Join our network
Subscribe
By Dr Mennatullah Hendawy, Researcher, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt, Impact Circles e.V.
Center for Advanced Internet Studies Ggmbh, Technical University of Munich, and Zainab Al Mansour, Impact Circles e.V.
The emergence of smart cities in the Arab region began in 2008 with Abu Dhabi's launch of Masdar City, highlighting technologies, knowledge, and innovation (Atkins, 2021). Following this trend, Saudi Arabia has planned multiple projects such as smart parking in downtown Buraidah, King Abdullah Economic City, King Abdullah Financial District, and the NEOM project (MoMRAH, 2022). Egypt is also developing New Cairo and the new administrative capital as smart cities (Mourad & Lewis, 2021), while Dubai has implemented initiatives like the AI Lab, Dubai Blockchain Strategy, and Dubai Paperless Strategy (Digital Dubai, 2022). Simultaneously, various smart city indices, such as the Smart Cities Index Report, the IMD-SUTD Smart City Index, the City of the Future Index, and the Smart Eco City Index, have been developed over time (Hendawy et al., 2023). These indices help identify areas for improvement and motivate policymakers to enhance infrastructure, technology, and sustainability, improving a city's attractiveness to foreign investors and leading to economic growth (Lai and Cole, 2023). Scholars like Bibri (2019) assert that evaluating a city's smart initiatives through these indices can impact political decisions, organizational plans, and individual choices about where to live and work (Liu et al., 2018).
While smart cities had been growing across the globe, in many cases, they are developed as scattered small projects instead of through a strategic approach (Vilajosana et al., 2013) however, there needs to be holistic and integrated approaches to manage smart cities, their facilities, and challenges, (See Hendawy and Kormann da Silva, 2023; Hendawy et. al, in press) Hence, this article aims to shed light on how five Arab cities' infrastructure and services are linked to their technological progress. The objective of this article is to investigate how a city's infrastructure and services are linked to its technological progress.
This article aims to understand and establish a link between the infrastructure and technological progress of Arab smart cities. To achieve this, it investigates the performance of five Arab cities (Abu Dhabi, Cairo, Dubai, Rabat, and Riyadh) in the IMD-SUTD Smart City Index over the past four years (2019, 2020, 2021, and 2023), focusing on both the structure pillar (infrastructure) and the technology pillar. The IMD-SUTD Smart City Index was selected due to its relevance to this article’s purpose. As it emphasizes balancing the technological and human aspects of smart cities (see Albino et al., 2015; Etemadi and Fereidunian, 2022).
Moreover, the annual publication of this ranking since 2019 allows for comparisons over time, which aligns with the purpose of this article. Figure 1 shows the IMD-SUTD Smart City Index rankings for 14 Arab cities over four years (2019, 2020, 2021, and 2023), indicating changes in their smart city status, with 1 being the best rank and over 100 being the lowest.
Figure 1 - The IMD-SUTD Smart City Index Ranking over four years for all the 14 Arab World Cities included in the ranking throughout the years (based on reports for 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2023). [* 0 represents the years that the cities did not appear in the ranking that year (based on the Smart City Index reports for 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2023)].
The IMD-SUTD Smart City report uses data analysis, stakeholder engagement, and best practices from other cities (IMD Business School, 2017). It gathers insights from community members, business leaders, and government officials, and reviews smart city strategies from other regions. The IMD-SUTD Smart City Index evaluates survey responses on residents' perceptions of city structures and technology (IMD-SUTD Smart City Index, 2023, p. 34). It assesses five pillars: (1) structure, (2) technology, (3) priority areas of urgent need, (4) attitudes toward privacy and local authorities, and (5) the Human Development Index.This article focues on the structure and technology pillars. The Structure pillar investigates a city's existing infrastructure, while the Technology pillar examines technologies and services accessible to residents. Both pillars are divided into five key areas: health and safety, mobility, activities, opportunities, and governance. These areas encompass a total of 39 indicators, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1 - The five dimensions investigated in the Structure and Technology pillars and priorities at the IMD-SUTD Smart City Index, and their indicators. Source: Author, based on IMD-SUTD Smart City Index reports for 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2023.
