The International Association of Research in Public Management (AIRMAP) is composed of institutes and French and international researchers specialized in the field of public management and public action. AIRMAP is the place for exchanges between universities and professionals from the public sector. AIRMAP is a space designed for exploring ideas, for innovating tools seeking to improve the public action.

The 8th AIRMAP Conference will take place in Paris at Paris Sorbonne University on May 23- 24, 2019. "Smart city and sustainable public management" will be the main question of this event. As a result, AIRMAP invites management and social science communities to present communication focusing on this theme.

The contributions can have the shape of:

• Theoretical communications,

• Field survey work,

• Presentations of new operational tools, methods of diagnosis, etc.

AIRMAP really wants to highlight:

• the pluralism of theoretical and contextual approaches;

• diagnoses based on field surveys;

• comparative analyzes;

• novelties in empirical approaches;

• international studies;

• research conducted by young researchers with doctoral workshops and the award by AIRMAP of a thesis prize.

More than 80% of the French people live on less than 20% of the National Territory in FRANCE. Globally, 2% of the planet's surface hosts more than half of its inhabitants. In these territories, multiple solidarities have now taken place, as well as antagonisms of interests that challenge the good practices of public management (Almirall et al., 2016). If territories become "smart", should sustainability be placed at the heart of these concerns? 

A smart territory must be able to understand and adapt to its environment, to be transformed, to be resilient, to anticipate disturbances, to minimize their effects, by implementing means of actions, through learning and training innovation, according to the goals to be achieved, while respecting its sustainability. The 8^th AIRMAP Symposium will provide a better understanding of the issues involved, the nature of public policies that will enable the creation of such territories, and better identify the actors in this system of interconnected networks to develop efficient and effective flows, between private and public actors. The increasing urbanization of our territories is undermining the environmental, economic and social sustainability of cities (Bibri, Krogstie, 2017, Neirotti et al., 2014). Could the intensive use of new technologies be compatible with sustainable public management? Could these technologies drive a new quality of life and economic added value in our territories? Therefore, a reorganization of actors and services seems essential to ensure compatibility between "Smart Territories and Sustainable Public Management".

There is no specific agreement on the definition of a smart territory, as smart city does have one. In 2012, a rather complete definition (Chourabi et al., 2012) is set out to analyze the progress of a smart city and to characterize it, based on eight internal and external dimensions, due to the design, the implementation, and the use of smart city initiatives: the management and the organization, the technology, the governance, the political context, the individuals and the communities, the economy, the infrastructure, the environment. The European Parliament (2014) has defined smart cities as "a place where traditional networks and services are more efficient with the use of digital and telecommunications technologies, for the benefit of its inhabitants and businesses".

For a very long time, the territory has been considered as "intelligent" because of the development of new technologies (ICT, Internet and digital infrastructures, data, communicating intelligence and connected objects, etc.) which should bring solutions to complex problems. If technology is essential, it is only one way to achieve the sustainability of the territory. The human must be placed at the heart of the notion of "smart" in the territory. Far from a "technocentric" drift, the territory is built on four essential pillars: the urbis, i.e. infrastructures; the spacium, i.e. public space shared meeting place and mixity; the respublica, i.e. public affairs, public interest and public goods; the civis, i.e. the citizens, the residents and the relations of services related to them. New technologies today add a fifth pillar: the ubiquitous, i.e. the ubiquitous revolution, connectivity and their tools. Building on these five pillars, sustainable public management should be thought in terms of territorial transversality, attractiveness and added value creation, awareness of ecological issues, allowing the creation of social value and a better quality of life.

The priority developments of these smart territories are improvements in lives measures (Neirotti et al., 2014), in terms of environmental efficiency, safety and sustainability (Bulu, 2014, Niaros et al. 2017) with centralization of controlled technological infrastructures. Beyond the technologies integrated in these spaces (Kramers et al., 2014, Elmaghraby, Losavio, 2014), organizational, technological and societal changes are driven by their wish to become an element of response to territorial issues. Smart territories should reconciliate the social, cultural and environmental pillars with a participative governance mode, in order to enlighten territorial management (Meijer and Bolivar, 2016) to meet the needs of institutions, businesses and citizens. The transformation of these territories is therefore a multidimensional process (De Santis et al., 2014). Developing transport, intelligent mobility, sustainable environment and responsible urbanization by promoting smart living, should become a priority.

