EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 608 (2025) E3S Web Conf., 608 (2025) 05029 References
Open Access
Issue
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 608, 2025
EU-CONEXUS EENVIRO Research Conference - The 9th Conference of the Sustainable Solutions for Energy and Environment (EENVIRO 2024)
Article Number 05029
Number of page(s) 13
Section Sustainable Development
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202560805029
Published online 22 January 2025
  1. EIP-SCC, Explore, Shape, Deal. General Assembly 2018, Summary Report. 2018. [Google Scholar]
  2. Recordon, J., A. Fragnière, and N. Niwa, Une Smart City au service de la durability ? 2022. Collection debats et documents: p. 31–36. [Google Scholar]
  3. Project, T.S., ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY : 5-YEAR TRENDS AND 5G GOVERNANCE. 2021. [Google Scholar]
  4. Chevrollier, G., Pour une transition numerique ecologique, Rapport d’information n° 555 (2019-2020), depose le 24 juin 2020. 2020, Le Sènat, Commission de l’amcnagement du territoire et du dèveloppement durable. [Google Scholar]
  5. Souchet, A., et al., [The Shift Project] Energy, climate: What virtual worlds for a sustainable real world? 2024. [Google Scholar]
  6. Christie, A.R.A.L., Energy consumption of ICT. The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, UK POSTNOTE, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  7. Commision, E. Smart Cities. Available from: https://commission.europa.eu/eu-regional-and-urban-development/topics/cities-and-urban-development/city- initiatives/smart-cities_en#smart-cities-marketplace. [Google Scholar]
  8. Kylili, A., et al., An integrated building information modeling (BIM)-based lifecycle-oriented framework for sustainable building design. Construction Innovation, 2024. 24(2): p. 492–514. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. Rockstrom, J., et al., Planetary Boundaries Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Ecology and Society, 2009. 14(2). [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  10. Raworth, K., Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist. 2017: Chelsea Green Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  11. Yigitcanlar, T., et al., Can cities become smart without being sustainable? A systematic review of the literature. Sustainable Cities and Society, 2019. 45: p. 348–365. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. Stamopoulos, D., et al., Getting smart or going green? Quantifying the Smart City Industry’s economic impact and potential for sustainable growth. Cities, 2024. 144: p. 104612. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. Han, Y., et al., Does smart home adoption reduce household electricity-related CO2 emissions? Evidence from Hangzhou city, China. Energy, 2024. 289: p. 129890. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. Santarius, T., J. Pohl, and S. Lange, Digitalization and the Decoupling Debate: Can ICT Help to Reduce Environmental Impacts While the Economy Keeps Growing? Sustainability, 2020. 12. [Google Scholar]
  15. Santarius, T., et al., Digitalization and Sustainability: A Call for a Digital Green Deal. Environmental Science & Policy, 2023. 147: p. 11–14. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  16. Ipsen, K.L., et al., Environmental assessment of Smart City Solutions using a coupled urban metabolism—life cycle impact assessment approach. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2019. 24(7): p. 1239–1253. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  17. Goldstein, B., et al., Quantification of urban metabolism through coupling with the life cycle assessment framework: Concept development and case study. Environmental Research Letters, 2013. 8: p. 035024. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Technical and Environmental Administration, C.o.C., The CPH 2025 Climate Plan. [Google Scholar]
  19. Technical and Environmental Administration, C.o.C. Copenhagen Solutions Lab. Available from: https://urbandevelopmentcph.kk.dk/urban-planning/copenhagen- solutions-lab. [Google Scholar]
  20. Amsterdam, C.O. Amsterdam Smart City platform Available from: https://amsterdamsmartcity.com/. [Google Scholar]
  21. Bouillass, G., I. Blanc, and P. Perez-Lopez, Step-by-step social life cycle assessment framework: a participatory approach for the identification and prioritization of impact subcategories applied to mobility scenarios. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2021. 26: p. 2408–2435. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  22. De Luca, A.I., et al., Social life cycle assessment and participatory approaches: A methodological proposal applied to citrus farming in Southern Italy. Integrated environmental assessment and management, 2015. 11(3): p. 383–396. [Google Scholar]
  23. Othman, S.N., et al., Review on life cycle assessment of integrated solid waste management in sume Asian countries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2013. 41: p. 251–262. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  24. Singapore, G.O. Smart Nation Singapore. Available from: https://www.smartnation.gov.sg/. [Google Scholar]
  25. Wikipedia. Songdo International Business District. 2024; Available from: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Songdo&oldid=1235280326. [Google Scholar]
  26. Neom. The Line. 2024; Available from: https://www.neom.com/en-us/regions/theline. [Google Scholar]
  27. Prieto-Curiel, R. and D. Kondor, Arguments for building The Circle and not The Line in Saudi Arabia. npj Urban Sustainability, 2023. 3. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  28. Jacobs, K., Toronto wants to kill the smart city forever, in MIT Technology Review. 2022. [Google Scholar]
  29. Albertí. J., et al., Towards life cycle sustainability assessment of cities. A review of background knowledge. Science of The Total Environment, 2017. 609: p. 1049–1063. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  30. Seyedabadi, M.R. and U. Eicker, A critical review of urban scale life cycle assessment of the built environment. Sustainability Analytics and Modeling, 2023. 3: p. 100026. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  31. Lausselet, C., V. Borgnes, and H. Brattebø, LCA modelling for Zero Emission Neighbourhoods in early stage planning. Building and Environment, 2018. 149. [Google Scholar]
  32. Rossi, F., et al., A carbon footprint and energy consumption assessment methodology for UHI-affected lighting systems in built areas. Energy and Buildings, 2016. 114: p. 96–103. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  33. Fang, Z., et al., A systematic literature review of carbon footprint decision-making approaches for infrastructure and building projects. Applied Energy, 2023. 335: p. 120768. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  34. Garcia-López, J., et al., Balancing construction and operational carbon emissions: Evaluating neighbourhood renovation strategies. Journal of Building Engineering, 2024. 94: p. 109993. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  35. Font Vivanco, D. and E. van der Voet, The rebound effect through industrial ecology’s eyes: a review of LCA-based studies. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 2014. 19(12): p. 1933–1947. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  36. Lucas, A., C.A. Silva, and R.C. Neto, Life cycle analysis of energy supply infrastructure for conventional and electric vehicles. Energy Policy, 2012. 41: p. 537–547. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.