Libor Pacovský – Jan Evangelista Purkyně University in Ústí nad Labem, Pasteurova 1, 400 96 Ústí nad Labem, Czech
Republic
Jan Jolič – Jan Evangelista Purkyně University in Ústí nad Labem, Pasteurova 1, 400 96 Ústí nad Labem, Czech
Republic
DOI: https://doi.org/10.31410/EMAN.2021.129
5th International Scientific Conference – EMAN 2021 – Economics and Management: How to Cope With Disrupted Times, Online/Virtual, March 18, 2021, CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS published by: Association of Economists and Managers of the Balkans, Belgrade, Serbia; ISBN 978-86-80194-43-1, ISSN 2683-4510
Abstract:
Transparency and openness should be the basic principle of modern public administration.
Many cities want to become smart cities, so they develop smart city strategies and realise specific smart
city projects. However, only a few of the Czech cities are actually successful in this area. This paper
studies the problems of the open data approaches in cities’ practice. The public administration collects
and stores data representing a smart city’s critical element and one of the smart governance’s essential
tools toward modern public administration.
The study aims to analyse the situation of open data and smart city measures in the Czech Republic and
demonstrate the obvious separation of smart city implementation, data utilisation and smart governance
in cities’ practice.
The Czech Republic is one of the CEE countries that could benefit from more comprehensive smart
cities measurement applications because some of its regions lag in digitalisation development. The
opening of the data and the utilisation of them could be the first step for the cities or regions to implement
advanced methods and technologies to become smart city. The only cities with successfully implemented
smart city measures are the ones that are also relatively successful in open data publishing.
Keywords:
Public administration, Smart governance, Digitalisation, Open data.
REFERENCES
Augustyn, A. (2013). Smart Cities–Brand Cities of the Future. The Business of Place: Critical,
Practical and Pragmatic Perspectives.
Bătăgan, L. P., Constantin, D.-L., & Moga, L. M. (2017). Facts and prospects of open government
data use. A case study in Romania. In Citizen Empowerment and Innovation in the
Data-Rich City (pp. 195-208): Springer.
Bolívar, M. P. R., & Meijer, A. J. (2016). Smart governance: Using a literature review and empirical
analysis to build a research model. Social Science Computer Review, 34(6), 673-692.
Briciu, A., Briciu, V.-A., & Kavoura, A. (2020). Evaluating How ‘Smart’ Brașov, Romania Can
Be Virtually via a Mobile Application for Cultural Tourism. Sustainability, 12(13), 5324.
Chakraborty, A., Wilson, B., Sarraf, S., & Jana, A. (2015). Open data for informal settlements:
Toward a user ׳ s guide for urban managers and planners. Journal of Urban Management,
4(2), 74-91.
Chourabi, H., Nam, T., Walker, S., Gil-Garcia, J. R., Mellouli, S., Nahon, K., . . . Scholl, H. J.
(2012). Understanding smart cities: An integrative framework. Paper presented at the 2012
45th Hawaii international conference on system sciences.
City of Pilsen. (n. d.). Koncept Smart City Plzeň. Retrieved from https://smartcity.plzen.eu/
koncept-smart-city-plzen/
Conradie, P., & Choenni, S. (2014). On the barriers for local government releasing open data.
Government Information Quarterly, 31, S10-S17.
Giffinger, R., Fertner, C., Kramar, H., & Meijers, E. (2007). City-ranking of European medium-
sized cities. Cent. Reg. Sci. Vienna UT, 1-12.
Gil-Garcia, J. R., Pardo, T. A., & Nam, T. (2015). What makes a city smart? Identifying core
components and proposing an integrative and comprehensive conceptualization. Information
Polity, 20(1), 61-87.
IMD World Competitiveness Center. (2019). IMD Smart City Index 2019. In.
Janssen, K. (2011). The influence of the PSI directive on open government data: An overview of
recent developments. Government Information Quarterly, 28(4), 446-456.
Janssen, M., Charalabidis, Y., & Zuiderwijk, A. (2012). Benefits, adoption barriers and myths of
open data and open government. Information systems management, 29(4), 258-268.
Jurlina Alibegović, D., Villa, K.-D., & Šagovac, M. (2018). Smart city indicators: can they improve
governance in Croatian large cities? Radni materijali EIZ-a(5), 5-48.
Kumar, H., Singh, M. K., & Gupta, M. P. (2016). Smart governance for smart cities: a conceptual
framework from social media practices. Paper presented at the Conference on e-Business,
e-Services and e-Society.
Lombardi, P., Giordano, S., Farouh, H., & Yousef, W. (2012). Modelling the smart city performance.
Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 25(2), 137-149.
Losavio, M. M., Chow, K., Koltay, A., & James, J. (2018). The Internet of Things and the Smart
City: Legal challenges with digital forensics, privacy, and security. Security and Privacy,
1(3), e23.
Ministry of Regional Development. (2018). Smart Cities Methodology. Retrieved from https://
mmr.cz/getmedia/18a97abe-c17c-4b05-9910-f3eb41660481/Methodology-Smart-Cities_
en_FINAL.pdf.aspx?ext=.pdf
Ministry of the Interior of the Czech Republic. (2021). Datasets. Retrieved from https://data.gov.
cz/datasets
Nam, T. (2012). Modeling municipal service integration: A comparative case study of New York
and Philadelphia 311 systems: State University of New York at Albany.
Open Knowledge Foundation. (2017). Global Open Data Index. Retrieved from https://index.
okfn.org/
Pašalić, I. N., Ćukušić, M., & Jadrić, M. (2020). Smart city research advances in Southeast Europe.
International Journal of Information Management, 102127.
Ruijer, E., Grimmelikhuijsen, S., van den Berg, J., & Meijer, A. (2018). Open data work: understanding
open data usage from a practice lens. International Review of Administrative
Sciences, 0020852317753068.
Tolbert, C. J., & Mossberger, K. (2006). The effects of e‐government on trust and confidence in
government. Public administration review, 66(3), 354-369.
