Public informatics

Public informatics is an interdisciplinary academic, professional, and applied research field that integrates advanced data science, artificial intelligence, quantitative methods, geographic information systems, governance, and management with areas such as smart cities, socially cognizant robotics, transportation, energy, and corporate social responsibility to improve public decision-making and civic outcomes.[1][2][3][4][5] During the 2010s, universities began establishing graduate programs in public informatics and related public-sector data science and analytics degrees.[6][7][8]

Definition and scope

Public informatics applies advanced data science, artificial intelligence, quantitative analysis, and computational methods to improve public decision-making, governance systems, urban infrastructure, and civic outcomes.[1][9][4][10] The field bridges artificial intelligence, technology, policy, spatial and urban design, and management by creating data-driven frameworks for analyzing and improving public systems, with emphasis on serving public, corporate social responsibility, and nonprofit institutions while addressing public-good challenges.[11][12]

The field combines methodologies from artificial intelligence, advanced data science, quantitative methods, urban design, governance systems, and management science to create frameworks and agentic AI solutions for public decision support, human enhancive AI, ethical AI, and urban and rural systems improvement.[13][14][15][16] Public informatics advances public welfare by aligning artificial intelligence, technological innovation, and data with societal needs, applying computational tools to strengthen efficiency, effectiveness, innovation, risk management, accountability, resilience, and other measurable performance outcomes.[17]

Framework of public informatics

Public informatics operates through a framework organized along three interconnected dimensions: ideology, purpose, and goals; technology, information, and intelligence; and domains and application areas.[18][19] These dimensions connect public data, computational methods, governance systems, and societal outcomes into a model for public value creation, innovation, and measurable progress.[1][20] The outcomes of these applications are evaluated as measurable improvements in efficiency, transparency, resilience, and service delivery.

Ideology, purpose and goals

The first dimension describes the overarching focus on public good, including innovation, value creation, efficiency, and measurable improvement in public outcomes. Drawing on public value theory as articulated by Moore (1995), this dimension positions public managers as innovators who identify opportunities to create value for citizens through strategic use of information and technology.[18] This dimension emphasizes measurable improvements in service quality, infrastructure performance, and population-level outcomes, assessed using performance indicators and operational metrics.[19][21]

This orientation aligns with mission-oriented approaches to public policy, which advocate for governments to set clearly defined objectives such as reducing emergency response times, increasing infrastructure uptime, or improving health outcomes, and to mobilize cross-sector innovation to achieve them.[19][22] Mazzucato (2021) argues that governments achieve significant impact when they adopt a mission-driven posture that coordinates public and private investment around measurable societal goals.[19] Measurement frameworks in this dimension extend beyond traditional economic indicators. Stiglitz, Sen, and Fitoussi (2010) proposed broader well-being metrics, including health outcomes, environmental conditions, and time use, as complements to traditional economic indicators.[23] Public informatics employs this broader metric orientation, using data-driven dashboards and performance indicators to track efficiency gains, cost savings, service accessibility, and improvements in citizen quality of life.[24][25]

Technology, information and intelligence

The second dimension encompasses the computational and technological infrastructure through which public informatics achieves its goals. This includes data science and artificial intelligence methods such as machine learning, natural language processing, geographic information systems, predictive analytics, statistical modeling, simulation, and digital twin technologies.[1][9][26] These methods process diverse public data sources including civic data, infrastructure sensor data, environmental monitoring data, administrative records, and citizen-generated information, transforming inputs into actionable intelligence for public decision-making.[13][27]

Dunleavy et al. (2006) identified digital-era governance as the successor to new public management, arguing that information technology enables reintegration of fragmented government services, needs-based holistic service delivery, and digitization of public operations.[20] This theoretical foundation has been developed to account for data science and artificial intelligence capabilities that enable governments to automate administrative processes, enhance data-driven decision-making, and reduce errors in service delivery.[28][21] Wirtz, Weyerer, and Geyer (2019) identify ten application areas for AI in the public sector, describing how each contributes to value creation and operational efficiency across government functions including public health, economic affairs, transportation, and public safety.[21] The OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation has documented how governments worldwide deploy these technologies to enhance service innovation and operational performance.[25]

Domains and application areas

The third dimension identifies the systems and sectors in which informatics methods are applied, including public and corporate governance and public administration, urban infrastructure and smart cities, public health, transportation, environmental management, energy systems, civic engagement platforms, corporate social responsibility, and disaster response.[1][29][30] Within each domain, the framework connects computational methods to specific measurable outcomes such as reductions in service response times, improvements in infrastructure reliability, increases in resource allocation efficiency, gains in public health indicators, and enhanced citizen participation in governance.[24][31][32]

The outcomes of these domain applications are evaluated through performance metrics that quantify improvements in efficiency, service delivery, cost-effectiveness, and civic well-being. Kitchin, Lauriault, and McArdle (2015) describe how urban indicators, city benchmarking systems, and real-time dashboards provide the measurement infrastructure through which public informatics interventions are assessed and refined.[24] The framework produces public value by enhancing decision-making, optimizing public resources, and strengthening the relationship between institutions and communities. This emphasis on measurable value creation maintains a results-oriented approach, aligning technological capabilities with defined goals for public innovation and progress.[18][25]

History and development

The early roots of public informatics can be traced to the founding of the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (URISA), which emerged from a 1963 conference focused on advancing regional information systems for urban planning and was formally established in 1966.[33][34] In 2024, URISA rebranded as the Geospatial Professional Network (GPN), reflecting the field's evolution toward serving a global geospatial community, with emphasis on professional development, networking, and education.[35][36]

Public informatics emerged as a distinct field in the early 21st century, building upon foundational developments in several related domains.[2][37] The field's development can be traced to the convergence of multiple research traditions starting in the 1990s and gaining momentum in the 2000s.[5]

The conceptual foundations of public informatics draw from several precursor fields. Urban informatics emerged in the mid-2000s, with the establishment of the Urban Informatics Research Lab at Queensland University of Technology in 2006[38] and the publication of the Handbook of Research on Urban Informatics in 2009.[39] Computational social science developed as an interdisciplinary field in the early 2010s, following a foundational 2009 article in Science that identified the digital information flood and rising computer capacities as catalysts for methodological renewal in social sciences.[40]

The smart cities movement, which gained prominence around 2005, contributed to the development of public informatics through initiatives by major technology companies.[29][41] IBM introduced its Smarter Planet initiative in 2008,[42] and subsequently launched the IBM Smarter Cities Challenge in 2010.[43][44] Cisco Systems launched its Connected Urban Development program at the end of 2006.[45] These corporate-led initiatives, combined with academic research, helped establish the technological and methodological foundations for public informatics.[46][13]

The field also benefited from advances in civic technology and open data movements, which emphasized using technology to increase public engagement and improve government transparency.[47][48][49] The integration of these various streams—urban informatics, computational social science, smart cities research, and civic technology—crystallized into public informatics as institutions began developing dedicated academic programs in the 2010s and 2020s.[6][13][5]

Core components

Public informatics draws upon a range of methodological and technological foundations to address challenges in public systems, governance, and urban management. The field integrates approaches from multiple disciplines to create frameworks for data-driven public decision-making.[4][10][36][5]

From a methodological perspective, public informatics applies data science techniques to public sector challenges, including the collection, processing, and analysis of large-scale urban and governmental datasets.[1][13][27][4] The field employs artificial intelligence methods such as machine learning, natural language processing, and predictive analytics to support governmental decision-making processes. Computational modeling of complex urban dynamics and infrastructure networks forms another methodological component, enabling researchers and practitioners to simulate and analyze urban systems behavior.[50][51][52] Policy analytics provides quantitative frameworks for analyzing policy interventions and their impacts, while data-driven approaches to urban planning and design incorporate quantitative methods and digital twin technologies into spatial planning processes.[26][53]

The technological infrastructure of public informatics encompasses several key systems and platforms. Civic technology platforms provide digital tools that facilitate citizen-government interaction and support participatory governance initiatives, with emphasis on serving public institutions and addressing public-good challenges under resource constraints.[11][4][54] Infrastructure informatics systems monitor and optimize urban infrastructure, including transportation networks, utilities, and public services, through sensor networks and real-time data analysis.[13][30][53][55] Public decision support systems serve as computational frameworks that assist policymakers in evidence-based decision-making by integrating data from multiple sources and providing analytical capabilities for urban indicators and performance dashboards.[24][56][57]

Public informatics project life cycle

Public informatics follows an operational life cycle that begins with the identification of a public problem or governance challenge. This is followed by the acquisition and integration of data from diverse sources, including public infrastructure systems, civic platforms, sensor networks, administrative records, and community-generated inputs. Computational modeling and informatics processing methods are then applied to transform raw data into analytical insights.

Artificial intelligence and advanced analytics are used to simulate scenarios, predict outcomes, and identify intervention strategies. These insights inform policy decisions, infrastructure adjustments, or civic interventions. An evaluation and feedback loop measures the impact of these interventions, generating new data that feeds back into the system to support continuous improvement.

With the emergence of generative artificial intelligence and agentic AI, the emphasis of public informatics is expanding from data-driven civic insights to AI-driven applications that improve the effectiveness and efficiency of public products and services, and to cultural adaptation and public attitudes towards AI.[58][59][60][61] Generative AI, which encompasses large language models and multimodal systems capable of producing text, images, and predictive outputs, introduces new interactive capacities for public administration.[62] In governance contexts, generative AI enables anticipatory approaches through which public authorities can model future urban scenarios, simulate policy outcomes, and generate adaptive responses to emerging challenges such as infrastructure failures, public health emergencies, and climate events.[63][64][65][66] Agentic AI extends these capabilities by introducing autonomous systems that can perceive their environment, reason through multi-step problems, make decisions, and execute tasks with limited human intervention.[67][68] In the public sector, agentic AI systems can manage end-to-end workflows, coordinate across institutional boundaries, and deliver proactive services.[69] The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development has documented over 200 use cases of AI in government functions worldwide, with applications concentrated in public service delivery, justice administration, and civic participation.[69] As these technologies develop, public informatics addresses questions of algorithmic governance, institutional readiness, and the balance between automation and democratic accountability in public systems.[62][70]

Several governments have implemented generative and agentic AI applications that illustrate these developments. Estonia's Bürokratt platform, initiated in 2020, deploys an interoperable network of AI-powered virtual assistants across government agencies, enabling citizens to access public services through voice or text commands in a single session without navigating multiple websites.[71][72] The Government of Singapore has deployed the Pair suite of generative AI tools across its civil service, with over 60,000 registered public officers using AI-assisted capabilities for document summarization, case report generation, and multi-agency data retrieval, while also piloting agentic AI systems to automate permit applications, social service inquiries, and employment matching.[73][74] In Beijing's Haidian district, a city brain project uses large language models integrated with urban sensor networks to generate predictive scenarios for traffic management, public safety, and environmental monitoring, enabling anticipatory policy interventions.[63] The City of Barcelona has adopted AI-powered centralized platforms that provide civil servants with a unified view of citizen interactions, connecting previously siloed departmental data to deliver more personalized and proactive public services.[75] These implementations demonstrate the practical application of generative and agentic AI within public informatics frameworks, while also highlighting ongoing challenges related to transparency, data governance, and the need for human oversight in automated public decision-making systems.[63][70]

Applications

Public informatics methodologies are applied across multiple domains of public administration and urban management.

