Sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories based on the model of minimizing externalities

Guldana Kuandykovna Suyendikova; Sergey Evgenievich Barykin; Sergey Mikhailovich Sergeev; Irina Vasilievna Kapustina; Yuri Krupnov; Natalia NikolaevnaShchepkina

doi:10.12688/f1000research.114630.1

Home Browse Sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories based...

ALL Metrics

Views

Downloads

Get PDF

Get XML

Export

▬

✚

Research Article

Sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories based on the model of minimizing externalities

[version 1; peer review: 4 approved with reservations]

Guldana Kuandykovna Suyendikova ¹, Sergey Evgenievich Barykin ², Sergey Mikhailovich Sergeev³, Irina Vasilievna Kapustina², Yuri Krupnov⁴, Natalia NikolaevnaShchepkina⁵

Guldana Kuandykovna Suyendikova ¹, Sergey Evgenievich Barykin ², [...] Sergey Mikhailovich Sergeev³, Irina Vasilievna Kapustina², Yuri Krupnov⁴, Natalia NikolaevnaShchepkina⁵

PUBLISHED 13 May 2022

Author details Author details

¹ Department of Economics, L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, Nur-Sultan, 010008, Kazakhstan
² Graduate School of Service and Trade, Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, St. Petersburg, 195251, Russian Federation
³ Graduate School of Industrial Management, Peter the Great St. Petersburg Polytechnic University, St. Petersburg, 195251, Russian Federation
⁴ Center for Strategic Forecasting and Planning, Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 124167, Russian Federation
⁵ Department of construction and real estate management, Moscow State University of Civil Engineering, Mowcow, 109377, Russian Federation

Guldana Kuandykovna Suyendikova
Roles: Methodology, Software

Sergey Evgenievich Barykin
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Sergey Mikhailovich Sergeev
Roles: Formal Analysis

Irina Vasilievna Kapustina
Roles: Formal Analysis

Yuri Krupnov
Roles: Data Curation

Natalia NikolaevnaShchepkina
Roles: Validation

OPEN PEER REVIEW

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

The development of conceptual models of a digital city poses numerous challenges for developers. The public sector concept model has become one of the most difficult models to use. When developing algorithms to find a solution, the multidirectional interests of businesses and public institutions are combined. This type of model reflects the most acute and urgent problems faced by megapolises with regard to combining numerous localized services provided to the community in a limited territory. The administrations of both cities and regions (the scale of the smart territories) must make decisions concerning overcoming the barriers existing between the profits of commercial structures, the negative externalities generated by their activities, and the social benefits to the population in the territory under their control. It is necessary to solve this problem to achieve the effective management of enterprises belonging to the segment of long-term participants in various business activities, interacting with the surrounding social and business environment in a complex. This study takes into account the complex structures of the economic processes characteristic of megacities. The periodicity of economic processes is also taken into account. When choosing an optimization criterion, functions reflecting the level of internalization of responsibility for external effects were considered. The authors propose a mathematical model that can be used as part of the management decision support systems software, aiming at taking into account the externalities of a wide range of national, institutional, business, and social activities.

Keywords

Smart Cities, Digital Platforms, Sustainable Development, Digital Interactions, Smart Territories, Agglomeration, Satellite-Cities.

Corresponding authors: Guldana Kuandykovna Suyendikova, Sergey Evgenievich Barykin

Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information: The research is partially funded by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation under the strategic academic leadership program 'Priority 2030' (Agreement 075-15-2021-1333 dated 30 September 2021).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Copyright: © 2022 Kuandykovna Suyendikova G et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite: Kuandykovna Suyendikova G, Evgenievich Barykin S, Mikhailovich Sergeev S et al. Sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories based on the model of minimizing externalities [version 1; peer review: 4 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2022, 11:522 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.114630.1) First published: 13 May 2022, 11:522 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.114630.1) Latest published: 06 Jun 2022, 11:522 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.114630.2)

Introduction

Several possible actions from a comprehensive perspective could be significant in Post-COVID recovery.¹^–⁴ The state as a whole, from the point of view of the economy, is a set of enterprises, both institutional and commercial. When studying economic processes at the top level, profits, common interests, and obligations must be taken into account.⁵^,⁶ Additionally, it is important to introduce formalisms for the effect of externalities, which occur everywhere. Besides entrepreneurial activity, state institutions of the defense department, medicine, transport, education, etc., operate in each country. When modeling externalities, it is important to take into account both their positive and negative aspects based on the activities of all market entities.

Any reaction can be the genesis in the general case, and therefore it is necessary to not be limited to the field of ecology in smart cities and in the smart territories considering the larger scale.⁷ The consequences of a social nature are much wider and deeper.⁸ Such damage to society will first be taken into account when monitoring the economic indicators of the current activities of any market participants.

As a rule, such analysis uses the methods of surrogate markets. In turn, this direction, which is usually referred to as an indirect market method or proxy market, is divided into several pricing principles.

Since, at present, there is no definitive methodology able to theoretically cover the problem in general, we will consider the dependencies of externalities in the form of a function, the arguments concerning which are the characteristics of economic activity.⁹ An additional circumstance complicating any activity is the uncertainty of market conditions. Here, the methods of the stochastic process theory are used, which makes it possible to form adequate mathematical models.¹⁰ However, it must be taken into account that the indicators of distribution functions are not static. In the process of solving the problem, a set of algorithms are defined and the economic criteria used is justified. When evaluating a set of planned calculation results, special attention should be paid to finding a balance between the additional burden on the enterprise—i.e., on internalization and the indicators of the profitability of its activities. Based on this set of conditions, the formalisms of the mathematical model should be built. Similarly, non-commercial activities must be accounted for. This is necessary in order to assess the social factor in the activities of state institutions themselves in terms of their social and economic efficiency.

In this case, optimization is carried out by searching for the extrema of functionality, taking into account the inclusion of externalities in the market mechanism for evaluating performance. The results obtained may be a set of regulatory measures using institutional mechanisms. These include dispositive, strategic, restrictive, and stimulating components that form the basis of administrative management and legislative acts that are implemented in both the concepts of preventive behavior and prevention of damage, as well as in the more general concepts of the preservation and development of the social environment.¹¹

Methods

Improving the smart city concept is essential to meet the demand of growing urban conglomerates to maintain comfort¹² and improve the quality of urbanization.¹³^,¹⁴ Regulation of the internal flows of megacities is the main focus of maintaining the quality of urbanization.¹⁵ Ignoring environmental requirements to reduce landscape characteristics, which will occur without striving to maintain the structure and functions of the regional ecological system.¹⁶ Urbanization policy is closely related to a wide range of objectives, including transport policy, the provision of public infrastructure, and the provision of modern security and management facilities.¹⁷ Urbanization affects the condition and viability of green infrastructure and its maintenance as a source of ecosystem services, which will allow the development of effective policies for land use, sustainable urban development and infrastructure management.¹⁸ A recent study suggested the sustainable development of smart cities as a complex structure of interconnected organizations that influence the level of everyday life of the population.¹⁹

The authors developed a formalized description to solve the problem at hand. The methods presented in the literature operate, as a rule, with the tools of correlation and regression analysis.²⁰ To find the optimal solution under the conditions of market uncertainty and to apply the optimization methods correctly, a more complex mathematical model is needed.

Since the processes of economic activity have some duration in terms of time and also have a complex nature based on changes in seasonal indicators, the authors used a combination of methods.²¹ Among them, we note the theory of the calculus of variations, methods for solving differential equations, the theory of mathematical games, and the main provisions⁵^,⁶ of methods used for finding optimal control.²²^,²³

Results

In order to describe the processes under study, we introduce a number of parameters that describe business and government activities. The mathematical model we propose is based on the application of methods for finding optimal solutions.

We introduce the concept of the number ( $N$ ) of enterprises. All of them work in this limited area. Let us take into account the fact that these enterprises have negative externalities as an external influence. In the case of additional costs for each enterprise, the effect of negative externalities can be reduced.

We denote $\bar{P} = (p_{1} p_{2} \dots p_{N})$ as the vector of searching for the optimal equilibrium solution. Searching for options for such solutions is carried out inside an $N$ -dimensional cube of economic situations. We make the calculation specific for $N = 3$ , since in this case the result can be visualized. Let us enter the value of additional expenses $ω$ . This amount reflects the need to spend additional money when planning work aimed at minimizing damage from the externalities produced.

Next, we take into account the possible differences in the scale of enterprises, such as the differences in damage $ψ^{*}$ and $ψ$ . We summarize the calculation model and data in Table 1.

Table 1. Variants of situations and the calculation model.

Option	Enterprise			Calculation
	I	II	III	Element value
	Expenses			Element value
0,0,0	$ω$	$ω$	$ω$	$(1 - p_{1}) (1 - p_{2}) (1 - p_{3})$
0,0,1	$ω$	$ω$	0	$(1 - p_{1}) (1 - p_{2}) p_{3}$
0,1,0	$ω$	0	$ω$	$(1 - p_{1}) p_{2} (1 - p_{3})$
0,1,1	$ψ^{*}$ + $ω$	$ψ^{*}$	$ψ^{*}$	$(1 - p_{1}) p_{2} p_{3}$
1,0,0	0	$ω$	$ω$	$p_{1} (1 - p_{2}) (1 - p_{3})$
1,0,1	$ψ$	$ψ$ + $ω$	$ψ$	$p_{1} (1 - p_{2}) p_{3}$
1,1,0	$ψ$	$ψ$	$ψ$ + $ω$	$p_{1} p_{2} (1 - p_{3})$
1,1,1	$ψ^{*}$	$ψ^{*}$	$ψ^{*}$	$p_{1} p_{2} p_{3}$

To calculate, we assume that ${\bar{p}}_{i} = 1 - p_{i}$ , $\forall i$ and calculate the product of the vector below:

(1)

({\bar{p}}_{1} {\bar{p}}_{2} {\bar{p}}_{3}, {\bar{p}}_{1} {\bar{p}}_{2} p_{3}, {\bar{p}}_{1} p_{2} {\bar{p}}_{3}, {\bar{p}}_{1} p_{2} p_{3}, p_{1} {\bar{p}}_{2} {\bar{p}}_{3}, p_{1} {\bar{p}}_{2} p_{3}, p_{1} p_{2} {\bar{p}}_{3}, p_{1} p_{2} p_{3})

using the corresponding vectors in Table 1. We write these out in the following form:

\begin{matrix} (ω, ω, ω, ψ^{*} + ω, 0, ψ, ψ, ψ^{*}); (ω, ω, 0, ψ^{*}, ω, ψ + ω, ψ, ψ^{*}); (ω, 0, ω, ψ^{*}, ω, ψ, ψ + ω, ψ^{*}) . \end{matrix}

By applying the solution-finding rule²⁴ to the formulated conditions, we obtain two inequalities. The calculated ratios reflect possible market equilibrium conditions. First, we need to define the conditions for the lower bound:

- ω (1 - p_{1}) (1 - p_{2}) (1 - p_{3}) - ω (1 - p_{1}) (1 - p_{2}) p_{3} - ω (1 - p_{1}) p_{2} (1 - p_{3}) - (ψ^{*} + ω) (1 - p_{1}) p_{2} p_{3} - ψ p_{1} (1 - p_{2}) p_{3} - ψ p_{1} p_{2} (1 - p_{3}) - ψ^{*} p_{1} p_{2} p_{3} \geq - ω (1 - p_{2}) (1 - p_{3}) - ω p_{2} (1 - p_{3}) - ω (1 - p_{2}) p_{3} - (ψ^{*} + ω) p_{2} p_{3} .

The next calculation step allows us to determine the upper limit:

- ω (1 - p_{1}) (1 - p_{2}) (1 - p_{3}) - ω (1 - p_{1}) (1 - p_{2}) p_{3} - ω (1 - p_{1}) p_{2} (1 - p_{3}) - (ψ^{*} + ω) (1 - p_{1}) p_{2} p_{3} - ψ p_{1} (1 - p_{2}) p_{3} - ψ p_{1} p_{2} (1 - p_{3}) - ψ^{*} p_{1} p_{2} p_{3} \geq - ψ p_{2} (1 - p_{3}) - ψ (1 - p_{2}) p_{3} - ψ^{*} p_{2} p_{3} .

We then carry out simple transformations and obtain the system:

(2)

\begin{matrix} ω p_{1} - ψ p_{1} p_{2} - ψ p_{1} p_{3} + 2 ψ p_{1} p_{2} p_{3} \geq 0 \\ - ω (1 - p_{1}) + ψ (p_{2} + p_{3}) (1 - p_{1}) - 2 ψ p_{2} p_{3} (1 - p_{1}) \geq 0 \end{matrix}\}

The calculation process used for each enterprise is similar. As a result, one obtains a system of equations for calculating the boundaries necessary for making decisions:

(3)

\begin{matrix} ω p_{2} - ψ^{*} p_{2} p_{3} - ψ p_{1} p_{2} + 2 ψ p_{1} p_{2} p_{3} \geq 0 \\ ω (1 - p_{2}) - ψ^{*} (1 - p_{2}) p_{3} - ψ p_{1} (1 - p_{2}) + 2 ψ p_{1} (1 - p_{2}) p_{3} \geq 0 \\ ω p_{3} - ψ^{*} p_{2} p_{3} - ψ p_{1} p_{3} + 2 ψ p_{1} p_{2} p_{3} \geq 0 \\ ω (1 - p_{3}) - ψ^{*} (1 - p_{3}) p_{2} - ψ p_{1} (1 - p_{3}) + 2 ψ p_{1} (1 - p_{3}) p_{2} \geq 0 \end{matrix}\}

All possible solutions are limited within the multidimensional cube of situations. Such visualization is applicable to the three-dimensional case considered in this example and is used solely for clarity. In the case of $N = 3$ , this can be visualized in Figure 1. At the cube corners, the economic indicators associated with externalities are marked.

Figure 1. A 3D set of admissible solutions.

As a result of solving the system of equations, we obtain a set of regions for $\{p_{1}, p_{2}, p_{3}\}$ . The vector values belong to the multidimensional space of situations that satisfy the Nash equilibrium condition. The obtained data is represented in the simplest way by constructing volumetric diagrams of the solution in any package of mathematical applied programs. An analysis of the obtained equations shows that the domains of admissible solutions belong to the intersection of planes with hyperbolic surfaces.

The calculation results for the two participants in production activities are shown in Figures 2 and 3.³⁸ The third solution differs only in terms of the orthogonal rotation of the axes in which the diagram is built.

Figure 2. a) Boundary solution areas. b) Set of solutions for Equation (2).

Figure 3. a) Set of solutions for Equation (3). b) Boundary solution areas.