The lack of appropriate governance mechanisms for most of the territories appears also to be the major obstacle to a positive change (Manville, Cochrane, Cave, Millard, Pederson, Thaarup, Liebe, Wissner, Massink and Kotterink (2014), Praharaj). Han and Hawken (2018)). Some authors are beginning to doubt about all these promises (Kunzmann 2014, Shelton et al., 2015).

The purpose of this AIRMAP 2019 Symposium is to provide a comprehensive overview to compare and optimize the management of resources allocated to public pilot projects in our territories in order to mobilize a shared dynamic.

These non-exhausting elements can be approached from the perspective of traditional management disciplines (strategy, human resources, finance, information systems, marketing, etc.). They can also be treated on a sectoral basis or territorial fields of competence (health, education, town planning / housing / housing, transport, economic development, employment, innovation and entrepreneurship, natural resources, security and risk, tourism, sport and leisure, culture, etc.). The logics of the actors are also considered as managed by the direction of the territories: the actors play (the inhabitants, the citizens, the companies, etc.); stakeholders (elected officials, administrations, technicians, etc.); interested actors (associations, experts, agents, etc.). These are the questions that the 8^th AIRMAP Symposium will try to answer.

REFERENCES.

ALMIRALL, E.; WAREHAM, J.; RATTI, C.; CONESA, P.; BRIA, F.; GRAVARIA, A.; EDMONDSON, A. (2016). “Smart Cities at the Crossroads: New Tensions in City Transformation”. California Management Review. Vol.59, n°1, pp. 141‑152.

BIBRI, S.E.; KROGSTIE, J. (2017). “Smart sustainable cities of the future: An extensive interdisciplinary literature review”. Sustainable Cities & Society. Vol.31, pp. 183–212.

BULU, M. (2014). “Upgrading a city via technology”. Technological Forecasting & Social Change. Vol. 89, pp. 63–67.

CHOURABI, H.; NAM, T.; WALKER, S.; GIL-GARCÍA, J.R.; MELLOULI, S.; NAHON, K.; PARDO, T.; SCHOLL, H.J. (2012). “Understanding smart cities: An integrative framework”. In Proceedings of the 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Maui,HI, Jan. 4–7) IEEE Computer Society Press, pp. 2289–2297.

DE SANTIS, R.; FASANO, A. ; MIGNOLLI, N. ; VILLA, A. (2014). Smart City: Fact and Fiction. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260963890_Smart_city_fact_and_fiction

ELMAGHRABY, A.S.; LOSAVIO, M.M. (2014). “Cyber security challenges in smart cities: safety, security and privacy”. Journal of Advanced Research. Vol.5, n°4, pp. 491–497.

MANVILLE, C. et al. (2014). Mapping smart cities in the EU, European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy, Brussels.

MEIJER, A.; BOLIVAR, M.P.R. (2016). “Gouvernance des villes intelligentes. Analyse de la littérature sur la gouvernance urbaine intelligente”, Revue Internationale des Sciences Administratives, Vol.82, n°2, pp.417‑435.

NEIROTTI, P.; DE MARCO, A. ; CAGLIANO, A.C. ; MANGANO, G. ; SCORRANO, F. (2014). “Current trends in smart city initiatives: some stylised facts”. Cities, vol. 38, pp. 25–36.

NIAROS, V.; KOSTAKIS, V.; DRECHSLER, W. (2017). “Making (in) the smart city: the emergence of makerspaces”. Telematics Information. Vol. 34, n°7, pp. 1143–1152.

PRAHARAJ, S.; HAN, J. H.; HAWKEN, S. (2018). “Towards the right model of smart city governance in India”. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, Vol.13, n°2, pp. 171–186.

SHELTON, T.; ZOOK, M.; WIIG, A. (2015). “The actually existing smart city”. Cambridge Journal of Regional Economic and Society, Vol.8, n°1, pp. 13–25.

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (2014). Mapping Smart Cities in the EU. Study. Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy, European Parliament, Brussels.

KRAMERS, A.; HÖJER, M.; LÖVEHAGEN, N.; WANGEL, J. (2014). “Smart sustainable cities–exploring ICT solutions for reduced energy use in cities”. Environmental, Modelling & Software. n° 56, pp. 52–62.

KUNZMANN, K.R. (2014). “Smart cities”. Crios. Vol.4, n°1, pp. 9–20.

MANVILLE, C. et al. (2014). Mapping smart cities in the EU, European Parliament, Directorate-General for Internal Policies, Policy Department A: Economic and Scientific Policy, Brussels.

MEIJER, A.; BOLIVAR, M.P.R. (2016). “Gouvernance des villes intelligentes. Analyse de la littérature sur la gouvernance urbaine intelligente”, Revue Internationale des Sciences Administratives, Vol.82, n°2, pp.417‑435.

NEIROTTI, P.; DE MARCO, A. ; CAGLIANO, A.C. ; MANGANO, G. ; SCORRANO, F. (2014). “Current trends in smart city initiatives: some stylised facts”. Cities, vol. 38, pp. 25–36.

NIAROS, V.; KOSTAKIS, V.; DRECHSLER, W. (2017). “Making (in) the smart city: the emergence of makerspaces”. Telematics Information. Vol. 34, n°7, pp. 1143–1152.

PRAHARAJ, S.; HAN, J. H.; HAWKEN, S. (2018). “Towards the right model of smart city governance in India”. International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning, Vol.13, n°2, pp. 171–186.

SHELTON, T.; ZOOK, M.; WIIG, A. (2015). “The actually existing smart city”. Cambridge Journal of Regional Economic and Society, Vol.8, n°1, pp. 13–25.

Mourad ATTARÇA, ISM-LAREQUOI, Université de Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines

Annie BARTOLI, ISM-LAREQUOI, Université de Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines

David CARASSUS, Université de Pau et des Pays de l’Adour

Didier CHABAUD, IAE PARIS, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne

Yves CHAPPOZ, IAE Lyon-MAGELLAN, Université Jean Moulin Lyon 3

Hervé CHOMIENNE, ISM-LAREQUOI, Université de Versailles-Saint Quentin

Thierry COME, Université de Reims Champagne-Ardenne

Sophie CROS, Université Le Havre Normandie, ISEL

Jean DESMAZES, IAE La Rochelle, Université de La Rochelle

Kim DONGWOOK, Seoum National University, Corée du Sud

Jérôme DUPUIS, Université de Lille

Jae-Ho EUN, Korean Institute of Public Administration, Corée du Sud

David HURON, IAE Nice-GRM, Université Côte d’Azur

Kilkon KO, Seoul National University, Corée du Sud

Robert LE DUFF, NIMEC, Université de Caen

Erick LEROUX, Université Paris 13

Antoine MASINGUE, Université de Valenciennes

Christophe MAUREL, Université d’Angers

Bachir MAZOUZ, Ecole Nationale d’Administration Publique, Québec

Carlos MORENO, IAE PARIS, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne

Laurence MORGANA, CNAM

Gérald ORANGE, NIMEC, Université de Rouen

Florent PRATLONG, Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne

Pierre-Charles PUPION, Université de Poitiers

Hae-Ok PUYN, CRJ Pothier, Université d’Orléans, IGPDE

Bruno TIBERGHIEN, IMPGT, Aix-Marseille Université

Im TOBIN, Seoul National University, Corée du sud

Jean-Marc VANDENBERGH, Capac, Belgique

Pyeong Jun YU, Yonsei University, Corée du Sud

Hela BEN MILED CHERIF, PRISM SORBONNE, Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne

Didier CHABAUD, GREGOR, Chaire ETI, IAE PARIS, Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne

Sophie CROS, NIMEC LH, Université Le Havre Normandie, ISEL

Eric LOMBARDOT, PRISM SORBONNE, Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne

Stéphane MAGNE, PRISM SORBONNE, Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne

Florent PRATLONG, PRISM SORBONNE, Chaire ETI, Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne

Abida SAIDYASSINE, PRISM SORBONNE, Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne

Jean François SATTIN, PRISM SORBONNE, Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne

Christelle THOMAS, Chaire ETI, IAE PARIS, Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne