See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/354209241

Ensuring Engagement of Stakeholders in Smart City Projects: Case Study in Sri

Lanka

Article  in  Journal of Urban Planning and Development · August 2021

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000762

CITATIONS READS
2 621

4 authors:

Nimesha Jayasena Anuradha Waidyasekara

The Hong Kong Polytechnic University University of Moratuwa
12 PUBLICATIONS   35 CITATIONS    50 PUBLICATIONS   78 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Harshini Mallawarachchi Sanduni Peiris

University of Moratuwa The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
43 PUBLICATIONS   168 CITATIONS    3 PUBLICATIONS   3 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

PPP for Smart Infrastructure Development projects in developed and developing countries View project

Applicability of zero waste concept to the Sri Lankan construction industry View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Anuradha Waidyasekara on 07 September 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Case Study

Ensuring Engagement of Stakeholders in Smart City

Projects: Case Study in Sri Lanka
Nimesha Sahani Jayasena1; K. G. A. S. Waidyasekara2; Harshini Mallawaarachchi3; and Sanduni Peiris4

Abstract: Escalating challenges in modern cities along with rapid urbanization, which emphasize the requirement to manage cities, means
that sustainable urban development is necessary, and smart cities have been identified as an ideological solution to achieve this. In Sri Lanka,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nimesha Sahani Jayasena on 08/06/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the smart city concept has had a significant influence on city development projects and one smart city development project has already started.
Therefore, due to the novelty of the concept, the development of strategic plans when delivering smart cities is beneficial. In addition, since a
smart city is a multistakeholder ecosystem, ensuring the effective engagement of the stakeholders is a key success factor when developing
smart city projects and therefore was selected as the main research focus. Using the explanatory sequential mixed research approach, a com-
prehensive literature review, a desktop, and case study will be conducted to investigate the stakeholders and factors that ensure their engage-
ment in smart city projects. The research findings could be utilized to ensure the effective engagement of the stakeholders in smart city
projects, which could enable the application of the smart concept during the development of cities in Sri Lanka. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)
UP.1943-5444.0000762. © 2021 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Smart cities; Stakeholders engagement; Sustainable urban development.

Introduction Therefore, to overcome the problems that are generated by urban

population growth and rapid urbanization, there is an emerging
The long list of expected characteristics in modern cities is increas- need to create a city smart (Chourabi et al. 2012).
ing at an amazing pace as cities become increasingly complex In the drive to become smart cities, challenges arise in the engage-
every day (Nam and Pardo 2011). The United Nations world pop- ment of the stakeholders in smart city projects (Schaffers et al. 2011;
ulation prospects illustrated that the world population would in- Naphade et al. 2011; Milenković et al. 2017; Bakıcı et al. 2013). Dur-
crease between 1950 and 2100 by 8.7 billion people and that ing stakeholder management, the effective engagement of stakehold-
future population growth would be in urban areas (United Nations ers has been identified as key for the success of a project
2019). Juraschek et al. (2018) explained that the increasing rate of (Abuzeinab and Arif 2014). For the effective engagement of stake-
urbanization resulted in a larger number of challenges that are faced holders, a better understanding of the stakeholders who might contrib-
by urban areas when achieving the target sustainable development ute or influence projects is required (de Bakker and Den Hond 2008).
within cities. According to Yigitcanlar and Kamruzzaman (2018), Therefore, this paper aims to investigate the types of stakeholders and
sustainable urban development is identified as a means of tackling the factors that ensure the engagement of stakeholders in smart city
the difficulties that are caused by the wide-ranging activities of projects. This paper is divided into five sections. The first section de-
mankind on the environment. Rapid urbanization, increasing scribes the research background. The second section reviews the liter-
changes in the climate, and increasing awareness of the significance ature. The third division discusses the research methodology adopted.
of the application of sustainability means that sustainable urban de- The fourth and fifth sections elucidate research findings and discus-
velopment has been identified as an important goal in the modern sion, and the sixth section describes the conclusions.
world. Schaffers et al. (2011) and Battarra et al. (2020) explained
that the smart city concept was an ideological solution to achieve
sustainable urban development. In urban planning, the term Literature Review
smart city is identified as an ideological dimension, because
being smarter involves a strategic solution (Albino et al. 2015). Concept of Smart Cities
1
Ph.D. Research Student, Dept. of Building and Real Estate, Hong Governments have paid attention to smart cities in their research
Kong Polytechnic Univ., Hung Hom 999077, Hong Kong (corresponding and development projects due to the increased number of chal-
author). ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5823-3793. Email: nimesha lenges that are generated through rapid urbanization (Yigitcanlar
-sahani.jayasena@connect.polyu.hk and Kamruzzaman 2018). Angelidou et al. (2017) identified the
2
Senior Lecturer, Dept. of Building Economics, Univ. of Moratuwa, smart city as an approach for sustainable urban development.
Moratuwa 10400, Sri Lanka. Email: anuradha@uom.lk Recently, the concept of a smart city has become important in
3
Senior Lecturer, Dept. of Building Economics, Univ. of Moratuwa, urban development planning, because local authorities face chal-
Moratuwa 10400, Sri Lanka. Email: hmallawarachchi@gmail.com lenges to resolve climatic, energy, and urbanization problems
4
Student, Dept. of Building Economics, Univ. of Moratuwa, Moratuwa
(Sikora-Fernandez 2018). In addition, Nilssen (2018) stated that
10400, Sri Lanka. Email: sandunipeiris95@gmail.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on December 18, 2020; approved the smart city was becoming an increasingly popular focus when
on May 26, 2021; published online on August 6, 2021. Discussion period achieving sustainable urban development. However, a common
open until January 6, 2022; separate discussions must be submitted for in- definition for a smart city has not yet been determined. Definitions
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Urban Planning and of smart cities have been discussed by researchers recently and the
Development, © ASCE, ISSN 0733-9488. keywords in each definition are shown in Fig. 1.

© ASCE 05021045-1 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2021, 147(4): 05021045

 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nimesha Sahani Jayasena on 08/06/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

© ASCE
05021045-2
Fig. 1. Definitions of smart cities.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2021, 147(4): 05021045

