Smart City Index 2020

First page Table of contents 1 Next page Last page

IMD World Competitiveness Center

Smart City Index 2020 A tool for action, an instrument for better lives for all citizens.

A collaboration between:

IMD WORLD COMPETITIVENESS CENTER

SCO SMART CITY OBSERVATORY

“A great city is that which has the greatest men and women.”

Walt Whitman

“The City is what it is because our citizens are what they are.”

Plato

Smart City Index

Preface This is the second edition of the IMD-SUTD Smart City Index Report. Over the last twelve months, much has happened. Our viewof cities ingeneral, and of smart cities inparticular, has been confronted to the reality of a sudden pandemic. At the time of writing this report (September 2020), it is still too early to draw the lessons of this experience. In a recent article 1 , Francis Fukuyama even expressed the view that it would take years to identify the deeper consequences of the current crisis: “Future historians will trace comparably large effects to the current coronavirus pandemic; the challenge is figuring them out ahead of time” . Although we have still not seen the last of the sanitary crisis, and are only experiencing the first tremors of the much more traumatic economic and social crises to come, we see ways in which cities, smart or not, will be affected and transformed. In a recent study, the OECD underlines that, in many parts of the world, cities have been at the forefront of shaping a post-COVID world by taking inclusive measures (especially for local business support and employment, affordable housing construction and renovation, and support to vulnerable households), and investing to pair economic recovery with environmental sustainability, with an emphasis on clean forms of urban mobility and energy efficiency. The OECD also underlines that ‘the pivotal role of digitalisation in emergency responses

dimensions of how citizens could consider that their respective cities are becoming better cities by becoming smarter ones. Part of the SCI’s uniqueness is to rely first and foremost on the perceptions of those who live and work in the cities covered by the index, while providing a realistic recognition that not all cities start from the same level of development, nor with the same set of endowments and advantages. In SCI’s context, a ‘smart city’ continues to be defined as an urban setting that applies technology to enhance the benefits and diminish the shortcomings of urbanization for its citizens. As for the first edition, this new SCI report is the result of a close cooperation between IMD and SUTD (Singapore University for Technology and Design), and benefitted from inputs by numerous experts and city specialists around the world, whom we want to thank most warmly. Looking forward to more feedback and reactions to this second edition, it is our hope to continue to strengthen the visibility and relevance of the Smart City Index as a tool for action, and an instrument for the betterment of citizens’ lives in all parts of the world.

to the pandemic has pushed many cities to systematise the use of smart city tools more permanently, while staying alert and monitoring the risk of contagion.’ It is now becoming clear that the trends identified in last year’s Smart City Index and Report will be accelerated, and that attention to smart cities will continue to increase concomitantly. It is also clear that the COVID crisis is likely to widen inequalities between the haves and the have- nots of connectivity, both among and within cities. This is an aspect that will deserve appropriate attention from analysts, and governments, both central and local. As stressed in last year’s SCI Report, it is the position of the authors of this report that smart cities will not generate their full potential unless priority attention is devoted to the necessary balance between the technological aspects of smart cities and their human aspects. Since last year, and based on the very rich feedback received after the launch of the first edition of the SCI, improvements have been brought to the index methodology , as well as in the way main results are presented. Altogether, however, the approach has not changed: In line with previous and on-going efforts initiated and carried out by IMD’s World Competitiveness Center, the Smart City Index presented here remains a holistic attempt to capture the various

Professor Arturo Bris Director IMD World Competitiveness Center

Professor Chan Heng Chee President Lee Kuan Yew Centre for Innovative Cities

Bruno Lanvin President IMD Smart City Observatory

1 Foreign Affairs Magazine, July-August 2020 2 ‘Cities responses to COVID’, OECD Centre for Entrepreneurship, SMEs, Regions and Cities (CFE) in collaboration with the OECD Working Party for Urban Policy and the OECD Champion Mayors Initiative for Inclusive Growth. http://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/cities-policy-responses-fd1053ff/, last consulted on 23 July 2020. 3 See the introduction to this year’s report for details.