Note that the equations are hyperbolic surfaces, with several intersection points giving the desired solution. To do this, it is sufficient, for example, to transform Equations (2) and (3) to the following form:

P_{2} \geq \frac{1}{2} - \frac{ψ (2 ω / ψ - 1)}{ψ P_{3} - ψ / 2} .

In this case, the variation in the boundaries forms multidimensional dependencies, as presented in Figures 2 and 3.

The first version of the result reflects a trivial solution $({\bar{p}}_{1} {\bar{p}}_{2} {\bar{p}}_{3}) = 0$ . In addition to this case, it is possible to obtain stable states in two more variants. The calculation of the second vector makes it possible to determine the components that satisfy the equilibrium conditions:

\{\frac{ω - ψ \frac{ψ + \sqrt{ψ^{2} - 2 ω ψ}}{2 ψ} + 2 ψ {[\frac{ψ + \sqrt{ψ^{2} - 2 ω ψ}}{2 ψ}]}^{2}}{ψ {[(ψ + \sqrt{ψ^{2} - 2 ω ψ}) / 2 ψ]}^{2}}, \frac{ψ + \sqrt{ψ^{2} - 2 ω ψ}}{2 ψ}, \frac{ψ + \sqrt{ψ^{2} - 2 ω ψ}}{2 ψ}\}

Let us calculate the third case of equilibrium in a similar way. The desired vector is equal to:

\{\frac{ω - ψ \frac{ψ - \sqrt{ψ^{2} - 2 ω ψ}}{2 ψ} + 2 ψ {[\frac{ψ - \sqrt{ψ^{2} - 2 ω ψ}}{2 ψ}]}^{2}}{ψ {[(ψ - \sqrt{ψ^{2} - 2 ω ψ}) / 2 ψ]}^{2}}, \frac{ψ - \sqrt{ψ^{2} - 2 ω ψ}}{2 ψ}, \frac{ψ - \sqrt{ψ^{2} - 2 ω ψ}}{2 ψ}\}

Discussion

Analysis of the results

Each calculated value is applied in different conditions. For the administration of cities and regions, the decision is made in order to overcome a number of barriers. This applies primarily to the disagreement between the profits of commercial structures, the negative externalities generated by their activities, and the social benefit of the population in the controlled territory. In the case of the dispositive method of legal regulation, the first (trivial) solution is applied everywhere.

This decision (presented in Figures 2 and 3) can be interpreted as the unwillingness of the participants in production activities to bear the costs of transforming external effects into internal ones.²⁵

The second equilibrium solution accounts for restrictive measures. This approach requires the application of regulatory standards.

The third result of the decision involves the application of radical measures of restriction.

The listed measures have an economic character. The application of these restrictions obliges economic entities to conduct their activities while taking into account the interests of society. This will also generally affect the state of the entire economic system.²⁶^–³⁰

It should be emphasized that the presented equations of the mathematical model reflect the situation for $N = 3$ participants in commercial activities. This is explained by the fact that, in this case, it is possible to visualize the calculation results. The equations developed for the mathematical model can be scaled. At the same time, the number of participants³¹ in economic activities is not limited. In addition, the dependencies describing economic indicators can also have an arbitrary form. This only increases the dimension of the externalities model. All calculations were implemented using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft, 2022) (RRID:SCR_016137).

Application of results

The application of the obtained results in the organization of the life of modern megapolises is especially relevant. Due to the aggravated environmental situation, problems of both a social and economic nature are actively manifested in them. The effective work of the authorities will be based on a scientifically grounded methodology for solving problems related to the economics of the environment. Therefore, the efficient use of public resources is emphasized as among the major tasks that must be completed. The task of business analysis aimed at developing recommendations for authorities and governments is to take into account multidirectional processes. On the one hand, there is an increased burden on resources and a decrease in the quality indicators of these resources, and it is necessary to evaluate the negative externalities. For the economic indicators of the metropolis, the standard²⁶ of living of the population depends on the activities of all types of businesses and on enterprises that create profit and employment. The results presented by the authors of this paper and the mathematical model³²^,³³ make it possible to develop a solution algorithm. Based on this, it is possible to create expert systems. The development of large metropolitan areas and industrial centers is accompanied by data exchange flows. Modern big data technologies and statistical analysis provide operational economic information for calculations based on mathematical models. Such systems are promising for use in the environmental, social, and corporate management of a smart city at the top level of planning.

Structure of relationships

High rates of urbanization have caused large-scale shifts in the entire structure of relationships (relationships between business entities operating in a given territory, administration, and the population as a user of public resources). The dynamics of the mutual influence of different types of activity have intensified. Over the past decade, the world has come to increasingly rely on scientific and technological achievements. This inevitably entails negative consequences, which, in conditions with a high concentration of population and industry, inevitably create problems of both a social and economic orientation. The nature of these externalities is not determined solely by their impact on the environment. The quality of life in general is also negatively affected. The desire of the population to move to megapolises is determined by the high-quality standards of the living environment, and if radical measures are not taken to regulate the entire infrastructure, we will see the opposite effect. The functioning of numerous social institutions, public utilities, the service sector, and the industrial sector should be coordinated within smart city digital platforms.

The development of algorithms for making intelligent decisions is only possible today by combining digital data flows, big data technologies, and information communications into a single system. Decision criteria can be multifaceted. Science-based accounting of the balance between profit affecting the welfare and minimizing the negative impact of industrial urbanization is needed. The solution to socio-territorial problems depends on the quality of management decision-making algorithms. These should be based on mathematical models that are close to reality and methods for finding optimal solutions.

Conclusion

Urbanization reflects a global trend. Consolidation into large megapolises is based on a multifaceted process involving the development of society as a whole. Megapolises, alpha cities, and the neighborhoods of such agglomerations, at present, house up to half of the world’s population and the majority of industrial enterprises. The smart city concept has no alternative today. The set of expert algorithms within the framework of the smart city conceptual model is intended primarily for decision-makers in each of the sectors of the economy. As a result, the development of directives for business organizers, systems, and services necessary for a megapolis is carried out based on calculated and economically sound principles. In many ways, the work of the e-government is guided by similar principles. The main principles are still the commitment to sustainable development³⁴ and maintaining the quality of life of the population.²⁷^,³⁵ The authors propose a complex approach to consider the socially oriented combination of ICT (information, and communication technology) tools for the rational use of resources to improve life quality indicators. The authors are attempting to develop smart city concept considering the public sector concept model (PSCM). The authors’ recommendations aimed at organizations that provide services and manage data in cities. The proposed approach addresses the interoperability of systems and data-sharing so that information from different sources can be normalized, classified, shared and understood, with the derivation of data linked back to previous layers and the impact of decisions observable in operational data. The stated principles of formalization are the basis for the development of a mathematical model. The use of the decision algorithm serves as a rationale for making a number of management decisions. At present, the concentration of business and cultural activity on a limited territorial scale dominates. This gives rise to the need to determine the feasibility of internalizing the numerous effects that arise from business or governmental activities. The presented technique makes it possible to formalize these according to the principle of externalities and to apply a multidimensional balance calculation to minimize the possible damage caused. It is necessary for management structures³⁶ or administration bodies to exclude decision-making³⁷ based on heuristic methods. It is necessary to carry out the analysis on a verified, scientifically based calculation. The result of mathematical modeling will be the optimization of the amount of expenses that must be borne by various members of the business community. It should be noted that today, in the decision-making process, dynamic analyses of the situation in the economy using digital twins are not carried out and methods for finding optimal solutions are not applied. All of these shortcomings occur for many reasons. These include the imperfection of methods and the complexity of taking into account many factors. We would also point to the lack of correct theoretical models and digital twins of processes in megacities based on accounting for economic indicators.

Data availability

Underlying data

Figshare: Figures.xls https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.19692205.v1³⁸

This project contains the following underlying data:

- Figures.xls (This is the data used for the calculations shown in this research paper). The EXCEL application contains the visualization of calculations according to the formulas presented in the work.

Data are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC-BY 4.0).

Ethical approval

Not applicable (No use of individual human data in this article).

Acknowledgments

We are thankful to the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation for the financial support of this project.

References

1. Ruan W-Q, Zhang S-N: Can tourism information flow enhance regional tourism economic linkages?. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2021 Dec; 49(November): 614–623. Publisher Full Text
2. Koç B, Küçükergin KG, Dimanche F: How destructive are negative tourist-to-tourist interactions despite the mitigating effect of optimism?. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2022 Mar; 23(February): 100693. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
3. Sun W, Chien PM, Ritchie BW, et al.: When compatriot tourists behave badly: The impact of misbehavior appraisal and outgroup criticism construal. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2022 Mar; 23(February): 100695. Publisher Full Text
4. Bulchand-Gidumal J: Post-COVID-19 recovery of island tourism using a smart tourism destination framework. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2022 Mar; 23: 100689. Publisher Full Text
5. Provotorov VV, Sergeev SM, Hoang VN: Countable stability of a weak solution of a parabolic differential-difference system with distributed parameters on the graph. Vestn. Saint Petersbg. Univ. Appl. Math. Comput. Sci. Control Process. 2020; 16(4): 402–414. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
6. Provotorov VV, Sergeev SM, Van NH: Point control of a differential-difference system with distributed parameters on the graph. Vestn. Saint Petersbg. Univ. Appl. Math. Comput. Sci. Control Process. 2021; 17(3): 277–286. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
7. Garcia-Ayllon S, Miralles JL: New Strategies to Improve Governance in Territorial Management: Evolving from “Smart Cities” to “Smart Territories.”. Procedia Eng. 2015; 118: 3–11. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
8. Leroux E, Pupion P-C: Smart territories and IoT adoption by local authorities: A question of trust, efficiency, and relationship with the citizen-user-taxpayer. Technol. Forecast Soc. Change. 2022 Jan; 174(September 2021): 121195. Publisher Full Text
9. Kaplow BL: Optimal control of externalities in the presence of income taxation. Int. Econ. Rev. (Philadelphia). 2012 May 1; 53(2): 487–509. Publisher Full Text
10. Buchanan JM, Stubblebine WC: Externality. Economica. 1962 Nov 22; 29(116): 371. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
11. Milstein T, Castro-Sotomayor J: Routledge Handbook of Ecocultural Identity. Milstein T, Castro-Sotomayor J, editors. Routledge Handbook of Ecocultural Identity. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge; 2020; 1–497. Reference Source
12. Deloitte: Government Trends 2020. Deloitte Insights.2020; 88. Reference Source
13. Macchiarola FJ, Sassen S: The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. Polit. Sci. Q. 1992; 107(2): 370. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
14. Križnik B: Transformation of deprived urban areas and social sustainability: A comparative study of urban regeneration and urban redevelopment in Barcelona and Seoul. Urbani izziv. 2018 Jun; 29(1): 83–95. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
15. Marrone M, Peterlongo G: Where platforms meet infrastructures: digital platforms, urban resistance and the ambivalence of the city in the Italian case of Bologna. Work. Organ Labour Glob. 2020 Jan 1; 14(1): 119–135. Publisher Full Text
16. Su L, Fan J, Fu L: Exploration of smart city construction under new urbanization: A case study of Jinzhou-Huludao Coastal Area. Sustain. Comput. Informatics Syst. 2020 Sep; 27: 100403. Publisher Full Text
17. Pradhan RP, Arvin MB, Nair M: Urbanization, transportation infrastructure, ICT, and economic growth: A temporal causal analysis. Cities. 2021 Aug; 115(September 2019): 103213. Publisher Full Text
18. Miroshnyk NV, Likhanov AF, Grabovska TO, et al.: Green infrastructure and relationship with urbanization – Importance and necessity of integrated governance. Land Use Policy. 2022 Mar; 114(January 2021): 105941. Publisher Full Text
19. Zhao X, Xiao W, Wu L, et al.: Intelligent city intelligent medical sharing technology based on internet of things technology. Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst. 2020 Oct; 111: 226–233. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
20. Prataviera E, Vivian J, Lombardo G, et al.: Evaluation of the impact of input uncertainty on urban building energy simulations using uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. Appl. Energy. 2022 Apr; 311(November 2021): 118691. Publisher Full Text
21. Tanner J: Neumann, John von/Morgenstern, Oskar: Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Arnold HL, editor. Kindlers Literatur Lexikon (KLL). Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler; 2020; p. 1–3. Publisher Full Text
22. Rota Bulò S, Bomze IM: Infection and immunization: A new class of evolutionary game dynamics. Games Econ. Behav. 2011 Jan; 71(1): 193–211. Publisher Full Text
23. de Magalhães ST , Magalhães MJ, Sá VJ: Establishment ofAutomatization as a Requirement for Time Management Input Modules in Project Management Information Systems for Academic Activities – A Game Theory Approach. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2015; 64: 1157–1162. Publisher Full Text
24. Heifetz A, Meier M, Schipper BC: Comprehensive rationalizability. Games Econ. Behav. 2019 Jul; 116: 185–202. Publisher Full Text
25. Sergeev SM, Starodubtsev YI, Kravets OJ, et al.: Algorithm of ecological solutions in the smart city concept. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2020 Nov 1; 1679(5): 052040. Publisher Full Text
26. Borisoglebskaya LN, Provotorov VV, Sergeev SM, et al.: Mathematical aspects of optimal control of transference processes in spatial networks. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019; 537(4): 042025. Publisher Full Text
27. Zhabko AP, Shindyapin AI, Provotorov VV: Stability of weak solutions of parabolic systems with distributed parameters on the graph. Vestn. Saint Petersbg. Univ. Appl. Math. Comput. Sci. Control Process. 2019; 15(4): 457–471. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
28. Pilipenko OV, Provotorova EN, Sergeev SM, et al.: Automation engineering of adaptive industrial warehouse. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2019; 1399(4): 044045. Publisher Full Text
29. Artemov MA, Baranovskii ES, Zhabko AP, et al.: On a 3D model of non-isothermal flows in a pipeline network. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2019; 1203(1): 012094. Publisher Full Text
30. Krasnov S, Sergeev S, Zotova E, et al.: Algorithm of optimal management for the efficient use of energy resources. Kalinina O, editor. E3S Web Conf. 2019 Aug 9; 110: 02052. Publisher Full Text
31. Barykin SY, Kapustina IV, Sergeev SM, et al.: Developing the physical distribution digital twin model within the trade network. Acad. Strateg. Manag. J. 2021; 20(1): 1–18. Reference Source
32. Provotorov VV, Provotorova EN: Optimal control of the linearized Navier— Stokes system in a netlike domain. Vestn. Saint Petersbg. Univ. Appl. Math. Comput. Sci. Control Process. 2017; 13(4): 431–443. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
33. Podvalny SL, Podvalny ES, Provotorov VV: The Controllability of Parabolic Systems with Delay and Distributed Parameters on the Graph. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2017; 103(October 2016): 324–330. Publisher Full Text
34. Barykin SE, Smirnova EA, Chzhao D, et al.: Digital Echelons and Interfaces within Value Chains: End-to-End Marketing and Logistics Integration. Sustainability. 2021 Dec 16; 13(24): 13929. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
35. Barykin SE, Borisoglebskaya LN, Provotorov VV, et al.: Sustainability of Management Decisions in a Digital Logistics Network. Sustainability. 2021 Aug 18; 13(16): 9289. Publisher Full Text Reference Source
36. Barykin SY, Kapustina IV, Sergeev SM, et al.: Algorithmic foundations of economic and mathematical modeling of network logistics processes. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark Complex. 2020; 6(4): 1–16. Publisher Full Text
37. Golosnoy AS, Provotorov VV, Sergeev SM, et al.: Software engineering math for network applications. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2019 Dec 1; 1399(4): 044047. Publisher Full Text
38. Kuandykovna Suyendikova G, Kapustina IV: Data calculation for: Sustainable Development of Smart Cities and Smart Territories Based on the Model of Minimizing Externalities2.xls. figshare. Dataset. 2022. Publisher Full Text

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 13 May 2022

Author details Author details

Guldana Kuandykovna Suyendikova
Roles: Methodology, Software

Sergey Evgenievich Barykin
Roles: Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation

Sergey Mikhailovich Sergeev
Roles: Formal Analysis

Irina Vasilievna Kapustina
Roles: Formal Analysis

Yuri Krupnov
Roles: Data Curation

Natalia NikolaevnaShchepkina
Roles: Validation

Competing interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Grant information

The research is partially funded by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation under the strategic academic leadership program 'Priority 2030' (Agreement 075-15-2021-1333 dated 30 September 2021).
The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Article Versions (2)

version 2

Revised

Published: 06 Jun 2022, 11:522

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.114630.2

version 1

Published: 13 May 2022, 11:522

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.114630.1

© 2022 Kuandykovna Suyendikova G et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Download

Export To

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

SEE MORE DETAILS

CITE

how to cite this article

Kuandykovna Suyendikova G, Evgenievich Barykin S, Mikhailovich Sergeev S et al. Sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories based on the model of minimizing externalities [version 1; peer review: 4 approved with reservations]. F1000Research 2022, 11:522 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.114630.1)

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 13 May 2022

Views

Reviewer Report 24 May 2022

Esra Sipahi Dongul, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Social Work, Aksaray University, Aksaray, Turkey

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.126380.r137830

The authors talk about smart cities. Please elaborate with some concrete example not more than a paragraph.

Please provide more detail about all of the methods used.
Please specify what you

The authors talk about smart cities. Please elaborate with some concrete example not more than a paragraph.

Please provide more detail about all of the methods used.
Please specify what you mean when you use the term of the multidimensional cube of situations.
Are the economic indicators associated marked with externalities?
What is the sense of the expression 3? This need to be elaborated well.
Please explain with concrete examples the theoretical base of the the mathematical model.
Light up the term “green infrastructure”.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Business, management, organizational behavior

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 06 Jun 2022

Guldana Kuandykovna Suyendikova, Department of Economics, L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, Nur-Sultan, 010008, Kazakhstan

06 Jun 2022

Author Response

Dear Esra Sipahi Dongul
Thank you for your precious comments on our manuscript ‘Sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories based on the model of minimizing externalities’ Your recommendations ... Continue reading Dear Esra Sipahi Dongul
Thank you for your precious comments on our manuscript ‘Sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories based on the model of minimizing externalities’ Your recommendations helped polished the manuscript, and we also appreciate your full consideration to our paper.

As per your instructions, we have included all of your comments points by point individually, indicating exactly how we addressed each concern or problem and describing the changes we have made. The revised manuscript was formatted according to the journal formatting criteria. We hope the revised manuscript will better suit F1000Research but are happy to consider further revisions if any, and we thank you for your interest in our research.

REVIEWER COMMENTS, AUTHOR RESPONSES AND MANUSCRIPT CHANGES
Comment 1: Please provide more detail about all of the methods used.
Response: Thank You! We have clarified the methods in the revised version.

Comment 2: Please specify what you mean when you use the term of multidimensional cube of situations.
Response: Thank you for your comment. We described the meaning of the multidimensional cube of situations.

Comment 3: Are the economic indicators associated marked with externalities?
Response: Thank You for highlighting this confusion. This confusion was removed and we described the logical connection between the economic indicators and externalities.

Comment 4: What is the sense of the expression 3? This need to be elaborated well.
Response: We elaborated the revised version in order to clarify the confusion.

Comment 5: Please explain with concrete examples the theoretical base of the mathematical model.
Response: Thank you so much. We agreed with these Comments and duly explained the theoretical base of the mathematical model.

Comment 6: Light up the term “green infrastructure”.
Response: Thank you so much for this suggestion. We followed the comments accordingly in the revised version.
Dear Esra Sipahi Dongul
Thank you for your precious comments on our manuscript ‘Sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories based on the model of minimizing externalities’ Your recommendations helped polished the manuscript, and we also appreciate your full consideration to our paper.

As per your instructions, we have included all of your comments points by point individually, indicating exactly how we addressed each concern or problem and describing the changes we have made. The revised manuscript was formatted according to the journal formatting criteria. We hope the revised manuscript will better suit F1000Research but are happy to consider further revisions if any, and we thank you for your interest in our research.

REVIEWER COMMENTS, AUTHOR RESPONSES AND MANUSCRIPT CHANGES
Comment 1: Please provide more detail about all of the methods used.
Response: Thank You! We have clarified the methods in the revised version.

Comment 2: Please specify what you mean when you use the term of multidimensional cube of situations.
Response: Thank you for your comment. We described the meaning of the multidimensional cube of situations.

Comment 3: Are the economic indicators associated marked with externalities?
Response: Thank You for highlighting this confusion. This confusion was removed and we described the logical connection between the economic indicators and externalities.

Comment 4: What is the sense of the expression 3? This need to be elaborated well.
Response: We elaborated the revised version in order to clarify the confusion.

Comment 5: Please explain with concrete examples the theoretical base of the mathematical model.
Response: Thank you so much. We agreed with these Comments and duly explained the theoretical base of the mathematical model.

Comment 6: Light up the term “green infrastructure”.
Response: Thank you so much for this suggestion. We followed the comments accordingly in the revised version.
Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interests. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 06 Jun 2022

Guldana Kuandykovna Suyendikova, Department of Economics, L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, Nur-Sultan, 010008, Kazakhstan

06 Jun 2022

Author Response

Dear Esra Sipahi Dongul
Thank you for your precious comments on our manuscript ‘Sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories based on the model of minimizing externalities’ Your recommendations ... Continue reading Dear Esra Sipahi Dongul
Thank you for your precious comments on our manuscript ‘Sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories based on the model of minimizing externalities’ Your recommendations helped polished the manuscript, and we also appreciate your full consideration to our paper.

As per your instructions, we have included all of your comments points by point individually, indicating exactly how we addressed each concern or problem and describing the changes we have made. The revised manuscript was formatted according to the journal formatting criteria. We hope the revised manuscript will better suit F1000Research but are happy to consider further revisions if any, and we thank you for your interest in our research.

REVIEWER COMMENTS, AUTHOR RESPONSES AND MANUSCRIPT CHANGES
Comment 1: Please provide more detail about all of the methods used.
Response: Thank You! We have clarified the methods in the revised version.

Comment 2: Please specify what you mean when you use the term of multidimensional cube of situations.
Response: Thank you for your comment. We described the meaning of the multidimensional cube of situations.

Comment 3: Are the economic indicators associated marked with externalities?
Response: Thank You for highlighting this confusion. This confusion was removed and we described the logical connection between the economic indicators and externalities.

Comment 4: What is the sense of the expression 3? This need to be elaborated well.
Response: We elaborated the revised version in order to clarify the confusion.

Comment 5: Please explain with concrete examples the theoretical base of the mathematical model.
Response: Thank you so much. We agreed with these Comments and duly explained the theoretical base of the mathematical model.

Comment 6: Light up the term “green infrastructure”.
Response: Thank you so much for this suggestion. We followed the comments accordingly in the revised version.
Dear Esra Sipahi Dongul
Thank you for your precious comments on our manuscript ‘Sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories based on the model of minimizing externalities’ Your recommendations helped polished the manuscript, and we also appreciate your full consideration to our paper.

As per your instructions, we have included all of your comments points by point individually, indicating exactly how we addressed each concern or problem and describing the changes we have made. The revised manuscript was formatted according to the journal formatting criteria. We hope the revised manuscript will better suit F1000Research but are happy to consider further revisions if any, and we thank you for your interest in our research.

REVIEWER COMMENTS, AUTHOR RESPONSES AND MANUSCRIPT CHANGES
Comment 1: Please provide more detail about all of the methods used.
Response: Thank You! We have clarified the methods in the revised version.

Comment 2: Please specify what you mean when you use the term of multidimensional cube of situations.
Response: Thank you for your comment. We described the meaning of the multidimensional cube of situations.

Comment 3: Are the economic indicators associated marked with externalities?
Response: Thank You for highlighting this confusion. This confusion was removed and we described the logical connection between the economic indicators and externalities.

Comment 4: What is the sense of the expression 3? This need to be elaborated well.
Response: We elaborated the revised version in order to clarify the confusion.

Comment 5: Please explain with concrete examples the theoretical base of the mathematical model.
Response: Thank you so much. We agreed with these Comments and duly explained the theoretical base of the mathematical model.

Comment 6: Light up the term “green infrastructure”.
Response: Thank you so much for this suggestion. We followed the comments accordingly in the revised version.
Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interests. Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 23 May 2022

Mui Yee Cheok, Universiti Tun Abdul Razak Kuala Lumpur, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.126380.r137831

After reviewing the research paper and other reviewers' comments I agree with the reviewers and especially many important points raised by reviewer 1, However, the following are the comments and suggestions from my side to the authors. The authors should ... Continue reading

The abstract needs revision and restructuring. The abstract should be revised by adding the objectives, conclusions and future scope of the proposed work.
Word “Externalities” is repeatedly used in the title as well as in the abstract it is not defined and the term is required to explain in the introduction
Market uncertainty is a wide concept that is required to explain in this paper’s context.
It is advised to add more literature data in the introduction section to understand the research problem, The research contributions of the present work in the existing body of knowledge should be summarized in the introduction section.
Paper novelty & research objectives should be added at the end of section 1 (Introduction).
It is advised to explain the findings of Table 1 in the text, similar all figures should be discussed in the discussion section and support some of your important findings with the past studies.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 06 Jun 2022

Guldana Kuandykovna Suyendikova, Department of Economics, L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, Nur-Sultan, 010008, Kazakhstan

06 Jun 2022

Author Response

Dear Mui Yee Cheok
Thank you for your valuable comments on our manuscript ‘Sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories based on the model of minimizing externalities’ Your recommendations ... Continue reading Dear Mui Yee Cheok
Thank you for your valuable comments on our manuscript ‘Sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories based on the model of minimizing externalities’ Your recommendations have been immensely helpful, and we also appreciate your full consideration to our paper.

As per your instructions, we have included all of your comments point by point individually, indicating exactly how we addressed each concern or problem and describing the changes we have made. The revisions have been approved by all four authors and I have again been chosen as the corresponding author. The revised manuscript was formatted according to the journal formatting criteria. We hope the revised manuscript will better suit F1000Research but are happy to consider further revisions if any, and we thank you for your interest in our research.

REVIEWER COMMENTS, AUTHOR RESPONSES AND MANUSCRIPT CHANGES
Comment 1: The abstract needs revision and restructuring. The abstract should be revised by adding the objectives, conclusions and future scope of the proposed work.
Response: Thank you! We have restructured the abstract in the revised version.

Comment 2: Word “Externalities” is repeatedly used in the title as well as in the abstract it is not defined and the term is required to explain in the introduction.
Response: Thank you for the identification of this confusion. The explanation was provided in the revised version.

Comment 3: Market uncertainty is a wide concept that is required to explain in this paper’s context.
Response: Thank you for highlighting this confusion. The explanation was duly provided.

Comment 4: It is advised to add more literature data in the introduction section to understand the research problem, The research contributions of the present work in the existing body of knowledge should be summarized in the introduction section.
Response: Here by investigation, we added the description in the introduction.

Comment 5: Paper novelty & research objectives should be added at the end of section 1 (Introduction).
Response: Thank you so much. We agree to this modification. The novelty was disclosed in the introduction.

Comment 6: It is advised to explain the findings of Table 1 in the text, similar all figures should be discussed in the discussion section and support some of your important findings with the past studies.
Response: Thank you so much for this suggestion. We followed the comments accordingly in the revised version.
Dear Mui Yee Cheok
Thank you for your valuable comments on our manuscript ‘Sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories based on the model of minimizing externalities’ Your recommendations have been immensely helpful, and we also appreciate your full consideration to our paper.

As per your instructions, we have included all of your comments point by point individually, indicating exactly how we addressed each concern or problem and describing the changes we have made. The revisions have been approved by all four authors and I have again been chosen as the corresponding author. The revised manuscript was formatted according to the journal formatting criteria. We hope the revised manuscript will better suit F1000Research but are happy to consider further revisions if any, and we thank you for your interest in our research.

REVIEWER COMMENTS, AUTHOR RESPONSES AND MANUSCRIPT CHANGES
Comment 1: The abstract needs revision and restructuring. The abstract should be revised by adding the objectives, conclusions and future scope of the proposed work.
Response: Thank you! We have restructured the abstract in the revised version.

Comment 2: Word “Externalities” is repeatedly used in the title as well as in the abstract it is not defined and the term is required to explain in the introduction.
Response: Thank you for the identification of this confusion. The explanation was provided in the revised version.

Comment 3: Market uncertainty is a wide concept that is required to explain in this paper’s context.
Response: Thank you for highlighting this confusion. The explanation was duly provided.

Comment 4: It is advised to add more literature data in the introduction section to understand the research problem, The research contributions of the present work in the existing body of knowledge should be summarized in the introduction section.
Response: Here by investigation, we added the description in the introduction.

Comment 5: Paper novelty & research objectives should be added at the end of section 1 (Introduction).
Response: Thank you so much. We agree to this modification. The novelty was disclosed in the introduction.

Comment 6: It is advised to explain the findings of Table 1 in the text, similar all figures should be discussed in the discussion section and support some of your important findings with the past studies.
Response: Thank you so much for this suggestion. We followed the comments accordingly in the revised version.
Competing Interests: Authors declare no competing interests Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 06 Jun 2022

Guldana Kuandykovna Suyendikova, Department of Economics, L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, Nur-Sultan, 010008, Kazakhstan

06 Jun 2022

Author Response

Dear Mui Yee Cheok
Thank you for your valuable comments on our manuscript ‘Sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories based on the model of minimizing externalities’ Your recommendations ... Continue reading Dear Mui Yee Cheok
Thank you for your valuable comments on our manuscript ‘Sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories based on the model of minimizing externalities’ Your recommendations have been immensely helpful, and we also appreciate your full consideration to our paper.

As per your instructions, we have included all of your comments point by point individually, indicating exactly how we addressed each concern or problem and describing the changes we have made. The revisions have been approved by all four authors and I have again been chosen as the corresponding author. The revised manuscript was formatted according to the journal formatting criteria. We hope the revised manuscript will better suit F1000Research but are happy to consider further revisions if any, and we thank you for your interest in our research.

REVIEWER COMMENTS, AUTHOR RESPONSES AND MANUSCRIPT CHANGES
Comment 1: The abstract needs revision and restructuring. The abstract should be revised by adding the objectives, conclusions and future scope of the proposed work.
Response: Thank you! We have restructured the abstract in the revised version.

Comment 2: Word “Externalities” is repeatedly used in the title as well as in the abstract it is not defined and the term is required to explain in the introduction.
Response: Thank you for the identification of this confusion. The explanation was provided in the revised version.

Comment 3: Market uncertainty is a wide concept that is required to explain in this paper’s context.
Response: Thank you for highlighting this confusion. The explanation was duly provided.

Comment 4: It is advised to add more literature data in the introduction section to understand the research problem, The research contributions of the present work in the existing body of knowledge should be summarized in the introduction section.
Response: Here by investigation, we added the description in the introduction.

Comment 5: Paper novelty & research objectives should be added at the end of section 1 (Introduction).
Response: Thank you so much. We agree to this modification. The novelty was disclosed in the introduction.

Comment 6: It is advised to explain the findings of Table 1 in the text, similar all figures should be discussed in the discussion section and support some of your important findings with the past studies.
Response: Thank you so much for this suggestion. We followed the comments accordingly in the revised version.
Dear Mui Yee Cheok
Thank you for your valuable comments on our manuscript ‘Sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories based on the model of minimizing externalities’ Your recommendations have been immensely helpful, and we also appreciate your full consideration to our paper.

As per your instructions, we have included all of your comments point by point individually, indicating exactly how we addressed each concern or problem and describing the changes we have made. The revisions have been approved by all four authors and I have again been chosen as the corresponding author. The revised manuscript was formatted according to the journal formatting criteria. We hope the revised manuscript will better suit F1000Research but are happy to consider further revisions if any, and we thank you for your interest in our research.

REVIEWER COMMENTS, AUTHOR RESPONSES AND MANUSCRIPT CHANGES
Comment 1: The abstract needs revision and restructuring. The abstract should be revised by adding the objectives, conclusions and future scope of the proposed work.
Response: Thank you! We have restructured the abstract in the revised version.

Comment 2: Word “Externalities” is repeatedly used in the title as well as in the abstract it is not defined and the term is required to explain in the introduction.
Response: Thank you for the identification of this confusion. The explanation was provided in the revised version.

Comment 3: Market uncertainty is a wide concept that is required to explain in this paper’s context.
Response: Thank you for highlighting this confusion. The explanation was duly provided.

Comment 4: It is advised to add more literature data in the introduction section to understand the research problem, The research contributions of the present work in the existing body of knowledge should be summarized in the introduction section.
Response: Here by investigation, we added the description in the introduction.

Comment 5: Paper novelty & research objectives should be added at the end of section 1 (Introduction).
Response: Thank you so much. We agree to this modification. The novelty was disclosed in the introduction.

Comment 6: It is advised to explain the findings of Table 1 in the text, similar all figures should be discussed in the discussion section and support some of your important findings with the past studies.
Response: Thank you so much for this suggestion. We followed the comments accordingly in the revised version.
Competing Interests: Authors declare no competing interests Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 20 May 2022

Jakub Kubiczek, Department of Economic and Financial Analysis, University of Economics in Katowice, Katowice, Poland

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.126380.r137833

Dear Authors, I am grateful for the opportunity to read and review your text.

In my opinion, there are many approaches to your research problem, but this is the science of finding and proposing new one. I believe that the text is written correctly - although a few adjustments need to be made. I agree with reviewer 1 in many respects, but I believe that these amendments are not too complex and none of them disparages your text. You can find detailed comments below.

Technical issues related to the structure of the article

Shorten the abstract to make it more specific. I would remove the introduction to the problem because the abstract should contain the essence itself. At the same time, I would add the most important results of the study.
“As a rule, such analysis uses the methods of surrogate markets. In turn, this direction, which is usually referred to as an indirect market method or proxy market, is divided into several pricing principles ". You write “usually” - it would be useful to support it with some other article.
You have defined the research gap very well and proposed a way to fill it, but there is no clearly defined purpose of the article.
In the results section, "the Nash equilibrium condition" appears - it would be nice to mention what it means somewhere.
The figures are not signed - "Source: own study."
Please, number the patterns continuously - they should all have a number.
Please, divide the conclusions into certain sections as this is too chaotic at the moment.

Substantive issues

The authors mention the pandemic, but do not detail how it affected the externalities. Which externalities are connected with the post-pandemic situation?
The authors should clarify suggesting a mathematical model as part of the management decision support.
I miss the justification that the presented model has potential. Therefore, I propose to note the potential of proposed model and its practical implication opportunities.
Do the authors mean that the nature of a sustainable development is connected with the smart territories’ development. If so, in what way? Please refer it to the proposed model.
Are there any recommendations for authorities and governments based on the developed model?
Do the researchers propose making urbanization on the basis of sustainable development?
Are the principles of formalization used as the basis for a mathematical model?
Could the developed model be qualified as the optimization of the amount of expenses that must be borne by various members of the business community?

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Decision making, Corporate Social Responsibility, Sustainable Development

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 06 Jun 2022

Guldana Kuandykovna Suyendikova, Department of Economics, L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, Nur-Sultan, 010008, Kazakhstan

06 Jun 2022

Author Response

Dear Jakub Kubiczek
Thank you for your important comments on our manuscript ‘Sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories based on the model of minimizing externalities’ Your recommendations have ... Continue reading Dear Jakub Kubiczek
Thank you for your important comments on our manuscript ‘Sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories based on the model of minimizing externalities’ Your recommendations have been immensely helpful, and we also appreciate your full consideration to our paper.

As per your instructions, i have included all of your comments point by point individually, indicating exactly how we addressed each concern or problem and describing the changes we have made. The revisions have been approved by all four authors and I have again been chosen as the corresponding author. The revised manuscript was formatted according to the journal formatting criteria. We hope the revised manuscript will better suit F1000Research but are happy to consider further revisions if any, and we thank you for your interest in our research.

REVIEWER COMMENTS, AUTHOR RESPONSES AND MANUSCRIPT CHANGES
Comment 1: Shorten the abstract to make it more specific. I would remove the introduction to the problem because the abstract should contain the essence itself. At the same time, I would add the most important results of the study.
Response: Thank you! We have made the relevant changes in the revised version.

Comment 2: The reviewer asked for the methods of the following:
“As a rule, such analysis uses the methods of surrogate markets. In turn, this direction, which is usually referred to as an indirect market method or proxy market, is divided into several pricing principles ". You write “usually” - it would be useful to support it with some other article.
Response: Thank you for the identification of this confusion. The appropriate explanation was provided in the revised version.

Comment 3: You have defined the research gap very well and proposed a way to fill it, but there is no clearly defined purpose of the article.
Response: Thank You for highlighting this confusion. This confusion was removed and the purpose was written.

Comment 4: In the results section, "the Nash equilibrium condition" appears - it would be nice to mention what it means somewhere.
Response: We described the mentioned approach more precisely.

Comment 5: The figures are not signed - "Source: own study.".
Response: Thank you so much. We agree to this modification. The figures are duly signed.

Comment 6: Please, number the patterns continuously - they should all have a number.
Response: Thank you so much for this suggestion and modification. We followed the comments accordingly in the revised version.

Comment 7: Please, divide the conclusions into certain sections as this is too chaotic at the moment.
Response: Yes by this we mean logical explanation. Changes made accordingly in the revised version.

Comment 8: The authors mention the pandemic, but do not detail how it affected the externalities. Which externalities are connected with the post-pandemic situation?
Response: Thank you. We explained the externalities accordingly.

Comment 9: The authors should clarify suggesting a mathematical model as part of the management decision support.
Response: Thank you. We explained the mathematical model as part of the management decision support.

Comment 10: I miss the justification that the presented model has potential. Therefore, I propose to note the potential of proposed model and its practical implication opportunities.
Response: Thank you so much for identifying this confusion. We had added the potential of the model. The same has been elaborated well in the revised version.

Comment 11: Do the authors mean that the nature of a sustainable development is connected with the smart territories’ development. If so, in what way? Please refer it to the proposed model.
Response: We mean that the nature of a sustainable development is connected with the smart territories’ development.

Comment 12: Are there any recommendations for authorities and governments based on the developed model?
Response: This has been explained in the revised version.

Comment 13: Do the researchers propose making urbanization on the basis of sustainable development?
Response: Thank you so much for identifying this confusion. We had added the explanation of the model in the revised version.

Comment 14: Are the principles of formalization used as the basis for a mathematical model?
Response: We mean that the principles of formalization are used as the basis for a mathematical model implemented for the development of smart territories.

Comment 15: Could the developed model be qualified as the optimization of the amount of expenses that must be borne by various members of the business community?
Response: This has been explained in the revised version.
Dear Jakub Kubiczek
Thank you for your important comments on our manuscript ‘Sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories based on the model of minimizing externalities’ Your recommendations have been immensely helpful, and we also appreciate your full consideration to our paper.

As per your instructions, i have included all of your comments point by point individually, indicating exactly how we addressed each concern or problem and describing the changes we have made. The revisions have been approved by all four authors and I have again been chosen as the corresponding author. The revised manuscript was formatted according to the journal formatting criteria. We hope the revised manuscript will better suit F1000Research but are happy to consider further revisions if any, and we thank you for your interest in our research.

REVIEWER COMMENTS, AUTHOR RESPONSES AND MANUSCRIPT CHANGES
Comment 1: Shorten the abstract to make it more specific. I would remove the introduction to the problem because the abstract should contain the essence itself. At the same time, I would add the most important results of the study.
Response: Thank you! We have made the relevant changes in the revised version.

Comment 2: The reviewer asked for the methods of the following:
“As a rule, such analysis uses the methods of surrogate markets. In turn, this direction, which is usually referred to as an indirect market method or proxy market, is divided into several pricing principles ". You write “usually” - it would be useful to support it with some other article.
Response: Thank you for the identification of this confusion. The appropriate explanation was provided in the revised version.

Comment 3: You have defined the research gap very well and proposed a way to fill it, but there is no clearly defined purpose of the article.
Response: Thank You for highlighting this confusion. This confusion was removed and the purpose was written.

Comment 4: In the results section, "the Nash equilibrium condition" appears - it would be nice to mention what it means somewhere.
Response: We described the mentioned approach more precisely.

Comment 5: The figures are not signed - "Source: own study.".
Response: Thank you so much. We agree to this modification. The figures are duly signed.

Comment 6: Please, number the patterns continuously - they should all have a number.
Response: Thank you so much for this suggestion and modification. We followed the comments accordingly in the revised version.

Comment 7: Please, divide the conclusions into certain sections as this is too chaotic at the moment.
Response: Yes by this we mean logical explanation. Changes made accordingly in the revised version.

Comment 8: The authors mention the pandemic, but do not detail how it affected the externalities. Which externalities are connected with the post-pandemic situation?
Response: Thank you. We explained the externalities accordingly.

Comment 9: The authors should clarify suggesting a mathematical model as part of the management decision support.
Response: Thank you. We explained the mathematical model as part of the management decision support.

Comment 10: I miss the justification that the presented model has potential. Therefore, I propose to note the potential of proposed model and its practical implication opportunities.
Response: Thank you so much for identifying this confusion. We had added the potential of the model. The same has been elaborated well in the revised version.

Comment 11: Do the authors mean that the nature of a sustainable development is connected with the smart territories’ development. If so, in what way? Please refer it to the proposed model.
Response: We mean that the nature of a sustainable development is connected with the smart territories’ development.

Comment 12: Are there any recommendations for authorities and governments based on the developed model?
Response: This has been explained in the revised version.

Comment 13: Do the researchers propose making urbanization on the basis of sustainable development?
Response: Thank you so much for identifying this confusion. We had added the explanation of the model in the revised version.

Comment 14: Are the principles of formalization used as the basis for a mathematical model?
Response: We mean that the principles of formalization are used as the basis for a mathematical model implemented for the development of smart territories.

Comment 15: Could the developed model be qualified as the optimization of the amount of expenses that must be borne by various members of the business community?
Response: This has been explained in the revised version.
Competing Interests: Authors declare no competing interests Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 06 Jun 2022

Guldana Kuandykovna Suyendikova, Department of Economics, L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, Nur-Sultan, 010008, Kazakhstan

06 Jun 2022

Author Response

Dear Jakub Kubiczek
Thank you for your important comments on our manuscript ‘Sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories based on the model of minimizing externalities’ Your recommendations have ... Continue reading Dear Jakub Kubiczek
Thank you for your important comments on our manuscript ‘Sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories based on the model of minimizing externalities’ Your recommendations have been immensely helpful, and we also appreciate your full consideration to our paper.

As per your instructions, i have included all of your comments point by point individually, indicating exactly how we addressed each concern or problem and describing the changes we have made. The revisions have been approved by all four authors and I have again been chosen as the corresponding author. The revised manuscript was formatted according to the journal formatting criteria. We hope the revised manuscript will better suit F1000Research but are happy to consider further revisions if any, and we thank you for your interest in our research.

REVIEWER COMMENTS, AUTHOR RESPONSES AND MANUSCRIPT CHANGES
Comment 1: Shorten the abstract to make it more specific. I would remove the introduction to the problem because the abstract should contain the essence itself. At the same time, I would add the most important results of the study.
Response: Thank you! We have made the relevant changes in the revised version.

Comment 2: The reviewer asked for the methods of the following:
“As a rule, such analysis uses the methods of surrogate markets. In turn, this direction, which is usually referred to as an indirect market method or proxy market, is divided into several pricing principles ". You write “usually” - it would be useful to support it with some other article.
Response: Thank you for the identification of this confusion. The appropriate explanation was provided in the revised version.

Comment 3: You have defined the research gap very well and proposed a way to fill it, but there is no clearly defined purpose of the article.
Response: Thank You for highlighting this confusion. This confusion was removed and the purpose was written.

Comment 4: In the results section, "the Nash equilibrium condition" appears - it would be nice to mention what it means somewhere.
Response: We described the mentioned approach more precisely.

Comment 5: The figures are not signed - "Source: own study.".
Response: Thank you so much. We agree to this modification. The figures are duly signed.

Comment 6: Please, number the patterns continuously - they should all have a number.
Response: Thank you so much for this suggestion and modification. We followed the comments accordingly in the revised version.

Comment 7: Please, divide the conclusions into certain sections as this is too chaotic at the moment.
Response: Yes by this we mean logical explanation. Changes made accordingly in the revised version.

Comment 8: The authors mention the pandemic, but do not detail how it affected the externalities. Which externalities are connected with the post-pandemic situation?
Response: Thank you. We explained the externalities accordingly.

Comment 9: The authors should clarify suggesting a mathematical model as part of the management decision support.
Response: Thank you. We explained the mathematical model as part of the management decision support.

Comment 10: I miss the justification that the presented model has potential. Therefore, I propose to note the potential of proposed model and its practical implication opportunities.
Response: Thank you so much for identifying this confusion. We had added the potential of the model. The same has been elaborated well in the revised version.

Comment 11: Do the authors mean that the nature of a sustainable development is connected with the smart territories’ development. If so, in what way? Please refer it to the proposed model.
Response: We mean that the nature of a sustainable development is connected with the smart territories’ development.

Comment 12: Are there any recommendations for authorities and governments based on the developed model?
Response: This has been explained in the revised version.

Comment 13: Do the researchers propose making urbanization on the basis of sustainable development?
Response: Thank you so much for identifying this confusion. We had added the explanation of the model in the revised version.

Comment 14: Are the principles of formalization used as the basis for a mathematical model?
Response: We mean that the principles of formalization are used as the basis for a mathematical model implemented for the development of smart territories.

Comment 15: Could the developed model be qualified as the optimization of the amount of expenses that must be borne by various members of the business community?
Response: This has been explained in the revised version.
Dear Jakub Kubiczek
Thank you for your important comments on our manuscript ‘Sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories based on the model of minimizing externalities’ Your recommendations have been immensely helpful, and we also appreciate your full consideration to our paper.

As per your instructions, i have included all of your comments point by point individually, indicating exactly how we addressed each concern or problem and describing the changes we have made. The revisions have been approved by all four authors and I have again been chosen as the corresponding author. The revised manuscript was formatted according to the journal formatting criteria. We hope the revised manuscript will better suit F1000Research but are happy to consider further revisions if any, and we thank you for your interest in our research.

REVIEWER COMMENTS, AUTHOR RESPONSES AND MANUSCRIPT CHANGES
Comment 1: Shorten the abstract to make it more specific. I would remove the introduction to the problem because the abstract should contain the essence itself. At the same time, I would add the most important results of the study.
Response: Thank you! We have made the relevant changes in the revised version.

Comment 2: The reviewer asked for the methods of the following:
“As a rule, such analysis uses the methods of surrogate markets. In turn, this direction, which is usually referred to as an indirect market method or proxy market, is divided into several pricing principles ". You write “usually” - it would be useful to support it with some other article.
Response: Thank you for the identification of this confusion. The appropriate explanation was provided in the revised version.

Comment 3: You have defined the research gap very well and proposed a way to fill it, but there is no clearly defined purpose of the article.
Response: Thank You for highlighting this confusion. This confusion was removed and the purpose was written.

Comment 4: In the results section, "the Nash equilibrium condition" appears - it would be nice to mention what it means somewhere.
Response: We described the mentioned approach more precisely.

Comment 5: The figures are not signed - "Source: own study.".
Response: Thank you so much. We agree to this modification. The figures are duly signed.

Comment 6: Please, number the patterns continuously - they should all have a number.
Response: Thank you so much for this suggestion and modification. We followed the comments accordingly in the revised version.

Comment 7: Please, divide the conclusions into certain sections as this is too chaotic at the moment.
Response: Yes by this we mean logical explanation. Changes made accordingly in the revised version.

Comment 8: The authors mention the pandemic, but do not detail how it affected the externalities. Which externalities are connected with the post-pandemic situation?
Response: Thank you. We explained the externalities accordingly.

Comment 9: The authors should clarify suggesting a mathematical model as part of the management decision support.
Response: Thank you. We explained the mathematical model as part of the management decision support.

Comment 10: I miss the justification that the presented model has potential. Therefore, I propose to note the potential of proposed model and its practical implication opportunities.
Response: Thank you so much for identifying this confusion. We had added the potential of the model. The same has been elaborated well in the revised version.

Comment 11: Do the authors mean that the nature of a sustainable development is connected with the smart territories’ development. If so, in what way? Please refer it to the proposed model.
Response: We mean that the nature of a sustainable development is connected with the smart territories’ development.

Comment 12: Are there any recommendations for authorities and governments based on the developed model?
Response: This has been explained in the revised version.

Comment 13: Do the researchers propose making urbanization on the basis of sustainable development?
Response: Thank you so much for identifying this confusion. We had added the explanation of the model in the revised version.

Comment 14: Are the principles of formalization used as the basis for a mathematical model?
Response: We mean that the principles of formalization are used as the basis for a mathematical model implemented for the development of smart territories.

Comment 15: Could the developed model be qualified as the optimization of the amount of expenses that must be borne by various members of the business community?
Response: This has been explained in the revised version.
Competing Interests: Authors declare no competing interests Close
Report a concern

Views

Reviewer Report 19 May 2022

Bilal Khalid, KMITL Business School, King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok, Thailand

Approved with Reservations

https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.126380.r137829

Abstract:

The background section of the abstract is too long, the authors should consider revising it to not more than two sentences. Because of the length of the background, the authors did not provide much information

Abstract:

The background section of the abstract is too long, the authors should consider revising it to not more than two sentences. Because of the length of the background, the authors did not provide much information about the study in the abstract. The part above where it says “This study takes into account….” Is ideally where the authors start talking about this study. The other parts above it should be condensed into two sentences.
The abstract should be written with the following in mind, aim/problem, objective(s), theory, methods, results, discussion, conclusions and limitations. These aspects where applicable should be touched briefly in the abstract.
Externalities seem to be a very important concept in this study, yet it only appears once towards the end of the abstract. This is part of the problem being studied and should be reflected earlier in the abstract.

Introduction:

The authors should provide a better explanation for the term “externalities” and how it affects the conceptualization of sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories.
Cases of the impacts of externalities on the sustainable development of smart cities and territories should be provided if they are available in studies or practical examples.
The authors should provide clarification of what they mean by “The consequences of a social nature are much wider and deeper.” It is not enough to provide citations, a context should be provided to show the relationship between the statement and the problem to research hopes to address.
The authors should elaborate on how market uncertainty affects the sustainable development of smart cities and territories.

Methods:

The first paragraphs in the Methods section should be moved to the Introduction. This section should start from the second paragraph – “The authors developed….” The authors should expand the discussion on the Methods once the first paragraph is deleted, this enables them to discuss the Methods in detail.
The Methods require further clarification to understand the specific correlation and regression tools to be employed.

Results:

The first two paragraphs of the results section can be moved to the methods section as it seems to describe actions that will lead to results, not the findings itself. The results should only contain the derivatives from what was proposed in the Methods section.
The second line of the third paragraph contains a spacing error, kindly correct – “…carried out inside anN- dimension….”
Authors should present the results and provide a clearer explanation, rather than using statistical jargon and equation.

Discussion:

The last sentence of the analysis of the result that informs that calculations were implemented using Microsoft Excel should be taken to the Methods section. The discussion is only for the implications of your results.
The discussion should analyze the implication of the equations and figures presented in the results. How do they affect the sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories? Please also consider citing the following articles:
- Chaiyasoonthorn, W., Khalid, B., & Chaveesuk, S. (2019, August). Success of Smart Cities Development with Community’s Acceptance of New Technologies. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Information Communication and Management.¹
- Khalid, B., & Naumova, E. (2021). Digital transformation of the Russian venture ecosystem under the impact of the COVID-19. In Global Challenges of Digital Transformation of Markets (pp. 313–329). Nova Science Publishers, Inc.²
There is a little linkage between the literature and the results in the discussion section. Try to connect the literature to the discussion to understand how the findings impact smart cities and smart territories.

Conclusion:

The conclusion should summarize the research, make recommendations and state the limitations of the study if any. Instead, the conclusion seems to be an extension of the discussion. “Megapolises’ appears three times in the conclusion, twice in the discussion, and once in the abstract. Throughout the manuscript, it does not appear in the introduction, methods, and results. It needs to be situated in the introduction section and methods.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

No
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

References

1. Chaiyasoonthorn W, Khalid B, Chaveesuk S: Success of Smart Cities Development with Community’s Acceptance of New Technologies. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Information Communication and Management. 2019. 106-111 Publisher Full Text
2. Khalid B, Naumova E: Digital transformation of the Russian venture ecosystem under the impact of the COVID-19. In: de la Poza E, Barykin S.E. (eds): Global Challenges of Digital Transformation of Markets. Nova Science Publishers, Inc. 2021. 313-329

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Smart Cities, Sustainable Practices, De-carbonization, Immigrant Entrepreneurship, Global Value Chains, Industry 4.0, Digital Transformations, Technology Adoption, Consumer behavior, Public Policy,

CITE

Report a concern

Author Response 06 Jun 2022

Guldana Kuandykovna Suyendikova, Department of Economics, L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, Nur-Sultan, 010008, Kazakhstan

06 Jun 2022

Author Response

Dear Dr Bilal Khalid
Thank you for your constructive comments on our manuscript ‘Sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories based on the model of minimizing externalities’ The suggestions ... Continue reading Dear Dr Bilal Khalid
Thank you for your constructive comments on our manuscript ‘Sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories based on the model of minimizing externalities’ The suggestions offered by you have been immensely helpful, and we also appreciate your full consideration to our paper.

As per Your instructions, I have included all of Your comments point by point individually, indicating exactly how we addressed each concern or problem and describing the changes we have made. The revisions have been approved by all four authors and I have again been chosen as the corresponding author. The revised manuscript was formatted according to the journal formatting criteria. We hope the revised manuscript will better suit F1000Research but are happy to consider further revisions if any, and we thank you for your interest in our research.

REVIEWER COMMENTS, AUTHOR RESPONSES AND MANUSCRIPT CHANGES

Comment 1: The background section of the abstract is too long, the authors should consider revising it to not more than two sentences. Because of the length of the background, the authors did not provide much information about the study in the abstract. The part above where it says “This study takes into account….” Is ideally where the authors start talking about this study. The other parts above it should be condensed into two sentences.
Response: Thank you for the identification of this confusion. We have restructured the abstract. The sentences were shortened.

Comment 2: The abstract should be written with the following in mind, aim/problem, objective(s), theory, methods, results, discussion, conclusions and limitations. These aspects where applicable should be touched briefly in the abstract.
Response: Thank you! The aim, methods, results and conclusion were provided in the revised version.

Comment 3: Externalities seem to be a very important concept in this study, yet it only appears once towards the end of the abstract. This is part of the problem being studied and should be reflected earlier in the abstract.
Response: Thank you for highlighting this issue. This confusion was removed and the mentioned term was duly placed in the beginning of the abstract.

Comment 4: The reviewer asked about the following:
The authors should provide a better explanation for the term “externalities” and how it affects the conceptualization of sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories.
Response: Here by investigation we explained this term in the introduction in the revised version in order to clarify the confusion.

Comment 5: Cases of the impacts of externalities on the sustainable development of smart cities and territories should be provided if they are available in studies or practical examples.
Response: Thank you so much. We agree to this modification. The explanation was disclosed with more details in the introduction.

Comment 6: The authors should provide clarification of what they mean by “The consequences of a social nature are much wider and deeper.” It is not enough to provide citations, a context should be provided to show the relationship between the statement and the problem to research hopes to address.
Response: Thank you so much for this suggestion and modification. We followed the comments accordingly in the revised version.

Comment 7: The authors should elaborate on how market uncertainty affects the sustainable development of smart cities and territories.
Response: Yes by this we mean that market uncertainty affects the sustainable development of smart cities and territories. Changes made accordingly in the revised version.

Comment 8: The first paragraphs in the Methods section should be moved to the Introduction. This section should start from the second paragraph – “The authors developed….” The authors should expand the discussion on the Methods once the first paragraph is deleted, this enables them to discuss the Methods in detail.
Response: Thank you. We made the relevant amendments.

Comment 9: The Methods require further clarification to understand the specific correlation and regression tools to be employed.
Response: We changed the manuscript accordingly. It is corrected now and all clarification was provided in the revised version.

Comment 10: The first two paragraphs of the Results section can be moved to the methods section as it seems to describe actions that will lead to results, not the findings themselves. The results should only contain the derivatives from what was proposed in the Methods section.
Response: Thank you so much for identifying this confusion. We had moved this sentence in the revised version.

Comment 11: The second line of the third paragraph contains a spacing error, kindly correct – “…carried out inside anN- dimension….”
Response: Changes made in the revised version.

Comment 12: Authors should present the results and provide a clearer explanation, rather than using statistical jargon and equation.
Response: This has been provided in the revised version.

Comment 13: The last sentence of the analysis of the result that informs that calculations were implemented using Microsoft Excel should be taken to the Methods section. The discussion is only for the implications of your results.
Response: The appropriate changes were made in the revised version.

Comment 14: The discussion should analyze the implication of the equations and figures presented in the results. How do they affect the sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories? Please also consider citing the following articles:
Chaiyasoonthorn, W., Khalid, B., & Chaveesuk, S. (2019, August). Success of Smart Cities Development with Community’s Acceptance of New Technologies. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Information Communication and Management.1
Khalid, B., & Naumova, E. (2021). Digital transformation of the Russian venture ecosystem under the impact of the COVID-19. In Global Challenges of Digital Transformation of Markets (pp. 313–329). Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Response: The mentioned sources have been added in the revised manuscript.

Comment 15: There is a little linkage between the literature and the results in the discussion section. Try to connect the literature to the discussion to understand how the findings impact smart cities and smart territories.
Response: We made these changes in the revised version.

Comment 16: The conclusion should summarize the research, make recommendations and state the limitations of the study if any. Instead, the conclusion seems to be an extension of the discussion. “Megapolises’ appears three times in the conclusion, twice in the discussion, and once in the abstract. Throughout the manuscript, it does not appear in the introduction, methods, and results. It needs to be situated in the introduction section and methods.
Response: The conclusion was revised by your comments.
Dear Dr Bilal Khalid
Thank you for your constructive comments on our manuscript ‘Sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories based on the model of minimizing externalities’ The suggestions offered by you have been immensely helpful, and we also appreciate your full consideration to our paper.

As per Your instructions, I have included all of Your comments point by point individually, indicating exactly how we addressed each concern or problem and describing the changes we have made. The revisions have been approved by all four authors and I have again been chosen as the corresponding author. The revised manuscript was formatted according to the journal formatting criteria. We hope the revised manuscript will better suit F1000Research but are happy to consider further revisions if any, and we thank you for your interest in our research.

REVIEWER COMMENTS, AUTHOR RESPONSES AND MANUSCRIPT CHANGES

Comment 1: The background section of the abstract is too long, the authors should consider revising it to not more than two sentences. Because of the length of the background, the authors did not provide much information about the study in the abstract. The part above where it says “This study takes into account….” Is ideally where the authors start talking about this study. The other parts above it should be condensed into two sentences.
Response: Thank you for the identification of this confusion. We have restructured the abstract. The sentences were shortened.

Comment 2: The abstract should be written with the following in mind, aim/problem, objective(s), theory, methods, results, discussion, conclusions and limitations. These aspects where applicable should be touched briefly in the abstract.
Response: Thank you! The aim, methods, results and conclusion were provided in the revised version.

Comment 3: Externalities seem to be a very important concept in this study, yet it only appears once towards the end of the abstract. This is part of the problem being studied and should be reflected earlier in the abstract.
Response: Thank you for highlighting this issue. This confusion was removed and the mentioned term was duly placed in the beginning of the abstract.

Comment 4: The reviewer asked about the following:
The authors should provide a better explanation for the term “externalities” and how it affects the conceptualization of sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories.
Response: Here by investigation we explained this term in the introduction in the revised version in order to clarify the confusion.

Comment 5: Cases of the impacts of externalities on the sustainable development of smart cities and territories should be provided if they are available in studies or practical examples.
Response: Thank you so much. We agree to this modification. The explanation was disclosed with more details in the introduction.

Comment 6: The authors should provide clarification of what they mean by “The consequences of a social nature are much wider and deeper.” It is not enough to provide citations, a context should be provided to show the relationship between the statement and the problem to research hopes to address.
Response: Thank you so much for this suggestion and modification. We followed the comments accordingly in the revised version.

Comment 7: The authors should elaborate on how market uncertainty affects the sustainable development of smart cities and territories.
Response: Yes by this we mean that market uncertainty affects the sustainable development of smart cities and territories. Changes made accordingly in the revised version.

Comment 8: The first paragraphs in the Methods section should be moved to the Introduction. This section should start from the second paragraph – “The authors developed….” The authors should expand the discussion on the Methods once the first paragraph is deleted, this enables them to discuss the Methods in detail.
Response: Thank you. We made the relevant amendments.

Comment 9: The Methods require further clarification to understand the specific correlation and regression tools to be employed.
Response: We changed the manuscript accordingly. It is corrected now and all clarification was provided in the revised version.

Comment 10: The first two paragraphs of the Results section can be moved to the methods section as it seems to describe actions that will lead to results, not the findings themselves. The results should only contain the derivatives from what was proposed in the Methods section.
Response: Thank you so much for identifying this confusion. We had moved this sentence in the revised version.

Comment 11: The second line of the third paragraph contains a spacing error, kindly correct – “…carried out inside anN- dimension….”
Response: Changes made in the revised version.

Comment 12: Authors should present the results and provide a clearer explanation, rather than using statistical jargon and equation.
Response: This has been provided in the revised version.

Comment 13: The last sentence of the analysis of the result that informs that calculations were implemented using Microsoft Excel should be taken to the Methods section. The discussion is only for the implications of your results.
Response: The appropriate changes were made in the revised version.

Comment 14: The discussion should analyze the implication of the equations and figures presented in the results. How do they affect the sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories? Please also consider citing the following articles:
Chaiyasoonthorn, W., Khalid, B., & Chaveesuk, S. (2019, August). Success of Smart Cities Development with Community’s Acceptance of New Technologies. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Information Communication and Management.1
Khalid, B., & Naumova, E. (2021). Digital transformation of the Russian venture ecosystem under the impact of the COVID-19. In Global Challenges of Digital Transformation of Markets (pp. 313–329). Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Response: The mentioned sources have been added in the revised manuscript.

Comment 15: There is a little linkage between the literature and the results in the discussion section. Try to connect the literature to the discussion to understand how the findings impact smart cities and smart territories.
Response: We made these changes in the revised version.

Comment 16: The conclusion should summarize the research, make recommendations and state the limitations of the study if any. Instead, the conclusion seems to be an extension of the discussion. “Megapolises’ appears three times in the conclusion, twice in the discussion, and once in the abstract. Throughout the manuscript, it does not appear in the introduction, methods, and results. It needs to be situated in the introduction section and methods.
Response: The conclusion was revised by your comments.
Competing Interests: Authors declare no competing interests. Close
Report a concern
Respond or Comment

COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT

Author Response 06 Jun 2022

Guldana Kuandykovna Suyendikova, Department of Economics, L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, Nur-Sultan, 010008, Kazakhstan

06 Jun 2022

Author Response

Dear Dr Bilal Khalid
Thank you for your constructive comments on our manuscript ‘Sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories based on the model of minimizing externalities’ The suggestions ... Continue reading Dear Dr Bilal Khalid
Thank you for your constructive comments on our manuscript ‘Sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories based on the model of minimizing externalities’ The suggestions offered by you have been immensely helpful, and we also appreciate your full consideration to our paper.

As per Your instructions, I have included all of Your comments point by point individually, indicating exactly how we addressed each concern or problem and describing the changes we have made. The revisions have been approved by all four authors and I have again been chosen as the corresponding author. The revised manuscript was formatted according to the journal formatting criteria. We hope the revised manuscript will better suit F1000Research but are happy to consider further revisions if any, and we thank you for your interest in our research.

REVIEWER COMMENTS, AUTHOR RESPONSES AND MANUSCRIPT CHANGES

Comment 1: The background section of the abstract is too long, the authors should consider revising it to not more than two sentences. Because of the length of the background, the authors did not provide much information about the study in the abstract. The part above where it says “This study takes into account….” Is ideally where the authors start talking about this study. The other parts above it should be condensed into two sentences.
Response: Thank you for the identification of this confusion. We have restructured the abstract. The sentences were shortened.

Comment 2: The abstract should be written with the following in mind, aim/problem, objective(s), theory, methods, results, discussion, conclusions and limitations. These aspects where applicable should be touched briefly in the abstract.
Response: Thank you! The aim, methods, results and conclusion were provided in the revised version.

Comment 3: Externalities seem to be a very important concept in this study, yet it only appears once towards the end of the abstract. This is part of the problem being studied and should be reflected earlier in the abstract.
Response: Thank you for highlighting this issue. This confusion was removed and the mentioned term was duly placed in the beginning of the abstract.

Comment 4: The reviewer asked about the following:
The authors should provide a better explanation for the term “externalities” and how it affects the conceptualization of sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories.
Response: Here by investigation we explained this term in the introduction in the revised version in order to clarify the confusion.

Comment 5: Cases of the impacts of externalities on the sustainable development of smart cities and territories should be provided if they are available in studies or practical examples.
Response: Thank you so much. We agree to this modification. The explanation was disclosed with more details in the introduction.

Comment 6: The authors should provide clarification of what they mean by “The consequences of a social nature are much wider and deeper.” It is not enough to provide citations, a context should be provided to show the relationship between the statement and the problem to research hopes to address.
Response: Thank you so much for this suggestion and modification. We followed the comments accordingly in the revised version.

Comment 7: The authors should elaborate on how market uncertainty affects the sustainable development of smart cities and territories.
Response: Yes by this we mean that market uncertainty affects the sustainable development of smart cities and territories. Changes made accordingly in the revised version.

Comment 8: The first paragraphs in the Methods section should be moved to the Introduction. This section should start from the second paragraph – “The authors developed….” The authors should expand the discussion on the Methods once the first paragraph is deleted, this enables them to discuss the Methods in detail.
Response: Thank you. We made the relevant amendments.

Comment 9: The Methods require further clarification to understand the specific correlation and regression tools to be employed.
Response: We changed the manuscript accordingly. It is corrected now and all clarification was provided in the revised version.

Comment 10: The first two paragraphs of the Results section can be moved to the methods section as it seems to describe actions that will lead to results, not the findings themselves. The results should only contain the derivatives from what was proposed in the Methods section.
Response: Thank you so much for identifying this confusion. We had moved this sentence in the revised version.

Comment 11: The second line of the third paragraph contains a spacing error, kindly correct – “…carried out inside anN- dimension….”
Response: Changes made in the revised version.

Comment 12: Authors should present the results and provide a clearer explanation, rather than using statistical jargon and equation.
Response: This has been provided in the revised version.

Comment 13: The last sentence of the analysis of the result that informs that calculations were implemented using Microsoft Excel should be taken to the Methods section. The discussion is only for the implications of your results.
Response: The appropriate changes were made in the revised version.

Comment 14: The discussion should analyze the implication of the equations and figures presented in the results. How do they affect the sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories? Please also consider citing the following articles:
Chaiyasoonthorn, W., Khalid, B., & Chaveesuk, S. (2019, August). Success of Smart Cities Development with Community’s Acceptance of New Technologies. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Information Communication and Management.1
Khalid, B., & Naumova, E. (2021). Digital transformation of the Russian venture ecosystem under the impact of the COVID-19. In Global Challenges of Digital Transformation of Markets (pp. 313–329). Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Response: The mentioned sources have been added in the revised manuscript.

Comment 15: There is a little linkage between the literature and the results in the discussion section. Try to connect the literature to the discussion to understand how the findings impact smart cities and smart territories.
Response: We made these changes in the revised version.

Comment 16: The conclusion should summarize the research, make recommendations and state the limitations of the study if any. Instead, the conclusion seems to be an extension of the discussion. “Megapolises’ appears three times in the conclusion, twice in the discussion, and once in the abstract. Throughout the manuscript, it does not appear in the introduction, methods, and results. It needs to be situated in the introduction section and methods.
Response: The conclusion was revised by your comments.
Dear Dr Bilal Khalid
Thank you for your constructive comments on our manuscript ‘Sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories based on the model of minimizing externalities’ The suggestions offered by you have been immensely helpful, and we also appreciate your full consideration to our paper.

As per Your instructions, I have included all of Your comments point by point individually, indicating exactly how we addressed each concern or problem and describing the changes we have made. The revisions have been approved by all four authors and I have again been chosen as the corresponding author. The revised manuscript was formatted according to the journal formatting criteria. We hope the revised manuscript will better suit F1000Research but are happy to consider further revisions if any, and we thank you for your interest in our research.

REVIEWER COMMENTS, AUTHOR RESPONSES AND MANUSCRIPT CHANGES

Comment 1: The background section of the abstract is too long, the authors should consider revising it to not more than two sentences. Because of the length of the background, the authors did not provide much information about the study in the abstract. The part above where it says “This study takes into account….” Is ideally where the authors start talking about this study. The other parts above it should be condensed into two sentences.
Response: Thank you for the identification of this confusion. We have restructured the abstract. The sentences were shortened.

Comment 2: The abstract should be written with the following in mind, aim/problem, objective(s), theory, methods, results, discussion, conclusions and limitations. These aspects where applicable should be touched briefly in the abstract.
Response: Thank you! The aim, methods, results and conclusion were provided in the revised version.

Comment 3: Externalities seem to be a very important concept in this study, yet it only appears once towards the end of the abstract. This is part of the problem being studied and should be reflected earlier in the abstract.
Response: Thank you for highlighting this issue. This confusion was removed and the mentioned term was duly placed in the beginning of the abstract.

Comment 4: The reviewer asked about the following:
The authors should provide a better explanation for the term “externalities” and how it affects the conceptualization of sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories.
Response: Here by investigation we explained this term in the introduction in the revised version in order to clarify the confusion.

Comment 5: Cases of the impacts of externalities on the sustainable development of smart cities and territories should be provided if they are available in studies or practical examples.
Response: Thank you so much. We agree to this modification. The explanation was disclosed with more details in the introduction.

Comment 6: The authors should provide clarification of what they mean by “The consequences of a social nature are much wider and deeper.” It is not enough to provide citations, a context should be provided to show the relationship between the statement and the problem to research hopes to address.
Response: Thank you so much for this suggestion and modification. We followed the comments accordingly in the revised version.

Comment 7: The authors should elaborate on how market uncertainty affects the sustainable development of smart cities and territories.
Response: Yes by this we mean that market uncertainty affects the sustainable development of smart cities and territories. Changes made accordingly in the revised version.

Comment 8: The first paragraphs in the Methods section should be moved to the Introduction. This section should start from the second paragraph – “The authors developed….” The authors should expand the discussion on the Methods once the first paragraph is deleted, this enables them to discuss the Methods in detail.
Response: Thank you. We made the relevant amendments.

Comment 9: The Methods require further clarification to understand the specific correlation and regression tools to be employed.
Response: We changed the manuscript accordingly. It is corrected now and all clarification was provided in the revised version.

Comment 10: The first two paragraphs of the Results section can be moved to the methods section as it seems to describe actions that will lead to results, not the findings themselves. The results should only contain the derivatives from what was proposed in the Methods section.
Response: Thank you so much for identifying this confusion. We had moved this sentence in the revised version.

Comment 11: The second line of the third paragraph contains a spacing error, kindly correct – “…carried out inside anN- dimension….”
Response: Changes made in the revised version.

Comment 12: Authors should present the results and provide a clearer explanation, rather than using statistical jargon and equation.
Response: This has been provided in the revised version.

Comment 13: The last sentence of the analysis of the result that informs that calculations were implemented using Microsoft Excel should be taken to the Methods section. The discussion is only for the implications of your results.
Response: The appropriate changes were made in the revised version.

Comment 14: The discussion should analyze the implication of the equations and figures presented in the results. How do they affect the sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories? Please also consider citing the following articles:
Chaiyasoonthorn, W., Khalid, B., & Chaveesuk, S. (2019, August). Success of Smart Cities Development with Community’s Acceptance of New Technologies. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Information Communication and Management.1
Khalid, B., & Naumova, E. (2021). Digital transformation of the Russian venture ecosystem under the impact of the COVID-19. In Global Challenges of Digital Transformation of Markets (pp. 313–329). Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Response: The mentioned sources have been added in the revised manuscript.

Comment 15: There is a little linkage between the literature and the results in the discussion section. Try to connect the literature to the discussion to understand how the findings impact smart cities and smart territories.
Response: We made these changes in the revised version.

Comment 16: The conclusion should summarize the research, make recommendations and state the limitations of the study if any. Instead, the conclusion seems to be an extension of the discussion. “Megapolises’ appears three times in the conclusion, twice in the discussion, and once in the abstract. Throughout the manuscript, it does not appear in the introduction, methods, and results. It needs to be situated in the introduction section and methods.
Response: The conclusion was revised by your comments.
Competing Interests: Authors declare no competing interests. Close
Report a concern

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 2

VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 13 May 2022

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

	Invited Reviewers
	1	2	3	4
Version 2 (revision) 06 Jun 22	read	read	read
Version 1 13 May 22	read	read	read	read

Bilal Khalid, King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok, Thailand
Jakub Kubiczek, University of Economics in Katowice, Katowice, Poland
Mui Yee Cheok, Universiti Tun Abdul Razak Kuala Lumpur, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Esra Sipahi Dongul, Aksaray University, Aksaray, Turkey

Comments on this article

All Comments(0)

Add a comment

Browse by related subjects

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

11 Views

07 Jun 2022 | for Version 2

Mui Yee Cheok, Universiti Tun Abdul Razak Kuala Lumpur, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

11 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Suggestions have been done.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

11 Views

07 Jun 2022 | for Version 2

Jakub Kubiczek, Department of Economic and Financial Analysis, University of Economics in Katowice, Katowice, Poland

11 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

Dear Authors,

Thank you very much for the responses to my remarks, which were my only ones. The revised version is definitely better.

Best regards,
Jakub Kubiczek

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Decision making, Corporate Social Responsibility, Sustainable Development

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

22 Views

06 Jun 2022 | for Version 2

Bilal Khalid, KMITL Business School, King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok, Thailand

22 Views Cite this report Responses(0)

Approved

I am very satisfied with the improvements and present paper quality. Strongly support the paper's indexing.

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Smart Cities, Sustainable Practices, De-carbonization, Immigrant Entrepreneurship, Global Value Chains, Industry 4.0, Digital Transformations, Technology Adoption, Consumer behavior, Public Policy,

I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Respond to this report

Responses (0)

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

30 Views

24 May 2022 | for Version 1

Esra Sipahi Dongul, Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Social Work, Aksaray University, Aksaray, Turkey

30 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

The authors talk about smart cities. Please elaborate with some concrete example not more than a paragraph.

Please provide more detail about all of the methods used.
Please specify what you mean when you use the term of the multidimensional cube of situations.
Are the economic indicators associated marked with externalities?
What is the sense of the expression 3? This need to be elaborated well.
Please explain with concrete examples the theoretical base of the the mathematical model.
Light up the term “green infrastructure”.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Business, management, organizational behavior

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

06 Jun 2022

Guldana Kuandykovna Suyendikova, Department of Economics, L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, Nur-Sultan, 010008, Kazakhstan

Dear Esra Sipahi Dongul
Thank you for your precious comments on our manuscript ‘Sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories based on the model of minimizing externalities’ Your recommendations helped polished the manuscript, and we also appreciate your full consideration to our paper.

As per your instructions, we have included all of your comments points by point individually, indicating exactly how we addressed each concern or problem and describing the changes we have made. The revised manuscript was formatted according to the journal formatting criteria. We hope the revised manuscript will better suit F1000Research but are happy to consider further revisions if any, and we thank you for your interest in our research.

REVIEWER COMMENTS, AUTHOR RESPONSES AND MANUSCRIPT CHANGES
Comment 1: Please provide more detail about all of the methods used.
Response: Thank You! We have clarified the methods in the revised version.

Comment 2: Please specify what you mean when you use the term of multidimensional cube of situations.
Response: Thank you for your comment. We described the meaning of the multidimensional cube of situations.

Comment 3: Are the economic indicators associated marked with externalities?
Response: Thank You for highlighting this confusion. This confusion was removed and we described the logical connection between the economic indicators and externalities.

Comment 4: What is the sense of the expression 3? This need to be elaborated well.
Response: We elaborated the revised version in order to clarify the confusion.

Comment 5: Please explain with concrete examples the theoretical base of the mathematical model.
Response: Thank you so much. We agreed with these Comments and duly explained the theoretical base of the mathematical model.

Comment 6: Light up the term “green infrastructure”.
Response: Thank you so much for this suggestion. We followed the comments accordingly in the revised version.

View more View less

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

26 Views

23 May 2022 | for Version 1

Mui Yee Cheok, Universiti Tun Abdul Razak Kuala Lumpur, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

26 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

The abstract needs revision and restructuring. The abstract should be revised by adding the objectives, conclusions and future scope of the proposed work.
Word “Externalities” is repeatedly used in the title as well as in the abstract it is not defined and the term is required to explain in the introduction
Market uncertainty is a wide concept that is required to explain in this paper’s context.
It is advised to add more literature data in the introduction section to understand the research problem, The research contributions of the present work in the existing body of knowledge should be summarized in the introduction section.
Paper novelty & research objectives should be added at the end of section 1 (Introduction).
It is advised to explain the findings of Table 1 in the text, similar all figures should be discussed in the discussion section and support some of your important findings with the past studies.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

06 Jun 2022

Guldana Kuandykovna Suyendikova, Department of Economics, L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, Nur-Sultan, 010008, Kazakhstan

Dear Mui Yee Cheok
Thank you for your valuable comments on our manuscript ‘Sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories based on the model of minimizing externalities’ Your recommendations have been immensely helpful, and we also appreciate your full consideration to our paper.

As per your instructions, we have included all of your comments point by point individually, indicating exactly how we addressed each concern or problem and describing the changes we have made. The revisions have been approved by all four authors and I have again been chosen as the corresponding author. The revised manuscript was formatted according to the journal formatting criteria. We hope the revised manuscript will better suit F1000Research but are happy to consider further revisions if any, and we thank you for your interest in our research.

REVIEWER COMMENTS, AUTHOR RESPONSES AND MANUSCRIPT CHANGES
Comment 1: The abstract needs revision and restructuring. The abstract should be revised by adding the objectives, conclusions and future scope of the proposed work.
Response: Thank you! We have restructured the abstract in the revised version.

Comment 2: Word “Externalities” is repeatedly used in the title as well as in the abstract it is not defined and the term is required to explain in the introduction.
Response: Thank you for the identification of this confusion. The explanation was provided in the revised version.

Comment 3: Market uncertainty is a wide concept that is required to explain in this paper’s context.
Response: Thank you for highlighting this confusion. The explanation was duly provided.

Comment 4: It is advised to add more literature data in the introduction section to understand the research problem, The research contributions of the present work in the existing body of knowledge should be summarized in the introduction section.
Response: Here by investigation, we added the description in the introduction.

Comment 5: Paper novelty & research objectives should be added at the end of section 1 (Introduction).
Response: Thank you so much. We agree to this modification. The novelty was disclosed in the introduction.

Comment 6: It is advised to explain the findings of Table 1 in the text, similar all figures should be discussed in the discussion section and support some of your important findings with the past studies.
Response: Thank you so much for this suggestion. We followed the comments accordingly in the revised version.

View more View less

Competing Interests

Authors declare no competing interests

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

32 Views

20 May 2022 | for Version 1

Jakub Kubiczek, Department of Economic and Financial Analysis, University of Economics in Katowice, Katowice, Poland

32 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Shorten the abstract to make it more specific. I would remove the introduction to the problem because the abstract should contain the essence itself. At the same time, I would add the most important results of the study.
“As a rule, such analysis uses the methods of surrogate markets. In turn, this direction, which is usually referred to as an indirect market method or proxy market, is divided into several pricing principles ". You write “usually” - it would be useful to support it with some other article.
You have defined the research gap very well and proposed a way to fill it, but there is no clearly defined purpose of the article.
In the results section, "the Nash equilibrium condition" appears - it would be nice to mention what it means somewhere.
The figures are not signed - "Source: own study."
Please, number the patterns continuously - they should all have a number.
Please, divide the conclusions into certain sections as this is too chaotic at the moment.

Substantive issues

The authors mention the pandemic, but do not detail how it affected the externalities. Which externalities are connected with the post-pandemic situation?
The authors should clarify suggesting a mathematical model as part of the management decision support.
I miss the justification that the presented model has potential. Therefore, I propose to note the potential of proposed model and its practical implication opportunities.
Do the authors mean that the nature of a sustainable development is connected with the smart territories’ development. If so, in what way? Please refer it to the proposed model.
Are there any recommendations for authorities and governments based on the developed model?
Do the researchers propose making urbanization on the basis of sustainable development?
Are the principles of formalization used as the basis for a mathematical model?
Could the developed model be qualified as the optimization of the amount of expenses that must be borne by various members of the business community?

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Partly
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Partly
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Decision making, Corporate Social Responsibility, Sustainable Development

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

06 Jun 2022

Guldana Kuandykovna Suyendikova, Department of Economics, L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, Nur-Sultan, 010008, Kazakhstan

Dear Jakub Kubiczek
Thank you for your important comments on our manuscript ‘Sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories based on the model of minimizing externalities’ Your recommendations have been immensely helpful, and we also appreciate your full consideration to our paper.

As per your instructions, i have included all of your comments point by point individually, indicating exactly how we addressed each concern or problem and describing the changes we have made. The revisions have been approved by all four authors and I have again been chosen as the corresponding author. The revised manuscript was formatted according to the journal formatting criteria. We hope the revised manuscript will better suit F1000Research but are happy to consider further revisions if any, and we thank you for your interest in our research.

REVIEWER COMMENTS, AUTHOR RESPONSES AND MANUSCRIPT CHANGES
Comment 1: Shorten the abstract to make it more specific. I would remove the introduction to the problem because the abstract should contain the essence itself. At the same time, I would add the most important results of the study.
Response: Thank you! We have made the relevant changes in the revised version.

Comment 2: The reviewer asked for the methods of the following:
“As a rule, such analysis uses the methods of surrogate markets. In turn, this direction, which is usually referred to as an indirect market method or proxy market, is divided into several pricing principles ". You write “usually” - it would be useful to support it with some other article.
Response: Thank you for the identification of this confusion. The appropriate explanation was provided in the revised version.

Comment 3: You have defined the research gap very well and proposed a way to fill it, but there is no clearly defined purpose of the article.
Response: Thank You for highlighting this confusion. This confusion was removed and the purpose was written.

Comment 4: In the results section, "the Nash equilibrium condition" appears - it would be nice to mention what it means somewhere.
Response: We described the mentioned approach more precisely.

Comment 5: The figures are not signed - "Source: own study.".
Response: Thank you so much. We agree to this modification. The figures are duly signed.

Comment 6: Please, number the patterns continuously - they should all have a number.
Response: Thank you so much for this suggestion and modification. We followed the comments accordingly in the revised version.

Comment 7: Please, divide the conclusions into certain sections as this is too chaotic at the moment.
Response: Yes by this we mean logical explanation. Changes made accordingly in the revised version.

Comment 8: The authors mention the pandemic, but do not detail how it affected the externalities. Which externalities are connected with the post-pandemic situation?
Response: Thank you. We explained the externalities accordingly.

Comment 9: The authors should clarify suggesting a mathematical model as part of the management decision support.
Response: Thank you. We explained the mathematical model as part of the management decision support.

Comment 10: I miss the justification that the presented model has potential. Therefore, I propose to note the potential of proposed model and its practical implication opportunities.
Response: Thank you so much for identifying this confusion. We had added the potential of the model. The same has been elaborated well in the revised version.

Comment 11: Do the authors mean that the nature of a sustainable development is connected with the smart territories’ development. If so, in what way? Please refer it to the proposed model.
Response: We mean that the nature of a sustainable development is connected with the smart territories’ development.

Comment 12: Are there any recommendations for authorities and governments based on the developed model?
Response: This has been explained in the revised version.

Comment 13: Do the researchers propose making urbanization on the basis of sustainable development?
Response: Thank you so much for identifying this confusion. We had added the explanation of the model in the revised version.

Comment 14: Are the principles of formalization used as the basis for a mathematical model?
Response: We mean that the principles of formalization are used as the basis for a mathematical model implemented for the development of smart territories.

Comment 15: Could the developed model be qualified as the optimization of the amount of expenses that must be borne by various members of the business community?
Response: This has been explained in the revised version.

View more View less

Competing Interests

Authors declare no competing interests

Back to all reports

Reviewer Report

52 Views

19 May 2022 | for Version 1

Bilal Khalid, KMITL Business School, King Mongkut's Institute of Technology Ladkrabang, Bangkok, Thailand

52 Views Cite this report Responses(1)

Approved With Reservations

Abstract:

The background section of the abstract is too long, the authors should consider revising it to not more than two sentences. Because of the length of the background, the authors did not provide much information about the study in the abstract. The part above where it says “This study takes into account….” Is ideally where the authors start talking about this study. The other parts above it should be condensed into two sentences.
The abstract should be written with the following in mind, aim/problem, objective(s), theory, methods, results, discussion, conclusions and limitations. These aspects where applicable should be touched briefly in the abstract.
Externalities seem to be a very important concept in this study, yet it only appears once towards the end of the abstract. This is part of the problem being studied and should be reflected earlier in the abstract.

Introduction:

The authors should provide a better explanation for the term “externalities” and how it affects the conceptualization of sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories.
Cases of the impacts of externalities on the sustainable development of smart cities and territories should be provided if they are available in studies or practical examples.
The authors should provide clarification of what they mean by “The consequences of a social nature are much wider and deeper.” It is not enough to provide citations, a context should be provided to show the relationship between the statement and the problem to research hopes to address.
The authors should elaborate on how market uncertainty affects the sustainable development of smart cities and territories.

Methods:

The first paragraphs in the Methods section should be moved to the Introduction. This section should start from the second paragraph – “The authors developed….” The authors should expand the discussion on the Methods once the first paragraph is deleted, this enables them to discuss the Methods in detail.
The Methods require further clarification to understand the specific correlation and regression tools to be employed.

Results:

The first two paragraphs of the results section can be moved to the methods section as it seems to describe actions that will lead to results, not the findings itself. The results should only contain the derivatives from what was proposed in the Methods section.
The second line of the third paragraph contains a spacing error, kindly correct – “…carried out inside anN- dimension….”
Authors should present the results and provide a clearer explanation, rather than using statistical jargon and equation.

Discussion:

The last sentence of the analysis of the result that informs that calculations were implemented using Microsoft Excel should be taken to the Methods section. The discussion is only for the implications of your results.
The discussion should analyze the implication of the equations and figures presented in the results. How do they affect the sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories? Please also consider citing the following articles:
- Chaiyasoonthorn, W., Khalid, B., & Chaveesuk, S. (2019, August). Success of Smart Cities Development with Community’s Acceptance of New Technologies. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Information Communication and Management.¹
- Khalid, B., & Naumova, E. (2021). Digital transformation of the Russian venture ecosystem under the impact of the COVID-19. In Global Challenges of Digital Transformation of Markets (pp. 313–329). Nova Science Publishers, Inc.²
There is a little linkage between the literature and the results in the discussion section. Try to connect the literature to the discussion to understand how the findings impact smart cities and smart territories.

Conclusion:

The conclusion should summarize the research, make recommendations and state the limitations of the study if any. Instead, the conclusion seems to be an extension of the discussion. “Megapolises’ appears three times in the conclusion, twice in the discussion, and once in the abstract. Throughout the manuscript, it does not appear in the introduction, methods, and results. It needs to be situated in the introduction section and methods.

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Partly
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Partly
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Partly
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

No
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

References

Competing Interests

No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise

Smart Cities, Sustainable Practices, De-carbonization, Immigrant Entrepreneurship, Global Value Chains, Industry 4.0, Digital Transformations, Technology Adoption, Consumer behavior, Public Policy,

Respond to this report

Responses (1)

Author Response

06 Jun 2022

Guldana Kuandykovna Suyendikova, Department of Economics, L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, Nur-Sultan, 010008, Kazakhstan

Dear Dr Bilal Khalid
Thank you for your constructive comments on our manuscript ‘Sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories based on the model of minimizing externalities’ The suggestions offered by you have been immensely helpful, and we also appreciate your full consideration to our paper.

As per Your instructions, I have included all of Your comments point by point individually, indicating exactly how we addressed each concern or problem and describing the changes we have made. The revisions have been approved by all four authors and I have again been chosen as the corresponding author. The revised manuscript was formatted according to the journal formatting criteria. We hope the revised manuscript will better suit F1000Research but are happy to consider further revisions if any, and we thank you for your interest in our research.

REVIEWER COMMENTS, AUTHOR RESPONSES AND MANUSCRIPT CHANGES

Comment 1: The background section of the abstract is too long, the authors should consider revising it to not more than two sentences. Because of the length of the background, the authors did not provide much information about the study in the abstract. The part above where it says “This study takes into account….” Is ideally where the authors start talking about this study. The other parts above it should be condensed into two sentences.
Response: Thank you for the identification of this confusion. We have restructured the abstract. The sentences were shortened.

Comment 2: The abstract should be written with the following in mind, aim/problem, objective(s), theory, methods, results, discussion, conclusions and limitations. These aspects where applicable should be touched briefly in the abstract.
Response: Thank you! The aim, methods, results and conclusion were provided in the revised version.

Comment 3: Externalities seem to be a very important concept in this study, yet it only appears once towards the end of the abstract. This is part of the problem being studied and should be reflected earlier in the abstract.
Response: Thank you for highlighting this issue. This confusion was removed and the mentioned term was duly placed in the beginning of the abstract.

Comment 4: The reviewer asked about the following:
The authors should provide a better explanation for the term “externalities” and how it affects the conceptualization of sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories.
Response: Here by investigation we explained this term in the introduction in the revised version in order to clarify the confusion.

Comment 5: Cases of the impacts of externalities on the sustainable development of smart cities and territories should be provided if they are available in studies or practical examples.
Response: Thank you so much. We agree to this modification. The explanation was disclosed with more details in the introduction.

Comment 6: The authors should provide clarification of what they mean by “The consequences of a social nature are much wider and deeper.” It is not enough to provide citations, a context should be provided to show the relationship between the statement and the problem to research hopes to address.
Response: Thank you so much for this suggestion and modification. We followed the comments accordingly in the revised version.

Comment 7: The authors should elaborate on how market uncertainty affects the sustainable development of smart cities and territories.
Response: Yes by this we mean that market uncertainty affects the sustainable development of smart cities and territories. Changes made accordingly in the revised version.

Comment 8: The first paragraphs in the Methods section should be moved to the Introduction. This section should start from the second paragraph – “The authors developed….” The authors should expand the discussion on the Methods once the first paragraph is deleted, this enables them to discuss the Methods in detail.
Response: Thank you. We made the relevant amendments.

Comment 9: The Methods require further clarification to understand the specific correlation and regression tools to be employed.
Response: We changed the manuscript accordingly. It is corrected now and all clarification was provided in the revised version.

Comment 10: The first two paragraphs of the Results section can be moved to the methods section as it seems to describe actions that will lead to results, not the findings themselves. The results should only contain the derivatives from what was proposed in the Methods section.
Response: Thank you so much for identifying this confusion. We had moved this sentence in the revised version.

Comment 11: The second line of the third paragraph contains a spacing error, kindly correct – “…carried out inside anN- dimension….”
Response: Changes made in the revised version.

Comment 12: Authors should present the results and provide a clearer explanation, rather than using statistical jargon and equation.
Response: This has been provided in the revised version.

Comment 13: The last sentence of the analysis of the result that informs that calculations were implemented using Microsoft Excel should be taken to the Methods section. The discussion is only for the implications of your results.
Response: The appropriate changes were made in the revised version.

Comment 14: The discussion should analyze the implication of the equations and figures presented in the results. How do they affect the sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories? Please also consider citing the following articles:
Chaiyasoonthorn, W., Khalid, B., & Chaveesuk, S. (2019, August). Success of Smart Cities Development with Community’s Acceptance of New Technologies. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Information Communication and Management.1
Khalid, B., & Naumova, E. (2021). Digital transformation of the Russian venture ecosystem under the impact of the COVID-19. In Global Challenges of Digital Transformation of Markets (pp. 313–329). Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Response: The mentioned sources have been added in the revised manuscript.

Comment 15: There is a little linkage between the literature and the results in the discussion section. Try to connect the literature to the discussion to understand how the findings impact smart cities and smart territories.
Response: We made these changes in the revised version.

Comment 16: The conclusion should summarize the research, make recommendations and state the limitations of the study if any. Instead, the conclusion seems to be an extension of the discussion. “Megapolises’ appears three times in the conclusion, twice in the discussion, and once in the abstract. Throughout the manuscript, it does not appear in the introduction, methods, and results. It needs to be situated in the introduction section and methods.
Response: The conclusion was revised by your comments.

View more View less

Competing Interests

Authors declare no competing interests.

Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:

Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested

Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit.

Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

[1] 1. Ruan W-Q, Zhang S-N: Can tourism information flow enhance regional tourism economic linkages?. J. Hosp. Tour. Manag. 2021 Dec; 49(November): 614–623. Publisher Full Text

[2] 2. Koç B, Küçükergin KG, Dimanche F: How destructive are negative tourist-to-tourist interactions despite the mitigating effect of optimism?. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2022 Mar; 23(February): 100693. Publisher Full Text Reference Source

[3] 3. Sun W, Chien PM, Ritchie BW, et al.: When compatriot tourists behave badly: The impact of misbehavior appraisal and outgroup criticism construal. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2022 Mar; 23(February): 100695. Publisher Full Text

[4] 4. Bulchand-Gidumal J: Post-COVID-19 recovery of island tourism using a smart tourism destination framework. J. Destin. Mark. Manag. 2022 Mar; 23: 100689. Publisher Full Text

[5] 5. Provotorov VV, Sergeev SM, Hoang VN: Countable stability of a weak solution of a parabolic differential-difference system with distributed parameters on the graph. Vestn. Saint Petersbg. Univ. Appl. Math. Comput. Sci. Control Process. 2020; 16(4): 402–414. Publisher Full Text Reference Source

[6] 6. Provotorov VV, Sergeev SM, Van NH: Point control of a differential-difference system with distributed parameters on the graph. Vestn. Saint Petersbg. Univ. Appl. Math. Comput. Sci. Control Process. 2021; 17(3): 277–286. Publisher Full Text Reference Source

[7] 7. Garcia-Ayllon S, Miralles JL: New Strategies to Improve Governance in Territorial Management: Evolving from “Smart Cities” to “Smart Territories.”. Procedia Eng. 2015; 118: 3–11. Publisher Full Text Reference Source

[8] 8. Leroux E, Pupion P-C: Smart territories and IoT adoption by local authorities: A question of trust, efficiency, and relationship with the citizen-user-taxpayer. Technol. Forecast Soc. Change. 2022 Jan; 174(September 2021): 121195. Publisher Full Text

[9] 9. Kaplow BL: Optimal control of externalities in the presence of income taxation. Int. Econ. Rev. (Philadelphia). 2012 May 1; 53(2): 487–509. Publisher Full Text

[10] 10. Buchanan JM, Stubblebine WC: Externality. Economica. 1962 Nov 22; 29(116): 371. Publisher Full Text Reference Source

[11] 11. Milstein T, Castro-Sotomayor J: Routledge Handbook of Ecocultural Identity. Milstein T, Castro-Sotomayor J, editors. Routledge Handbook of Ecocultural Identity. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge; 2020; 1–497. Reference Source

[12] 12. Deloitte: Government Trends 2020. Deloitte Insights.2020; 88. Reference Source

[13] 13. Macchiarola FJ, Sassen S: The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. Polit. Sci. Q. 1992; 107(2): 370. Publisher Full Text Reference Source

[14] 14. Križnik B: Transformation of deprived urban areas and social sustainability: A comparative study of urban regeneration and urban redevelopment in Barcelona and Seoul. Urbani izziv. 2018 Jun; 29(1): 83–95. Publisher Full Text Reference Source

[15] 15. Marrone M, Peterlongo G: Where platforms meet infrastructures: digital platforms, urban resistance and the ambivalence of the city in the Italian case of Bologna. Work. Organ Labour Glob. 2020 Jan 1; 14(1): 119–135. Publisher Full Text

[16] 16. Su L, Fan J, Fu L: Exploration of smart city construction under new urbanization: A case study of Jinzhou-Huludao Coastal Area. Sustain. Comput. Informatics Syst. 2020 Sep; 27: 100403. Publisher Full Text

[17] 17. Pradhan RP, Arvin MB, Nair M: Urbanization, transportation infrastructure, ICT, and economic growth: A temporal causal analysis. Cities. 2021 Aug; 115(September 2019): 103213. Publisher Full Text

[18] 18. Miroshnyk NV, Likhanov AF, Grabovska TO, et al.: Green infrastructure and relationship with urbanization – Importance and necessity of integrated governance. Land Use Policy. 2022 Mar; 114(January 2021): 105941. Publisher Full Text

[19] 19. Zhao X, Xiao W, Wu L, et al.: Intelligent city intelligent medical sharing technology based on internet of things technology. Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst. 2020 Oct; 111: 226–233. Publisher Full Text Reference Source

[20] 20. Prataviera E, Vivian J, Lombardo G, et al.: Evaluation of the impact of input uncertainty on urban building energy simulations using uncertainty and sensitivity analysis. Appl. Energy. 2022 Apr; 311(November 2021): 118691. Publisher Full Text

[21] 21. Tanner J: Neumann, John von/Morgenstern, Oskar: Theory of Games and Economic Behavior. Arnold HL, editor. Kindlers Literatur Lexikon (KLL). Stuttgart: J.B. Metzler; 2020; p. 1–3. Publisher Full Text

[22] 22. Rota Bulò S, Bomze IM: Infection and immunization: A new class of evolutionary game dynamics. Games Econ. Behav. 2011 Jan; 71(1): 193–211. Publisher Full Text

[23] 23. de Magalhães ST , Magalhães MJ, Sá VJ: Establishment ofAutomatization as a Requirement for Time Management Input Modules in Project Management Information Systems for Academic Activities – A Game Theory Approach. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2015; 64: 1157–1162. Publisher Full Text

[24] 24. Heifetz A, Meier M, Schipper BC: Comprehensive rationalizability. Games Econ. Behav. 2019 Jul; 116: 185–202. Publisher Full Text

[25] 25. Sergeev SM, Starodubtsev YI, Kravets OJ, et al.: Algorithm of ecological solutions in the smart city concept. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2020 Nov 1; 1679(5): 052040. Publisher Full Text

[26] 26. Borisoglebskaya LN, Provotorov VV, Sergeev SM, et al.: Mathematical aspects of optimal control of transference processes in spatial networks. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019; 537(4): 042025. Publisher Full Text

[27] 27. Zhabko AP, Shindyapin AI, Provotorov VV: Stability of weak solutions of parabolic systems with distributed parameters on the graph. Vestn. Saint Petersbg. Univ. Appl. Math. Comput. Sci. Control Process. 2019; 15(4): 457–471. Publisher Full Text Reference Source

[28] 28. Pilipenko OV, Provotorova EN, Sergeev SM, et al.: Automation engineering of adaptive industrial warehouse. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2019; 1399(4): 044045. Publisher Full Text

[29] 29. Artemov MA, Baranovskii ES, Zhabko AP, et al.: On a 3D model of non-isothermal flows in a pipeline network. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2019; 1203(1): 012094. Publisher Full Text

[30] 30. Krasnov S, Sergeev S, Zotova E, et al.: Algorithm of optimal management for the efficient use of energy resources. Kalinina O, editor. E3S Web Conf. 2019 Aug 9; 110: 02052. Publisher Full Text

[31] 31. Barykin SY, Kapustina IV, Sergeev SM, et al.: Developing the physical distribution digital twin model within the trade network. Acad. Strateg. Manag. J. 2021; 20(1): 1–18. Reference Source

[32] 32. Provotorov VV, Provotorova EN: Optimal control of the linearized Navier— Stokes system in a netlike domain. Vestn. Saint Petersbg. Univ. Appl. Math. Comput. Sci. Control Process. 2017; 13(4): 431–443. Publisher Full Text Reference Source

[33] 33. Podvalny SL, Podvalny ES, Provotorov VV: The Controllability of Parabolic Systems with Delay and Distributed Parameters on the Graph. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2017; 103(October 2016): 324–330. Publisher Full Text

[34] 34. Barykin SE, Smirnova EA, Chzhao D, et al.: Digital Echelons and Interfaces within Value Chains: End-to-End Marketing and Logistics Integration. Sustainability. 2021 Dec 16; 13(24): 13929. Publisher Full Text Reference Source

[35] 35. Barykin SE, Borisoglebskaya LN, Provotorov VV, et al.: Sustainability of Management Decisions in a Digital Logistics Network. Sustainability. 2021 Aug 18; 13(16): 9289. Publisher Full Text Reference Source

[36] 36. Barykin SY, Kapustina IV, Sergeev SM, et al.: Algorithmic foundations of economic and mathematical modeling of network logistics processes. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark Complex. 2020; 6(4): 1–16. Publisher Full Text

[37] 37. Golosnoy AS, Provotorov VV, Sergeev SM, et al.: Software engineering math for network applications. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2019 Dec 1; 1399(4): 044047. Publisher Full Text

[38] 38. Kuandykovna Suyendikova G, Kapustina IV: Data calculation for: Sustainable Development of Smart Cities and Smart Territories Based on the Model of Minimizing Externalities2.xls. figshare. Dataset. 2022. Publisher Full Text

Sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories based on the model of minimizing externalities

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Methods

Results

Table 1. Variants of situations and the calculation model.

(1)

(2)

(3)

Figure 1. A 3D set of admissible solutions.

Figure 2. a) Boundary solution areas. b) Set of solutions for Equation (2).

Figure 3. a) Set of solutions for Equation (3). b) Boundary solution areas.

Discussion

Analysis of the results

Application of results

Structure of relationships

Conclusion

Data availability

Underlying data

Ethical approval

Acknowledgments

References

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Open Peer Review

Reviewer Status

Reviewer Reports

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Competing Interests Policy

Stay Updated