Profiles of smart cities in Canadian: Between essence and challenges

The past few decades have seen an exponential increase in publications on smart cities. However, the under-experimentation of existing models and underuse of quantitative techniques are challenges that still need to be addressed. This study analyses discourse on smart cities of 130 Canadian communities using the six characteristics proposed by Giffinger and colleagues (2010). Based on cluster analysis, the study reveals that the six characteristics of the Giffinger model are clearly present in smart city discourse. Results also highlight the existence of three distinct groups of smart city profiles. While Group 1 reflects a hybrid perspective, Groups 2 and 3 present contrasting visions. On the one hand, Group 2 aligns with an instrumental perspective of smart cities in response to societal challenges, primarily mobilizing the characteristics of smart economy, smart mobility, smart environment, and smart living. Generally, communities associated with this profile are medium-sized, use first-generation technologies, and receive average scores during the preliminary evaluation of their applications. On the other hand, Group 3 reflects an enabling perspective centered on social actors (citizens and organizations), emphasizing the characteristics of smart people and smart governance. These communities tend to be larger, use second-generation technologies, and obtain higher scores in the preliminary evaluations. These findings not only open avenues for future research but may also inspire decision-makers interested in pursuing projects of this nature. • Three profiles emerge from the discourse of 130 municipalities on smart cities. • City size has an impact on the content of smart city discourse. • Cities' discourse on smart cities is either about their essence, or their challenges.