Starting from Scratch: The Articulated Development of a Smart City in Limerick, Ireland

Abstract

This paper analyses the situated practice of developing a smart city in Limerick, Ireland. It maps out, at a city scale, how the development of the smart city was planned, organised, and governed, as well as ongoing challenges. It addresses two of the principal gaps in the smart city literature, namely, the scarcity of in-depth case studies based on extensive fieldwork and the shortage of studies on smart city development on brownfield sites. Source material was gathered through desk research and interviews with key stakeholders. Limerick adopted an articulated strategic approach to smart city development. The local government’s dedicated smart city unit played a vital role in planning, managing, and implementing smart city operations. The local government did not centralise the smart city development process. Over time, there has been a gradual shift towards the development of Quadruple Helix collaborations and a balance between top-down and bottom-up approaches. The paper also identifies the challenges that might restrain Limerick’s smart city ambitions. These include financial, budgetary, technological, and human resources challenges. It also identifies the challenge of digital exclusion and the need for greater citizen involvement in smart city development.

1. Introduction

Large-scale urban growth creates complex sustainability-related problems that more and more cities are seeking to address through the adoption of technology-based approaches. These include technologies, such as sensors and smart grids, which are integral to developing so-called smart cities. Although there is no universally accepted definition of a smart city, there is a degree of consensus about some of the main smart city characteristics [1,2]. The concept of a smart city covers but is not limited to the digitalisation of urban infrastructure. More importantly, it is about incorporating technologies and systems for city governance, breaking down silos through collaboration, and data-driven decision making [3,4,5].

There is substantial literature on different aspects of the smart city phenomenon. This includes the integration of technologies into the smart city fabric [5], the role of corporate actors in smart cities, e.g., Kitchin, Desdemoustier et al., and McNeill [6,7,8], and the governance of collaboration between state and non-state actors in smart cities [9,10,11]. City-specific studies constitute another strand of the smart city literature. These have covered newly developed smart cities such as Songdo, South Korea [12,13,14,15] Masdar, UAE [16,17], and recently, Line City in Saudi Arabia and Magelang City in Indonesia [18,19]. Datta [20] examined smart city formation in Dholera, India, and both Wiig [21] and Cullen [22] examined the role of IBM in the development of smart cities in Philadelphia and Portland, respectively.

Coletta et al.’s [3] study of how Dublin, Ireland, unfolded as a smart city marked a significant development in the city-specific literature on smart cities. Unlike the aforementioned studies, they mapped “out at a city scale the various smart city initiatives underway, how they are managed and governed and how they are enrolled into a smart city framework” [3] (p. 2). Moreover, their study explored the role of institutional bodies, particularly divisions of local government, which kickstart the smart city development process and play a vital role in designing and promoting smart city discourse. The mapping of smart city initiatives in Dublin showed that in the early stages, the development of a smart city was uncoordinated and fragmented, thereby fitting with Dourish’s [23] description of an “accidental smart city”. Over time, however, the planning and implementation of initiatives and structures resulted in a more articulated development of Dublin as a smart city.

The principal aim of this study is to follow the approach taken by Coletta et al. [3] by analysing the situated practices of developing a smart city in another Irish city, namely, Limerick, Ireland’s third largest city (urban and rural population c. 210,000). Instead of exploring specific aspects, such as the nature of smart cities or the roles of specific corporate actors, the examination of situated practices provides insights into how the smart city as a whole unfolds in specific places. This study, therefore, addresses two of the principal gaps identified in the smart city literature by Kitchin [24], namely, the lack of comprehensive case studies of specific cities based on extensive fieldwork and the under-supply of studies on smart city development that cover the retrofitting of conventional cities instead of the construction of new cities on greenfield sites, such as Songdo City in Korea and Line City and NEOM City in Saudi Arabia [12,13,14,18].

The first objective of this paper is to explore how the governance of Limerick’s smart city developed since 2015. Emphasis is placed on the leading role adopted by local government in strategic planning, organising, implementing, and promoting Limerick’s smart city agenda. Our paper also describes the smart city initiatives that Limerick integrated into its smart city framework and describes the various networks and governance structures that were put in place for smart city development. Technology-framed urban governance systems are often developed by the private sector and employed by public entities. In addition, municipal governments are developing and implementing long-term strategies and innovative plans by integrating and utilising knowledge and competencies available at innovative research institutions, such as universities [25]. Local governments, therefore, rely on collaboration with several non-state actors to fulfil their smart city ambitions.

Ansell and Gash [26] assert that developing a shared understanding and vision is integral to the collaborative process. Given the collaborative nature of smart city development [27,28,29], the second objective of this paper is to provide insights into the perspectives of key stakeholders on what constitutes a smart city and to examine their views on how Limerick is developing as a smart city. These perspectives allow us to identify and probe the main challenges that must be addressed by Limerick city as it implements its smart city agenda.

The paper is structured as follows. The first section reviews the growing literature on smart cities, which is clustered under three main dimensions of smart cities. The following section provides details on the qualitative case study and methodology. This is followed by the analysis of Limerick’s smart city development under thematic headings that emerged in data analysis and relate to the smart city dimensions that frame the literature review. The paper concludes with a discussion of research findings and lessons for similarly sized cities on the pathway to smart city development.

2. Literature on the Development of Smart Cities

The smart city literature is characterised by a lack of consensus on how a smart city should be defined. Nesti highlights a degree of fuzziness around the concept of a smart city, which is attributed to its relevance to several disciplines, including geography, urban planning, economics, and engineering [2]. For the purpose of this research, we employ Dameri’s [30] comprehensive definition of a smart city as:

“A well-defined geographical area, in which high technologies such as ICT, logistics, energy production, and so on, cooperate to create benefits for citizens in terms of well-being, inclusion and participation, environmental quality, and intelligent development; it is governed by a well-defined pool of subjects, able to state the rules and policy for the city government and development”.

