leading driver of urban sus-
tainability and regeneration initiatives (Martin de Jong et al., 2015).
The smart city has been connected to visions of the sustainable
development. There are three central elements, technology, orga-
nization and policy, which shape smart city initiatives and elucidate
the impact of governance, communities, economy, natural envi-
ronment, and infrastructure (Chourabi et al., 2012). Integrated as an
ecosystem, the smart city is configured by ubiquitous computing
and software agents where real-time data transfer to events (Cretu,
2012), there are six axes of prominent features: smart economy,
smart mobility, smart environment, smart people, smart living and
smart governance (Giffinger et al., 2007; Caragliu et al., 2011).
B gan (2012) suggested a balance among quality of life, envi-
ata
ronmental limits and technological change. Empowering and
including citizens represent the key to unlocking forms of smart-
sustainable urban development that emphasize environmental
protection and social equity (Martin et al., 2018).
2.2. Curricular assessment
The development performance evaluation of smart city has
recently been extensively researched for both academic and in-
dustrial applications. Social, economic and environmental impacts
are assumed to the principles of the triple bottom line (Elkington,
1997), and many studies rank cities according to these three-
dimensional criteria to assess a well performing city. A systematic
review of an assessment model for the sustainable development of
a city from three innovative directions relevant to social, economic
and environmental dimensions was conducted (Ritala et al., 2018;
Rodrigues et al., 2018; Junior et al., 2018). Partial correlations with
p-values among six variables were measured in the EU-15 by
Caragliu et al. (2011) considering per capita GDP in purchasing
power standards, employment in the entertainment industry,
multimodal accessibility, length of public transport network, e-
government, and human capital. However, these six dimensions of
the assessment model have been criticized for over focusing on
national level indicators (Santis et al., 2012), whereas social (quality
of life) and ecological dimensions are essential elements of the
sustainable smart city concept (Anttiroiko et al., 2014). Based on the
topic of vision, dynamic vision (technology usage, infrastructure,
and environment impact) and context vision (citizens, public
administration, and business) were added (Dameri, 2017). Jepson
and Edwards (2010) observed 14 principles of smart growth
involving intermodal transportation connectivity and other sus-
tainability factors via selection frequency.
While there continue to be a variety of opinions regarding the
principles and components of assessment, modern technology and
smartness derived from the academic literature, there is much
stronger emphasis on modern technical solutions and smartness in
the smart city than on sustainability frameworks (Ahvenniemi
et al., 2017). The utilization of networked infrastructure can
improve urban development (Hollands, 2008), as per the Sii-
Mobility API solution (Badii et al., 2017). ICT-oriented smart ser-
vices solutions have been proposed, which to an extent reflect a key
paradigmatic field for the smart development model through the
crowdsourcing and content analysis process (Kumar et al., 2018).
Yeh (2017) reveals factors aff ecting citizens' acceptance and use of
ICT-based SC services to improve their quality of life. Chatterjee
et al (2018) analyzes perceived information quality, system qual-
ity and service quality affecting the implementation of an infor-
mation system enabling IoT coupled with artificial intelligence in
the smart cities of India. The major reason for developing a
framework of smartness indicators is that it has the potential for
identifying the relative smartness of subsystem capabilities in
application. A proper categorization of the application layer will
multidimensional concepts of the smart city while systematically
expositing the underlying information. A coverage index assigned
to six domains in the smart city (natural resources and energy,
transport and mobility, buildings, living, government, economy and
people), and regression analyses are performed to understand the
influence of four groups of contextual variables that characterize
the development of a smart city according to the coverage index:
structural factors, economic development, technology develop-
ment, and environment-friendly policies (Neirotti et al., 2014).
In recent years, the assessment of the smart city for smartness
development has been widely studied to spark smart city initia-
tives. However, many assessment methods are subjective and
therefore cannot provide a comprehensive quantitative analysis of
a smart city. Despite their findings, adequacies remain in their
application, including a lack of thorough empirical studies of spe-
cific smart city initiatives (Kitchin, 2015) and comparative research
that contrasts smart city developments across regions considering
the heterogeneity of factor endowments such as regional charac-
teristics, informatization infrastructure and economic foundation.
Despite the improvement in the assessment approaches, research
should not only measure the smartness of development but also
consider the extent of smart technology usage as well as socio-
 X. Li et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 215 (2019) 730e743
economic and environmental impact factors.
Previous studies have examined the specific attributes of
various evaluation tools for a smart city. Fietkiewicz et al (2017)
applied an investigation approach to evaluate maturity of e-gov-
ernment, usability of the navigation systems, and documents
available on governmental websites, with empirical analysis of 31
world cities. The smartainability methodology is used to estimate
smarter in environmental, economic, energetic and social fields
with KPI (Girardi and Temporelli, 2017). Vu and Hartley (2017)
assess 10 representative secondary cities through a regression
and expert perceptions of the smart economy, smart human capital
development, smart infrastructure, smart environment and smart
government. However, expert-level knowledge is not the only
qualifying factor, which applicable to similar studies, such as PEST
analysis in Spanish smart city network (Palomo-Navarro and Navío-
Marco, 2017) and studies on the subjective estimation of the smart
economy, living, government, people, mobility and environment
(Caragliu et al., 2011; Vidiasova et al., 2017). Macke et al. (2018)
assess the perception of the quality of life in European cities via
linear regression from sociostructural relationships, environmental
well-being, material well-being and community integration. Anand
et al (2017) used fuzzy-AHP to measure the sustainability in smart
cities. Rad et al. (2018) used the analytical network process to
assign weights of component in ubiquitous city with a decision-
making trial and evaluation laboratory methods to aggregate the
responses of 16 experts to questionnaires.
It is difficult for the existing assessment system to respond
effectively to current situation of the smart city in China by
providing a baseline to solve redundant construction without
concentration. Ignoring the regional urban features and paramount
needs, and lacking the horizontal and vertical comparisons of a
typical urban development pattern make it difficult to consider
problems caused by structural factors, economic differentiation and
ICT infrastructure. Principal component analysis (PCA) is a tool for
reducing the number of indicators (Engida et al., 2018), compared
with structural equation modeling, which reflects the variations
and estimates relational model. A multimethod combination, PCA-
BP neural network assessment system, is employed in this study.
The PCA-BP neural network is particularly suitable for a large
number of highly correlated indicators that capture various di-
mensions of a smart city and improve the deficiency of the single-
method evaluation, reducing the oscillation in the learning process
and improving the convergence. With the extracted feature vectors
and the calculated performance score via PCA, the BP neural
network is adopted for city classification to obtain deeper recog-
nition of the development pattern of sustainable smart cities. The
research empirically compared the development performance of
smart cities in China; city classification was conducted to recognize
development differences through the PCA-BP neural network
assessment model; and the corresponding optimization patterns
for sustainable smart development were proposed.
2.3. Indicator system for smart city
The assessment of the development mode for the smart city is a
program with high complexity and systemization that should use
not only output-oriented indicators but also impact indicators to
measure the efficiency of deployment (Ahvenniemi et al., 2017). A
multidimensional framework reveals that technology, community
and policy, as drivers of a smart city, reflect the domains in relation
to society, economy (innovation), environment (sustainability) and
governance (Yigitcanlar et al., 2018). In alignment with socio-
economic and environmental (SEE) smartness perspectives,
technology-based urban factors and typical sectors for sustainable
application have been included in the evaluation system (Silva
733
et al., 2018), in relation to technological innovation, smart econ-
omy, smart infrastructure, smart services, smart mobility, and
smart environment and in accordance with the ‘evaluation in-
dicators for a new-type of smart cities’ (SAPRC, 2016) promulgated
by the Chinese government. The list of indicators used is presented
in Table 1, in addition to the factor level and operational indicators,
which are grouped into six thematic areas.
The smart economy dimension is always measured by indices
that calculate local innovative spirit, which can be observed as
high-quality and coordinated economic growth and improve en-
terprise innovation and creativity. A smart ICT-based infrastructure
system as well as smart services represent a creative mix of
emerging technologies and innovation in the public sector that
enable information and service delivery as well as citizen partici-
pation and service codesign (Anthopoulos, 2017). Paraphernalia
revolution of sensors and big data, internet of things and artificial
intelligence has burst onto the transport field to resist negative
influences and improve sustainable environment by making
mobility smarter. The smart mobility dimension measures trans-
portation systems that combine information, telecommunications
positioning and automation technologies to obtain an accessible
and shareable urban space. The smart environment dimension
measures the existing environmental quality and calculates the
controllable resource management in the urban space. Specific
interpretations for the data collection according to several complex
operating indices are provided as a supplement as follows. Labor
employment in information transmission computer services and
software, science and technology expenditure explain innovative
resources input, while high-tech industrial output value from
principal business is one representative and quantifiable aspect for
urban innovative output. Electronic public services categories are
composed of electronic channels for addressing multiple services in
various functional departments, such as employment services, so-
cial insurance, and channels for public complaints (Song et al.,
2017). An electronic service system consists of electronic parking
payment systems, electronic bus stop signs, electronic travel
tickets, information on routes, schedules and times, mobile apps
and technology products. One point is counted for each term
(Battarra et al., 2018). Data source of the other operating indices are
given explanatory notes in the Table 1.
3. Material and methods
3.1. Principal component analysis
As a widely used statistical processing technique, the principal
component analysis (PCA) offers an effective means to extract in-
formation and visualize pattern from linear combinations of orig-
inal variables that rely on correlation matrix (Palese, 2018). The
components are derived by finding the eigenvectors and the cor-
responding eigenvalues of the covariance matrix. The component
with the largest corresponding eigenvalue is the first principal
component that encapsulates most of the data variability and
represents a rotation of the original data along an axis describing
the largest spread. The components with the second largest vari-
ance and the remaining components elucidate residual variability
that is not correlated to the first component (Patel et al., 2018). In
reliability analysis, Cronbach's Alpha is greater than 0.7 (Tavakol
and Dennick, 2011). It is essential for reliability analysis and val-
idity analysis prior to conducting principal component analysis. In
content validity analysis, the correlation test is required before
using principal component analysis. This analysis provides evi-
dence that the original variable is suitable for principal component
analysis when the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test value is above
0.5.
734 X. Li et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 215 (2019) 730e743

Table 1
Indicator system for assessing the development model of smart cities.

Target level Factor level Explanatory level Operating Indices Unit Data
source

Development of sustainable Technological Innovative resources Labor employment in information transmission computer % A
smart city innovation services and software
Science and technology expenditure 104 yuan A
Innovative output High-tech industrial output value from principal business 104 yuan C
Smart economy Sustainable Per capita GDP 104 yuan/person A
productivity Tertiary industry in GDP % B
Entrepreneurial Enterprises in hi-tech industry development zone number A
enterprises
Global Foreign direct investment contracts number A
interconnectedness Export value of high-tech enterprises 104 dollars A
Smart Public facilities Maintaining and building cities expenditure 104 yuan B
infrastructure Postal and telecommunication services 104 yuan B
Network penetration Number of websites hosted sites per 103 E,F
population
Internet protocol addresses ip per 103 E,F
population
Smart services Service platforms Cloud and big data service platforms 104 yuan C,J
E-government Electronic public services categories number of points F,J
services
Industry opportunity Information technology services value added 104 yuan C
Smart mobility Mobility sharing Passengers in a vehicle 104 person-times I,G
Public transportation vehicles number per 104 I,G
persons
Multimodal access Modal split of passenger transport 104 persons inland H,B
Integrated ICT system Electronic service system number of points I,G
Smart environment Renewable Smart waste recycling and conservation of resources % A,H
management
Environment control Continuous environmental monitoring number of points F,K
Environmental Air quality standard achievement % A,K
quality

Note: A: China Statistical Yearbook (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2016a,b). B: China City Statistics Yearbook (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2016a,b). C:
Yearbook of China Information Industry (Yearbook Editorial Board, 2016). D: Comparative study of smart cities in Europe and China (PDSF, 2014). E: Does smart city policy lead
to sustainability of cities (Yigitcanlar and Kamruzzaman, 2018). F: https://myip.ms/browse/cities/IP_Addresses_Cities.html. G: Official website of municipal government
(2018). H: A differential multi-criteria analysis for the assessment of sustainability performance of European countries: beyond country ranking (Antanasijevi
c et al., 2017). I:
Smart mobility in Italian metropolitan cities: a comparative analysis through indicators and actions (Battarra et al., 2018). J: Towards smart cities by Internet of Things (IoT) - a
silent revolution in China (Song et al., 2017). K: A methodological framework for assessment of ubiquitous cities using ANP and DEMATEL methods (Rad et al., 2018).

Initially, to avoid unnecessary repeated computation, several The third step is to calculate the variance covariance matrix Rpp
new uncorrelated indicators that can reflect the development of for data matrix Xnp . Calculating the eigenvalues
sustainable smart cities are defined as Y1 ; Y2 ; /Ym . Jiang et al. li ði ¼ 1; 2/; p; i < pÞ from equation jlI  Rj ¼ 0, the eigenvectors
(2018a,b) Consider the ðn  pÞ dimensional data matrix X of n cit- ap of variance covariance matrix Rpp are calculated by formula (4).
ies and p sustainability smart indicator variables; these new in-  
dicators can be embodied via a linear combination called the R  lp I ap ¼ 0 (4)
principal components, as shown in Eq. (1).
P
p
8 The fourth step is to define the contribution rate li = li and the
>
> y ¼ a11 x1 þ a12 x2 þ / þ a1p xp i¼1
< 1 P P
p
y2 ¼ a21 x1 þ a22 x2 þ / þ a2p xp m
Y¼ (1) cumulative contribution rate li = li .
>
> / i¼1 i¼1
:
ym ¼ am1 x1 þ am2 x2 þ / þ amp xp The fifth step is to calculate the scores of the principal compo-
nents for each city k as shown in Eq. (5).
Second, in terms of various data types, data sources and
different characteristics and dimensions of evaluation indicators, Fk ¼ ai1 x1 þ ai2 x2 þ / þ aip xp ; ði ¼ 1; 2; /; m; k ¼ 1; 2; /; nÞ
the raw index values could not be used directly in the calculation
(Liu et al., 2018). The index data were normalized and processed (5)
into dimensionless data from 0 to 1 to improve the generalization The sixth step is to normalize the sustainable smart develop-
ability of the network according to formula (2). Negative indices are ment performance of cities, shown as Eq. (6).
calculated by formula (3).
X
m .
0     PCAðkÞ ¼ li Xm l  Fk (6)
xj ¼ xj  xj min xj max  xj min (2) i¼1 i
i¼1

0    
xj ¼ xj max  xj xj max  xj min (3)

0
where xj is the uniform data of the j th index; xj is the original value
of the j th index; xj min is the minimum value of the original value of
the j th index; and xj max is the maximum value of the j th index.
3.2. Principal component analysis - back propagation neural
network model
The employment of principal component analysis enables the
 X. Li et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 215 (2019) 730e743 735

extraction of principal components into an indicator system which uij  X þ Bij  ones, where ones represents the matrix in which all
reduces the dimensions featured (Jiang et al. (2018a,b)). With the elements are 1. Assume the activation function is the commonly
feature vectors and performance score though PCA, the back used unipolar Sigmoid function, shown as Eq. (7), the neuron
propagation (BP) neural network is adopted to classify and recog- output in the hidden layer is shown as Eq. (8).
nize the pattern of sustainable smart development, as well as to
break the limitation of PCA in identifying the most dominant .
fðxÞ ¼ 1 1 þ ex (7)
structure. A parallel process with many elements and neurons
connects to training by the gradient descent method adjustment in
model calibration to produce corresponding output values (Li and .
Yu, 2013). With the topological structures for multiple inputs and O2 ¼ 1 1 þ eI2 (8)
single outputs, BP neural network has distributed processing ability
and fault tolerant ability to deal with fuzzy information while Step 4: calculation of the input in the output layer, I3 ¼ ujk 
considering many factors. O2 þ Bjk  ones, simultaneously satisfies the output O3 ¼ I3 , where
The superior capacity for modeling nonlinear relationships re- ujk ðtÞ explains the weight between the hidden layer and the output
fers to multitude variables compared with experiential knowledge layer and Bjk ðtÞ stands for the threshold value connection between
(Zhang et al., 2015; Xie, 2017). The adopted PCA-BP neural network the hidden layer and output layer.
model is compose of a six-neuron input layer, single hidden layer P
Step 5: calculation of energy function E ¼ ðY  O3 Þ2 , which
and correspond to classified output with random connection represents the sum of the squares of error between the network
weights (see Fig. 1). The number of neurons in a single hidden layer
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi that predict the output and the real output, where the real output
can be calculated by m ¼ a þ n þ l, where n equals the number of value is Y.
neurons in the input layer, l is represents the number of neurons in Step 6: adjustments and updates of weight and threshold value.
the output layer, and a is the constant (1 < a < 10). These can be observed in formula (9), formula (10), formula (11)
Step 1: preparation for the training network sample. The PCA and formula (12).
was conducted on the evaluation indicator system. The dimensions
of technological innovation, smart services, and smart environment
vE
contain three operating indices each; five indices are included in Dujk ¼ m ¼ m  ðY  O3 Þ  O2 (9)
vujk
smart economy, while the smart infrastructure and smart mobility
dimensions consist of four operating indicators. The eigenvector
matrix of the principal components and the sample scores, which vE
were calculated through the data processing of the principal DBjk ¼ m ¼ m  ðY  O3 Þ  ones (10)
vBjk
component analysis, cover the dimensions of technological inno-
vation, smart economic, smart infrastructure smart mobility, smart
services, and smart environment included and correspond to an vE
Duij ¼ m ¼ m  ujk  ðY  O3 Þ  O2  ð1  O2 Þ  X
input node that will be the objective vector as the input layer of the vuij
BP neural network framework. The city samples of Shanghai,
(11)
Tianjin, Wuhan, Taiyuan and Yinchuan were chosen as test samples,
while the others were treated as training samples.
Step 2: network initialization for weight uij ðtÞ and threshold vE
DBij ¼ m ¼ m  ujk  ðY  O3 Þ  O2  ð1  O2 Þ  ones
value Bij ðtÞ, which connect the input layer and the hidden layer, vBij
were set to activate neurons, such that the network was assigned to (12)
a random number matrix.
Step 3: calculation of input I2 and output O2 in hidden layer. I2 ¼ Step7: Judgment whether iteration of model is over or else re-
turn to step 2.

Fig. 1. Assessment process model of PCA-BP neural network.

736 X. Li et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 215 (2019) 730e743

4. Empirical application
4.1. Data
This research was conducted in the context of smart cities in
China. The selection of the cities as the study context is justified as
follows: (a) the cities are early adopters and preliminarily
completed the smart concept and practices; (b) Chinese central
cities established in the ‘National Urban System Planning Outline’
(2010) were included with respect to Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin,
Guangzhou and Chongqing as well as Wuhan, Zhengzhou, which
selected in 2016; (c) most provincial capital cities across China,
amounting to thirty-five smart cities were benchmarked. This
research utilized many secondary sources to gather and analyze
data: (a) online and offline resources were adopted to obtain data
from the China Statistical Yearbook (National Bureau of Statistics of
China, 2016) and the Yearbook of China Information Industry
(Yearbook Editorial Board, 2016); (b) the China City Statistical
Yearbook (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2016), the National
Economy and Society Developed Statistical Bulletin (2016), and the
official website of the municipal government or the municipal
science and technology bureaus were consulted; (c) a search for
development research reports replaced the missing data with an
average value or a corresponding data conversion. The objective of
the assessment framework is not to rank the pilot cities' projects
but to compare the various characteristics of each pilot city from
the perspective of their sustainable and smart development
pattern, assess the development mode of diverse cities and to
classify them against a common set of criteria. Descriptive statistics
with mean and standard deviation were included for twenty-two
original indicators of the thirty-five smart cities; these can be
seen in Table 2. These original data are the basis of the subsequent
research.
4.2. Principal component analysis
On the basis of the statistical data collection and survey results,
a 35  22 assessment matrix that captures the technology-based
social, economic and environmental dimensions of sustainable
smart cities was established and transformed into a set of uncor-
related principal components. Reliability analysis was conducted by
the IBM SPSS Statistics 22 software, and Cronbach's Alpha was
0.925. Cronbach's Alphas of the items deleted in the reliability
analysis are shown in Table 3. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) and Bar-
tlett's test of sphericity must be conducted to verify the rationality
of the PCA method. This method is suitable for variances imple-
mented with principal component analysis when the Kaiser-
Meyer-Olkin (KMO) test value is above 0.5. The results of the
KMO measurement showed that the sample adequacy was 0.714.
Bartlett's test of sphericity was significant, revealing that the cor-
relation matrix is significantly different from an identity matrix.
The general method for selecting the number of principal
components is largely dependent on the criterion of the corre-
sponding eigenvalue being greater than 1 to retain explanatory
ability, and the cumulative weight of the principal components
should be no less than 70% of the variance. As illustrated in Table 4,
the cumulative variance contribution rate of the first six principal
components reaches 80.404%, accompanied with the highest ei-
genvalues. Those corresponding six eigenvalues will be employed
in postprocessing without losing the crucial information of the
initial indices.
The factors loadings of the first six principal components after
maximal variance rotation are shown in Table 5. The first principal
component is composed of science and technology expenditure
(T2), high-tech industrial output value from the principal business
(T3), per capita GDP (EC1), foreign direct investment contracts
(EC4), export value of high-tech enterprises (EC5), cloud and big
data service platforms (S1), and electronic public services cate-
gories (S2). The second principal component is consists of Labor
employment in information transmission computer services and
software (T1), tertiary industry in GDP (EC2), enterprises in hi-tech
industry development zone (EC3), number of websites hosted (I3),
Internet protocol addresses (I4), information technology services
value added (S3), and passengers in a vehicle (M1). The third
principal component is correlated with expenditure for maintain-
ing and building cities (I1), postal and telecommunication services
(I2), electronic service system (M4), and continuous environmental
monitoring (EN2). The fourth principal component is relevant to
public transportation vehicles (M2), and air quality standard
achievement (EN3). The fifth principal component regards the
modal split of passenger transport (M3). Smart waste recycling and
conservation of resources (EN1) explain the sixth principal

Table 2
Descriptive statistics (Mean and standard deviation for each indicator of smart cities).

Factor level Operating Indices Symbol Mean S.D.

Technological innovation Labor employment in information transmission computer services and software T1 0.92 1.02
Science and technology expenditure T2 500402.89 718586.93
High-tech industrial output value from principal business T3 102773326.06 86822174.68
Smart economy Per capita GDP EC1 85543.40 27954.57
Tertiary industry in GDP EC2 54.39 9.18
Enterprises in hi-tech industry development zone EC3 1552.31 2848.58
Foreign direct investment contracts EC4 538.60 1155.75
Export value of high-tech enterprises EC5 846977.57 1031405.84
Smart infrastructure Maintaining and building cities expenditure I1 2455288.63 4966927.97
Postal and telecommunication services I2 2030262.11 2107596.94
Number of websites hosted I3 8363.31 20994.05
Internet protocol addresses I4 2365.91 3277.96
Smart services Cloud and big data service platforms S1 378631.46 617176.96
Electronic public services categories S2 59.77 14.84
Information technology services value added S3 4196655.22 6556233.76
Smart mobility Passengers in a vehicle M1 114506.86 79180.68
Public transportation vehicles M2 17.11 13.36
Modal split of passenger transport M3 16908.63 20546.06
Electronic service system M4 8121129.67 36450723.33
Smart environment Smart waste recycling and conservation of resources EN1 87.46 17.37
Continuous environmental monitoring EN2 6.97 1.98
Air quality standard achievement EN3 70.47 59.69
 X. Li et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 215 (2019) 730e743 737

Table 3
Cronbach's Alpha if item deleted in reliability analysis.

Technological Smart economy Smart infrastructure Smart services Smart mobility Smart environment
innovation

Symbol Item deleted Symbol Item deleted Symbol Item deleted Symbol Item deleted Symbol Item deleted Symbol Item deleted

T1 0.917 EC1 0.923 I1 0.925 S1 0.919 M1 0.916 EN1 0.930

T2 0.916 EC2 0.923 I2 0.915 S2 0.923 M2 0.928 EN2 0.929
T3 0.920 EC3 0.919 I3 0.923 S3 0.916 M3 0.924 EN3 0.935
EC4 0.921 I4 0.919 M4 0.921
EC5 0.921

Table 4
Eigenvalue and contribution rate of variance of the first six principal components.

Components Initial eigenvalue Extraction sums of squared loadings Rotation sums of squared Loadings

Total Variance % Cumulative % Total Variance % Cumulative % Total Variance % Cumulative %

1 10.105 45.932 45.932 10.105 45.932 45.932 5.950 27.045 27.045

2 2.669 12.131 58.063 2.669 12.131 58.063 5.427 24.669 51.715
3 1.662 7.554 65.618 1.662 7.554 65.618 2.241 10.188 61.903
4 1.274 5.792 71.409 1.274 5.792 71.409 1.558 7.082 68.985
5 1.061 4.825 76.234 1.061 4.825 76.234 1.363 6.197 75.182
6 0.917 4.170 80.404 0.917 4.170 80.404 1.149 5.222 80.404

Table 5
Load matrix of the first six principal components after maximal variance rotation.

Operating Indices Symbol F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6

Labor employment in information transmission computer services and software T1 0.510 0.756 0.125 0.108 0.170 0.018
Science and technology expenditure T2 0.756 0.513 0.276 0.005 0.054 0.092
High-tech industrial output value from principal business T3 0.851 0.032 0.182 0.197 0.248 0.198
Per capita GDP EC1 0.793 0.194 0.262 0.080 0.030 0.065
Tertiary industry in GDP EC2 0.089 0.641 0.300 0.391 0.009 0.098
Enterprises in hi-tech industry development zone EC3 0.283 0.718 0.514 0.182 0.084 0.142
Foreign direct investment contracts EC4 0.772 0.203 0.129 0.180 0.106 0.193
Export value of high-tech enterprises EC5 0.622 0.304 0.108 0.365 0.097 0.123
Maintaining and building cities expenditure I1 0.292 0.129 0.704 0.265 0.139 0.077
Postal and telecommunication services I2 0.684 0.246 0.615 0.046 0.195 0.028
Number of websites hosted I3 0.075 0.832 0.154 0.156 0.179 0.133
Internet protocol addresses I4 0.286 0.888 0.000 0.161 0.168 0.095
Cloud and big data service platforms S1 0.823 0.232 0.063 0.312 0.202 0.116
Electronic public services categories S2 0.455 0.238 0.093 0.143 0.314 0.333
Information technology services value added S3 0.578 0.647 0.367 0.033 0.168 0.008
Passengers in a vehicle M1 0.583 0.607 0.347 0.058 0.169 0.041
Public transportation vehicles M2 0.575 0.074 0.245 0.381 0.477 0.019
Modal split of passenger transport M3 0.273 0.260 0.146 0.219 0.823 0.139
Electronic service system M4 0.162 0.764 0.413 0.134 0.034 0.217
Smart waste recycling and conservation of resources EN1 0.192 0.016 0.063 0.101 0.090 0.856
Continuous environmental monitoring EN2 0.162 0.191 0.737 0.032 0.059 0.197
Air quality standard achievement EN3 0.017 0.156 0.144 0.826 0.108 0.130

component. The eigenvector matrix of the first six principal com- cities in China is found in Fig. 2. The adjusted structure of BP neural
ponents is calculated as shown in Table 6. network exhibits seven-dimension (23 neurons) input layers, two
hidden layers and five output layers. Under the MATLAB (R2016a)
platform, this study sets the training number 10000, learning rate
4.3. Development pattern recognition of a smart city: the PCA-BP
0.01, and error expectancy value 0.001. Accuracy assessment was
neural network model
determined by utilizing the mean squared error (MSE ¼ 0:0036)
and the correlation coefficient (R ¼ 0:9889) for the simulation, as
The comprehensive principal component analysis - back prop-
shown in Fig. 3. The training model is quite appropriate to avoid
agation neural network evaluates aspects that include not only the
over fitting. The accuracy of the training set (sample cities excluded
elements of smartness or the environment but also technology-
from the test set) is 97.22%, and the accuracy of the test set
based, social, economic, and environmental aspects of smart city
(Shanghai, Tianjin, Wuhan, Taiyuan, Yinchuan) is 83.33%.
development, with emphasis on the development pattern recog-
The simulation results show that the sample cities can be
nition of different cities. The back propagation neural network is
divided into five city groups with PCA-BP neural network training
employed as the pattern classification to recognize the develop-
and simulation due to the classification and pattern recognition, as
ment pattern using the eigenvector matrix of the first six principal
shown in Fig. 4. The first city group covered Beijing, Shaihai,
components calculated from the original twenty-two standardized
Guanzhou and Shenzhen with superior and balanced momentum.
indicators as well as the ranking score. A close relationship between
The second city group contains Hangzhou, Tianjin, Suzhou, Nanjing,
each indicator and comparison with the ranking scores of 35 smart
738 X. Li et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 215 (2019) 730e743

Table 6
Eigenvector matrix of the first six principal components.

Operating Indices Symbol F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6

Labor employment in information transmission computer services and software T1 0.209 0.325 0.083 0.086 0.146 0.017
Science and technology expenditure T2 0.310 0.220 0.184 0.004 0.046 0.086
High-tech industrial output value from principal business T3 0.349 0.014 0.122 0.158 0.212 0.185
Per capita GDP EC1 0.325 0.083 0.175 0.064 0.025 0.061
Tertiary industry in GDP EC2 0.036 0.275 0.201 0.313 0.008 0.092
Enterprises in hi-tech industry development zone EC3 0.116 0.308 0.343 0.146 0.072 0.133
Foreign direct investment contracts EC4 0.317 0.087 0.086 0.145 0.091 0.180
Export value of high-tech enterprises EC5 0.255 0.130 0.072 0.293 0.083 0.115
Maintaining and building cities expenditure I1 0.120 0.055 0.470 0.212 0.119 0.072
Postal and telecommunication services I2 0.280 0.164 0.264 0.037 0.167 0.026
Number of websites hosted I3 0.031 0.357 0.103 0.125 0.153 0.124
Internet protocol addresses I4 0.117 0.381 0.000 0.129 0.144 0.088
Cloud and big data service platforms S1 0.337 0.099 0.042 0.250 0.173 0.108
Electronic public services categories S2 0.186 0.102 0.062 0.114 0.269 0.311
Information technology services value added S3 0.237 0.278 0.245 0.026 0.144 0.007
Passengers in a vehicle M1 0.239 0.261 0.232 0.046 0.145 0.038
Public transportation vehicles M2 0.236 0.032 0.163 0.305 0.408 0.018
Modal split of passenger transport M3 0.112 0.112 0.098 0.176 0.705 0.129
Electronic service system M4 0.067 0.328 0.276 0.108 0.029 0.202
Smart waste recycling and conservation of resources EN1 0.079 0.007 0.042 0.081 0.077 0.798
Continuous environmental monitoring EN2 0.067 0.082 0.492 0.026 0.051 0.184
Air quality standard achievement EN3 0.007 0.067 0.096 0.662 0.092 0.121

Fig. 2. Total and principal component scores for each smart city after forward parallel moving.

