Volume 13 - Issue 76

/ April 2024

https://amazoniainvestiga.info/ ISSN 2322- 6307

This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Reproduction,

distribution, and public communication of the work, as well as the creation of derivative works, are permitted provided that the

original source is cited.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2024.76.04.7

How to Cite:

Imamov, M.M. (2024). Integrating smart city and smart citizen into the digital economy. Amazonia Investiga, 13(76), 83-89.

https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2024.76.04.7

Integrating smart city and smart citizen into the digital economy

Интеграция умного города и умного горожанина в цифровую экономику

Received: February 3, 2024 Accepted: March 27, 2024

Written by:

Imamov M. Marsel1

https://orcid.org/0009-0005-1200-2606

Abstract

The study aims to enhance interactions within

smart city infrastructures by systematically

analyzing associated challenges and proposing

strategic solutions. Employing methodologies

such as system analysis, synthesis, optimization,

modeling, and decision-making—while

considering process uncertainties—we dissect

the "smart city" and "smart city dweller"

concepts, charting their evolutionary cycles. The

results outline a structural framework for

interactions between citizens, the state,

businesses, and society, integrating key

subsystems into a unified infrastructure. We also

evaluate feedback mechanisms in urban projects

like "Active Citizen" and "Garbage. Not.Net,"

and investigate smart city self-regulation using

the Hurwitz criterion. These insights provide

actionable guidance for assessing and advancing

smart city projects.

Keywords: smart city, citizens, interactions,

governance, evolution, infrastructure.

Аннотация

Исследование направлено на улучшение

взаимодействия в инфраструктуре "умных

городов" путем систематического анализа

сопутствующих проблем и предложения

стратегических решений. Методология

включает системный анализ, синтез,

оптимизацию, моделирование и принятие

решений с учетом неопределенности

процессов. Мы анализируем концепции

"умный город" и "житель умного города",

отслеживая их эволюционное развитие.

Результаты представляют структурную схему

взаимодействия граждан, государства, бизнеса

и общества, интегрируя ключевые подсистемы

в единую инфраструктуру. Также оцениваются

механизмы обратной связи в городских

проектах, таких как "Активный гражданин" и

"Мусор. Нет.Сеть", и исследуется

саморегулирование умных городов с

использованием критерия Гурвица. Эти

выводы предоставляют практические

рекомендации для оценки и развития проектов

умных городов.

Ключевые слова: умный город, горожане,

взаимодействия, управление, эволюция,

инфраструктура.

Introduction

The digital economy is the result of

technological, innovative effects seen in sectors

of the economy such as trade, transport, finance,

manufacturing, education and health. The

consequences of digital transformations are also

beyond their information-logical and

communication applications. In particular, as in

Doctor of Economics, Rh.D.in Law, Professor, Head of Department of Project Management and Business Evalutation of the Institute

of Management Economicsand Finance of the Kazan Federal University, Russian. WoS Researcher ID: JUF-5208-2023.

the development of the model "smart home",

"smart office" and "smart production" to the level

of "smart city".

Since the beginning of the pandemic (COVID-

19), global demand for digital services has grown

by almost a third. Social and network activity has

https://amazoniainvestiga.info/ ISSN 2322- 6307

This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Reproduction,

distribution, and public communication of the work, as well as the creation of derivative works, are permitted provided that

the original source is cited.

also grown: reposts, applications, comments,

social and public initiatives, fakes. It is not

always positively oriented, especially when it

comes to fakes. Anonymity and opacity of

actions on the Internet reduces responsibility for

extremist actions, fakes, and uncontrolled

information flows increase negative

consequences in society.

The purpose of the work is a systematic analysis

of the forms and categories key to the task of

studying the digital activity of citizens in the

"smart city" environment and the development of

the entire digital society, the capabilities of

digital process actors. The main result is the

analysis of models of citizens' interactions with

society, business and the municipality.

The possibilities of online platforms,

strengthening connections and the growth of a

variety of such interactions, in particular,

crowdfunding platforms, are also analyzed. The

political and legal features of supporting the

digital activity of Russians are also considered.

