Assessing urban security and safety smartness: A systematic review of key performance indicators

IF 2.1 Q3 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS IET Smart Cities Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1049/smc2.70000

Francisco J. Gallardo-Amores, Cristina Del-Real, Antonio M. Díaz-Fernández

{"title":"Assessing urban security and safety smartness: A systematic review of key performance indicators","authors":"Francisco J. Gallardo-Amores, Cristina Del-Real, Antonio M. Díaz-Fernández","doi":"10.1049/smc2.70000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <p>The smart city framework has become a key approach to addressing urbanisation challenges over the last 2 decades. While KPIs have been developed for various smart city dimensions, security and safety remain underexplored. This paper addresses this gap through a systematic review of KPIs. The study examines how urban security and safety smartness is assessed, focusing on three questions: (RQ1) What indicators measure urban security and safety smartness? (RQ2) In which smart city dimensions are these KPIs located? (RQ3) How are these KPIs defined and quantified? Using PRISMA guidelines, databases including Web of Science, Scopus, and IEEE Xplore were searched, yielding 2369 sources. After screening, 38 studies were analysed. A total of 182 unique KPIs were identified and categorised into crime prevention and control (53), perceptions of safety (11), emergency and disaster management (50), and cybersecurity (68). Most KPIs focus on city outcomes, with fewer addressing smart technology functionalities. Definitions and measurement approaches lack consensus. This review identifies gaps in defining and measuring smart urban security and safety. Standardising KPIs and incorporating technology-specific metrics are key directions for future research.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":34740,"journal":{"name":"IET Smart Cities","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1049/smc2.70000","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IET Smart Cities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1049/smc2.70000","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

The smart city framework has become a key approach to addressing urbanisation challenges over the last 2 decades. While KPIs have been developed for various smart city dimensions, security and safety remain underexplored. This paper addresses this gap through a systematic review of KPIs. The study examines how urban security and safety smartness is assessed, focusing on three questions: (RQ1) What indicators measure urban security and safety smartness? (RQ2) In which smart city dimensions are these KPIs located? (RQ3) How are these KPIs defined and quantified? Using PRISMA guidelines, databases including Web of Science, Scopus, and IEEE Xplore were searched, yielding 2369 sources. After screening, 38 studies were analysed. A total of 182 unique KPIs were identified and categorised into crime prevention and control (53), perceptions of safety (11), emergency and disaster management (50), and cybersecurity (68). Most KPIs focus on city outcomes, with fewer addressing smart technology functionalities. Definitions and measurement approaches lack consensus. This review identifies gaps in defining and measuring smart urban security and safety. Standardising KPIs and incorporating technology-specific metrics are key directions for future research.

查看原文