Fig. 3. Training process of the PCA-BP neural network model.

 X. Li et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 215 (2019) 730e743
Fig. 4. Distribution of five classified pattern Groups for smart city.
Chongqing, Chengdu and Xian, which includes above-average re-
sults for the six principal components. The third group consist of
cites that are in an economic boom: Wuhan, Zhengzhou, Xiamen,
Qingdao, Fuzhou, Dalian, Jinan, Shenyang, Hefei, Guiyang, Chang-
sha and Harbin; most of these have strong individual development
advantages. The fourth city group included Shijiazhuang, Taiyuan,
Haikou, Kunming, Lanzhou, Urumqi and Changchun, whose scores
are slightly lower than the mean level. The fifth city group are
consists of Nanchang, Nanning, Xining, Yinchuan and Hohhot,
which exhibit a relatively insufficient construction foundation. The
second and third groups could consider middle-ranking groups
with balanced development, the fourth and fifth groups are sub-
average groups when mentioned in subsequent study.
5. Results
The results of this study reveal that differences exist in the
development performance and process pattern in Chinese smart
cities, a detailed analysis follows regarding six aspects.
The relative gap in the value of technological innovation in-
dicators among cities has been narrow, although Beijing continues
to have the best overall scores for all principal components. The
development pattern of cities has transformed the target from
being factor-driven to being the innovation-driven impetus. It is
obvious that the technological innovation and smart economy
scores are two principal components that have a primary combined
contribution of variance (51.715%) and are mainly influenced by the
first two groups. The first city group has an average score of
739
PCAðF1 ÞG1 ¼ 1:010 in a single indicator, and the second city group
has an average score of PCAðF1 ÞG2 ¼ 0:189 compare to the first
group. The other cities have a negative scores, with a slight decrease
in development performance in the third group PCAðF1 ÞG2 ¼ 
0:156, in contrast to the average score ranking between the last
two groups. The fifth group shows PCAðF1 ÞG4 ¼  0:302, and the
sixth group shows PCAðF1 ÞG5 ¼  0:282.
The first group (PCAðF 2 ÞG1 ¼ 1:180) has a comparative advan-
tage due to its abundant domestic and global resources, it has
experienced constant positive development, particularly regarding
GDP and the industrial economy. However, the two middle-ranking
groups (0.080, 0.123) have no notable advantages but have
balanced development, these showed similar upward trends, rising
rapidly in terms of a smart economy partly due to the development
of high-tech development zone. From the knowledge spillover
perspective, the development of Beijing is more akin to a suction
than to the regurgitation-feeding mode of Shanghai and the multi-
integrated mode of Guangzhou and Shenzhen. Innovative and
entrepreneurial high-tech enterprise and talent flow have gener-
ated positive impacts on the regional economic radiation, while the
two middle-ranking groups show diminishing marginal benefits
associated with the traditional industry, in contrast to the alter-
native represented by the accelerated development and exploita-
tion of high-tech industry, which is associated with big data, the
Internet of Things and cloud computing. The residual groups
showed ladder-like lower values (0.226, 0.443) due to the
stickiness of resources and the great potential to stimulate indi-
vidual dominance.
740 X. Li et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 215 (2019) 730e743
A smart ICT-based infrastructure system serves residents
through municipal services and efficient resource utilization,
including roads, networks, postal and telecommunication services.
As can be observed, the remaining groups are deficient in terms of
an initial inventory of smart infrastructure, with a score
(0.158, 0.305, 0.324) lower than the average
PCAðF3 Þaverage ¼ 0:081 compare with the top two groups (0.892,
0.298). The results of the empirical comparative analysis suggest
that the social capital investment and the output benchmark
overestimated the deviation in the city infrastructure with over-
lapping construction and added resource consumption.
The smart services as a support system for the realization of
urban intelligence provides an added value regarding the second
group, PCAðF4 ÞG2 ¼ 0:118, which has close to the highest points
among the first group PCAðF4 ÞG1 ¼ 0:243. It is interesting that the
score of Chongqing (0.878), Chengdu (0.324), Xian (0.488),
Changsha (0.956), and Harbin (0.901) in the middle-ranking groups
rebound and nearly reach a peak, similarly to Beijing (1.293). In
other words, the cities in the third group, PCAðF4 ÞG3 ¼ 0:076, has
unapparent holistic highlighting. However, their advantage of a
single index score can be complementarily offset. The fourth group
shows PCAðF4 ÞG4 ¼  0:139, the fifth group shows PCAðF4 ÞG5 ¼ 
0:348 and the average exhibits the most negative level in contrast
to the other five principal factors, with PCAðF4 Þaverage ¼  0:010.
Although the majority of cities have made a long-term
improvement in the accessibility and shareability of urban space,
relatively large differences can be observed for the five groups. The
fourth group has energy performance, PCAðF5 ÞG4 ¼ 0:066, ranking
next to that of the first group PCAðF5 ÞG1 ¼ 0:361. The remaining
groups have the negative values but still have potential, with a
trend of PCAðF5 ÞG2 ¼  0:023, PCAðF5 ÞG3 ¼  0:019, and
PCAðF5 ÞG5 ¼  0:301. Smart cities seek more external resources
from the global network to enhance competitiveness and critical
transportation system should have intelligent and environment-
coordinated development.
The results of the holistic city group in a smart environment
reveal the second lowest average points, PCAðF6 Þaverage ¼ 0:008,
and decreased sharply, parallel to technological innovation (0.093),
smart economy (0.093), smart infrastructure (0.081) and smart
mobility (0.016). to an extent, this finding is because the informa-
tion and communications technologies for a sustainable environ-
ment and the corresponding green policies have been gradually
respect in recent years and remains at the beginning stage of
development. However, there is no significant difference among
cities: PCAðF6 ÞG1 ¼  0:087, PCAðF6 ÞG2 ¼  0:014, PCAðF6 ÞG3 ¼ 
0:021, PCAðF6 ÞG4 ¼ 0:002, and PCAðF6 ÞG5 ¼  0:041.
6. Discussion and optimization pattern
In addition to the narrowing of the relative difference gap in the
assessment of technological innovation single indicators, the
industry's development direction is consistent. The second and
third city groups are driven by the diversified engagement of the
stakeholders, although the first group attracts and encourages large
investments to provide a better foundation than the groups that
have switched their strategic construction target from the sectorial
level to the holistic level. The smart development pattern has been
transformed from a focus on a single element to a multiple inno-
vation model, which be consists of a ‘user demand pull, core
technology push, government policy guidance, enterprise partici-
pation driven’ model; in other words, cities are centered not only
on economic factors but also on smartness in social applications
and multiagent participation as well as sustainable environmental
limits. Public participation is very limited in most of the existing
cities, which stimulate the participation of enterprises. The deep
involvement of enterprises and individual feedback for service re-
quirements lead to cooperation in technology innovation between
the private sector and experts, universities, research institutes,
companies and government agencies on the path to speeding up
the innovation resource gathering process, which provides
knowledge spillover and the technology diffusion to support a
smart platform.
The regional economy maintains steady growth for two middle-
ranking groups to catch up to top group associated with depressed
performance in the remaining groups. The staged development
pattern is suggested for the most cities in group four as well as two
middle-ranking groups with the adoption of traditional industrial
adaptability transfer, and superior industry coordination linkage for
smart industry convergence. For example, it is necessary to take a
systematic step-by-step approach to further enhance regional
economic spillover, optimize the traditional industrial structure
and upgrade the modern service industry function, and then, the
superior industries support the smart platform, which builds upon
the industrial foundation. Industrial clusters with international
competitiveness are formed with the agglomeration and develop-