[30] (p. 2549)

Several writers have sought to bring clarity to what a smart city is and what it entails by framing an analysis of smart cities in terms of their key dimensions. For example, Meijer and Bolivar [31] and Nesti [2] identify the following three main dimensions of the phenomenon: (1) technologies, (2) human resources and citizens, and (3) governance [2,30]. These three dimensions are utilised to structure the review of the extant literature and to frame the case study of smart city development in Limerick City, Ireland.

2.1. Technologies

Technologies play a significant role in developing smart cities [32]. Technologies, such as the Internet of Things (IoT), big data analytics, machine learning, geoinformation approaches, deep learning, and artificial learning, are widely deployed in smart cities to increase the efficiency of services, promote sustainability, and improve citizens’ quality of life [33,34,35,36,37]. The technological dimension of smart cities centres on information and communication technologies that are used for the effective management of city processes, natural resources management, energy management, and traffic regulation [38].

The development and adoption of innovative technologies pose a host of challenges that are identified in the smart city literature. Prominent among these challenges are the various costs associated with technology, such as design, implementation, and maintenance costs. For example, new technology, such as blockchain-based technology, has a high cost of implementation, which municipalities frequently struggle to resource [38,39,40]. The challenges associated with technology investment costs when financial resources are constrained were highlighted by Zvolska et al. [41] and Hämäläinen [42] in their research on the smart cities of London, Berlin, and Helsinki. For example, it was found that in Berlin, the development of smart city initiatives was halted primarily due to a lack of financial and skilled human resources.

Different Internet of Things (IoT) devices are involved in the communication of valuable information for the efficient functioning of a smart city, and interoperability between these different devices is crucial for sustaining a smart city. Big data management systems, like Hadoop, Cassandra, and Quantcast, which process, manage, and analyse data, have limitations. Moreover,

“Technical hindrances in the transition from legacy systems to smart systems add further complexity. Issues like backward compatibility, scalability, heterogeneity of data and devices, multiple data standards, and interoperability pose inherent issues and challenges that need to be addressed”.

[43] (p. 5)

Reliance on big data as part of smart city development creates challenges related to aspects, including data quality, data anomalies, data collection, and data storage [44,45]. In addition, data collection through crowdsourcing and collaboration between various providers can result in data lacking structure, inconsistency, heterogeneity, and disparity issues, which may lead to problems around data uncertainty and trustworthiness [45,46].

Further issues arise in relation to data privacy and data protection laws, such as the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) [47,48]. The GDPR has changed the game of smart city development in the EU and has encouraged cities to systematically approach data protection issues while developing smart city elements. It has added new regulatory requirements to smart city plans [49,50]. Moreover, the GDPR can create a barrier to implementing modern technology in smart cities. Bjørner [51] highlighted this issue by showing how smart city projects in Denmark were cancelled due to GDPR issues.

2.2. Human Resources and Citizen Inclusion

The second dimension around which the smart city concept revolves is human resources [2]. This dimension covers the capacity of all stakeholders (including citizens, government, private enterprise) to embrace the smart city concept and to develop and utilise ICTs for the purpose of driving sustainable urban growth and innovation.

The importance of knowledge capital and a knowledgeable population are central to the human resources dimension of smart cities [2]. Collaboration between government, industry, and universities (the so-called Triple Helix Model—THM) is commonly observed in smart cities. Although the benefits of this approach have been recognised in the smart city literature, several recent studies have advocated an extended Quadruple Helix Model (QHM) of collaboration, which emphasises the role of citizen participation in conjunction with industry, research and education organisations, and governmental institutions [52,53,54].

Examples of the QHM in European smart cities are identified by Mora et al. [55], who explained how Living Lab initiatives (which aim to engage citizens in testing ICT infrastructures and solutions implemented in the built environment to create and network public services) in cities such as Amsterdam, Barcelona, Vienna, and Helsinki emerged as part of a bottom-up (community-driven) approach adopted by municipal authorities. Similarly, Fab Labs are places of citizen engagement, knowledge exchange, and technical and social innovation [56,57]. These co-design sites provide resources ranging from the simplest to the most advanced and sophisticated tools, such as 3D printing, which are designed to be accessible to non-professionals (citizens).

The literature on smart cities is replete with examples of cities where ICTs are used to enhance citizen participation in decision making. For example, Zheng and Schachter [58] noted that municipalities like New York City, Singapore, and Seoul had adopted ICT to enhance citizen participation in decision making. These municipalities frequently apply e-participation methods and digital tools such as emails, online chatting, online discussion boards, and LISTSERV to enable citizens to provide feedback and raise voices related to any issue or policy.

Effective citizen participation is, however, made difficult by what is commonly referred to as the digital divide, which refers to inequalities between privileged smart citizens and those “technologically illiterate, the poor, and, in general, those who are marginalised from the smart city discourse” [59,60] (p. 893). The smart cities literature suggests that digital exclusion is especially high in the ageing population, disadvantaged groups, and people with disabilities [61,62,63]. The digital divide, therefore, has potentially serious implications for smart city development, especially when cities seek to encourage citizen engagement and adopt the QHM approach.

The literature highlights the importance of well-educated stakeholders developing a shared understanding of the meaning of a smart city as well as a shared set of objectives. Examples of studies covering these questions include Coletta et al.’s [3] Dublin-based study, which found that stakeholders have a reasonable understanding of the smart city concept but did not perceive Dublin to have met the criteria for a smart city. Similarly, Del-Real et al. [64] analysed stakeholder views and perceived barriers to smart city development in the medium-sized city of Chattanooga, Tennessee (US). The study revealed that stakeholders consider a smart city as a mode to improve quality of life and environmental sustainability. Moreover, to develop a smart city, projects need to be based on full transparency and social inclusion. Desdemoustier et al. [7] explored the understanding of the smart city concept in 113 Belgian municipalities. They found that rural municipalities have a narrower techno-centric vision of smart cities, while large and medium-sized municipalities have a more comprehensive and holistic vision, which includes the aspects of governance, sustainability, and human centricity. The study by Vidiasova and Cronemberger [65] compared citizen versus local authority stakeholder perceptions of the smart city in St. Petersburg, Russia, and found significant differences between the understandings of both sets of stakeholders.

The interaction and embeddedness of different networks within a smart city are essential for learning and innovation in smart cities [66]. Formal and informal ties between the various networks are beneficial for obtaining novel information [67]. Moreover, inter-city networks and collaborations can act as knowledge exchange hubs between cities that face similar demographic or environmental challenges. Learning from the experiences of other cities and sharing best practices can lead to the efficient use of time and resources required to find and implement solutions [53]. Such collaborative networks can also promote innovative ideas as cities look for solutions and mimic successful examples. Likewise, the criteria and concepts set by the pioneering cities can also influence other members to follow a similar innovative culture [67].

The smart city literature provides several examples of national and international smart city networks. One example of a national network is the Spanish Network of Smart Cities (RECI), formed in 2012, which includes 65 member cities [68]. A number of networks of European smart cities aim to share best practices between member countries. These include the InFocus network, which consists of several smart cities including Bilbao (Spain), Bielsko-Biala (Poland), Bordeaux Métropole (France), and Frankfurt (Germany). The INNPULSO (Network of Cities of Science and Innovation) is similar to RECI and has 71 members [69]. In addition to sharing best practices, smart cities also form innovation networks. Examples include the Copenhagen Cleantech Cluster (Copenhagen, Denmark) and Forum Virium Helsinki (Helsinki, Finland), which share the common aim of leveraging technological innovations for the purpose of urban development [70].

2.3. Governance

In their systematic review of the smart city literature, Ruhlandt [71] asserts that the organisational, strategic, and technical challenges of smart city development have made it difficult for cities to capture potential benefits. As a result, the governance implications of smart city investments have commanded considerable attention in the literature.

The governance of smart cities covers the interactions and ties between different stakeholders that are often driven by conflicting objectives. Although the nature of what smart city governance entails remains an open discussion, the literature suggests it commonly relies on leadership and participatory mechanisms and collaboration between various city stakeholders (public and private) for policymaking and public service delivery [25,72].

Several studies show that local municipalities or city councils usually spearhead the development process of smart cities. However, the role of municipalities or specialised units inside local authorities that plan and implement smart city strategies is rarely researched [24].

Most modern smart cities adopt a well-articulated strategic policy to guide their development as smart cities. Smart city strategy documents generally describe objectives and outcomes to be accomplished through the implementation of ICT solutions, the key application domains for attention, and the working groups in charge of overseeing and accelerating the implementation of the strategy [73,74,75].

There are several examples of cities adopting a strategic approach to smart city development. In most cases, the publication of smart city strategies followed periods of collaboration between local governments and wider stakeholders. For example, Amsterdam published the Amsterdam Smart City Programme in 2007 through a collaboration between the local municipal authority, Amsterdam Innovation Motor (AIM), and the energy network operator Liander. This strategy was based on strategic urban planning principles that prioritised sustainability, collaboration, and inclusivity [76,77]. London also developed a smart city strategy, the Smart London Plan, in 2013, following collaboration between local government, businesses, researchers, investors, citizens, and other stakeholders [41]. In Vienna, the city administration teamed up with the public and private stakeholders and formulated a smart city strategy between 2011 and 2013. The Smart City Wein Framework Strategy, which was agreed in 2014, took a holistic approach that focused on the social components of the city. In 2019, the city administration updated the Smart City Wein Framework Strategy for 2050 and made changes in light of the current challenges faced by the city [78]. It is noteworthy that smart city development in Dublin was at odds with the strategic approach observed in several other cities. Moreover, Coletta et al. [3] found that Dublin Smart City began without a master plan, and various smart city initiatives were implemented before being enrolled into Dublin’s Smart City framework.

The appointment of technology officers with responsibility for leading the implementation of smart city strategies is a common feature of smart city development and governance. The literature provides examples of North American smart cities establishing positions, including chief innovation officers, chief information officers, chief technology officers, and chief digital officers. These officials play a leading role in the planning, development, deployment, and utilisation of digital information and communication technologies [76,79,80].

The governance of smart cities also faces organisational challenges, which are elucidated by Mondschein et al. [79], who analysed eight North American smart cities. They found that the challenges in developing smart cities are more organisational than technological and recognised governance challenges as one of the significant barriers to developing smart cities. They further noted that differing objectives among stakeholders, information asymmetries, regulatory disorganisation, and governance issues exist between municipalities and government authorities at the state and federal levels, which overcomplicate the development of smart cities.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Methods

This study employs qualitative research methods. Qualitative research is useful for understanding under-investigated issues or phenomena and tends to explore and understand phenomena from the research participants’ perspectives. This study adopts a single case study approach to provide an in-depth qualitative analysis and description of the phenomenon under investigation [81,82,83]. The case study examines the smart city development pathway of a small- to medium-sized city, Limerick, Ireland. Limerick city has been an important trade and business centre since the Viking era and is now the third largest city in the Republic of Ireland. The local government in Limerick is provided by the City and County Council (LCCC), which is a relatively newly formed council following a merger of Limerick City and Limerick County Councils in 2014. The LCCC has a single Chief Executive Officer and forty councillors who are elected from six electoral areas. Prior to 2024, the city mayor, who was elected by councillors, fulfilled a mainly ceremonial role.

This study is framed by the main dimensions distilled from the smart city literature (governance, technology, and human capital). It examines how the development of Limerick as a smart city unfolded as a whole. It explores the technological dimension of Limerick’s smart city development by mapping the main planned technology-related initiatives. It also investigates the organisation and governance of Limerick’s smart city development (governance and human capital dimensions), focusing on the role of institutional bodies within and outside local government and the nature of their collaboration. It pays special attention to the main challenges (governance, human capital, and technological) encountered to date. This paper, therefore, follows the approach taken by Coletta et al. [3], who conducted a similar analysis of Ireland’s capital city, Dublin.

3.2. Instruments

3.2.1. Documentary Analysis

This research employs two research instruments to collect data: documentary analysis and semi-structured interviews. First, a documentary analysis of publicly available documents from the LCCC and other dedicated smart city websites was conducted to gather pertinent information for our case study. This involved systematically reviewing a variety of sources, including reports/plans, policy papers, and organisational publications (for example, Limerick’s Digital Strategy and the Limerick 2030 Economic and Spatial Plan [84,85]). The information from the documentary analysis was categorised into themes relevant to research objectives. The documentary analysis provided insights into the institutional practices and contextual factors that shape the smart city landscape in Limerick. This approach provided rich, contextualised data that contributed to a deeper understanding of Limerick’s smart city ecosystem, allowing us to explore the nuances of the phenomenon under investigation.

3.2.2. Interviews

Fifteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with the key stakeholders involved in the development of Limerick as a smart city. To participate in this study, a stakeholder had to meet at least one of three criteria: (a) they had to be part of the initial team that wrote Limerick’s first digital strategy; (b) they had to be part of the LCCC (in particular, the Digital Services Department (DSD)) or be a participant in EU-funded projects categorised within the smart cities and communities theme currently under implementation in Limerick; and (c) they had to be part of private organisations, NGOs, or research institutes that are working in collaboration with the LCCC and fostering the development of Limerick as a smart city.

The first author conducted the first scoping interview with one of the key stakeholders from the DSD of the LCCC in February 2021. The face-to-face interview lasted 90 min, and the interviewees gave detailed answers and suggested potential interviewees. The first author then conducted secondary desk research and compiled a list of potential interviewees, supplementing the list highlighted by the scoping interviewee.

In addition to having a list of potential interviewees, the research interviewees were inducted using the snowball sampling technique, whereby the existing interviewee recommends the next interviewee [86]. Snowballing is a purposive sampling method, where sampling is performed according to the goals of the study, and it ensures the induction of elite interviewees [87]. The snowball technique ensured the recruitment of elite interviewees and adhered to data protection (GDPR) guidelines. The interviewees inducted through the snowball sampling technique almost mirrored the list of potential interviewees generated after the scoping interview (conducted in February 2021).

The interview questions were open ended and reinforced with additional sub-questions during the interview as needed. Interview questions aimed to deepen understanding and seek information that could not be obtained through documentary analysis. The interviews included questions about stakeholder’s roles in the smart city development process, their perspectives on smart cities in general, and Limerick in particular, the main governance and collaboration mechanisms used to foster collaboration between stakeholders, and perceived challenges to developing Limerick as a smart city.

3.3. Procedures

The interviews were conducted between March and September 2021. Interviews lasted between 30 and 90 min. As all interviews were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, they were conducted online via the MS TEAMS platform. With the interviewee’s consent, the interviews were recorded and transcribed afterwards. The principles of personal data protection and ethical scientific research were followed throughout the research. Complete anonymity was offered to all participants. All participants were informed about this study’s purpose and volunteered to participate. The participants were sent consent forms electronically via Google Forms to acknowledge their participation in this study and the use of their information.

Interviews were recorded and manually transcribed. Over 12 h of recordings yield around 400 pages of transcription. The transcripts were examined to gain familiarity with the data and identify emerging themes. The data were then coded using NVIVO 12, which arranged data into themes and sub-themes (for example, the challenges theme and data challenges sub-theme). Figure 1 illustrates the flowchart of the methodology used to conduct the research.

4. Case Study Findings

The main insights drawn from the thematic analysis of documents and semi-structured interviews are grouped under three main themes are (1) governance, including planning, strategy, and technology; (2) governance, including networks and collaboration; and (3) challenges, including governance, human capital, and technological.

4.1. Governance—Planning, Strategy, and Technology

The research identified the pivotal role of the Digital Services Department (DSD) within the LCCC in planning and developing Limerick as a smart city. Originally, the DSD’s core function was the provision of digital services to council staff. This role was expanded in 2015 with the addition of two new sections—the EU Projects Office and the Digital Strategy Office. The EU Projects Office manages all aspects of smart city projects funded by the European Union. Currently, the LCCC is linked to thirty-five other cities across Europe through four programmes, namely, Horizon 2020, Northern Periphery and Arctic Interreg, Atlantic Area Interreg, and URBACT (see project details in

Table A2. Details of EU projects.

Projects	Details
Horizon 2020 Projects	Horizon 2020 is the financial instrument implementing the Europe 2020 flagship initiative aimed at securing Europe’s global competitiveness. These measures will aim at breaking down barriers to create a genuine single market for knowledge, research, and innovation [92].
The Northern Periphery and Arctic	The Northern Periphery and Arctic 2014–2020 form a co-operation between nine programme partner countries. The NPA 2014–2020 is part of Interreg, supported by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and ERDF equivalent funding from non-EU partner countries. Nine programme partner countries include the Member States of Finland, Ireland, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (Scotland and Northern Ireland), which are in co-operation with the Faroe Islands, Iceland, Greenland, and Norway. This means that the programme area encompasses the Euro-Arctic zone, parts of the Atlantic zone, and parts of the Barents region, neighbouring Canada in the West and Russia in the East [93].
Interreg Atlantic	The Interreg Atlantic Area supports transnational co-operation projects in 36 Atlantic regions of five countries, France, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom, contributing to the achievement of economic, social, and territorial cohesion. The programme’s overall objective is to implement solutions to answer regional challenges in the fields of innovation, resource efficiency, environment, and cultural assets, supporting regional development and sustainable growth. With a total budget of EUR 185 million, which comprises a fund allocation above EUR 140 million from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the programme focuses on four main priorities, axes, and specific related objectives [94].
URBACT	URBACT is a European Territorial Co-operation programme fostering sustainable integrated urban development in cities across Europe [95].

Source: generated by the author.

). At the time of data collection, eight EU projects (with smart city dimensions) were running in Limerick. One of the interviewees described the EU programmes as follows:

“The EU projects office is largely responsible for bringing the projects like the ‘CityxChange’ here, some fantastic projects like the ‘Media Project’ and ‘Find Your Greatness’, ‘Go Green Routes’. So, we are constantly looking for funding from Europe, which will supplement what we tried to do locally for our citizens”.

(Interviewee B4, Group 2)

The Digital Strategy section of the DSD developed and wrote Limerick’s first digital strategy (2017–2020) in conjunction with other public and private stakeholders [84]. The first digital strategy included ten areas of concentration: engagement and participation; service integration; information and marketing; digital infrastructure; data and analytics; digital transformation; digital innovation; optimised governance; smart Limerick network; and digital edge. It also identified a list of initiatives in the smart city domain that would guide Limerick towards smart city development. These initiatives are summarised in

Table 1. Initiatives listed in Limerick’s smart city roadmap.

1.	Engagement and Participation	2.	Information and Marketing
	MyPoint (Open Consultation Platform) Public Engagement Model Public Participation Network Integration Public Mapping and Data Collection City and Town Engagement Program Citizen Open Innovation Lab Council Podcasts Invasive Species App Sustainable Energy Community Student Engagement Citizen Digital Culture		Limerick.ie Limerick.ie App Limerick.ie Economic Report DIGITAL.Limerick.ie SMART.Limerick.ie FILM.Limerick.ie Past Perfect: Future Tense—LCGA Digitalisation HISTORY.Limerick.ie AgeFriendly. Limerick.ie Age Friendly Magazine Community Websites Limerick Film Festivals Platform Smart Sporting Limerick Shannon Fisherman Archive Limerick Film Archive Hear Say Audio Arts Festival
3.	Service Integration	4.	Data Infrastructure
	MY Limerick.ie MY Limerick.ie—Favourite Amenities MY Limerick.ie—Inspire Me MY Limerick.ie—Cases MY Limerick.ie—Payments MY Limerick.ie—Licences and Permits MY Limerick.ie—Grants MY Limerick.ie—Ping Me (Notifications) MY Limerick.ie—My Post Box Integration of National Systems Smart Parking Smart Parking for Disabled Drivers		Municipal Data Network Public WiFi Smart CCTV Pilot National Broadband Plan Rollout Noise Sensors (IoT—Pilot) Air Quality Sensors (IoT Pilot) Water Quality Sensors (IoT Pilot) Soil Quality Sensors (IoT Pilot) Footfall Counters (IoT Pilot) Public Digital Displays Digital Quarter Limerick—IoT Demo Digital Quarters Network Community Centres Footfall Counters 360′ Live Cameras Citizen DIT Digital Infrastructure
5.	Data and Analytics	6.	Digital Transformation
	Insight Limerick (Council) Insight Limerick (Public) Insight Limerick—Personal Dashboard Insight Limerick—Investor Dashboard Insight Limerick—Community Safety Dashboard ISAX Data Exchange—Limerick Limerick Master Data Management Public Data Co-creation Transport Patterns for Rural Transport Open Data for Autonomous Vehicles		Council Enterprise Architecture Customer Services—Digital Services Customer Services—Digital Displays Staff Training Portal Customer Relationship Management Mobile Service Operations (CRM App) Smart Service Operations Electronic Records Management Program and Project Management Customer Services—Contact Centre Customer Services—Video Services Telephony and Communications System ICT Infrastructure Upgrade Presentation and Video Equipment Remote Office Communications Disaster Recovery Programme
7.	Digital Innovation	8.	Optimised Governance
	The Networks Forge (Smart Collaboration) URBACT Techtown—A Digital City Future Horizon 2020 Public Safety Enforcement Services Digital Skills Academy Digital Retail Pilot Digital Skills Week Coder Dojo Limerick Digital Citizenship and Digital Inclusion Innovation in Community Spaces LG National Service Catalogue Ingenuity Smart Ageing Housing Programme ISAX Innovation Hub Limerick Living Lab Technology Enhanced Learning Virtual Clinics Releasing Time to Care Electronic Discharge e-Referrals		Limerick Digital Strategy 1.0 Limerick Digital Strategy 2.0 Smart Limerick Strategy IBM Smarter Cities Challenge IE Geographical Place Names Policy Digital Infrastructure Planning Policy Smart CCTV Policy
9.	Smart Limerick Networks	10.	Digital Edge
	Limerick Digital Leaders Network—DLN Council Digital Champions Forum—DCF All Ireland Smart Cities Forum Open and Agile Smart Cities—OASC WBA—Connected City Advisory Board TM Forum Association of Strategic Alliance Professionals Digital Inclusion Advisory Group		Limerick Enterprise Architecture Connected Health Smart Ageing Volunteers Platform Digital Inclusion Needs Study

Source: adapted from the Limerick City and County Council (2017) [84].

.

These developments ensured that in the Irish context, Limerick was a first mover in terms of smart city development. It was the first local authority to establish a DSD with chief responsibility for smart city development. In addition, it was the first Irish city to publish a digital strategy for the development of a smart city and was also the first to appoint a designated digital officer. In contrast with the early stages of smart city development in Dublin, which Coletta et al. [3] suggest was “accidental”, Limerick has adopted a deliberate and articulated approach in terms of planning and establishing internal structures to support its smart city objectives. Moreover, it has placed special emphasis on international collaboration and securing resources, mainly through EU programmes, which have supported the implementation of several smart city initiatives to date.

4.2. Governance—Networks and Collaboration

Developing a smart city is a complex process and requires collaboration between local authorities and a host of public and private stakeholders. Thematic analysis of the interviews with key actors found that the networks and governance structures established by the LCCC are characterised by the collaborative approach associated with the Quadruple Helix Model (QHM).

The QHM is a smart city governance model based on collaboration between the public and private sectors, academia/higher education, and people/civic society [53]. The QHM in Limerick’s smart city is essentially an ecosystem of several networks in which the LCCC is a leading or prominent participant. One such network is the Digital Leaders Network (DLN), which has played a major role in furthering the development of a smart city. It consists of stakeholders and leaders from organisations that have agreed to collaborate and assist in the development of a smart city on a voluntary basis. Established in 2016, the DLN consists of 71 members from 27 public and private organisations, small and large businesses, academic institutions and research centres, community and voluntary organisations, and local development firms. The DLN is structured around four working groups: digital inclusion; digital engagement (led by the University of Limerick); Geographical Information Systems; and the Ireland Smart Cities Forum. The DLN developed and finalised the city’s first digital strategy.

“The strategy was co-designed with the Digital Leaders Network, which was put together at that time. It took people from community groups, from the universities, from the museums, from some of the big companies, from the Chamber of Commerce from everybody, and just brought them together to help co-create that strategy”.

(Interviewee B6, Group 2)

The LCCC also participates in external national and international networks. It is a member of the All-Ireland Smart City Forum (AISCF) in collaboration with local authorities of eight other cities on the island of Ireland. This forum is described as a community of practice and provides the opportunity for smart city co-ordinators to share technical insights with peers from other cities. Examples of networking at a European level include LCCC’s membership of the Covenant of Mayor and the European Innovation Partnership on Smart Cities and Communities.

A distinguishing feature of the QH model is the participation of citizens (the so-called fourth helix), and interviewees emphasised the importance attached by the LCCC to citizen engagement in the development of the smart city. This engagement has been evident in terms of citizen use of mobile apps and digital platforms as well as participation in online and in-person events. Examples of LCCC’s active engagement with citizens include the +Limerick Citizens Innovation Lab, the Fab Lab, the University of Limerick downtown campus, and other virtual engagements.

For example, the +Limerick Citizens Innovation Lab was created by the LCCC as part of the EU-funded +CityxChange project. Located in the heart of Limerick’s city centre, the lab facilitates participation by citizens and community groups in events that contribute to co-creating a smart and sustainable future for the city. It provides a digital and physical space where citizens can collaborate with the public and private sectors to co-create and develop model solutions for energy transition, climate action, and sustainability. The lab consists of three spaces: the Fab Lab, the Citizens Observatory, and the Community Engagement Hub.

In addition to physical spaces provided for citizen participation in smart city development, the LCCC also offers opportunities and space for virtual engagement by citizens. For example, it was the first Irish local authority to introduce a mobile app aimed at effective customer relationship management. In 2019, it introduced MYPoint—an online platform where citizens can share opinions and concerns regarding different projects. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the LCCC introduced virtual engagement rooms (i.e., digital representation of the physical experience), which included mechanisms to allow citizens to make submissions and provide feedback about different projects. The LCCC also engages citizens through its EU-funded smart city projects. For example, +CityxChange engages with citizens on issues such as positive energy champions, active energy consumerism, and active energy citizens. In addition, +CityxChange developed a mobile app for imparting information and interacting with other services, such as e-mobility. Similarly, the Go Green Routes project employed nature walk methodology, walk interview methodology, and sound walk methodology to engage citizens.

The interviews with a range of stakeholders in Limerick’s smart city project revealed a strong degree of consensus among stakeholders in terms of sharing an understanding and vision of Limerick as a smart city. Technology and data are widely viewed as essential elements of a smart city, although these are viewed as enablers rather than the sole focus of a smart city. Interviewees revealed a shared view that the smart city should be citizen centric, where services should be organised to benefit citizens.

“The technologies are the foundation, and they are extremely important. You need to have the machines, but the machines are not the focus……. you need to have the tech, but the technology is not the focus of improving citizens’ lives”.

(Interviewee C1, Group 3)

Moreover, the interviews clearly show that stakeholders see Limerick as being firmly on the path to becoming a smart city and that Limerick is ahead of other Irish cities in this regard. One of the interviewees expressed his ideas on Limerick as follows:

“I think Limerick is leading the smart city race in Ireland. I don’t think any city in Ireland is leading the race in Europe. We have quite a lot of ground to make up to compete with the leading cities in Europe. But still, I will put Limerick at the front of the race in Ireland, but in the middle of the race in Europe”.

(Interviewee A1, Group 1)

4.3. Challenges—Governance, Human Capital, and Technological

Interviewees also identified several challenges that the city must address to continue its development as a smart city. The main challenges can be categorised as constrained financial and human resources, insufficient local autonomy, digital exclusion, overall co-ordination and organisational structures, and data.

The financial challenges identified by interviewees manifest in the form of budgetary challenges. Over-reliance on the central government and consequent underfunding has long been identified as a problematic feature of local government in Ireland. In this context, the Digital Services Department competes with other divisions of the LCCC (providing traditional local government services) for scarce budgetary resources, making it difficult for the council to invest in expensive modern technological equipment.

Interviewees identified the wider issue of insufficient local autonomy (due to the centralised nature of government in Ireland) as another significant obstacle to developing Limerick as a smart city and provided examples of how this constraint became manifest. These include the requirement for central (national) approval before new technologies can be adopted. The lack of local autonomy is also related to human resource-related challenges. Interviews revealed that several LCCC staff working on smart city development have responsibilities that are not connected with Smart Limerick, meaning there is a shortage of staff that are fully dedicated to smart city development. Similarly, the recruitment of specialised human resources is constrained by the centralised system that requires central approval of all new recruitment. One interviewee expresses his views on central control as follows:

“To bring together budget initiatives that you might like to push forward, there is way too much conversation with some government department in Dublin”.

(Interviewee C3, Group 3)

Digital exclusion is a major challenge that the LCCC has sought to address through measures such as the establishment of a working group dedicated to digital inclusion, which facilitates collaboration between the Digital Leaders Network and the PAUL Partnership (People Action against Unemployment in Limerick).

The QH approach and the presence of multiple stakeholders in smart city development also present challenges for the overall co-ordination of smart city development. Interviewees indicated that the presence of diverse actors with different expertise, expectations, and requirements can result in confusion and challenges in establishing a shared understanding of the objectives of smart city development. It was, however, noteworthy that the EU-funded +CityxChange project provided a successful template for addressing co-ordination challenges and establishing a shared understanding and vision of smart city development among stakeholders.

Interviewees also pointed out the challenge of organisational structure, such as the siloed or departmentalised approaches in the council. Making different departments work together to achieve a single vision of a city is sometimes a difficult task. One of the interviewees expressed thoughts on this challenge as follows:

“In my opinion, organisational structures and hierarchies make it pretty difficult to deliver upon. The thinking is still very siloed”.

(Interviewee B2, Group 2)

Interviewees also highlighted several challenges concerning data-related issues. First, there is an absence of an effective data strategy. Some interviewees linked this to inadequate planning and a resultant shortage of relevant in-house capacity, especially employees with data science skills, which are essential to ensuring optimal use of data. This challenge is also linked to the lack of local autonomy in relation to recruitment.

Smart city initiatives generate large amounts of data, but data storage can be difficult. To date, there is no data repository within the LCCC. This absence was identified as a major obstacle to smart city development, which the LCCC has only recently taken actions to address. These include the development of the Insight Limerick service, which utilises a collaborative repository and a set of tools and services for managing, aggregating, mapping, visualising, analysing, and generating reports on data. This repository and its associated services are shared between different council departments and serve as a source of open data for the public.

Another obstacle identified by interviewees concerns the development of data metrics. The LCCC is seeking to develop databases that citizens can easily access, such as the level of pollution, carbon footprint, and fossil fuel consumption.

“One of the things we’re looking at for the smart cities is how would you collect information, store information, and then compare the information to a metric that is immediately usable by people”.

(Interviewee B3, Group 2)

Interviewees also identified difficulties with data gathering and data quality. Some of the automated data are derived from Google, Google Maps, Apple, and other sources, which are widely used but are not necessarily reliable. Similarly, sensors and other similar devices are used for data collection, but device maintenance is associated with hidden costs and liability issues. Moreover, any device malfunction has the potential to cause breaks and anomalies in collected data.

Finally, interviewees highlighted significant challenges around the GDPR, which took effect after the publication of Limerick’s first digital strategy. The GDPR legislation has important implications for smart city developments, which seek to collect and use data using sensors and other technologies. These challenges revolve around aspects including data governance, security, and privacy.

The requirement to anonymise data has created a significant challenge for smart city initiatives since anonymising data can render them unsuitable for further use. One interviewee provided an example of how GDPR requirements impacted a CCTV project managed by the LCCC.

“In relation to CCTV, we installed the latest and greatest cameras with good intentions about what we want to do with them. But we have been severely hamstrung by the Data Protection Commission regarding what we can do with them. We have paid a lot of money for these cameras to have superb functionality to state of the art, yet we cannot even live monitor them because we are not allowed to do that. So, all we can do is record the footage, and if there is a request from someone like the Gardai [Police] to go and look at it, then we can authorise that”.

(Interviewee B4, Group 2)

5. Summary and Discussion

Similar to Coletta et al.’s [3] study of the unfolding of a smart city in Dublin, this paper maps out, at a city scale, the initiatives taken to develop a smart city in Ireland, its governance, and the challenges encountered to date. Coletta et al. [3] revealed a fragmented approach to smart city development in Dublin, as different initiatives were launched at different times and later incorporated into the smart city ecosystem. In contrast, Limerick’s first smart city strategy provided a long-term vision and plan that underpinned the implementation of governance systems to facilitate and expedite the transition towards a smart and sustainable city. Several of the smart city initiatives initially proposed in the digital strategy are now up and running in Limerick (for example, the formation of the first decarbonisation zone through the +CityxChange project). Nevertheless, our study finds that Limerick’s path to becoming a smart city is a slow, non-linear, iterative, and cumulative process. Limerick has and continues to encounter several obstacles that require careful management.

From the outset, smart city development in Limerick was led by the local government, which cultivated close collaboration with external stakeholders in both public and private organisations. LCCC’s establishment of a Digital Services Department and appointment of a dedicated Digital Officer were key drivers of smart city mobilisation. These local government actions coincided with the establishment of the extensive Digital Leaders Network, which enabled a collaborative approach to the development of the city’s first Digital Strategy. This public–private collaboration facilitated the development of a smart city ecosystem of participants both inside and outside the city. In this regard, the LCCC’s EU Projects Office played a pivotal role in building relationships with other European municipalities, and several smart city initiatives in the sustainable energy and transport sectors (e.g., the +CityxChange project and Go Green Routes project) resulted from participation in EU-funded collaborations with other European cities.

Our study shows that Limerick’s development as a smart city conformed with the Triple Helix Model of innovation in the initial stages of its development; similar to the recorded experience of Tallinn and Helsinki [88,89,90], Limerick’s tertiary education institutes and universities have been important in kickstarting smart city projects and facilitating technological innovation and knowledge transfer. In contrast with the involvement of these institutes, however, this study found relatively limited participation by the wider citizenry in the early stages (including the strategic development) of the smart city. The initial planning and design approach of Limerick Smart City, therefore, aligned with the standard top-down approach observed in other European smart cities such as Barcelona, Amsterdam, Vienna, and Helsinki [55].

Over time, however, citizen involvement has gradually increased through developments, such as the establishment of a Living Lab, which provided an accessible location for citizens to engage and participate in the city’s development process. Such developments represented increased conformity with the Quadruple Helix innovation framework, a finding that resonates with the Roman and Fellnhofer [54] study that also noted the old and strong tradition of the Triple Helix approach and more recent Quadruple Helix approaches in three Finnish municipalities.

Notwithstanding these developments, the level of citizen engagement should not be overstated. Our study found that there are limits to the extent of citizen participation in initiatives, such as Living Lab facilities, which have largely been confined to small cohorts of interested and informed citizens. Even with Living Labs and sophisticated ICTs for engagement, citizens are still not fully integrated into the collaborative ecosystem. Most of the time, citizens participate in a limited capacity. Either citizens are asked to assess an ICT solution and deliver feedback or to express their ideas or needs during a meeting or workshop with other stakeholders. This suggests a top-down approach by the LCCC where projects are started, and then feedback is requested from the citizens rather than asking citizens about their needs at the outset. In this regard, some aspects of the Limerick experience show weak integration of the fourth helix of the QH model.

Although our study highlighted significant challenges, including budgetary constraints (due to over-reliance on central government for finance) and a lack of local decision-making autonomy, several positive features that can lend to smart city development were also identified. For example, Limerick’s geographic location and proximity to air and sea transport linkages were identified as plus points. Limerick’s size was also identified as advantageous. The smart city literature shows that small- and medium-sized cities are relatively more suitable for pilot projects as they offer shorter installation times for distributed infrastructures (e.g., streetlights and smart waste management technologies). In addition, these cities provide suitably sized test beds for new technologies and are thereby attractive to technology vendors. Small- and medium-sized cities like Limerick also facilitate easier social interaction among stakeholders. This advantage was identified by Duygan et al.’s [67] study of smart cities in Switzerland where close geographical proximity improved the prospects of forming networks that foster knowledge exchange and innovation.

Finally, this research finds that Limerick’s path towards becoming a smart city has been supported by an appreciable consensus and shared understanding of the features of a smart city. Our study finds that the involvement and input of public and private stakeholders have been critical in determining the direction of the city’s development. Interviewees strongly agree that citizens are the most important part of a smart city. The evidence, therefore, suggests that stakeholders have a rounded idea of a smart city that is not narrowly defined by technology. This finding chimes with extant studies of smart city development, which emphasise the importance of stakeholders sharing a well-articulated and widely accepted vision of a smart city and its features [7,91].

6. Conclusions

Cities around the world are increasingly seeking to adopt technology-led approaches to manage the complex challenge of sustainable urban development. This paper makes four main contributions to the growing literature on sustainable smart cities. First, it documents the factors that contributed to and challenged a medium-sized Irish city on its journey towards developing as a smart city. Previous studies, including Tang et al. (2019) [40], analysed greenfield smart cities, but very few studies examine how existing (brownfield) cities are seeking to transform into smart cities. Coletta et al.’s [3] study of Dublin is significant in this regard, as it examined smart city development in Ireland’s capital city. However, Coletta et al.’s findings cannot necessarily be generalised to medium-sized Irish cities. This research, therefore, contributes to the smart city literature by comparing the different paths to the smart city development of two cities in the same country.

This research also sheds light on the workings of local authority units responsible for smart city planning and implementation. Coletta et al. [3] correctly asserted that the working and functioning of such bodies are rarely documented in the smart city literature. This paper addresses this gap by describing the internal organisational structures established by the local government to facilitate and support smart city development in Limerick.

Our analysis extends to the smart city ecosystem instead of focusing on a single smart city initiative. It explores the networks and governance structures established to support smart city development. It reveals the collaborative approach adopted by local government, which led to several networks and governance structures that are consistent with the Quadruple Helix model. Notwithstanding the evidence of a Quadruple Helix approach, we found that citizens are not completely integrated into the smart city ecosystem. These findings provide an important lesson for policymakers in other cities, as weak integration is associated with a significant degree of digital exclusion in the city.

Limerick’s experience offers valuable lessons for cities worldwide. First, the city’s articulated approach is a significant lesson for other cities; the articulation was made possible by the development of a digital strategy and the establishment of the DSD department, which facilitated effective co-ordination and implementation of the strategy and smart city initiatives. Second, other cities can learn from the critical role played by the digital officer in leading and driving a smart city agenda. Third, it is important to note that articulation was made possible because the stakeholders share a common vision for the city. Lastly, the research highlights specific challenges faced by Limerick, such as the digital divide and limited local autonomy. Awareness of these challenges can help other cities anticipate similar issues while planning their smart city agenda.

This study points the way for future research into the comparative experience of different cities as they seek to develop as smart and sustainable. Future studies could focus on holistically investigating the smart cities landscape and the transformation of conventional cities into smart cities. Other potentially fertile ground for future research includes the exploration of the roles of technocratic leadership and research institutes in large or medium-sized smart cities and the analysis of their importance in the smart city ecosystem. Finally, there is scope for an in-depth examination of external and internal networks and their effects on the development of sustainable and smart cities.