The role of rankings in growing city competition

By Rudolf Giffinger, Gudrun Haindlmaier, Hans Kramar. 2010

256 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Federated Learning in Smart City Sensing: Challenges and Opportunities (2020, unknown): “…initiatives around the world to have a connected city system where each component leverages the use of connected technology; these components include the following: economy and ﬁnance, citizens, governance, transportation (i.e., mobility), sustainability (i.e., environment), and smart living [3–6].”
Building Understanding of Smart City Initiatives (2012, background): “While an increasing number of studies and practical reports explore desirable properties of a smart city [3], [7-9], [12-13], [16-18], [27] and cases of self-labeled “smart” (or dubbed with other equivalent progressive terms such as intelligent and innovative) cities [2], [4], [19], [25], little…”
Smart city as urban innovation: focusing on management, policy, and context (2011, background): “, neglecting complex interrelations, ignoring a long-term perspective, and touting current initiatives as stereotypes [45,46].”
Understanding Smart Cities: An Integrative Framework (2012, background): “As well, one of the key indicators to measure growing city competition is the capacity of the city as an economic engine [25].”