Samad Rasoulzadeh Aghdam1,2
Behnam Ghasemzadeh
Mazdak Irani
Aapo Huovila- 1Azarbaijan Shahid Madani University, Tabriz, Iran
- 2Institute for Psycho-social Health Research, Azarbaijan Shahid Madani University, Tabriz, Iran
- 3Department of Urban Planning, Ahvaz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Ahvaz, Iran
- 4Turbulent Magic Limited, Christchurch, New Zealand
- 5School of Engineering, Design and Built Environment, Western Sydney University, Penrith, NSW, Australia
- 6VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd., Espoo, Finland
Social aspects constitute both concerns and opportunities in smart city development, as evidenced by a rapidly increasing body of research. This article presents the first-ever review of all the existing research on social focus in smart cities, delineating the distribution of topics, knowledge bases, and research frontiers that constitute the existing body of knowledge. A bibliometric review was performed to pinpoint publication trends, influential authors, their institutions, and prevalent subject areas within the literature since 2000. Using the Web of Science database, an amalgamation of major indexes (SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, AHCI, ESCI) were applied to consider the research pattern and citation impact in different disciplines. 1,030 selected articles were subjected to bibliometric mapping using VOSviewer. The results show an almost exponential growth in the number of publications from 2015 onwards. Four interconnected thematic clusters cropped up: (1) participatory governance, (2) data privacy and security, (3) artificial intelligence and social media, and (4) ethics and sustainable development. A deeper analysis of key terms used in recent research revealed the following hot topics: (1) governance and citizen participation, (2) artificial intelligence technologies such as machine learning, (3) blockchain, and (4) Internet of Things. Co-authorship and geographical analyses underpin a solid international collaboration for leading institutions. The results underscore the rising significance of social smart city research by emphasizing the interconnectedness of governance, technology, citizen engagement, and ethics for a comprehensive approach to smart city initiatives. Furthermore, they recommend integrating social equity into these frameworks and enhancing geographic studies through greater international collaboration.
1 Introduction
The unprecedented urbanization in the 21st century has necessitated a critical reassessment of how cities are designed, managed, and experienced by their increasingly diverse populations. The data from 2020 reveals that urban population exceeds 4.4 billion, representing over 56% of the global population. Projections indicate that this percentage could rise to 68% by 2050 (United Nations, 2019), highlighting a dramatic shift towards urban living. This rapid increase in urban dwellers intensifies the pressures on existing infrastructure, challenging cities to accommodate growing transportation, housing, energy, and public service needs. Moreover, the surge in urban populations exacerbates critical issues concerning sustainability, governance, and social equity (Jiboye, 2011; Rice and Hancock, 2016). These challenges require urgent attention, as the strain on resources often leads to environmental degradation, decreased quality of life, and widening disparities among urban residents.
The “smart city” concept is a pivotal framework for rethinking urban life in response to these complex challenges. Smart cities leverage advanced information and communication technologies (ICT) and sophisticated data analytics to enhance urban living quality (Caragliu et al., 2011). These technologies enable more efficient management of city services (Marsal-Llacuna et al., 2015), improve connectivity, and provide real-time data, which can inform better decision-making processes (Albino et al., 2015). For instance, smart transportation systems can alleviate traffic congestion, while energy management solutions can optimize resource consumption, contributing to environmental sustainability and economic efficiency (Airaksinen et al., 2016).
Implementing smart technologies in urban settings signifies a complex evolution beyond simply upgrading physical infrastructure; it marks a fundamental shift in social interactions, participatory processes, and governance structures that form the basis of urban life (Caputo et al., 2023; Kitchin, 2014). As cities increasingly adopt these advanced technologies, it is crucial to intentionally embed social perspectives into the planning and execution of smart city initiatives (Carvalho, 2015). Neglecting this aspect can lead to the unintended consequence of turning technological advancements into tools that reinforce exclusion and marginalization instead of fostering genuine empowerment for all community members (Söderström, 2014).
Previous smart city research emphasizes social aspects, including opportunities related to governance, citizen engagement, education, and innovation, as evidenced by theory (Ahvenniemi et al., 2017) and practice (Ahvenniemi and Huovila, 2021). Recently, it was also suggested that social smart city research primarily relates to social media, social networks, social innovation, and social inclusion (Ebrahiem et al., 2024). More importantly, related research is dominated by studies addressing various risks, including the digital divide (Shayan et al., 2020), lack of inclusiveness (Makkonen and Inkinen, 2024), public acceptance (Mutambik, 2023), privacy concerns (Xia et al., 2023), cybersecurity threats (Kitchin and Dodge, 2019), and technocratic governance (Viitanen and Kingston, 2014) with risks of vendor lock-in (Komninos et al., 2013). The risk of the technocratic, top-down corporate model is that the needs of citizens and local communities are neglected (Kummitha and Crutzen, 2017; Townsend, 2013). Therefore, human needs must guide technology deployment so that technology does not become more important than related urban development needs (Huovila et al., 2019). Despite the wide variety of studies, the present research identifies a gap in research on the social aspects of smart cities (Colding et al., 2024), which this study aims to address.
Consequently, while the allure of advanced technology continues to dominate public discourse and policy agendas, it is essential to acknowledge that the quintessence of truly successful smart cities entails a steadfast commitment to prioritizing the social dimensions of urban existence. This commitment encompasses a concerted effort to enhance inclusivity (Colding et al., 2024; Tekin and Dikmen, 2024), facilitate meaningful social participation (Levenda et al., 2020), and promote social equity (Buttazzoni et al., 2020). By doing so, smart city initiatives can avoid deepening existing socio-economic divides and work to bridge these gaps, fostering a more just and equitable urban environment for all inhabitants (Graham and Marvin, 2002). In this context, it becomes evident that the successful realization of smart cities requires an integrative approach that harmonizes technology with human experience and social dynamics, ultimately ensuring that technological progress uplifts and empowers communities rather than perpetuates disparities.
Such an approach recognizes that successful urban environments rely on cooperation between stakeholders—including government entities, the private sector, local communities, and academia—to realize the shared vision of equitable and sustainable urban spaces (Anthony, 2024; Rani et al., 2021). The smart city paradigm aims to create urban areas that are efficient and responsive and aligned with sustainability principles (Bibri, 2021; Yigitcanlar and Kamruzzaman, 2018) and social equity (Lee et al., 2023), ensuring a better quality of life for present and future inhabitants.
The imperative for comprehensively addressing the social dimensions inherent in the development of smart cities has emerged as a pressing concern for policymakers, urban planners, and community leaders alike, as articulated in Castelnovo et al. (2016). In this context, research emphasizing social perspectives illuminates the potential ramifications of emergent technologies on society’s most vulnerable populations and advocates for an inclusive and participatory framework in urban development initiatives. This socially focused research can effectively foster a more equitable urban landscape by ensuring that no demographic is marginalized in the evolution of smart cities (Hunter et al., 2021). Moreover, a critical examination of urban experiences alongside the technological impacts on prevailing social structures underpins the interdisciplinary research that draws insights from social sciences, geography, and environmental studies, thereby enhancing our comprehension of the intricate dynamics among technology, society, and urban space as highlighted in Kandt and Batty (2021) and Sharifi et al. (2021).
Over the past 25 years, many studies have delved into different social facets of smart cities, scrutinizing how technological advancements influence urban social practices and governance frameworks, with significant contributions documented in Bibri and Krogstie (2020). Despite these significant strides in understanding the social implications of smart city development, a discernible gap persists in the form of a systematic review and comprehensive synthesis of the extant literature. The current scholarly discourse appears fragmented (Mora et al., 2017), with research outputs disseminated across diverse domains, such as urban studies, sociology, information systems, and public administration (Bibri, 2018). This fragmentation not only complicates the ability of stakeholders to navigate the expansive intellectual territory but also underscores the necessity of identifying which theories, methodologies, and empirical findings have exerted the most profound influence, thereby informing future research trajectories in this evolving field (Glanzel, 2003).
The primary objective of this study was to comprehensively delineate the existing social research on smart cities while simultaneously identifying the critical factors, including the distribution of topics, knowledge bases, and the research frontiers in the field that constitute the existing body of knowledge as documented in Zhao et al. (2019). To achieve this aim, a bibliometric analysis was conducted, addressing several pivotal research questions essential for understanding the landscape of this evolving field. Specifically, the analysis investigated the trends in publication activity related to social focus in smart city research since 2000, thereby providing insights into the growth and development of this area of inquiry. Furthermore, this study identified the key authors and institutions that have significantly contributed to this body of literature, highlighting the collaborative networks and intellectual leadership that shape the discourse. In addition, the research explored the prevalent subject areas within the literature. It examined how these themes have evolved over time, offering a nuanced understanding of the shifting focus within the field. Finally, by identifying existing gaps in the current literature, this analysis proposed directions for future research, thereby contributing to advancing knowledge and formulating effective strategies for implementing socially-oriented smart city initiatives.
2 Materials and methods
This study presents a bibliometric review of smart city research from a social perspective, addressing its evolution, thematic focuses, dissemination patterns, significant works, authors, and relevant journals (Rejeb et al., 2022). A bibliometric review is a subset of systematic reviews (Hallinger and Kovačević, 2022). It is a quantitative method that uses statistical and mathematical tools to analyze bibliographic data from a large set of documents (Marvi and Foroudi, 2023; Mulay et al., 2020) to identify patterns, trends, and impact of major work within a certain field (Passas, 2024). It does not focus on the detailed examination of individual studies or the synthesis of research findings but rather on identifying patterns and trends in literature (Hallinger and Kovačević, 2022). This methodology shows the state of the art of the literature by using quantitative methods for exploring topics in the literature as a starting point for understanding the literature in depth and in more detail (Marvi and Foroudi, 2023). Thus, this study aimed to identify trends and patterns in social smart city research, relationships among research constituents (authors, institutions, major works, thematic topics), and recommendations for future research, not to analyze individual studies.
We chose the Web of Science database for bibliometric analysis due to its reputation for quality indexing of peer-reviewed research, comprehensive bibliometric information that enhances analysis accuracy with tools like VOSviewer (RRID:SCR_023516), and the substantial number of available publications on smart cities sufficient to achieve our research objectives (Sharifi et al., 2021). For this bibliometric analysis, we utilized four key indexes—SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI, and ESCI—to comprehensively examine research trends and citation impacts across a variety of scientific disciplines, including social science, arts, and humanities (Rejeb et al., 2022).
Inclusion and exclusion criteria were established to focus more on the subject and limit the data. A preliminary literature review was performed to carefully select the most relevant search terms for literature on social smart city research. The first criterion was the simultaneous presence of keywords along with the keyword “smart city,” which was only searched in the article titles using the Boolean operators “AND” and “OR.” For example, the command AND socia* (Title) “smart cit*” (Title) OR communit* (Title) indicates that both keywords “smart city” and “social” or “community” must be present in the article title to be selected. The asterisk “*” at the end of keywords was used to ensure that all variations of the keywords could be included (Romanelli et al., 2021). For instance, instead of the term “smart city,” the term “smart cit*” was used also to capture the concept of “smart cities.” The presence of the search terms in the article title was considered necessary to exclude articles that would be out of scope. Other criteria for selecting articles included the year of publication, language, and source type, meaning only articles published after 2000, published in English, and published as review and research articles were selected (Agarwal et al., 2016). Based on these criteria, sources published before 2000, those published in a language other than English, or those presented as books or reports were excluded. The literature search was performed on July 22, 2024. Ultimately, 1,030 articles were selected for analysis. The PRISMA flow diagram is included in Supplementary Figure S1.
After preparing the dataset, it was analyzed using VOSviewer, a software tool for constructing and visualizing bibliometric networks. This analysis aids in identifying the sections with the highest citations and can serve as a roadmap for future research (Pérez et al., 2020). Furthermore, changes in the number of publications over time indicate shifts in topics and new social smart city research issues, including subjects such as digital governance and the impact of big data on urban policy (Allam et al., 2022). The study also examined authorship patterns to determine which authors and institutions are most active in this area (Zhao et al., 2019). By mapping co-authorship networks, researchers can gain insights into the collaborative patterns within specific fields and the overall structure of academic relationships that drive knowledge development in areas such as smart cities (Bindu et al., 2019). This analysis, therefore, serves as a valuable tool for identifying key contributors, understanding collaborative dynamics, and assessing the growth and influence of research communities over time.
Analyzing citation relationships among leading publications provides a better understanding of the intellectual foundation of smart city research from a social perspective. It demonstrates which theories and methods have influenced this field (Mora et al., 2017). This citation network offers a history of intellectual growth and guides future researchers (Rossetto et al., 2018). Finally, we identified prominent journals active in this area to assist researchers in making a more significant impact on discussions on the social implications of smart urbanism (Bibri, 2020).
3 Bibliometric analysis of social smart city research
3.1 Evolution of social smart city research
Preliminary observations of publication trends reveal a notable increase in research output, particularly after 2015 (Figure 1). This aligns with the growing global discourse surrounding smart city initiatives and the enhanced funding from governmental and international organizations focused on urban innovation (Joss et al., 2019; Meijer and Bolívar, 2016).
Figure 1. The evolution of social focus in smart city research.
In Europe, the smart city concept gained high importance in the policy context in 2012 when the EU launched a research and innovation funding program for smart cities and communities (European Commission, 2012). Since then, abundant funding has been awarded to European smart city research (Vanolo, 2014), which explains the increase in the number of related publications (Huovila, 2024). For example, the Smart City Lighthouse projects have demonstrated close-to-market smart city solutions in the real city environment of 48 frontrunner cities, received €420 million in co-funding since 2015 (European Commission, n.d.), and allegedly leveraged more than €1 billion associated urban investments (European Union, 2024). 2015 is also a significant milestone in relevant global policies, as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals were launched in 2015 (UNSDG, 2015) and the New Urban Agenda in 2016 (United Nations, 2017).
A year-by-year analysis of publication volumes (Figure 1) shows that social research on smart cities has gained significant momentum, reflecting both heightened academic interest and practical relevance. Overall, the trend in article publication has been upward, although there have been periods of slight slowdown before renewed growth. For instance, between 2016 and 2018, the increase in publication volume was slower; however, this trend reversed in 2019, when 111 articles were published, marking a nearly 50 percent increase compared to the previous year. From 2016 to 2024, an average of 108 articles has been published annually. This growth in articles addressing the social dimensions of smart cities suggests that, over time, the challenges and social issues inherent in urban environments have become increasingly evident, prompting greater interdisciplinary attention to the field (Lytras and Visvizi, 2018; Zheng et al., 2020). Overall, the timeline of research output reflects a dynamic response to evolving urban challenges and the pressing need for innovative solutions within the context of smart city development.
3.2 Thematic focuses of social smart city research
3.2.1 Main themes
Identifying emerging themes was a central objective of the present study. Therefore, we analyzed keywords from authors that appeared at least ten times in the examined texts. The results of this analysis are illustrated in Figure 2, revealing the discovered keywords organized into four distinct clusters.
Figure 2. Emerging topics on social smart cities.
The first cluster, marked in red, primarily focuses on the characteristics of “governance and management” in smart cities. Key concepts such as governance, management, sustainability, urban planning, and innovation are prevalent, reflecting smart city management practices. This cluster also highlights the theme of citizen participation, which exhibits 12 connections with other concepts, underscoring the significant role that citizen engagement plays in the urban governance system of smart cities. Furthermore, the theme of quality of life is also linked with 12 connections to other concepts, suggesting a close relationship between quality of life, governance, and citizen participation. This implies that effective management and governance strategies in smart cities must prioritize citizen involvement and enhance residents’ overall quality of life. Some examples of papers on this topic include studies on open data city dashboards that build transparency of local governance and decision-making and studies on tools engaging citizens in city planning, decision-making, and voting on new projects.
The second cluster, marked in green, centers around the interconnected themes of “security and communication technology.” The security theme encompasses critical concepts such as privacy, security, and authentication, while the communication technology theme includes concepts like the Internet of Things (IoT) and blockchain. The connection between these two themes indicates that attention to both IoT and blockchain technologies is essential for maintaining security and confidentiality in smart cities. This highlights the necessity for robust security measures in deploying smart technologies, ensuring that data privacy and protection are prioritized as cities become increasingly digitized.
The third cluster, marked in blue, presents concepts related to “information management,” emphasizing the crucial role of data management in smart city governance systems. The link between information management and governance suggests that effective governance relies heavily on efficiently collecting, analyzing, and utilizing data. This underscores the importance of establishing comprehensive data management frameworks that can support informed decision-making and enhance the operational efficiency of smart city initiatives.
Finally, the fourth cluster, marked in yellow, includes two concepts: ethics and sustainable development. Although this cluster is smaller, its concepts are interconnected with those in the other clusters, indicating that ethics and sustainable development can connect the other themes. This suggests that ethical considerations and a focus on sustainability are integral to the successful implementation of smart city initiatives, reinforcing the idea that technological advancements should align with ethical standards and contribute to sustainable urban development.
Overall, the analysis of these clusters highlights the emerging themes in smart city literature and underscores the complex interrelationships among governance, technology, citizen engagement, and ethical considerations. The findings from Zheng et al. (2020) in their scientometric review of smart city literature from 1990 to 2019 corroborate that these themes are critical for understanding the evolution and future directions of smart city research and implementation.
3.2.2 Emerging hot topics
Additionally, we wanted to identify topics that are becoming increasingly important in current social research on smart cities. Therefore, we examined keywords used in publications over the past 5 years. Table 1 shows the top 10 most common keywords each year, excluding terms such as “smart city,” country names, and methods. To compare key themes, we grouped different forms of the same word, synonyms, and similar words together.
Table 1. Emerging hot topics.
The analysis presented in Table 1 suggests that the hot topics in social research on smart cities include governance and citizen participation, privacy and security, AI technologies such as machine learning, blockchain, and the Internet of Things. This is logical as the increasing deployment of smart sensing technologies and AI applications raises substantial concerns about privacy, security, and individual freedoms.
3.3 Research collaboration
One of the analyses conducted in the present research is the mapping of co-authorship networks, which provides valuable insights into collaborative relationships within the academic community. In this context, a co-authorship network can be visualized as a graph where the nodes represent authors, organizations, or countries, and the adjacent positions symbolize co-authorship between them (Savić et al., 2019). The weight of these edges can indicate the number of joint publications or the strength of collaboration among authors.
Figure 3 presents the co-authorship network, illustrating the connections among 31 authors forming seven clusters. This network comprises 69 links between authors, with an overall link strength of 73, signifying the degree of interconnectedness among the authors through collaborative publications. Each cluster represents a group of nodes (authors) that have established close connections (Anjum et al., 2020). In this figure, red, turquoise, orange, purple, olive, green, and blue represent clusters one to seven.
Figure 3. Co-authorship network among authors in the social dimensions of smart cities.
A notable aspect of this analysis is the identification of central nodes within each cluster; these authors play pivotal roles in their respective clusters. For instance, six connections exist among authors in cluster 1, marked in red, with Gabriela Pereira identified as a central figure. The central members of each cluster serve as crucial connecting points, facilitating collaboration among the authors within their cluster and enhancing connectivity between different clusters.
This structure highlights the importance of central authors in promoting intellectual exchange and cooperation within the network. Such central figures can influence research agendas and foster interdisciplinary collaborations, thereby contributing to the advancement of knowledge in smart city research. Literature on co-authorship networks indicates that these dynamics are vital for understanding the structure and evolution of scientific communities (Mali et al., 2012; Abbasi et al., 2011). Furthermore, the presence of central authors is often associated with higher productivity and impact within the field, underscoring the intertwined nature of collaboration, innovation, and scholarly output.
3.4 Influential authors
This study conducts a co-authorship analysis to identify key authors in the social smart city literature, examining three critical indices: the number of documents published, citation counts, and the strength of co-authorship links, as illustrated in Table 2.
Table 2. Distribution of authors’ status based on co-authorship indices.
This multifaceted approach provides a comprehensive perspective on each author’s impact within the field. Manuel Pedro Rodriguez Bolivar is the most prolific contributor with ten articles, indicating his active engagement in social smart city research. Anna Visvizi has published six articles, while several authors, including Jesse M. Shapiro, Rob Kitchin, Jennifer Gabrys, Xiaohui Liang, and Dezhi Li, have authored five articles.
Regarding citation counts, Rodriguez Bolivar ranks among the top five authors alongside Albert Meijer, Jesse M. Shapiro, Rob Kitchin, and Jennifer Gabrys, underscoring their research’s significant impact on the academic community. High citation counts signify that their work resonates with peers, shaping discussions and advancements in social smart cities. Additionally, the strength of co-authorship links reveals important collaborative dynamics within the discipline. Authors such as Dezhi Li, Mohammad R. Khosravi, Lianyong Qi, Kim-Kwang Raymond Choo, and Shenghua Zhou are instrumental in fostering partnerships that enhance the quality of research and collaboration among scholars. These collaborations enrich the research output and facilitate the exchange of ideas, contributing to the evolution of smart city studies.
These findings illustrate the competitive landscape of research output and collaboration among the main contributors in the social smart city domain and highlight the importance of individual and collaborative efforts in driving the smart city research agenda forward.
3.5 Institutional influence
Figure 4 presents a detailed overview of institutional participation in co-authorship within the context of research analyses. It ranks the top eight institutions based on the number of documents they have co-authored, illustrating the collaborative landscape of research on social smart cities. The emphasis on co-authoring reflects the growing recognition of the value of collaborative efforts among institutions, as such partnerships are known to foster diverse perspectives, enhance the quality of research, and generate more impactful findings (Yeo and Lewis, 2019).
Figure 4. Co-authorship network among organizations in the social dimensions of smart cities.
