Article

Starting from Scratch: The Articulated Development of a Smart

City in Limerick, Ireland
Syed Sundus Raza and Eoin Reeves *

Department of Economics, Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick, V94 PH93 Limerick, Ireland;
syed.raza@ul.ie
* Correspondence: eoin.reeves@ul.ie; Tel.: +353-61-202401

Abstract: This paper analyses the situated practice of developing a smart city in Limerick, Ireland.
It maps out, at a city scale, how the development of the smart city was planned, organised, and
governed, as well as ongoing challenges. It addresses two of the principal gaps in the smart city
literature, namely, the scarcity of in-depth case studies based on extensive fieldwork and the short-
age of studies on smart city development on brownfield sites. Source material was gathered through
desk research and interviews with key stakeholders. Limerick adopted an articulated strategic ap-
proach to smart city development. The local government’s dedicated smart city unit played a vital
role in planning, managing, and implementing smart city operations. The local government did not
centralise the smart city development process. Over time, there has been a gradual shift towards the
development of Quadruple Helix collaborations and a balance between top-down and bottom-up
approaches. The paper also identifies the challenges that might restrain Limerick’s smart city ambi-
tions. These include financial, budgetary, technological, and human resources challenges. It also
identifies the challenge of digital exclusion and the need for greater citizen involvement in smart
city development.

Keywords: smart city; smart city development; smart city governance; digital strategy;
sustainability

Citation: Raza, S.S.; Reeves, E.

Starting from Scratch: The
Articulated Development of a Smart 1. Introduction
City in Limerick, Ireland.
Large-scale urban growth creates complex sustainability-related problems that more
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11157.
and more cities are seeking to address through the adoption of technology-based ap-
https://doi.org/10.3390/su162411157
proaches. These include technologies, such as sensors and smart grids, which are integral
Academic Editor: Luis Hernández- to developing so-called smart cities. Although there is no universally accepted definition
Callejo of a smart city, there is a degree of consensus about some of the main smart city charac-
Received: 4 November 2024
teristics [1,2]. The concept of a smart city covers but is not limited to the digitalisation of
Revised: 8 December 2024 urban infrastructure. More importantly, it is about incorporating technologies and sys-
Accepted: 14 December 2024 tems for city governance, breaking down silos through collaboration, and data-driven de-
Published: 19 December 2024 cision making [3–5].
There is substantial literature on different aspects of the smart city phenomenon. This
includes the integration of technologies into the smart city fabric [5], the role of corporate
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. actors in smart cities, e.g., Kitchin, Desdemoustier et al., and McNeill [6–8], and the gov-
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. ernance of collaboration between state and non-state actors in smart cities [9–11]. City-
This article is an open access article specific studies constitute another strand of the smart city literature. These have covered
distributed under the terms and newly developed smart cities such as Songdo, South Korea [12–15] Masdar, UAE [16,17],
conditions of the Creative Commons and recently, Line City in Saudi Arabia and Magelang City in Indonesia [18,19]. Datta [20]
Attribution (CC BY) license examined smart city formation in Dholera, India, and both Wiig [21] and Cullen [22] ex-
(https://creativecommons.org/license amined the role of IBM in the development of smart cities in Philadelphia and Portland,
s/by/4.0/). respectively.

Sustainability 2024, 16, 11157. https://doi.org/10.3390/su162411157 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2024, 16, 11157 2 of 21

Coletta et al.’s [3] study of how Dublin, Ireland, unfolded as a smart city marked a
significant development in the city-specific literature on smart cities. Unlike the aforemen-
tioned studies, they mapped “out at a city scale the various smart city initiatives under-
way, how they are managed and governed and how they are enrolled into a smart city
framework” [3] (p. 2). Moreover, their study explored the role of institutional bodies, par-
ticularly divisions of local government, which kickstart the smart city development pro-
cess and play a vital role in designing and promoting smart city discourse. The mapping
of smart city initiatives in Dublin showed that in the early stages, the development of a
smart city was uncoordinated and fragmented, thereby fitting with Dourish’s [23] descrip-
tion of an “accidental smart city”. Over time, however, the planning and implementation
of initiatives and structures resulted in a more articulated development of Dublin as a
smart city.
The principal aim of this study is to follow the approach taken by Coletta et al. [3] by
analysing the situated practices of developing a smart city in another Irish city, namely,
Limerick, Ireland’s third largest city (urban and rural population c. 210,000). Instead of
exploring specific aspects, such as the nature of smart cities or the roles of specific corpo-
rate actors, the examination of situated practices provides insights into how the smart city
as a whole unfolds in specific places. This study, therefore, addresses two of the principal
gaps identified in the smart city literature by Kitchin [24], namely, the lack of comprehen-
sive case studies of specific cities based on extensive fieldwork and the under-supply of
studies on smart city development that cover the retrofitting of conventional cities instead
of the construction of new cities on greenfield sites, such as Songdo City in Korea and Line
City and NEOM City in Saudi Arabia [12–14,18].
The first objective of this paper is to explore how the governance of Limerick’s smart
city developed since 2015. Emphasis is placed on the leading role adopted by local
government in strategic planning, organising, implementing, and promoting Limerick’s
smart city agenda. Our paper also describes the smart city initiatives that Limerick
integrated into its smart city framework and describes the various networks and
governance structures that were put in place for smart city development. Technology-
framed urban governance systems are often developed by the private sector and em-
ployed by public entities. In addition, municipal governments are developing and imple-
menting long-term strategies and innovative plans by integrating and utilising knowledge
and competencies available at innovative research institutions, such as universities [25].
Local governments, therefore, rely on collaboration with several non-state actors to fulfil
their smart city ambitions.
Ansell and Gash [26] assert that developing a shared understanding and vision is
integral to the collaborative process. Given the collaborative nature of smart city develop-
ment [27–29], the second objective of this paper is to provide insights into the perspectives
of key stakeholders on what constitutes a smart city and to examine their views on how
Limerick is developing as a smart city. These perspectives allow us to identify and probe
the main challenges that must be addressed by Limerick city as it implements its smart
city agenda.
The paper is structured as follows. The first section reviews the growing literature on
smart cities, which is clustered under three main dimensions of smart cities. The following
section provides details on the qualitative case study and methodology. This is followed
by the analysis of Limerick’s smart city development under thematic headings that
emerged in data analysis and relate to the smart city dimensions that frame the literature
review. The paper concludes with a discussion of research findings and lessons for simi-
larly sized cities on the pathway to smart city development.

2. Literature on the Development of Smart Cities

The smart city literature is characterised by a lack of consensus on how a smart city
should be defined. Nesti highlights a degree of fuzziness around the concept of a smart
city, which is attributed to its relevance to several disciplines, including geography, urban
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11157 3 of 21

planning, economics, and engineering [2]. For the purpose of this research, we employ
Dameri’s [30] comprehensive definition of a smart city as
“A well-defined geographical area, in which high technologies such as ICT, logistics, en-
ergy production, and so on, cooperate to create benefits for citizens in terms of well-
being, inclusion and participation, environmental quality, and intelligent development;
it is governed by a well-defined pool of subjects, able to state the rules and policy for the
city government and development” [30] (pp. 2549).
Several writers have sought to bring clarity to what a smart city is and what it entails
by framing an analysis of smart cities in terms of their key dimensions. For example, Mei-
jer and Bolivar [31] and Nesti [2] identify the following three main dimensions of the phe-
nomenon: (1) technologies, (2) human resources and citizens, and (3) governance [2,30].
These three dimensions are utilised to structure the review of the extant literature and to
frame the case study of smart city development in Limerick City, Ireland.

2.1. Technologies
Technologies play a significant role in developing smart cities [32]. Technologies,
such as the Internet of Things (IoT), big data analytics, machine learning, geoinformation
approaches, deep learning, and artificial learning, are widely deployed in smart cities to
increase the efficiency of services, promote sustainability, and improve citizens’ quality of
life [33–37]. The technological dimension of smart cities centres on information and com-
munication technologies that are used for the effective management of city processes, nat-
ural resources management, energy management, and traffic regulation [38].
The development and adoption of innovative technologies pose a host of challenges
that are identified in the smart city literature. Prominent among these challenges are the
various costs associated with technology, such as design, implementation, and mainte-
nance costs. For example, new technology, such as blockchain-based technology, has a
high cost of implementation, which municipalities frequently struggle to resource [38–40].
The challenges associated with technology investment costs when financial resources are
constrained were highlighted by Zvolska et al. [41] and Hämäläinen [42] in their research
on the smart cities of London, Berlin, and Helsinki. For example, it was found that in Ber-
lin, the development of smart city initiatives was halted primarily due to a lack of financial
and skilled human resources.
Different Internet of Things (IoT) devices are involved in the communication of val-
uable information for the efficient functioning of a smart city, and interoperability be-
tween these different devices is crucial for sustaining a smart city. Big data management
systems, like Hadoop, Cassandra, and Quantcast, which process, manage, and analyse
data, have limitations. Moreover,
“Technical hindrances in the transition from legacy systems to smart systems add fur-
ther complexity. Issues like backward compatibility, scalability, heterogeneity of data and
devices, multiple data standards, and interoperability pose inherent issues and chal-
lenges that need to be addressed” [43] (p. 5).
Reliance on big data as part of smart city development creates challenges related to
aspects, including data quality, data anomalies, data collection, and data storage [44,45].
In addition, data collection through crowdsourcing and collaboration between various
providers can result in data lacking structure, inconsistency, heterogeneity, and disparity
issues, which may lead to problems around data uncertainty and trustworthiness [45,46].
Further issues arise in relation to data privacy and data protection laws, such as the
European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) [47,48]. The GDPR has
changed the game of smart city development in the EU and has encouraged cities to sys-
tematically approach data protection issues while developing smart city elements. It has
added new regulatory requirements to smart city plans [49,50]. Moreover, the GDPR can
create a barrier to implementing modern technology in smart cities. Bjørner [51]
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11157 4 of 21

highlighted this issue by showing how smart city projects in Denmark were cancelled due
to GDPR issues.

