Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Charles Wood
 -- 594 2023-01-25 21:57:47 |
2 Final revision - 2/3/23
Charles Wood
 + 1830 word(s) 4839 2023-02-03 15:35:42 | |
3 Revised Feb 13, 2023
Charles Wood
 -23 word(s) 4816 2023-02-13 22:27:56 | |
4 format correct
Catherine Yang
 -2079 word(s) 2737 2023-02-14 02:13:32 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Lynn, T.;  Wood, C. Smart Streets as a Cyber-Physical Social Platform. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/40499 (accessed on 24 April 2024).
Lynn T,  Wood C. Smart Streets as a Cyber-Physical Social Platform. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/40499. Accessed April 24, 2024.
Lynn, Theo, Charles Wood. "Smart Streets as a Cyber-Physical Social Platform" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/40499 (accessed April 24, 2024).
Lynn, T., & Wood, C. (2023, January 25). Smart Streets as a Cyber-Physical Social Platform. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/40499
Lynn, Theo and Charles Wood. "Smart Streets as a Cyber-Physical Social Platform." Encyclopedia. Web. 25 January, 2023.
Smart Streets as a Cyber-Physical Social Platform
Edit

Smart streets are part of a cyber-physical social infrastructure in the public realm, including data obtained from sensors, the interconnection between different services, technologies and social actors, intelligence derived from analysis of the data, and optimisation of operations within a street. Cyber-physical systems (CPS) integrate computation with physical objects and processes, a literal co-mingling of the physical world and the cyber world (including computation, communication, and control systems). A cyber-physical social platform represents a recent expansion of CPS that bridges the gap between human intelligence and machine intelligence by including a social domain characterised by human participation and interactions.

streets smart streets sensors cyber-physical systems cyber-physical social systems smart cities platformization

1. Introduction

By 2050, over 68% of the world’s population will live in urban areas [1]. As well as economic benefits, increased urbanisation presents significant challenges to governments and municipal authorities. Cities consume over two-thirds of the world’s energy and are responsible for over 60% of greenhouse gas emissions [1]. Furthermore, increased urbanisation can lead to significant urban health issues related to road traffic injuries, air and noise pollution, and barriers to safe physical activity, amongst others [1]. Against this backdrop, many urban areas are struggling with the strain urbanisation is putting on a decaying infrastructure [2]. In response, the concept of the smart city has emerged and gained traction over the last three decades; while there is an ongoing debate on the definition of a smart city, it certainly involves the diffusion of information and communication technology (ICT) to improve how different urban subsystems operate to meet the needs of people and communities [3][4]. The challenge with smart cities is one of scale. Working at city scale requires an often unprecedented investment of public funds, coordination, and a suitably long-term horizon which presents significant governance, economic, and technology challenges, amongst others [5][6]. Furthermore, the focus on cities also neglects the needs of those who live in small and rural communities [7]. Unsurprisingly, streets have been proposed as a more generalisable, atomised, and therefore more manageable unit of development for improving urban subsystems and meeting the needs of both urban and rural communities [8][9]. Streets typically represent the largest portion of the public realm in towns and cities. As well as a thoroughfare for traveling from one point to another, streets play an important role in public health and safety, quality of life, environmental sustainability, social equity, and the economy [10][11][12]. Streets also play a less visible role; they incorporate much of the critical urban infrastructure to support towns and cities including, for example, telecommunication, water, energy, and waste [13]. More importantly, in the context of this paper, streets allow the live testing, experimentation, and evaluation of smart city technologies in a small-scale yet realistic setting. The digitalisation of streets is an under-researched area and smart streets are at an early stage of maturity. This article reflects the extant literature and the research challenges for smart city and CPSS projects, as well as our direct experience working on several digital town projects. This reflection suggests a dearth of conceptual tools to inform the envisioning of smart streets and related research projects, a prevalence of site-specific and use case-dependent conceptualisations and implementations that hinder wider generalisation, a lack of general design principles for integrating the social aspect into intelligent public infrastructure, as well as a failure to consider CPSS from a multidisciplinary perspective. The aim of this article is to raise awareness, stimulate discussion, and propose some initial avenues of research on smart streets. 

