Independently evaluated smart-city projects

The strongest source is an independent non-academic evaluation: an audit office, a government or EU review, or an NGO.

This is where the record gets uncomfortable. 20.0% of these entries are recorded as failed or scaled back, against 6.5% of the entries that rest on the operator's own reporting. The data cannot say whether outside scrutiny finds shortfalls that self-reporting omits, or whether an evaluation gets commissioned more often once a project is already contested — both happen, and the association is the finding, not a cause. Either way, these are the entries worth reading before signing anything.

Membership here is decided by the data, not by an editor: this page lists every published entry whose evidence grade is the one named above, so nothing can be quietly left out. The grade records the strongest kind of source behind an entry — not how well the project worked.

✔ Every published entry is checked against the public sources it cites before publication.

All 115 entries

The rest of the record

Each of these is the same kind of page — a slice of the atlas whose membership is decided by a field rather than by an editor.