Smart city: between the global trend and local social risks

Abstract

Cities are vital for economic and sustainable development. However, they face challenges such as rapid urban growth, socio-economic inequalities, and resource scarcity in developing countries. Smart cities emerge as solutions, but they also present social risks. This article reviews the literature on these risks, aiming to broaden the understanding of the social challenges faced by the cities of the future and outline a research agenda. It is concluded that planning and executing smart city projects considering technological and social aspects is essential to ensure inclusive and engaged cities. At the same time, assessing social risks and implementing proactive measures is crucial to equitably distribute technological benefits, contributing to the Sustainable Development Goals and urban quality of life.

Keywords:
smart cities; urban challenges; social dimension; Sustainable Development Goals; social risk

Resumo

Cidades são vitais para o desenvolvimento econômico e sustentável, mas enfrentam desafios, como rápido crescimento urbano, desigualdades socioeconômicas e escassez de recursos em países em desenvolvimento. As smart cities surgem como soluções, mas também apresentam riscos sociais. Este artigo revisa a literatura sobre esses riscos, com o objetivo de ampliar a compreensão dos desafios sociais enfrentados pelas cidades do futuro e traçar uma agenda de pesquisa. Conclui-se que planejar e executar projetos de smart cities considerando aspectos tecnológicos e sociais é essencial para garantir cidades inclusivas e engajadas. Simultaneamente, avaliar riscos sociais e implementar medidas proativas é crucial para distribuir equitativamente os benefícios tecnológicos, contribuindo para os Objetivos de Desenvolvimento Sustentável e para a qualidade de vida urbana.

Palavras-chave:
cidades inteligentes; desafios urbanos; dimensão social; Objetivos do Desenvolvimento Sustentável; risco social

Introduction

Cities are widely regarded as organized communities and economic pillars of national development and sustainability. However, in developing countries, these characteristics are rarely found in cities (Aghimien et al., 2022). Rapid urban population growth, socioeconomic inequalities, and the scarcity of natural resources pose significant challenges to sustainable development and the quality of life of urban populations.

Smart Sustainable Cities (SSCs), or sometimes simply Smart Cities, are often presented as potential solution to the limitations and difficulties associated with rapid urbanization and the environmental impacts of urban areas (Ringenson et al., 2017).

The integration of advanced technologies into smart cities offers several advantages. Real-time data collected by electronic sensors and interconnected devices enable informed decision-making by municipal authorities. Collaboration tools, such as mobile applications and web portals, facilitate citizen engagement with government. Technologies including surveillance cameras and automatic license plate recognition systems can enhance public safety. Air quality monitoring sensors and smart waste collection technologies contribute to reducing environmental impacts. Finally, partnerships between the private sector and government in smart city initiatives can foster economic development (Shayan et al., 2020).

Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) are considered crucial components of urban infrastructure enabling monitoring, operational efficiency, and information exchange, promoting more sustainable urban lifestyles. However, significant limitations hinder the achievement of Smart Sustainable Cities (SSCs), such as environmental risks associated with the deployment and maintenance of digital infrastructure, as well as challenges stemming from the increasing complexity and vulnerability of urban systems (Bibri & Krogstie, 2017; Ringenson et al., 2017).

Moreover, although the emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) and its increasingly pervasive impact across multiple sectors may contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), these technologies may also create new systemic sustainability risks as AI technologies diffuse into new social, economic, and ecological contexts (Galaz et al., 2021; Vinuesa et al., 2020). According to Vinuesa et al. (2020), AI can influence sustainable development in both positively and negatively, that is, it can influence the capacity to achieve the SDGs.

The development of inclusive smart cities represents a significant challenge, and their implementation may inadvertently foster phenomena such as gentrification and social exclusion, driven by technological “walls” (Beck, Boff, & Cenci, 2022). In this sense, the social risks associated with smart cities may constitute barriers to achieving the SDGs, particularly SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), which seeks to make cities and human settlements more inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable. Among the principal social risks are digital exclusion, data privacy and security concerns displacement and gentrification, technological unemployment, and social inequalities.

Considering that the beginning of the 21st century has been marked by emerging challenges related to growth, sustainability, inequality, and security, the increasing importance of research, innovation, and effective governance in addressing these issues has becomes evident. There is no single approach, as the challenges associated with growth vary across countries and regions, as highlighted by Komninos (2018).

To develop effective smart cities in the Brazilian context, it is essential to address historical challenges including public security, health care, education, basic sanitation, housing, and social inequality. In addition, emerging urban challenges, such as mobility, sustainability, and social diversity, must be addressed. This approach is fundamental to ensuring an improved quality of life for residents, acknowledging that smart cities are designed by and for people (Cunha et al., 2016). Accordingly, decision-making processes related to smart city planning and infrastructure investment should aim to reduce vulnerability and expand opportunities for urban populations in Brazil.

Accordingly, when cities are conceived as living organisms that grow, evolve, and adapt, they constitute complex systems. When governed through technological infrastructures, they must remain sufficiently flexible to accommodate not only shifts in priorities driven by residents’ needs but also emerging urban challenges. Would these new urban systems be capable of such flexibility? Moreover, would these systems be inclusive, or would they serve only a small segment of the population able to access these resources? Do smart cities, in practice, ensure that all citizens can access the full range of public and private services they?

These questions arise in from the recognition that smart city development programs can substantially affect the daily lives of individuals and local communities, potentially giving rise to social risks that threaten social cohesion and undermine the objectives of smart initiatives.

The smart transition in cities has been underway for several decades, however, it has recently accelerated as a result of the rapid energy transition toward renewable sources and the expanded adoption of digital tools driven by the Covid-19 pandemic. Another important factor is the growing need to build a more inclusive and connected society, characterized by stronger civic participation and social engagement (Macaluso et al., 2023).

In this context, the objective of this article is to conduct a theoretical literature review to advance the debate on the social risks associated with smart cities, thereby fostering critical reflection on issues of social justice, inequality, and social and digital exclusion that affect modern cities. Given that emerging technologies in smart cities have the potential to expand both opportunities and social disparities, this analysis seeks to contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the challenges future cities face in promoting inclusion and equity. In addition, the analysis of the existing literature seeks to identify knowledge gaps and areas requiring further investigation.

Therefore, this theoretical literature review encompasses a broad and diverse range of sources, including journal articles, discussion papers, reports, conference proceedings, and policy documents from multiple disciplinary fields relevant to the proposed research topic. These sources were retrieved from the Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases. The review focuses on analyzing established theoretical frameworks and existing scientific research, with the aim of providing a qualitative and well-substantiated perspective on the subject.

The article is structured into six sections: the introduction; the second section , which addresses the commitment of smart cities to citizens and the SDGs; the third section, which discusses the discourse and practice of smart cities with particular emphasis on social risks; the fourth section, which explores global perspectives on the social challenges facing future cities; the fifth section, which presents a future research agenda in the social dimension; and the final considerations in the sixth section.

Smart City: beyond technology

The manner in which cities respond to contemporary challenges underpins the concept of the smart city, which “uses technology to deliver urban services more efficiently, improve people’s quality of life, and transform the relationship between local authorities, businesses, and citizens by providing a new way of living in the city” (Cunha et al., 2016, p. 28). In sustainable smart cities, physical, social, organizational, and economic infrastructures are interconnected, with an emphasis on citizen awareness, engagement, and governance (Ullah et al., 2021).