2.2. Human Resources and Citizen Inclusion

The second dimension around which the smart city concept revolves is human re-
sources [2]. This dimension covers the capacity of all stakeholders (including citizens, gov-
ernment, private enterprise) to embrace the smart city concept and to develop and utilise
ICTs for the purpose of driving sustainable urban growth and innovation.
The importance of knowledge capital and a knowledgeable population are central to
the human resources dimension of smart cities [2]. Collaboration between government,
industry, and universities (the so-called Triple Helix Model—THM) is commonly ob-
served in smart cities. Although the benefits of this approach have been recognised in the
smart city literature, several recent studies have advocated an extended Quadruple Helix
Model (QHM) of collaboration, which emphasises the role of citizen participation in con-
junction with industry, research and education organisations, and governmental institu-
tions [52–54].
Examples of the QHM in European smart cities are identified by Mora et al. [55], who
explained how Living Lab initiatives (which aim to engage citizens in testing ICT infra-
structures and solutions implemented in the built environment to create and network
public services) in cities such as Amsterdam, Barcelona, Vienna, and Helsinki emerged as
part of a bottom-up (community-driven) approach adopted by municipal authorities. Sim-
ilarly, Fab Labs are places of citizen engagement, knowledge exchange, and technical and
social innovation [56,57]. These co-design sites provide resources ranging from the sim-
plest to the most advanced and sophisticated tools, such as 3D printing, which are de-
signed to be accessible to non-professionals (citizens).
The literature on smart cities is replete with examples of cities where ICTs are used
to enhance citizen participation in decision making. For example, Zheng and Schachter
[58] noted that municipalities like New York City, Singapore, and Seoul had adopted ICT
to enhance citizen participation in decision making. These municipalities frequently apply
e-participation methods and digital tools such as emails, online chatting, online discussion
boards, and LISTSERV to enable citizens to provide feedback and raise voices related to
any issue or policy.
Effective citizen participation is, however, made difficult by what is commonly re-
ferred to as the digital divide, which refers to inequalities between privileged smart citi-
zens and those “technologically illiterate, the poor, and, in general, those who are margin-
alised from the smart city discourse” [59,60] (p. 893). The smart cities literature suggests
that digital exclusion is especially high in the ageing population, disadvantaged groups,
and people with disabilities [61–63]. The digital divide, therefore, has potentially serious
implications for smart city development, especially when cities seek to encourage citizen
engagement and adopt the QHM approach.
The literature highlights the importance of well-educated stakeholders developing a
shared understanding of the meaning of a smart city as well as a shared set of objectives.
Examples of studies covering these questions include Coletta et al.’s [3] Dublin-based
study, which found that stakeholders have a reasonable understanding of the smart city
concept but did not perceive Dublin to have met the criteria for a smart city. Similarly,
Del-Real et al. [64] analysed stakeholder views and perceived barriers to smart city devel-
opment in the medium-sized city of Chattanooga, Tennessee (US). The study revealed that
stakeholders consider a smart city as a mode to improve quality of life and environmental
sustainability. Moreover, to develop a smart city, projects need to be based on full trans-
parency and social inclusion. Desdemoustier et al. [7] explored the understanding of the
smart city concept in 113 Belgian municipalities. They found that rural municipalities have
a narrower techno-centric vision of smart cities, while large and medium-sized munici-
palities have a more comprehensive and holistic vision, which includes the aspects of gov-
ernance, sustainability, and human centricity. The study by Vidiasova and Cronemberger
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11157 5 of 21

[65] compared citizen versus local authority stakeholder perceptions of the smart city in
St. Petersburg, Russia, and found significant differences between the understandings of
both sets of stakeholders.
The interaction and embeddedness of different networks within a smart city are es-
sential for learning and innovation in smart cities [66]. Formal and informal ties between
the various networks are beneficial for obtaining novel information [67]. Moreover, inter-
city networks and collaborations can act as knowledge exchange hubs between cities that
face similar demographic or environmental challenges. Learning from the experiences of
other cities and sharing best practices can lead to the efficient use of time and resources
required to find and implement solutions [53]. Such collaborative networks can also pro-
mote innovative ideas as cities look for solutions and mimic successful examples. Like-
wise, the criteria and concepts set by the pioneering cities can also influence other mem-
bers to follow a similar innovative culture [67].
The smart city literature provides several examples of national and international
smart city networks. One example of a national network is the Spanish Network of Smart
Cities (RECI), formed in 2012, which includes 65 member cities [68]. A number of networks
of European smart cities aim to share best practices between member countries. These
include the InFocus network, which consists of several smart cities including Bilbao
(Spain), Bielsko-Biala (Poland), Bordeaux Métropole (France), and Frankfurt (Germany).
The INNPULSO (Network of Cities of Science and Innovation) is similar to RECI and has
71 members [69]. In addition to sharing best practices, smart cities also form innovation
networks. Examples include the Copenhagen Cleantech Cluster (Copenhagen, Denmark)
and Forum Virium Helsinki (Helsinki, Finland), which share the common aim of leveraging
technological innovations for the purpose of urban development [70].

2.3. Governance
In their systematic review of the smart city literature, Ruhlandt [71] asserts that the
organisational, strategic, and technical challenges of smart city development have made
it difficult for cities to capture potential benefits. As a result, the governance implications
of smart city investments have commanded considerable attention in the literature.
The governance of smart cities covers the interactions and ties between different
stakeholders that are often driven by conflicting objectives. Although the nature of what
smart city governance entails remains an open discussion, the literature suggests it com-
monly relies on leadership and participatory mechanisms and collaboration between var-
ious city stakeholders (public and private) for policymaking and public service delivery
[25,72].
Several studies show that local municipalities or city councils usually spearhead the
development process of smart cities. However, the role of municipalities or specialised
units inside local authorities that plan and implement smart city strategies is rarely
researched [24].
Most modern smart cities adopt a well-articulated strategic policy to guide their de-
velopment as smart cities. Smart city strategy documents generally describe objectives and
outcomes to be accomplished through the implementation of ICT solutions, the key ap-
plication domains for attention, and the working groups in charge of overseeing and ac-
celerating the implementation of the strategy [73–75].
There are several examples of cities adopting a strategic approach to smart city de-
velopment. In most cases, the publication of smart city strategies followed periods of col-
laboration between local governments and wider stakeholders. For example, Amsterdam
published the Amsterdam Smart City Programme in 2007 through a collaboration between
the local municipal authority, Amsterdam Innovation Motor (AIM), and the energy net-
work operator Liander. This strategy was based on strategic urban planning principles
that prioritised sustainability, collaboration, and inclusivity [76,77]. London also devel-
oped a smart city strategy, the Smart London Plan, in 2013, following collaboration between
local government, businesses, researchers, investors, citizens, and other stakeholders [41].
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11157 6 of 21