AI for public good projects and initiatives

A dimension of public informatics is the application of artificial intelligence for public good. AI methods are used for policy simulation, service optimization, public perception analysis, infrastructure forecasting, and resource allocation. These initiatives demonstrate how machine learning, natural language processing, and predictive analytics can be embedded within governance systems to enhance quality, responsiveness, and effectiveness in public service delivery.[50][51][76]

Intelligent urbanism and smart cities

Smart cities initiatives utilize public informatics approaches to integrate information and communications technology into urban management.[44][53] Applications include real-time traffic management systems, intelligent transportation networks, and urban mobility analysis using GPS tracking and mobile positioning data.[77][78][79][80]

Policy informatics and AI-driven policy implementation

Policy informatics applies computational modeling, data mining, and information systems to analyze complex public policy problems, enabling governments to integrate large datasets, identify patterns, and support evidence-based policy design and management.[81][82] In practice, policy informatics supports participatory digital platforms that bring stakeholders together, allowing public agencies to incorporate public input, improve transparency, and foster collaborative problem-solving throughout the policy process.[82][83][84]

Infrastructure and services

Public informatics supports infrastructure optimization through sensor networks and Internet of Things devices that monitor utilities, energy consumption, and environmental conditions.[31][55][85] Geographic information systems combined with big data analytics enable spatial analysis for resource allocation and service delivery.[13][86] GIS is significant to public informatics because it allows agencies to map and visualize geographic trends, improving decision-making in land use, infrastructure planning, and disaster response. These spatial insights help identify environmental risks and optimize resource deployment across communities.[87]

Governance and civic engagement

Digital platforms for participatory budgeting, open data initiatives, and civic reporting systems enable public participation in governance.[88][24] These systems facilitate communication between residents and government while supporting data-driven policy development.

The success of public informatics initiatives is evaluated through measurable indicators that assess improvements in public systems. These include reductions in service response time, increased service coverage, improvements in value creation indicators, enhanced transparency, cost efficiency, and levels of citizen participation. Evaluation metrics provide an evidence-based mechanism to assess how informatics-driven interventions translate into public value.[4][89]

Public health and disaster management

Surveillance systems for disease outbreak detection, environmental monitoring networks, and predictive models for disaster response represent key applications in public health and emergency management.[32][55][90][91]

Social robotics

Social robotics leverages artificial intelligence and engineering to create interactive machines that support public-facing roles, particularly in healthcare, safety, and caregiving, while responding ethically to human needs.[92][93][94] In settings such as elder care, these systems enhance mobility, independence, and companionship through integration within public systems.[95][96]

Energy analytics

Energy analytics integrates large-scale energy consumption data with governance, policy, and ethical decision-making frameworks to guide public and private sector action.[97][98][99] Through structured data analysis, facility managers and policymakers can identify inefficiencies and evaluate trade-offs, such as the physical and economic constraints associated with direct air capture technologies,[100][101][102] contributing to a system that informs public policy, sustainability planning, and resource allocation.

Civic informatics – public perception analytics and data-driven advocacy

Civic informatics applies public informatics principles to analyze public behavior, sentiment, and digital engagement, enabling governments to evaluate community feedback and adapt policies and services through data-driven decision-making.[4][83][103][104][105] The Rutgers Urban Civic Informatics Lab's research uses social media and survey analytics to monitor public reactions and inform policy on civic value creation.[106]

Relationship to other fields

Public informatics is related to but distinct from several established fields:

  • Urban informatics focuses specifically on the study, design, and practice of urban experiences created by ubiquitous technology, with emphasis on the social and human implications of technology in cities.[39][4] Public informatics builds upon urban informatics but extends its scope to encompass governance, policy analytics, and broader applications of artificial intelligence in public systems.
  • Public health informatics applies information and computer science to public health practice, research, and learning, focusing on population health, disease surveillance, and health promotion. While public informatics may include public health applications, it addresses a broader range of public systems beyond health.[107]
  • Community informatics examines the use of information and communications technology to support community development and broader access to digital services. Public informatics shares community informatics' concern with civic engagement but incorporates more advanced computational methods and focuses on governmental decision support.[37]
  • Computational social science is an interdisciplinary field using computational approaches to model, simulate, and analyze social phenomena.[40][4][108] Public informatics applies computational social science methodologies specifically to public policy, governance, and urban systems challenges.

The distinguishing characteristic of public informatics is its specific focus on integrating data science, artificial intelligence, and computational methods into frameworks for improving governance, infrastructure, and civic outcomes at the intersection of technology, policy, and urban systems.[5]

Academic programs and research

Public informatics is taught and researched at universities globally, with programs emerging primarily in the 2010s and 2020s. Educational programs combine coursework in data science, machine learning, artificial intelligence, geographic information systems, statistics, programming, and policy analysis.[109][110]

  • Rutgers University Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy established a Master of Public Informatics program in 2019,[6][111] focusing on advanced data science and analytics for public policy, urban planning, and governance.[1] The program emphasizes machine learning, geographic information science, natural language processing, and transportation analytics.
  • University of Chicago offers a Master of Science in Computational Analysis and Public Policy (MSCAPP) program, established in September 2014,[7] jointly administered by the Harris School of Public Policy and the Department of Computer Science, which combines computational methods with public policy analysis.