J. Urban Plann. Dev.
 In addition, numerous models of smart cities have been identi- Table 1. Characteristics of internal and external stakeholders
fied from the literature review. According to Angelidou (2014), Macro category Internal stakeholders External stakeholders
smart cities symbolize an urban development model that is based
on the utilization of human, institutional, and technological factors Involvement in Active involvement in the Outside the main
the project project (von Meding et al. operations of a project
to overcome the challenges of urbanization. Zygiaris (2013) illus-
2013) (von Meding et al. 2013)
trated a smart city conceptual reference model in which the city Have a contractual Directing actions without
is the basis of a smart city, where the other layers of the model rep- relationship with the direct involvement
resent the requirements that need to be fulfilled when developing a project owner (Gibson (Gibson 2000)
smart city. Fernandez-Anez et al. (2018) presented a conceptual 2000)
model of smart cities, which represents seven layers, where various Important for the project’s Might affect or be affected
stakeholders and urban subsystems are related to the different smart economic interests, such as by the project (Aaltonen
city dimensions and initiatives, such as governance, economy, en- suppliers, sponsors, and 2011)
customers (Aaltonen 2011)
vironment, mobility and infrastructure, people, and living and serv-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nimesha Sahani Jayasena on 08/06/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ices. Lim et al. (2018) presented a hierarchical structure of Interests in the Interested in the financial Interested in the value and
application areas related to smart cities. In this model, the dimen- project activities and efficiency quality (Matuleviciene
sions that needed to be developed when adopting smart cities (Matuleviciene and and Stravinskiene 2015)
were illustrated. Stravinskiene 2015)
From the definitions shown in Fig. 1, different aspects of a smart Connectivity Formally connected with Not formal members of
city concept are available. According to Giffinger and Gudrun with the project the project (Gibson 2000) the project coalition
(2010), there are six success factors for a smart city, which are (Gibson 2000)
smart economy, people, governance, mobility, environment, and Influence on the Have overall managerial Influence the project
living. Management and organization, technology, governance, project responsibility and power through political lobbying,
policy, people and communities, the economy, built infrastructure, (Ward and Chapman regulation and
and the natural environment were the success factors of smart city 2008) campaigning (Ward and
initiatives that were identified by Chourabi et al. (2012). Nam and Chapman 2008)
Pardo (2011) identified that the technological, human, and institu-
tional factors were the three fundamental components of smart cit-
ies. By considering the previously mentioned initiative factors, the Stakeholder management has been identified as a core activity to
human, institutional, and technological factors are the significant create project success (Eskerod and Huemann 2013). Handling dif-
initiative factors within smart cities. According to Mohanty et al. ferent sets of stakeholders across different levels has been identified
(2016), smart cities can be monitored, managed and regulated by as a challenge, which could be overcome by stakeholder manage-
utilizing technological advancements. Smart city projects emerge ment (Sunder 2016). According to Rajablu et al. (2014), project
from the requirements of service planning and adequate infrastruc- stakeholder management includes stakeholder identification, classi-
fication, communication, engagement, empowerment, and risk con-
ture development (Kumar et al. 2018). Urban planners and service
trol. Xia et al. (2018) identified collecting stakeholder-related
providers view the requirements of the citizens in smart city pro-
documents and carrying out stakeholder management planning,
jects for better effects in smart city development (Lee and Lee
stakeholder identification and classification, stakeholder analysis
2014; Kumar et al. 2018). According to Kumar et al. (2018), the
and assessment, stakeholder response, and stakeholder control as
transformation of a city into a smart city requires a systematic
the steps involved in stakeholder management. Identifying, priori-
study for strategic and integrated planning to design smart services.
tizing, visualizing, engaging, and monitoring are the steps in stake-
According to the key definitions shown in Fig. 1 and the key
holder management stated by Bourne (2008). Sam et al. (2017)
characteristics of the models of smart cities presented previously,
stated that stakeholder engagement was to inform, consult, involve,
smart cities cover different aspects. Therefore, by integrating the
collaborate with, and empower the affected people that are in-
key principles, in this paper, a smart city is defined as “Smart
volved in decision-making. Therefore, stakeholder engagement is
city is a multidisciplinary concept that connects technological fac-
considered one of the key elements that facilitate project success
tors, institutional factors and human factors in order to achieve a
(Abuzeinab and Arif 2014). The process of engaging stakeholders
greener city with higher quality of life and sustainable economic includes identifying stakeholders, categorizing stakeholders, ob-
growth.” taining more information about the stakeholders, recognizing
Based on the analysis of key literature, stakeholders play an im- their mission in a project, defining their strengths and weaknesses,
portant role in developing smart cities. Therefore, to develop a suc- identifying their strategies, predicting their behavior, and develop-
cessful smart city, the engagement of stakeholders is vital. ing a strategy to manage them (Chinyio and Olomolaiye 2009;
Nwachukwu et al. 2017).
Stakeholder Engagement in Smart City Projects In becoming a smart city, challenges that arise could be prob-
lems that are associated with multiple diverse stakeholders, high
Stakeholders play a major role when achieving the tasks in a project levels of interdependence, competing values, and social and
(Karlsen 2002). Sutterfield et al. (2006) categorized stakeholders political complexity (Nam and Pardo 2011; Chu et al. 2020).
mainly as internal and external. Stakeholders could be internal or Mayangsari and Novani (2015) stated that transformation from a
external to the project team or they could be internal or external city into a smart city involves the interaction of political and insti-
to the project scope, which depends on the viewpoint of the ob- tutional components with technology that is the smart city innova-
server. Furthermore, stakeholders have been classified as primary tion, which states the importance of stakeholder management in a
and secondary stakeholders (Kim et al. 2018). In this paper, the smart city project. Smart city projects require collaborative efforts
classification of the stakeholders was internal and external based from the stakeholders to overcome the challenges when improving
on their characteristics that were identified from the secondary the quality of life (Anthopoulos and Tsoukalas 2005; Puron-Cid
data presented in Table 1. et al. 2015). If stakeholder management is not adequately addressed

© ASCE 05021045-3 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2021, 147(4): 05021045

 in a project, unexpected problems and uncertainties in the project Table 2. Profiles of the interviewees
will arise, because of the problems with stakeholders (Karlsen Interviewee Role in the project Experience (years)
2002). Therefore, the engagement of stakeholders is a key aspect
for the success of a smart city project. I1 Project director 25
I2 Project deputy director 23
I3 Project consultant 14
I4 Project mechanical, electrical and 17
Research Methodology plumbing manager
I5 Architect 12
The smart city concept is novel in Sri Lanka. This paper aims to in- I6 Project’s town planner 9
vestigate the types of stakeholders in smart city projects and the I7 Project consultant 16
factors that ensure stakeholder engagement. I8 Project contractor 16
I9 Project contractor 11

Research Approach
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nimesha Sahani Jayasena on 08/06/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

circumstances and multiple case studies are conducted based on

A quantitative approach is an objective, fact-finding process that is the availability of the cases. Currently, in Sri Lanka, only one
based on clear evidence and records. As explained in Dawson smart city project was identified, and therefore, a single case
(2007), quantitative research is characterized by the generation of study approach was selected in this paper. Because this paper fo-
statistics through large scale surveys and a qualitative approach is cuses on investigating the types of stakeholders and on the factors
a subjective process that aims to explore attitudes, demeanor, expe- that ensure the engagement of stakeholders in smart city projects,
riences, and opinions of the participants. According to Naoum the unit of analysis was determined as stakeholder engagement in
(2012), for fact fact-finding, where in-depth analysis is not re- smart city projects. The case boundary was smart city projects in
quired, a quantitative research approach is suitable. Therefore, to Sri Lanka.
identify the key stakeholders in smart city projects and their impor- The project for the selected case is located in Sri Lanka’s central
tance, a quantitative analysis was adopted. For an in-depth study, a business district, Colombo. The sea that adjoins the Galle Face prom-
qualitative approach was identified as the ideological approach. In enade in Colombo, Sri Lanka, was reclaimed to create this land with a
addition, when research requires experience and different perspec- land area of 269 ha. This is a planned city development project with a
tives from people, the ideal approach has been identified as the mixed-use component that consists of residential, commercial, retail,
qualitative approach (Bricki and Green 2007). Therefore, to iden- and hospitality industries and space for other social infrastructure
tify the factors that ensured the engagement of stakeholders, a qual- that has a gross floor area of 570 ha, which is being developed by a
itative approach was adopted. Therefore, a mixed approach was foreign construction company and the project began in 2014. The con-
selected as the research approach of this paper, which gave a de- struction of the common infrastructure is currently in progress and is
tailed understanding of the research problem. In agreement with expected to be completed by 2021. The construction company has en-
Amaratunga et al. (2002), adopting a mixed research approach tered into a public–private partnership agreement with the Sri Lankan
counteracted the weaknesses of quantitative and qualitative ap-
Government to invest approximately USD 1.4 billion in exchange for
proaches. As defined by Sandelowski (2000, p. 254), mixed-
a 99-year leasehold on the 116 ha of marketable land out of the total
method research is a “dynamic option for expanding the scope
marketable land of 178 ha. The remaining marketable land is owned
and improving the analytic power of studies.”
by the Government of Sri Lanka. The construction company will es-
tablish and run the managing agent in partnership with the Govern-
Research Strategy ment of Sri Lanka. The managing agent is responsible for
managing, maintaining, and repairing the development’s common
Using a mixed-method approach, an explanatory sequential mixed
areas by collecting management fees from the investors.
method strategy was used to achieve the research aim. An explan-
Under the case study strategy, nine semistructured interviews
atory sequential mixed method involves a quantitative analysis
were conducted with the project team members to capture data
phase, which is followed by the qualitative analysis, where in-depth
from the case study. According to Sekaran (2003), the opinions
information is provided qualitatively after the findings gained from
on a certain matter can be clarified and further details on the opin-
the quantitative analysis.
ions can be obtained through semistructured interviews. The guide-
line for the interviews was divided into three sections: (1) capture
Desktop Study the background information of the interviewees; (2) identify the
current status of the engagement of stakeholders and investigates
A desktop study was conducted to identify the types of stakeholders in
the types of stakeholders and their contributions to smart city pro-
urban development projects in Sri Lanka. In the desktop study, data
jects in Sri Lanka; and (3) the factors that ensure the engagement of
was captured through the analysis of newspaper articles for 5 years
stakeholders was investigated. The manual content analysis techni-
on urban development projects in Sri Lanka. Due to time constraints,
que was used to analyze the data captured from the case study and
two newspapers that are published weekly were selected and re-
the profile of the interviewees is presented in Table 2.
viewed, because they tend to publish articles on urban development
projects. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the data that was
collected from the desktop study. Therefore, percentages were derived
from the number of citations in the total number of articles. Research Findings

Case Study Stakeholders in Smart City Projects

Following the desktop study, a case study was carried out. The stakeholders in urban development projects were identified ini-
According to Yin (2011), case studies can be conducted as single tially from the desktop study and the results are presented in
or multiple case studies. A single case study is used for unique Table 3.

© ASCE 05021045-4 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2021, 147(4): 05021045

 Table 3. Stakeholders in urban development projects in Sri Lanka of smart city development projects. The verdicts from the desktop
Number of
study stated the importance of the media in urban development pro-
citations Citations as jects. In addition, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) were
Stakeholders from 145 a percentage Rank identified as contributors to smart city development projects from
the desktop study. Academia and Research Institutions (ARIs)
Government 71 48.97 1
Foreign investors 42 28.97 2 and opposition political parties were identified as stakeholders in
Foreign contractor organizations 31 21.38 3 smart city development projects, because the findings from the
Ministry of Megapolis and Western 17 11.72 4 desktop study and the literature review stated that they were impor-
Development tant stakeholders.
Citizens 14 9.66 5 By summarizing the findings, the main types of stakeholders in
Private sector financial institutions 14 9.66 5 smart city projects were identified as 10 groups: (1) ARIs;
UDA 13 8.97 6 (2) LRABs; (3) financial suppliers and investors; (4) utility and ser-
Ports Authority 12 8.28 7
vice providers; (5) citizens; (6) government; (7) developers;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nimesha Sahani Jayasena on 08/06/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

CCD 9 6.21 8
RDA — 6.21 8 (8) nonprofit organizations; (9) media and; and (10) opposition
Foreign consultant organizations 9 6.21 8 political parties. Table 4 summarizes the findings of the literature
ARIs 8 5.52 9 review and the desktop study.
CEA 7 4.83 10 Government was mentioned as a significant stakeholder in liter-
Local Contractors 6 4.14 11 ature (Kumar et al. 2018; Kitchin 2015) and was identified as the
Electricity Board (CEB) 5 3.45 12 most significant stakeholder from the desktop study (Ministry of
Media 5 3.45 13 Megapolis and Western Development, Ministry of Environment,
Ministry of Highways, Ports and 4 2.76 14
Ministry of Highways, Ports and Shipping). ARIs were determined
Shipping
National Water Supply and Drainage 3 2.07 15 from the desktop study and literature review (Ielite et al. 2015;
Board Angelidou 2014). The author identified local and regional adminis-
NARA 3 2.07 16 trations, which was merged with the 10 LRABs in urban develop-
Public Utilities Commission 3 2.07 17 ment projects, to form the second category of main stakeholders.
Energy authorities 2 1.38 18 Urban planners (Stratigea et al. 2015) and policymakers
Municipal councils 2 1.38 18 (Angelidou 2014; Kondepudi and Kondepudi 2015) that were iden-
Board of Investment 2 1.38 18 tified in the literature were included in this category. The four types
Opposition political parties 2 1.38 18
of funding organizations that were identified in the desktop study,
Ministry of Environment 1 0.69 19
Irrigation Department 1 0.69 19 private sector financial institutions, foreign investors, foreign con-
Chamber of Construction Industry 1 0.69 19 tractor organizations, and foreign consultant organizations were
NGOs 1 0.69 19 merged with similar stakeholders that were mentioned in the liter-
ature (Kondepudi and Kondepudi 2015; Ferna ndez-Anez et al.
2016) to form the third stakeholder category, which was financial
Through the analysis of the desktop review, as depicted in suppliers and investors. The fourth category was citizens, which
Table 3, there were 26 different stakeholders identified and agreed with the findings from desktop study and literature review
among them, Government was cited in 71 articles. This bears evi- (Dameri et al. 2016; Ardito et al. 2018). ARIs were the fifth cate-
dence that a government is the main stakeholder in urban develop- gory of stakeholders that were identified and energy suppliers
ment projects. From the findings of the desktop study, foreign (van Winden and van den Buuse 2017), water suppliers, and infor-
investors and foreign contractor organizations were ranked second mation communication technology (ICT) sector representatives
and third, respectively. Apart from the foreign investors and foreign (Ielite et al. 2015; Angelidou 2014) were identified from the liter-
contractor organizations, local private sector financial institutions ature and energy suppliers (Electricity Board) and National
and foreign consultant organizations were identified from the desk- Water Supply and Drainage Board were identified in the desktop
top review as financial suppliers and investors, who are important study and categorized as utility and service providers (sixth cate-
in the development of urban development projects. gory). The seventh category of developers was identified in the lit-
Then, 10 local and regional administrative bodies (LRABs) erature review (Angelidou 2014) and the desktop study (local
were identified as stakeholders in urban development projects in contractors, Chamber of Construction Industry, Irrigation Depart-
Sri Lanka from the newspaper review. They were: (1) Ports Author- ment). In addition, nonprofit organizations (van Winden and van
ity; (2) Urban Development Authority (UDA); (3) Central Environ- den Buuse 2017; Ferna ndez-Anez et al. 2016) and the media
mental Authority (CEA); (4) energy authorities; (5) municipal (Stratigea et al. 2015; van Winden and van den Buuse 2017)
councils; (6) National Aquatic Resources Research and Develop- were identified in the literature review and the desktop study. Polit-
ment Agency (NARA); (7) Coast Conservation Department ical institutions were mentioned in the literature (Ardito et al. 2018;
(CCD); (8) Board of Investment; (9) Public Utilities Commission; Larios et al. 2016), which were identified in the desktop study and
and (10) Road Development Authority (RDA). named the tenth category; opposition political parties.
Of note, citizens are important stakeholders that were identified Following the identification of the stakeholders from the litera-
from the desktop study. In addition, developers were identified as ture review and the desktop study, the respondents to the case study
other stakeholders in urban development projects. According to validated the identified stakeholders. The nine expert interviewees
the findings, developers include local contractors, the Chamber agreed with the stakeholders that were identified from the literature
of the Construction Industry, and the Irrigation Department. review and the desktop study.
In addition, energy suppliers (Electricity Board) and water sup- The identified stakeholders were categorized as internal and ex-
pliers (National Water Supply and Drainage Board) were identified ternal stakeholders in agreement with the characteristics of internal
as important contributors to the utility supply from the desktop and external stakeholders, which were identified in the literature re-
study. Therefore, utility suppliers were determined as a stakeholder view (Table 1). The involvement of the stakeholders was identified

