Peer-reviewed smart-city projects

The strongest source behind this entry is an independent peer-reviewed or academic study.

This is the smallest set in the atlas and the most useful one: the only entries where somebody outside the delivering organisation applied a method, published it, and let others check it. It is also the least representative. These entries skew old, long-running and still alive, and only 13.3% of them are recorded as failed or scaled back — well below the rate among independently audited projects. Read that as a statement about which projects attract researchers, not about which projects work. Nobody writes a paper about a pilot that ended quietly in its second year.

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 90 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.