Table of contents

Table of contents �� 4 The IMD World Competitiveness Center �� 6 City performance overview�� 7 Alphabetical�� 7 By ranking�� 9 User’s Guide to the Smart City Index�� 11 Methodology in a nutshell �� 13 City profiles�� 14

City Profiles

Abu Dhabi ��15 Abuja ��16 Amsterdam ��17 Ankara��18 Athens ��19 Auckland ��20 Bangkok ��21 Barcelona��22 Beijing ��23 Bengaluru ��24 Berlin ��25 Bilbao ��26 Birmingham��27 Bogota��28 Bologna��29 Boston��30 Bratislava��31 Brisbane ��32 Brussels��33

Bucharest ��34 Budapest��35 Buenos Aires ��36 Busan��37 Cairo��38 Cape Town��39 Chengdu��40 Chicago ��41 Chongqing��42 Copenhagen��43 Denver��44 Dubai ��45 Dublin��46 Dusseldorf ��47 Geneva ��48 Gothenburg ��49 Guangzhou��50 Hamburg ��51 Hangzhou��52

Smart City Index

Hanoi ��53 Hanover��54 Helsinki ��55 Ho Chi Minh City ��56 Hong Kong ��57 Hyderabad��58 Jakarta ��59 Kiev��60 Krakow ��61 Kuala Lumpur��62 Lagos ��63 Lisbon ��64 London ��65 Los Angeles ��66 Lyon��67 Madrid��68 Makassar ��69 Manchester��70 Manila ��71 Marseille ��72 Medan ��73 Medellin ��74 Melbourne��75 Mexico City ��76 Milan ��77 Montreal��78 Moscow ��79 Mumbai ��80 Munich ��81 Nairobi ��82 Nanjing��83 Newcastle ��84 New Delhi ��85 New York ��86 Osaka ��87 Oslo ��88

Paris��89 Philadelphia��90 Phoenix ��91 Prague ��92 Rabat ��93 Rio de Janeiro��94 Riyadh ��95 Rome��96 Rotterdam��97 San Francisco ��98 Santiago ��99 São Paulo��100 Seattle��101 Seoul ��102 Shanghai ��103 Shenzhen ��104 Singapore��105 Sofia ��106 St. Petersburg��107 Stockholm��108 Sydney ��109 Taipei City��110 Tallinn ��111 Tel Aviv ��112 The Hague��113 Tianjin ��114 Tokyo ��115 Toronto ��116 Vancouver ��117 Vienna ��118 Warsaw ��119 Washington D.C. ��120 Zaragoza ��121 Zhuhai ��122 Zurich��123

Smart City Index

The IMD World Competitiveness Center

For more than thirty years, the IMD World Competitiveness Center has pioneered research on how countries and companies compete to lay the foundations for sustainable value creation. The competitiveness of nations is probably one of the most significant developments in modern management and IMD is committed to leading the field.

The IMD World Competitiveness Center team:

Professor Arturo Bris Christos Cabolis Bruno Lanvin José Caballero Madeleine Hediger Catherine Jobin

Director

Chief Economist & Head of Operations President, Smart City Observatory

Senior Economist

Data Research and Online Services Specialist

Order and Sales Administrator

William Milner

Research Projects Associate Manager

Marco Pistis

Research Specialist Research Specialist

Maryam Zargari

Smart City Index

City performance overview

Alphabetical

Smart City Rank 2020 Change Smart City Rating 2020

Smart City Rank 2019

Smart City Rating 2019

Smart City Rank 2020 Change Smart City Rating 2020

Smart City Rank 2019

Smart City Rating 2019

City

Abu Dhabi

Cape Town

▲ (+14) ▼ (-10) ▲ (+2) ▲ (+17) ▼ (-4) ▲ (+2) ▲ (+4) ▼ (-1) ▼ (-22) ▼ (-16) ▲ (+1) ▼ (-15) ▲ (+12) ▲ (+6) ▼ (-52) ▼ (-4) ▲ (+8) ▲ (+13) ▲ (+4) ▼ (-2) ▲ (+6) ▼ (-1) ▲ (+4) ▼ (-7)

56 97 11 74 95 75 48 60 79 39 52 98 18 32 84 27 64 85 83 87 50 99 6 9

B D A

103

▼ (-10) ▼ (-11) ▲ (+12) ▼ (-22) ▼ (-1) ▼ (-2) ▲ (+2) ▼ (-4) ▼ (-3) ▼ (-3) ▼ (-3) ▼ (-11) ▼ (-21) ▼ (-18) ▼ (-7) ▲ (+6) ▼ (-18) ▲ (+5) ▼ (-18) ▼ (-13) new

93 58 53 42 33 45 30 10 5 44 66 26 65 37 67 81 92 69 70 8 4 28 57

C B

Abuja

Chengdu Chicago

107

D A B C

69 41 64 35 43 34 13 31 68 22 65 84 33 83 32 85 94 98 58 54 6 7 2

CCC BBB CCC

Amsterdam

BB BB AA

Ankara Athens

Chongqing Copenhagen

57 99

CCC

C A

Auckland Bangkok Barcelona

Denver Dubai Dublin

BBB

71 49 82 95 38 24 40 92 70 36 76 14 60 87 77 88 46

CCC

BB CC

BBB

Beijing

Dusseldorf

Bengaluru

Geneva

Berlin Bilbao

Gothenburg Guangzhou Hamburg Hangzhou

BBB BBB BBB

BBB

BBB CCC

BBB

Birmingham

Bogota Bologna Boston

CCC

Hanoi

CCC BBB CCC

BBB BBB

CCC BBB

Hanover Helsinki

BBB

Bratislava Brisbane Brussels Bucharest Budapest

AA CC

Ho Chi Minh City

A B

BBB

CCC BBB CCC

Hong Kong Hyderabad

BBB

CC CC CC BB

Jakarta

CCC

C C B B

Buenos Aires

Kiev

CC BB

▼ (-6)

Busan Cairo

Krakow

▲ (+11) ▲ (+16)

CCC CCC

Kuala Lumpur

106

Smart City Index

Smart City Rank 2020 Change Smart City Rating 2020

Smart City Rank 2019

Smart City Rating 2019

Smart City Rank 2020 Change Smart City Rating 2020

Smart City Rank 2019

Smart City Rating 2019

City

Lagos Lisbon London

Rio de Janeiro

109

▼ (-7) ▲ (+1) ▲ (+5) ▲ (+9) ▼ (-28) ▼ (-24) ▼ (-16)

102

▼ (-6)

C B C

96 71 77 36 12 86 90 34 47 59 43 89 73 25 14 46 29 41 62 15 13 17 61 31 49 40 1 7

Riyadh Rome

75 15 26 51 45 96 17 78 97 72 20 90 74 21 56 93 11 66 86 10 23 80 61 52 39 44 5

CCC

76 20 35 23 21 80

CCC BBB BBB BBB BBB

▲ (+18) ▼ (-24) ▲ (+7) ▼ (-15) ▼ (-10) ▼ (-3) ▬ (0) ▼ (-22) ▼ (-24) ▼ (-5)

CCC CCC BBB

101

Los Angeles

Rotterdam

BBB

29 27 91 37 47 81 67 89 73 16 18 59 50 28 63 79 30 19 25 55 12 48 62 1 8

BBB BBB

Lyon

San Francisco

BB BB

Madrid

Santiago Sao Paulo

CC CC

Makassar

C A D

100

Manchester

Seattle

new

BBB

Manila

Seoul

104

▼ (-10)

BB CC

Marseille

Shanghai Shenzhen Singapore

new

CCC

Medan

▼ (-15) ▲ (+19) ▲ (+4)

82 91 24 88 22 16 72 78

CCC AAA

Medellin

CCC

▬ (0) ▬ (0) ▬ (0)

AAA

Melbourne Mexico City

Sofia

BBB

St. Petersburg

▼ (-2)

CCC

CCC BBB

Milan

Stockholm

▼ (-52)

CCC

BBB

▲ (+9) ▼ (-4) ▼ (-1)

A A A B

Montreal Moscow Mumbai Munich Nairobi Nanjing New Delhi New York Newcastle

Sydney

▼ (-5)

A B C A D

A A

Taipei City

▲ (+16) ▼ (-15)

CCC

Tallinn Tel Aviv

new

▼ (-4) ▲ (+1) ▼ (-22) ▼ (-17) ▼ (-15) ▼ (-6) ▼ (-8) ▲ (+6) ▲ (+19) ▲ (+1) ▼ (-22)

The Hague

108

▼ (-8) ▼ (-11) ▼ (-18) ▲ (+28)

100

D B

BBB CCC CCC BBB

BBB

Tianjin Tokyo Toronto

CCC

55 68 38

CCC BBB

B A A

A A

Vancouver

new

Osaka Oslo Paris

Vienna Warsaw

▼ (-17)

CCC

BBB

▼ (-2)

AA BB BB

B A

Washington D.C.

▼ (-10) ▲ (+2)

51 54

BBB

Philadelphia

Zaragoza

BB BB

Phoenix Prague

Zhuhai Zurich

new

BBB

CCC

▼ (-25)

BBB

▼ (-1)

AAA

Rabat

105

▼ (-4)

101

Smart City Index

By ranking

Smart City Rank 2020 Change Smart City Rating 2020

Smart City Rank 2019

Smart City Rating 2019

Smart City Rank 2020 Change Smart City Rating 2020

Smart City Rank 2019

Smart City Rating 2019

City

Singapore

Los Angeles San Francisco

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

▬ (0)

AAA

1 8 2 6 3 5 4 7

AAA

26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

▲ (+9) ▼ (-15) ▲ (+1) ▲ (+7) ▼ (-15) ▼ (-3) ▲ (+5) ▼ (-7) ▼ (-4) ▼ (-2) ▼ (-4) ▼ (-3) ▲ (+1) ▲ (+12) ▲ (+12) ▲ (+14) ▲ (+2) ▼ (-25) ▼ (-24) ▲ (+4) new

BBB BBB BBB BBB BBB BBB BBB BBB BBB BBB BBB BBB BBB BBB BBB BBB

35 12 29 36 15 28 37 26 30 33 32 34 39 52 53 56 45 19 21 50 47 49 48 46

BBB

Helsinki

▲ (+6) ▼ (-1) ▲ (+2) ▼ (-2) ▼ (-1) ▼ (-3) ▼ (-1) ▲ (+2) ▲ (+28) ▲ (+13) ▲ (+5) ▲ (+9) ▼ (-4) ▼ (-6) ▲ (+4) ▼ (-5) new new ▲ (+19) ▼ (-3)

AA AA AA AA AA AA

Zurich

The Hague Rotterdam

AAA

BBB BBB

Auckland

Oslo

Toronto

AA AA AA

Copenhagen

Gothenburg Hong Kong

BBB BBB BBB BBB BBB BBB BBB BBB

Geneva

Taipei City Amsterdam

Hanover Dublin Denver Boston Seattle Berlin Phoenix

A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A

A A

11 38

New York

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

BBB

Munich

Washington D.C.

31 10 27 20 25 14 13 24 16

BBB

Dusseldorf

Brisbane

BBB BBB BBB

London

Birmingham

BB BB

Stockholm Manchester

Chicago

Abu Dhabi

BB BB BB BB BB BB BB BB BB

Sydney

Dubai

A A

Vancouver Melbourne Montreal Hamburg Newcastle

Prague Madrid Busan

BBB BBB

BBB

BB BB BB BB BB

Seoul

new new

▬ (0)

Zaragoza Barcelona

▲ (+1) ▼ (-1) ▼ (-4)

Bilbao Vienna

▼ (-15)

BBB BBB

Tel Aviv

▼ (-8)

BBB

Smart City Index

Smart City Rank 2020 Change Smart City Rating 2020

Smart City Rank 2019

Smart City Rating 2019

Smart City Rank 2020 Change Smart City Rating 2020

Smart City Rank 2019

Smart City Rating 2019

City

Lyon

Beijing

51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81

▼ (-28) ▲ (+2) ▲ (+18) ▲ (+16) ▲ (+6) ▲ (+16) ▲ (+17) ▲ (+11) ▲ (+4) ▼ (-10) ▼ (-22) ▼ (-22) ▼ (-22) ▼ (-21) ▼ (-11) ▼ (-24) ▼ (-11) ▼ (-11) ▼ (-52) ▲ (+4) ▲ (+19) ▼ (-52) ▲ (+1) ▲ (+8) ▲ (+6) new ▬ (0)

BB BB

23 54 71 70 61 72 74 69 64 51 40 41 42 44 55 43 57 58 18 75 91 73 22 76 84 83 62 63 59

BBB

82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

▼ (-22) ▼ (-18) ▼ (-18) ▼ (-18) ▼ (-18) ▼ (-2) ▼ (-1) ▬ (0) ▼ (-2) ▼ (-5) ▲ (+6) ▼ (-15) ▼ (-13) ▼ (-16) ▼ (-16) ▼ (-15) ▼ (-6) ▼ (-4) ▼ (-10) ▼ (-24) ▼ (-10) ▼ (-10) ▼ (-4) ▼ (-7) ▼ (-10) ▼ (-8) ▼ (-7) ▼ (-6)

CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC

60 65 66 67 68 85 87 89 88 86 98 78 81 79 80 82 92 95 90 77 96 93 94

Philadelphia

Ho Chi Minh City

CCC CCC CCC CCC

Riyadh

Hanoi

B B B B B B B B B

CCC CCC

Kuala Lumpur

Hyderabad New Delhi Bucharest

Warsaw Moscow Ankara Krakow Tallinn Brussels

CCC CCC CCC

CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC D

Buenos Aires

Sofia

Mexico City

Santiago Bogota Mumbai Jakarta

Paris

BB BB BB BB BB

Zhuhai Tianjin

CCC CCC CCC CCC CCC CCC CCC CCC CCC CCC CCC CCC CCC CCC CCC CCC CCC CCC CCC

C C C C C C C C C C D D D D D D D

Chongqing Hangzhou

Bengaluru Makassar

Nanjing

Medan

Shenzhen Guangzhou

Kiev

C C

Athens

B B

Chengdu Bologna Bangkok Medellin

Sao Paulo

100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109

Rome

BBB CCC

CCC

Rio de Janeiro

C C C D D D D D

Cape Town

St. Petersburg

Manila Rabat Cairo Abuja Nairobi

CCC BBB CCC

Milan

101

Lisbon

99 97

Bratislava Budapest Marseille

CC CC

100 102

Lagos

new

Tokyo Osaka

▼ (-17) ▼ (-17) ▼ (-22)

B B B

Shanghai

Smart City Index

User’s Guide to the Smart City Index

Smart City Ranking

Information

Background Information: This presents the UNHuman Development Index and its four components of the parent economy of the city, as well as the city’s position on the map. For Taipei City, the data is calculated using the same methodology and comparable data. This section also presents the population of the city as defined through the UN World Cities Report for 100 of the cities, or Eurostat for 9 small European cities.

Smart City Ranking: The Ranking position of the city amongst the 109 cities measured, based upon the Rating and its components. Group: Each city is assigned to one of four groups, based upon its HDI values. Smart City Rating and Factor Ratings: The Ratings for each city are calculated from the city’s performance relative to the other cities within the group. The Methodology section provides the exact procedure for these calculations. The 2019 Ranking and Rating are also shown for the 102 cities included in last year’s index.

Priority Areas: Summarizes the areas that the respondents perceive as the priority area for their city. From a list of 15 indicators, survey respondents were asked to select 5 that they perceived as the most urgent for their city. The total bar indicates the percentage of the respondents that included a given area as one of their five choices. The higher the percentage of responses per area, the greater the priority for the city. The left- hand section of each bar shows the Alignment - the proportion of those respondents who also answered the corresponding survey questions low. A strong Alignment implies that these areas also demand priority attention.

Smart City Index

Attitudes: Shows and compares the responses to three key privacy aspects (willingness to concede personal data, comfort vis-à-vis face recognition, and whether online information has increased trust in authorities) and the percentage of day-to-day transactions that are non-cash. The city is represented by the blue bar, while the group average is shown by the light red bar.