Research in public informatics is disseminated through academic journals in related fields including urban informatics, computational social science, policy analysis, and smart cities research. Conferences and research initiatives focus on artificial intelligence for public good, governance analytics, and smart city technologies.[13][5]

Practical implementation of public informatics principles can be seen in initiatives such as the Rutgers Artificial Intelligence and Data Science for Public Good initiative (RAISE) and the Public Informatics Studio. These models create an ecosystem where students, researchers, and public partners collaborate on real-world public challenges using data science and AI methods. The studio-based approach emphasizes experiential learning, interdisciplinary collaboration, and direct engagement with public institutions, demonstrating how public informatics functions as both an academic discipline and an applied research framework.

Ethics and governance in public informatics

Ethical governance is a foundational concern in public informatics. The integration of AI and data science into public systems raises issues of data privacy, accountability, and transparency. Public informatics emphasizes the need for oversight mechanisms, ethical evaluation frameworks, and participatory governance to ensure that computational systems serve the public interest with a focus on innovation and public value creation. Public governance increasingly recognizes the importance of innovation with data, technological systems, and agentic AI solutions, as evidenced by the 2026 creation of the New Jersey Innovation Authority.[112]

Future research directions

Emerging research directions in public informatics include the development of digital twins for cities, agent-based AI systems for governance support, natural language processing for civic perception analytics, standards for public data interoperability, AI-driven decision support systems for policymakers and improvement of human and public interaction with AI via efforts such as query management.[113] These directions highlight the evolving nature of the field and its potential to redefine how public systems operate in the age of intelligent data.[26][114]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g "Master of Public Informatics | Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning & Public Policy". Retrieved 2026-03-15.
  2. ^ a b Bombardelli, Marco. Public Informatics, E-government and Sustainable Development. Firenze University Press. pp. 17–46.
  3. ^ "#2021APPAM Spotlight: Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, Rutgers University - New Brunswick - APPAM News - News | APPAM". www.appam.org. Retrieved 2026-03-15.
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h i Kleinschmit, Stephen (2019). "An Inclusive Framework for Data Science Competencies in NASPAA MPA and MPP Programs" (PDF).
  5. ^ a b c d e f Batty, Michael. "Big data, smart cities and city planning". Dialogues in Human Geography. 3 (3): 274–279. doi:10.1177/2043820613513390. ISSN 2043-8206. PMC 5808818. PMID 29472982.
  6. ^ a b c "3C INFORMATICS | Crisis, Community and Civic Informatics at Penn State: A Penn State Applied Research Center". sites.psu.edu. Retrieved 2026-03-15.
  7. ^ a b Kitchin, Rob. "The real-time city? Big data and smart urbanism". GeoJournal. 79 (1): 1–14. doi:10.1007/s10708-013-9516-8. ISSN 0343-2521.
  8. ^ Samuel, Jim (Nov 7, 2021). "A Call for Proactive Policies for Informatics and Artificial Intelligence Technologies". Scholars Strategy Network.
  9. ^ a b Foth, Marcus, ed. (2009). Handbook of research on urban informatics: the practice and promise of the real-time city. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. ISBN 978-1-60566-152-0.
  10. ^ a b Lazer, David; Pentland, Alex; Adamic, Lada; Aral, Sinan; Barabási, Albert-László; Brewer, Devon; Christakis, Nicholas; Contractor, Noshir; Fowler, James; Gutmann, Myron; Jebara, Tony; King, Gary; Macy, Michael; Roy, Deb; Van Alstyne, Marshall (2009-02-06). "Computational Social Science". Science. 323 (5915): 721–723. doi:10.1126/science.1167742. ISSN 0036-8075. PMC 2745217. PMID 19197046.
  11. ^ a b Harrison, Colin; Donnelly, Ian Abbott (2011-09-23). "A Theory of Smart Cities". Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the ISSS - 2011, Hull, UK. ISSN 1999-6918.
  12. ^ Week, Marketing (2008-11-13). "IBM to focus on 'smarter planet' green initiatives". Marketing Week. Retrieved 2026-03-15.
  13. ^ a b c d e f g h IBM. "IBM Pledges $50 Million To Create 100 Smarter Cities". www.prnewswire.com. Retrieved 2026-03-15.
  14. ^ "Cisco's Connected Urban Development Program Signposts the Future Era of Sustainable Work". newsroom.cisco.com.
  15. ^ Townsend, Anthony M. (2013). Smart cities: big data, civic hackers, and the quest for a new utopia (First ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-0-393-08287-6.
  16. ^ "OECD Legal Instruments". legalinstruments.oecd.org. Retrieved 2026-03-15.
  17. ^ "The e-government handbook for developing countries: The e-government handbook for developing countries: a project of InfoDev and the Center for Democracy and Technology". World Bank. Retrieved 2026-03-15.
  18. ^ a b c Shelton, Taylor; Zook, Matthew; Wiig, Alan. "The 'actually existing smart city'". Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society. 8 (1): 13–25. doi:10.1093/cjres/rsu026. ISSN 1752-1378.
  19. ^ a b c d Bibri, Simon Elias. "The anatomy of the data-driven smart sustainable city: instrumentation, datafication, computerization and related applications". Journal of Big Data. 6 (1). doi:10.1186/s40537-019-0221-4. ISSN 2196-1115.
  20. ^ a b Samuel, Jim. "The critical need for transparency and regulation amidst the rise of powerful artificial intelligence models - The Fulcrum". thefulcrum.us. Retrieved 2026-03-15.
  21. ^ a b c Batty, Michael. "Digital twins". Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science. 45 (5): 817–820. doi:10.1177/2399808318796416. ISSN 2399-8083.
  22. ^ Solanas, Agusti; Patsakis, Constantinos; Conti, Mauro; Vlachos, Ioannis; Ramos, Victoria; Falcone, Francisco; Postolache, Octavian; Perez-martinez, Pablo; Pietro, Roberto; Perrea, Despina; Martinez-Balleste, Antoni. "Smart health: A context-aware health paradigm within smart cities". IEEE Communications Magazine. 52 (8): 74–81. doi:10.1109/MCOM.2014.6871673. ISSN 0163-6804.
  23. ^ Kitchin, Rob; Lauriault, Tracey P.; McArdle, Gavin. "Knowing and governing cities through urban indicators, city benchmarking and real-time dashboards". Regional Studies, Regional Science. 2 (1): 6–28. doi:10.1080/21681376.2014.983149. ISSN 2168-1376.
  24. ^ a b c d e Ahas, Rein; Aasa, Anto; Roose, Antti; Mark, Ülar; Silm, Siiri. "Evaluating passive mobile positioning data for tourism surveys: An Estonian case study". Tourism Management. 29 (3): 469–486. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2007.05.014.
  25. ^ a b c Kashyap, Rajiv; Samuel, Yana; Friedman, Linda Weiser; Samuel, Jim (2024-07-01). "Editorial: Artificial intelligence education & governance -human enhancive, culturally sensitive and personally adaptive HAI". Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. 7. doi:10.3389/frai.2024.1443386. ISSN 2624-8212. PMC 11247171. PMID 39011026.
  26. ^ a b c Kourtit, Karima; Nijkamp, Peter; Arribas, Daniel. "Smart cities in perspective – a comparative European study by means of self-organizing maps". Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research. 25 (2): 229–246. doi:10.1080/13511610.2012.660330. ISSN 1351-1610.
  27. ^ a b Goodchild, Michael F. (2007-11-30). "Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography". GeoJournal. 69 (4): 211–221. doi:10.1007/s10708-007-9111-y. ISSN 0343-2521.
  28. ^ Goodchild, Michael F.; Glennon, J. Alan. "Crowdsourcing geographic information for disaster response: a research frontier". International Journal of Digital Earth. 3 (3): 231–241. doi:10.1080/17538941003759255. ISSN 1753-8947.
  29. ^ a b "You Are What You Eat (and Drink): Identifying Cultural Boundaries by Analyzing Food and Drink Habits in Foursquare". www.semanticscholar.org. Retrieved 2026-03-15.
  30. ^ a b "Our History | Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning & Public Policy". Retrieved 2026-03-15.
  31. ^ a b "Custom Page 2 - Urban and Regional Information Systems Association". thegpn.org. Archived from the original on 2025-12-30. Retrieved 2026-03-15.
  32. ^ a b "URISA Evolves to Become the Geospatial Professional Network". Geospatial Professional Network.
  33. ^ Macrorie, Rachel; Marvin, Simon; While, Aidan (2019-12-31). "Robotics and automation in the city: a research agenda". Urban Geography. 42 (2): 197–217. doi:10.1080/02723638.2019.1698868. ISSN 0272-3638. Archived from the original on 2024-06-08.
  34. ^ "Socially Cognizant Robotics for a Technology Enhanced Society".
  35. ^ "How Energy Analytics Can Help Address the Energy Crisis in America".
  36. ^ a b "A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Using Direct Air Capture to Remove Atmospheric Carbon" (PDF).
  37. ^ a b "Rutgers Urban and Civic Informatics Lab | Supporting socially-just, environmentally resilient, and healthy cities". Retrieved 2026-03-15.
  38. ^ Dawes, Sharon S.; Janssen, Marijn (2013-06-17). "Policy informatics: addressing complex problems with rich data, computational tools, and stakeholder engagement". Journal of the ACM. ACM: 251–253. doi:10.1145/2479724.2479759. ISBN 978-1-4503-2057-3.
  39. ^ a b Krishnamurthy, Rashmi; Bhagwatwar, Akshay; Johnston, Erik W.; Desouza, Kevin C. (2013). "A Glimpse into Policy Informatics: The Case of Participatory Platforms that Generate Synthetic Empathy". Communications of the Association for Information Systems. 33. doi:10.17705/1CAIS.03321.
  40. ^ a b Mergel, Ines; Rethemeyer, R. Karl; Isett, Kimberley. "Big Data in Public Affairs". Public Administration Review. 76 (6): 928–937. doi:10.1111/puar.12625. ISSN 0033-3352.
  41. ^ Meijer, Albert; Bolívar, Manuel Pedro Rodríguez. "Governing the smart city: a review of the literature on smart urban governance". International Review of Administrative Sciences. 82 (2): 392–408. doi:10.1177/0020852314564308. ISSN 0020-8523.
  42. ^ "An Introduction to Data Science". SAGE Publications Ltd. 2026-03-15. Retrieved 2026-03-16.
  43. ^ Janssen, Marijn; van der Voort, Haiko; Wahyudi, Agung. "Factors influencing big data decision-making quality". Journal of Business Research. 70: 338–345. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.08.007.