Theoretical foundations

Many studies are devoted to the problems of

"digital citizens", their differences from the

problems of "non-digital citizens" and civic

engagement, in particular (Couldry, 2014; Jones,

2016). The category "digital citizen", firstly,

reflects the new infrastructural and legal status of

an online user, and secondly, reflects the

phenomenon of "Generation Internet 2.0",

including a citizen's network protest. We are

more interested in the systemic content of the

"digital city dweller" category, reflecting the

systemic efforts of the city and the authorities.

Most experts consider social media to be an

effective environment for:

1) informing the public;

2) creating and supporting social movements;

3) management and decision-making;

4) regulation of political life.

Activity (activation) in social networks is a

process associated, in particular, with the

procedures for posting multimedia, media

content. They are important for citizens, society,

the entire state (Burkhardt, 2014), as well as for

attracting other, potential actors to participate.

Activity can start offline, but then be transferred

online or vice versa.

All these forms are integrated, forming hybrid

forms (Afzalan, 2017), for example, in the field

of consumption, production, health care, energy,

the development of intellectual and human

capital of the world community (Eriashvili,

2021).

Civil participation in networking takes place at

various levels, using various platforms and

services (digital participation platforms) (Falco,

2018). Including models of interactions such as

"crowdfunding" (fundraising for a project) and

other models, in particular, based on

smartphones (Jones, 2015).

The category "civil participation" is interpreted

as both "digital" and traditional ("non-digital")

participation. Digital participation is

distinguished by cooperation both with other

citizens, institutional structures, and with socio-

network communities, communications

(Smoleva, 2022). All interactions should be

aimed at increasing their and leaders

(communicators) digital role, for example,

comfort of access to digital resources,

communication chains and awareness of citizens.

This is manifested in the growth of significance

and content, the diversity of the structure of the

citizen's goals, in particular, his virtualization

(Hjerpe, 2018).

Digital civic engagement is implemented by

models of interactions: citizens with government

(C2G); citizens and society (C2S); citizens and

business (C2B) and others (Kaziev, 2017).

Internet functions that stimulate political activity

of citizens are:

1) mobilization, motivational;

2) informational, infological;

3) communicative, initiative;

4) evolutionary, self-organizational.

Almost digital participation of citizens is carried

out by the generation and signing of petitions,

charity, digital voting, etc. Systematically and

theoretically implemented through the concept of

citizenship, based on alternative participation

(Akhremenko, 2022).

The degree of civic participation is often

determined by the model of active citizenship,

the diversity and evolution of civic engagement

(Dalton, 2015), and the opportunities for citizens

to participate in activating and recognizing

democratic change (Youngs, 2019).

Imamov, M.M. / Volume 13 - Issue 76: 83-89 / April, 2024

Volume 13 - Issue 76

/ April 2024

https://amazoniainvestiga.info/ ISSN 2322- 6307

This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Reproduction,

distribution, and public communication of the work, as well as the creation of derivative works, are permitted provided that the

original source is cited.

Civic activity is not only "digitalized", but also

personified. Civic engagement in the digital

ecosystem becomes effective even with "weak

connections", quickly transformed to a higher

level of political activity (Kahne, 2018).

There is also imaginary ("lazy-communicative")

activity or the process of mechanical posting of

"likes", signatures, etc. Many Internet users are

only interested in the possibility of social

networking, entertainment and information, but

this is not civic engagement (Menteş, 2019).

The transfer of online activities to the

surrounding real world can contribute to public

significance (Teocharis, 2015), adding a new

audience, as happened in various movements or,

increasing activity, if a citizen was already

involved in the process in the traditional way.

Virtual, digital promotions can become more

powerful, more representative than their

traditional online versions, and online

participation can stimulate activity offline

(Basheva, 2020).

The work distinguishes between the concepts of

"smart" and the SMART paradigm of goal setting

and goal achievement. The SMART concept is

an acronym for Specific, Measurable,

Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound. Applied

to city management - the specificity of goals,

measurability of resources, consistency and

flexibility of goals, realism and

manufacturability, controllability and

manageability of urban infrastructure.

