The central premise of the study is deceptively simple but consequential: cities do not function as islands. Labor markets, innovation networks, infrastructure systems, and digital services routinely spill over municipal borders, tying together core cities, suburbs, and smaller towns into integrated functional regions. If smart city performance—measured through indicators of digital infrastructure, technological innovation, human capital, and connected urban services—is produced within these wider regional systems, then assessments that stop at the city limit risk misreading both the sources and the consequences of urban smartness. The authors argue that regional scaling, the way performance changes with the size of a regional system, provides a crucial test of whether smart urban capabilities are driven by local assets or by broader structural dynamics.

To carry out this analysis, the research assembles regional-level data across European territories, combining indicators of smart urban development with measures of regional population, economic output, and spatial structure. The methodological logic draws on scaling analysis, an approach borrowed from complexity science that has previously been used to show how many socioeconomic outputs—from patents to wages to the incidence of certain social phenomena—tend to increase superlinearly with city size. Applied at the regional scale, the question becomes whether smart performance grows proportionally, sublinearly, or superlinearly as regions become larger and more densely connected, and whether that scaling behavior differs systematically across parts of Europe.

The study’s mapping of spatial distribution reveals a sharply uneven geography. Smart urban capabilities cluster in a limited set of regions, typically those anchored by large metropolitan areas with strong research institutions, dense producer-service sectors, and well-developed digital infrastructure. This pattern echoes long-standing observations about European spatial economics, including the persistence of a core-periphery gradient running roughly from the so-called blue banana of urbanization through southern Germany, the Low Countries, and parts of northern France, toward more sparsely provisioned peripheral regions in southern and eastern Europe. But the regional analysis adds an important nuance: proximity to a high-performing core does not automatically translate into high regional performance, and some regions without globally famous capitals nonetheless demonstrate robust smart urban profiles built on secondary cities and coordinated regional networks.

The scaling results carry particular significance for urban policy. When the researchers examine how smart performance varies with regional size, they find evidence that the relationship is not uniform across Europe. In some regional contexts, performance rises more than proportionally with size, consistent with agglomeration effects in which larger, denser regional systems generate disproportionate returns on digital and innovative activity. In others, the relationship flattens or weakens, suggesting diminishing returns or structural constraints—such as fragmented governance, uneven infrastructure investment, or dependency on a single urban core—that prevent large regions from converting size into smart performance. This heterogeneity undermines the idea that there is a single universal law of smart urban growth and instead points to regionally specific development regimes.

One of the study’s most provocative implications concerns the proliferation of smart city rankings and benchmarks. Municipal league tables, the authors suggest, can be misleading in two directions. A small city may appear exceptionally smart on a per-capita basis while depending heavily on regional universities, transport systems, and firms headquartered elsewhere; conversely, a sprawling polycentric region may look mediocre when judged by its largest municipality alone while its distributed network of towns collectively delivers strong digital and innovative capacity. By evaluating performance at the regional scale, the study provides a corrective that better reflects how the production of smart urban outcomes is actually organized in functional space.

The findings also speak to a central debate in regional science: the tension between concentration and dispersion of high-value activities. If smart capabilities reward agglomeration with superlinear returns, then market forces and even some policy interventions will tend to deepen regional inequality, funneling talent, investment, and infrastructure toward already advantaged metropolitan areas. The study’s evidence of heterogeneous scaling offers a more hopeful reading. Where regional systems—particularly polycentric ones with multiple cooperating cities—achieve strong performance, the lesson is that scale advantages are not the exclusive property of single dominant metropolises. Connectivity, complementarity, and coordinated governance among smaller cities can substitute, at least in part, for raw metropolitan size.

For European policymakers, the research lands at a moment when cohesion policy, digital transition funding, and smart city programs are being recalibrated. The European Union’s digital and green transitions explicitly target territorial balance, yet the study suggests that policy instruments designed around individual municipalities may systematically miss the regional systems in which smart performance is actually produced. Investment in broadband or innovation vouchers allocated city by city may underperform relative to instruments that reward inter-municipal cooperation, shared regional data platforms, and integrated transport-and-digital planning. The scaling evidence implies that the effectiveness of such interventions will differ by regional context, arguing for territorially differentiated strategies rather than one-size-fits-all smart city templates.

The study is candid about the limits of its evidence base. Regional indicators of smart urban performance remain imperfect proxies for the underlying phenomena they seek to capture, and data availability varies across countries, complicating pan-European comparison. Scaling relationships, moreover, are correlational: demonstrating that performance rises with regional size does not by itself identify the mechanisms—labor pooling, knowledge spillovers, infrastructure economies, or network effects—that drive the pattern. The authors call for finer-grained, longitudinal work that can trace how regional smart performance evolves over time and how specific policies alter scaling behavior. Still, the analysis marks a meaningful step in relocating the smart city debate from the showcase municipality to the regional systems in which urban intelligence is embedded.

In the end, the research reframes a familiar question with fresh analytical force. The smart city narrative promised that technology would make urban life more efficient, sustainable, and responsive; this study suggests that whether that promise is fulfilled depends less on any single city’s gadgetry than on the scale, structure, and connectivity of the regions those cities inhabit. As Europe confronts the twin challenges of digital transformation and territorial cohesion, the message is clear: the future of smart urbanism will be decided not city by city, but region by region, and policies that recognize this spatial reality are far more likely to deliver smartness that is both high-performing and broadly shared.

Subject of Research: Spatial distribution and regional scaling of smart city performance across European regions

Article Title: Beyond smart cities: spatial distribution and regional scaling performance in European regions

Article References: Dai, Y., Hasanefendic, S., & Bossink, B. (2026). Beyond smart cities: spatial distribution and regional scaling performance in European regions. npj Urban Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42949-026-00474-2

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1038/s42949-026-00474-2

Keywords: smart cities, European regions, urban scaling, regional development, urban sustainability, digital infrastructure, spatial distribution, agglomeration, territorial cohesion, polycentricity, regional policy, complexity science