In light of the growth of the global and national urban population, cities must become smarter in the way they position their economies to maximize benefits for all residents while simultaneously protecting the environment and improving urban quality of life (UN-Habitat, 2022).

The World Cities Report 2022 indicates that global urbanization is accelerating and is projected to reach 68% of the world’s population by 2050, compared to 56% in 2021. Despite a slowdown during the pandemic, the global urban population is expected to increase by approximately 2.2 billion resident by 2050 (ibid.). In Brazil, preliminary data from the 2022 Demographic Census indicate a total population of 203,062,512 inhabitants, of whom 61.1% living in concentrated urban areas. Population growth in these areas accounted for 74.5% of the total increase in Brazil’s population between 2010 and 2022, representing an additional 9.2 million inhabitants (IBGE, 2023).

Urbanization is a transformative yet unequal process, affecting approximately 1.6 billion people living in inadequate housing conditions. This reality undermines efforts to eradicate poverty by 2030 (SDG 1) and calls for coordinated action to prevent the emergence of new urban vulnerabilities. The implementation of the New Urban Agenda, aligned with the SDGs, can promote prosperity and inclusion in cities. A projected 32% increase in extreme poverty by 2030, underscoring the importance of economic, social, and environmental resilience, as well as effective governance, in shaping the urban future. The multidimensional nature of urban poverty and inequality must remain central to interventions aimed at creating inclusive and equitable urban futures worldwide (UN-Habitat, 2022).

The majority of the Brazil’s population – approximately 85% – resides in urban areas, each with distinct characteristics. Brazilian cities are marked by historically entrenched socioeconomic and spatial inequalities, resulting in deprived neighborhoods with inadequate living conditions. All cities face inequalities in access to opportunities and services, which disproportionately affect vulnerable groups such as people with disabilities, low-income populations, LGBTQIA+ individuals, women, Black populations, older adults, youth, and children. These inequalities limit the ability of such groups to fully exercise their right to sustainable cities (Sousa Júnior et al., 2021).

The New Urban Agenda is committed to advancing sustainable development at the global scale. It also emphasizes the importance of fostering a society in which equality, cultural diversity, and cultural appreciation are promoted and respected. To achieve the SDGs established by the United Nations (UN) in the 2030 Agenda, it is not sufficient to promote a sustainable economy and responsible consumption patterns. Public development policies must be oriented toward citizens, recognizing their fundamental role as key agents of social transformation (Beck, Boff, & Cenci, 2022; UN-Habitat, 2022).

Although the implementation of smart city initiatives can generate substantial benefits and contribute to the achievement of several SDGs, it may also give rise to risks hinder progress toward all 17 goals (Galaz et al., 2021; Vinuesa et al., 2020). In particular, unequal access to technology can result in digital exclusion, thereby exacerbating social disparities and undermining the objectives of SDG 9. Moreover, the intensive collection and processing of data in smart cities may compromise individual privacy, necessitating robust data protection frameworks consistent with the principles of SDG 16.

The deployment of smart infrastructure may lead to community displacement and processes of gentrification, thereby undermining social cohesion and compromising the objectives of SDG 11. Automation can result in technological unemployment, requiring reskilling strategies and the creation of new employment opportunities in alignment with SDG 8. The selective implementation of digital technologies may also intensify social inequalities, running counter to the objectives of SDG 10.

Kim and Feng (2024) emphasize that although smart technologies are widely accepted in sustainable urbanization initiatives within SSCs, divergent interpretations can undermine the credibility of these initiatives. Critics argue that an excessive emphasis on technological innovation, arguing that approaches to smart city development fail to adequately address sustainability within the broader context of economic dynamics, social diversity, and urban spatial complexity. From a social perspective, significant progress toward SSCs requires human-centered approaches, stakeholder engagement, and inclusion, emphasizing citizen-centered development and its societal implications.

The rapid evolution of emerging technologies is profoundly reshaping people’s lives and the environment, demanding new governance approaches. Both individuals and public authorities struggle to keep pace with these transformations, resulting in a lack of effective legislation to ensure the sustainability of such technologies. Therefore, it is crucial to establish political and legislative frameworks to maximize the potential of AI for the benefit of society, environmental protection, and the achievement of the SDGs. A forward-looking regulatory vision is essential for the formulation of robust public policies (Vinuesa et al., 2020).

In Brazil, Bill n. 976/2021 establishes the National Smart Cities Policy (Política Nacional de Cidades Inteligentes – PNCI), aiming to implement smart cities based on advanced technologies and citizen participation. Currently under consideration in the Chamber of Deputies, the bill defines principles to improve quality of life and empower public administrators and citizens by promoting digital services, service sharing, public policy coordination, and data protection (Brazil, 2021). The Brazilian Charter for Smart Cities, in light of the country’s profound socioeconomic inequalities and regional disparities, also promotes equality and social inclusion by fostering the digital transformation of Brazilian cities (Fachinelli et al., 2023; Sousa Júnior et al., 2021). These initiatives provide important guidance for regulating and steering the implementation and development of smart cities in Brazil.

Saaty and De Paola (2017) highlight that although urban life is expanding, the social and cultural amenities of many large cities remain inaccessible to significant segments of their populations. They further argue that each city should function as an space of creativity, with multidimensional activities in which individuals’ talents can grow and dreams can be realized. Creativity is recognized as a key driver of the smart city; thus, people, education, learning, and knowledge occupy a central role (Nam & Pardo, 2011). However, cities are also home to large numbers of individuals who must adapt to urban life without the necessary skills for genuine integration. In contrast, crime may emerge from this conflict, alongside other associated risks (Saaty & De Paola, 2017).

Nevertheless, urban population growth can also generate significant advantages. In some cases, cities concentrate poverty; in others, they provide the most significant pathway out of poverty. While cities produce complex challenges, they also encompass potential solutions. Thus, the benefits of urbanization are potentially greater than its drawbacks, and both challenges and opportunities are key to improving urban life, long-term growth, and environmental and social sustainability (ibid.).

In this regard, Beck, Boff, and Cenci (2022) argue that the conception of smart cities must be intrinsically linked to the notion of the right to the city, as their purpose is to ensure that all residents have access to urban urban services, thereby promoting sustainable development. Furthermore, it is essential to implement public policies that promote citizens’ integration into the digital sphere, both through digital education and through efforts aimed at reducing socioeconomic inequalities.

In this sense, smart cities should be aligned with the promotion and protection of the social rights established in Article 6 of the Brazilian Constitution (Brazil, 1988). These rights includes access to high-quality essential services such as education, health care, employment, housing, transportation, leisure, and public security, ensuring equal opportunities for all residents. Therefore, it is fundamental that the technologies adopted in smart cities be implemented in ways that enhance quality of life, reduce social inequalities, and foster social inclusion and sustainable development.

The digital transformation of a city can generate positive impacts or pose significant challenges depending on its context, as local realities shape the potential use of ICTs. For this reason, it is essential to take into account the broad diversity and deep historical inequalities that characterize Brazilian territory, for example, when reflecting on and implementing digital transformation strategies (Sousa Júnior et al., 2021).

At the same time, smart cities present both opportunities and challenges for governments and citizens. Among the opportunities are improved integration and delivery of public services, increased environmental sustainability, support for entrepreneurship, enhanced governance and innovation, greater citizen engagement, and improved tourism management. Challenges include data management, governance, capacities, regulation, and financing, requiring an integrated and multisectoral approach to mitigate risks such as data breaches, privacy violations, and digital inequalities (OECD, 2019).

Based on an analysis of the Brazilian literature, Beck et al. (2020) conclude that the “social dimension” of smart cities is still at an early stage. From the current state of this literature, it was possible to understand the composition of the “social dimension” of smart cities, as well as its integration with governance and the sociotechnical chain (Figure 1).

Figure 1
– Social dimension of smart cities, governance, and the sociotechnical chain

Accordingly, Beck et al. (2020) argue that there is no consensus regarding the social impacts of smart cities. On the one hand, smart cities are associated with positive outcomes such as technological innovation, social inclusion in public services, increased civic engagement, and greater governmental transparency. On the other hand, concerns persist regarding social exclusion, including unequal access to technologies and the intensification of socio-spatial segregation, which constitute negative outcomes. Nevertheless, the authors emphasize that ICTs are fundamental to innovation in smart cities, as they strengthen socio-spatial management and governance through collaboration among society, industry, academia, and businesses, while also promoting urban sustainability by integrating the physical, social, and human dimensions of the city.

Despite inclusive discourses, inequality remains evident in a significant number of smart city initiatives, particularly in less developed countries, where residents are frequently positioned merely as consumers of technological solutions (Mendes, 2020), a topic that will be discussed in the following section.

Social risks in the Smart City

The evolution of smart city initiatives reflects a growing recognition that every city is shaped by and for its population. Accordingly, investments should be conceived and directed toward human beings, who are the primary beneficiaries of these initiatives (Rampazzo, Corrêa, & Vasconcelos, 2019). Although smart cities offer advantages and significant opportunities, they also generate unprecedented risks and challenges, among which digital and social exclusion stand out (Shayan et al., 2020; Shayan & Kim, 2023), whether due to a lack of instrumental or cognitive skills or to economic constraints.

The ICTs play a crucial role in fostering closer interaction between the state and society, with smart governance serving as a key mechanism to ensure that smart city planning remains inclusive. This dynamic contributes to the development of participatory, equitable, and intelligent citizenship, given that urban intelligence cannot be realized without governments that are adequately prepared to manage interactions between people and technologies, as well as to demonstrate a genuine commitment to human and fundamental rights (Beck, Boff, & Cenci, 2022).

However, developing smart solutions that address environmental concerns while giving limited attention to broader socioeconomic needs does not constitute the most effective pathway to advance ICT-driven development and innovation in SSCs. Instead, it is essential to adopt a realistic approach to the most pressing urban challenges – such as energy inefficiency, environmental degradation, urban segregation, social inequality, and limited access to opportunities – in order to guide the development of smart solutions (Bibri & Krogstie, 2017). Thus, the challenge facing local governments is to creating SSCs that adopt innovative and inclusive solutions aimed at improving the quality of life of all residents, while avoiding the exclusion of any social group or individual (Giela, 2022).

Risk is a relatively recent topic within the smart city discipline and is more frequently discussed in the context of countries with a larger number of existing smart cities. Although numerous studies address the technological risks of smart cities, considerably less attention has been paid to social aspects. This imbalance is partly explained by the fact that the primary driving force behind smart cities is technology promoted by large ICT corporations. Moreover, unlike technical challenges, social issues tend to emerge more gradually. Another relevant factor is that countries with a longer trajectory of smart city development, such as the United Kingdom and Italy, have devoted greater attention to social risks. Overall, social risks have not historically been perceived as a critical concern and, consequently, have been investigated less frequently than technological risks (Shayan et al., 2020).

Social risks may arise both as inherent consequences of ICT-based models and applications, and as a result of deficiencies in the planning, implementation, and execution of smart city projects and initiatives. These risks include data privacy and security concerns, digital exclusion, the exacerbation of social inequalities, discrimination and gentrification processes, lack of public participation, infrastructure failures, and increased surveillance and control (Gupta & Hall, 2021; Morozova & Yatsechko, 2022; Sengupta & Sengupta, 2022; Shayan & Kim, 2023).

On the one hand, smart cities rely on data collection and analysis to improve efficiency and quality of life. However, in the absence of robust security and privacy safeguards, there are significant risks of data breaches and misuse of citizens’ personal information. Limited access to technologies may create a digital divide, excluding certain social groups from the benefits of smart cities. The uneven implementation of technological solutions may further intensify social inequalities by privileging certain socioeconomic groups over others. In addition, gentrification can deepen discrimination by displacing historically marginalized communities in favor of more affluent residents (Angelidou, 2014; Nam & Pardo, 2011; Rampazzo, Corrêa, & Vasconcelos, 2019; Shayan & Kim, 2022). Furthermore, the integration of digital technologies into urban spaces may affect individuals unevenly based on sociodemographic factors such as age, educational level, income, and gender (Shayan & Kim, 2023).

On the other hand, smart city planning processes often fail to meaningfully engage citizens and local stakeholders (such as community associations, civil society organizations, local leaders, merchants, and small and medium-sized enterprises), which may result in solutions that do not address community needs or are perceived as imposed, thereby generating resistance or alienation. If technological infrastructures are not sufficiently robust or properly maintained, smart cities may experience disruptions in essential services, undermining citizens’ trust in these initiatives. Moreover, excessive use of technologies for monitoring purposes can raise concerns about privacy and individual freedoms, creating an atmosphere of intrusive and potentially oppressive surveillance (Aghimien et al., 2022; Gupta, Zhang, & Hall, 2021; He & Tritto, 2022; Ismagilova et al., 2022; Sengupta & Sengupta, 2022).

Shayan et al. (2020) classify smart city risks into three primary categories: organizational, social, and technological. Organizational risks encompass challenges related to governance, strategy, decision-making, coordination, and business environments. Social risks involve threats affecting individuals, societies, and communities, as well as strategies for mitigating them. Technological risks focus on cybersecurity, privacy, and technological interoperability. At the intersection of these themes, the authors identified three additional clusters of risks – digital transformation risks, sociotechnical risks, and corporate social responsibility risks – highlighting that sociotechnical risks are the most frequently overlapping category (Figure 2).

Figure 2
– Correlations among smart city risks

Not all citizens possess the necessary digital skills or awareness of the smart technologies available, due to digital illiteracy and unequal access to technological resources. This situation may result in the exclusion of vulnerable individuals who are unable to fully benefit from smart city initiatives. Sociotechnical systems, which combine human and technological elements, entail dynamic sociotechnical risks that reflect and reproduce these inequalities (Shayan et al., 2020).

Technological and organizational factors are closely intertwined in digital transformation processes, with many organizations remaining unprepared for, or insufficiently unaware of the changes required, and often lacking the capacity to invest in advanced technologies. Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), situated at the intersection of organizational and social dimensions, also entails specific risks, as smart city technologies developed by research institutions and corporations generate social responsibilities for these actors (ibid.).

Through a literature review, Shayan and Kim (2022) identify a range of social risks associated with the transition toward smart cities, highlighting ten major risks: social exclusion; gentrification; the digital divide; inequality and discrimination; the disempowerment of vulnerable individuals (dependency on others); an excessive focus on efficiency at the expense of addressing underlying social problems; technology acceptance issues; lack of commitment to lifelong learning; limited resident participation; and the social isolation of individuals with restricted access to technology.

Shayan and Kim (2023) further identified two categories of social risks in the transition to smart cities: individual-level risks and project--level risks. At the individual level, the primary risks include digital exclusion, disempowerment, social exclusion, and discrimination. At the project level, risks involve resistance to smart technologies, limited commitment to continuous learning, and low levels of participation in smart city development processes. In addition, social risks vary according to sociodemographic factors such as age, education, income, and gender. The findings indicate that social exclusion constitutes the most significant social risk, followed by discrimination, with older adults and women identified as the most vulnerable groups. Income and educational attainment, however, did not exhibit a statistically significant association with social risks.

Seidler et al. (2023) conduct a systematic literature review covering the past decade to clarify the social risks associated with smart city implementation. Their study identifies 15 social risks related to quality of life, safety, representativeness, social rights, and accessibility. The authors observed that research on smart cities tends to prioritize technical and security challenges, while the social impacts of digital transformation are frequently neglected, thereby exacerbating social exclusion in contexts marked by structural inequalities.

Therefore, to ensure that digitalization does not widen social disparities or contribute to citizen dissatisfaction and backlash against public institutions, the human dimension must not be overlooked, as not all technological trends are beneficial to social well-being or individual welfare. In the context of smart cities, public and private actions should be evaluated through the lens of their societal value, given that social costs may emerge during digitalization processes, particularly in transitional phases (OECD, 2019).

In this regard, it is essential to critically examine how smart city initiatives are conceived and communicated. Frequently, the various labels adopted by cities – such as global, sustainable, resilient, creative, or smart –function more as urban marketing and territorial branding strategies than as substantive tools for addressing structural inequalities (Hollands, 2008). Although these discourses often claim inclusive objectives, their actual capacity to reduce social inequalities remains limited and, in some cases, remains rhetorical, potentially obscuring the tensions and exclusions produced by urban and digital transformation processes themselves (Hatuka et al., 2018).

Figueiredo (2016) critically examines how different conceptualizations of “smart” cities may impact vulnerable populations in Brazil. He argues that disputes over the definition and implementation of smart cities take place within the realm of the urban imaginary, where representations and ideals of these cities are constructed. Angelidou (2014) similarly emphasizes that the assumption that the mere introduction of technology renders a city “smart,” along with the superficial use of the term, hinders a more comprehensive understanding of the concept.

Cities are not solely defined by technology and modernity; the concept of smart city can obscure critical issues and hinder progressive and inclusive urban change. To be truly smart, cities must be willing to confront complex risks, tackle inequalities, and redefine what intelligence means. This entails returning power to communities and addressing social challenges, not merely technological ones (Hollands, 2008).

Many major urban problems – such as poverty, discrimination, inequality, social polarization, crime, and neglect – as well as environmental issues like traffic congestion and recycling, have social, political, and cultural roots. Simple technological solutions are insufficient to address such complexities, thereby creating challenges for smart initiatives, whether corporate-led or otherwise (Hollands, 2015).

There is also a clear distinction between benefiting the population and genuinely including it within smart cities. In many cases, cities seek primarily to benefit residents through use of technology – such as mobile applications or public Wi-Fi networks. Genuine inclusion, however, which aims to improve the quality of life of individuals at risk of poverty and social exclusion by ensuring equitable access to opportunities and resources for participation in social, economic, and cultural spheres throughout the digital transformation process, is rarely achieved (Rampazzo, Corrêa, & Vasconcelos, 2019).

Another relevant consideration concerns the specific characteristics of each city – such as size, financial resources, and the built environment – which influence their capacity to adopt smart technologies. There is no one-size-fits-all solution for cities. Smart city typologies can help identify specific needs and foster dialogue aimed at developing shared solutions, serving as guides for urban development (OECD, 2020). Thus, the smart city landscape should be shaped by local characteristics, priorities, and needs, as well as by global market forces and available technologies (Angelidou, 2014).

The smart city concept is often grounded in the idea of a universal urban model, according to which all urban problems can be addressed through existing technologies. This approach overlooks the complexity of social processes and the territorial conflicts inherent in cities, resulting in a significant analytical fallacy (Figueiredo, 2016).

Urban heterogeneity requires adaptive solutions, as success in one context does not guarantee replicability elsewhere. The choice between top-down and bottom-up approaches to in smart city implementation determines whether benefits reach the entire population or only selected groups. Engaging diverse stakeholders – such as urban planners, engineers, sociologists, companies, and startups – is essential to prevent technological decisions from being monopolized by large corporations. A bottom-up approach can genuinely promote social inclusion by prioritizing residents’ needs (Mendes, 2020). Social inclusion is a process aimed at integrating individuals who are excluded from society for various reasons, including technological exclusion in the form of digital divides (Rampazzo, Corrêa, & Vasconcelos, 2019).

A hybrid approach that combines both models is likely the most effective alternative. As Nam and Pardo (2011) argue, successful smart cities can emerge from either top-down or bottom-up strategies, provided that all sectors of the community are actively involved. Future smart cities will not be those imposed from above, but rather those that grow organically smarter (Papa, Gargiulo, & Galderisi, 2013).

Despite claims that many urban projects address social, economic, and environmental issues, growing criticism highlights the rhetoric of the smart city – or the “entrepreneurial city” and “corporate smart city”– arguing that it masks inequality and primarily serves marketing purposes, whereby business interests, technology-driven development, and gentrification reflect an urban form largely unconcerned with class inequality (Hatuka et al., 2018; Hollands, 2008, 2015).

In other words, the utopian imagination of the smart city prioritizes urbanization as a business model rather than as a framework for social justice (Datta, 2015). Consequently, neoliberal and capitalist approaches seek to transform urban spaces into consumption-oriented environments, depriving citizens of their right to the city and to a healthy, equitable, and inclusive urban life (Beck, Boff, & Cenci, 2022).

As Paskaleva et al. (2017) add, the smart city paradigm has been criticized for favoring technological solutions and corporate interests at the expense of social inclusion and urban innovation. Despite rhetoric emphasizing “citizen--centered approaches” and “user-generated data,” stakeholder engagement and public empowerment remain insufficiently developed.

In his study of Brasília, Holston (1989) analyzes the city’s construction as an attempt to transform society, highlighting how the paradoxes of this project undermine its utopian premises and give rise to critiques of modernism. Although Brasília was initially designed to foster a society free from class divisions and social disparities, it continues to face significant challenges related to social justice decades after its founding.

A critical study of the smart city of Dholera, India, reveals a city-building process marked by contradictory demands for economic growth and social justice. Dholera exemplifies how states adopt neoliberal approaches to attract global capital and promote economic growth through new city and ecocity projects under the ideology of entrepreneurial urbanization. The rapid diffusion of smart city ideology in India illustrates how states may impose narratives of citizenship and modernity, thereby suppressing resistance and social action among marginalized groups, while framing urbanization as a “good business model” (Datta, 2015, p. 18).

Urban planning must integrate the digital dimension to ensure social cohesion. The digitalization of services can fragment society, leaving digitally excluded groups isolated. The case of Rio de Janeiro illustrates this issue, as criticism has emerged regarding the lack of consideration to social inequalities; the slogan “Smarter Favela” exemplifies the failure to address disparities, widening social disparities and spatial polarization (Angelidou, 2014). Figueiredo (2016) argues that Brazil must better understanding of its complex and unequal urban reality to achieve sustainable urbanism, particularly in its social dimension. He also emphasizes the importance of studying experiences from other cities to grasp the specificities of each social, historical, and territorial context, as technological advances risk exacerbating existing socioeconomic inequalities and generate new ones.

Digital exclusion tends to disproportionately affect women, older adults, ethnic minorities, and immigrants. Cities can mitigate these impacts through measures such as providing affordable internet access, digital skills training, and community support. An environmental divide may also arise when urban sustainability initiatives disproportionately benefit middle-class residents. Consequently, cities face a range of complex ethical, legal, and technical challenges associated with the introduction of advanced technologies – such as drones and autonomous vehicles which require careful assessment (UN-Habitat, 2022).

Despite high levels of internet connectivity in Brazil, the Pesquisa TIC Domicílios 2022 reveals significant digital exclusion. Approximately 62% of users access the internet exclusively via mobile phones, reflecting unequal access to devices. Only 39% of households have both internet access and a computer, while 42% have internet access only. Moreover, around 14% of the population – approximately 27 million Brazilians – have never used the internet. Lack of computer skills is the main reason cited, followed by lack of interest or perceived need, connection costs, and concerns about security and privacy. Digital exclusion disproportionately affects socioeconomic classes D and E, as well as part of class C, totaling approximately 36 million people (CGI.br, 2023).

In this context, the disadvantages of heavy or rigid smart city infrastructure include social disparities, digital exclusion, spatial polarization, gentrification, and concerns related to transparency and privacy. Risks also encompass unequal access to and knowledge of technology, fragmentation of housing and lifestyles, consumer segmentation and high costs, complex system integration, and the need for frequent updates (Angelidou, 2014).

Regarding ICT accessibility, a relevant example is the so-called ubiquitous city (U-city), which represents an extension of the digital city concept by emphasizing pervasive accessibility and infrastructure (Anthopoulos & Fitsilis, 2010). Exemplified by experiences in the Republic of Korea, the U-city seeks to provide ubiquitous computing across urban environments, enabling citizens to access services anytime and anywhere through any device (Lee et al., 2008).

Lightweight and flexible smart city infrastructure, centered on people, offers advantages such as the valorization of human capital, citizen empowerment, the strengthening of social capital, social sustainability, digital inclusion, and positive behavioral change. It promotes a human- -centered approach that adapts to users’ needs while respecting diversity. However, it also presents challenges, including unequal access to cyberspace, the need to ensure information integrity, and the fact that digital access does not necessarily translate into effective community participation (Angelidou, 2014).

As emphasized by Nam and Pardo (2011), social infrastructure – comprising intellectual and social capital – is an indispensable asset for smart cities, as it fundamentally relates to people and their relationships. Smart cities thus represent a hybrid combination of education and training; culture and the arts; and business and commerce, blending elements of social enterprise, cultural enterprise, and economic enterprise.

Finally, it is important to highlight the theoretical framework of the social dimension of smart cities proposed by Beck et al. (2020), in which urban governance employs mechanisms of social participation and ICTs to generate social value, thereby contributing to societal well-being through the transformation of the urban environment into a smart city (Figure 3).

Figure 3
– Framework of the social dimension of smart cities

Beck et al. (2020) highlight that social actors play a crucial role in the development of smart cities. The main social aspects identified include the strengthening of community ties, improvements in public safety, and increased urban accessibility, all of which contribute to an enhanced quality of life. The interaction among the core elements of the social dimension, governance, ICTs, and social values, underscores the efficiency of public services, sustainable urban development, innovation in public systems, infrastructure modernization, and advances in education and human development.

Finally, the digital revolution of the Internet 4.0 era should benefit all segments of society, not only privileged groups. The convergence of the physical and virtual worlds has introduced new forms of interaction, particularly in the political sphere, expanding democratic spaces. However, it is essential to ensure that vulnerable populations have access to these innovations so that public policies for technological governance can be adapted to their needs. Otherwise, there is a risk of exclusion and the emergence of technologically driven gentrification processes (Beck, Boff, & Cenci, 2022).

Global perspectives on social challenges

Smart cities operate at the intersection of social and technological dimensions, serving communities of all sizes, including smaller and regional municipalities. However, emphasis has largely been placed on technology, driven by major corporations such as IBM, Cisco, Intel, General Electric, Microsoft, Oracle, and Amazon (OECD, 2019). These corporations view smart cities as an opportunity for financial growth, fueling a market expected to reach USD 620.5 billion by 2025. This market is projected to register a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 18% over the forecast period, reaching an estimated value of USD 1,256.8 billion by 2032 (Chavan, 2025).

Globally, several initiatives seek to mitigate the risks associated with digitalization and technological innovation. Adapting innovation practices to local contexts is essential, particularly in smaller cities and in developing countries. There is a growing capacity-building agenda aimed at addressing social inequalities and exclusion resulting from technological advances. Cities can leverage digital tools in innovative ways to improve public services and local decision-making, emphasizing the importance of inclusion, collaboration, and empowerment in order to avoid one-way communication models (UN-Habitat, 2022).

The Inter-American Development Bank (Banco Interamericano de Desenvolvimento – BID) launched the Emerging and Sustainable Cities Initiative (Iniciativa Cidades Emergentes e Sustentáveis – ICES) in 2011, with a focus on supporting medium-sized cities in Latin America and the Caribbean, with populations ranging from 100,000 to 2 million inhabitants. This program aims to foster smart city projects across multiple thematic areas (Figure 4), including social inclusion, productivity, innovation, gender equality, climate change, environmental sustainability, and institutional capacity (Bouskela et al., 2016).

Figure 4
– Dimensions of smart city projects supported by the BID

The European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS) developed a framework to understand smart cities based on five components, as illustrated in Figure 5. The first component has the greatest impact on citizens’ daily lives and is therefore also associated with significant social risks.

Figure 5
– Components of a smart city and their objectives

According to Macaluso et al. (2023), the analysis examines potential risks to individuals, communities, and territories across multiple scales. The impacts of 25 use cases are mapped across six domains: economic, environmental, ethical, political/legal, social, and technological. Specific effects are observed across different demographic groups and territorial scales. The results lead to the identification of 48 risks, which can be grouped into six main macro- -challenges, as illustrated in Figure 6.

Figure 6
– Six macro-challenges identified in European smart cities

When assessing the social and indirect impacts of these risks, it is important to recognize that some have direct consequences, while others may generate less visible yet equally significant effects. For instance, cybersecurity risks may affect critical infrastructure; although their primary impact is technological, the resulting consequences can affect citizens and thus acquire social relevance. Similarly, during the transition to smart cities, social effects are often overlooked because they tend to be indirect or secondary in nature (Macaluso et al., 2023).

Although the ISO 37120 indicators have become an international benchmark for sustainable cities, they present notable limitations: they prioritize quantitative metrics, overlook cultural and social contexts, fail to address risks of social and digital exclusion, and may favor technical efficiency over inclusive governance. Experts have therefore identified the need for additional indicators tailored to smart cities. In this regard, ISO 37122, together with ISO 37120, provides a more comprehensive set of indicators for measuring progress toward a smart cities (ISO/FDIS 37122, 2019).

The ISO 37122 indicator framework encompasses 19 thematic areas: economy; education; energy; environment and climate change; finance; governance; health; housing; population and social conditions; recreation; safety; solid waste; sport and culture; telecommunications; transportation; local or urban agriculture and food security; urban planning; wastewater; and water (ibid.).

Most successful (or unsuccessful) smart city cases are observed in European, North American, and Asian cities, which display social dynamics and urban quality conditions that differ significantly from those of Brazilian cities. While in the Global North the central question is “how to achieve the same or better outcomes with fewer resources,” in the Global South, and particularly in Brazil, the question of “how to do it” remains largely unanswered (Figueiredo, 2016).

Charting the future of cities

Global indices of urban intelligence and innovation rely on a wide range of indicators, including technological infrastructure, quality of life, and citizen participation (Berrone & Ricart, 2022). In Brazil, the Connected Smart Cities Ranking has served as a national benchmark since 2015. In 2025, it was reorganized to incorporate indicators derived from ABNT ISO standards 37120, 37122, and 37123 (CSC, 2025).

City assessments are based on 75 indicators organized into 13 thematic axes: Economy and Finance; Governance; Environment and Climate Change; Solid Waste, Wastewater, and Water; Education; Housing and Urban Planning; Urban Mobility; Health, Local or Urban Agriculture, and Food Security; Telecommunications; Energy; Innovation and Entrepreneurship; Population and Social Conditions; and Public Safety (CSC, 2025).

However, it is important to question whether these rankings truly reflect the overall reality of the population in terms of quality of life and equitable access to technology. Authors such as Ringenson et al. (2017) and Fachinelli et al. (2023) warn of the risks of digital and economic exclusion in smart city initiatives, emphasizing the need to address social inclusion and socioeconomic and regional inequalities when envisioning the future of cities.

Smart city governance faces complex challenges due to its intersection with non-digital issues such as social and political justice, underscoring the importance of incorporating social factors into the assessment of these projects’ impacts (Beretta, 2018; Sengupta & Sengupta, 2022; Tan, 2022). Shayan et al. (2020) advocate a stronger focus on social risk mitigation strategies and the integration of risk management processes in smart cities. Ullah et al. (2021) similarly highlight the need for a sociotechnical approach to balance technological and social components.

Seidler et al. (2023) emphasize the importance of empirical studies on social risks in smart cities, particularly in developing countries, and suggest that public–private partnerships and responsible corporate practices may help mitigate these risks. Amid rapid technological advancement, equity and justice are often overlooked, reinforcing the need to consider the social impacts of technologies in smart cities (UN-Habitat, 2022).

Ultimately, debates on the future of cities must acknowledge that the Fourth Industrial Revolution has brought significant technological benefits, but also substantial challenges, particularly for marginalized groups. To achieve genuine urban intelligence, smart cities must balance technological innovation with urban challenges and social needs by adopting a human-centered approach. Nevertheless, there remains a clear need for more comprehensive research in this field (OECD, 2020; Rampazzo, Corrêa, & Vasconcelos, 2019).

Final considerations

The objective of this article was to review the literature in order to deepen the debate on the social risks of smart cities, with the aim of fostering discussions on social justice, inequalities, and forms of exclusion in contemporary cities. It is emphasized that emerging technologies in smart cities have the potential both to expand opportunities and to intensify social disparities. In addition, the analysis sought to identify knowledge gaps and areas requiring further research.

Technologies have significant potential to benefit populations; however, their integration into urban environments can also shape socioeconomic inequalities. Depending on the approach adopted, the benefits of smart city initiatives may be distributed equitably or may favor only specific groups. Consequently, poorly planned transitions toward smart cities that disregard social contexts can exacerbate social and digital inequalities and deepen processes of exclusion.

Careful planning and rigorous implementation of smart city projects are therefore essential, taking into account not only technological aspects but also their social impacts. Such an approach is fundamental to promoting inclusive smart cities that foster meaningful citizen participation and engagement. Moreover, social risks are an inherent reality in smart cities, requiring context--sensitive and adaptive management strategies, particularly in developing countries where economic and social vulnerabilities are more pronounced.

Brazil has implemented initiatives aimed at smart city development; however, there remains a need for stronger integration between the public and private sectors, as well as significant investments in technological infrastructure, governance, and technical capacity-building. The adoption of public policies focused on digital inclusion, sustainability, and citizen participation is crucial to addressing urban challenges and fostering more just and efficient cities.

In conclusion, the framework proposed by Beck et al. (2020) (Figure 3) presents an “ideal” socially oriented smart city, integrating participatory governance, ICTs, and social values to mitigate social risks such as exclusion and segregation. The participation of social actors connects innovation, equity, and sustainability, aligns with the SDGs, and guides urban modernization toward social justice, inclusion, active citizenship, rather than merely technical efficiency.

Finally, it is essential to continuously assess social risks and adopt proactive, locally grounded measures through the collaboration and active participation of all social actors involved in the smart city development process. Such an approach can ensure a more equitable distribution of the benefits of advanced technologies, contributing to the achievement of the SDGs and to the overall improvement of citizens’ quality of life.

References

• AGHIMIEN, D. O.; AIGBAVBOA, C.; EDWARDS, D. J.; MAHAMADU, A. M.; OLOMOLAIYE, P.; NASH, H.; ONYIA, M. (2022). A fuzzy synthetic evaluation of the challenges of smart city development in developing countries. Smart and Sustainable Built Environment, v. 11, n. 3, pp. 405-421.
• ANGELIDOU, M. (2014). Smart city policies: a spatial approach. Cities, v. 41, pp. S3-S11.
• ANTHOPOULOS, L.; FITSILIS, P. (2010). From digital to ubiquitous cities: Defining a common architecture for urban development. In: INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON INTELLIGENT ENVIRONMENTS, 6. Anais ... IEEE.
• BECK, C. A. M. R.; BOFF, M. M.; CENCI, D. R. (2022). Cidades inteligentes: desigualdades, gentrificação e os desafios da implementação dos ODS. Revista de Direito Econômico e Socioambiental, v. 13, n. 3, pp. 565-593.
• BECK, D. F.; NETO, W. L. B. D. S.; BEZERRA, A. J. R.; ARAÚJO, V. M.; TÁVORA, C. G. R. (2020). Um framework teórico sobre a dimensão social da inteligência das Cidades Inteligentes. Revista de Arquitetura IMED, v. 9, n. 2, pp. 1-17.
• BERETTA, I. (2018). The social effects of eco-innovations in Italian smart cities. Cities, v. 72, pp. 115-121.
• BERRONE, P.; RICART, J. E. (2022). IESE Cities in Motion Index 2022. IESE Business School University of Navarra. Disponível em: https://media.iese.edu/research/pdfs/ST-0633-E.pdf Acesso em: 4 set 2023.
  » https://media.iese.edu/research/pdfs/ST-0633-E.pdf
• BIBRI, S. E.; KROGSTIE, J. (2017). On the social shaping dimensions of smart sustainable cities: a study in science, technology, and society. Sustainable Cities and Society, v. 29, pp. 219-246.
• BOUSKELA, M.; CASSEB, M.; BASSI, S.; LUCA, C. D.; FACCHINA, M. (2016). The road toward Smart Cities: migrating from traditional city management to the Smart City. Inter-American Development Bank. Disponível em: https://publications.iadb.org/en/road-toward-smart-cities-migrating-traditional-city-management-smart-city Acesso em: 5 jul 2023.
  » https://publications.iadb.org/en/road-toward-smart-cities-migrating-traditional-city-management-smart-city
• BRASIL (1988). Constituição da República Federativa do Brasil de 1988 Brasília, Presidência da República, [2015]. Disponível em: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm Acesso em: 7 mar 2024.
  » https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/constituicao.htm
• BRASIL (2021). Projeto de Lei n. 976. Disponível em: https://www.camara.leg.br/proposicoesWeb/prop_mostrarintegra?codteor=1977843 Acesso em: 9 mar 2024.
  » https://www.camara.leg.br/proposicoesWeb/prop_mostrarintegra?codteor=1977843
• CGI.br (2023). Pesquisa sobre o uso das Tecnologias de Informação e Comunicação nos domicílios brasileiros - TIC Domicílios 2022. Núcleo de Informação e Coordenação do Ponto BR. Disponível em: https://cetic.br/publicacao/pesquisa-sobre-o-uso-das-tecnologias-de-informacao-e-comunicacao-nos-domicilios-brasileiros-tic-domicilios-2022 Acesso em: 16 set 2023.
  » https://cetic.br/publicacao/pesquisa-sobre-o-uso-das-tecnologias-de-informacao-e-comunicacao-nos-domicilios-brasileiros-tic-domicilios-2022
• CHAVAN, S. (2025). Smart Cities Market Trends & Opportunities, 2032. Persistence Market Research Disponível em: <https://www.persistencemarketresearch.com/market-research/smart-cities-market.asp> Acesso em: 27 jan 2026.
  » https://www.persistencemarketresearch.com/market-research/smart-cities-market.asp>
• CSC - Connected Smart Cities (2025). Ranking Connected Smart Cities. Urban Systems.
• CUNHA, M. A.; PRZEYBILOVICZ, E.; MACAYA, J. F. M.; SANTOS, F. B. P. (2016). Smart cities [recurso eletrônico]: transformação digital de cidades. São Paulo, Programa Gestão Pública e Cidadania - PGPC. Disponível em: http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br:80/dspace/handle/10438/18386 Acesso em: 21 ago 2023.
  » http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br:80/dspace/handle/10438/18386
• DATTA, A. (2015). New urban utopias of postcolonial India: 'Entrepreneurial urbanization' in Dholera smart city, Gujarat. Dialogues in Human Geography, v. 5, n. 1, pp. 3-22.
• FACHINELLI, A. C.; YIGITCANLAR, T.; SABATINI-MARQUES, J.; CORTESE, T. T. P.; SOTTO, D.; LIBARDI, B. (2023). Urban smartness and city performance: identifying brazilian smart cities through a novel approach. Sustainability, v. 15, n. 13, pp. 10323.
• FIGUEIREDO, G. M. P. (2016). Cidades inteligentes no contexto brasileiro: A importância de uma reflexão crítica. In: IV ENANPARQ - ENCONTRO DA ASSOCIAÇÃO NACIONAL DE PESQUISA E PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO EM ARQUITETURA E URBANISMO, Porto Alegre. Disponível em: https://www.anparq.org.br/dvd-enanparq-4/SESSAO%2044/S44-04-FIGUEIREDO,%20G.pdf Acesso em: 4 jul 2023.
  » https://www.anparq.org.br/dvd-enanparq-4/SESSAO%2044/S44-04-FIGUEIREDO,%20G.pdf
• GALAZ, V.; CENTENO, M. A.; CALLAHAN, P. W.; CAUSEVIC, A.; PATTERSON, T.; BRASS, I.; BAUM, S.; FARBER, D.; FISCHER, J.; GARCIA, D.; MCPHEARSON, T.; JIMENEZ, D.; KING, B.; LARCEY, P.; LEVY, K. (2021). Artificial intelligence, systemic risks, and sustainability. Technology in Society, v. 67, pp. 101741.
• GIELA, M. (2022). Cognitive technologies in smart city services as the future in strategic management of cities. Management Systems in Production Engineering, v. 30, n. 3, pp. 276-281.
• GUPTA, K.; HALL, R. P. (2021). Exploring smart city project implementation risks in the cities of Kakinada and Kanpur. Journal of Urban Technology, v. 28, n. 1-2, pp. 155-173.
• GUPTA, K.; ZHANG, W.; HALL, R. P. (2021). Risk priorities and their co-occurrences in smart city project implementation: evidence from India's Smart Cities Mission (SCM). Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, v. 48, n. 4, pp. 880-894.
• HATUKA, T.; ROSEN-ZVI, I.; BIRNHACK, M.; TOCH, E.; ZUR, H. (2018). The political premises of contemporary urban concepts: the global city, the sustainable city, the resilient city, the creative city, and the smart city. Planning Theory & Practice, v. 19, n. 2, pp. 160-179.
• HE, Y.; TRITTO, A. (2022). Urban utopia or pipe dream? Examining Chinese-invested smart city development in Southeast Asia. Third World Quarterly, v. 43, n. 9, pp. 2244-2268.
• HOLLANDS, R. G. (2008). Will the Real smart city please stand up? In: THE ROUTLEDGE COMPANION TO SMART CITIES. Anais … v.12, pp. 303-320.
• HOLLANDS, R. G. (2015). Critical interventions into the corporate smart city. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, v. 8, n. 1, pp. 61-77.
• HOLSTON, J. (1989). The modernist city: an anthropological critique of Brasilia. University of Chicago Press.
• IBGE (2023). Censo Demográfico 2022: População e domicílios - Primeiros resultados. Disponível em: https://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/visualizacao/livros/liv102011.pdf Acesso em: 21 ago 2023.
  » https://biblioteca.ibge.gov.br/visualizacao/livros/liv102011.pdf
• ISMAGILOVA, E.; HUGHES, L.; RANA, N. P.; DWIVEDI, Y. K. (2022). Security, privacy and risks within smart cities: literature review and development of a smart city interaction framework. Information Systems Frontiers, v. 24, n. 2, pp. 393-414.
• ISO/FDIS 37122. (2019). Sustainable cities and communities: indicators for smart cities. Disponível em: https://transparencia.caubr.gov.br/arquivos/ISO_FDIS_37122.pdf Acesso em: 4 set 2023.
  » https://transparencia.caubr.gov.br/arquivos/ISO_FDIS_37122.pdf
• KIM, J. S.; FENG, Y. (2024). Understanding complex viewpoints in smart sustainable cities: The experience of Suzhou, China. Cities, v. 147, p. 104832.
• KOMNINOS, N. (2018). "Smart Cities". In: WARF, B. (ed.). The SAGE Encyclopedia of the Internet Sage Publications, pp. 783-789.
• LEE, S. H.; HAN, J. H.; LEEM, Y. T.; YIGITCANLAR, T. (2008). "Towards ubiquitous city: Concept, planning, and experiences in the Republic of Korea". In: YIGITCANLAR, T.; VELIBEYOGLU, K.; BAUM, S. (ed.). Knowledge-based urban development: Planning and applications in the information era. Igi Global, pp. 148-170.
• MACALUSO, A.; FLICKENSCHILD, M.; GASPAROTTI, A.; WEDMAN, H.; PANAGIOTIDOU, Z.; LÄMMEL, P.; TCHOLTCHEV, N. V.; FERNANDEZ, T.; BAUDOUIN, P.; LE GARS, G. (2023). Social approach to the transition to smart cities. European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS). Disponível em: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2023/737128/EPRS_STU (2023)737128_EN.pdf Acesso em: 4 ago 2023.
  » https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2023/737128/EPRS_STU (2023)737128_EN.pdf
• MENDES, T. C. M. (2020). Smart cities: solução para as cidades ou aprofundamento das desigualdades sociais? Observatório das Metrópoles - INCT.
• MOROZOVA, I. A.; YATSECHKO, S. S. (2022). The risks of smart cities and the perspectives of their management based on corporate social responsibility in the interests of sustainable development. Risks, v. 10, n. 2, p. 34.
• NAM, T.; PARDO, T. A. (2011). Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people, and institutions. In: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 12TH ANNUAL INTERNATIONAL DIGITAL GOVERNMENT RESEARCH CONFERENCE: Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times. Anais ... Nova York, Association for Computing Machinery, pp. 282-291.
• OECD - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2019). Enhancing the contribution of digitalisation to the smart cities of the future Disponível em: https://www.oecd.org/cfe/regionaldevelopment/Smart-Cities-FINAL.pdf Acesso em: 6 jul 2023.
  » https://www.oecd.org/cfe/regionaldevelopment/Smart-Cities-FINAL.pdf
• OECD - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2020). Smart cities and inclusive growth. Building on the outcomes of the 1st OECD Roundtable on Smart Cities and inclusive growth. Paris, França. Disponível em: https://www.oecd.org/cfe/cities/OECD_Policy_Paper_Smart_Cities_and_Inclusive_Growth.pdf Acesso em: 27 jun 2023.
  » https://www.oecd.org/cfe/cities/OECD_Policy_Paper_Smart_Cities_and_Inclusive_Growth.pdf
• PAPA, R.; GARGIULO, C.; GALDERISI, A. (2013). Towards an urban planners' perspective on Smart City. TeMA Journal of Land Use, Mobility and Environment, v. 6, n. 1, pp. 5-7.
• PASKALEVA, K.; EVANS, J.; MARTIN, C.; LINJORDET, T.; YANG, D.; KARVONEN, A. (2017). Data Governance in the Sustainable Smart City. Informatics, v. 4, n. 4, pp. 41.
• RAMPAZZO, R. F. P.; CORRÊA, G. A.; VASCONCELOS, F. N. (2019). Novas tecnologias e cidades inteligentes: Desafios para integração social. Revista Nacional de Gerenciamento de Cidades, v. 7, n. 51, pp. 28-42.
• RINGENSON, T.; ERIKSSON, E.; BÖRJESSON RIVERA, M.; WANGEL, J. (2017). The Limits of the Smart Sustainable City. In: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2017 WORKSHOP ON COMPUTING WITHIN LIMITS. Anais ... pp. 3-9.
• SAATY, T. L.; DE PAOLA, P. (2017). Rethinking design and urban planning for the cities of the future. Buildings, v. 7, n. 3, pp. 76-98.
• SEIDLER, E. P.; SILVA, L. D.; BICHUETI, R. S.; OLIVEIRA, M. O. R. D.; ABBADE, E. B. (2023). Inteligência para todos? Os riscos sociais no contexto das cidades inteligentes. Revista Baru - Revista Brasileira de Assuntos Regionais e Urbanos, v. 9, pp. 1-22.
• SENGUPTA, U.; SENGUPTA, U. (2022). Why government supported smart city initiatives fail: examining community risk and benefit agreements as a missing link to accountability for equity-seeking groups. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, v. 4, pp. 960400.
• SHAYAN, S.; KIM, K. P. (2022). "A conceptual framework to manage social risks for smart city development programs". In: RODRIGUES, H., FUKUDA, T.; BIBRI, S. E. (org.). Resilient and Responsible Smart Cities
• SHAYAN, S.; KIM, K. P. (2023). Understanding correlations between social risks and sociodemographic factors in smart city development. Sustainable Cities and Society, v. 89, pp. 104320.
• SHAYAN, S.; KIM, K. P.; MA, T.; NGUYEN, T. H. D. (2020). The first two decades of smart city research from a risk perspective. Sustainability, v. 12, n. 21, pp. 9280.
• SOUSA JÚNIOR, A. M.; PRZEYBILOVICZ, E.; LACERDA, H. C.; COSTA, L. C. (2021). Carta brasileira para cidades inteligentes: versão resumida. São Paulo, Editora Livraria da Física. Disponível em: https://www.capacidades.gov.br/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Carta-Brasileira-para-Cidades-Inteligentes-versao-resumida.pdf Acesso em: 5 jul 2023.
  » https://www.capacidades.gov.br/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/Carta-Brasileira-para-Cidades-Inteligentes-versao-resumida.pdf
• TAN, G. K. S. (2022). Citizens go digital: a discursive examination of digital payments in Singapore's Smart Nation project. Urban Studies, v. 59, n. 12, pp. 2582-2598.
• ULLAH, F.; QAYYUM, S.; THAHEEM, M. J.; AL-TURJMAN, F.; SEPASGOZAR, S. M. E. (2021). Risk management in sustainable smart cities governance: A TOE framework. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, v. 167, pp. 120743.
• UN-HABITAT (2022). World Cities Report 2022: envisaging the future of cities. Disponível em: https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2022/06/wcr_2022.pdf Acesso em: 7 ago 2023.
  » https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2022/06/wcr_2022.pdf
• VINUESA, R.; AZIZPOUR, H.; LEITE, I.; BALAAM, M.; DIGNUM, V.; DOMISCH, S.; FELLÄNDER, A.; LANGHANS, S. D.; TEGMARK, M.; FUSO NERINI, F. (2020). The role of artificial intelligence in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. Nature Communications, v. 11, n. 233, pp. 1-10.

• Data availability statement:
  All data supporting the findings of this study are included in the article itself.

Edited by

• Editors:
  Lucia Bógus
  Luiz César de Queiroz Ribeiro

• Organizers of this issue:
  Ana Marcela Ardila Pinto
  Carlos Fernando Ferreira Lobo
  Natália Villamizar Duarte

Data availability

All data supporting the findings of this study are included in the article itself.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  22 June 2026
• Date of issue
  May-Aug 2026

History

• Received
  22 May 2024
• Accepted
  10 Jan 2025