Structures and Technologies

Ke y su r v e y da t a co l l e c t ed on Structures (lef t side) and Technologies (right side), under five key areas: health and safety, mobility, activities, opportunities, and governance. Each indicator presents the Score for the cit y and a compar ison with its Group (1-4). Showing the Group’s Minimum, Mean, and Maximum Scores (light red bar) alongside with the city (blue circle) allows a clear comparison of the city’s performance in this indicator. The Methodology section provides the exact calculation of the Score. This table can be read in two ways: down to examine all Structures or Technologies indicators, or across to examine a key area in both Structures and Technologies.

Smart City Index

Methodology in a nutshell

1. The IMD-SUTD Smart City Index (SCI) assesses the perceptions of residents on issues related to structures and technology applications available to them in their city.

2. This edition of the SCI ranks 109 cities worldwide by capturing the perceptions of 120 residents in each city. The final score for each city is computed by using the perceptions of the last two years of the survey.

3. There are two pillars for which perceptions from residents are solicited: The Structures pillar referring to the existing infrastructure of the cities, and the Technology pillar describing the technological provisions and services available to the inhabitants.

4. Each pillar is evaluated over five key areas: health and safety, mobility, activities, opportunities, and governance.

5. The cities are distributed into four groups based on the UN Human Development Index (HDI) score of the economy they are part of.

6. Within each HDI group, cities are assigned a ‘rating scale’ (AAA to D) based on the perceptions-score of a given city compared to the scores of all other cities within the same group.

For group 1 (highest HDI quartile), scale For group 2 (second HDI quartile), scale For group 3 (third HDI quartile), scale For group 4 (lowest HDI quartile), scale

AAA–AA–A–BBB– BB

A–BBB– BB–B– CCC

BB–B– CCC–CC–C

CCC–CC–C–D

7. Rankings are then presented in two formats: • an overall ranking (1 to 109) • a rating for each pillar and overall

Smart City Index

CITY PROFILES

Abu Dhabi

% of respondents who chose the Priority Area

PRIORITY AREAS

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

affordable housing fulfilling employment unemployment health services basic amenities school education air pollution road congestion green spaces public transport recycling security citizen engagement social mobility corruption

68.9%

From a list of 15 indicators, survey respondents were asked to select 5 that they perceived as the most urgent for their city. This is the total bar. The higher the percentage of responses per area, the greater the priority for the city. The left hand section of each bar shows the Alignment - the proportion of those respondents who also answered the corresponding survey questions low. A strong Alignment implies that these areas also demand priority attention.

50.0%

42.7%

SMART CITY RANKING

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

38.7%

29.3%

28.0% 28.0%

City

26.3%

Population 1,145,000

25.4%

23.3% 22.8% 22.8%

(UN World Cities Report)

22.0%

Out of 109

16.4%

11.2%

▲ 56 in 2019

% of respondents who agree or strongly agree with the statement

ATTITUDES

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Map tiles by Stamen Design CC BY 3.0 Map Data © OpenStreetMap

You are willing to concede personal data in order to improve traffic congestion You are comfortable with face recognition technologies to lower crime You feel the availability of online information has increased your trust in authorities The proportion of your day-to-day payment transactions that are non-cash (% of transactions)

77.6%

2015 0.860 77.3 13.7 10.6 66,093

0.863 77.5 13.6 2016 10.8 67,410

67,136 2017 13.6 10.9 77.6 0.864

2018 0.866

1 yr change

Country HDI Life expectancy at Birth Expected years of schooling Mean years of schooling GNI per capita (PPP $)

88.8% 89.2%

+0.002 +0.2 +0.0 +0.1 -224.0

SMART CITY RATING BB

77.8 13.6

69.7%

11.0 66,912

LEGEND:

GROUP MEAN

CITY

LEGEND:

MIN

CITY MEAN

GROUP MAX

STRUCTURES

TECHNOLOGIES

B in 2019

Score

100

Health & Safety

83.8 72.6 86.4 59.2 86.4 48.6

71.6 76.1 73.9 86.2 59.0 83.8 64.5 68.9 67.2 77.9 81.8

Basic sanitation meets the needs of the poorest areas

Online reporting of city maintenance problems provides a speedy solution A website or App allows residents to easily give away unwanted items