In Vienna, the city administration teamed up with the public and private stakeholders and
formulated a smart city strategy between 2011 and 2013. The Smart City Wein Framework
Strategy, which was agreed in 2014, took a holistic approach that focused on the social
components of the city. In 2019, the city administration updated the Smart City Wein Frame-
work Strategy for 2050 and made changes in light of the current challenges faced by the
city [78]. It is noteworthy that smart city development in Dublin was at odds with the
strategic approach observed in several other cities. Moreover, Coletta et al. [3] found that
Dublin Smart City began without a master plan, and various smart city initiatives were
implemented before being enrolled into Dublin’s Smart City framework.
The appointment of technology officers with responsibility for leading the implemen-
tation of smart city strategies is a common feature of smart city development and govern-
ance. The literature provides examples of North American smart cities establishing posi-
tions, including chief innovation officers, chief information officers, chief technology of-
ficers, and chief digital officers. These officials play a leading role in the planning, devel-
opment, deployment, and utilisation of digital information and communication technolo-
gies [76,79,80].
The governance of smart cities also faces organisational challenges, which are eluci-
dated by Mondschein et al. [79], who analysed eight North American smart cities. They
found that the challenges in developing smart cities are more organisational than techno-
logical and recognised governance challenges as one of the significant barriers to devel-
oping smart cities. They further noted that differing objectives among stakeholders, infor-
mation asymmetries, regulatory disorganisation, and governance issues exist between
municipalities and government authorities at the state and federal levels, which overcom-
plicate the development of smart cities.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Methods
This study employs qualitative research methods. Qualitative research is useful for
understanding under-investigated issues or phenomena and tends to explore and under-
stand phenomena from the research participants’ perspectives. This study adopts a single
case study approach to provide an in-depth qualitative analysis and description of the
phenomenon under investigation [81–83]. The case study examines the smart city devel-
opment pathway of a small- to medium-sized city, Limerick, Ireland. Limerick city has
been an important trade and business centre since the Viking era and is now the third
largest city in the Republic of Ireland. The local government in Limerick is provided by
the City and County Council (LCCC), which is a relatively newly formed council follow-
ing a merger of Limerick City and Limerick County Councils in 2014. The LCCC has a
single Chief Executive Officer and forty councillors who are elected from six electoral ar-
eas. Prior to 2024, the city mayor, who was elected by councillors, fulfilled a mainly cere-
monial role.
This study is framed by the main dimensions distilled from the smart city literature
(governance, technology, and human capital). It examines how the development of Lim-
erick as a smart city unfolded as a whole. It explores the technological dimension of Lim-
erick’s smart city development by mapping the main planned technology-related initia-
tives. It also investigates the organisation and governance of Limerick’s smart city devel-
opment (governance and human capital dimensions), focusing on the role of institutional
bodies within and outside local government and the nature of their collaboration. It pays
special attention to the main challenges (governance, human capital, and technological)
encountered to date. This paper, therefore, follows the approach taken by Coletta et al. [3],
who conducted a similar analysis of Ireland’s capital city, Dublin.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11157 7 of 21

3.2. Instruments
3.2.1. Documentary Analysis
This research employs two research instruments to collect data: documentary analy-
sis and semi-structured interviews. First, a documentary analysis of publicly available
documents from the LCCC and other dedicated smart city websites was conducted to
gather pertinent information for our case study. This involved systematically reviewing a
variety of sources, including reports/plans, policy papers, and organisational publications
(for example, Limerick’s Digital Strategy and the Limerick 2030 Economic and Spatial Plan
[84,85]). The information from the documentary analysis was categorised into themes rel-
evant to research objectives. The documentary analysis provided insights into the institu-
tional practices and contextual factors that shape the smart city landscape in Limerick.
This approach provided rich, contextualised data that contributed to a deeper under-
standing of Limerick’s smart city ecosystem, allowing us to explore the nuances of the
phenomenon under investigation.

3.2.2. Interviews
Fifteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with the key stakeholders in-
volved in the development of Limerick as a smart city. To participate in this study, a stake-
holder had to meet at least one of three criteria: (a) they had to be part of the initial team
that wrote Limerick’s first digital strategy; (b) they had to be part of the LCCC (in partic-
ular, the Digital Services Department (DSD)) or be a participant in EU-funded projects
categorised within the smart cities and communities theme currently under implementa-
tion in Limerick; and (c) they had to be part of private organisations, NGOs, or research
institutes that are working in collaboration with the LCCC and fostering the development
of Limerick as a smart city.
The first author conducted the first scoping interview with one of the key stakehold-
ers from the DSD of the LCCC in February 2021. The face-to-face interview lasted 90 min,
and the interviewees gave detailed answers and suggested potential interviewees. The
first author then conducted secondary desk research and compiled a list of potential in-
terviewees, supplementing the list highlighted by the scoping interviewee.
In addition to having a list of potential interviewees, the research interviewees were
inducted using the snowball sampling technique, whereby the existing interviewee rec-
ommends the next interviewee [86]. Snowballing is a purposive sampling method, where
sampling is performed according to the goals of the study, and it ensures the induction of
elite interviewees [87]. The snowball technique ensured the recruitment of elite interview-
ees and adhered to data protection (GDPR) guidelines. The interviewees inducted through
the snowball sampling technique almost mirrored the list of potential interviewees gener-
ated after the scoping interview (conducted in February 2021).
The interview questions were open ended and reinforced with additional sub-ques-
tions during the interview as needed. Interview questions aimed to deepen understanding
and seek information that could not be obtained through documentary analysis. The in-
terviews included questions about stakeholder’s roles in the smart city development pro-
cess, their perspectives on smart cities in general, and Limerick in particular, the main
governance and collaboration mechanisms used to foster collaboration between stake-
holders, and perceived challenges to developing Limerick as a smart city.

3.3. Procedures
The interviews were conducted between March and September 2021. Interviews
lasted between 30 and 90 min. As all interviews were conducted during the COVID-19
pandemic, they were conducted online via the MS TEAMS platform. With the inter-
viewee’s consent, the interviews were recorded and transcribed afterwards. The principles
of personal data protection and ethical scientific research were followed throughout the
research. Complete anonymity was offered to all participants. All participants were
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11157 8 of 21

informed about this study’s purpose and volunteered to participate. The participants were
sent consent forms electronically via Google Forms to acknowledge their participation in
this study and the use of their information.
Interviews were recorded and manually transcribed. Over 12 h of recordings yield
around 400 pages of transcription. The transcripts were examined to gain familiarity with
the data and identify emerging themes. The data were then coded using NVIVO 12, which
arranged data into themes and sub-themes (for example, the challenges theme and data
challenges sub-theme). Figure 1 illustrates the flowchart of the methodology used to con-
duct the research.

Figure 1. Methodology flowchart.

4. Case Study Findings

The main insights drawn from the thematic analysis of documents and semi-struc-
tured interviews are grouped under three main themes are (1) governance, including
planning, strategy, and technology; (2) governance, including networks and collaboration;
and (3) challenges, including governance, human capital, and technological.

4.1. Governance—Planning, Strategy, and Technology

The research identified the pivotal role of the Digital Services Department (DSD) within
the LCCC in planning and developing Limerick as a smart city. Originally, the DSD’s core
function was the provision of digital services to council staff. This role was expanded in
2015 with the addition of two new sections—the EU Projects Office and the Digital Strat-
egy Office. The EU Projects Office manages all aspects of smart city projects funded by the
European Union. Currently, the LCCC is linked to thirty-five other cities across Europe
through four programmes, namely, Horizon 2020, Northern Periphery and Arctic Inter-
reg, Atlantic Area Interreg, and URBACT (see project details in Table A2). At the time of
data collection, eight EU projects (with smart city dimensions) were running in Limerick.
One of the interviewees described the EU programmes as follows:
“The EU projects office is largely responsible for bringing the projects like the
‘CityxChange’ here, some fantastic projects like the ‘Media Project’ and ‘Find Your
Greatness’, ‘Go Green Routes’. So, we are constantly looking for funding from Europe,
which will supplement what we tried to do locally for our citizens” (Interviewee B4,
Group 2).
The Digital Strategy section of the DSD developed and wrote Limerick’s first digital
strategy (2017–2020) in conjunction with other public and private stakeholders [84]. The
first digital strategy included ten areas of concentration: engagement and participation;
service integration; information and marketing; digital infrastructure; data and analytics;
digital transformation; digital innovation; optimised governance; smart Limerick net-
work; and digital edge. It also identified a list of initiatives in the smart city domain that
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11157 9 of 21

would guide Limerick towards smart city development. These initiatives are summarised
in Table 1.
These developments ensured that in the Irish context, Limerick was a first mover in
terms of smart city development. It was the first local authority to establish a DSD with
chief responsibility for smart city development. In addition, it was the first Irish city to
publish a digital strategy for the development of a smart city and was also the first to
appoint a designated digital officer. In contrast with the early stages of smart city devel-
opment in Dublin, which Coletta et al. [3] suggest was “accidental”, Limerick has adopted
a deliberate and articulated approach in terms of planning and establishing internal struc-
tures to support its smart city objectives. Moreover, it has placed special emphasis on in-
ternational collaboration and securing resources, mainly through EU programmes, which
have supported the implementation of several smart city initiatives to date.

Table 1. Initiatives listed in Limerick’s smart city roadmap.

1. Engagement and Participation 2. Information and Marketing

• Limerick.ie
• Limerick.ie App
• Limerick.ie
• MyPoint (Open Consultation Platform)
• Economic Report
• Public Engagement Model
• DIGITAL.Limerick.ie
• Public Participation Network Integration
• SMART.Limerick.ie
• Public Mapping and Data Collection City and
• FILM.Limerick.ie
Town Engagement Program
• Past Perfect: Future Tense—LCGA Digitalisation
• Citizen Open Innovation Lab
• HISTORY.Limerick.ie AgeFriendly. Limerick.ie
• Council Podcasts
• Age Friendly Magazine
• Invasive Species App
• Community Websites
• Sustainable Energy Community Student En-
• Limerick Film Festivals Platform
gagement
• Smart Sporting
• Citizen Digital Culture
• Limerick Shannon Fisherman Archive
• Limerick Film Archive
• Hear Say Audio Arts Festival
3. Service Integration 4. Data Infrastructure
• Municipal Data Network
• Public WiFi
• MY Limerick.ie
• Smart CCTV Pilot
• MY Limerick.ie—Favourite Amenities
• National Broadband Plan Rollout
• MY Limerick.ie—Inspire Me
• Noise Sensors (IoT—Pilot)
• MY Limerick.ie—Cases
• Air Quality Sensors (IoT Pilot)
• MY Limerick.ie—Payments
• Water Quality Sensors (IoT Pilot)
• MY Limerick.ie—Licences and Permits
• Soil Quality Sensors (IoT Pilot)
• MY Limerick.ie—Grants
• Footfall Counters (IoT Pilot)
• MY Limerick.ie—Ping Me (Notifications) MY
• Public Digital Displays Digital Quarter
Limerick.ie—My Post Box
• Limerick—IoT Demo Digital Quarters
• Integration of National Systems
• Network Community Centres
• Smart Parking
• Footfall Counters
• Smart Parking for Disabled Drivers
• 360′ Live Cameras
• Citizen DIT Digital Infrastructure
5. Data and Analytics 6. Digital Transformation
• Insight Limerick (Council) • Council Enterprise Architecture
• Insight Limerick (Public) • Customer Services—Digital Services
• Insight Limerick—Personal Dashboard Insight • Customer Services—Digital Displays
Limerick—Investor Dashboard Insight Limer- • Staff Training Portal
ick—Community Safety Dashboard • Customer Relationship Management
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11157 10 of 21

• ISAX Data Exchange—Limerick • Mobile Service Operations (CRM App)

• Limerick Master Data Management • Smart Service Operations
• Public Data Co-creation • Electronic Records Management
• Transport Patterns for Rural Transport • Program and Project Management
• Open Data for Autonomous Vehicles • Customer Services—Contact Centre
• Customer Services—Video Services
• Telephony and Communications System
• ICT Infrastructure Upgrade
• Presentation and Video Equipment
• Remote Office Communications
• Disaster Recovery Programme
7. Digital Innovation 8 Optimised Governance
• The Networks Forge (Smart Collaboration)
• URBACT Techtown—A Digital City Future
• Horizon 2020
• Public Safety Enforcement Services
• Digital Skills Academy
• Digital Retail Pilot
• Digital Skills Week
• Limerick Digital Strategy 1.0
• Coder Dojo Limerick
• Limerick Digital Strategy 2.0
• Digital Citizenship and Digital Inclusion Inno-
• Smart Limerick Strategy
vation in Community Spaces
• IBM Smarter Cities Challenge
• LG National Service Catalogue
• IE Geographical Place Names Policy
• Ingenuity
• Digital Infrastructure Planning Policy
• Smart Ageing Housing Programme
• Smart CCTV Policy
• ISAX Innovation Hub
• Limerick Living Lab
• Technology Enhanced Learning
• Virtual Clinics
• Releasing Time to Care
• Electronic Discharge
• e-Referrals
9. Smart Limerick Networks 10. Digital Edge
• Limerick Digital Leaders Network—DLN
• Council Digital Champions Forum—DCF
• All Ireland Smart Cities Forum • Limerick Enterprise Architecture
• Open and Agile Smart Cities—OASC • Connected Health
• WBA—Connected City Advisory Board • Smart Ageing Volunteers Platform
• TM Forum • Digital Inclusion Needs Study
• Association of Strategic Alliance Professionals
• Digital Inclusion Advisory Group
Source: adapted from the Limerick City and County Council (2017) [84].

4.2. Governance—Networks and Collaboration

Developing a smart city is a complex process and requires collaboration between lo-
cal authorities and a host of public and private stakeholders. Thematic analysis of the in-
terviews with key actors found that the networks and governance structures established
by the LCCC are characterised by the collaborative approach associated with the Quad-
ruple Helix Model (QHM).
The QHM is a smart city governance model based on collaboration between the pub-
lic and private sectors, academia/higher education, and people/civic society [53]. The
QHM in Limerick’s smart city is essentially an ecosystem of several networks in which
the LCCC is a leading or prominent participant. One such network is the Digital Leaders
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11157 11 of 21

Network (DLN), which has played a major role in furthering the development of a smart
city. It consists of stakeholders and leaders from organisations that have agreed to collab-
orate and assist in the development of a smart city on a voluntary basis. Established in
2016, the DLN consists of 71 members from 27 public and private organisations, small and
large businesses, academic institutions and research centres, community and voluntary
organisations, and local development firms. The DLN is structured around four working
groups: digital inclusion; digital engagement (led by the University of Limerick); Geo-
graphical Information Systems; and the Ireland Smart Cities Forum. The DLN developed
and finalised the city’s first digital strategy.
“The strategy was co-designed with the Digital Leaders Network, which was put to-
gether at that time. It took people from community groups, from the universities, from
the museums, from some of the big companies, from the Chamber of Commerce from
everybody, and just brought them together to help co-create that strategy” (Interviewee
B6, Group 2).
The LCCC also participates in external national and international networks. It is a
member of the All-Ireland Smart City Forum (AISCF) in collaboration with local authori-
ties of eight other cities on the island of Ireland. This forum is described as a community
of practice and provides the opportunity for smart city co-ordinators to share technical
insights with peers from other cities. Examples of networking at a European level include
LCCC’s membership of the Covenant of Mayor and the European Innovation Partnership on
Smart Cities and Communities.
A distinguishing feature of the QH model is the participation of citizens (the so-called
fourth helix), and interviewees emphasised the importance attached by the LCCC to citi-
zen engagement in the development of the smart city. This engagement has been evident
in terms of citizen use of mobile apps and digital platforms as well as participation in
online and in-person events. Examples of LCCC’s active engagement with citizens include
the +Limerick Citizens Innovation Lab, the Fab Lab, the University of Limerick downtown
campus, and other virtual engagements.
For example, the +Limerick Citizens Innovation Lab was created by the LCCC as part of
the EU-funded +CityxChange project. Located in the heart of Limerick’s city centre, the lab
facilitates participation by citizens and community groups in events that contribute to co-
creating a smart and sustainable future for the city. It provides a digital and physical space
where citizens can collaborate with the public and private sectors to co-create and develop
model solutions for energy transition, climate action, and sustainability. The lab consists
of three spaces: the Fab Lab, the Citizens Observatory, and the Community Engagement
Hub.
In addition to physical spaces provided for citizen participation in smart city devel-
opment, the LCCC also offers opportunities and space for virtual engagement by citizens.
For example, it was the first Irish local authority to introduce a mobile app aimed at effec-
tive customer relationship management. In 2019, it introduced MYPoint—an online plat-
form where citizens can share opinions and concerns regarding different projects. During
the COVID-19 pandemic, the LCCC introduced virtual engagement rooms (i.e., digital
representation of the physical experience), which included mechanisms to allow citizens
to make submissions and provide feedback about different projects. The LCCC also en-
gages citizens through its EU-funded smart city projects. For example, +CityxChange en-
gages with citizens on issues such as positive energy champions, active energy consum-
erism, and active energy citizens. In addition, +CityxChange developed a mobile app for
imparting information and interacting with other services, such as e-mobility. Similarly,
the Go Green Routes project employed nature walk methodology, walk interview method-
ology, and sound walk methodology to engage citizens.
The interviews with a range of stakeholders in Limerick’s smart city project revealed
a strong degree of consensus among stakeholders in terms of sharing an understanding
and vision of Limerick as a smart city. Technology and data are widely viewed as essential
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11157 12 of 21

elements of a smart city, although these are viewed as enablers rather than the sole focus
of a smart city. Interviewees revealed a shared view that the smart city should be citizen
centric, where services should be organised to benefit citizens.
“The technologies are the foundation, and they are extremely important. You need to
have the machines, but the machines are not the focus……. you need to have the tech,
but the technology is not the focus of improving citizens’ lives” (Interviewee C1, Group
3).
Moreover, the interviews clearly show that stakeholders see Limerick as being firmly
on the path to becoming a smart city and that Limerick is ahead of other Irish cities in this
regard. One of the interviewees expressed his ideas on Limerick as follows:
“I think Limerick is leading the smart city race in Ireland. I don’t think any city in
Ireland is leading the race in Europe. We have quite a lot of ground to make up to compete
with the leading cities in Europe. But still, I will put Limerick at the front of the race in
Ireland, but in the middle of the race in Europe” (Interviewee A1, Group 1).