  44. ^ a b Samuel, Yana; Brennan-Tonetta, Margaret; Samuel, Jim; Kashyap, Rajiv; Kumar, Vivek; Krishna Kaashyap, Sri; Chidipothu, Nishitha; Anand, Irawati; Jain, Parth (2023-12-01). "Cultivation of human centered artificial intelligence: culturally adaptive thinking in education (CATE) for AI". Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence. 6. doi:10.3389/frai.2023.1198180. ISSN 2624-8212.
  45. ^ Rahwan, Iyad. "Society-in-the-loop: programming the algorithmic social contract". Ethics and Information Technology. 20 (1): 5–14. doi:10.1007/s10676-017-9430-8. ISSN 1388-1957.
  46. ^ Aguinis, Herman; Glavas, Ante. "What We Know and Don't Know About Corporate Social Responsibility: A Review and Research Agenda". Journal of Management. 38 (4): 932–968. doi:10.1177/0149206311436079. ISSN 0149-2063.
  47. ^ "URISA Becomes the Geospatial Professional Network".
  48. ^ Dawes, Sharon S. "The Evolution and Continuing Challenges of E‐Governance". Public Administration Review. 68 (s1). doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00981.x. ISSN 0033-3352.
  49. ^ Janssen, Marijn; Kuk, George. "The challenges and limits of big data algorithms in technocratic governance". Government Information Quarterly. 33 (3): 371–377. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2016.08.011.
  50. ^ a b Hollands, Robert G. "Will the real smart city please stand up?: Intelligent, progressive or entrepreneurial?". City. 12 (3): 303–320. doi:10.1080/13604810802479126. ISSN 1360-4813.
  51. ^ a b Caragliu, Andrea; Del Bo, Chiara; Nijkamp, Peter. "Smart Cities in Europe". Journal of Urban Technology. 18 (2): 65–82. doi:10.1080/10630732.2011.601117. ISSN 1063-0732.
  52. ^ Sun, Tara Qian; Medaglia, Rony. "Mapping the challenges of Artificial Intelligence in the public sector: Evidence from public healthcare". Government Information Quarterly. 36 (2): 368–383. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2018.09.008.
  53. ^ a b c Wirtz, Bernd W.; Weyerer, Jan C.; Geyer, Carolin (2019-05-19). "Artificial Intelligence and the Public Sector—Applications and Challenges". International Journal of Public Administration. 42 (7): 596–615. doi:10.1080/01900692.2018.1498103. ISSN 0190-0692.
  54. ^ Batty, M.; Axhausen, K. W.; Giannotti, F.; Pozdnoukhov, A.; Bazzani, A.; Wachowicz, M.; Ouzounis, G.; Portugali, Y. "Smart cities of the future". The European Physical Journal Special Topics. 214 (1): 481–518. doi:10.1140/epjst/e2012-01703-3. ISSN 1951-6355.
  55. ^ a b c Noveck, Beth Simone (2015). Smart citizens, smarter state: the technologies of expertise and the future of governing. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-28605-4.
  56. ^ Zanella, Andrea; Bui, Nicola; Castellani, Angelo; Vangelista, Lorenzo; Zorzi, Michele. "Internet of Things for Smart Cities". IEEE Internet of Things Journal. 1 (1): 22–32. doi:10.1109/JIOT.2014.2306328. ISSN 2327-4662.
  57. ^ Samuel, Jim; Ali, G. G. Md. Nawaz; Rahman, Md. Mokhlesur; Esawi, Ek; Samuel, Yana (2020-06-11). "COVID-19 Public Sentiment Insights and Machine Learning for Tweets Classification". Information. 11 (6): 314. doi:10.3390/info11060314. ISSN 2078-2489.
  58. ^ Samuel, Jim; Rahman, Md Mokhlesur; Ali, G. G. Md Nawaz; Samuel, Yana; Pelaez, Alexander; Chong, Peter Han Joo; Yakubov, Michael (2020). "Feeling Positive About Reopening? New Normal Scenarios From COVID-19 US Reopen Sentiment Analytics". IEEE access: practical innovations, open solutions. 8: 142173–142190. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3013933. ISSN 2169-3536. PMC 8545342. PMID 34786280.
  59. ^ Janssen, Marijn; Helbig, Natalie. "Innovating and changing the policy-cycle: Policy-makers be prepared!". Government Information Quarterly. 35 (4): S99–S105. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2015.11.009.
  60. ^ Shmueli, Galit; Koppius, Otto R. (2011-09-01). "Predictive Analytics in Information Systems Research1". MIS Quarterly. 35 (3): 553–572. doi:10.2307/23042796. ISSN 0276-7783.
  61. ^ Zheng, Yu (2015-03-01). "Methodologies for Cross-Domain Data Fusion: An Overview". IEEE Transactions on Big Data. 1 (1): 16–34. doi:10.1109/TBDATA.2015.2465959. ISSN 2332-7790.
  62. ^ a b Chen, Cynthia; Ma, Jingtao; Susilo, Yusak; Liu, Yu; Wang, Menglin. "The promises of big data and small data for travel behavior (aka human mobility) analysis". Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies. 68: 285–299. doi:10.1016/j.trc.2016.04.005. PMC 4862004. PMID 27182125.
  63. ^ a b c Janssen, Marijn; Estevez, Elsa. "Lean government and platform-based governance—Doing more with less". Government Information Quarterly. 30: S1–S8. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2012.11.003.
  64. ^ Ferro, Enrico; Loukis, Euripidis N.; Charalabidis, Yannis; Osella, Michele. "Policy making 2.0: From theory to practice". Government Information Quarterly. 30 (4): 359–368. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2013.05.018.
  65. ^ Gubbi, Jayavardhana; Buyya, Rajkumar; Marusic, Slaven; Palaniswami, Marimuthu. "Internet of Things (IoT): A vision, architectural elements, and future directions". Future Generation Computer Systems. 29 (7): 1645–1660. doi:10.1016/j.future.2013.01.010.
  66. ^ Cutter, Susan L.; Boruff, Bryan J.; Shirley, W. Lynn. "Social Vulnerability to Environmental Hazards *". Social Science Quarterly. 84 (2): 242–261. doi:10.1111/1540-6237.8402002. ISSN 0038-4941.
  67. ^ Behn, Robert D. "Why Measure Performance? Different Purposes Require Different Measures". Public Administration Review. 63 (5): 586–606. doi:10.1111/1540-6210.00322. ISSN 0033-3352.