2. History

As discussed above, streets are not merely thoroughfares that connect one point with another. The public perform a wide range of activities in streets that can be categorised as (i) mandatory (e.g., going to work or school and shopping), (ii) selective (wandering or sitting and watching street life), and (iii) social activities (having conversations) while human behaviour in streets can be classified as (i) moving, (ii) visual perception, and (iii) resting behaviours, which can occur discreetly, successively, or concurrently [14]. As such, it is a public realm that is actively and passively consumed depending on how it is structured as a public space. These structures highly influence the norms for how such a space is moved through and consumed by individuals or groups [15]. Streets are multidimensional spaces from one property line to another and comprise a number of tangible and intangible elements that need to be taken into account. Furthermore, they can be apportioned into three common zone types: the building edge, sidewalks, and roadbeds [11]. These zones may include distinct sub-zones and different design features and serve different functions. For example, sidewalks may include frontage (building edge), clear paths, street furniture, and buffers [11]. Sidewalks serve a transportation function in that they are both spaces of access, enabling people to move from one place to another facilitating access between properties and to people. They also serve a function for stationery activities, e.g., retail and infrastructure [16][17]. In addition to this, they play a critical bordering role providing citizens and pedestrians safety from vehicles and other risks [18]. Similarly, roadbeds may include transit facilities, ancillary lanes for cyclists or delivery vehicles, parking for motor vehicles and cyclists, and planting, amongst others [11]. Within these elements service street furniture and infrastructure are provided both on the surface and substrate. It is important to note that poorly planned streets can inhibit use and streets can be the site of conflict, anti-social behaviour, and undesirable activities [19]. Lynn et al. [9] define a smart street as... a basic unit of urban space that leverages cyber-physical infrastructure to provide enhanced services to stakeholders, and through stakeholder use of the street, generates data to optimize its services, capabilities, and value to stakeholders. Lynn et al. [9] proceed to define eight examples of smart street technology categories; namely, (i) connectivity, (ii) smart street information systems, (iii) traffic and transit management, (iv) accessibility, safety, and security, (v) smart street furniture, (vi) climate protection, environmental monitoring, and weather mitigation, (vii) environmental sustainability, and (viii) other technologies that encourage street activity [11]. It is important to note that these technology categories are not mutually exclusive and may complement or even depend on each other. While it is inferred from this definition and the associated technology categories that the street create value through stakeholder engagement, the definition is ambiguous with respect to two inter-related issues: (i) social interaction and (ii) the degree to which the street is an open or closed loop system. Firstly, given the range of human behaviours and activities on a street, the social interaction between different human actors, between human actors and technical artifacts, and between computers as social actors needs to be more explicit. Secondly, Cassandras [20][21] has stated that to (i) avoid unintended consequences (and presumably malfeasance), (ii) provide intelligent support for decision making, and (iii) integrate humans in the loop while recognising human actors may have different, potentially conflicting, motivations requires governance and therefore a closed loop. Accordingly, Cassandras [21] says that municipal governments view smart city systems as cyber-physical social systems (CPSS) when developing and implementing the policies necessary to provide incentives and deliver the value of CPSS to smart cities[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63].

3. Applications

Our conceptualisation of smart streets brings together concepts from two emergent literature bases; namely, cyber-physical social systems and platforms, into a general conceptual framework. In the last three decades, we have seen the emergence of the Internet of Things (IoT) and with it a renewed and increased interest in cyber-physical systems (CPS). Such systems integrate computation with physical objects and processes, a literal co-mingling of the physical world and the cyber world (including computation, communication, and control systems) [64]. CPS has been cited as the computation substrate that will connect future public critical infrastructure to intelligent systems and software [7]. More recently, the literature on CPS has expanded to integrate social systems, bridging the gap between human intelligence and machine intelligence by including a social domain characterised by human participation and interactions [65]. In such cyber-physical social systems (CPSS), humans, software, and physical objects (through sensors) are linked through a CPSS to meet a given actor’s social interaction demands and react to the physical world [65]. Central to the concept of CPSS is at least one physical component responsible for sensing and actuation, one cyber component for computations, and one social component for actuating social functions [66]. Place is an important and increasingly complex construct in the CPSS literature, including physical spaces, virtual spaces, social networks [65][67], and the overlay of these spaces through technologies such as augmented and extended reality. Given the role of purpose and place in CPSS, context awareness is a critical component of CPSS [65]. Commonly cited CPSS use cases are unsurprisingly related to places, including smart homes, but also to larger urban spaces, e.g., smart cities [21][65][68][69]. Indeed the latter has attracted the attention of leading technology companies worldwide, most notably and somewhat controversially, Google’s Sidewalk Toronto project [51]. Platforms and the related term, platformisation, are widely referenced in both the scholarly literature and the media, while once platforms were largely defined from a production or computational perspective, they increasingly have wider political, figurative, and architectural connotations [70]. Meyer and Lehnard [71] define product platforms as ...a set of subsystems and interfaces that form a common structure from which a stream of derivative products can be efficiently developed and produced. In this conceptualisation, a product architecture is the combination of subsystems and interfaces [71]. What distinguishes a platform architecture from a product architecture is its capacity to enable the creation of derivative products [71], while Meyer and Lehnard note that services, both in the real world and online, are not inconsistent with this conceptualisation of the platform or platform architectures [71], their conceptualisation represents a finished product or completed service. More recently, we have seen the emergence and adoption of Web 2.0 and the so-called Third IT Platform, while the former emphasised the role of users through co-creation, participation, ease of use, and interoperability [71][72], the latter heralded a cyber-physical future that emphasised interdependencies between mobile computing, social media, cloud computing, information/analytics, and the IoT [73]. Here, as Ramaswamy and Oczan [74] note, digitalised platforms differ in that: ...the offering is no longer “finished” in the traditional sense, and the creation of value continues in a joint space of interactional value creation, between engaging actors (often consumers and their social networks) interacting with organizing actors (often the firm and its associated organisational ecosystem). The traditional notion of offerings as goods and services to be optimized in terms of a fixed set of features and attributes is inadequate in connecting with the new opportunities for creating value in an age of digitalized interactions. This wider conceptualisation of a platform is one in which a multitude of actors can interact with digital systems and one another to create value. In this way, the platform is a multi-sided network in which goods, services, and increasingly data are exchanged between the actors to create value [75]. In addition to providing an enabling infrastructure and system core, the platform plays a vital role mediating between different groups of actors [75]. While platforms can be merely conceived as product platforms in line with Meyer and Lehnard [71] in that they provide an extensible codebase to which third party modules can be added, the socio-technical view of digitalised platforms conceives the platform as comprising technical elements (software and hardware) and associated organisational processes and standards. The agency of the user is a critical difference between non-digital and digital platforms. As de Reuver et al. [75] note, non-digital platforms assume a stable core and a variable periphery governed by an overall design hierarchy typically determined by the platform owner or sponsor, but digital platforms are not necessarily constrained by such design hierarchies. The separation of concerns combined with the ability to reprogram, re-edit, and re-use data and code, particularly in the context of open source software and open data, enables platforms to evolve and new applications to emerge in ways often unplanned and unexpected. Indeed, the generative dynamics of digital platforms, particularly when coupled with openness, are seen not only as a key enabler of the platform evolution but as a critical success factor in adoption. Poniatowski et al. [75], building on de Reuver et al. and Van Alstyne et al., conceptualise digitalised platforms as comprising three layers—platform infrastructure, platform core, and platform periphery. Infrastructure implies an underlying socio-technical system characterised by ubiquity, reliability, invisibility, gateways, and breakdown. Similar to other infrastructures, for example electricity grids, it is defined by control. Similarly, platform infrastructure is the foundation of any platform, is largely hidden from third parties, and is controlled by the platform sponsor [75]. The platform core sits on the platform infrastructure and is controlled by the platform core owner, who may or may not be the platform owner [75]. Third parties participate and contribute to the platform through the platform periphery, again controlled by the platform owner [75]. This model can be illustrated by reference to Amazon. Amazon both are the platform sponsor for Amazon Web Services and the platform core that comprises Amazon.com, which includes Amazon’s own retail business but also a periphery comprising other retailers and service providers. It is important that a platform may have multiple platform cores. Again, in the context of Amazon, Amazon Web Services leverages Amazon platform infrastructure to support its cloud business which comprises platform-as-a-service, software-as-a-service, etc. This infrastructure is both used by Amazon and by a wide range of third parties.