4.3. Challenges—Governance, Human Capital, and Technological

Interviewees also identified several challenges that the city must address to continue
its development as a smart city. The main challenges can be categorised as constrained
financial and human resources, insufficient local autonomy, digital exclusion, overall co-
ordination and organisational structures, and data.
The financial challenges identified by interviewees manifest in the form of budgetary
challenges. Over-reliance on the central government and consequent underfunding has
long been identified as a problematic feature of local government in Ireland. In this con-
text, the Digital Services Department competes with other divisions of the LCCC (providing
traditional local government services) for scarce budgetary resources, making it difficult
for the council to invest in expensive modern technological equipment.
Interviewees identified the wider issue of insufficient local autonomy (due to the cen-
tralised nature of government in Ireland) as another significant obstacle to developing
Limerick as a smart city and provided examples of how this constraint became manifest.
These include the requirement for central (national) approval before new technologies can
be adopted. The lack of local autonomy is also related to human resource-related chal-
lenges. Interviews revealed that several LCCC staff working on smart city development
have responsibilities that are not connected with Smart Limerick, meaning there is a short-
age of staff that are fully dedicated to smart city development. Similarly, the recruitment
of specialised human resources is constrained by the centralised system that requires cen-
tral approval of all new recruitment. One interviewee expresses his views on central con-
trol as follows:
“To bring together budget initiatives that you might like to push forward, there is way
too much conversation with some government department in Dublin” (Interviewee C3,
Group 3).
Digital exclusion is a major challenge that the LCCC has sought to address through
measures such as the establishment of a working group dedicated to digital inclusion,
which facilitates collaboration between the Digital Leaders Network and the PAUL Partner-
ship (People Action against Unemployment in Limerick).
The QH approach and the presence of multiple stakeholders in smart city develop-
ment also present challenges for the overall co-ordination of smart city development. In-
terviewees indicated that the presence of diverse actors with different expertise, expecta-
tions, and requirements can result in confusion and challenges in establishing a shared
understanding of the objectives of smart city development. It was, however, noteworthy
that the EU-funded +CityxChange project provided a successful template for addressing
co-ordination challenges and establishing a shared understanding and vision of smart city
development among stakeholders.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11157 13 of 21

Interviewees also pointed out the challenge of organisational structure, such as the
siloed or departmentalised approaches in the council. Making different departments work
together to achieve a single vision of a city is sometimes a difficult task. One of the inter-
viewees expressed thoughts on this challenge as follows:
“In my opinion, organisational structures and hierarchies make it pretty difficult to de-
liver upon. The thinking is still very siloed” (Interviewee B2, Group 2).
Interviewees also highlighted several challenges concerning data-related issues.
First, there is an absence of an effective data strategy. Some interviewees linked this to
inadequate planning and a resultant shortage of relevant in-house capacity, especially em-
ployees with data science skills, which are essential to ensuring optimal use of data. This
challenge is also linked to the lack of local autonomy in relation to recruitment.
Smart city initiatives generate large amounts of data, but data storage can be difficult.
To date, there is no data repository within the LCCC. This absence was identified as a
major obstacle to smart city development, which the LCCC has only recently taken actions
to address. These include the development of the Insight Limerick service, which utilises a
collaborative repository and a set of tools and services for managing, aggregating, map-
ping, visualising, analysing, and generating reports on data. This repository and its asso-
ciated services are shared between different council departments and serve as a source of
open data for the public.
Another obstacle identified by interviewees concerns the development of data met-
rics. The LCCC is seeking to develop databases that citizens can easily access, such as the
level of pollution, carbon footprint, and fossil fuel consumption.
“One of the things we’re looking at for the smart cities is how would you collect infor-
mation, store information, and then compare the information to a metric that is imme-
diately usable by people” (Interviewee B3, Group 2).
Interviewees also identified difficulties with data gathering and data quality. Some
of the automated data are derived from Google, Google Maps, Apple, and other sources,
which are widely used but are not necessarily reliable. Similarly, sensors and other similar
devices are used for data collection, but device maintenance is associated with hidden
costs and liability issues. Moreover, any device malfunction has the potential to cause
breaks and anomalies in collected data.
Finally, interviewees highlighted significant challenges around the GDPR, which
took effect after the publication of Limerick’s first digital strategy. The GDPR legislation
has important implications for smart city developments, which seek to collect and use
data using sensors and other technologies. These challenges revolve around aspects in-
cluding data governance, security, and privacy.
The requirement to anonymise data has created a significant challenge for smart city
initiatives since anonymising data can render them unsuitable for further use. One inter-
viewee provided an example of how GDPR requirements impacted a CCTV project man-
aged by the LCCC.
“In relation to CCTV, we installed the latest and greatest cameras with good intentions
about what we want to do with them. But we have been severely hamstrung by the Data
Protection Commission regarding what we can do with them. We have paid a lot of
money for these cameras to have superb functionality to state of the art, yet we cannot
even live monitor them because we are not allowed to do that. So, all we can do is record
the footage, and if there is a request from someone like the Gardai [Police] to go and look
at it, then we can authorise that” (Interviewee B4, Group 2).

5. Summary and Discussion

Similar to Coletta et al.’s [3] study of the unfolding of a smart city in Dublin, this
paper maps out, at a city scale, the initiatives taken to develop a smart city in Ireland, its
governance, and the challenges encountered to date. Coletta et al. [3] revealed a frag-
mented approach to smart city development in Dublin, as different initiatives were
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11157 14 of 21

launched at different times and later incorporated into the smart city ecosystem. In con-
trast, Limerick’s first smart city strategy provided a long-term vision and plan that under-
pinned the implementation of governance systems to facilitate and expedite the transition
towards a smart and sustainable city. Several of the smart city initiatives initially proposed
in the digital strategy are now up and running in Limerick (for example, the formation of
the first decarbonisation zone through the +CityxChange project). Nevertheless, our study
finds that Limerick’s path to becoming a smart city is a slow, non-linear, iterative, and
cumulative process. Limerick has and continues to encounter several obstacles that re-
quire careful management.
From the outset, smart city development in Limerick was led by the local govern-
ment, which cultivated close collaboration with external stakeholders in both public and
private organisations. LCCC’s establishment of a Digital Services Department and appoint-
ment of a dedicated Digital Officer were key drivers of smart city mobilisation. These local
government actions coincided with the establishment of the extensive Digital Leaders Net-
work, which enabled a collaborative approach to the development of the city’s first Digital
Strategy. This public–private collaboration facilitated the development of a smart city eco-
system of participants both inside and outside the city. In this regard, the LCCC’s EU
Projects Office played a pivotal role in building relationships with other European munic-
ipalities, and several smart city initiatives in the sustainable energy and transport sectors
(e.g., the +CityxChange project and Go Green Routes project) resulted from participation in
EU-funded collaborations with other European cities.
Our study shows that Limerick’s development as a smart city conformed with the
Triple Helix Model of innovation in the initial stages of its development; similar to the
recorded experience of Tallinn and Helsinki [88–90], Limerick’s tertiary education insti-
tutes and universities have been important in kickstarting smart city projects and facili-
tating technological innovation and knowledge transfer. In contrast with the involvement
of these institutes, however, this study found relatively limited participation by the wider
citizenry in the early stages (including the strategic development) of the smart city. The
initial planning and design approach of Limerick Smart City, therefore, aligned with the
standard top-down approach observed in other European smart cities such as Barcelona,
Amsterdam, Vienna, and Helsinki [55].
Over time, however, citizen involvement has gradually increased through develop-
ments, such as the establishment of a Living Lab, which provided an accessible location
for citizens to engage and participate in the city’s development process. Such develop-
ments represented increased conformity with the Quadruple Helix innovation frame-
work, a finding that resonates with the Roman and Fellnhofer [54] study that also noted
the old and strong tradition of the Triple Helix approach and more recent Quadruple
Helix approaches in three Finnish municipalities.
Notwithstanding these developments, the level of citizen engagement should not be
overstated. Our study found that there are limits to the extent of citizen participation in
initiatives, such as Living Lab facilities, which have largely been confined to small cohorts
of interested and informed citizens. Even with Living Labs and sophisticated ICTs for en-
gagement, citizens are still not fully integrated into the collaborative ecosystem. Most of
the time, citizens participate in a limited capacity. Either citizens are asked to assess an
ICT solution and deliver feedback or to express their ideas or needs during a meeting or
workshop with other stakeholders. This suggests a top-down approach by the LCCC
where projects are started, and then feedback is requested from the citizens rather than
asking citizens about their needs at the outset. In this regard, some aspects of the Limerick
experience show weak integration of the fourth helix of the QH model.
Although our study highlighted significant challenges, including budgetary con-
straints (due to over-reliance on central government for finance) and a lack of local deci-
sion-making autonomy, several positive features that can lend to smart city development
were also identified. For example, Limerick’s geographic location and proximity to air and
sea transport linkages were identified as plus points. Limerick’s size was also identified
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11157 15 of 21

as advantageous. The smart city literature shows that small- and medium-sized cities are
relatively more suitable for pilot projects as they offer shorter installation times for dis-
tributed infrastructures (e.g., streetlights and smart waste management technologies). In
addition, these cities provide suitably sized test beds for new technologies and are thereby
attractive to technology vendors. Small- and medium-sized cities like Limerick also facil-
itate easier social interaction among stakeholders. This advantage was identified by Duy-
gan et al.’s [67] study of smart cities in Switzerland where close geographical proximity
improved the prospects of forming networks that foster knowledge exchange and inno-
vation.
Finally, this research finds that Limerick’s path towards becoming a smart city has
been supported by an appreciable consensus and shared understanding of the features of
a smart city. Our study finds that the involvement and input of public and private stake-
holders have been critical in determining the direction of the city’s development. Inter-
viewees strongly agree that citizens are the most important part of a smart city. The evi-
dence, therefore, suggests that stakeholders have a rounded idea of a smart city that is not
narrowly defined by technology. This finding chimes with extant studies of smart city
development, which emphasise the importance of stakeholders sharing a well-articulated
and widely accepted vision of a smart city and its features [7,91].