  68. ^ Lazer, David; Kennedy, Ryan; King, Gary; Vespignani, Alessandro (2014-03-14). "The Parable of Google Flu: Traps in Big Data Analysis". Science. 343 (6176): 1203–1205. doi:10.1126/science.1248506. ISSN 0036-8075.
  69. ^ a b Hart, Jane K.; Martinez, Kirk. "Environmental Sensor Networks: A revolution in the earth system science?". Earth-Science Reviews. 78 (3–4): 177–191. doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2006.05.001.
  70. ^ a b Fong, Terrence; Nourbakhsh, Illah; Dautenhahn, Kerstin. "A survey of socially interactive robots". Robotics and Autonomous Systems. 42 (3–4): 143–166. doi:10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00372-X.
  71. ^ Dautenhahn, Kerstin (2007-04-29). "Socially intelligent robots: dimensions of human–robot interaction". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 362 (1480): 679–704. doi:10.1098/rstb.2006.2004. ISSN 0962-8436. PMC 2346526. PMID 17301026.
  72. ^ Sharkey, Amanda; Sharkey, Noel. "Granny and the robots: ethical issues in robot care for the elderly". Ethics and Information Technology. 14 (1): 27–40. doi:10.1007/s10676-010-9234-6. ISSN 1388-1957.
  73. ^ Zhou, Kai-le; Yang, Shan-lin; Shen, Chao. "A review of electric load classification in smart grid environment". Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 24: 103–110. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.03.023.
  74. ^ Siano, Pierluigi. "Demand response and smart grids—A survey". Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 30: 461–478. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2013.10.022.
  75. ^ Realmonte, Giulia; Drouet, Laurent; Gambhir, Ajay; Glynn, James; Hawkes, Adam; Köberle, Alexandre C.; Tavoni, Massimo (2019-07-22). "An inter-model assessment of the role of direct air capture in deep mitigation pathways". Nature Communications. 10 (1). doi:10.1038/s41467-019-10842-5. ISSN 2041-1723. PMC 6646360. PMID 31332176.
  76. ^ Creutzig, Felix; Agoston, Peter; Goldschmidt, Jan Christoph; Luderer, Gunnar; Nemet, Gregory; Pietzcker, Robert C. (2017-08-25). "The underestimated potential of solar energy to mitigate climate change". Nature Energy. 2 (9). doi:10.1038/nenergy.2017.140. ISSN 2058-7546.
  77. ^ Samuel, Jim; Khanna, Tanya; Esguerra, Julia; Sundar, Srinivasaraghavan; Pelaez, Alexander; Bhuyan, Soumitra S. (2025). "The Rise of Artificial Intelligence Phobia! Unveiling News-Driven Spread of AI Fear Sentiment Using ML, NLP, and LLMs". IEEE Access. 13: 125944–125969. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3588179. ISSN 2169-3536.
  78. ^ Conte, R.; Gilbert, N.; Bonelli, G.; Cioffi-Revilla, C.; Deffuant, G.; Kertesz, J.; Loreto, V.; Moat, S.; Nadal, J. -P.; Sanchez, A.; Nowak, A.; Flache, A.; San Miguel, M.; Helbing, D. "Manifesto of computational social science". The European Physical Journal Special Topics. 214 (1): 325–346. doi:10.1140/epjst/e2012-01697-8. ISSN 1951-6355.
  79. ^ Magnuson, J.A.; Fu,, Paul C., eds. (2014). Public Health Informatics and Information Systems. Health Informatics. London: Springer London. doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-4237-9. ISBN 978-1-4471-4236-2.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
  80. ^ Dhar, Vasant. "Data science and prediction". Communications of the ACM. 56 (12): 64–73. doi:10.1145/2500499. ISSN 0001-0782.
  81. ^ Committee on Envisioning the Data Science Discipline: The Undergraduate Perspective; Computer Science and Telecommunications Board; Board on Mathematical Sciences and Analytics; Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics; Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences; Board on Science Education; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018-10-11). Data Science for Undergraduates: Opportunities and Options. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. doi:10.17226/25104. ISBN 978-0-309-47559-4.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  82. ^ a b Fuller, Aidan; Fan, Zhong; Day, Charles; Barlow, Chris (2020). "Digital Twin: Enabling Technologies, Challenges and Open Research". IEEE Access. 8: 108952–108971. doi:10.1109/ACCESS.2020.2998358. ISSN 2169-3536.
  83. ^ a b Cugurullo, Federico; Caprotti, Federico; Cook, Matthew; Karvonen, Andrew; MᶜGuirk, Pauline; Marvin, Simon. "The rise of AI urbanism in post-smart cities: A critical commentary on urban artificial intelligence". Urban Studies. 61 (6): 1168–1182. doi:10.1177/00420980231203386. ISSN 0042-0980.
  84. ^ "An Introduction to Agentic AI for Governments - Berlin Global GovTech Centre". www.globalgovtechcentre.org. Retrieved 2026-03-16.
  85. ^ Calzada, Igor (2025-12-04). "Generative AI and the urban AI policy challenges ahead: Trustworthy for whom?". Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy: 1–17. doi:10.1108/TG-08-2025-0240. ISSN 1750-6166.
  86. ^ Samuel, Jim; Kashyap, Rajiv; Samuel, Yana; Pelaez, Alexander. "Adaptive cognitive fit: Artificial intelligence augmented management of information facets and representations". International Journal of Information Management. 65 102505. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2022.102505.
  87. ^ Lartey, Desmond; Law, Kris M.Y. "Artificial intelligence adoption in urban planning governance: A systematic review of advancements in decision-making, and policy making". Landscape and Urban Planning. 258 105337. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2025.105337.