© ASCE 05021045-5 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2021, 147(4): 05021045

 Table 4. Stakeholders in a smart city development project
Stakeholders identified from the literature review Stakeholders identified from the desktop study Stakeholders in a smart city development project
Government Government Government
Ministry of Megapolis and Western Development
Ministry of Environment
Ministryof Highways, Ports and Shipping
Local and regional administrations LRABs LRABs
Ports Authority
UDA
CEA
Energy authorities
Municipal councils
NARA
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nimesha Sahani Jayasena on 08/06/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

CCD
Board of Investment
Public Utilities Commission
RDA
Financial suppliers and investors Financial suppliers and investors Financial suppliers and investors
Private sector financial institutions
Foreign investors
Foreign contractor organizations
Foreign consultant organizations
Citizens Citizens Citizens
ARIs ARIS ARIs
Energy suppliers Energy suppliers (Electricity Board) Utility and service providers
Water suppliers National Water Supply and Drainage Board —
ICT sector representatives — —
Developers Developers Developers
Local contractors
Chamber of Construction Industry
Irrigation Department
Media Media Media
Urban planners Includes local and regional administrations —
Policymakers Includes local and regional administrations —
NGOs NGOs NGOs
Political Institutions Opposition political parties Opposition political parties

from the case study and Table 5 presents the mapping of the iden- were identified as the required factors. I7 stated that political stability
tified stakeholders. and transparency were essential to ensure the effective engagement
According to the mapping, the government, LRABs, financial of the government in smart city projects. Therefore, policy develop-
suppliers or investors, utility suppliers, and developers were cate- ment, transparency, political stability, and effective coordination
gorized as the internal stakeholders in smart city projects and were identified as being required to ensure the engagement of the
ARIs, the media, citizens, nonprofit organizations, and opposition government in smart city projects.
political parties were categorized as the external stakeholders in
smart city projects. Factors that Ensure the Engagement of LRABs
All of the respondents indicated that the current contribution of the
LRABs was not adequate for the success of the smart city project.
Factors that Ensure the Engagement of Stakeholders
I7 stated that delays in infrastructure development, and therefore,
in Smart City Projects
delays in the smart city project could be identified as the results
From the case study, the factors that ensured the engagement of of the ineffective contribution of LRABs. I2, I3, and I7 identified
stakeholders, which could be used as strategies that enable the en- that providing the required legal background ensured the engage-
gagement of stakeholders in smart city projects, were identified. ment of LRABs. In addition, I1 and I4 indicated that eliminating
political influences, determining the boundary of engagement,
Factors that Ensure the Engagement of Government and capacity building were the other factors, which ensured the en-
Six out of the nine interviewees stated that the current contribution of gagement of stakeholders in a smart city project. Therefore, provid-
the government satisfied the requirements. Although I3 stated that ing the required legal background, capacity development, effective
the actual potential contribution of the government was not given coordination, eliminating political influences, and determining the
in the current situation. When the government was not engaging in boundary of engagement were identified as the factors that ensured
the project as required, delays in project implementation were iden- the engagement of LRABs in smart city projects.
tified and the government was required to pay delay costs. In addi-
tion, I3 stated that it was important to develop the infrastructure Factors that Ensure the Engagement of Media
required for the project at the required speed. Therefore, to ensure From the opinions of the respondents, the media’s contribution to
the engagement of stakeholders in smart city projects, political stabil- smart city projects was not adequate. I3 stated “lack of communi-
ity, transparency, effective coordination, and policy development cation with the public and wrong transformation of information

© ASCE 05021045-6 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2021, 147(4): 05021045

 Table 5. Mapping of stakeholders
Financial Opposition
suppliers or Utility political
Stakeholders Characteristics of stakeholders Government LRABs Media investors ARIs Citizens suppliers Developers NGOs parties
Internal Active involvement in the project x x x x x
Interested in the financial activities x x x x x x x x x x
and efficiency
Formally connected with the x x x x x
project
Important for the project’s x x x x x
economic interests, such as
suppliers, sponsors, and customers
Have overall managerial x x x x x
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nimesha Sahani Jayasena on 08/06/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

responsibility and power

Have a contractual relationship x x x x x
with the project owner
External Outside the main operations of a x x x x x
project
Interested in the value and quality x x x x x x x x x x
Not formal members of the project x x x x x
coalition
Might affect or be affected by the x x x x x x x x x x
project
Influence the project through x x x x
political lobbying, regulation, and
campaigning
Directing actions without direct x x x x x
involvement

to the public result in public protests regarding the project’s activ- takes an important place.” In addition to I2, I9, and I4, it was iden-
ities.” Therefore, the respondents suggested the developers should tified that providing the required legal background, improving the
have frequent meetings with the media to engage the media with funding for research and development into smart city projects
the project. In addition, I2 and I5 indicated that raising awareness and improving the facilities in ARIs would ensure the engagement
regarding the project activities and providing the required techno- of ARIs in smart city projects. Therefore, providing the required
logical advancements would ensure the engagement of the media legal background, identifying the contribution requirements, im-
in the smart city project. Therefore, bringing new technological ad- proving facilities, and improving funding for research and develop-
vancements, encouraging the developers to have frequent meetings ment were identified as factors that ensured the engagement
with the media, and raising awareness of the project were identified of ARIs.
as the factors that ensured the engagement of the media.
Factors that Ensure the Engagement of Citizens
Factors that Ensure the Engagement of Financial Suppliers or In agreement with the respondents, citizens were not interested in
Investors finding out the correct information on smart city projects. There-
In agreement with the respondents, the engagement of the financial fore, public protests could occur, and therefore, project delays
suppliers or investors could be ensured by developing the required could occur. According to I5, citizens should be involved in the
policies and by assisting with the required legal background. decision-making process and it is important to address the com-
I8 stated, “development of the required policies attracts the finan- ments about the project by the citizens. In addition to I5, citizen-
cial suppliers/investors towards the project.” In addition to the re- centered problem solving and developing facilities could ensure
spondents of the case study, improving the facilities, providing the engagement of the citizens in smart city projects. I2 highlighted
tax benefits to the financial suppliers or investors, and introducing the requirement of ensuring human rights to engage the citizens.
new technology would ensure the engagement of financial suppli- Furthermore, I9 indicated that the required resources for capacity
ers or investors with the project. According to I6, infrastructure de- building should be given to the citizens. Therefore, supplying the
velopment in the country could attract foreign country’s attention to required resources for capacity building, developing facilities, en-
invest in smart city projects. Therefore, the development of the re- suring human rights, citizen-centric problem solving, promoting
quired policies, providing the required legal background, improv- the project, and involving citizens in decision-making were the fac-
ing facilities, infrastructure development, providing tax benefits, tors that ensured the engagement of citizens in smart city projects.
and introducing new technology were identified as the factors
that ensured the engagement of the financial suppliers or investors Factors that Ensure the Engagement of Utility Suppliers
in smart city projects. The respondents of the case study stated that with the ineffective
contributions of the utility suppliers, project delays could occur.
Factors that Ensure the Engagement of ARIs To ensure the engagement of the utility suppliers in smart city pro-
The opinions of the respondents to the case study indicated that the jects, I7 highlighted the requirement of using new technology.
ineffective contribution of the ARIs resulted in the lower attractive- In addition to the respondents, it was identified that the develop-
ness of the projects and might result in public protests. Therefore, ment of the required policies and the development of the legal
I2 stated, “identification of the contribution requirement from ARIs background would ensure the engagement of the utility suppliers.

© ASCE 05021045-7 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2021, 147(4): 05021045

 According to I2, providing political stability would ensure the en- investigated the types of stakeholders in smart city projects and
gagement of the utility suppliers in smart city projects. Therefore, the factors that must be considered to ensure their engagement.
providing the required legal background, required policy develop- As depicted in the research findings, out of the 10 main types of
ment, updating knowledge, developing facilities, and bringing new stakeholders, Government was the most important stakeholder in
technology were the factors that ensured the engagement of the util- smart city projects. Alawadhi et al. (2012) stated that the initiation
ity suppliers. of the government was an essential requirement. Moreover,
Paskaleva (2011) emphasized Government as a major contributor
Factors that Ensure the Engagement of Developers to smart city projects. LRABs were the next type of stakeholder
Currently, according to the respondents, accurate development identified. As depicted in the literature, LRABs have control and
based on the timeframe of the project could be determined. How- authority over the projects (Nam and Pardo 2011; Box 2014; van
ever, I3 stated that the developers could engage in the project Winden and van den Buuse 2017), where it was confirmed from
more effectively. I1 stated, “the developers are an important stake- the desktop study and the case study. Caragliu et al. (2011) stated
holder category in a smart city project, where the effective engage- that LRABs that were endorsed for smart city development
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nimesha Sahani Jayasena on 08/06/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ment of the developers is the key for the success of the project.” provided a better quality of life for the citizens. Then, from the
From the analysis of the findings from the case study, required pol- desktop study, the investors were identified as suppliers of the re-
icy development, providing the required legal background, bring- quired resources, with expectations on the return on investment.
ing new technology, updating knowledge, and developing the From the literature findings, financial suppliers and investors
facilities would ensure the engagement of the developers in the were identified as a stakeholder in smart city projects (Ielite et al.
smart city project. 2015). In addition, the investors are key in smart cities because in-
vestments are vital as an initiative for the project (Thite 2011). Ac-
Factors that Ensure the Engagement of Nonprofit cording to Granier and Kudo (2016) and Stratigea et al. (2015),
Organizations citizens were identified as an important category for smart city de-
Protecting the public interest was identified as the role of the non- velopment, because their participation in a project is critical to min-
profit organizations, from the analysis of the data captured from the imize the problems generated in a city. Therefore, for smart city
case study. However, the currently identified challenges with the projects, citizens were confirmed as a significant stakeholder. In ad-
engagement of the nonprofit organizations included the influence dition to the authors, ARIs were established as critical stakeholders
made by the political parties. I3 stated, “because of the political in- in smart city development projects.
fluence, the non-profit organisations are trying to create a bad Utility suppliers are significant for the development of smart cit-
image on the project, which will affect the development of the pro- ies by supplying essential services, such as electricity, water, and
ject.” Therefore, to ensure the engagement of the nonprofit organi- gas (Ielite et al. 2015). According to Angelidou (2014) and Larios
zations, providing the required legal background, awareness et al. (2016), developers play a major role in smart city develop-
regarding the project, and ensuring human rights were the factors ment projects. Therefore, developers are an important category of
identified from the case study. stakeholders for smart city development projects. The media was
identified as a stakeholder in smart city development projects
(Angelidou 2014; Stratigea et al. 2015). In addition, more stake-
Factors that Ensure the Engagement of Opposition Political holders were identified by the desktop and literature reviews,
Parties such as NGOs and opposition political parties. Therefore, the find-
The respondents to the case study stated that the opposition parties ings of the desktop study were validated by literature.
only provided solutions after problems arose in the project, which Different stakeholders consider various factors to engage with
should be avoided to effectively engage in the smart city project. To smart city projects. Providing the required legal background is the
ensure the effective engagement of the opposition political parties, factor that is demanded most by stakeholders, such as local and re-
I7 suggested improving political stability. In addition, all the re- gional administrative institutes, financial suppliers or investors,
spondents stated that providing the required legal background ARIs, utility suppliers, developers, nonprofit organizations, and po-
was necessary to engage the opposition political parties in the litical parties. The main reason for this might be due to the huge in-
smart city project. Therefore, to ensure the engagement of the op-
vestment they make in the smart city project as money, time, and
position political parties, the required legal background and politi-
energy. These stakeholders are not willing to risk their resources
cal stability should be provided.
for actions, which might lead to illegalities, because of the lack of
legal background. Effective coordination is crucial when operating
in a multistakeholder environment, to communicate effectively and
Discussion to meet the requirements of each party. Therefore, the governments
and local and regional administrative institutes could ensure that the
From the utilization of the key research findings of this paper, a fig- project was worth investing in.
ure was developed, which illustrated the systematization of the key Dishonest or illegal behavior by stakeholders causes transpar-
elements or factors that were derived from the research and shown ency barriers. Governments might be discouraged from becoming
in Fig. 2. The identified internal and external stakeholders and the involved in this type of project due to corruption. This is further
factors that ensured their engagement in smart city projects are supported by political influences. Local and regional administrative
shown in Fig. 2, where the factors that ensured the engagement institutes might not want to engage if they are unable to act inde-
of the stakeholders could be utilized as strategies to enable the en- pendently. In addition, political stability is imperative to maintain
gagement of stakeholders in smart city projects. the continuity and consistency of the government’s understanding
Increased aspirations when developing smart cities initiates the of the project. It affects the involvement of political parties in a sim-
requirement to ensure the engagement of stakeholders in smart city ilar way. The engagement of the media, financial suppliers or inves-
development projects in Sri Lanka and other countries globally. To tors, utility suppliers and developers might be increased by
accomplish the aim of this paper, which was to facilitate the effec- bringing in new technological advancements. The media is inter-
tive engagement of stakeholders in smart city projects, this paper ested in attracting the audience and they should be presenting

© ASCE 05021045-8 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2021, 147(4): 05021045

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nimesha Sahani Jayasena on 08/06/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 2. Factors that ensure the engagement of stakeholders in smart city projects.

something worth paying attention to. Other stakeholders require and infrastructure development are highly sought by financial sup-
savings in resources, and therefore, are interested in new technolo- pliers or investors, utility suppliers, ARIs, and developers, because
gies, because of their higher efficiency higher. they want to see solid outcomes from their resource utilization. This
Media and nonprofit organizations are interested in raising applies to citizens who pay taxes for the country’s development.
awareness of the project, because they require public attention to Citizens and nonprofit organizations, who are concerned about
sustain their businesses. Similarly, they encourage frequent meet- the well-being and interests of the community would expect
ings with the developers. Policies are required for the government, human rights to be ensured within a project. Utility suppliers and
financial suppliers or investors, utility suppliers’ engagement be- developers are interested in updated knowledge, because they pre-
cause it is the legal base upon which they act. Improving facilities fer the adoption of more resource and time-efficient practices. In

© ASCE 05021045-9 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2021, 147(4): 05021045

 addition, the involvement of local and regional administrative insti- LRABs, financial suppliers or investors, utility suppliers, and de-
tutes could be enhanced by capacity development and determining velopers were categorized as internal stakeholders in smart city pro-
the boundary of engagement. Based on the findings and statements, jects and citizens, ARIs, the media, opposition political parties, and
the local and regional authorities are not willing to go beyond a cer- nongovernmental organizations were identified as external stake-
tain level and become involved in projects. Financial supporters are holders in smart city projects. From the case analysis, factors that
interested in tax benefits, because the investors must not be affected ensured the engagement of each identified stakeholder were recog-
by changes in taxes. Investor friendly tax conditions could attract nized. Therefore, the key findings of this study could be utilized to
more investments to a country; however, an unfavorable tax policy facilitate a basis to investigate the current level of engagement of
might be a strong barrier to smart city projects. In addition, ARIs stakeholders, assist decision makers in stakeholder management,
are attempting to identify their contribution requirements and im- and formulate the strategies the ensure the effective engagement
prove funding for research and development, because if these fac- of stakeholders in smart city development projects in Sri Lanka
tors are nor properly identified it would be difficult for them to and similar countries globally. Overall, the findings of this study
balance their involvement and would disturb their research and de- could contribute to enriching knowledge for the effective engage-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nimesha Sahani Jayasena on 08/06/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

velopment work. Finally, citizens depend on other factors, such as ment of stakeholders in smart city projects, which could ensure
supplying the required resources for capacity building, citizen- the efficient and effective development of smart cities globally.
centric problem solving, promoting the project and involving citi-
zens in the decision-making. When the outcome is mainly utilized
by the citizens, they see themselves as a contributor to the process.
Data Availability Statement
However, based on the views of the interviewees, the engage-
ment of all stakeholders is absent in a smart city in Sri Lanka.
All data, models, and codes generated or used during this study ap-
Based on the previous findings, engaging all stakeholders in a pro-
pear in the published article.
ject is key to achieving the aims of the project (Greenwood 2007).
Therefore, stakeholder engagement is considered one of the key el-
ements to facilitate project success (Abuzeinab and Arif 2014).
Therefore, the findings of this study suggested that clients of future References
smart city projects should pay more attention to these factors and
ensure greater engagement of the stakeholders. Aaltonen, K. 2011. “Project stakeholder analysis as an environmental inter-
The main outcomes of this study provided implications on the pretation process.” Int. J. Project Manage. 29 (2): 165–183. https://doi
concept of smart cities and provided a comprehensive description .org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.02.001.
of the types of stakeholders. It further elaborated their importance Abuzeinab, A., and M. Arif. 2014. “Stakeholder engagement: A green busi-
to smart city projects. The identification of the factors that ensure ness model indicator.” Procedia Econ. Finance 18: 505–512. https://doi
the effective engagement of stakeholders could contribute to the .org/10.1016/S2212-5671(14)00969-1.
Alawadhi, S., A. Aldama-Nalda, H. Chourabi, J. Gil-Garcia, S. Leung, S.
planning and coordination of smart city projects to ensure their
Mellouli, and S. Walker. 2012. “Building understanding of Smart
success. City initiatives.” In Int. Conf. on Electronic Government, 40–53.
Time constraints only permitted the review and analysis of two Berlin: Springer.
newspapers over the last 5 years. Due to the availability of one Albino, V., U. Berardi, and R. M. Dangelico. 2015. “Smart Cities:
smart city project in Sri Lanka, this study was limited to one case Definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives.” J. Urban
study. Technol. 22 (1): 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2014.942092.
Future studies in this area should focus on investigating the Amaratunga, D., D. Baldry, M. Sarshar, and R. Newton. 2002. “Quantitative
contributions of the stakeholders linked to the project lifecycle and qualitative research in the built environment: Application of “mixed”
and develop a performance measurement system for the effective research approach.” Work Study, 51 (1): 17–31. https://doi.org/10.1108
engagement of stakeholders. /00438020210415488.
Angelidou, M. 2014. “Smart City policies: A spatial approach.” Cities 41:
S3–S11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2014.06.007.
Angelidou, M., A. Psaltoglou, N. Komninos, C. Kakderi, P. Tsarchopoulos,
Conclusions and A. Panori. 2017. “Enhancing sustainable urban development
through Smart City applications.” J. Smart City Sci. Technol. Policy
Due to the challenges linked to rapid urbanization, the world is in- Manage. 9 (2): 146–169. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTPM-05-2017
terested in establishing smart cities. Although there is an increasing -0016.
Anthopoulos, L., and I. A. Tsoukalas. 2005. “The implementation model of
requirement to initiate smart cities, these projects entail challenges,
a digital city.” Journal of E-Government, 2 (2): 91–110. https://doi.org
which must be overcome for the success of the project. To over- /10.1300/J399v02n02_06.
come these challenges, stakeholder management was identified as Ardito, L., A. Ferraris, A. M. Petruzzelli, S. Bresciani, and M. Del Giudice.
the ideal solution. Enabling stakeholder engagement was recog- 2018. “The role of universities in the knowledge management of Smart
nized as key to project success during stakeholder management. City projects.” Technol. Forecasting Social Change 142: 312–321.
From the literature survey, 13 stakeholders in smart city projects https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.030.
were identified. In addition, a desktop and a case study were con- Bakıcı, T., E. Almirall, and J. Wareham. 2013. “A Smart City initiative:
ducted in Sri Lanka to identify the stakeholders and factors that en- The case of Barcelona.” J. Knowl. Econ. 4 (2): 135–148. https://doi
sured stakeholder engagement. Compared with the analysis of the .org/10.1007/s13132-012-0084-9.
results from of literature review and the desktop study, 10 stake- Battarra, R., C. Gargiulo, and F. Zucaro. 2020. “Future possibility of smart
and sustainable cities in the Mediterranean basin.” J. Urban Plann. Dev.
holders and their contributions to smart city projects were deter-
146 (4): 04020036. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444
mined. The identified stakeholders from the desktop study and .0000610.
the literature review were then validated by conducting a case Bourne, L. 2008. “Advancing theory and practice for successful implemen-
study in Sri Lanka. Based on the case analysis, the identified stake- tation of stakeholder management in organisations.” Int. J. Manag.
holders were categorized as internal and external stakeholders Projects Bus. 1 (4): 587–601. https://doi.org/10.1108
based on the characteristics of the stakeholders. Government, /17538370810906273.

© ASCE 05021045-10 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2021, 147(4): 05021045

 Box, R. C. 2014. Public administration and society: Critical issues in framework.” Technol. Forecasting Social Change 153: 119281.
American governance. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.04.024.
Bricki, N., and J. Green. 2007. A guide to using qualitative research meth- Larios, V. M., L. Gomez, O. B. Mora, R. Maciel, and N.
odology. http://hdl.handle.net/10144/84230. Villanueva-Rosales. 2016. “Living labs for Smart Cities: A use case
Caragliu, A., C. Del Bo, and P. Nijkamp. 2011. “Smart Cities in Europe.” in Guadalajara city to foster innovation and develop citizen-centered
J. Urban Technol. 18 (2): 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732 solutions.” In Proc., 2016 IEEE Int. Smart Cities Conf., 1–6.
.2011.601117. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
Chinyio, E., and P. Olomolaiye, eds. 2009. Construction stakeholder man- Lee, J., and H. Lee. 2014. “Developing and validating a citizen-centric ty-
agement. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. pology for Smart City services.” Gov. Inf. Q. 31: S93–S105. https://doi
Chourabi, H., T. Nam, S. Walker, J. R. Gil-Garcia, S. Mellouli, K. Nahon, .org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.01.010.
and H. J. Scholl. 2012. “Understanding Smart Cities: An integrative Lim, C., K. J. Kim, and P. P. Maglio. 2018. “Smart Cities with big data:
framework.” In Proc., 2012 45th Hawaii Int. Conf. on System Reference models, challenges, and considerations.” Cities 82: 86–99.
Science, 2289–2297. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2018.04.011.
Chu, X., Z. Shi, L. Yang, and S. Guo. 2020. “Evolutionary game analysis Matuleviciene, M., and J. Stravinskiene. 2015. “The importance of stake-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nimesha Sahani Jayasena on 08/06/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

on improving collaboration in sustainable urban regeneration: A holders for corporate reputation.” Eng. Econ. 26 (1): 75–83. https://
multiple-stakeholder perspective.” J. Urban Plann. Dev. 146 (4): doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.26.1.6921.
04020046. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000630. Mayangsari, L., and S. Novani. 2015. “Multi-stakeholder co-creation anal-
Dameri, R. P., E. Negre, and C. Rosenthal-Sabroux. 2016. “Triple Helix in ysis in Smart City management: An experience from Bandung,
Smart Cities: A literature review about the vision of public bodies, uni- Indonesia.” Procedia Manuf. 4: 315–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
versities, and private companies.” In Proc., 2016 49th Hawaii Int. Conf. .promfg.2015.11.046.
on System Sciences, 2974–2982. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE. Milenković , M., M. Rašić , and G. Vojković . 2017. “Using public private part-
Dawson, C. 2007. A practical guide to research methods, a user friendly nership models in Smart Cities-proposal for Croatia.” In Proc., 2017 40th
manual for mastering research techniques and projects. 3rd ed., Int. Convention on Information and Communication Technology,
Oxfordshire: How to Books. Electronics and Microelectronics, 1412–1417. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE.
de Bakker, F. G., and F. den Hond. 2008. “Introducing the politics of stake- Mohanty, S. P., U. Choppali, and E. Kougianos. 2016. “Everything you
holder influence: A review essay.” Bus. Soc. 47 (1): 8–20. https://doi wanted to know about Smart Cities: The internet of things is the back-
.org/10.1177/0007650307306637. bone.” IEEE Consum. Electron. Mag. 5 (3): 60–70. https://doi.org/10
Eskerod, P., and M. Huemann. 2013. “Sustainable development and .1109/MCE.2016.2556879.
project stakeholder management: What standards say.” Int. J. Manag. Nam, T., and T. A. Pardo. 2011. “Conceptualizing Smart City with dimen-
Projects Bus. 6 (1): 36–50. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538371311 sions of technology, people, and institutions.” In Proc., 12th Annual Int.
291017. Digital Government Research Conf: Digital Government Innovation in
Ferna ndez-Anez, V., G. Ve lazquez-Romera, and F. Perez-Prada. 2016. Challenging Times, 282–291. New York: ACM.
Governance and implementation of Smart City projects in the Naoum, S. 2012. Dissertation research and writing for construction stu-
Mediterranean region. Luxembourg, Europe: European Investment dents. London: Routledge.
Bank. Naphade, M., G. Banavar, C. Harrison, J. Paraszczak, and R. Morris. 2011.
Fernandez-Anez, V., J. M. Fernández-Güell, and R. Giffinger. 2018. “Smarter cities and their innovation challenges.” Computer 44 (6): 32–
“Smart City implementation and discourses: An integrated conceptual 39. https://doi.org/10.1109/MC.2011.187.
model. The case of Vienna.” Cities 78: 4–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j Nilssen, M. 2018. “To the Smart City and beyond? Developing a typology
.cities.2017.12.004. of smart urban innovation.” Technol. Forecasting Social Change 142:
Gibson, K. 2000. “The moral basis of stakeholder theory.” J. Bus. Ethics 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.060.
26 (3): 245–257. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006110106408. Nwachukwu, C. V., C. Udeaja, N. Chileshe, and C. E. Okere. 2017. “The
Giffinger, R., and H. Gudrun. 2010. “Smart Cities ranking: An effective in- critical success factors for stakeholder management in the restoration of
strument for the positioning of the cities?.” Archit. City Environ. 4 (12): built heritage assets in the UK.” Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt. 35 (4):
7–26. https://doi.org/10.5821/ace.v4i12.2483. 304–331. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBPA-07-2017-0030.
Granier, B., and H. Kudo. 2016. “How are citizens involved in smart cities? Paskaleva, K. A. 2011. “The Smart City: A nexus for open innovation?”
Analysing citizen participation in Japanese “smart communities”.” Inf. Intell. Build. Int. 3 (3): 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2011
Polity 21 (1): 61–76. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-150367. .586672.
Greenwood, M. 2007. “Stakeholder engagement: Beyond the myth of cor- Puron-Cid, G., J. R. Gil-Garcia, and J. Zhang. 2015. “Smart Cities, smart
porate responsibility.” J. Bus. Ethics, 74 (4), 315–327. governments and smart citizens: A brief introduction.”
Ielite, I., G. Olevsky, and T. Safiulins. 2015. “Identification and prioritiza- Int. J. E-Plann. Res. 4 (2): 4–6.
tion of stakeholders in the planning process of sustainable development Rajablu, M., G. Marthandan, and W. F. Yusoff. 2014. “Managing for stake-
of the Smart City.” In Proc., 2015 IEEE 7th Int. Conf. on Intelligent holders: The role of stakeholder-based management in project success.”
Computing and Information Systems, 251–257. Piscataway, NJ: IEEE. Asian Soc. Sci. 11 (3): 111. https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v11n3p111.
Juraschek, M., M. Bucherer, F. Schnabel, H. Hoffschröer, B. Vossen, F. Sam, K., F. Coulon, and G. Prpich. 2017. “Use of stakeholder engagement
Kreuz, S. Thiede, and C. Herrmann. 2018 “Urban factories and their po- to support policy transfer: A case of contaminated land management in
tential contribution to the sustainable development of cities.” Procedia Nigeria.” Environ. Dev. 24: 50–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envdev
CIRP 69: 72–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procir.2017.11.067. .2017.06.005.
Karlsen, J. 2002. “Project stakeholder management.” Eng. Manage. J. Sandelowski, M. 2000. “Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Sampling,
14 (4): 19–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2002.11415180. Data Collection, and Analysis Techniques in Mixed-Method Studies.”
Kim, C., J. Kim, R. Marshall, and H. Afzali. 2018. “Stakeholder influence, Research in Nursing & Health, 23 (3): 246–255. https://doi.org/10
institutional duality, and CSR involvement of MNC subsidiaries.” .1002/1098-240X(200006)23:3<246::AID-NUR9>3.0.CO;2-H.
J. Bus. Res. 91: 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2018.05.044. Schaffers, H., N. Komninos, M. Pallot, B. Trousse, M. Nilsson, and A.
Kitchin, R. 2015. “Making sense of Smart Cities: Addressing present short- Oliveira. 2011. “Smart Cities and the future internet: Towards cooper-
comings.” Cambridge J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 8 (1): 131–136. https://doi.org ation frameworks for open innovation.” In The future internet assembly,
/10.1093/cjres/rsu027. edited by J. Domingue, et al., 431–446. Berlin: Springer.
Kondepudi, S., and A. Kondepudi. 2015. “A step by step approach towards Sekaran, U. 2003. Research methods for business: A skill building ap-
planning a smart sustainable city using a strategic plan.” ELK Asia proach. 4th ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Pasific J. 1–13. Sikora-Fernandez, D. 2018. “Smarter cities in post-socialist country:
Kumar, H., M. K. Singh, M. P. Gupta, and J. Madaan. 2018. “Moving to- Example of Poland.” Cities 78: 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities
wards smart cities: Solutions that lead to the SC transformation .2018.03.011.

© ASCE 05021045-11 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2021, 147(4): 05021045

 Stratigea, A., C. A. Papadopoulou, and M. Panagiotopoulou. 2015. “Tools von Meding, J., K. McAllister, L. Oyedele, and K. Kelly. 2013. “A frame-
and technologies for planning the development of Smart Cities.” work for stakeholder management and corporate culture.” Built
J. Urban Technol. 22 (2): 43–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732 Environ. Project Asset Manage. 3 (1): 24–41. https://doi.org/10.1108
.2015.1018725. /BEPAM-07-2012-0042.
Sunder, V. M. 2016. “Lean six sigma project management—A stakeholder Ward, S., and C. Chapman. 2008. “Stakeholders and uncertainty manage-
management perspective.” TQM J. 28 (1): 132–150. https://doi.org/10 ment in projects.” Constr. Manage. Econ. 26 (6): 563–577. https://doi
.1108/TQM-09-2014-0070. .org/10.1080/01446190801998708.
Sutterfield, J. S., S. S. Friday-Stroud, and S. L. Shivers-Blackwell. 2006. Xia, N., P. X. Zou, M. A. Griffin, X. Wang, and R. Zhong. 2018. “Towards
“A case study of project and stakeholder management failures: integrating construction risk management and stakeholder manage-
Lessons learned.” Project Manage. J. 37 (5): 26–35. https://doi.org/10 ment: A systematic literature review and future research agendas.”
.1177/875697280603700504. Int. J. Project Manage. 36 (5): 701–715. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
Thite, M. 2011. “Smart Cities: Implications of urban planning for human .ijproman.2018.03.006.
resource development.” Hum. Resour. Dev. Int. 14 (5): 623–631. Yigitcanlar, T., and M. Kamruzzaman. 2018. “Does Smart City policy lead
https://doi.org/10.1080/13678868.2011.618349. to sustainability of cities?” Land Use Policy 73: 49–58. https://doi.org
United Nations. 2019. Accessed June 18, 2020. “World Population /10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.01.034.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Nimesha Sahani Jayasena on 08/06/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Prospects 2019.” https://population.un.org/wpp/Publications/Files Yin, R. 2011. Case study research: Design and methods. 5th ed. Thousand
/WPP2019_Highlights.pdf. Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
van Winden, W., and D. van den Buuse. 2017. “Smart City pilot projects: Zygiaris, S. 2013. “Smart City reference model: Assisting planners to con-
Exploring the dimensions and conditions of scaling up.” J. Urban ceptualize the building of smart city innovation ecosystems.” J. Knowl.
Technol. 24 (4): 51–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2017.1348884. Econ. 4 (2): 217–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-012-0089-4.

© ASCE 05021045-12 J. Urban Plann. Dev.

View publication stats J. Urban Plann. Dev., 2021, 147(4): 05021045