ment of the superior industries. Through the integration of the
innovation chain and the industry value chain, innovation re-
sources such as high technology, products and talents can be
transferred into traditional industry, which will play an essential
role in accelerating the adaptive transfer and structure upgrade of
traditional industry and form the supporting industrial linkage
system. The competitive industries can be divided and developed to
form the industry value chain of intelligent industries. This chain
can be used to promote the bidirectional flow between the central
smart city and its neighboring regions.
The empirical analysis highlights the loose mechanism of
governance in urban operations and shows a suitable occasion to
improve the poor infrastructure in cities whose performance below
the average. There is a significant positive link between smart
infrastructure development, technological innovation and eco-
nomic foundation, and there are systemic challenges, including a
clear top-down development strategy and individualized regional
development. On the one hand, a top-down centralized design
continues rational initiatives that establish an objective for guiding
the efforts of stakeholders, the diversity of capital infusion and
multilevel management in smart cities are suitable for the major
groups. Regional linkage based on a smart grid promotes the
technically-oriented construction of infrastructure and facilitates
the transit-oriented city development principles to leverage the
efficiency of resource utilization. On the other hand, there is more
devolution to local cities and encouragement for individualized
development, particularly for the subaverage groups with regional
advantages. It is crucial to identify regional characteristics, indus-
trial structures and factor endowments to introduce appropriate
smart elements. For example, IoT will be selectively used for envi-
ronment, tourism management or transport and different demon-
stration fields in the subaverage groups.
With mostly negative average scores in the smart services index
in contrast to the other five principal factors, it cannot be ignored
that smart development tends to be formalized without adequate
incentives to multiple agents, there is, emphasis on technology, but
it is difficult to transfer applications. ICT-based solutions enabling
information and service delivery in smart services should be
authorized for civil participation and co-design oriented toward
citizen requirements. For instance, civilian participation should be
coordinated among the primary concerned parties through finan-
cial investment and incentives. The compatibility of the smart
application system should be taken into account because relatively
complete technical standards and norms of infrastructure
 X. Li et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 215 (2019) 730e743
construction have not yet been formed. Such standards and norms
include the employment of three-level structural pattern in a smart
service system to form basic technical standards, the application of
these standards to general specifications, and a normalized inter-
face to coordinate the integration of heterogeneous resources
distributed during the specific implementation process.
Relative lower average but balanced development trend in
smart environment indices which were affected primarily by smart
mobility and smart economy. The creation of sustainable urban
space and the establishment of a smart environment can effectively
manage waste, transport, and air quantity by consolidating and
investing in technology-based advancements. The relationship
between the technological embedded environment and economic
development pattern, as well as public transportation system is
necessary and important. This is a problem that all cities need to
face for a sustainable development. The implementation of suitable
development strategies has received support, for it directly impacts
the quality of life in smart cities, such as supporting for
environment-friendly products and services, improving sharable
public transportation capacity, and accelerating the transformation
of industrial structure. Progress towards sustainable development
has not yet achieved the desired scale, and enterprises must be
guided in the process (Bamgartner and Rauter, 2017).
7. Conclusion
A sustainable smart city development indicator system was
constructed using a principal component analysis - back propaga-
tion neural network assessment processing model to assess thirty-
five smart cities in China. The extracted feature vectors and calcu-
lated performance score via the PCA-BP neural network were
adopted for city classification to recognize a deeper development
pattern of sustainable smart cities.
The factor-driven development pattern evolves into an
innovation-driven pattern with a relative narrowing gap from the
holistic perspective, and a positive mean level can be observed for
the improvement of city mobility despite the lowest average points
in the construction of a smart environment for all groups. Two
middle-ranking groups showed similar upward trends towards a
smart economy through sustainable productivity in innovative
enterprises and high-tech industry, partly in response to a similar
improved trend in the application of smart services such that
distinct individual index advantages can be complementarily offset
to unapparent holistic highlighting in spite of the lowest average
points. Unbalanced development exists in two subaverage groups
between the initially deficient inventory of smart infrastructure
and demands. A relatively large difference exists in the smart
mobility index among cities whereas the smart environment index
is reversed. Cities in the fourth group rank in terms of energetic
performance next to the first group, compared with the remaining
groups, which follow a negative trend in the smart mobility index
although the majority of cities have made a long-term improve-
ment in the accessibility and shareablity of urban space. Partly due
to the information and communications technologies for a sus-
tainable environment and the corresponding green policies have
gradually come to be respected in recent years, and while the cities
are still at the beginning stage of development, there is no signif-
icant difference among them in terms of the smart environment
index.
There are obvious limitations in our methodology. The assess-
ment processing model combining the principal component anal-
ysis and BP neural network optimized the validity of a single
evaluation system to a certain extent and also can be employed in
similar assessment when there is a large number of a highly
correlated indicator. However, a dynamic time-series of the
741
development processing for each city was not considered. Thus, the
assessment shows the effect on performance and comparative
analysis among cities rather than the evolving process. Further-
more, constrained by difficulties in obtaining certain uncountable
data, the indicator assessment system does not consider the tech-
nology embedded in the social and cultural structure, particular for
education, public health, security or other multilevel application
systems. Hence, further studies will consider how to introduce
more effective explanatory variables to make the assessment model
more precise.
Acknowledgements
This research is partially supported by the National Natural
Science Foundation of China (No.71503099, 71871102), Hubei
Province Natural Science Fund of China (No. 2015CFB396), and
Hubei Chenguang Talented Youth Development Foundation.
References
Adapa, S., 2018. Indian smart cities and cleaner production initiatives - integrated
framework and recommendations. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 3351e3366.
Afzalan, N., Sanchez, T.W., Evans-Cowley, J., 2017. Creating smarter cities: consid-
erations for selecting online participatory tools. Cities 67, 21e30.
Aguilera, U., Pen ~ a, O., Belmonte, O., Lo
pez-de-Ipin ~ a, D., 2017. Citizen-centric data
services for smarter cities. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 76, 234e247.
Ahvenniemi, H., Huovila, A., Pinto-Sepp€ a, I., Airaksine, M., 2017. What are the dif-
ferences between sustainable and smart cities. Cities 60, 234e245.
Aina, Y.A., 2017. Achieving smart sustainable cities with GeoICT support: the Saudi
evolving smart cities. Cities 71, 49e58.
Anthopoulos, L.G., 2017. Smart utopia VS smart reality: learning by experience from
10 smart city cases. Cities 63, 128e148.
Anand, A., Rufuss, D.W., Rajkumar, V., Suganthi, L., 2017. Evaluation of sustainable
indicators in smart cities for India using MCDM approach. Energy Procedia 141,
211e215.
Antanasijevi
c, D., Pocajt, V., Risti

c, M., Peri
c-Gruji
c, A., 2017. A differential multi-
criteria analysis for the assessment of sustainability performance of European
countries: beyond country ranking. J. Clean. Prod. 165, 213e220.
Anttiroiko, A.V., Valkama, P., Bailey, S.J., 2013. U-cities reshaping our future: re-
flections on ubiquitous infrastructure as an enabler of smart urban develop-
ment. AI Soc. 28 (4), 491e507.
Anttiroiko, A.V., Valkama, P., Bailey, S.J., 2014. Smart cities in the new service
economy: building platforms for smart services. AI Soc. 29 (3), 323e334.
Baccarne, B., Mechant, P., Schuurman, D., 2014. Empowered cities? an analysis of
the structure and generated value of the smart city Ghent. Prog. IS 157e182.
Badii, C., Bellini, P., Cenni, D., Difino, A., Nesi, P., Paolucci, M., 2017. Analysis and
assessment of a knowledge based smart city architecture providing service
APIs. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 75, 14e29.
Bamgartner, R.J., Rauter, R., 2017. Strategic perspectives of corporate sustainability
management to develop a sustainable organization. J. Clean. Prod. 140, 81e92.
ta
Ba gan, L., 2012. The use of intelligent solutions in Romanian cities. Inf. Econ. 16
(4), 37e44.
Battarra, R., Gargiulo, C., Zucaro, F., Tremiterra, M.R., 2018. Smart mobility in Italian
metropolitan cities: a comparative analysis through indicators and actions.
Sust. Cities Soc. 41, 556e567.
Batty, M., Axhausen, K.W., Giannotti, F., Pozdnoukhov, A., Bazzani, A.,
Wachowicz, M., Ouzounis, G., Portugali, Y., 2012. Smart cities of the future. Eur.
Phys. J. 214, 481e518.
Bechini, A., Marcelloni, F., Segatori, A., 2014. Low-effort support to efficient urban
parking in a smart city perspective. Adv. Internet Things 260, 233e252.
Bibri, S., Krogstie, J., 2017. On the social shaping dimensions of smart sustainable
cities: a study in science, technology, and society. Sust. Cities Soc. 29, 219e246.
Budde, P., 2014. Smart Cities of Tomorrow. Energy Systems. Springer, Berlin,
pp. 9e20.
Calderoni, L., Maio, D., Rovis, S., 2014. Deploying a network of smart cameras for
traffic monitoring on a ‘city Kernel’. Expert Syst. Appl. 41, 502e507.
Canonico, P., Consiglio, S., Iacono, M.P., Mercuri, L., Berni, A., 2015. Understanding
different organizational roles in smart city platforms: preliminary evidence and
emerging issues. Lect. Notes Inf. Syst. Org. 5, 181e196.
Caragliu, A., Bo, C.D., Nijkamp, P., 2011. Smart cities in Europe. J. Urban Technol. 18
(2), 65e82.
Carmen, D.M., Fenza, G., Loia, V., Orciuoli, F., 2017. Distributed online Temporal
Fuzzy Concept Analysis for stream processing in smart cities. J. Parallel Distr.
Comput. 110, 31e41.
Carvalho, L., 2015. Smart cities from scratch? a socio-technical perspective. Camb. J.
Reg. Econ. Soc. 8 (1), 43e60.
Chatterjee, S., Kar, A.K., Gupta, M.P., 2018. Success of IoT in smart cities of India: an
empirical analysis. Gov. Inf. Q. 35 (3), 349e361.
Chen, M., 2012. Towards smart city: M2M communications with software agent
742 X. Li et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 215 (2019) 730e743
intelligence. Multimed. Tool. Appl. 67, 167e178.
Chourabi, H., Nam, T., Walker, S., Gil-Garcia, J.R., Mellouli, S., Nahon, K., Pardo, T.A.,
Scholl, H.J., 2012. Understanding smart city initiatives: an integrative and
comprehensive theoretical framework. In: Proceedings of the 45th Hawaii In-
ternational Conference on System Sciences, pp. 2289e2297.
Cicirelli, F., Guerrieri, G.A., Spezzano, G., Vinci, A., 2017. An edge-based platform for
dynamic Smart City applications. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 76, 106e118.
Cretu, L.G., 2012. Smart cities design using event-driven paradigm and semantic
web. Inf. Econ. 16 (4), 57e67.
Dameri, R.P., 2017. Urban smart dashboard: measuring smart city performance. Lect.
Notes Inf. Syst. Org. 5, 173e180.
Elkington, J., 1997. Cannibals with Forks: Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Busi-
ness. Capstone Publishing Ltd, Oxford, UK.
Engida, T.G., Rao, X., Berentsen, P.B.M., Lansink, A.G.J.M.O., 2018. Measuring
corporate sustainability performance - the case of European food and beverage
companies. J. Clean. Prod. 195, 734e743.
EU-China Policy Dialogues Support Facility, 2014. Comparative study of smart cities
in Europe and China. http://uk-chinasmartcities.com/wp-content/uploads/
2014/05/Smart_City_report-Final-_-July-2014.pdf.
Fietkiewicz, K.J., Mainka, A., Stock, W.G., 2017. Egovernment in cities of the
knowledge society: an empirical investigation of smart cities' governmental
websites. Gov. Inf. Q. 34, 75e83.
Gala
n-García, J., Aguilera-Venegas, G., Rodríguez-Cielos, P., 2014. An accelerated-
time simulation for traffic flow in a smart city. J. Comput. Appl. Math. 270,
557e563.
Gardner, N., Hespanhol, L., 2018. SMLXL: scaling the smart city, from metropolis to
individual. City Cult. Soc. 12, 54e61.
Giffinger, R., Fertner, C., Kramar, H., Kalasek, R., Pichler-Milanovic, N., Meijers, E.,
2007. Smart Cities: Ranking of European Medium-Sized Cities. Centre for
Regional Science, Austria, Vienna.
Girardi, P., Temporelli, A., 2017. Smartainability: a methodology for assessing the
sustainability of the smart city. Energy Procedia 111, 810e816.
Gope, P., Amin, R., Islam, S.K.H., Kumar, N., Bhalla, V.K., 2018. Lightweight and
privacy-preserving RFID authentication scheme for distributed IoT infrastruc-
ture with secure localization services for smart city environment. Future Gener.
Comput. Syst. 83, 629e637.
Hashem, I.A.T., Chang, V., Anuar, N.B., Adewole, K., Yaqoob, I., Gani, A., Ahmed, E.,
Chiroma, H., 2016. The role of big data in smart city. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 36,
748e758.
Hielkema, H., Hongisto, P., 2013. Developing the Helsinki smart city: the role of
competitions for open data applications. J. Knowl. Econ. 4, 190e204.
Hollands, R.G., 2008. Will the real smart city please stand up? intelligent, pro-
gressive, or entrepreneurial. City 12 (3), 303e320.
Hollands, R.G., 2015. Critical interventions into the corporate smart city. Camb. J.
Reg. Econ. Soc. 8 (1), 61e77.