Recycling services are satisfactory Public safety is not a problem

TECHNOLOGIES BB FACTOR RATINGS BB STRUCTURES

Free public wifi has improved access to city services CCTV cameras has made residents feel safer

Air pollution is not a problem

Medical services provision is satisfactory

A website or App allows residents to effectively monitor air pollution Arranging medical appointments online has improved access

Finding housing with rent equal to 30% or less of a monthly salary is not a problem

Mobility

81.6 67.6

Traffic congestion is not a problem Public transport is satisfactory

Car-sharing Apps have reduced congestion

Apps that direct you to an available parking space have reduced journey time Bicycle hiring has reduced congestion Online scheduling and ticket sales has made public transport easier to use The city provides information on traffic congestion through mobile phones

Activities

84.8 82.0

86.4

Green spaces are satisfactory

Online purchasing of tickets to shows and museums has made it easier to attend

Cultural activities (shows, bars, and museums) are satisfactory

Opportunities (Work & School)

77.4 76.4 75.5 84.3

79.8 70.9 67.8 68.4 82.0

Employment finding services are readily available Most children have access to a good school

Online access to job listings has made it easier to find work

GROUP

IT skills are taught well in schools

Lifelong learning opportunities are provided by local institutions

Online services provided by the city has made it easier to start a new business

Businesses are creating new jobs

The current internet speed and reliability meet connectivity needs

Minorities feel welcome

Governance

72.3 64.2 82.3 69.8

82.0 69.9 67.7 65.6

Information on local government decisions are easily accessible Corruption of city officials is not an issue of concern Residents contribute to decision making of local government Residents provide feedback on local government projects

Online public access to city finances has reduced corruption

Online voting has increased participation

All ratings range from AAA to D

An online platform where residents can propose ideas has improved city life Processing Identification Documents online has reduced waiting times

Abuja

% of respondents who chose the Priority Area

PRIORITY AREAS

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

affordable housing unemployment security corruption health services basic amenities fulfilling employment school education road congestion public transport citizen engagement recycling air pollution

71.7%

65.4% 65.4%

SMART CITY RANKING 107

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

64.6%

58.3%

42.4%

City

34.6%

25.5%

Population 2,440,000

17.3% 16.9%

16.1%

13.6%

(UN World Cities Report)

8.2%

Out of 109

social mobility green spaces

7.4%

4.5%

▼ 97 in 2019

% of respondents who agree or strongly agree with the statement

ATTITUDES

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

76.5%

2015 0.527 53.1

0.528 53.5 9.5 6.3 5,336 2016

5,203 9.7 6.5 54.0 0.533 2017

6.5 5,086 2018 0.534 54.3 9.7

1 yr change

Country HDI Life expectancy at Birth Expected years of schooling Mean years of schooling GNI per capita (PPP $)

86.4%

+0.001 +0.3 +0.0 +0.0 -117.0

61.7%

SMART CITY RATING

58.5%

9.7 6.2

5,540

LEGEND:

GROUP MEAN

CITY

LEGEND:

MIN

CITY MEAN

GROUP MAX

STRUCTURES

TECHNOLOGIES

D in 2019

Score

100

Health & Safety

45.4 41.7 50.5 40.5 49.3 24.2

35.3 47.1 35.0 39.4 21.1 49.2 53.7 33.5 23.0 33.6 58.8

Basic sanitation meets the needs of the poorest areas

Online reporting of city maintenance problems provides a speedy solution A website or App allows residents to easily give away unwanted items

Recycling services are satisfactory Public safety is not a problem

TECHNOLOGIES D FACTOR RATINGS D STRUCTURES

Free public wifi has improved access to city services CCTV cameras has made residents feel safer

Air pollution is not a problem

Medical services provision is satisfactory

A website or App allows residents to effectively monitor air pollution Arranging medical appointments online has improved access

Finding housing with rent equal to 30% or less of a monthly salary is not a problem

Mobility

57.1 47.5

Traffic congestion is not a problem Public transport is satisfactory

Car-sharing Apps have reduced congestion

Activities

72.7 61.0

70.0

Green spaces are satisfactory

Online purchasing of tickets to shows and museums has made it easier to attend

Cultural activities (shows, bars, and museums) are satisfactory

Opportunities (Work & School)