This article conducts a document analysis of the IMD-SUTD Smart City reports from the past four years (2019, 2020, 2021, and 2023) by extracting data related to the five investigated smart Arab cities and organizing it into tables. The data is then analyzed and visualized to draw insights and link the technological progress of Arab smart cities with their infrastructure development.
In this article, the IMD-SUTD Smart City Index reports for the past four years (2019, 2020, 2021, and 2023) for five Arab cities—Abu Dhabi, Cairo, Dubai, Rabat, and Riyadh—have been examined to draw conclusions between the structure and technology pillars. Rabat (99, 101, 109, 126) consistently competed head-to-head with Cairo (96, 100, 105, 108), while Riyadh showed improvement (55, 44, 39, 30). Abu Dhabi (16, 14, 12, 13) and Dubai (13, 19, 14, 17) fluctuated over the years. Other Arab cities like Amman, Algiers, Jeddah, Tunis, Sana’a, Doha, Mecca, and Beirut appeared only in 2023, while Medina started appearing in 2021. In 2023, Sana’a ranked lowest among the Arab cities (140), followed by Beirut (139), making it difficult to assess their progress over the years since they did not appear in previous rankings.
The line graphs in Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the performance of the five investigated Arab smart cities for both Structure and Technology pillars over four years. This study found that Dubai excelled in both pillars for most of the studied years, followed by Abu Dhabi. It is also evident that in 2023, cities performed best in most of the indicators for both pillars, while Rabat and Cairo performed poorly in 2019. Generally, the “Mobility” indicator was poorly performed by all the cities on a structural level, except for Dubai. Conversely, the “Health and Safety” indicator performed best across the years on both pillars, followed by the “Activities” indicator. Overall, the investigated cities did better on the Technology pillar compared to the Structure pillar across all years. Figure 4 compares the indicators of each pillar grouped together, and Figure 5 illustrates the sub-indicators in each pillar.
Figure 2: The Structure pillar and Technology pillar over the years for the five investigated cities (based on IMD Smart City Index reports for 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2023).
Figure 2: The sub-indicators of the Structure pillar and Technology pillar over the years for the five investigated cities (based on IMD-SUTD Smart City Index reports for 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2023).
According to the "Health and Safety" indicator, the five cities generally performed well on the structural pillar and even better on the technological pillar. Structurally, Abu Dhabi, Cairo, and Riyadh showed progress over four years, while Dubai and Rabat fluctuated. Technologically, Abu Dhabi, Dubai, and Rabat also fluctuated, while Cairo and Riyadh progressed. For the "Mobility" indicator, Abu Dhabi and Dubai performed well structurally but dropped by 2020, while Cairo increased. Abu Dhabi recovered quickly, while Dubai improved in 2020 but decreased the following year. Technologically, all cities performed better than structurally. The "Activities" indicator on the structural pillar was impacted in 2021 by an external force, affecting Abu Dhabi, Cairo, Dubai, and Rabat, causing fractional score changes. Riyadh was unaffected and continued progressing positively.
The five investigated cities performed well and progressed over the four-year span for the Technology pillar. Abu Dhabi, Cairo, Rabat, and Riyadh showed improvement, while Dubai's scores fluctuated. For the "Opportunities" indicator on the Structural pillar, all cities showed fractional progress over the four years. Cairo, Dubai, and Rabat made slight improvements, while Abu Dhabi and Riyadh also showed progress. In the Technology pillar, some cities scored better than in the Structural pillar, such as Dubai and Rabat, while Abu Dhabi, Cairo, and Riyadh showed steady progress. The "Governance" indicator for the Structural pillar was the least well-performed but still showed progress. Abu Dhabi, Cairo, Dubai, and Riyadh improved, while Rabat fluctuated. In contrast, the Technology pillar's performance was better, with all cities progressing positively. Abu Dhabi, Cairo, Rabat, Riyadh, and Dubai showed improvement.
The analysis reveals that technology and infrastructure/structure are interdependent and progress together. Cities that invest in both areas see mutual benefits, as improvements in one pillar often drive advancements in the other. For example, technological advancements can enhance infrastructure efficiency, while robust infrastructure supports the deployment of new technologies. This interrelation underscores the importance of a balanced approach to smart city development, ensuring that investments in technology are complemented by corresponding improvements in infrastructure.
It is worth noting that the analysis suggests a relationship between the progress of smart cities and citizen participation. Under the “Governance” indicator, the Structure pillar includes two sub-indicators: 1) Residents contribute to decision-making of local government, and 2) Residents provide feedback on local government projects. Similarly, the Technological pillar includes two sub-indicators: 1) Online voting has increased citizen participation, and 2) An online platform where residents can propose ideas has improved city life. Arab smart cities that leverage technology for citizen participation have made better progress in the rankings. For example, Riyadh improved from 55 in 2019 to 30 in 2023, coinciding with the introduction of people-centered digital transformations like Absher, Balady platform, Tawakalna, and Manasik starting in 2020 (MoMRAH, 2022). Similarly, Abu Dhabi moved from 16 in 2019 to 13 in 2023, with extensive efforts in community-serving smart projects such as wastewater and waste management (Tadweer), National Air Quality Platform, Zayed Smart City Project, and Hafilat Smart Card for people of determination (The United Arab Emirates' Government portal, 2023).
However, this pattern is not consistent for Dubai. Although it showed progress over the years, its ranking fluctuated from 13 in 2019 to 17 in 2023. Despite this, Dubai has implemented many smart projects and initiatives centered around people in various fields, including the Food Security Dashboard, UAE Pass (The National Digital Identity & Signature Solutions), smart parks and beaches, generating electricity from the landfill in Al Qusais and Jebel Ali, and police smartphone apps (The United Arab Emirates' Government portal, 2023; Digital Dubai, 2023).
Hence, there can be a link between people-centered digital transformation and higher rankings in smart city indexes. However, further research is required to investigate the extent to which increasing citizen participation via smart city applications affects overall rankings. Regarding the purpose of this article—aiming to understand the link between structure and technology in smart cities—we suggest that both pillars can be linked through citizen participation.
When linking the Technology and Structure pillars, it appears that as infrastructure slowly increases, technology also increases (though not at the same rate). Across the five investigated cities over the four-year span, all performed better in technology. This could be because infrastructure requires more capital expenditure and time to implement and see results. Additionally, cities seemed affected by an external force in 2020, particularly those developing into smart cities (Riyadh is the fastest developing compared to Cairo and Rabat, with Dubai and Abu Dhabi as leaders). The bar chart in Figure 6 illustrates the average total performance of the overall indicators on both pillars (structural and technological) over a four-year span for five Arab cities (Abu Dhabi, Cairo, Dubai, Rabat, and Riyadh).
Figure 4: The total average of the Structure pillar compared to the total average of the Technology pillar over the years for the five investigated smart Arab cities (based on IMD-SUTD Smart City Index reports for 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2023).
Overall, both the technology and structure (infrastructure) pillars have shown themselves to be connected and important to one another. An increase in technology often leads to improvements in infrastructure, and vice versa. This interrelationship is further discussed in the next section.
This article aims to provide an integrated perspective on smart city rankings, demonstrating that technological and structural pillars are interdependent. Cities must invest in both infrastructure and technology to build smart, people-centered urban environments. Each pillar supports the progress of the other, highlighting the need for holistic and integrated smart city visions that respect and address citizens' needs (Hendawy and Kormann da Silva, 2023).
In conclusion, a more comprehensive approach is needed to evaluate smart cities, considering how different pillars relate to each other. Beyond traditional indicators, ethical considerations should be included in smart city evaluations (Hendawy et al., in press). Rankings should be used cautiously alongside other indicators of social and environmental sustainability, equity, and justice. This article emphasizes the importance of considering the interplay between technology and infrastructure and calls for assessing smart cities through intersectional lenses such as digital and climate justice to achieve more authoritative results.
The analysis reveals that it is imperative for smart Arab cities to invest not only in technological advancements but also in infrastructure, as both indicators are crucial for building a smart city centered around people. Citizen participation plays a significant role in advancing both pillars and, consequently, the cities' rankings. In other words, each pillar contributes to the progress of the other.
Thus, this index was selected to understand the progress of smart Arab cities in terms of their technological advancements and infrastructure.
