While the ‘smart city’ concept is central to urban innovation, promising enhanced efficiency and livability, this paper interrogates a critical paradox: can cities be ‘smart’ yet ‘unlivable’? Existing indices, such as the IMD Smart City Index and the IESE Cities in Motion Index, while standard references, tend to prioritize technological and economic metrics, potentially failing to fully capture urban quality of life and sustainability. This study presents a preliminary attempt, based on an analysis of scientific literature, to critically examine current smart city indicators and propose a set of alternative indicators more representative of quality of life (QoL) and livability. The objective is not to overturn the rankings of cities like Zurich (high-ranking) and Athens (low-ranking), but to explore how a livability-focused approach, using more representative QoL indicators, might narrow the perceived gap between them, thereby highlighting diverse dimensions of urban performance. This research critically evaluates current smart city rankings. It aims to determine if livability-based indicators, supported by scientific literature, can provide a more balanced view of urban performance. This paper details how these alternative indicators were chosen, justifying their relevance to QoL with scientific support, and maps them to established smart city verticals (Smart Mobility, Smart Environment, Smart Governance, Smart Living, Smart People, Smart Economy). Finally, it outlines future research directions to further develop and validate this human-centric approach.
Bove et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: