Abstract
Background: Smart city initiatives globally are transforming how urban environments are designed and experienced, through technologies like Internet of Things (IoT) and artificial intelligence (AI), enhancing urban efficiency and sustainability. However, these technological advancements may also exacerbate social inequalities if not inclusively managed.
Aim: This study examines the contrasting role of technology in smart city development and social equality, focusing on South Africa’s progress and global comparisons to inform future research and policymaking. The review covers literature from 2018 to 2023, analysing digitisation’s impact on inequality in smart cities.
Methods: A systematic search in PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Scopus identified 10,783 articles using search strings related to ‘smart city development’ and ‘social inequality’. After applying inclusion criteria, 37 studies were selected for analysis.
Results: While smart city initiatives enhance urban efficiency and economic growth, they risk deepening social inequalities. The study highlights the digital divide as a significant challenge, particularly in post-apartheid South Africa, where access to technology remains unequal.
Conclusion: The findings underscore a complex relationship between smart city development and social inequality, revealing that while digitisation enhances urban efficiency, it often widens existing disparities if not inclusively managed. This analysis shows that successful smart city initiatives must incorporate robust community engagement and adapt global innovations to accommodate local context.
Contribution: This study highlights the dual impact of smart cities on social equity and provides a framework for addressing inequality through digital strategies, with important implications for policymakers and researchers, specifically as it pertains to the South African context.
Keywords: smart city development; digitalisation; technology development; social inequality; South Africa.
Introduction
Smart city leverages technology to improve services for all citizens (Winkowska, Szpilko & Pejić 2019); however, ensuring equal access to these services remains a challenge. Technology may profoundly impact individuals’ personal and professional lives, adversely so those trapped in low socio-economic conditions. Digitalisation plays a key role in smart city development (Nochta et al. 2019), but consensus exists that limited attention has been given to citizens’ engagements. Research indicates that while smart cities have the potential to significantly improve living conditions, they also risk reinforcing social divides if technology deployment does not consider inclusivity (Malek, Lim & Yigitcanlar 2021). Inclusion, as highlighted by Malek et al. (2021), is vital and should encompass social, economic and political aspects, especially for vulnerable segments of society.
Smart city development encompasses the application of technology to improve urban infrastructure and services, enhancing the efficiency and quality of life within urban environments. As smart cities evolve, they integrate advanced technologies such as the Internet of Things (IoT), big data and artificial intelligence (AI) to optimise energy usage, transportation and public services; theoretically benefiting all city residents (Winkowska et al. 2019). However, the rapid deployment of these technologies often highlights and sometimes exacerbates existing social inequalities, presenting a significant challenge in ensuring that these benefits are equitably distributed among all societal groups (Nochta et al. 2019).
While previous studies (e.g. Șerban et al. 2021; Tupasela et al. 2023) have explored digital inclusion, they often overlook vulnerable populations such as women and the elderly, less educated (Panciroli & Macauda 2022) and minority ethnic group (Raihan et al. 2024). Globally, smart cities are transforming urban efficiency, yet the link between technology and social equality remains underexplored, particularly in South Africa, a country with deep and deepening inequalities. This lack of focus on vulnerable and marginalised groups within urban development’s risks exacerbating existing inequalities. The challenge lies in ensuring that smart city initiatives are inclusive and benefit all segments of the population equitably (Lee et al. 2023).
Despite the transformative potential of smart city technologies, there is a critical gap in understanding how these advancements impact social equality, particularly in regions such as South Africa with pronounced socio-economic disparities. This is evident in the work of Van Deursen and Van Dijk (2019) and Ahmad et al. (2022), where they demonstrated that policymakers are divided on their understanding of how the scourge of digital divide can be curbed.
However, it is generally agreed that the challenge lies in ensuring that smart city initiatives are inclusive and benefit all segments of the population equitably (Noori et al. 2025; Tupasela et al. 2023). This study seeks to explore this exclusion problem by evaluating the role of digitisation in smart cities and its effectiveness in promoting social equity amid South Africa’s unique socio-cultural challenges.
The study systematically reviews the literature to evaluate the factors at play to leverage the vast benefits brought about by the rapid advancement in the smart city developments while mitigating adverse outcomes such as deteriorating social inequality, focussing on South Africa’s unique socio-cultural challenges.
The following would be the objectives of this research. Firstly, to identify and analyse the key factors and roles of digitisation in the development of smart cities. Secondly, to evaluate the benefits and disadvantages of digitisation in the context of smart city development; and lastly, to assess the impact of digitisation on social equality in the context of smart city development, with a specific focus on the developing world.
The structure of this article is premised on five sections:
- The literature review examines relevant research studies, including an overview of the theoretical framework.
- The research methods and design details the systematic approach to reviewing relevant literature and data collection techniques.
- The discussion section interprets these findings, exploring how smart city technologies affect different social groups and comparing local insights with global experiences.
- The implications section discusses the potential societal impacts and necessary policy adaptations to ensure inclusive benefits from smart city initiatives.
- The conclusions section synthesises key insights, underscoring the importance of balancing technological progress with the aim of attaining social equity and suggesting avenues for further research.
Literature review
The evolution of smart cities is primarily characterised by the integration of cutting-edge technology aimed at enhancing urban management efficiency and improving residents’ quality of life. As Bibri and Krogstie (2017) articulate, central to this development is the deployment of digital technologies such as the IoT, AI and big data analytics. These technologies have become pivotal in managing urban infrastructure and services more effectively, driving the transformation towards highly efficient urban centres.
However, according to Vanolo (2014), while smart city initiatives aim to foster urban innovation, they can inadvertently exacerbate existing socio-economic divides. This disparity is particularly evident in the differential access to digital infrastructure, which can further disenfranchise underprivileged groups and deepen urban disparities. Kitchin (2014) further highlighted the risks associated with increased digital surveillance and privacy invasions, which can disproportionately affect marginalised communities.
In response to these challenges, the concept of ‘inclusive smart cities’ evolved by emphasising the need to tailor smart city developments to the needs of all citizens. Angelidou (2017) stresses the importance of inclusive planning that integrates the needs of economically disadvantaged and elderly populations to ensure equitable benefits from smart city projects. Furthermore, Cardullo and Kitchin (2019) advocate for a participatory approach in smart city governance, which involves integrating citizen feedback in the planning process to enhance inclusivity and equity.
Theoretical framework
The theoretical framework draws from the Technological Modernisation Theory, in which technological advancements are viewed as essential for societal progress and economic development (Rostow 1960). This theory is juxtaposed with the Social Shaping of Technology (SST) theory, which argues that technology is both shaped by and shaping of society, with impacts mediated by the social, political and economic contexts within which it is deployed (Williams & Edge 1996). By integrating these perspectives, this study frames the development of smart cities as a complex interplay between innovation-driven urban efficiency and the social realities that influence and are influenced by technological implementations.
This theoretical framework guides the analysis of empirical data and existing literature, focussing on identifying mechanisms through which digitisation in smart cities can be leveraged to promote not only technological and economic growth but also social inclusiveness and equality. The integration of these theories provides a comprehensive lens to examine how the advancements in smart city technologies can lead to both improvements in urban management and potential social inequalities.
This literature review sets the stage for a nuanced exploration of smart city developments, providing a balanced view of their technological benefits and social implications. This approach underscores the need for ongoing research into the governance of smart city initiatives to ensure that they fulfil their promise of enhancing urban life for all residents equitably.
Smart city development, while heralded as a transformative urban solution, presents a paradoxical impact on social equality. The integration of technology – such as the IoT, AI and big data analytics – undoubtedly enhances urban efficiency but concurrently risks exacerbating social inequalities if not inclusively managed (Bibri & Krogstie 2017). Scholars have increasingly emphasised the necessity of designing smart city initiatives that are not only technologically advanced but also socially equitable (Chib & Todorovic 2021).
One of the central challenges lies in the digital divide, where access to smart city benefits remains unevenly distributed, disproportionately affecting lower-income groups, women, the elderly and marginalised communities (Kolotouchkina et al. 2022; Panciroli & Macauda 2022). A study by Van Deursen and Van Dijk (2019) underscores that digital inequalities are not solely about access to technology but also about the capacity to meaningfully engage with digital services. This reinforces the argument that smart cities should prioritise digital literacy programmes and ensure affordable access to technological infrastructure for disadvantaged populations (Sánchez-Segura et al. 2021).
In the context of South Africa, historical socio-economic disparities further complicate the deployment of smart city technologies. Research performed by Raihan et al. (2024) suggests that the exclusion of ethnic minority groups and economically disadvantaged populations from digital transformation efforts can deepen urban inequalities. This necessitates the integration of participatory governance models where local communities are actively involved in decision-making processes (Rosol, Blue & Fast 2019).
Moreover, transportation and mobility remain critical aspects of smart city planning. As Lucas (2011) and Morilly and Behrens (2021) illustrate, low-income populations in South Africa often face disproportionate travel costs and time burdens. Digitised transportation solutions, while innovative, must be tailored to address these systemic inequalities rather than reinforce them (Kim, Sabri & Kent 2021; Loos, Sourbati & Behrendt 2020). Strategies such as subsidised digital transit systems and equitable infrastructure distribution should be incorporated into smart city frameworks to mitigate exclusionary effects.
In addition, security and privacy concerns associated with smart city surveillance mechanisms present another dimension of social disparity (Söderström, Blake & Odendaal 2021). Marginalised populations often experience heightened vulnerability to digital surveillance, which can lead to discriminatory policing practices (Kitchin 2014). Therefore, regulatory frameworks that balance security with ethical considerations of privacy and human rights must be integrated into smart city policies (Cardullo & Kitchin 2019). To ensure that smart cities serve as instruments of inclusivity rather than exclusion, policies must be guided by both technological innovation and social justice principles.
Research methods and design
This section outlines the methodological framework adopted to explore the impact of digitisation on social equality within smart city development. It details the inclusion and exclusion criteria that guided the selection of relevant scholarly articles published between 2018 and 2023, focussing on studies that provide substantial insights into digitalisation and smart cities while excluding those with insufficient depth or misalignment with the research objectives. The search sample and procedure are described, highlighting the employment of three major databases – PubMed, ScienceDirect and Scopus – to ensure a comprehensive review of interdisciplinary research. The process for study selection and appraisal is explained, utilising a structured approach to filter and analyse the data systematically, which is essential for addressing the complex relationship between smart city technology and social equity.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
This study selected open-access articles published from 2018 to 2023, in English. Articles that provided general definitions or frameworks on digitalisation and smart cities without sufficient depth were excluded. Studies that didn’t align with the research objectives, lacked a focus on digitisation, economic development or inequality, or were centred on smart city development to ameliorate COVID-19 were also excluded. The use of the PRISMA flowchart is supported by He and Chen (2024), who emphasised the critical role of rigorous selection and appraisal methods in systematic reviews focussing on technology’s impact in urban settings. They specifically advocate for the removal of duplicate studies to ensure a high level of originality and accuracy in the final analysis. Anderson and Zhao further highlight the necessity of employing detailed exclusion criteria based on thematic relevance and alignment with research objectives, to refine the scope of studies included. This approach is supported by Moher et al. (2009), who found that pandemic-related studies could skew understanding of the different stages followed during the selection of the study.
The selection process used in this study is graphically represented in the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) chart in Figure 1.
 |
FIGURE 1: PRISMA chart for selection of studies related to digitalisation of cities and social inequality. |
|
Search sample and procedure
Three databases were used to select studies: PubMed, ScienceDirect and Scopus. PubMed, despite its focus on medicine, also contains relevant articles on smart cities and digital transformation. Haddaway et al. (2015) noticed the importance of utilising diverse databases to ensure a comprehensive review of interdisciplinary research in smart cities and digitisation. ScienceDirect and Scopus helped narrow the search. Various search strings were used, including combinations of terms such as ‘Digitisation AND smart city development’ and ‘Technology development AND social inequality in South Africa’. Duplicates were removed, and overlapping search terms ensured no relevant articles were missed.
Methods for study selection and appraisal
In the first stage, different research articles were selected based on keywords in the three databases which lead to the selection of 10 783 articles. Table 1 showcases the first stage of selection with reference to each search string and database discussed precedingly. This method is supported by Shaw et al. (2021), who detailed a comprehensive framework for the initial stages of systematic literature reviews.
| TABLE 1: Identification of references based on the search strings from research databases. |
A total of 37 articles were selected for analysis in accordance with research objectives, which have been adapted from three specific research databases as highlighted in Table 2.
| TABLE 2: Total final references selected from each database. |
Subsequently, in order to reduce the study’s lack of originality, all duplicate studies were excluded, which led to the exclusion of 5500 studies, leaving 5283 which were selected for the next stage. Furthermore, studies were evaluated in different exclusion criteria regarding the themes covered, research objectives and questions of the study, which ultimately lead to the reduction of 3000 general articles and 2245 articles based on their inability to fit with the scope and relevance of this study, leading to the selection of 37 research articles which match all the different aspects being considered in the current study.
Data extraction and synthesis
The 37 selected studies span six domains that are technology and data management, transportation and mobility, energy and environment, governance and policy, cybersecurity and privacy, and social and economic well-being. The focus on these domains primarily stems from the nascent stage of smart city development within the geographical area. Furthermore, various challenges in data collection from diverse stakeholders and the complexity of integrating multiple facets of city management – from operations and service delivery to comprehensive urban administration – have shaped this emphasis. The insights gleaned from these studies have facilitated the creation of a framework detailing critical attributes essential for the development of smart cities, as elaborated in Figure 2 and Figure 3.
The study identifies key factors for sustainable smart city development, including the use of tools such as IoT, AI, cloud services and data management, integrated into service delivery and governance while prioritising sustainability A public demand survey at the design stage is essential to address citizens’ needs and ensure safety and data protection, making smart cities inclusive and advance quality of life. The promotion of social equality and economic growth by creating jobs and empowering vulnerable groups, including people with disabilities remains the enduring theme. Specifically, in South Africa, technology must coalesce to systemically roll back socio-economic backlogs. Education programmes, particularly for seniors and women, and public–private partnerships to improve digital infrastructure are also critical. Active citizen participation can enhance government accountability, and these strategies will help address urbanisation challenges and promote economic development.