4. Current Status

Unlike purely digitised platforms, the term ‘cyber-physical social platform’ implies a platform infrastructure comprising physical and cyber platform elements upon which a platform core resides, that can enact physical, computational, and social processes by itself or through the interaction of other entities through the platform periphery. This conceptual framework is general in that it is capable of being used to understand and explore smart street-related research questions or problems in conjunction with widely accepted levels of generalisation (abstraction) in different academic disciplines, including both the social sciences and computer sciences. Addressing the issues with earlier definitions of smart streets [9], we adopt an updated definition of smart streets that accommodates social networks between humans, computers, and humans and computers, and reflects the literature on CPSS. However, while a closed loop is desirable from the perspective of municipal authorities who have a legal responsibility for the public realm that is the street, it leaves the issue of whether the system per se is open or closed, undetermined in order to support a general level of abstraction for theoretical and practical exploration. Accordingly, we define smart streets as a basic unit of urban space that leverages cyber-physical social infrastructure to provide and enable enhanced services to and between stakeholders, and through stakeholder use of the street, generates data to optimise its services, capabilities, and value to stakeholders. The conceptual framework provides a sufficiently general abstraction of smart streets to facilitate sense making without getting into a non-generalisable level of granularity or worrying about specific definitions of smart streets or indeed cyber-physical social platforms. In this framework, five core entities are identified and defined: Social Actors, Artifacts, Networks, Places, and Infrastructure. 

The diffusion of ICT to improve the subsystems in the lived environment and meet the needs of people and communities is only going to increase in importance and proliferation. Research on so-called smart city technologies and cyber-physical social systems is hindered by reductionist approaches and access to real-world city-scale testbeds. In this article, we focus on the street as a more feasible starting point and building block for smart city research. We make three primary contributions. Firstly, following a review of the smart street and CPSS literature, we extend the definition of smart streets to accommodate social networks between humans, computers, and humans and computers, as well as representing the literature on cyber-physical social systems. Secondly, we propose a novel general framework for conceptualising a smart street as a cyber-physical social platform that integrates concepts from smart streets, digital platforms, and the cyber-physical social system literature. Thirdly, we elicit and discuss six avenues for future research on smart streets as cyber-physical social platforms that addresses gaps and failings in existing computer science, social science, and IS research. The underlying motivation for this article has been to raise awareness, stimulate discussion, and propose some initial avenues of research. In this respect, the concept of smart streets as cyber-physical social platforms opens up exciting new avenues for research, not only for computer scientists, but those from urban engineering, cognitive sciences, and social sciences to collaborate in an inter- and multi-disciplinary way to explore and populate with clarity and depth.

References

  1. World Health Organization. Urban Health, World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021.
  2. KPMG International. Cities Infrastructure: A Report on Sustainability, KPMG International: Zurich, Switzerland, 2012.
  3. Albino, V.; Berardi, U.; Dangelico, R.M. Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives. J. Urban Technol. 2015, 22, 3–21.
  4. Batty, M.; Axhausen, K.W.; Giannotti, F.; Pozdnoukhov, A.; Bazzani, A.; Wachowicz, M.; Ouzounis, G.; Portugali, Y. Smart cities of the future. Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 2012, 214, 481–518.
  5. Rana, N.P.; Luthra, S.; Mangla, S.K.; Islam, R.; Roderick, S.; Dwivedi, Y.K. Barriers to the development of smart cities in Indian context. Inf. Syst. Front. 2019, 21, 503–525.