6. Conclusions
Cities around the world are increasingly seeking to adopt technology-led approaches
to manage the complex challenge of sustainable urban development. This paper makes
four main contributions to the growing literature on sustainable smart cities. First, it doc-
uments the factors that contributed to and challenged a medium-sized Irish city on its
journey towards developing as a smart city. Previous studies, including Tang et al. (2019)
[40], analysed greenfield smart cities, but very few studies examine how existing (brown-
field) cities are seeking to transform into smart cities. Coletta et al.’s [3] study of Dublin is
significant in this regard, as it examined smart city development in Ireland’s capital city.
However, Coletta et al.’s findings cannot necessarily be generalised to medium-sized Irish
cities. This research, therefore, contributes to the smart city literature by comparing the
different paths to the smart city development of two cities in the same country.
This research also sheds light on the workings of local authority units responsible for
smart city planning and implementation. Coletta et al. [3] correctly asserted that the work-
ing and functioning of such bodies are rarely documented in the smart city literature. This
paper addresses this gap by describing the internal organisational structures established
by the local government to facilitate and support smart city development in Limerick.
Our analysis extends to the smart city ecosystem instead of focusing on a single smart
city initiative. It explores the networks and governance structures established to support
smart city development. It reveals the collaborative approach adopted by local govern-
ment, which led to several networks and governance structures that are consistent with
the Quadruple Helix model. Notwithstanding the evidence of a Quadruple Helix ap-
proach, we found that citizens are not completely integrated into the smart city ecosystem.
These findings provide an important lesson for policymakers in other cities, as weak inte-
gration is associated with a significant degree of digital exclusion in the city.
Limerick’s experience offers valuable lessons for cities worldwide. First, the city’s ar-
ticulated approach is a significant lesson for other cities; the articulation was made possi-
ble by the development of a digital strategy and the establishment of the DSD department,
which facilitated effective co-ordination and implementation of the strategy and smart
city initiatives. Second, other cities can learn from the critical role played by the digital
officer in leading and driving a smart city agenda. Third, it is important to note that artic-
ulation was made possible because the stakeholders share a common vision for the city.
Lastly, the research highlights specific challenges faced by Limerick, such as the digital
divide and limited local autonomy. Awareness of these challenges can help other cities
anticipate similar issues while planning their smart city agenda.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11157 16 of 21

This study points the way for future research into the comparative experience of dif-
ferent cities as they seek to develop as smart and sustainable. Future studies could focus
on holistically investigating the smart cities landscape and the transformation of conven-
tional cities into smart cities. Other potentially fertile ground for future research includes
the exploration of the roles of technocratic leadership and research institutes in large or
medium-sized smart cities and the analysis of their importance in the smart city ecosys-
tem. Finally, there is scope for an in-depth examination of external and internal networks
and their effects on the development of sustainable and smart cities.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, S.S.R. and E.R.; formal analysis, S.S.R. and E.R.; investi-
gation, S.S.R. and E.R.; methodology, S.S.R. and E.R.; supervision, E.R.; writing—original draft,
S.S.R.; writing—review and editing, S.S.R. and E.R. All authors have read and agreed to the pub-
lished version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declara-
tion of Helsinki and was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Limerick (protocol
code 2020_03_KBS_28; approved on 26 June 2020).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects in the study.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available upon request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. List of interview participants.

Participant Gender Organisation Role Type of Interview Duration

Member of a
Collaborative
collaborative
A1 Male networks of the MS TEAMS 35 min
Group 1 network and head of
LCCC
(member of a private firm
networks) Collaborative
A2 Male networks of the Head of a network MS TEAMS 30 min
LCCC
Senior project
B1 Male LCCC MS TEAMS 60 min
manager
Department lead at
B2 Female LCCC MS TEAMS 37 min
the LCCC
Senior official at the
B3 Group 2 Male LCCC MS TEAMS 47 min
LCCC
(officials LCCC)
Senior official at the
B4 Male LCCC MS TEAMS 95 min
LCCC
B5 Female LCCC Manager MS TEAMS 42 min
B6 Female LCCC Manager Face to face 80 min
B7 Male LCCC Department lead MS TEAMS 40 min
Group 3 Private Head of an
C1 Male MS TEAMS 45 min
(private organisation organisation
research Professor and co-
institutes and Maynooth ordinator at one of
C2 Male MS TEAMS 60 min
other public university the LCCC EU
organisations) projects
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11157 17 of 21

Public
C3 Male Senior official MS TEAMS 30 min
organisation
Public Head of an
C4 Male MS TEAMS 35 min
organisation organisation
Social programmes
C5 Female Private company MS TEAMS 35 min
co-ordinator
University of Lecturer and co-
C6 Male MS TEAMS 62 min
Limerick ordinator
Source: generated by the author.

Table A2. Details of EU projects.

Projects Details
Horizon 2020 is the financial instrument implementing the Europe 2020 flagship initiative
Horizon 2020 Projects aimed at securing Europe’s global competitiveness. These measures will aim at breaking down
barriers to create a genuine single market for knowledge, research, and innovation [92].
The Northern Periphery and Arctic 2014–2020 form a co-operation between nine programme
partner countries. The NPA 2014–2020 is part of Interreg, supported by the European Regional
Development Fund (ERDF) and ERDF equivalent funding from non-EU partner countries. Nine
The Northern programme partner countries include the Member States of Finland, Ireland, Sweden, and the
Periphery and Arctic United Kingdom (Scotland and Northern Ireland), which are in co-operation with the Faroe
Islands, Iceland, Greenland, and Norway. This means that the programme area encompasses
the Euro-Arctic zone, parts of the Atlantic zone, and parts of the Barents region, neighbouring
Canada in the West and Russia in the East [93].
The Interreg Atlantic Area supports transnational co-operation projects in 36 Atlantic regions of
five countries, France, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom, contributing to the
achievement of economic, social, and territorial cohesion. The programme’s overall objective is
to implement solutions to answer regional challenges in the fields of innovation, resource
Interreg Atlantic
efficiency, environment, and cultural assets, supporting regional development and sustainable
growth. With a total budget of EUR 185 million, which comprises a fund allocation above EUR
140 million from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the programme focuses on
four main priorities, axes, and specific related objectives [94].
URBACT is a European Territorial Co-operation programme fostering sustainable integrated
URBACT
urban development in cities across Europe [95].
Source: generated by the author.

References
1. Glasmeier, A.K.; Nebiolo, M. Thinking about smart cities: The travels of a policy idea that promises a great deal, but so far has
delivered modest results. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1122. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8111122.
2. Nesti, G. Defining and assessing the transformational nature of smart city governance: Insights from four European cases. Int.
Rev. Adm. Sci. 2018, 86, 20–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852318757063.
3. Coletta, C.; Heaphy, L.; Kitchin, R. From the accidental to articulated smart city: The creation and work of “Smart Dublin”. Eur.
Urb. Reg. Stud. 2019, 26, 349–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776418785214.
4. Tan, S.Y.; Taeihagh, A. Smart City Governance in Developing Countries: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2020,
12, 899. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12030899.
5. Adenekan, O.A.; Ezeigweneme, C.; Chukwurah, E.G. The evolution of smart cities: Integrating technology, governance, and
sustainable development. Int. J. Appl. Res. Soc. Sci. 2024, 6, 891–902. https://doi.org/10.51594/ijarss.v6i5.1131.
6. Kitchin, R. The real-time city? Big data and smart urbanism. GeoJournal 2014, 79, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-013-9516-
8.
7. Desdemoustier, J.; Crutzen, N.; Giffinger, R. Municipalities’ understanding of the Smart City concept: An exploratory analysis
in Belgium. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2019, 142, 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.10.029.
8. McNeill, D. Global firms and smart technologies: IBM and the reduction of cities. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 2015, 40, 562–574.
https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12098.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11157 18 of 21