nchez, D.D., 2017. Major requirements for building smart
Hui, T.K.L., Sherratt, R.S., Sa
homes in smart cities based on Internet of Things technologies. Future Gener.
Comput. Syst. 76, 358e369.
IBM, 2009. A Vision of Smarter Cities. IBM Global Business Services available online
at: https://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?
infotype¼PM&subtype¼XB&appname¼GBSE_GB_TI_
USEN&htmlfid¼GBE03227USEN&attachment¼GBE03227USEN.PDF.
Jepson, E.J.J., Edwards, M.M., 2010. How possible is sustainable urban development?
an analysis of planners' perceptions about new urbanism, smart growth and
ecological city. Plann. Pract. Res. 25 (4), 417e437.
Jiang, Q., Liu, Z., Liu, W., Li, T., Cong, W., Zhang, H., Shi, J., 2018a. A principal
component analysis based three-dimensional sustainability assessment model
to evaluate corporate sustainable performance. J. Clean. Prod. 187, 625e637.
Jiang, W., Tong, F., Dong, Y., Zhang, G., 2018b. Modulation recognition of non-
cooperation underwater acoustic communication signals using principal
component analysis. Appl. Acoust. 138, 209e215.
Junior, A.N., Ce
lia de Oliveira, M., Helleno, A.L., 2018. Sustainability evaluation
model for manufacturing systems based on the correlation between triple
bottom line dimensions and balanced scorecard perspectives. J. Clean. Prod.
190, 84e93.
Khan, M., Babar, M., Ahmed, S.H., Shah, S.C., Han, K., 2017. Smart city designing and
planning based on big data analytics. Sust. Cities Soc. 35, 271e279.
Kitchin, R., 2014. The real-time city? big data and smart urbanism. Geojournal 79
(1), 1e14.
Kitchin, R., 2015. Making sense of smart cities: addressing present shortcomings.
Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 8, 131e136.
Komninos, N., 2008. Intelligent cities and globalisation of innovation networks.
Routledge 43 (3), 364e367.
Komninos, N., Pallot, M., Schaffers, H., 2013. Special issue on smart cities and the
future internet in Europe. J. Knowl. Econ. 4, 119e134.
Kumar, H., Singh, M.K., Gupta, M.P., Gupta, J., 2018. Moving towards smart cities:
solutions that lead to the smart city transformation framework. Technol.
Forecast. Soc. Change 1e16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.04.024.
(Accessed 30 April 2018).
Lee, J.H., Phaal, R., Lee, S.H., 2013. An integrated service-device-technology roadmap
for smart city development. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 80, 286e306.
Letaifa, S.B., 2015. How to strategize smart cities: revealing the SMART model. J. Bus.
Res. 68 (7), 1414e1419.
Li, C., Yu, C., 2013. Performance evaluation of public non-profit hospitals using a BP
artificial neural network: the case of Hubei province in China. Int. J. Environ.
Res. Publ. Health 10, 3619e3633.
Li, D.R., Cao, J.J., Yao, Y., 2015. Big data in smart cities. Sci. China Inf. Sci. 58 (10),
1e12.
Liu, X., Liu, H., Chen, J., Liu, T., Deng, Z., 2018. Evaluating the sustainability of marine
industrial parks based on the DPSIR framework. J. Clean. Prod. 188, 158e170.
Macke, J., Casagrande, R.M., Sarate, J.A.R., Silva, K.A., 2018. Smart city and quality of
life: citizens' perception in a Brazilian case study. J. Clean. Prod. 182, 717e726.
Martin de Jong, 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. J. Clean. Prod. 109, 25e38.
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. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 133, 269e278.
Mitton, N., Papavassiliou, S., Puliafito, A., Trivedi, K.S., 2012. Combining cloud and
sensors in a smart city. J. Wireless Commun. Net. 12, 247e257.
National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2016a. China City Statistics Yearbook. China
Statistical Press, Beijing.
National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2016b. China Statistical Yearbook. China
Statistical Press, Beijing. http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2016/indexch.htm.
National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2017. China Statistical Yearbook. China Sta-
tistical Press, Beijing. http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2017/indexch.htm.
Neirotti, P., Alberto, D.M., Cagliano, A.C., Mangano, G., Scorrano, F., 2014. Current
trends in Smart City initiatives: some stylised facts. Cities 38, 25e36.
Ni, W., Wu, W., Li, K., 2017. A message efficient intersection control algorithm for
intelligent transportation in smart cities. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 76,
339e349.
Nowicka, A., 2014. Smart City logistics on cloud computing model. In: 1st Inter-
national Conference Green Cities, Social and Behavioral Sciences, vol 151,
pp. 266e281.
Palese, L.L., 2018. A random version of principal component analysis in data clus-
tering. Comput. Biol. Chem. 73, 57e64.
Palomo-Navarro, A.,
Navío-Marco, J., 2017. Smart city networks' governance: the
Spanish smart city network case study. Telecommun. Pol. 1e9.
Paroutis, S., Bennett, M., Heracleous, L., 2014. A strategic view on smart city tech-
nology: the case of IBM Smarter Cities during a recession. Technol. Forecast. Soc.
Change 89, 262e272.
Patel, K., Mohamed, A., Vuuren, G.W., 2018. A regression and comparative study of
United States and South African yield curves using principal component anal-
ysis. S. Afr. J. Econ. Manag. Sci. 28 (1), 1e15.
Pinsonneault, A., Kraemer, K.L., 2002. Exploring the role of information technology
in organizational downsizing: a tale of two American cities. Organ. Sci. 13 (2),
191e208.
Piro, G., Cianci, I., Grieco, L.A., Boggia, G., Camarda, P., 2014. Information centric
services in smart cities. J. Syst. Software 88, 169e188.
Portugali, J., 2000. Self-organization and Cities. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg.
Praharaj, S., Han, J.H., Hawken, S., 2018. Urban innovation through policy integra-
tion: critical perspectives from 100 smart cities mission in India. City Cult. Soc.
12, 35e43.
Rad, T.G., Sadeghi-Niaraki, A., Abbasi, A., Choi, S.M., 2018. A methodological
framework for assessment of ubiquitous cities using ANP and DEMATEL
methods. Sust. Cities Soc. 37, 608e618.
Ritala, P., Huotari, P., Bocken, N., Albareda, L., Puumalainen, K., 2018. Sustainable
business model adoption among S&P 500 firms: a longitudinal content analysis
study. J. Clean. Prod. 170, 216, 126.
Rodrigues, A.P., Fernandes, M.L., Rodrigues, M.F.F., Bortoluzzi, S.C., Gouvea da
Costa, S.E., Pinheiro de Lima, E., 2018. Developing criteria for performance
assessment in municipal solid waste management. J. Clean. Prod. 186, 748e757.
Santis, R., Fasano, A., Mignolli, N., Villa, A., 2012. Smart city: fact and fiction. Innovat.
Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 25 (2), 137e149.
Sarma, S., Sunny, S.A., 2017. Civic entrepreneurial ecosystems: smart city emergence
in Kansas city. Bus. Horiz. 60, 843e853.
Schaffers, H., Komninos, N., Pallot, M., Trousse, B., Nilsson, M., Oliveira, A., 2011.
Smart cities and the future internet: towards cooperation frameworks for open
innovation. Future Internet Assemb. 431e446.
Schumpeter, J.A., 1942. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. Harper & Brothers,
NewYork.
Silva, B.N., Khan, M., Han, K., 2018. Towards sustainable smart cities: a review of
trends, architectures, components, and open challenges in smart cities. Sust.
Cities Soc. 38, 697e713.
Song, T., Cai, J., Chahine, T., Li, L., 2017. Towards smart cities by Internet of Things
(IoT) - a silent revolution in China. J. Knowl. Econ. 2, 1e17.
Sta, H.B., 2017. Quality and the efficiency of data in ‘‘Smart-Cities’’. Future Gener.
Comput. Syst. 74, 409e416.
Standardization Administration of the People’s Republic of China, 2016. Evaluation
indicators for new-type of smart cities. http://www.std.gov.cn/gb/search/
gbDetailed?id¼5DDA8BA09E0818DEE05397BE0A0A95A7.
Streitz, N.A., 2011. Smart cities, ambient intelligence and universal access. In: In-
ternational Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction:
Context Diversity, pp. 425e432.
Tavakol, M., Dennick, R., 2011. Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. Int. J. Med. Educ. 2,
53e55.
United Nations, 2018. World Urbanization Prospects, the 2017 Version. United
Nations, New York.
Vidiasova, L., Kachurina, P., Cronemberger, F., 2017. Smart cities prospects from the
results of the world practice expert benchmarking. Procedia Comput. Sci. 119,
 X. Li et al. / Journal of Cleaner Production 215 (2019) 730e743
269e277.
Vu, K., Hartley, K., 2017. Promoting smart cities in developing countries: policy
insights from Vietnam. Telecommun. Pol. 1e15.
Walravens, N., 2015. Mobile city applications for Brussels citizens: smart city trends,
challenges and a reality check. Telematics Inf. 32, 282e299.
Xie, L., 2017. The heat load prediction model based on BP neural network-markov
model. Procedia Comput. Sci. 107, 296e300.
Yearbook Editorial Board, 2016. Yearbook of China Information Industry. Publishing
House of Electronics Industry, Beijing.
Yeh, H., 2017. The effects of successful ICT-based smart city services: from citizens'
perspectives. Gov. Inf. Q. 34, 556e565.
743
Yigitcanlar, T., Kamruzzaman, M., 2018. Does smart city policy lead to sustainability
of cities? Land Use Pol. 73, 49e58.
Yigitcanlar, T., Kamruzzaman, M., Buys, L., Ioppolo, G., Sabatini-Marques, J.,
Costa, E.M.D., Yun, J.J., 2018. Understanding ‘smart cities’: intertwining devel-
opment drivers with desired outcomes in a multidimensional framework. Cities
4, 1e16.
Zhang, Y., Gao, X., Katayama, S., 2015. Weld appearance prediction with BP neural
network improved by genetic algorithm during disk laser welding. J. Manuf.
Syst. 34, 53e59.
Zhang, X., 2016. Sustainable urbanization: a bi-dimensional matrix model. J. Clean.
Prod. 134, 425e433.