  6. Del-Real, C.; Ward, C.; Sartipi, M. What do people want in a smart city? Exploring the stakeholders’ opinions, priorities and perceived barriers in a medium-sized city in the United States. Int. J. Urban Sci. 2021, 27:sup1, 50-74.
  7. Mynatt, E.; Clark, J.; Hager, G.; Lopresti, D.; Morrisett, G.; Nahrstedt, K.; Pappas, G.; Patel, S.; Rexford, J.; Wright, H.; et al. A national research agenda for intelligent infrastructure. arXiv 2017, arXiv:1705.01920.
  8. Pˇribyl, P.; Pˇribyl, O. Definition of a smart street as smart city’s building element. In Proceedings of the 2015 Smart Cities Symposium Prague (SCSP), IEEE, Prague, Czech Republic, 26–27 May, 2015; pp. 1–6.
  9. Lynn, T.; Rosati, P.; Fox, G. Smart streets: Definition, principles, and infrastructural elements. In Proceedings of the ICDS 2020: The Fourteenth International Conference on Digital Society, Valencia, Spain, 22–26 March, 2020; pp. 1–10.
  10. Gehl, J.; Westermark, E.; Rison, J.; Mortensen, H.; Adams, R.; Rorbech, J. World Class Streets: Remaking New York City’s Public Realm, New York City Department of Transportation: New York, NY, USA, 2008.
  11. Global Designing Cities Initiative. Global Street Design Guide, Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.
  12. Lahart, J.; Kelly, P.; Kiernan, A.; McGrath, S.; Taylor, D.; Taylor, J. Design Manual for Urban Roads and Streets. Irish Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport and Irish Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government: Dublin, Ireland, 2019.
  13. Chaberek, G. Designing Streets for Smart Cities. In Geospatial Technology and Smart Cities; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021;pp. 59–74.
  14. Jung, S.; Lee, J.K.J.; Ha, J. A Study on Analysis of User Behavior in Urban Central Street: On the Dongsung Street in Daegu. J.Reg. Assoc. Archit. Inst. Korea 2009, 25(11): 299-306.
  15. Dellenbaugh, M. Normative Properties of Street Furniture. Available online: https://www.sharedcities.eu/material/physical-socialnormative-properties-street-furniture-mary-dellenbaugh/index.html (accessed on 26 January 2023)
  16. Lee, J.H.; Lee, W.J. A Study on the Impact of Ubiquitous Street Furniture on Human Behavior-Based on Media Poles Installed on Seoul’s Gangnam Boulevard. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng. 2013, 12, 181–188.
  17. Ehrenfeucht, R.; Loukaitou-Sideris, A. Planning urban sidewalks: Infrastructure, daily life and destinations. J. Urban Des. 2010,15, 459–471.
  18. Jacobs, J. The uses of sidewalks: safety. In Urban Design Reader; Routledge: Abingdon-on-Thames, England, 2007; pp. 147–152.
  19. Loukaitou-Sideris, A.; Ehrenfeucht, R. Sidewalks: Conflict and Negotiation over Public Space; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2011.
  20. Song, D. A Study on the Planning Direction of Street Furniture in Urban-street Space–Focused on the Dae-Chung Road in Busan City. J. Reg. Assoc. Archit. Inst. Korea 2006, 8, 60.
  21. Cassandras, C.G. Smart cities as cyber-physical social systems. Engineering 2016, 2, 156–158.
  22. Alhilal, A.Y.; Finley, B.; Braud, T.; Su, D.; Hui, P. Street Smart in 5G: Vehicular Applications, Communication, and Computing. IEEE Access 2022, 10, 105631–105656.
  23. Farooq, M.S.; Nadir, R.M.; Rustam, F.; Hur, S.; Park, Y.; Ashraf, I. Nested Bee Hive: A Conceptual Multilayer Architecture for 6G in Futuristic Sustainable Smart Cities. Sensors 2022, 22, 5950.
  24. Lee, Y.L.; Qin, D.; Wang, L.C.; Sim, G.H. 6G massive radio access networks: Key applications, requirements and challenges. IEEE Open J. Veh. Technol. 2020, 2, 54–66.
  25. Weinstein, S.B.; Lou, Y.Y.; Hsing, T.R. Intelligent Network Edge with Distributed SDN for the Future 6G Network. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE International Conference on Microwaves, Antennas, Communications and Electronic Systems (COMCAS), IEEE, Tel Aviv, Israel, 6–8 November 2021; pp. 261–265.
  26. Toh, C.K.; Sanguesa, J.A.; Cano, J.C.; Martinez, F.J. Advances in smart roads for future smart cities. Proc. R. Soc. A 2020, 476, 20190439.
  27. Tapia, A.; Maitland, C.; Stone, M. Making IT work for municipalities: Building municipal wireless networks. Gov. Inf. Q. 2006, 23, 359–380.
  28. Haleem, A.; Allen, A.; Thompson, A.; Nijdam, M.; Garg, R. A decentralized wireless network, 2018, Available online:http://whitepaper.helium.com/ (accessed on 23 January 2023).
  29. D ˛abrowska-Zółtak, K.; Wojtowicz, J.; Wrona, S. Reconfigurable Neighborhood—Mechatronisation of the Urban Design. ˙ Sustainability 2021, 13, 13547.
  30. Colcough, G.; Nouwens, H. Humble Lamppost; 2022. Available online: https://smart-cities-marketplace.ec.europa.eu/actionclusters-and-initiatives/action-clusters/integrated-infrastructures-and-processes/humble (accessed on 23 January 2023). Sensors 2023, 23, 1399 20 of 22
  31. Gangneux, J.; Joss, S.; Humphry, J.; Hanchard, M.; Chesher, C.; Maalsen, S.; Merrington, P.; Wessels, B. Situated, yet silent: Data relations in smart street furniture. J. Urban Technol. 2022, 29:3, 19-39.
  32. European Commission. Smart Cities; 2020 Available online: https://commission.europa.eu/eu-regional-and-urbandevelopment/topics/cities-and-urban-development/city-initiatives/smart-cities (accessed on 23 January 2023).
  33. Ghaemi, A.A. A cyber-physical system approach to smart city development. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International Conference on Smart Grid and Smart Cities (ICSGSC), IEEE, Singapore, 23–26 July 2017; pp. 257–262.
  34. Perkovi´c, T.; Šoli´c, P.; Zargariasl, H.; Coko, D.; Rodrigues, J.J. Smart parking sensors: state of the art and performance evaluation. ˇ J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 262, 121181.
  35. Christensen, H.; Paz, D.; Zhang, H.; Meyer, D.; Xiang, H.; Han, Y.; Liu, Y.; Liang, A.; Zhong, Z.; Tang, S. Autonomous vehicles for micro-mobility. Auton. Intell. Syst. 2021, 1, 1–35.
  36. Sell, R.; Soe, R.M.; Wang, R.; Rassõlkin, A. Autonomous vehicle shuttle in Smart City testbed. In Proceedings of the International Forum on Advanced Microsystems for Automotive Applications; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 143–157.
  37. Dunn, M. Melbourne Introduce Pilot Trial for Technology Allowing Blind People to Navigate Public Spaces; 2017 Available online: https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/inventions/melbourne-introduce-pilot-trial-for-technology-allowingblind-people-to-navigate-public-spaces/news-story/6fb9810401eb34225f801e6e3f72a98c (accessed on 23 January 2023).
  38. Wiig, A. Secure the city, revitalize the zone: Smart urbanization in Camden, New Jersey. Environ. Plan. C Politics Space 2018, 36, 403–422.
  39. Shah, J.; Kothari, J.; Doshi, N. A survey of smart city infrastructure via case study on New York. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2019,160, 702–705.
  40. Mavrokapnidis, D.; Mohammadi, N.; Taylor, J. Community dynamics in smart city digital twins: A computer vision-based approach for monitoring and forecasting collective urban hazard exposure. In Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Maui, HI, USA,5-8 January 2021.