9. Söderström, O.; Paasche, T.; Klauser, F. City analysis of urban trends, culture, theory, policy, action Smart cities as corporate
storytelling. City 2014, 18, 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2014.906716.
10. Cortés-Cediel, M.E.; Cantador, I.; Bolívar, M.P.R. Analyzing Citizen Participation and Engagement in European Smart Cities.
Soc. Sci. Comp. Rev. 2021, 39, 592–626. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319877478..
11. Meijer, A.J.; Gil-Garcia, J.R.; Bolívar, M.P.R. Smart City Research: Contextual Conditions, Governance Models, and Public Value
Assessment. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 2016, 34, 647–656. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439315618890.
12. Bolívar, M.P.R. Mapping Dimensions of Governance in Smart Cities versus Prior Research. In Proceedings of the 17th
International Digital Government Research Conference on Digital Government Research, Shanghai, China, 8–10 June 2016; pp.
312–324. https://doi.org/10.1145/2912160.2912176.
13. Kim, J.I. Making cities global: The new city development of Songdo, Yujiapu and Lingang. Plan. Perspect. 2014, 29, 329–356.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02665433.2013.824370.
14. Shin, H.; Park, S.H.; Sonn, J.W. The emergence of a multiscalar growth regime and scalar tension: The politics of urban
development in Songdo New City, South Korea’, Environ. Plan. C Gov. Policy 2015, 33, 1618–1638.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X15614442.
15. Shwayri, S.T. A Model Korean Ubiquitous Eco-City? The Politics of Making Songdo. J. Urban. Technol. 2013, 20, 39–55.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2012.735409.
16. Cugurullo, F. Urban eco-modernisation and the policy context of new eco-city projects: Where Masdar City fails and why. Urban.
Stud. 2016, 53, 2417–2433. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098015588727.
17. Madakam, S.; Ramaswamy, R. Sustainable Smart City: Masdar (UAE) (A City: Ecologically Balanced). Indian J. Sci. Technol. 2016,
9, 5. https://doi.org/10.17485/ijst/2016/v9i6/87669.
18. Al-Sayed, A.; Al-Shammari, F.; Alshutayri, F.A.; Aljojo, N.; Aldhahri, E.; Abouola, O. The Smart City-Line in Saudi Arabia: Issue
and Challenges. Postmod. Open. 2022, 13, 15–37. https://doi.org/10.18662/PO/13.1SUP1/412.
19. Pratama, A.B. The Social Interface of SMART city Development: An Empirical Study in Magelang City, Indonesia. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Bonn, Germany, 2023. Online-Ausgabe in bonndoc. Available
online: https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:hbz:5-71445 (accessed on 30 November 2024).
20. Datta, A. New urban utopias of postcolonial India: “Entrepreneurial urbanization” in Dholera smart city, Gujarat. Dialogues
Hum. Geogr. 2015, 5, 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/2043820614565748.
21. Wiig, A. The empty rhetoric of the smart city: From digital inclusion to economic promotion in Philadelphia. Urban. Geogr. 2016,
37, 535–553. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2015.1065686.
22. Cullen, M.L. Cities on the Path to “Smart”: Information Technology Provider Interactions with Urban Governance through
Smart City Projects in Dubuque, Iowa and Portland, Oregon. Ph.D. Dissertation, London School of Economics and Political
Science, London, UK, 2016.
23. Dourish, P. The Internet of Urban Things. Code and the City; Routledge: London, UK, 2016.
24. Kitchin, R. Making sense of smart cities: Addressing present shortcomings. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 2015, 8, 131–136.
https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsu027.
25. Doering, C.; Schmidtner, M.; Timinger, H. Collaboration for innovation between universities and smart cities. In Proceedings
of IEEE European Technology and Engineering Management Summit (E-TEMS), Dortmund, Germany, 18-20 March 2021; pp.
82–86. https://doi.org/10.1109/E-TEMS51171.2021.9524896.
26. Ansell, C.; Gash, A. Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J. Public. Adm. Res. Theory 2008, 18, 543–571.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032. .
27. Pereira, G.V.; Cunha, M.A.; Lampoltshammer, T.J.; Parycek, P.; Testa, M.G. Increasing Collaboration and Participation in Smart
City Governance: A Cross-Case Analysis of Smart City Initiatives. Inf. Technol. Dev. 2017, 23, 526–553.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2017.1353946.
28. Caragliu, A.; Del Bo, C.; Nijkamp, P.; Smart Cities in Europe. J. Urban Technol. 2011, 18, 65–82.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2011.601117.
29. Da Silva, A.O.; Fernandes, R.A.S. Multipurpose territorial cadastre and collaborative participation as tools for smart urban
governance: An analysis considering the pandemic’s effect in the São Paulo Metropolitan Region, Brazil. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2024,
115, 105831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2024.105831 .
30. Dameri, R.P. Searching for smart city definition: A comprehensive proposal. Int. J. Comput. Technol. 2013, 11. 2445–2551.
31. Meijer, A.; Bolívar, M.P.R. Governing the smart city: A review of the literature on smart urban governance. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci.
2016, 82, 392–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314564308.
32. Yigitcanlar, T.; Kamruzzaman, M.; Buys, L.; Ioppolo, G.; Sabatini-Marques, J.; da Costa, E.M.; Yun, J.J. Understanding ‘smart
cities’: Intertwining development drivers with desired outcomes in a multidimensional framework. Cities 2018, 81, 145–160.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.04.003.
33. Bhattacharya, S.; Rama, S.; Somayaji, K.; Reddy, G.T.; Alazab, M.; Kumar, P. A review on deep learning for future smart cities.
Internet Technol. Lett. 2022, 5, e187. https://doi.org/10.1002/itl2.187.
34. Humayun, M.; Alsaqer, MS.; Jhanjhi, N. Energy optimization for smart cities using IoT. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2022, 36, 2037255.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08839514.2022.2037255.
35. Ang, K.L.; Seng, J.K.; Ngharamike, E.; Ijemaru, G.K. Emerging technologies for smart cities’ transportation: Geo-information,
data analytics and machine learning approaches. Intern J. Geo-Inf. 2022, 11, 85. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi11020085.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11157 19 of 21

36. Vodák, J.; Šulyová, D.; Kubina, M. Advanced technologies and their use in smart city management. Sustainability 2021, 13, 5746.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13105746.
37. Nikolaeva, A.; Latham, A. Cities and smart technology: The case of cycling. J. Urban. Technol. 2024, 31, 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2024.2347806.
38. Kundu, D. Blockchain and Trust in a Smart City. Environ. Urban. Asia. 2019, 10, 31–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0975425319832392.
39. Singh, T.; Solanki, A.; Sharma, S.K.; Nayyar, A.; Paul, A. A Decade Review on Smart Cities: Paradigms, Challenges and
Opportunities. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 68319–68364. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3184710.
40. Tang, Z.; Jayakar, K.; Feng, X.; Zhang, H.; Peng, R.X. Identifying smart city archetypes from the bottom up: A content analysis
of municipal plans. Telecommun. Policy 2019, 43, 101834. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TELPOL.2019.101834.
41. Zvolska, L.; Lehner, M.; Palgan, Y.V.; Mont, O.; Plepys, A. Urban sharing in smart cities: The cases of Berlin and London. Local.
Environ. Int. J. Justice Sustain. 2019, 24, 628–645. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2018.1463978.
42. Hämäläinen, M. A Framework for a Smart City Design: Digital Transformation in the Helsinki Smart City. In Entrepreneurship
and the Community, Part of the Book Series: Contribution to Management Sciences; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020, pp. 63–86.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23604-5_5
43. Ahad, M.A.; Paiva, S.; Tripathi, G.; Feroz, N. Enabling Technologies and Sustainable Smart Cities. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2020, 61,
102301 https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCS.2020.102301.
44. Sta, H.B. Quality and the efficiency of data in “Smart-Cities”. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2017, 74, 409–416.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.FUTURE.2016.12.021.
45. Al Nuaimi, E.; Al Neyadi, H.; Mohamed, N.; Al-Jaroodi, J. Applications of big data to smart cities. J. Internet Serv. Appl. 2015, 6,
25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13174-015-0041-5.
46. Lee, C.-H.; Birch, D.; Wu, C.; Silva, D.; Tsinalis, O.; Li, Y.; Yan, S.; Ghanem, M.; Guo, Y. Building a Generic Platform for Big
Sensor Data Application. In Proceeding of IEEE Conference on Big Data, Clara, CA, USA, 27 June–2 July 2013.
https://doi.org/10.1109/BigData.2013.6691559.
47. Khan, M.A.U.D.; Uddin, M.F.; Gupta, N. Seven V’s of Big Data Understanding Big Data to Extract Value. In Proceedings of the
2014 Zone 1 Conference of the Amercian Society for Engineering Education, Bridgeport, CT, USA, 3–5 April 2014.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ASEEZONE1.2014.6820689.
48. Hakak, S.; Khan, W.Z.; Gilkar, G.A.; Imran, M.; Guizani, N. Securing Smart Cities through Blockchain Technology: Architecture,
Requirements, and Challenges. IEEE Netw. 2020, 34, 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1109/MNET.001.1900178.
49. Vojkovic, G. Will the GDPR Slow down Development of Smart Cities? In Proceedings of 41st International Convention on
Information and Communication Technology, Electronics and Microelectronics (MIPRO), Optija, Croatia, 21–25 May 2018; pp.
1295–1297. https://doi.org/10.23919/MIPRO.2018.8400234.
50. Vojković, G.; Katulić, T. Data Protection and Smart Cities.Springer In Handbook of Smart Cities; Augusto, J.C., Ed.; Springer:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15145-4_28-1.
51. Oomens, I.M.F.; Sadowski, B.M. The importance of internal alignment in smart city initiatives: An ecosystem approach.
Telecommun. Policy 2019, 43, 485–500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2018.12.004.
52. Rengifo, Y.X. H.; Vargas, J.F.H.; Valencia-Arias, A. Proposal for a comprehensive tool to measure smart Ccties under the Triple-
Helix Model: Capacities learning, research, and development. Sustainability 2023, 15, 13549. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151813549.
53. Paskaleva, K.; Evans, J.; Watson, K. Co-Producing Smart Cities: A Quadruple Helix Approach to Assessment. Euro. Reg. Urb.
Stud. 2021, 28, 395–412. https://doi.org/10.1177/09697764211016037.
54. Roman, M.; Fellnhofer, K. Facilitating the participation of civil society in regional planning: Implementing quadruple helix
model in Finnish regions. Land. Use Poli. 2022, 112, 105864. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.LANDUSEPOL.2021.105864.
55. Mora, L.; Deakin, M.; Reid, A.; Angelidou, M. How to Overcome the Dichotomous Nature of Smart City Research: Proposed
Methodology and Results of a Pilot Study. J. Urban. Technol. 2019, 26, 89–128. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2018.1525265.
56. Duarte, F.; Beguin, P.; Pueyo, V.; Lima, F. Innovative Labs and Co-design. In Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the
International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018), Florence, Italy, 26–30 August 2018; pp. 1967–1971. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-319-96071-5_206ï.
57. Prisco, A.; Ricciardi, I.; Percuoco, M. The Role of Living Labs for Cities Sustainable Transition. Evidence from the Turin Living Lab;
Social Science Research Network: Rochester, NY, USA, 2024. Available online: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4760421 (accessed
on 1 December 2024).
58. Zheng, Y.; Schachter, H.L. The Impact of Administrator Willingness on Website E-Participation: Some Evidence from
Municipalities. Public. Perform. Manag. Rev. 2018, 41, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2017.1400988.
59. Vanolo, A. Smartmentality: The smart city as disciplinary strategy. Urban. Stud. 2014, 51, 883–898.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098013494427.
60. Kolotouchkina, O.; González, L.R.; Belabas, W. Smart cities, digital inequalities, and the challenge of Inclusion. Smart Cities 2024,
7, 3355–3370. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities7060130.
61. Adamczyk, M.; Betlej, A. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues Social Determinants Of Digital Exclusion In An Ageing
Society: The Case of Poland. Entre. Sustain. Issues 2021, 8, 121. https://doi.org/10.9770/jesi.2021.8.3.
62. Kolotouchkina, O.; Barroso, C.L.; Sánchez, J.L.M. Smart Cities, the Digital Divide, and People with Disabilities. Cities 2022, 123,
103613. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CITIES.2022.103613.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11157 20 of 21

63. Shin, S.-Y.; Kim, D.; Chun, S.A. Digital Divide in Advanced Smart City Innovations. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4076.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13074076.
64. Del-Real, C.; Ward, C.; Sartipi, M. What Do People Want in a Smart City? Exploring the Stakeholders’ Opinions, Priorities and
Perceived Barriers in a Medium-Sized City in the United States. Inter. J. Urb. Sci. 2021, 27, 50–74.
https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2021.1968939.
65. Vidiasova, L.; Cronemberger, F. Discrepancies in perceptions of smart city initiatives in Saint Petersburg, Russia. Sustain. Cities
Soc. 2020, 59, 102158. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCS.2020.102158.
66. Gieske, H.; Van Buuren, A.; Bekkers, V. Conceptualizing public innovative capacity: A framework for assessment. J. Public. Sect.
Innov. J. 2016, 21, 1–25.
67. Duygan, M.; Fischer, M.; Pärli, R.; Ingold, K. Where do Smart Cities grow? The spatial and socio-economic configurations of
smart city development. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2022, 77, 103578. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCS.2021.103578.
68. Palomo-Navarro, A.; Navío-Marco, J. Smart city networks’ governance: The Spanish smart city network case study. Telecommun.
Policy 2018, 42, 872–880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2017.10.002.
69. Crumpton, C.D.; Wongthanavasu, S.; Kamnuansilpa, P.; Draper, J.; Bialobrzeski, E. Assessing the ASEAN Smart Cities Network
(ASCN) via the Quintuple Helix Innovation Framework, with Special Regard to Smart City Discourse, Civil Participation, and
Environmental Performance. Int. J. Urban. Sustain. Dev. 2021, 13, 97–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2020.1827411.
70. Van den Buuse, D.; Van W.; Schrama, W. Balancing Exploration and Exploitation in Sustainable Urban Innovation: An
Ambidexterity Perspective toward Smart Cities. J. Urban. Technol. 2021, 28, 175–197.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2020.1835048.
71. Ruhlandt, R.W.S. The governance of smart cities: A systematic literature review. Cities 2018, 81, 1–23.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.02.014.
72. Das, D.K. Exploring the symbiotic relationship between digital transformation, infrastructure, service delivery, and governance
for smart sustainable cities. Smart Cities. 2024, 7, 806–835. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities7020034.
73. Chourabi, H.; Nam, T.; Shawn, W.; Gil-Garcia, J.; Ramon; Mellouli; Sehl; Nahon; Theresa, A.; Scholl, H.J. Understanding smart
cities: An integrative framework. In Proceedings of 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE, Maui, HI,
USA, 4–7 January 2012; pp. 2289–2297. Available online: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/6149291/ (accessed on 12
June 2022).
74. Neirotti, P.; De Marco, A.; Cagliano, A.C.; Mangano, G.; Scorrano, F. Current trends in Smart City initiatives: Some stylised
facts. Cities 2014, 38, 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CITIES.2013.12.010.
75. Mora, L.; Deakin, M.; Reid, A. Strategic principles for smart city development: A multiple case study analysis of European best
practices. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2019, 142, 70–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.TECHFORE.2018.07.035.
76. Mills, D.E.; Izadgoshasb, I.; Pudney, S.G. Smart City Collaboration: A Review and an Agenda for Establishing Sustainable
Collaboration. Sustainability 2021, 13, 9189. https://doi.org/10.3390/SU13169189.
77. Mora, L.; and Bolici, R. How to become a smart city: Learning from Amsterdam. In Smart and Sustainable Planning for Cities and
Regions; Bisello, A., Vettorato, D., Stephen, R., Elisei, P., Eds; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017, pp. 251–266.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44899-2_15.
78. Madreiter, T.; Djuric, A.; Summer, N.; Woller, F. Smart City Wien: A Sustainable Future Starts Now. In Handbook of Smart Cities;
Augusto, J.C., Eds; Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2021, pp. 313–337. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69698-6_9.
79. Mondschein, J.; Clark-Ginsberg, A.; Kuehn, A. Smart cities as large technological systems: Overcoming organizational
challenges in smart cities through collective action. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2021, 67, 102730. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.SCS.2021.102730.
80. Schachtner, C.; Baumann, N. Accompanying study of the development process towards a smart city strategy-with a particular
focus on social change. Smart Cities Reg. Dev. SCRDJ. 2024, 8, 63–72.
81. Hancock, D.R.; Algozzine, B.; Lim, J.H. Doing Case Study Research: A Practical Guide for Beginning Researchers; Teachers College
Press: New York, NY, USA, 2021.
82. Yin, R.K. Designing Case Studies. In Qualitative Research Methods, 4th ed.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2003.
83. Gerring, J. Case Study Research. Principles and Practices; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007.
84. Limerick City and County Council. Building Ireland’s First Digital City- Smart City Roadmap. Available online:
https://www.limerick.ie/digital-strategy (accessed on 7 September 2021).
85. Limerick City and County Council. Limerick 2030- An Economic and Spatial Plan for Limerick. Available online:
https://www.limerick.ie/council/services/business-and-economy/limerick-2030/limerick-2030-an-economic-and-spatial-plan-
for (accessed on 10 September 2021).
86. Goodman, L.A. Snowball Sampling. Annu. Math. Stat. 1961, 32, 148–70. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2237615
(accessed on 2 January 2021).
87. Bryman, A.; Bell, E.; Harley, B. Business Research Methods, 6th ed.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2022.
88. Fitsilis, P.; Kokkinaki, A. Smart Cities Body of Knowledge; Smart Cities Body of Knowledge. In Proceedings of 25th Pan-Hellenic
Conference on Informatices, Volos, Greece, 26–28 November 2021; pp. 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1145/3503823.3503853.
89. Sarv, L.; Soe, R.-M. Transition towards Smart City: The Case of Tallinn. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4143.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13084143.
Sustainability 2024, 16, 11157 21 of 21

90. Soe, R.M.; Schuch de Azambuja, L.; Toiskallio, K.; Nieminen, M.; Batty, M. Institutionalising smart city research and innovation:
From fuzzy definitions to real-life experiments. Urban. Res. Pract. 2022, 15, 112–154.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2021.1998592.
91. Áñez, F.V. Stakeholders Approach to Smart Cities: A Survey on Smart City Definitions; Springer International Publishing:
Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-39595-1_16.
92. ec.europa.eu. Available online: https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/funding/funding-opportunities/funding-pro-
grammes-and-open-calls/horizon-2020_en (accessed on 27 July 2021).
93. interreg-npa.eu. Available online: https://www.interreg-npa.eu/our-programme/ (accessed on 27 July 2021).
94. atlanticarea.eu. Available online: https://www.atlanticarea.eu/about-us/interreg-atlantic-area-2021-2027 (accessed on 27 July
2021).
95. URBACT.eu. Available online: https://urbact.eu/ireland (accessed on 27 July 2021).

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual au-
thor(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.