  88. ^ "AI works for governments: A digital sprinters report".
  89. ^ PricewaterhouseCoopers. "Unlocking Tomorrow: agentic AI for the Public Sector". PwC. Archived from the original on 2026-01-13. Retrieved 2026-03-16.
  90. ^ OECD (2025-09-18). "Governing with Artificial Intelligence: The State of Play and Way Forward in Core Government Functions". OECD. Retrieved 2026-03-16.
  91. ^ Taeihagh, Araz (2025-01-04). "Governance of Generative AI". Policy and Society. 44 (1): 1–22. doi:10.1093/polsoc/puaf001. ISSN 1449-4035.
  92. ^ Zhu, Dongwen; Liu, Hao (2025-06-12). "City AI: a strategic framework for urban artificial intelligence application and development". Urban Informatics. 4 (1). doi:10.1007/s44212-025-00077-9. ISSN 2731-6963.
  93. ^ Dreyling, Richard; Tammet, Tanel; Pappel, Ingrid; McBride, Keegan (2024), Navigating the AI Maze: Lessons from Estonia's Bürokratt on Public Sector AI Digital Transformation, doi:10.2139/ssrn.4850696, retrieved 2026-03-16
  94. ^ "Government Virtual Assistant Bürokratt | Interoperable Europe Portal". interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu. Retrieved 2026-03-16.
  95. ^ "Pairing with AI for Public Sector Impact in Singapore".
  96. ^ "Solving Real World Problems in the Public Service with AI". knowledge.csc.gov.sg. Retrieved 2026-03-16.
  97. ^ "The new era of public sector service is about building trust through agentic AI".
  98. ^ Moore, Mark Harrison (2001). Creating public value: strategic management in government (6. print ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press. ISBN 978-0-674-17558-7.
  99. ^ Mazzucato, Mariana (2022). Mission economy: a moonshot guide to changing capitalism. London: Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-14-199168-9.
  100. ^ Dunleavy, Patrick; Margetts, Helen; Bastow, Simon; Tinkler, Jane (2006-11-02). Digital Era Governance:. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199296194.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-19-929619-4.
  101. ^ Embracing Innovation in Government. OECD. 2018-02-08. ISBN 978-92-64-87476-3.
  102. ^ Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress (France); Stiglitz, Joseph E.; Sen, Amartya; Fitoussi, Jean-Paul, eds. (2010). Mismeasuring our lives: why GDP doesn't add up. New York: New Press. ISBN 978-1-59558-519-6.
  103. ^ Dunleavy, Patrick; Margetts, Helen. "Data science, artificial intelligence and the third wave of digital era governance". Public Policy and Administration. 40 (2): 185–214. doi:10.1177/09520767231198737. ISSN 0952-0767.
  104. ^ Kattel, Rainer; Mazzucato, Mariana (2018-10-01). "Mission-oriented innovation policy and dynamic capabilities in the public sector". Industrial and Corporate Change. 27 (5): 787–801. doi:10.1093/icc/dty032. ISSN 0960-6491.
  105. ^ "New Jersey Innovation Authority".
  106. ^ Arnott, David; Pervan, Graham. "Eight key issues for the decision support systems discipline". Decision Support Systems. 44 (3): 657–672. doi:10.1016/j.dss.2007.09.003.
  107. ^ Janssen, Marijn; Helbig, Natalie. "Innovating and changing the policy-cycle: Policy-makers be prepared!". Government Information Quarterly. 35 (4): S99–S105. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2015.11.009.
  108. ^ Lab, QUT Design. "Urban Informatics". QUT Design Lab. Retrieved 2026-03-16.
  109. ^ Zheng, Yu; Capra, Licia; Wolfson, Ouri; Yang, Hai. "Urban Computing: Concepts, Methodologies, and Applications". ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology. 5 (3): 1–55. doi:10.1145/2629592. ISSN 2157-6904.
  110. ^ Santi, Paolo; Resta, Giovanni; Szell, Michael; Sobolevsky, Stanislav; Strogatz, Steven H.; Ratti, Carlo (2014-09-16). "Quantifying the benefits of vehicle pooling with shareability networks". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 111 (37): 13290–13294. doi:10.1073/pnas.1403657111. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 4169909. PMID 25197046.
  111. ^ Cugurullo, Federico; Xu, Ying (2025-01-04). "When AIs become oracles: generative artificial intelligence, anticipatory urban governance, and the future of cities". Policy and Society. 44 (1): 98–115. doi:10.1093/polsoc/puae025. ISSN 1449-4035.
  112. ^ Schintler, Laurie A.; Kulkarni, Rajendra. "Big Data for Policy Analysis: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly". Review of Policy Research. 31 (4): 343–348. doi:10.1111/ropr.12079. ISSN 1541-132X.
  113. ^ Floridi, Luciano; Cowls, Josh; Beltrametti, Monica; Chatila, Raja; Chazerand, Patrice; Dignum, Virginia; Luetge, Christoph; Madelin, Robert; Pagallo, Ugo; Rossi, Francesca; Schafer, Burkhard; Valcke, Peggy; Vayena, Effy. "AI4People—An Ethical Framework for a Good AI Society: Opportunities, Risks, Principles, and Recommendations". Minds and Machines. 28 (4): 689–707. doi:10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5. ISSN 0924-6495. PMC 6404626. PMID 30930541.
  114. ^ Samuel, Jim; Ye, Meng; Khanna, Tanya; Yao, Yi; Lin, Xiao; Anderson, Rick; Gupta, Anish. "Finder, Evaluator, Explainer, Generator (FEEG): A Bloom's taxonomy-based query classification framework for LLMs and generative AI". Expert Systems with Applications. 304 130755. doi:10.1016/j.eswa.2025.130755.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.