  41. Brisimi, T.S.; Cassandras, C.G.; Osgood, C.; Paschalidis, I.C.; Zhang, Y. Sensing and classifying roadway obstacles in smart cities: The street bump system. IEEE Access 2016, 4, 1301–1312.
  42. Sidla, O.; Loibner, G. A smart camera based traffic enforcement system: experiences from the field. In Proceedings of the Video Surveillance and Transportation Imaging Applications, SPIE, San Francisco, California, 19 March 2013, Volume 8663, pp. 105–116.
  43. Gehlot, A.; Alshamrani, S.S.; Singh, R.; Rashid, M.; Akram, S.V.; AlGhamdi, A.S.; Albogamy, F.R. Internet of things and long-range-based smart lampposts for illuminating smart cities. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6398.
  44. University of Chicago. Array of Things; 2020. Available online: http://arrayofthings.github.io/ (accessed on 23 January 2023).
  45. Gómez-Carmona, O.; Casado-Mansilla, D.; López-de Ipiña, D. Multifunctional interactive furniture for smart cities. In Proceedings of the Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute Proceedings, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 4–7 December 2018, Volume 2, p. 1212.
  46. Manholm, L.; Fridén, J.; Olsson, B.E. Deployment considerations for 60 GHz backhaul using smart street furniture. In Proceedings of the 2015 , IEEE, Lisbon, Portugal, 13–17 April 2015; pp. 1–3.
  47. Nassar, M.A.; Luxford, L.; Cole, P.; Oatley, G.; Koutsakis, P. The current and future role of smart street furniture in smart cities. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2019, 57, 68–73.
  48. Mirchandani, S.; Wadhwa, S.; Wadhwa, P.; Joseph, R. IoT enabled dustbins. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Big Data, IoT and Data Science (BID), IEEE, Pune, India, 20–22 December 2017; pp. 73–76.
  49. Milioti, C.; Pramatari, K.; Kelepouri, I. Modelling consumers’ acceptance for the click and collect service. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 56, 102149.
  50. Kirithika, S.; Kumar, L.M.; Kumar, M.K.; Keerthana, E.; Lohalavanya, R. Smart Public Toilets using IoE. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Conference on Emerging Trends in Information Technology and Engineering (IC-ETITE), IEEE, 24–25 February, Vellore, India, 2020; pp. 1–5.
  51. Sidewalk Labs. Sidewalk Toronto: Vision Sections of RFP Submission, Sidewalk Labs: New York, NY, USA. 2017.
  52. Loprencipe, G.; de Almeida Filho, F.G.V.; de Oliveira, R.H.; Bruno, S. Validation of a low-cost pavement monitoring inertial-based system for urban road networks. Sensors 2021, 21, 3127.
  53. Nia, E.M.; Zawawi, N.A.W.A.; Singh, B.S.M. A review of walking energy harvesting using piezoelectric materials. In Proceedings of the IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2017; Volume 291, p. 012026.
  54. Saifan, R.; Ali, L.A.; Shreikh, A.A.; Alnabelsi, S.H. Smart Walk: Case Studies on Hybrid Power Generation System of Piezoelectricity and Solar Power. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Electrical and Computing Technologies and Applications, IEEE, Swat, Pakistan, 24–25 July 2019; pp. 1–6.
  55. Frost, A. Smart City Project Aiming to Harvest Energy from Passing Traffic; 2019. Available online: https://www.traffictechnologytoday.com/news/electricvehicles-ev-infrastructure/smart-city-project-aiming-to-harvest-energy-from-passing-traffic.html (accessed on 23 January 2023).
  56. Qabur, A.; Alshammari, K. A systematic review of energy harvesting from roadways by using piezoelectric materials technology. Innov. Energy Res. 2018, 7, 1–6.
  57. Perry, M.; Beckett, S.; O’Hara, K.; Subramanian, S. WaveWindow: public, performative gestural interaction. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces, 7-10 November 2010, Saarbrücken, Germany, pp. 109–112.
  58. Pantano, E. Engaging consumer through the storefront: Evidences from integrating interactive technologies. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2016, 28, 149–154. Sensors 2023, 23, 1399 21 of 22
  59. Montori, F.; Bedogni, L.; Di Chiappari, A.; Bononi, L. SenSquare: A mobile crowdsensing architecture for smart cities. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE 3rd World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT), IEEE, Reston, VA, USA, 12–14 December 2016; pp. 536–541.
  60. Nansen, B.; van Ryn, L.; Vetere, F.; Robertson, T.; Brereton, M.; Dourish, P. An internet of social things. In Proceedings of the Proceedings of the 26th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference on Designing Futures: The Future of Design, Sydney, Australia, 2-5 December 2014, pp. 87–96.
  61. Celino, I.; Calegari, G.R.; Fiano, A. Towards Talkin’Piazza: Engaging citizens through playful interaction with urban objects. In Proceedings of the 2016 IEEE International Smart Cities Conference (ISC2), IEEE, Trento, Italy, 12–15 September 2016; pp. 1–5.
  62. Nijholt, A. Towards playful and playable cities. In Playable Cities; Springer: Singapore, Singapore, 2017; pp. 1–20.
  63. Fietkau, J. The case for including senior citizens in the playable city. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Intelligence, Leipzig, Germany, 23–26 August 2017; pp. 1072–1075.
  64. Szász, C. Cyber-physical platform development and implementation for industry 4.0. Int. Rev. Appl. Sci. Eng. 2020, 11, 66–72.
  65. Zeng, J.; Yang, L.T.; Lin, M.; Ning, H.; Ma, J. A survey: Cyber-physical-social systems and their system-level design methodology. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2020, 105, 1028–1042.
  66. Yilma, B.A.; Panetto, H.; Naudet, Y. Systemic formalisation of Cyber-Physical-Social System (CPSS): A systematic literature review. Comput. Ind. 2021, 129, 103458.
  67. Zhuge, H. Semantic linking through spaces for cyber-physical-socio intelligence: A methodology. Artif. Intell. 2011, 175, 988–1019.
  68. Costanzo, A.; Faro, A.; Giordano, D.; Spampinato, C. Implementing Cyber Physical social Systems for smart cities: A semantic web perspective. In Proceedings of the 2016 13th IEEE Annual Consumer Communications & Networking Conference (CCNC), IEEE, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 9–12 January 2016; pp. 274–275.
  69. Anwar, N.; Xiong, G.; Lu, W.; Ye, P.; Zhao, H.; Wei, Q. Cyber-physical-social systems for smart cities: An overview. In Proceedings of the 2021 IEEE 1st International Conference on Digital Twins and Parallel Intelligence (DTPI), IEEE, Beijing, China, 15 July–15 August 2021; pp. 348–353.
  70. Gillespie, T. The politics of ‘platforms’. New Media Soc. 2010, 12, 347–364.
  71. Meyer, M.H.; Lehnerd, A.P. The Power of Product Platforms; Simon and Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 1997.
  72. Blank, G.; Reisdorf, B.C. The participatory web: A user perspective on Web 2.0. Information, Commun. Soc. 2012, 15, 537–554.
  73. Gens, F. Top 10 Predictions. IDC Predict. December 2011. IDC: Framingham, MA, USA, December 2011, IDC #231720, Volume 1.
  74. Ramaswamy, V.; Ozcan, K. Offerings as digitalized interactive platforms: A conceptual framework and implications. J. Mark. 2018, 82, 19–31.
  75. Poniatowski, M.; Lüttenberg, H.; Beverungen, D.; Kundisch, D. Three layers of abstraction: a conceptual framework for theorizing digital multi-sided platforms. Inf. Syst. -Bus. Manag. 2022, 20, 257–283. 
More
©Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons-Attribution ShareAlike (CC BY-SA) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Business
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Theo Lynn
,
Charles Wood
View Times: 396
Entry Collection: Remote Sensing Data Fusion
Revisions: 4 times (View History)
Update Date: 14 Feb 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback