SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sayıştay Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 36 Sayı: 139

Data-Driven Decision-Making for Smart City Investments: A Multi-Criteria Framework for Strategic Digital Governance

Akıllı Şehir Yatırımları İçin Veri Odaklı Karar Verme: Stratejik Dijital Yönetişim İçin Çok Kriterli Bir Çerçeve

Musab Talha Akpınar(ANKARA YILDIRIM BEYAZIT UNIVERSITY)0000-0003-4651-7788
Cem Korkut(ANKARA YILDIRIM BEYAZIT UNIVERSITY, FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE)
Pages
859–888
Publication Date
2025-12-24
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings reveal a strong prioritization of human capital and economic development, while environmental and infrastructural dimensions remain underemphasized.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The strategic alignment of smart city investments with public governance priorities has become a critical issue in the digital transformation of urban management, especially in developing and non-Western contexts.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study develops a hybrid Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)–Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) model to evaluate smart city initiatives in Konya Metropolitan Municipality in Türkiye.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The findings reveal a strong prioritization of human capital and economic development, while environmental and infrastructural dimensions remain underemphasized.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Akıllı Şehir · Dijital Dönüşüm · Stratejik Kamu Yönetimi

Abstract

The strategic alignment of smart city investments with public governance priorities has become a critical issue in the digital transformation of urban management, especially in developing and non-Western contexts. This study develops a hybrid Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)–Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) model to evaluate smart city initiatives in Konya Metropolitan Municipality in Türkiye. By integrating semi-structured interviews with decision-makers and a multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) framework, we assess eight smart city dimensions—ranging from Smart People to Smart Environment—across five criteria: technical adequacy, cost-efficiency, integration, sustainability, and citizen impact. The findings reveal a strong prioritization of human capital and economic development, while environmental and infrastructural dimensions remain underemphasized. The analysis highlights persistent gaps in artificial intelligence (AI) adoption, interdepartmental data governance, and participatory citizen engagement, limiting governance maturity and long-term sustainability. Policy recommendations include embedding AI-supported decision-making, institutionalizing open data and interoperability standards, aligning investments with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and designing inclusive cocreation platforms to enhance citizen-centric innovation.

Özet

Akıllı şehir yatırımlarının kamu yönetişim öncelikleriyle stratejik uyumu, özellikle gelişmekte olan ve Batı dışı bağlamlarda kentsel yönetimin dijital dönüşümünde kritik bir mesele haline gelmiştir. Bu çalışma, Türkiye’de Konya Büyükşehir Belediyesi örneğinde akıllı şehir girişimlerini değerlendirmek üzere hibrit bir Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci (AHP) – İdeal Çözüme Benzerlik Yöntemi (TOPSIS) modeli geliştirmektedir. Karar vericilerle yapılan yarı yapılandırılmış mülakatlar ve çok kriterli karar verme (ÇKKV) çerçevesi kullanılarak, sekiz akıllı şehir boyutu (Akıllı İnsan’dan Akıllı Çevre’ye) teknik yeterlilik, maliyet verimliliği, entegrasyon, sürdürülebilirlik ve vatandaş etkisi kriterleri üzerinden değerlendirilmiştir. Bulgular, insan sermayesi ve ekonomik gelişimin güçlü biçimde önceliklendirildiğini; çevresel ve yapısal boyutların ise görece geri planda kaldığını göstermektedir. Analiz, yapay zekâ (YZ) uygulamaları, birimler arası veri yönetişimi ve katılımcı vatandaşlık süreçlerinde süregelen boşluklara işaret etmekte; bu eksiklikler yönetişim olgunluğunu ve uzun vadeli sürdürülebilirliği sınırlamaktadır. Politika önerileri arasında YZ destekli karar sistemlerinin yerleşik hale getirilmesi, açık veri ve birlikte işlerlik standartlarının kurumsallaştırılması, yatırımların Sürdürülebilir Kalkınma Amaçları (SKA) ile uyumlu hale getirilmesi ve vatandaş odaklı inovasyonu güçlendirmek için kapsayıcı eş-tasarım platformlarının geliştirilmesi yer almaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Akpınar, M. T., Korkut, C. (2025). Data-Driven Decision-Making for Smart City Investments: A Multi-Criteria Framework for Strategic Digital Governance. Sayıştay Dergisi, Cilt: 36 Sayı: 139, 859–888. https://doi.org/10.52836/sayistay.1790967