67.8 57.6 54.7 56.3

55.8 46.5 67.8 43.3 52.1

Employment finding services are readily available Most children have access to a good school

Online access to job listings has made it easier to find work

GROUP

IT skills are taught well in schools

Lifelong learning opportunities are provided by local institutions

Online services provided by the city has made it easier to start a new business

Businesses are creating new jobs

The current internet speed and reliability meet connectivity needs

Minorities feel welcome

Governance

37.0 24.4 47.7 16.7

54.0 31.0 27.3 22.8

Online public access to city finances has reduced corruption

Online voting has increased participation

All ratings range from AAA to D

An online platform where residents can propose ideas has improved city life Processing Identification Documents online has reduced waiting times

Amsterdam

% of respondents who chose the Priority Area

PRIORITY AREAS

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

affordable housing security air pollution health services green spaces public transport road congestion basic amenities unemployment recycling school education citizen engagement fulfilling employment social mobility corruption

59.8%

54.4%

43.5%

SMART CITY RANKING

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

35.9%

31.4% 31.4% 31.0%

City

28.5%

Population 1,091,000

26.4% 25.9%

25.1%

20.1%

(UN World Cities Report)

18.8%

Out of 109

17.2%

13.0%

▲ 11 in 2019

% of respondents who agree or strongly agree with the statement

ATTITUDES

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

57.3%

2015 0.927 81.7 18.1 12.1 46,976

0.929 81.9 18.0 2016 12.2 47,008

48,994 2017 18.0 12.2 82.0 0.932

2018 0.934

1 yr change

Country HDI Life expectancy at Birth Expected years of schooling Mean years of schooling GNI per capita (PPP $)

58.2%

+0.002 +0.1 +0.0 +0.0 +1,019.0

63.2%

SMART CITY RATING

82.1 18.0

73.1%

12.2 50,013

LEGEND:

GROUP MEAN

CITY

LEGEND:

MIN

CITY MEAN

GROUP MAX

STRUCTURES

TECHNOLOGIES

A in 2019

Score

100

Health & Safety

67.3 58.4 64.2 38.6 78.2 34.3

52.9 59.1 59.7 58.0 42.5 64.4 42.4 52.6 55.8 56.3 62.1

Basic sanitation meets the needs of the poorest areas

Online reporting of city maintenance problems provides a speedy solution A website or App allows residents to easily give away unwanted items

Recycling services are satisfactory Public safety is not a problem

TECHNOLOGIES A FACTOR RATINGS AA STRUCTURES

Free public wifi has improved access to city services CCTV cameras has made residents feel safer

Air pollution is not a problem

Medical services provision is satisfactory

A website or App allows residents to effectively monitor air pollution Arranging medical appointments online has improved access

Finding housing with rent equal to 30% or less of a monthly salary is not a problem

Mobility

71.1 36.8

Traffic congestion is not a problem Public transport is satisfactory

Car-sharing Apps have reduced congestion

Activities

78.3 60.7

74.9

Green spaces are satisfactory

Online purchasing of tickets to shows and museums has made it easier to attend

Cultural activities (shows, bars, and museums) are satisfactory

Opportunities (Work & School)

69.4 59.1 55.2 79.6

75.7 67.3 67.0 68.8 62.6

Employment finding services are readily available Most children have access to a good school

Online access to job listings has made it easier to find work

GROUP

IT skills are taught well in schools

Lifelong learning opportunities are provided by local institutions

Online services provided by the city has made it easier to start a new business

Businesses are creating new jobs

The current internet speed and reliability meet connectivity needs

Minorities feel welcome

Governance

63.9 57.3 62.1 53.5

56.5 50.6 46.5 47.1

Online public access to city finances has reduced corruption

Online voting has increased participation

All ratings range from AAA to D

An online platform where residents can propose ideas has improved city life Processing Identification Documents online has reduced waiting times

Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 Page 45 Page 46 Page 47 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 63 Page 64 Page 65 Page 66 Page 67 Page 68 Page 69 Page 70 Page 71 Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 Page 123 Page 124

Made with FlippingBook Publishing Software