The figure highlights Granada University as the leading institution, with 12 documents attributed to its collaborative research efforts. However, it should be noted that this dominance is primarily affected by one prolific author, Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar., who, as mentioned earlier, is among the leaders of this field in studies related to the social dimensions of smart cities. Nevertheless, this finding indicates that Granada University plays a pivotal role in producing scholarly work, likely benefiting from a network of researchers that enhances its academic contributions.
Following closely, 11 documents are co-authored by scholars representing Delft University of Technology, which signifies considerable engagement in collaborative research initiatives. This suggests that Delft University is actively involved in interdisciplinary projects, contributing to a broader understanding of the smart city concept. In addition, authors from the City University of Hong Kong and Hong Kong Polytechnic University have each contributed to nine documents. Their involvement exemplifies these institutions’ active role in fostering research partnerships, indicating a collective effort to advance knowledge in the smart city domain. Utrecht University and the University of Texas at San Antonio are noted for each contributing to eight documents.
3.6 Geographic analysis
The geographic co-authorship analysis presented in Figure 5 provides valuable insights into the collaborative landscape of academic authorship across different countries, revealing that authors from 80 countries have established connections through 419 links, indicating a significant level of international collaboration in research. These connections are organized into 16 distinct clusters, suggesting that certain groups of countries frequently collaborate. The total link strength of 768 reflects the intensity of collaboration among these countries, measuring the number and quality of collaborative interactions. The figure visually represents countries using circles, with larger circles indicating higher levels of co-authorship, allowing for quick identification of the most active nations in collaboration. Notably, the People’s Republic of China leads the analysis with 182 documents published, 3,381 citations, and a total link strength of 149, indicating prolific output and significant recognition in the academic community. The USA ranks second with 123 documents, 4,532 citations, and a link strength of 128, suggesting that its works are highly regarded and influential. Spain follows in third place with 85 documents, 2,700 citations, and a link strength of 71, demonstrating a solid level of contribution and collaboration, albeit with fewer documents and citations than the top two countries.
Figure 5. Co-authorship network among countries in the social dimensions of smart cities.
Additionally, Table 3 complements the visual data by providing a detailed overview of the first 20 countries based on the number of documents, citations, and link strength, aiding in further analysis of each country’s contributions and co-authorship dynamics. When interpreting these findings, it is essential to notice the differences in the population size and number of scholars in different countries. For example, among the top six countries, the population sizes of Spain, England, and Italy are tremendously smaller than those of China, the USA, or India, suggesting significantly smaller numbers of scholars per country and, thus potentially, a more significant publication output per scholar in the smaller countries.
Table 3. Distribution of countries’ status based on co-citation indices.
Another remark on the country distribution is that social research on smart cities has been primarily conducted in developed countries. This finding corroborates previous research that has claimed that the smart city concept is primarily relevant to developed countries without sufficient attention to the needs of the global South (Estevez et al., 2021). This finding points to a gap in research as developing countries could benefit from smart city approaches due to their quickly increasing urbanization rates and risks of disasters due to the effects of climate change. Some initiatives targeted at developing countries already exist (United Nations Centre for Regional Development, n.d.), and researchers and public organizations are encouraged to investigate further smart approaches to ensuring resilient, inclusive, and safe local communities.
3.7 Co-citation analysis
The co-citation analysis tool employed in this study reveals the intricate relationships among authors, sources, and references by examining co-citations within a defined body of literature (Boyack and Klavans, 2010). By establishing an entry criterion that required authors to have a minimum of 20 citations, the analysis focused on 134 influential authors, thereby enhancing the reliability of the results. This rigorous approach identified four distinct clusters, illustrating varying research themes and showcasing a substantial interrelationship among the cited authors with 6,989 lines of connection and a robust connection strength of 50,497 (see Figure 6). Notably, the analysis highlighted 12 authors with exceptionally high citation counts, including Kitchin, Caragliu, and Hollands, positioning them as key figures whose works have significantly resonated within the scholarly community. This comprehensive co-citation analysis not only underscores the interconnectedness of researchers (Lazzeretti et al., 2017) in the field but also serves as a valuable guide for understanding the research landscape (Gurzki and Woisetschläger, 2017), identifying pivotal contributions (Ferreira et al., 2016), and directing future inquiries and collaborations (Trujillo and Long, 2018).
Figure 6. Co-citation network among authors in social smart cities.
3.8 Source analysis
The co-citation analysis of sources in the social field of smart cities revealed that out of 17,568 potential sources, only 270 had at least 20 citations, highlighting a select group of influential works. The top ten sources identified are notable for their citation volume and interconnectivity, as indicated by link strength (see Table 4). Leading the list is the journal Sustainability, which addresses broad environmental, social, and economic issues. It has a significant citation count of 1,164 from 60 citing documents and a link strength of 285. Following closely is Sustainable Cities and Society, which focuses on urban sustainability with 30 documents and 914 citations, alongside Cities, which explores various urban aspects, garnering 1,023 citations across 25 documents. Other prominent journals include IEEE Access, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, and Future Generation Computer Systems, which emphasize technological innovations and their societal impacts. Sensors, Government Information Quarterly, Journal of Urban Technology, and IEEE Internet of Things Journal also contribute to the discourse on technological advancements, smart cities, and policy implications for a sustainable future. This analysis underscores the critical interplay between these sources in shaping the scholarly dialogue around sustainability and urban development.
Table 4. Distribution of sources’ status based on co-citation indices.
3.9 Influential works
The co-citation analysis of references reveals significant insights regarding the scholarly landscape, identifying 71 influential works out of 34,436 cited references that meet the threshold of at least 20 citations. As illustrated in Figure 7, these essential references are organized into three distinct clusters, with 2,244 interconnections and an overall link strength of 10,941. The first cluster, marked in red, includes central publications such as Caragliu et al. (2011), with 116 citations, and Albino et al. (2015), with 108 citations, both from the Journal of Urban Technology, highlighting innovative urban solutions and the impact of technology on city development and definition of smart cities. The second cluster, displayed in green, features works like Hollands (2008), with 91 citations, and Kitchin (2014), with 73 citations, published in City and GeoJournal, which examine the socio-spatial dynamics and technological implications for urban life. Meanwhile, the third cluster, represented in blue, consists of references such as Neirotti et al. (2014), with 77 citations, and Angelidou (2014), with 44 citations, both from Cities journal, discussing urban sustainability and the integration of smart technologies in urban management. These clusters showcase thematic concentrations within urban technology and sustainability and illustrate the interconnectedness of these scholarly works.
Figure 7. Co-citation network among resources in the social dimensions of smart cities.
4 Discussion
The unprecedented pace of urbanization causes growing stress on infrastructure, sustainability, governance, and social equity, requiring urgent urban design and management rethinking. The smart city approach has created a constructive foundation for these challenges framed under one concept by incorporating emergent technologies that genuinely enrich urban livelihoods. Nevertheless, social views must be inculcated within smart city planning so as not to exacerbate existing inequalities technologically.
This study systematically analyzed the social focus in smart city research, pinpointing key contributors, trends, and gaps in research that could guide future inquiry in the direction of collaboration among various stakeholders in fostering equitable and sustainable urban spaces that can empower all community members.
We analyzed the research patterns, citation impacts, and authorship dynamics using the Web of Science and other bibliometric tools. Identifying key authors and their affiliated institutions further emphasizes the nature of research collaboration that pervades this area. This implies that the approach to confronting the multidimensional challenges arising from urbanization and smart technologies must be interdisciplinary. Further, the citation network analysis explains which works have been most influential, how they have interacted with each other and formed a blueprint for future research. The quickly increasing number of publications demonstrates the growing importance of social aspects in smart cities, covering key topics such as digital governance and big data’s impacts on urban policy. This research contributes to the theoretical foundations of the smart city concept. It opens a dialogue on the social value and risks of smart city projects to be carried by researchers, practitioners, and policymakers.
Preliminary observations about publication trends reveal a substantial increase in research output related to social smart cities, especially after 2015. This can be explained by increased public funding and international policies supporting smart city research, such as the launch of the Smart cities & communities program in Europe in 2014, the SDGs in 2015, and the New Urban Agenda in 2016. Janik et al. (2020) have reached a similar finding regarding smart and sustainable cities, showing that since 2015, the growth trend of articles in this field has gained significant momentum. This would hint that problems and social questions connected with urban environments have become more evident (Yli-Pelkonen and Niemelä, 2005; McHale et al., 2015). Therefore, the interest in studies in this subject area has grown correspondingly and become more interdisciplinary. Such ebbs and flows in publication rates signal broader socio-political dynamics, shifting funding priorities, emerging urban challenges, and the ever-changing face of smart city discourse. The renewed growth post-2018 would herald an academically responsive community ready and willing to meet the pressing needs of urbanization, technology integration, and social equity. Overall, the trend in research output evidences a vibrant response to dynamic urban challenges and underlines decisively that there is an imperative need for innovative responses placing technological development in a social perspective on smart city development (Joss, 2017). It testifies not only to the commitment of the academic community to real-world issues but also to an opportunity for researchers, practitioners, and policymakers to collaborate on making smart city initiatives more effective and inclusive (Kogan and Lee, 2014; Sarker, 2022).
Results emerging from theme analysis of smart city literature indicate nuanced comprehension of the connectedly pertinent dimensions of shaping urban governance and development. Four clear-cut clusters are identified in several shades of variation within smart city research (see Figure 8).
Figure 8. Four interconnected main themes in social research on smart cities.
The first cluster depicts the characteristics of management and governance. Governance, sustainability, and citizen participation are examples of keywords underpinning community involvement to enhance the quality of life. Therefore, the most efficient governance strategies should make provisions for citizens to become involved (Mora et al., 2023; Nastjuk et al., 2022). The second cluster points toward security and communication technology, finding the linkage between such critical concepts as privacy and the Internet of Things with the necessity of security in an urban setting that is becoming increasingly digitized (Medaglia and Serbanati, 2010; Sfar et al., 2018). The third cluster, on information management, integrates social media and big data with AI technologies such as machine learning and deep learning. It again illustrates that effective governance depends on effective data collection and analysis, calling for a meaningful data management framework to support informed decision-making (Provost and Fawcett, 2013; Pisa et al., 2020). Finally, the fourth but smallest cluster outpoints the integral role of ethics and sustainable development. It is suggested that ethical and sustainable development considerations should go hand in glove with technological advancements if urban growth is to be sustained (Chaudhary et al., 2024). In sum, such an analysis will not only reveal emerging themes in smart city literature but also detail how governance, technology, citizen engagement, and ethical considerations are interconnected and amplify the holistic approach imperative for smart city initiatives’ future evolution and success.
Looking more deeply at research over the past 5 years, four emerging hot topics emerge: (1) governance and citizen participation, (2) AI technologies such as machine learning, (3) blockchain, and (4) the Internet of Things. Recently, also the concept of “societal smart city” was suggested, emphasizing social rights and democratic values with technological innovations, considering social sustainability, citizen-centeredness, e-democracy, social justice, participatory governance, and cultural resilience (Alizadeh and Sharifi, 2023). It should be noted that this study was a bibliometric review using a quantitative method to depict thematic focuses, research trends, and patterns from a large set of articles. Further qualitative reviews are recommended to understand related theories and methods that shape social smart city discourse.
Co-authorship in this paper gives insight into network analysis of collaborative dynamics that typify the academic community of smart city studies. The presence of links between 69 authors with a cumulative link strength of 73 indicates a strong connectedness among authors, facilitating healthy idea cross-pollination. In this respect, Gabriela Pereira is a central author who has enabled collaboration within the cluster and with other network members. Centrality pinpoints these nodes’ strategic position in shaping research agendas and nurturing interdisciplinarity as an enabling resource in developing knowledge about smart city studies. Joint network studies reinforce such an idea by stating that such structures of collaboration are vital for spotting how the evolution within the scientific community takes place since it is usual to have central authors who have greater productivity and impact, hence underlining the fact that collaboration is at the very base of innovation and scientific output.
Institutional collaboration can only raise the quality and impact of research into smart cities (Anttila and Jussila, 2018). Granada University is the leading institution with 12 co-authored documents, underlining its centrality in the academic network, mainly due to the scientific output of leading authors such as Manuel Pedro Rodríguez Bolívar., corroborating previous findings (Dias, 2018). Similarly, Delft University of Technology reflects interdisciplinary research, a characteristic considered necessary but insufficient to tackle the complexity of smart cities (Roche et al., 2012). Further examples of this collaborative spirit of contribution come from the City University of Hong Kong and Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Similarly, in this respect, the participation of Utrecht University and the University of Texas at San Antonio, each with eight documents, underlines the varied range of institutional collaboration needed for knowledge generation and problem-solving in urban areas. This collaborative landscape shows the combined effort required to advance social research on smart cities, as it showcases the interrelated nature of academic institutions toward providing solutions to contemporary challenges in urban areas.
Geographic co-authorship analysis shows that smart city research is an area of solid international collaboration represented by 80 countries and 419 links, which shows a dynamic global network. Besides, 16 clusters were detected, which proved the assumption that some countries often collaborate, which allowed them to develop greater depth and breadth of research output. The leading position of the People’s Republic of China, with most documents and citations, signals a significant influence, while the USA and Spain also have a high impact. However, it should be noted that there are differences between the sizes of each country’s academic communities, and therefore, analyzing the impact per scholar could lead to slightly different conclusions when considering the influence of scholars from different countries. Overall, the collaborative scenario enriches the research quality and allows multiple visions to approach the complex challenges that smart urban development implies. However, the results also show that developing countries are underrepresented in terms of number of publications. This presents a gap in current research. As those countries are quickly developing economically and technologically, it is recommended that smart and socially inclusive approaches be applied to tackle quick urbanization and the effects of climate change.
The co-citation analysis developed in this study outlines the intellectual landscape related to social smart cities, influential authors, sources, and references connected through complex relationships. Among 134 key authors with at least 20 citations, four distinctive research clusters are identified with substantial interlinkages: 6,989 lines of connection with a strong connection strength of 50,497. Eminent authors such as Kitchin, Caragliu, and Hollands are also influential in social smart city literature since they were very influential in the general smart city literature (Sharifi et al., 2021; Verrest and Pfeffer, 2019). Selection within the literature was also shown by the 17,568 possible sources, with only 270 sources passing the citation threshold. Journals such as Sustainability and Sustainable Cities and Society show a high number of citations and strong interconnectedness, thereby underlining their position in developing discourses on social smart cities. Reference analysis also identified 71 influential works that, taken together, have demonstrated thematic foci within the broad streams of urban technology and sustainability. This study highlights some of the interlinked research features in this domain, which may provide valuable inputs for further research and collaboration in advancing knowledge on smart cities and their socio-environmental consequences.
Based on this study, several recommendations can be made. Firstly, future research should focus on integrating social equity into smart city frameworks to prevent the exacerbation of societal inequalities. This could involve exploring such methods for community engagement in urban planning that amplify the voices of marginalized populations. Interdisciplinary collaboration among researchers, practitioners, and policymakers will be crucial in addressing the multifaceted challenges of rapid urbanization in the coming years. Analyzing co-authorship networks can reveal significant collaborations and facilitate knowledge sharing across disciplines. Additionally, further investigation into citation patterns and influential works will provide insights into emerging trends and gaps in the literature, particularly concerning the ethical implications of technology use in urban contexts. Finally, expanding the geographic scope of co-authorship studies will illuminate how various regions tackle the challenges of smart cities and promote global collaboration, ultimately enhancing the quality and relevance of research. In this way, academia can be vital in fostering more equitable, sustainable, and innovative urban environments.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.
Author contributions
SRA: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft. BBM: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – review & editing. BG: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – original draft. MI: Conceptualization, Writing – review & editing. AH: Investigation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
BG was employed by Turbulent Magic Limited.
The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The authors declare that Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. To translate some text from Persian to English and improve the manuscript's readability during the editing phase. After using AI, the authors reviewed and edited the content as needed and take full responsibility for the publication's content.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frsc.2024.1514040/full#supplementary-material
References
Abbasi, A., Hossain, L., Uddin, S., and Rasmussen, K. J. (2011). Evolutionary dynamics of scientific collaboration networks: multi-levels and cross-time analysis. Scientometrics 89, 687–710. doi: 10.1007/s11192-011-0463-1
Agarwal, A., Durairajanayagam, D., Tatagari, S., Esteves, S. C., Harlev, A., Henkel, R., et al. (2016). Bibliometrics: tracking research impact by selecting the appropriate metrics. Asian J. Androl. 18, 296–309. doi: 10.4103/1008-682X.171582
Ahvenniemi, H., and Huovila, A. (2021). How do cities promote urban sustainability and smartness? An evaluation of the city strategies of six largest Finnish cities. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 23, 4174–4200. doi: 10.1007/s10668-020-00765-3
Ahvenniemi, H., Huovila, A., Pinto-Seppä, I., and Airaksinen, M. (2017). What are the differences between sustainable and smart cities? Cities 60, 234–245. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2016.09.009
Airaksinen, M., Porkka, J., Vainio, T., Huovila, A., Hukkalainen, M., Ahvenniemi, H., et al. (2016). “Research roadmap report smart city vision” in International Council for Research and Innovation in building and construction (CIB) publication 407. CIB general secretariat (Delft, Netherlands: International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB)).
Albino, V., Berardi, U., and Dangelico, R. M. (2015). Smart cities: definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives. J. Urban Technol. 22, 3–21. doi: 10.1080/10630732.2014.942092
Alizadeh, H., and Sharifi, A. (2023). Toward a societal smart city: clarifying the social justice dimension of smart cities. Sustain. Cities Soc. 95:104612. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2023.104612
Allam, Z., Sharifi, A., Bibri, S. E., and Chabaud, D. (2022). Emerging trends and knowledge structures of smart urban governance. Sustain. For. 14:5275. doi: 10.3390/su14095275
Angelidou, M. (2014). Smart city policies: a spatial approach. Cities 41, S3–S11. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2014.06.007
Anjum, H. F., Rasid, S. Z. A., Khalid, H., Alam, M. M., Daud, S. M., Abas, H., et al. (2020). Mapping research trends of blockchain technology in healthcare. IEEE. Access 8, 174244–174254. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3025011
Anthony, B. (2024). The role of community engagement in urban innovation towards the co-creation of smart sustainable cities. J. Knowl. Econ. 15, 1592–1624. doi: 10.1007/s13132-023-01176-1
Anttila, J., and Jussila, K. (2018). Universities and smart cities: the challenges to high quality. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 29, 1058–1073. doi: 10.1080/14783363.2018.1486552
Bibri, S. E. (2018). A foundational framework for smart sustainable city development: theoretical, disciplinary, and discursive dimensions and their synergies. Sustain. Cities Soc. 38, 758–794. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2017.12.032
Bibri, S. E. (2020). Compact urbanism and the synergic potential of its integration with data-driven smart urbanism: an extensive interdisciplinary literature review. Land Use Policy 97:104703. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104703
Bibri, S. E. (2021). A novel model for data-driven smart sustainable cities of the future: the institutional transformations required for balancing and advancing the three goals of sustainability. Energy Inform. 4:4. doi: 10.1186/s42162-021-00138-8
Bibri, S. E., and Krogstie, J. (2020). The emerging data–driven Smart City and its innovative applied solutions for sustainability: the cases of London and Barcelona. Energy Inform. 3:5. doi: 10.1186/s42162-020-00108-6
Bindu, N., Sankar, C. P., and Kumar, K. S. (2019). Research collaboration and knowledge sharing in e-governance: temporal analysis of co-author network. Transform. Govern 13, 2–33. doi: 10.1108/TG-03-2018-0022
Boyack, K. W., and Klavans, R. (2010). Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 61, 2389–2404. doi: 10.1002/asi.21419
Buttazzoni, A., Veenhof, M., and Minaker, L. (2020). Smart city and high-tech urban interventions targeting human health: an equity-focused systematic review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 17:2325. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17072325
Caputo, F., Magliocca, P., Canestrino, R., and Rescigno, E. (2023). Rethinking the role of technology for citizens’ engagement and sustainable development in smart cities. Sustain. For. 15:10400. doi: 10.3390/su151310400
Caragliu, A., Del Bo, C., and Nijkamp, P. (2011). Smart cities in Europe. J. Urban Technol. 18, 65–82. doi: 10.1080/10630732.2011.601117
Carvalho, L. (2015). Smart cities from scratch? A socio-technical perspective. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 8, 43–60. doi: 10.1093/cjres/rsu010
Castelnovo, W., Misuraca, G., and Savoldelli, A. (2016). Smart cities governance: the need for a holistic approach to assessing urban participatory policy making. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 34, 724–739. doi: 10.1177/0894439315611103
Chaudhary, S., Singh, R., Zore, A. S., Upadhyay, A., Lindenberger, C., and Vivekanand, V. (2024). Bioinspired technology in society: ethical and architectural innovations for sustainable development. Technol. Soc. 78:102688. doi: 10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102688
Colding, J., Nilsson, C., and Sjöberg, S. (2024). Smart cities for all? Bridging digital divides for socially sustainable and inclusive cities. Smart Cities 7, 1044–1059. doi: 10.3390/smartcities7030044
Dias, G. P. Smart cities research in Portugal and Spain: an exploratory bibliometric analysis. In 2018 13th Iberian conference on information systems and technologies (CISTI) (pp. 1–6) (2018).
Ebrahiem, S., El-Kholei, A. O., and Yassein, G. (2024). Socially sustainable smart cities: mapping the research trends by co-word analysis. Open House Int. 49, 315–339. doi: 10.1108/OHI-10-2022-0247
Estevez, E., Cenci, K., Fillottrani, P., and Janowski, T. (2021). “Review of international standards and policy guidelines for smart sustainable cities” in Smart governance: Towards the 22nd century Sustainable City. ed. E. Estevez (Berlin: Springer), 69–99.
European Commission. Smart cities and communities - European innovation partnership – Communication from the commission C (2012). Available at: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/smart-cities-and-communities-european-innovation-partnership-communication-commission-c2012-4701 (Accessd October 4, 2024).
European Union (2024). The state of European smart cities: Exploring and showcasing models, solutions, and financing for European replication to achieve climate neutrality : Publications Office of the European Union.
Ferreira, J. J. M., Fernandes, C. I., and Ratten, V. (2016). A co-citation bibliometric analysis of strategic management research. Scientometrics 109, 1–32. doi: 10.1007/s11192-016-2008-0
Glanzel, W. Bibliometrics as a research field a course on theory and application of bibliometric indicators. Berlin: ScienceOpen. (2003).
Graham, S., and Marvin, S. (2002). Splintering urbanism: Networked infrastructures, technological mobilities and the urban condition. London: Routledge.
Gurzki, H., and Woisetschläger, D. M. (2017). Mapping the luxury research landscape: a bibliometric citation analysis. J. Bus. Res. 77, 147–166. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.11.009
Hallinger, P., and Kovačević, J. (2022). Applying bibliometric review methods in education: rationale, definitions, analytical techniques, and illustrations. Int. Encycl. Educ. 5, 546–556. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-818630-5.05070-3
Hollands, R. (2008). Will the real Smart City stand up? Intelligent, progressive or entrepreneurial? City 12, 303–320. doi: 10.1080/13604810802479126
Hunter, M., Soro, A., and Brown, R. (2021). Enhancing urban conversations for smarter cities: Augmented reality as an enabler of digital civic participation. Interaction Design and Architecture (s), 48:75–99. doi: 10.55612/S-5002-048-004
Huovila, A. (2024). Evaluation of smart AND Sustainable City development: What indicators to use Why and When?. Espoo, Finland: Aalto University.
Huovila, A., Bosch, P., and Airaksinen, M. (2019). Comparative analysis of standardized indicators for smart sustainable cities: what indicators and standards to use and when? Cities 89, 141–153. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2019.01.029
Janik, A., Ryszko, A., and Szafraniec, M. (2020). Scientific landscape of smart and sustainable cities literature: a bibliometric analysis. Sustain. For. 12:779. doi: 10.3390/su12030779
Jiboye, A. D. (2011). Sustainable urbanization: issues and challenges for effective urban governance in Nigeria. J. Sustain. Dev. 4:211. doi: 10.5539/jsd.v4n6p211
Joss, S., Sengers, F., Schraven, D., Caprotti, F., and Dayot, Y. (2019). The smart city as global discourse: storylines and critical junctures across 27 cities. J. Urban Technol. 26, 3–34. doi: 10.1080/10630732.2018.1558387
Kandt, J., and Batty, M. (2021). Smart cities, big data and urban policy: towards urban analytics for the long run. Cities 109:102992. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2020.102992
Kitchin, R. (2014). The real-time city? Big data and smart urbanism. Geo J. 79, 1–14. doi: 10.1007/s10708-013-9516-8
Kitchin, R., and Dodge, M. (2019). The (in) security of smart cities: vulnerabilities, risks, mitigation, and prevention. J. Urban Technol. 26, 47–65. doi: 10.1080/10630732.2017.1408002
Kogan, N., and Lee, K. J. (2014). Exploratory research on the success factors and challenges of Smart City projects. Asia Pac. J. Inform. Syst. 24, 141–189. doi: 10.14329/apjis.2014.24.2.141
Komninos, N., Pallot, M., and Schaffers, H. (2013). Special issue on smart cities and the future internet in Europe. J. Knowl. Econ. 4, 119–134. doi: 10.1007/s13132-012-0083-x
Kummitha, R. K. R., and Crutzen, N. (2017). How do we understand smart cities? An evolutionary perspective. Cities 67, 43–52. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2017.04.010
Lazzeretti, L., Capone, F., and Innocenti, N. (2017). Exploring the intellectual structure of creative economy research and local economic development: a co-citation analysis. Eur. Plan. Stud. 25, 1693–1713. doi: 10.1080/09654313.2017.1337728
Lee, J., Babcock, J., Pham, T. S., Bui, T. H., and Kang, M. (2023). Smart city as a social transition towards inclusive development through technology: a tale of four smart cities. Int. J. Urban Sci. 27, 75–100. doi: 10.1080/12265934.2022.2074076
Levenda, A. M., Keough, N., Rock, M., and Miller, B. (2020). Rethinking public participation in the smart city. Canad. Geogr. 64, 344–358. doi: 10.1111/cag.12601
Lytras, M. D., and Visvizi, A. (2018). Who uses smart city services and what to make of it: toward interdisciplinary smart cities research. Sustain. For. 10:1998. doi: 10.3390/su10061998
Makkonen, T., and Inkinen, T. (2024). Inclusive smart cities? Technology-driven urban development and disabilities. Cities 154:105334. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2024.105334
Mali, F., Kronegger, L., Doreian, P., and Ferligoj, A. (2012). “Dynamic scientific co-authorship networks” in Models of science dynamics: Encounters between complexity theory and information sciences. Scharnhorst, A., Börner, K., and Van den Besselaar, P. (Berlin: Springer), 195–232.
Marsal-Llacuna, M.-L. L., Colomer-Llinàs, J., and Meléndez-Frigola, J. (2015). Lessons in urban monitoring taken from sustainable and livable cities to better address the smart cities initiative. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 90, 611–622. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2014.01.012
Marvi, R., and Foroudi, M. M. (2023). “Bibliometric analysis: Main procedure and guidelines” in Researching and Analysing business. Ed. Pantea F, Charles D. (London: Routledge), 43–54.
McHale, M. R., Pickett, S. T., Barbosa, O., Bunn, D. N., Cadenasso, M. L., Childers, D. L., et al. (2015). The new global urban realm: complex, connected, diffuse, and diverse social-ecological systems. Sustain. For. 7, 5211–5240. doi: 10.3390/su7055211
Medaglia, C. M., and Serbanati, A. An overview of privacy and security issues in the internet of things. In The internet of things: 20th Tyrrhenian workshop on digital communications (pp. 389–395). Springer New York, (2010).
Meijer, A., and Bolívar, M. P. R. (2016). Governing the smart city: a review of the literature on smart urban governance. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 82, 392–408. doi: 10.1177/0020852314564308
Mora, L., Bolici, R., and Deakin, M. (2017). The first two decades of smart-city research: a bibliometric analysis. J. Urban Technol. 24, 3–27. doi: 10.1080/10630732.2017.1285123
Mora, L., Gerli, P., Ardito, L., and Petruzzelli, A. M. (2023). Smart city governance from an innovation management perspective: theoretical framing, review of current practices, and future research agenda. Technovation 123:102717. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102717
Mulay, P., Joshi, R. R., and Chaudhari, A. (2020). Bibliometric study of bibliometric papers about clustering. Libr. Philos. Pract. 1, 1–21.
Mutambik, I. (2023). The global whitewashing of smart cities: citizens’ perspectives. Sustain. For. 15:8100. doi: 10.3390/su15108100
Nastjuk, I., Trang, S., and Papageorgiou, E. I. (2022). Smart cities and smart governance models for future cities: current research and future directions. Electron. Mark. 32, 1917–1924. doi: 10.1007/s12525-022-00609-0
Neirotti, P., De Marco, A., Cagliano, A. C., Mangano, G., and Scorrano, F. (2014). Current trends in Smart City initiatives: some stylised facts. Cities 38, 25–36. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2013.12.010
Passas, I. (2024). Bibliometric analysis: the main steps. Encyclopedia 4, 1014–1025. doi: 10.3390/encyclopedia4020065
Pérez, L. M., Oltra-Badenes, R., Oltra Gutiérrez, J. V., and Gil-Gómez, H. (2020). A bibliometric diagnosis and analysis about smart cities. Sustain. For. 12:6357. doi: 10.3390/su12166357
Pisa, M., Dixon, P., Ndulu, B., and Nwankwo, U. (2020). Governing data for development: trends, challenges, and opportunities. CGD Policy Paper 190, 1–61.
Provost, F., and Fawcett, T. (2013). Data science and its relationship to big data and data-driven decision making. Big Data 1, 51–59. doi: 10.1089/big.2013.1508
Rani, S., Mishra, R. K., Usman, M., Kataria, A., Kumar, P., Bhambri, P., et al. (2021). Amalgamation of advanced technologies for sustainable development of smart city environment: a review. IEEE Access 9, 150060–150087. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3125527
Rejeb, A., Rejeb, K., Abdollahi, A., Keogh, J. G., Zailani, S., and Iranmanesh, M. (2022). Smart city research: a bibliometric and main path analysis. J. Data Inf. Manag. 4, 343–370. doi: 10.1007/s42488-022-00084-4
Rice, M., and Hancock, T. (2016). Equity, sustainability and governance in urban settings. Glob. Health Promot. 23, 94–97. doi: 10.1177/1757975915601038
Roche, S., Nabian, N., Kloeckl, K., and Ratti, C. (2012). “Are ‘smart cities’ smart enough” in Global geospatial conference, 215–235. GSDI, Quebec, Canada. Available at: https://senseable.mit.edu/papers/pdf/20120513_Roche_etal_SmartCities_SpatiallyEnabling.pdf (Accessed October 4, 2024).
Romanelli, J. P., Gonçalves, M. C. P., de Abreu Pestana, L. F., Soares, J. A. H., Boschi, R. S., and Andrade, D. F. (2021). Four challenges when conducting bibliometric reviews and how to deal with them. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28, 60448–60458. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-16420-x
Rossetto, D. E., Bernardes, R. C., Borini, F. M., and Gattaz, C. C. (2018). Structure and evolution of innovation research in the last 60 years: review and future trends in the field of business through the citations and co-citations analysis. Scientometrics 115, 1329–1363. doi: 10.1007/s11192-018-2709-7
Sarker, I. H. (2022). Smart City data science: towards data-driven smart cities with open research issues. Internet Things 19:100528. doi: 10.1016/j.iot.2022.100528
Savić, M., Ivanović, M., Jain, L. C., Savić, M., Ivanović, M., and Jain, L. C. (2019). “Co-authorship networks: an introduction” in Complex networks in software, knowledge, and social systems. Eds. Savić, M., Ivanović, M., and Jain, L. C. (Springer), 179–192.
Sfar, A. R., Natalizio, E., Challal, Y., and Chtourou, Z. (2018). A roadmap for security challenges in the internet of things. Digit Commun Netw 4, 118–137. doi: 10.1016/j.dcan.2017.04.003
Sharifi, A., Allam, Z., Feizizadeh, B., and Ghamari, H. (2021). Three decades of research on smart cities: mapping knowledge structure and trends. Sustain. For. 13:7140. doi: 10.3390/su13137140
Shayan, S., Kim, K. P., Ma, T., and Nguyen, T. H. D. (2020). The first two decades of smart city research from a risk perspective. Sustain. For. 12:9280. doi: 10.3390/su12219280
Söderström, O. (2014). Cities in relations: Trajectories of urban development in Hanoi and Ouagadougou. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons.
Tekin, H., and Dikmen, I. (2024). Inclusive smart cities: an exploratory study on the London Smart City strategy. Buildings 14:485. doi: 10.3390/buildings14020485
Townsend, A. (2013). Smart cities: Big data, civic hackers, and the quest for a new utopia. New York, NY: WW Norton & Company.
Trujillo, C. M., and Long, T. M. (2018). Document co-citation analysis to enhance transdisciplinary research. Sci. Adv. 4:e1701130. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.1701130
United Nations. The new urban agenda. A/RES/71/256, (2017). Available at: https://habitat3.org/the-new-urban-agenda (Accessed October 4, 2024).
United Nations. World population prospects, (2019). United Nations Population Division & United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.
United Nations Centre for Regional Development. Smart cities programme. Available at: https://uncrd.un.org/content/sc (Accessed October 4, 2024).
UNSDG. About the sustainable development goals (2015). Available at: http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals (Accessed October 4, 2024).
Vanolo, A. (2014). Smartmentality: the Smart City as disciplinary strategy. Urban Stud. 51, 883–898. doi: 10.1177/0042098013494427
Verrest, H., and Pfeffer, K. (2019). Elaborating the urbanism in smart urbanism: distilling relevant dimensions for a comprehensive analysis of Smart City approaches. Inf. Commun. Soc. 22, 1328–1342. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2018.1424921
Viitanen, J., and Kingston, R. (2014). Smart cities and green growth: outsourcing democratic and environmental resilience to the global technology sector. Environ Plan A 46, 803–819. doi: 10.1068/a46242
Xia, L., Semirumi, D. T., and Rezaei, R. (2023). A thorough examination of smart city applications: exploring challenges and solutions throughout the life cycle with emphasis on safeguarding citizen privacy. Sustain. Cities Soc. 98:104771. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2023.104771
Yeo, M., and Lewis, M. (2019). Co-authoring in action: practice, problems and possibilities. Iran. J. Lang. Teach. Res. 7, 109–123.
Yigitcanlar, T., and Kamruzzaman, M. (2018). Does smart city policy lead to sustainability of cities? Land Use Policy 73, 49–58. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.01.034
Yli-Pelkonen, V., and Niemelä, J. (2005). Linking ecological and social systems in cities: urban planning in Finland as a case. Biodivers. Conserv. 14, 1947–1967. doi: 10.1007/s10531-004-2124-7
Zhao, L., Tang, Z. Y., and Zou, X. (2019). Mapping the knowledge domain of smart-city research: a bibliometric and scientometric analysis. Sustain. For. 11:6648. doi: 10.3390/su11236648
Keywords: bibliometric analysis, interdisciplinary collaboration, smart cities, social research, VOSviewer
Citation: Rasoulzadeh Aghdam S, Bababei Morad B, Ghasemzadeh B, Irani M and Huovila A (2025) Social smart city research: interconnections between participatory governance, data privacy, artificial intelligence and ethical sustainable development. Front. Sustain. Cities. 6:1514040. doi: 10.3389/frsc.2024.1514040
Edited by:
Prudence Khumalo, University of South Africa, South AfricaReviewed by:
Jesús M. Siqueiros, National Autonomous University of Mexico, MexicoGiannis Adamos, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
Copyright © 2025 Rasoulzadeh Aghdam, Bababei Morad, Ghasemzadeh, Irani and Huovila. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Behnam Ghasemzadeh, QmVobmFtLkdoYXNlbXphZGVoQHlhaG9vLmNvbQ==; Aapo Huovila, QWFwby5IdW92aWxhQHZ0dC5maQ==