Methodology

Online actors can use the following approaches,

methods and operations:

1) change the profile in support of a specific

initiative;

2) arrange hashtags;

3) form and maintain petitions;

4) launch sites or disable access to them;

5) retweets;

6) organize groups in social networks;

7) post on social networks, etc.

Used Internet services (sites) are supported with

helping:

1) volunteers;

2) "complaints" (public web receptions);

3) collecting public funds (crowdfunding

platforms);

4) collection of open data;

5) geo-coordination (web maps, guidebooks,

etc.);

6) "civic entertainment" (libraries, video clips,

audio on civic topics, etc.

A method of correlation and regression analysis

is needed between the search for information in

social networks and the accompanying political

participation, between the developments of civil

social network platforms. For example, it is

necessary to use cognitive maps and GIS to

combat landfills, as it is implemented by the

social movement in Russia "Garbage.Not.Net".

The study also uses systems analysis and

synthesis methods. Methods and platforms of

relevant digital discourse, increasing digital,

media literacy, in particular, social forecasting

and situational modeling, are used.

Using these methods and Big Data (Data

Mining), the necessary decision-making methods

and procedures are organized and activated. It is

also important to consider the "curse of

dimension" in an effective and powerful,

distributed mobilization of new opportunities and

forms of civic engagement.

Results and Discussion

For effective, and most importantly, effective

influence on the citizens of the "smart city", you

need hybrid functionality, the transition from

online participation to offline participation, and

vice versa. At the same time, we assume that

"massive" socio-political activity can be

"passive", without real actions in the group.

Internet activity contributes to awareness,

improvement of relevant worldview and even

user participation in the event (discussion,

statement, etc.). We offer a project such as

"Active Citizen" to solve the problems of the

city, feedback from citizens in urban issues and

surveys, with points exchanged for services and

goods.

As a way to increase civic engagement in the

infrastructure of a digital, smart city, the

following methods and mechanisms are

proposed, in particular:

1) blockchain (for example, municipal

blockchain voting, organization of housing

and communal services);

2) online network activities of volunteers;

3) provision of public services and creative

self-realization online;

https://amazoniainvestiga.info/ ISSN 2322- 6307

This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Reproduction,

distribution, and public communication of the work, as well as the creation of derivative works, are permitted provided that

the original source is cited.

4) reducing the scale and pace, damage to the

spread of fakes, inaccurate information;

5) testing civil readiness for the safe use of

digital environments of the city (digital

environment of personal development,

competencies, business creation, etc.), etc.

Russian citizens by 2030 predict about 149

million people (Rosstat). Now the dynamics is

different (Fig.1, the author's schedule according

to Rosstat).

Fig. 1. The share of urban population in Russia.

These are drivers of digital innovations, despite

the risks of a "smart city" - the growth of the

unemployed, a decline in demand, the

vulnerability of business processes, etc.

The problem of adaptive manageability of the

"smart city" has been investigated. Let's highlight

its subsystems:

1) "smart municipality";

2) "smart infrastructure";

3) "smart citizens";

4) "smart management (smart management of

the municipality)", etc.

For example, a server that receives data from a

cloud service analyzes it using Data Mining, GIS,

etc., and then reverse regulation is carried out:

1) switching traffic lights (by pace, not by

expectation);

2) GLANASS/GPS and GIS situation display;

3) heuristic analysis of situations with

redistribution of flows, etc.

Smart city transport (cargo transportation

service) and UBI (Usage Based Insurance)

insurance for the use of cars creates effective

urban transport systems.

The following structure of the Smart City class is

proposed (Fig. 2).

72,5%

73,0%

73,5%

74,0%

74,5%

75,0%

75,5%

2010 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

Volume 13 - Issue 76

/ April 2024

https://amazoniainvestiga.info/ ISSN 2322- 6307

This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Reproduction,

distribution, and public communication of the work, as well as the creation of derivative works, are permitted provided that the

original source is cited.

Fig. 2. SMART-city stages and tasks.

Note the features of the "smart city":

1) extensive, digital and intelligent

infrastructure;

2) digital mobility and flexibility of citizens;

3) intelligent management and decision-

making;

4) interactive feedback from city structures and

citizens;

5) openness of city authorities;

6) developed logistics;

7) integrated distributed security system, etc.

"Smart City" dialectically, spirally develops, like

everyone else, cyclically.

Note the following development cycles:

1) new structural methods in the old

infrastructure;

2) new methods in infrastructure development;

3) new consumer preferences of citizens;

4) new investment and other attractiveness of

the city;

5) a new level of competitiveness of the city.

The evolution of the "smart city" requires

systemic integration of resources and analytics,

decision-making in the face of multi-criteria and

uncertainty. To reduce "noise", various

approaches can be used, criteria, for example,

Hurwitz, Pareto, etc.

Here is an example of using the Hurwitz criterion

to assess the evolutionary potential of a smart

city:

 

󰇛󰇜



where 0 ≤ γ ≤ 1 is a parameter (we find from

statistics).

Optimal (according to Hurwitz) strategy

(maximum among 󰇜:

 



󰇛󰇜



Test situation. For the winning matrix of various

options for the development of a "smart city" of

the form:

  

  

  ,

with  (neutrality) we get efficiency

, with  (optimism), we get, and

with a pessimistic approach󰇛󰇜, we get

.

The resulting metric integrates errors and risks.

Smart cities are designed and built in various

countries: Zurich, Singapore, Oslo, Geneva,

Copenhagen, New York, Tokyo, Shanghai,

Amsterdam, Barcelona, etc. In Russia, more than

240 projects of "smart cities" are being

developed (Ismagilova, 2019) (Moscow, Dubna,

Krasnoyarsk, Samara, Nizhny Novgorod, Perm,

Voronezh, St. Petersburg, Novosibirsk, etc.).

SMART-city

Smart buildings

Smart streets, streams,

cars

Smart citizens

IoT system of comfort in the home (climate, comfort,

safety, energy consumption)

SMART management of urban structures

Information, network protection of citizens

https://amazoniainvestiga.info/ ISSN 2322- 6307

This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Reproduction,

distribution, and public communication of the work, as well as the creation of derivative works, are permitted provided that

the original source is cited.

Some countries are taking measures to regulate

Internet communications and online activity. The

prospects for the participation of "digital

citizens" in public administration and social

development are growing as digital

transformations in society and e-government

evolve.

The digital environment, ecosystem contributes

to the mobilization of citizens according to the

degree of participation in socially significant

projects and through various channels of

cooperation.

The construction of the digital infrastructure of

the municipality, the digital environment of

citizens does not guarantee digital democracy

yet. We need systemic efforts of the authorities,

business, and society. Therefore, we need

systematic research in this direction.

Conclusions

This study has demonstrated that the effective

integration of smart cities and smart citizens into

the digital economy requires a systematic and

multidimensional approach. The analysis

conducted has allowed for the identification of

associated challenges and the proposal of

strategic solutions to address them.

One of the main contributions of this work is the

development of a structural framework for

interactions between citizens, state, businesses,

and society in the context of smart cities. This

framework suggests that the integration of key

subsystems into a unified infrastructure is crucial

for the success of these initiatives. Furthermore,

the importance of feedback mechanisms in urban

projects such as "Active Citizen" and

"Garbage.No.Net" has been highlighted, as they

promote citizen participation and contribute to

more efficient management of smart cities.

The study has also explored the potential of

mathematical and decision-making approaches,

such as the Hurwitz criterion, to investigate the

self-regulation of smart cities. These approaches

can help optimize the functioning of these cities

and adapt to changing needs. Additionally, a

class structure for the "Smart City" has been

proposed, and its development cycles have been

analyzed, providing a solid foundation for

understanding and managing the evolution of

these initiatives.

To foster citizen participation in the

infrastructure of a digital and smart city, various

promising methods and mechanisms have been

identified, such as the use of blockchain, online

volunteer activities, and the provision of digital

public services. However, the study also

acknowledges that the construction of digital

infrastructures and environments alone does not

guarantee true digital democracy. Systemic and

coordinated efforts by authorities, businesses,

and society are required to achieve this goal.

Bibliographic references

Afzalan, N., Sanchez, T., & Evans-Cowley, J.

(2017). Creating Smarter Cities:

Considerations for Selecting Online

Participatory Tools. Cities, 67, 21-30.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2017.04.002

Akhremenko, A.S., Stukal, D.K., & Petrov, A.P.

(2022). Network or text? Factors in the spread

of protest in social media: theory and data

analysis. Policy. Political studies, 2, 73-91.

https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2020.02.06

Basheva, O.A. (2020). Digital activism as a new

method of civic mobilization. Sociology and

management, 6(1), 41-57.

https://doi.org/10.18413/2408-9338-2020-6-

1-0-4

Burkhardt, D., Nazemi, K., Zilke, J. R.,

Kohlhammer, J., & Kuijper, A. (2014).

Fundamental Aspects for E-Government. In:

P. Sonntagbauer, K. Nazemi,

S. Sonntagbauer, G. Prister, D. Burkhardt

(Eds.), Handbook of research on Advanced

ICT integration for Governance and Policy

Modeling. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 1-18.

https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-6236-

0.ch001

Couldry, N., Stephansen, H., Fotopoulou, A.,

MacDonald, R., Clark, W., & Dickens, L.

(2014). Digital Citizenship? Narrative

Exchange and the Changing Terms of Civic

Culture. Citizenship Studies, 18(6-7),

615-629.

Dalton, R. (2015). The Good Citizen: How a

Younger Generation Is Reshaping American

Politics. CQ Press, 240 p.

Eriashvili, N.D., Ivanova, Yu.A., &

Radchenko, T.V. (2021). Global problems of

humanity and ways to solve them. Bulletin of

the Moscow University of the Ministry of

Internal Affairs of Russia, 1, 36-42.

https://doi.org/10.24412/2073-0454-2021-1-

36-42

Falco, E., & Kleinhans, R. (2018). Digital

Participatory Platforms for CoProduction in

Urban Development: A Systematic Review.

International Journal of E-Planning

Research, 7(3), 52-78.

https://doi.org/10.4018/IJEPR.2018070105

Volume 13 - Issue 76

/ April 2024

https://amazoniainvestiga.info/ ISSN 2322- 6307

This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). Reproduction,

distribution, and public communication of the work, as well as the creation of derivative works, are permitted provided that the

original source is cited.

Hjerpe, M., Glaas, E., & Storbjörk, S. (2018).

Scrutinizing Virtual Citizen Involvement in

Planning: Ten Applications of an Online

Participatory Tool. Politics and Governance,

6(3), 159-169.

https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v6i3.1481

Ismagilova, E., Hughes, L., Dwivedi, Y., &

Raman, K. (2019). Smart cities: Advances in

research – An information systems

perspective. International journal of

information management, 47, 88-100.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2019.01.0

Jones, L.M., & Mitchell, K.J. (2016). Defining

and Measuring Youth Digital Citizenship.

New Media & Society, 18(9), 2063-2079.

Jones, P., Layard, A., Speed, C., & Lorne, C.

(2015) MapLocal: Use of Smartphones for

Crowdsourced planning. Planning Practice

and Research, 30(3), 322-336.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2015.1052

940

Kaziev, V.M., Kazieva, B.V., & Kaziev, K.V.

(2022). Fundamentals of Legal Informatics

and Informatization of Legal Systems (2nd

ed.). University textbook. M.: INFRA-M,

336 p.

https://znanium.ru/catalog/document?pid=18

40487

Kahne, J., & Bowyer, B., (2018). The Political

Significance of Social Media Activity and

Social Networks. Political Communication,

35(3), 470-493.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2018.1426

662

Menteş, S.A. (2019). Online environmental

activism: The case of Igneada floodplain

forest. SAGE Open. July-September, 1-10.

https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019877877

Smoleva, E.O., & Popov, A.V. (2022). Features

of digital civic participation in the perspective

of modern research. Economic and social

changes: facts, trends, forecast, 15(3),

154-166.

http://esc.vscc.ac.ru/article/29306/full?_lang

=ru

Teocharis, Y. (2015). The conceptualization of

digitally networked participation. Social

Media Society, 2(1), 5-1.

https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305115610140

Youngs, R. (2019). Civic Activism Unleashed:

New Hope or False Dawn for Democracy?

N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 192 р.