Discussion
The discussion section critically examines the findings derived from the systematic review of the selected 37 studies on the role of technology in smart city development and its impact on social equality. The section delves into the complex interplay between technological advancement and equitable urban development, assessing the effectiveness of current strategies and identifying gaps in the existing research.
Table 3 presents an analysis of 37 studies that were selected to develop a framework for understanding the domains of smart cities as well as the factors that contribute to the development of the smart cities.
| TABLE 3: Analysis and observations by prior scholars. |
These 37 studies explore the multifaceted impacts of technology and governance within smart cities, focussing on domains that are pivotal to shaping urban efficiency and addressing socio-economic disparities.
Technology and data management
The integration of advanced information and communication technologies (ICT) such as the IoT and big data analytics is foundational in the realm of smart cities. Sarker, Wu and Hossin (2018) emphasise the crucial role these technologies play in enhancing urban operations, enabling smarter lighting and building management systems. Marcu et al. (2020) further discuss the significance of interoperability and the application of machine learning models to streamline city-wide solutions. This perspective aligns with the views of Ismail and Buyya (2022), who underline the challenges associated with managing vast data volumes and ensuring seamless integration across various city functions.
Transportation and mobility
Given the historical spatial planning inequality in South Africa, transport and mobility have particularly been problematic, as the poor spend a disproportionate amount of money and time traveling to work (Lucas 2011; Morilly & Behrens 2021). Efficient transportation systems underscored by digital innovations are essential for enhancing urban mobility and mitigating traffic congestion. Loos et al. (2020) and Kim et al. (2021) illustrate how digital technologies facilitate real-time traffic monitoring and management, promoting more sustainable transport modes.
Energy and environment
The domain of energy and environmental sustainability is another critical area where smart cities are making significant strides. Technologies such as smart grids and renewable energy sources are central to this effort, as noticed by Mondejar et al. (2021) and Qian et al. (2021), who discuss their role in fostering energy-efficient and environmentally sustainable urban environments. These technologies are vital for cities aiming to achieve resilience and sustainability. The study carried out by Song et al. (2021) however, introduces a contrasting view by highlighting observed inequalities in greenspace exposure, indicating that environmental benefits are not equally distributed among urban populations. This disparity underscores the need for inclusive environmental planning that ensures all citizens benefit from green initiatives.
Governance and policy
Effective governance is paramount in optimising smart city initiatives. Sarker et al. (2018) and Gascó et al. (2022) discuss the importance of data-driven decision-making and community-driven approaches to enhance the efficacy of public services. These studies advocate for transparent, efficient and participatory governance frameworks that utilise smart technologies to improve urban life. However, Razmjoo et al. (2021) point out the existing barriers to effective policy implementation, which can hinder the development of fully integrated smart cities. This suggests a critical need for governance models that are not only inclusive but also adaptable to the rapidly evolving technological landscape.
Social and economic well-being
Access to technology is becoming a basic human right (Sanders & Scanlon 2021). The impact of smart city technologies on social and economic well-being is profound. Technologies deployed within smart cities hold the potential to significantly enhance services such as healthcare, education and housing, which are critical to the overall well-being of citizens. Sánchez-Segura et al. (2021) highlight how digital innovations can improve accessibility to these essential services. However, the works of Zilian and Zilian (2020) and Kolotouchkina et al. (2022) offer a cautionary perspective, discussing the potential social inequalities that digitisation may exacerbate. These studies emphasise the need for smart city initiatives to carefully consider the social implications of their technologies, ensuring that advancements do not widen the existing divides but rather foster inclusive growth and development.
In synthesising these perspectives, the discussion illustrates that while smart city technologies and governance offer transformative potentials for urban environments, they also present significant challenges related to equity, sustainability and inclusion. It has become evident that the benefits of smart cities must be balanced against the risks of exacerbating social inequalities, necessitating a holistic and nuanced approach to urban development. Smart cities therefore encompass various domains, including technology and data management, transportation, energy, governance, cybersecurity and social well-being. Each of these domains plays an integral role in realising the vision of cities that are more efficient, sustainable, and equitable.
Factors that contribute to the development of smart cities
The development of smart cities is shaped by a range of interrelated factors that drive innovation, improve urban living and align with sustainability goals (Silva, Khan & Han 2017). These factors include technology, governance, policy, sustainability and community involvement, as supported by a variety of academic perspectives (Bibri 2019; Bibri & Krogstie 2017)
Technology and innovation
A foundational element of smart city development is technology, particularly the integration of AI, data analytics and ICT. Data-driven approaches improve city management, efficiency and citizen engagement by optimising early-stage components such as smart mobility, environments and the economy (Korah 2020). Cities that effectively integrate digital infrastructure and high-tech businesses can foster innovation and creativity, which are critical for modern urban development (Razmjoo et al. 2021).
Governance and policy
Governance, including law, policy and regulation, is another key driver of smart city development. Sarker et al. (2018) argue that effective governance through big data can transform public agencies, enhancing transparency, innovation and sustainability in urban development. Smart governance frameworks ensure that cities develop in a structured, transparent and equitable manner (Larrinaga et al. 2021).
In addition, smart governance integrates citizen participation, encouraging community-driven approaches to urban development and decision-making (Chib & Todorovic 2021). Policies guiding smart city development should emphasise inclusivity, ensuring all citizens, including marginalised groups, benefit from the digital transformation (Kolotouchkina et al. 2022).
Sustainability and environmental impact
Sustainability is central to the development of smart cities, particularly in terms of energy management, green technology and environmental conservation. Cities prioritise energy-efficient systems such as smart grids and renewable energy sources, contributing to sustainable infrastructure and resource optimisation (Mondejar et al. 2021).
In China, smart city policies have boosted green total factor productivity, particularly in larger cities where financial development and human capital resources are more robust (Qian et al. 2021). This is achieved through the promotion of green technologies and optimised resource allocation (Kolesnichenko et al. 2021), positioning smart cities as key drivers of sustainable urban growth.
Community engagement and social well-being
Community involvement plays a crucial role in the development of smart cities. According to Rosol et al. (2019), social justice concerns are integral to smart city development, ensuring that technological advancements do not exacerbate existing inequalities. The success of smart city initiatives often hinges on how well citizens are integrated into planning and decision-making processes, fostering a more inclusive and participatory approach to urban living (Burns & Welker 2023).
Smart city technologies also enhance residents’ well-being, offering improved safety, convenience and access to essential services (Shin, Kim & Chun 2021). This citizen-centric approach aligns with the goals of sustainable urban living and improving the quality of life for residents and visitors alike (Allam et al. 2022).
Challenges and barriers
Despite the numerous drivers of smart city development, significant challenges remain. Issues such as privacy concerns, cybersecurity risks and potential social inequalities persist. As Zilian and Zilian (2020) point out, digital inequality remains a key barrier, with underrepresented populations potentially being left behind in the smart city transition. Addressing cybersecurity and privacy concerns is essential for building trust between city stakeholders and ensuring the resilience of smart city initiatives (Sánchez-Segura et al. 2021).
Furthermore, political commitment is necessary for overcoming implementation barriers. According to Razmjoo et al. (2021), strong governance and leadership are crucial to ensuring the success of smart city programmes, especially in the face of bureaucratic resistance and resource constraints. The development of smart cities is therefore influenced by several factors, including technological advancements, governance frameworks, sustainability efforts and community engagement. These elements work together to shape urban environments that are more efficient, resilient and liveable. However, challenges such as privacy concerns, digital inequality and the need for strong governance must be addressed to ensure the long-term success of smart city initiatives.
Role of smart city development in economic improvement
According to Marcu et al. (2020), the development of smart city development leads to two major outcomes: interoperability and interconnectivity, which theoretically will lead to significant growth in the economic status of the city by connecting its manufacturing sector to services, agriculture and finance while also ensuring that the entire economy works operates more efficiently. According to Mohammed et al. (2022), waste management is a key component of the smart city that can lead to economic growth. This is because improper waste management is frequently associated with an increase in health-related costs, whereas recycling can provide unique benefits in terms of employment that can generate income and increase aggregate demand.
Dougall Roberts (2023) posited that meeting citizens’ socio-economic needs and improving their living conditions are two important objectives, which, when addressed, ultimately leads to economic growth in the state. Another major economic advantage is the establishment of successful public–private partnership model, which has been covered by Jayasena, Mallawarachchi and Waidyasekara (2019). It can then be further adopted across the country and in different sectors such as infrastructure development, which can ensure significant economic growth along with the adoption of the latest technology. Green economic growth has been a major aim of global organisations, which can be achieved through the development of smart cities, as evidenced by China’s example in the study performed by Qian et al. (2021), in which it has held true for both large cities as well as non-resources-cities who often face multiple economic challenges. Another major role played by the development of smart cities is that it promotes the growth of greenspace supply in the area where it is planned, which according to Song et al. (2021) leads to reduced health costs as well as an increase in productivity of the workers, both combined is a clear indicator of economic growth in the state. Similarly, Singh et al. (2021) also noticed that the development of the smart city can lead to the advancement of education and training services and a level of technological innovation, which can empower the citizens to make better and more rational economic decisions resulting in improved well-being and financial status.
Benefits of the development of smart cities
Smart cities leverage technology to enhance the quality of urban life, integrate innovative solutions into city planning and address complex challenges facing modern urban environments. Benefits emerging from the literature on smart cities include improved efficiency, enhanced citizen engagement and more sustainable urban living.
Enhanced quality of life and urban efficiency
Smart cities aim to improve the quality of life for residents by integrating advanced technologies into urban infrastructure. According to Caragliu and Del Bo (2022), smart cities can significantly enhance urban efficiency and liveability by utilising data-driven solutions. Technologies such as the IoT, AI, and 5G networks play crucial roles in optimising urban services and infrastructure. For instance, smart traffic management systems reduce congestion and improve transportation efficiency, while smart grids and renewable energy solutions contribute to environmental sustainability (Allam et al. 2022). Moreover, Kim et al. (2021) highlight that smart cities serve as platforms for technological and social innovation, which fosters productivity, sustainability and liveability. This innovative environment leads to more efficient public services and better resource management, ultimately benefiting residents by providing them with more reliable and accessible services.
Increased citizen engagement and governance
Smart cities promote greater citizen involvement and more transparent governance through digital platforms and big data. Sarker et al. (2018) discuss how smart governance, powered by big data, transforms public agencies by making decision-making processes more data-driven and participatory. This shift enhances transparency and allows citizens to have a more active role in shaping their urban environment.
Rosol et al. (2019) further argue that smart cities can address social justice issues by improving inclusivity and accessibility. Platforms that facilitate open information flow and community engagement help bridge gaps between citizens and government authorities, ensuring that urban policies reflect the needs and preferences of the population.
Economic and environmental sustainability
The economic benefits of smart city development are significant. Yun and Lee (2019) notice that smart cities can generate substantial economic value, with more than 60% of their gross domestic product (GDP) attributed to innovations from the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR). These advancements contribute to a self-organising city model that promotes economic growth and development.
In terms of environmental sustainability, smart cities utilise technologies that reduce energy consumption and minimise environmental impact. For example, smart grids, automated waste-sorting systems and sustainable transportation options contribute to greener urban environments (Marcu et al. 2020; Mohammed et al. 2022). These technologies align with broader goals of sustainable development, addressing climate change and promoting resource efficiency.
Social and community benefits
Smart cities can positively impact social dynamics by fostering community connectivity and inclusivity. Chib and Todorovic (2021) emphasise that smart city initiatives often aim to balance efficiency with social inclusion, ensuring that technological advancements do not exacerbate existing inequalities. This focus on inclusivity helps create equitable access to smart city benefits, enhancing social cohesion and community well-being.
Furthermore, Jayasena et al. (2019) highlight the role of smart cities in addressing barriers to urban development, such as inadequate infrastructure and social inequalities. By implementing smart solutions, cities can overcome these barriers and create more resilient and equitable urban environments.
Disadvantages of the digitisation aspect in smart city development
Challenges with employee utilisation
A primary enabler of the increased employment of digitisation in smart city development is ensuring that all employees can effectively utilise digital knowledge and tools during the development phase. Sánchez-Segura et al. (2021) highlight that this challenge can lead to operational difficulties. Kim et al. (2021) further argue that if stakeholders are not aligned in their adoption of digital technologies, it may undermine the success of the smart city project. This misalignment is particularly problematic given that different stakeholder groups have diverse needs and expectations regarding the development and use of technological tools.
Public perception and adoption of technology
Public opinion plays a significant role in the success of digitalisation efforts. Caragliu et al. (2022) discuss how public perception regarding technology adoption can impact the willingness of citizens to utilise new services, even when they are available within the smart city framework. Gascó et al. (2022) emphasise that while digitalisation itself may not be inherently problematic, the challenge often lies in overcoming negative public perceptions and ensuring broad acceptance of digital services.
Integration challenges and local needs
The direct adoption of digital technologies may not always consider the specific needs of local governments and residents, creating obstacles in the development process. Söderström et al. (2021) point out that this issue is exacerbated by negative views towards the digitisation process, which can further impede progress. Ensuring that digital solutions are tailored to local requirements is crucial for effective implementation and acceptance.
Technological infrastructure limitations
The availability of technological infrastructure is another significant concern. Cocchia (2014) notes that shortages in infrastructure can lead to non-adoption or the need for larger financial investments, both of which can negatively impact the future growth and development of the city. This situation can provoke public protests against digitalisation, which has adverse effects on all parties involved.
Societal displacement and resistance
The development of smart cities may also result in the displacement of population segments, leading to resistance, civil actions and potential demonstrations. Markkanen and Anger-Kraavi (2019) highlight that significant portions of the population, who are likely to oppose digitalisation, may resist smart city projects. This opposition can delay or even halt the progress of smart city initiatives in various regions.
Social inequality associated with the digitisation of smart cities
Digitalisation in smart city development can indeed introduce and exacerbate social inequality if not managed inclusively. Grybauskas, Stefanini and Ghobakhloo (2022) argue that social inequality is significantly influenced by economic challenges, unemployment and disparities in technical and digital skills. These factors can be exacerbated by digitalisation, as advanced technological infrastructure may not be uniformly accessible to all societal groups. Cocchia (2014) also highlights that while smart cities aim to integrate advanced technologies to enhance urban living, they can inadvertently deepen existing divides if not designed with inclusivity in mind.
Shin et al. (2021) emphasise that the success of smart city innovations hinges on addressing the digital divide. Without proactive measures to engage diverse social groups, digitalisation can reinforce existing inequalities. Moreover, Rosol et al. (2019) suggest that social justice concerns must be integral to smart city planning to avoid creating or perpetuating disparities. This perspective aligns with Kim and Chun’s (2021) argument that focussing on education and digital literacy is crucial in mitigating these challenges as new technologies are integrated into public services.
Digitalisation in smart city development can indeed worsen existing social inequalities if it does not account for the diverse needs of different demographic groups.
The nature of inequality associated with digitalisation in smart city development varies between developing and developed countries, reflecting differing socio-economic and infrastructural contexts. In developed countries, digital inequality often relates to perceptions and access issues. Rijshouwer, Leclercq and Zoonen (2022) observe that citizens in developed cities, such as Rotterdam, might perceive smart city developments as complex and out of their control, but this perception does not necessarily stem from a lack of access.
In contrast, developing countries face more pronounced challenges related to infrastructure and access. Korah (2020) observes that in Africa, smart city initiatives often struggle with unique socio-economic issues such as ethnicity and historical injustices, which exacerbate digital inequality. Kolotouchkina et al. (2022) further emphasise that people with disabilities in developing countries face significant barriers to accessing digital services, which can worsen inequalities if not addressed during the design of smart city systems.
In essence, while both developing and developed countries face issues related to digitalisation and inequality, the specific nature and extent of these challenges differ based on local conditions and socio-economic factors. Developing countries often grapple with more fundamental infrastructural and historical issues, while developed countries may contend with disparities in digital literacy and perceptions of technological complexity.
Benchmarking of the studies
According to analyses of European and Asian countries (Gascó et al. 2022; Qian et al. 2021; Song et al. 2021; Zilian & Zilian 2020), smart city development is becoming more widespread globally to meet urbanisation challenges and ensure that all city residents have access to adequate services to support their personal and professional lives.
Smart city development is a public–private partnership that emphasises citizen participation. Digitalisation of healthcare, education, general industry and agriculture services is key to smart city development, ensuring integration and interconnectivity between city operations and economic growth. The inability to include and equalise vulnerable people in the general population has been a major obstacle to citywide digitalisation. Most African countries are facing rapid urbanisation and limited government resources to meet rising demand, creating a demand–supply mismatch that often leads to inequality, with some parts of a city experiencing higher economic growth and others experiencing higher poverty. Social norms and ethnicity are also key issues that must be addressed immediately because they affect other aspects of local development and national economic growth. Therefore, African countries, especially South Africa, one of the fastest-growing and largest economies, must focus on inequality reduction and digitalisation to establish smart cities.
Implications
This systematic literature review expounds on the multifaceted role of technology in the development of smart cities and its impact on social equality, revealing both significant advantages and notable challenges. The analysis underscores that while smart cities harness technology to streamline urban management, enhance quality of life and promote environmental sustainability, they simultaneously pose risks of exacerbating social inequalities if not inclusively managed. The technological advancements central to smart city initiatives, such as IoT, AI and big data analytics, have demonstrated profound potential to transform urban spaces into more efficient, responsive and sustainable environments. These technologies facilitate improved traffic management, energy efficiency and enhanced public service delivery, contributing to the economic and environmental goals of urban areas. However, the benefits derived from these technologies are not uniformly distributed among all urban residents, highlighting a pivotal concern regarding equity and inclusion. The research indicates that without deliberate strategies to include marginalised groups, technology-driven developments can lead to a digital divide. This divide often manifests as unequal access to the benefits of smart city initiatives, disproportionately affecting lower-income populations and those with limited digital literacy. Such disparities can deepen existing socio-economic divisions and foster new forms of inequality, undermining the social cohesion and overall sustainability of urban developments.
Furthermore, the emphasis on cybersecurity and data privacy within smart cities reflects another critical dimension where technology plays a dual role. While the protection of citizen data is paramount to fostering trust and security in digitally enabled cities, it also presents a significant challenge in ensuring these measures do not become overly restrictive or invasive, thus preserving individual freedoms and rights.
The implications of this research stress the need for policymakers, urban planners and technology developers to adopt a holistic and inclusive approach to smart city development. This approach should not only leverage technological innovations for economic and environmental benefits but also actively work to mitigate risks of inequality. Ensuring that smart city policies incorporate measures to promote digital inclusivity and protect against data misuse will be crucial for realising the transformative potential of smart cities in fostering more equitable urban futures. Thus, balancing technological advancements with the imperative of social equality must be a cornerstone of smart city initiatives globally.
Moreover, the findings suggest that while smart cities offer a pathway to more sustainable urban environments through efficient resource management and reduced environmental footprints, the technological infrastructure must be accessible to all. This includes providing training and support to ensure that all community members can benefit from smart technologies, regardless of their socio-economic status. As urban areas continue to grow and become more technology-driven, the dual challenges of maximising technological benefits while minimising social disparities must be addressed. The development of smart cities should be accompanied by strategies that focus on comprehensive community upliftment, ensuring that the digital revolution in urban spaces leads to a more inclusive and equitable global society.
Conclusions
The concept of smart cities, with its potential for economic and environmental sustainability, has garnered considerable interest globally from both government and academic circles. This review demonstrates that while smart city initiatives promise significant advancements in urban living, they also pose challenges in achieving true inclusivity and social equity. The benefits of smart cities, such as improved urban efficiency, enhanced quality of life and economic growth, are evident through technological innovations and data-driven solutions. However, the risk of exacerbating social inequalities remains a critical concern.
The South African context, as highlighted by the review, underscores the need for nuanced approach to smart city development. It is imperative for the South African government to conduct a thorough analysis of the specific needs of its population, particularly marginalised groups such as the elderly, people with disabilities and those facing employment challenges. Ensuring meaningful citizen participation throughout all stages of smart city operations is crucial for addressing these needs effectively. Public–private partnerships could be a valuable strategy to leverage the strengths of both the private sector and government organisations, fostering a more inclusive development process. The review also emphasises the importance of addressing social justice issues in the smart city framework. Social, political and economic inequalities must be tackled to ensure that technological advancements contribute to greater equity and do not merely reinforce existing disparities. Adopting successful strategies from other countries while tailoring them to address South Africa’s unique challenges such as rapid urbanisation and specific socio-economic issues can enhance the effectiveness of smart city initiatives.
A significant limitation of the current study was the lack of robust, objective data from South Africa, which hindered a comprehensive analysis of the situation. Future research should focus on collecting detailed information from diverse citizen groups in South Africa, aiming to quantify subjective attributes related to social inequality and perceptions of digitalisation. This approach will provide a clearer understanding of the challenges and opportunities in developing an inclusive smart city, ultimately contributing to more equitable and sustainable urban environments.
Framework for smart city development in bridging social inequality
The conceptual framework developed in the course of this study, the Smart City Equity Framework (SCEF), is designed to explore and illustrate the contrasting roles of digitisation within smart city development (Figure 4). This framework systematically maps out the interaction between technological advancements and their impact on urban environments, focussing particularly on how these technologies can enhance urban efficiency while potentially reinforcing or creating new social inequalities. It integrates multiple aspects of smart city development, such as technological infrastructure, data management and service automation, and examines their direct and indirect effects on social dynamics.
The SCEF consists of several core components, each interconnected to show the different dynamics of smart cities:
- Technology Digital Infrastructure, Data Management and Service Automation: These are the primary inputs of the framework, representing the foundational technologies that drive smart city functionalities. These include systems such as IoT, AI and big data analytics, which are crucial for enhancing operational efficiency across urban services such as transportation, energy management, and public safety.
- Pathways Impacting Urban Efficiency and Social Exclusion: These are the two main pathways through which the initial technological inputs manifest their impacts. Urban efficiency is enhanced through improved resource management, better service delivery and economic growth. Conversely, the same technologies can lead to social exclusion if their deployment does not consider equity, leading to issues such as the digital divide, surveillance concerns and gentrification.
- Intermediary Processes: This part of the framework includes elements such as policy and governance, community engagement and education and digital literacy initiatives. These factors are critical as they can either mitigate or exacerbate the impacts observed in the pathways of urban efficiency and social exclusion. Effective policies and inclusive governance can help ensure that benefits of smart cities are widely distributed and that privacy and security concerns are addressed.
- Outcomes: The outcomes of the framework are twofold – enhanced urban efficiency and potential social exclusion. These outcomes are directly influenced by the technological inputs and the effectiveness of intermediary processes.
- Feedback Loop: This component highlights the iterative process of assessment and adaptation within smart city initiatives. It underscores the need for ongoing monitoring of smart city impacts and the adaptation of strategies to enhance benefits and reduce drawbacks. This loop ensures that smart cities evolve in ways that are sustainable and equitable. It emphasises inclusive policy design, community-centred approaches and technological innovations that foster inclusivity. By integrating robust monitoring and evaluation processes, the framework supports continuous improvement. Ultimately, it aims to bridge the gap between urban efficiency and social equality, creating cities that work for everyone.
The SCEF serves as a tool for policymakers, urban planners and technology developers to visualise and strategise the deployment of smart city technologies in a manner that maximises benefits while minimising adverse social impacts. By understanding the interconnectedness of these elements, stakeholders can better navigate the complexities of urban digital transformation towards more inclusive outcomes.
This study concludes that the relationship between the growth of smart cities and social inequality is complex and multifaceted. While digitalisation can enhance municipal efficiency, it often risks exacerbating existing inequities if not implemented with inclusivity in mind. Successful smart city initiatives require active community engagement and the integration of diverse global innovations to ensure that the benefits of technology are accessible to all citizens.
Furthermore, as Ismail and Buvya (2022) suggest, the adoption of advanced technologies such as 6G can significantly enhance the dynamism and intelligence of urban systems. In this context, ‘smart’ is defined as the effective technological integration that guarantees the provision of essential services to all residents. Larrinaga et al. (2021) echo this sentiment by advocating for the integration of city service systems with state administration frameworks, which would enable governments to manage various urban functions more efficiently.
Thus, digitalisation emerges as a critical factor in fostering effective city administration and addressing social disparities. For smart cities to realise their full potential, it is imperative that technology serves as a tool for inclusivity rather than a catalyst for inequality. By prioritising community involvement and strategic technological advancements, urban planners can create environments that not only thrive on innovation but also ensure equitable access to resources and opportunities for all citizens.
Recommendations and areas for further research
Future research should focus on empirical assessments of smart city projects in South Africa and other developing regions to develop context-specific strategies that bridge the digital divide and enhance equitable urban development (Grybauskas et al. 2022). By embedding digital inclusivity and social impact assessments at the core of smart city initiatives, urban planners and policymakers can work towards a future where technological advancements benefit all societal groups equitably.
Given the complexities and varied impacts of smart city technologies on social equality, this article recommends several areas for further research and strategic action. Firstly, there is a critical need for more inclusive policy frameworks that specifically address the needs of marginalised and vulnerable populations within urban developments. Future studies should explore the efficacy of participatory governance models that actively involve all community segments in the planning and implementation of smart city initiatives. Secondly, there is a significant gap in longitudinal data on the long-term social impacts of smart city technologies. More empirical research is required to assess how these technologies affect different demographic groups over time, which can help policymakers make informed decisions that ensure equitable benefits. Furthermore, the integration of cross-disciplinary methodologies that combine insights from technology, sociology and urban planning could provide a deeper understanding of how digital advancements can be leveraged to foster not only economic growth but also social inclusiveness. Lastly, as the technology evolves, continuous evaluation and adaptation of smart city projects are essential to address emerging challenges and opportunities in real-time, ensuring that smart cities remain adaptive and beneficial to all citizens.
Acknowledgements
This article is partially based on the author’s dissertation entitled ‘Restorative Social Justice through Digital Transformation in South African Cities: Smart City Framework’ towards the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (DPhil) in the field of Digital Transformation, Johannesburg Business School (JBS), University of Johannesburg, South Africa, with supervisor: Prof Randall Carolissen.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationships that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.
Authors’ contributions
A.N. is the primary author and contributed significantly to the writing, developing of methodology, collection of research data, conceptualisation of the research framework, execution of the data collection process and synthesis of the findings into the final manuscript. R.C. was the research supervisor and contributed towards the critical oversight and guidance throughout the research process, offered expert insight into the theoretical underpinnings of the study, reviewing the research methodology and ensuring the final article.
Ethical considerations
Ethical approval to conduct this study was obtained from the Johannesburg Business School Research Ethics Committee (JBSREC) at the University of Johannesburg (No. JBSREC202483).
Funding information
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, A.N., upon reasonable request.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and are the product of professional research. The article does not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any affiliated institution, funder, agency or that of the publisher. The authors are responsible for this article’s results, findings and content.
References
Ahmad, K., Maabreh, M., Ghaly, M., Khan, K., Qadir, J. & Al-Fuqaha, A., 2022, ‘Developing future human-centered smart cities: Critical analysis of smart city security, data management, and ethical challenges’, Computer Science Review 43, 100452. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosrev.2021.100452
Allam, Z., Bibri, S.E., Jones, D.S., Chabaud, D. & Moreno, C., 2022, ‘Unpacking the “15-minute city” via 6G, IoT, and digital twins: Towards a new narrative for increasing urban efficiency, resilience, and sustainability’, Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) 22(4), 1369. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22041369
Angelidou, M., 2017, ‘Smart city planning and development shortcomings’, TeMA: Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment 10(1), 77–94. https://doi.org/10.6092/1970-9870/3832
Bibri, S.E. & Krogstie, J., 2017, ‘Smart sustainable cities of the future: An extensive interdisciplinary literature review’, Sustainable Cities and Society 31, 183–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2017.02.016
Bibri, S.E., 2019, ‘On the sustainability of smart and smarter cities in the era of big data: An interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary literature review’, Journal of Big Data 6(1), 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-019-0182-7
Burns, R. & Welker, P., 2023, ‘Interstitiality in the smart city: More than top-down and bottom-up smartness’, Urban Studies (Edinburgh, Scotland) 60(2), 308–324. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420980221097590
Caragliu, A. & Del Bo, C.F., 2022, ‘Smart cities and urban inequality’, Regional Studies 56(7), 1097–1112. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2021.1984421
Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C.F. & Nijkamp, P., 2023, ‘“Smart cities in Europe” revisited: A meta-analysis of smart city economic impacts’, Journal of Urban Technology 30(4), 51–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2023.2220136
Cardullo, P. & Kitchin, R., 2019, ‘Smart urbanism and smart citizenship: The neoliberal logic of “citizen-focused” smart cities in Europe’, Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space 37(5), 813–830. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X18806508
Chib, A. & Todorovic, T., 2021, ‘Critical perspectives on the smart city: Efficiency objectives vs. inclusion ideals’, Journal of Urban Technology 29(4), 83–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2021.2001712
Cocchia, A., 2014, Smart and digital city: A systematic literature review, Springer, Cham.
Dionisio, M., De Souza Junior, S.J., Paula, F. & Pellanda, P.C., 2023, ‘The role of digital social innovations to address SDGs: A systematic review’, Environment, Development and Sustainability 26, 5709–5734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-03038-x
Dougall Roberts, A., 2023, ‘Smart city(ies): Citizen equalisers or inequality generators’, in Y. Robles-Bykbaev (ed.), Social inequality – Structure and social processes, p. 118, IntechOpen Limited, London.
Gascó, M., Nasi, G., Cucciniello, M. & Hiedemann, A., 2022, ‘The role of organizational capacity to foster digital transformation in local governments: The case of three European smart cities’, Urban Governance 2(2), 236–246. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ugj.2022.09.005
Grybauskas, A., Stefanini, A. & Ghobakhloo, M., 2022, ‘Social sustainability in the age of digitalization: A systematic literature review on the social implications of industry 4.0’, Technology in Society 70, 101997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2022.101997
Haddaway, N.R., Collins, A.M., Coughlin, D. & Kirk, S., 2015, ‘The role of Google Scholar in evidence reviews and its applicability to grey literature searching’, PLOS ONE 10(9), e0138237. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0138237
He, W. & Chen, M., 2024, ‘Advancing urban life: A systematic review of emerging technologies and artificial intelligence in urban design and planning’, Buildings 14(3), 835. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14030835
Idowu, A., Akeem, O. & Adenuga, A., 2019, ‘Ethnicity, inequality and the tragedy of African development: A comparative case study of Nigeria and the South Sudan’, Journal of Globalization Studies 10(1), 111–129. https://doi.org/10.30884/jogs/2019.01.08
Ismail, L. & Buyya, R., 2022, ‘Artificial intelligence applications and self-learning 6G networks for smart cities digital ecosystems: Taxonomy, challenges, and future directions’, Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) 22(15), 5750. https://doi.org/10.3390/s22155750
Jayasena, N., Mallawarachchi, H. & Waidyasekara, A., 2019, ‘A critical review on the drivers and barriers for enabling smart cities’, in Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management, Bangkok, March 05–07, 2019, viewed 29 November 2025, from https://www.ieomsociety.org/ieom2019/.
Kim, H.M., Sabri, S. & Kent, A., 2021, ‘Smart cities as a platform for technological and social innovation in productivity, sustainability, and livability: A conceptual framework’, in Smart cities for technological and social innovation, pp. 9–28.
Kitchin, R., 2014, ‘The real-time city? Big data and smart urbanism’, GeoJournal 79, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-013-9516-8
Kolesnichenko, O., Mazelis, L., Sotnik, A., Yakovleva, D., Amelkin, S., Grigorevsky, I. et al., 2021, ‘Sociological modelling of smart city with the implementation of UN sustainable development goals’, Sustainability Science 16(2), 581–599. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-020-00889-5
Kolotouchkina, O., Barroso, C. & Sánchez, J., 2022, ‘Smart cities, the digital divide, and people with disabilities’, Cities 123, 103613. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103613
Korah, P.I., 2020, ‘Smart urban development strategies in Africa? An analysis of multiple rationalities for Accra’s City Extension Project’, in H.M. Kim, S. Sabri & A. Kent (eds.), Smart cities for technological and social innovation: Case studies, current trends, and future steps, pp. 157–180, Academic Press, Cambridge, MA.
Kuandykovna Suyendikova, G., Evgenievich Barykin, S., Mikhailovich Sergeev, S., Vasilievna Kapustina, I., Krupnov, Y. & NikolaevnaShchepkina, N., 2022, ‘Sustainable development of smart cities and smart territories based on the model of minimizing externalities’, F1000Research 11, 522. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.114630.2
Larrinaga, F., Pérez, A., Aldalur, I., Hernández, J.L., Izkara, J.L. & Sáez de Viteri, P., 2021, ‘A Holistic and interoperable approach towards the implementation of services for the digital transformation of smart cities: The case of Vitoria-Gasteiz (Spain)’, Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) 21(23), 8061. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21238061
Lee, J., Babcock, J., Pham, T.S., Bui, T.H. & Kang, M., 2023, ‘Smart city as a social transition towards inclusive development through technology: A tale of four smart cities’, International Journal of Urban Sciences 27(Suppl. 1), 75–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/12265934.2022.2074076
Loos, E., Sourbati, M. & Behrendt, F., 2020, ‘The role of mobility digital ecosystems for age-friendly urban public transport: A narrative literature review’, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17(20), 7465. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17207465
Lucas, K., 2011, ‘Making the connections between transport disadvantage and the social exclusion of low income populations in the Tshwane Region of South Africa’, Journal of Transport Geography 19(6), 1320–1334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.02.007
Malek, J.A., Lim, S.B. & Yigitcanlar, T., 2021, ‘Social inclusion indicators for building citizen-centric smart cities: A systematic literature review’, Sustainability 13(1), 376. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13010376
Marcu, I., Suciu, G., Bălăceanu, C., Vulpe, A. & Drăgulinescu, A.M., 2020, ‘Arrowhead technology for digitalization and automation solution: Smart cities and smart agriculture’, Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) 20(5), 1464. https://doi.org/10.3390/s20051464
Markkanen, S. & Anger, A., 2019, ‘Social impacts of climate change mitigation policies and their implications for inequality’, Climate Policy 19, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2019.1596873
Mohammed, M.A., Abdulhasan, M.J., Kumar, N.M., Abdulkareem, K.H., Mostafa, S.A., Maashi, M.S. et al., 2022, ‘Automated waste-sorting and recycling classification using artificial neural network and features fusion: A digital-enabled circular economy vision for smart cities’, Multimedia Tools and Applications 82, 39617–39632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-021-11537-0
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G. & The PRISMA Group., 2009, ‘Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement’, PLoS Medicine 6(7), e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Mondejar, M., Avtar, R., Baños Diaz, H., Dubey, R., Esteban, J., Gómez-Morales, A. et al., 2021, ‘Digitalization to achieve sustainable development goals: Steps towards a Smart Green Planet’, Science of the Total Environment 794, 148539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148539
Morilly, C. & Behrens, R., 2021, ‘Derailed commuting: A qualitative exploration of the travel burden on low-income women in Cape Town’, African Cities Journal 2(1), 80.
Nochta, T., Wan, L., Schooling, J.M., Lemanski, C., Parlikad, A.K. & Jin, Y., 2019, ‘Digitalisation for smarter cities: Moving from a static to a dynamic view’, Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Smart Infrastructure and Construction 171(4), 117–130. https://doi.org/10.1680/jsmic.19.00001
Noori, N., Hoppe, T., Van der Werf, I. & Janssen, M., 2025, ‘A framework to analyze inclusion in smart energy city development: The case of Smart City Amsterdam’, Cities 158, 105710. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2025.105710
Panciroli, C. & Macauda, A., 2022, ‘Digital participation in community life: How young people communicate heritage’, in Cultural heritage education in the everyday landscape: School, citizenship, space, and representation, pp. 129–146, Springer International Publishing, Cham.
Qian, Y., Liu, J., Cheng, Z. & Forrest, J.Y., 2021, ‘Does the smart city policy promote the green growth of the urban economy? Evidence from China’, Environmental Science and Pollution Research International 28(47), 66709–66723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15120-w
Raihan, M.M., Subroto, S., Chowdhury, N., Koch, K., Ruttan, E. & Turin, T.C., 2024, ‘Dimensions and barriers for digital (in) equity and digital divide: A systematic integrative review’, Digital Transformation and S ociety 4(1), 15–35. https://doi.org/10.1108/DTS-04-2024-0054
Rana, N., Luthra, S., Mangla, S., Islam, R., Roderick, S. & Dwivedi, Y., 2019, ‘Barriers to the development of smart cities in Indian context’, Information Systems Frontiers 21(3), 503–525. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-018-9873-4
Razmjoo, A., Østergaard, P., Denai, M., Majidi Nezhad, M. & Mirjalili, S., 2021, ‘Effective policies to overcome barriers in the development of smart cities’, Energy Research & Social Science 79, 102175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102175
Rijshouwer, E., Leclercq, E. & Zoonen, L., 2022, ‘Public views of the smart city: Towards the construction of a social problem’, Big Data & Society 9(1), 205395172110721. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211072190
Rosol, M., Blue, G. & Fast, V., 2019, ‘Social justice in the digital age: Re-thinking the smart city with Nancy Fraser’, UCCities Working Paper # 1, University of Calgary, Calgary.
Rostow, W.W., 1960, The stages of economic growth: A non-communist manifesto, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Sánchez-Segura, M.I., Dugarte-Peña, G.L., Amescua, A., Medina-Domínguez, F., López-Almansa, E. & Reyes, E.B., 2021, ‘Smart occupational health and safety for a digital era and its place in smart and sustainable cities’, Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering: MBE 18(6), 8831–8856. https://doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2021436
Sanders, C.K. & Scanlon, E., 2021, ‘The digital divide is a human rights issue: Advancing social inclusion through social work advocacy’, Journal of Human Rights and Social Work 6(2), 130–143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41134-020-00147-9
Sarker, M.N.I., Wu, M. & Hossin, M., 2018, ‘Smart governance through bigdata: Digital transformation of public agencies’, in 2018 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Big Data (ICAIBD), IEEE, Chengdu, May 26–28, 2018, pp. 62–70.
Sarker, M.N.I., Wu, M. & Hossin, M., 2018, ‘Smart governance through bigdata: Digital transformation of public agencies’, pp. 62–70.
Sengupta, U. & Sengupta, U., 2021, ‘SDG-11 and smart cities: Contradictions and overlaps between social and environmental justice research agendas’, Frontiers in Sociology 7, 995603. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2022.995603
Șerban, A.M., Moxon, D., Potočnik, D., Pasic, L. & Ștefan, V., 2021, ‘An overview of social inclusion, digitalisation and young people’, in Young people, social inclusion and digitalisation. Emerging knowledge for practice and policy, pp. 9–24.
Shaw, L., Sutcliffe, K., Khatwa, M. & Stokes, G., 2021, ‘A “Rapid Best-Fit” model for framework synthesis: Using research objectives to structure analysis within a rapid review of qualitative evidence’, Research Synthesis Methods 12(5), 586–595. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1462
Shin, S.-Y., Kim, D. & Chun, S.A., 2021, ‘Digital divide in advanced smart city innovations’, Sustainability 13(7), 4076. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13074076
Silva, B.N., Khan, M. & Han, K., 2017, ‘Towards sustainable smart cities: A review of trends, architectures, components, and open challenges in smart cities’, Sustainable Cities and Society 38, 697–713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2018.01.053
Singh, A., Jyoti, B., Kumar, S. & Lenka, S., 2021, ‘Assessment of global sustainable development, environmental sustainability, economic development and social development index in selected economies’, International Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning 16, 123–138. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsdp.160113
Söderström, O., Blake, E. & Odendaal, N., 2021, ‘More-than-local, more-than-mobile: The smart city effect in South Africa’, Geoforum 122, 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.03.017
Song, Y., Chen, B., Ho, H.C., Kwan, M.P., Liu, D., Wang, F. et al., 2021, ‘Observed inequality in urban greenspace exposure in China’, Environment International 156, 106778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2021.106778
Tupasela, A., Clavijo, J.D., Salokannel, M. & Fink, C., 2023, ‘Older people and the smart city–developing inclusive practices to protect and serve a vulnerable population’, Internet Policy Review 12(1), 45–45. https://doi.org/10.14763/2023.1.1700
Turin, T.C., Subroto, S., Raihan, M.M.H., Koch, K., Wiles, R., Ruttan, E. et al., 2022, ‘Identifying challenges, enabling practices, and reviewing existing policies regarding digital equity and digital divide toward smart and healthy cities: Protocol for an integrative review’, JMIR Research Protocols 11(12), e40068. https://doi.org/10.2196/40068
Van Deursen, A.J. & Van Dijk, J.A., 2019, ‘The first-level digital divide shifts from inequalities in physical access to inequalities in material access’, New Media & Society 21(2), 354–375. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818797082
Vanolo, A., 2014, ‘Smartmentality: The smart city as a disciplinary strategy’, Urban Studies 51(5), 883–898. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098013494427
Williams, R.A. & Edge, D., 1996, ‘The social shaping of technology’, Research Policy 25(6), 865–899. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(96)00885-2
Winkowska, J., Szpilko, D. & Pejić, S., 2019, ‘Smart city concept in the light of the literature review’, Engineering Management in Production and Services 11(2), 70–86. https://doi.org/10.2478/emj-2019-0012
Yun, Y. & Lee, M., 2019, ‘Smart City 4.0 from the perspective of open innovation’, Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity 5(4), 92. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc5040092
Zhou, J., 2022, ‘Artificial intelligence-based recommendation and application of public services in smart cities’, Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience 2022, 8958865. https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/8958865
Zilian, S. & Zilian, L., 2020, ‘Digital inequality in Austria: Empirical evidence from the survey of the OECD “Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies”’, Technology in Society 63, 101397. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101397
|
Hide
Show all
Email this article (Login required)