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (72)

  1. Akpınar, M. T., & Ceyhan, S. (2023). Effect of Smart City Applications on Sustainable Management in Cities. In Sustainability Practices: Cases from Businesses and Charities (pp. 238-258). Ankara: Turkish Academy of Sciences.
  2. Albino, V., Berardi, U., & Dangelico, R. M. (2015). Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives. Journal of Urban Technology, 22(1), 3–21. https://doi.or g/10.1080/10630732.2014.942092
  3. Angelidou, M. (2015). Smart cities: A conjuncture of four forces. Cities, 47, 95–106. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.05.004
  4. Angelidou, M. (2017). The role of smart city characteristics in the plans of fifteen cities. Journal of Urban Technology, 24(4), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.201 7.1348880
  5. Anthopoulos, L. G. (2017). Understanding smart cities: A tool for smart government or an industrial trick? Springer.
  6. Batty, M. (2013). The new science of cities. MIT Press.
  7. Batty, M., Axhausen, K. W., Fosca, G., Pozdnoukhov, A., Vannesa, B., & Catanese, M. P. (2012). Smart cities of the future. European Physical Journal Special Topics, 214, 481–518. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjst/e2012-01703-3
  8. Beckers, D., & Mora, L. (2025). Overcoming the smart city governance challenge: an innovation management perspective. Journal of Urban Technology, 32(2), 85-106.
  9. Belton, V., & Stewart, T. J. (2002). Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Springer US.
  10. Birt, L., Scott, S., Cavers, D., Campbell, C., & Walter, F. (2016). Member checking: A tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation? Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1802–1811. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315613186
  11. Bozdoğanoğlu, B. (2023). Blokzincir teknolojisinin kamu idarelerinde kullanılabilirliği: Ülke örnekleri ve Türkiye değerlendirmesi. Sayıştay Dergisi, 34(130), 355–385. https:// doi.org/10.52836/sayistay.1316034
  12. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
  13. Can, D. (2019). Mapping out Smart City Initiatives in the Turkish Context. Unpublished MSc Thesis. Middle East Technical University.
  14. Cappa, F., Franco, S., & Rosso, F. (2022). Citizens and cities: Leveraging citizen science and big data for sustainable urban development. Business Strategy and the Environment, 31(2), 648-667.
  15. Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., & Nijkamp, P. (2011). Smart cities in Europe. Journal of Urban Technology, 18(2), 65–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2011.601117
  16. Chatterjee, S., Rana, N. P., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Baabdullah, A. M. (2021). Smart cities in developing economies: A literature review and research agenda. Information Systems Frontiers, 23(2), 419–444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-019-09975-4
  17. Cowley, R. (2020). The cracks in smart city visions. Urban Studies, 57(8), 1593–1608. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098019834255
  18. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
  19. Dawes, S. S., Vidiasova, L., & Parkhimovich, O. (2016). Planning and designing open government data programs: An ecosystem approach. Government Information Quarterly, 33(1), 15–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.01.003
  20. Doumpos, M., Zopounidis, C., & Grigoroudis, E. (2022). Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys (2nd ed.). Springer.
  21. Ekin, E., & Sarul, L. S. (2022). Investigation of smart city components by AHP-BWMFUCOM and DEMATEL methods. Alphanumeric Journal, 10(2), 197-222. https://doi. org/10.17093/alphanumeric.1210018
  22. Farooq, A., Stoilova, S., Ahmad, F., Alam, M., Nassar, H., Qaiser, T., Iqbal, K., Qadir, A., & Ahmad, M. (2021). An Integrated Multicriteria Decision‐Making Approach to Evaluate Traveler Modes’ Priority: An Application to Peshawar, Pakistan. Journal of advanced transportation, 2021(1), 5564286. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5564286
  23. Farooq, A., Xie, M., Stoilova, S., & Ahmad, F. (2019b). Multicriteria Evaluation of Transport Plan for High‐Speed Rail: An Application to Beijing‐Xiongan. Mathematical Problems in Engineering, 2019(1), 8319432. https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/8319432
  24. Farooq, A., Xie, M., Stoilova, S., & Williams, E. J. (2019a). The Application of Smart Urban Mobility Strategies and Initiatives: Application to Beijing. European Transport \ Trasporti Europei (Trasporti Europe), 71, 1-22.
  25. Farooq, A., Xie, M., Stoilova, S., Ahmad, F., Guo, M., Williams, E. J., Gahlot, V. K., Yan, D. & Mahamat Issa, A. (2018). Transportation planning through GIS and multicriteria analysis: Case study of Beijing and XiongAn. Journal of Advanced Transportation, 2018(1), 2696037. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/2696037
  26. Fetters, M. D., & Molina-Azorin, J. F. (2017). The journal of mixed methods research starts a new decade: Principles for bringing in the new and divesting of the old language of the field. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 11(1), 3–10. https://doi. org/10.1177/1558689816679996
  27. Forman, E., & Gass, S. I. (2001). The analytic hierarchy process—An exposition. Operations Research, 49(4), 469–486. https://doi.org/10.1287/opre.49.4.469.11231
  28. Gil-García, J. R., Zhang, J., & Puron-Cid, G. (2016). Conceptualizing smartness in government: An integrative and multi-dimensional view. Government Information Quarterly, 33(3), 524–534.
  29. Granier, B., & Kudo, H. (2016). How are citizens involved in smart cities? Analysing citizen participation in Japanese``Smart Communities’’. Information Polity, 21(1), 61-76.
  30. Greco, S., Ehrgott, M., & Figueira, J. R. (Eds.). (2019). Multiple criteria decision analysis: State of the art surveys. Springer.
  31. Grossi, G., & Welinder, A. (2024). Smart cities at the intersection of public governance paradigms for sustainability. Urban Studies, 61(10), 2011-2023. https://doi. org/10.1177/00420980241227807
  32. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82. https://doi. org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
  33. Hwang, C. L., & Yoon, K. (1981). Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications. Springer-Verlag.
  34. Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3–20. https://doi. org/10.1177/1525822X05282260
  35. Katzenbach, C., & Ulbricht, L. (2019). Algorithmic governance. Internet Policy Review, 8(4), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.14763/2019.4.1424
  36. Kayan, A. (2019). Dijital çağda kent yönetimi için ortaya çıkan fırsatlar. Sayıştay Dergisi, (114), 53–73.
  37. Kitchin, R. (2014). The real-time city? Big data and smart urbanism. GeoJournal, 79(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-013-9516-8
  38. Konya Büyükşehir Belediyesi. (2022). Konya Akıllı Şehir Stratejisi ve Yol Haritası 2022– 2030. https://akillisehir.konya.bel.tr
  39. Lloret, Á., Peral, J., Ferrández, A., Auladell, M., & Muñoz, R. (2025). A Data-Driven Framework for Digital Transformation in Smart Cities: Integrating AI, Dashboards, and IoT Readiness. Sensors, 25(16), 5179. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25165179
  40. Meijer, A., & Bolívar, M. P. R. (2016). Governing the smart city: A review of the literature on smart urban governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(2), 392–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314564308
  41. Mele, V., & Belardinelli, P. (2018). Mixed methods in public administration research: Selecting, sequencing, and connecting. Public Administration Review, 78(6), 828–837. https:// doi.org/10.1111/puar.12930
  42. Mergel, I., Edelmann, N., & Haug, N. (2019). Defining digital transformation: Results from expert interviews. Government Information Quarterly, 36(4), 101385. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.06.002
  43. Mora, L., Bolici, R., & Deakin, M. (2017a). The first two decades of smart-city research: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Urban Technology, 24(1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.10 80/10630732.2017.1285123
  44. Mora, L., Deakin, M., & Reid, A. (2017b). Smart city development paths: Insights from the first two decades of research. Cities, 61, 1–13.
  45. Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2011, June). Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people, and institutions. In Proceedings of the 12th annual international digital government research conference: digital government innovation in challenging times (pp. 282-291).
  46. Neirotti, P., De Marco, A., Cagliano, A. C., Mangano, G., & Scorrano, F. (2014). Current trends in smart city initiatives: Some stylised facts. Cities, 38, 25–36. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cities.2013.12.010
  47. OECD. (2020a). Digital government in Chile: Improving public service design and delivery. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/6664a8ec-en
  48. OECD. (2020b). The OECD Digital Government Policy Framework: Six dimensions of a digital government. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/f64fed2a-en
  49. Opricovic, S., & Tzeng, G. H. (2004). Compromise solution by MCDM methods: A comparative analysis of VIKOR and TOPSIS. European Journal of Operational Research, 156(2), 445–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(03)00020-1
  50. Osborne, S. P. (2006). The new public governance?, Public Management Review, 8(3), 377– 387. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030600853022
  51. Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
  52. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill.
  53. Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H., & Jinks, C. (2018). Saturation in qualitative research: Exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52(4), 1893–1907. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11135-017-0574-8
  54. Sharma, M., Joshi, S., & Luthra, S. (2023). A hybrid fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS approach for implementation of smart waste management. Sustainability, 15(8), 6526. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su15086526
  55. Silva, B. N., Khan, M., & Han, K. (2025). A review on key innovation challenges for smart city initiatives. Smart Cities, 7(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities7010006
  56. Söderström, O., Paasche, T., & Klauser, F. (2014). Smart cities as corporate storytelling. City, 18(3), 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2014.906659
  57. Sun, T. Q., & Medaglia, R. (2019). Mapping the challenges of Artificial Intelligence in the public sector: Evidence from public healthcare. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), 368–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2018.09.008
  58. Tan, S. Y., & Taeihagh, A. (2020). Smart city governance in developing countries: A systematic literature review. sustainability, 12(3), 899.
  59. Trindade, E. P., Hinnig, M. P. F., da Costa, E. M., Marques, J. S., Bastos, R. C., & Yigitcanlar, T. (2017). Sustainable development of smart cities: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 3(3), 1-14.
  60. Tuğaç, Ç. (2023). Birleşmiş Milletler sürdürülebilir kalkınma amaçlarının gerçekleştirilmesinde yapay zekâ uygulamalarının rolü. Sayıştay Dergisi, 34(128), 73–99. https://doi. org/10.52836/sayistay.1245051
  61. Ünal, M., & Işıklar Alptekin, G. (2023). Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making for Smart City Evaluation and Ranking. Kent Akademisi, 16(4), 2538–2552. https://doi. org/10.35674/kent.1287759
  62. United Nations – Habitat (2025). International Guidelines on People-Centred Smart Cities. https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2025/02/international_guidelines_on_ people_centred_smart_cities_10.02.25_shared.pdf
  63. United Nations. (2015). Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/21252030%20 Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development%20web.pdf
  64. Vatamanu, A. F., & Tofan, M. (2025). Integrating artificial intelligence into public administration: Challenges and vulnerabilities. Administrative Sciences, 15(4), 149.
  65. Wirtz, B. W., Weyerer, J. C., & Geyer, C. (2019). Artificial Intelligence and the Public Sector— Applications and Challenges. International Journal of Public Administration, 42(7), 596–615. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2018.1498103
  66. Yapıcı Sapankaya, F. (2025). İklim Değişikliği ile Mücadelenin Stratejik Boyutu: Türkiye’deki Büyükşehir Belediyelerinin Stratejik Planları Üzerinden Bir İnceleme. Sayıştay Dergisi, 36(137), 289-320. https://doi.org/10.52836/sayistay.1647561
  67. Yigitcanlar, T. (2015). Smart cities: An effective urban development and management model?. Australian Planner, 52(1), 27-34.
  68. Yigitcanlar, T., & Bulu, M. (2015). Dubaization of Istanbul: Insights from the knowledgebased urban development journey of an emerging local economy. Environment and Planning A, 47(1), 89-107.
  69. Yigitcanlar, T., Kamruzzaman, M., Foth, M., Sabatini-Marques, J., Da Costa, E., & Ioppolo, G. (2019). Can cities become smart without being sustainable? A systematic review of the literature. Sustainable cities and society, 45, 348-365.
  70. Zanella, A., Bui, N., Castellani, A., Vangelista, L., & Zorzi, M. (2014). Internet of things for smart cities. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 1(1), 22–32. https://doi.org/10.1109/ JIOT.2014.2306328
  71. Ünal, M., & Alptekin, G. I. (2023). Using Multi-Criteria Decision-Making for Smart City Evaluation and Ranking. Kent Akademisi, 16(4), 2538-2552.
  72. Zopounidis, C., & Doumpos, M. (2013). Multiple criteria decision aiding. Springer. Zuiderwijk, A., Janssen, M., & Davis, C. (2014). Innovation with open data: Essential elements of open data ecosystems. Information polity, 19(1-2), 17-33.