Syed Ibad Ali, Mohammad Shahnawaz Shaikh, Kush Bhushanwar, Smita Shahane
Today's cities face numerous challenges due to climate change and urbanization. The concept of a smart city aims to help cities to address these challenges by adapting modern information and communication technology. Smart mobility and transportation form one important aspect of smart cities. Inefficient mobility in cities can lead to problems such as traffic congestion, which results in frustration for residents and a decrease in the quality of life. Against the backdrop of global warming, cities also strive to reduce CO2 emissions, an attempt which requires sustainable and novel mobility concepts. Blockchain is a current technology, said to have huge potential, that is being investigated for application in many facets of smart cities. In the context of smart mobility, blockchain can be used for transactions relating to ridesharing and electric charging, handling of interactions of platoon members, or serving as a foundation for communication between vehicles. Although initial research about this topic exists, it is distributed among different use-cases and applications.
The integration of blockchain technology into smart city governance frameworks is revolutionizing the way urban management systems are structured, enabling secure, transparent, and decentralized decision-making processes. This chapter explores the transformative potential of blockchain-enabled decentralized governance models in enhancing accountability, reducing bureaucratic inefficiencies, and promoting citizen participation. The application of smart contracts and distributed ledgers is examined as a means to automate governance functions, facilitate real-time resource distribution, and ensure trust among stakeholders. Through detailed case studies and critical analysis, the chapter highlights practical implementations of blockchain in local governments, such as energy trading, public service automation, waste management, and participatory budgeting. In addition, the challenges of citizen engagement, legal compliance, and technological integration are addressed with forward-looking strategies for overcoming these barriers. This chapter contributes a comprehensive understanding of how blockchain can reshape urban governance ecosystems, offering scalable, resilient, and inclusive solutions for future smart cities.
James Evans, Davide Cassanmagnago, Tathagata Chatterji, Andrew Irvin ¡ 10 authors
Urban innovation has emerged as a priority to address global climate and sustainability goals. As the world continues to urbanise, global organisations are encouraging cities to spearhead innovation to meet global carbon reduction targets and reduce inequalities (UN Habitat, 2022). Finding new ways to build, manage and live in cities is critical to provide all humans with adequate nutrition, shelter, access to products and services including mobility, leisure, health, energy, and education (UN, 2023). Focusing on the potential role of urban innovation is logical -cities drive innovation by bringing diverse people, knowledge and resources together (Florida et al., 2018). In many ways urbanisation represents the manifestation of new technologies and forms of social organisation, from the hydraulic cities of Mesopotamia 7000 years ago through to industrial and post-industrial cities today (Jacobs, 1969;Athey et al., 2008). However, while the link between cities and innovation is longstanding, the idea of 'urban innovation' as a specific activity to discover new ways to develop, manage and inhabit cities in more sustainable ways is recent, distinct and less familiar. This framing of urban innovation reflects established approaches to governance for sustainability, layered over the distinctive characteristics and capabilities of cities. In this paper we define urban innovation as a directed activity that takes place in and is driven by cities as a way to address local challenges that will contribute to the delivery of global climate and sustainability goals. The emergence of the urban innovation as an influential global policy agenda pushes cities once more to the front of the battle against climate change. This paper examines the emergence of urban innovation as a discrete and influential policy goal to deliver global climate and sustainability goals and outlines a research agenda to help achieve this.The paper is authored with leading global organisations in this space -the United Nations Climate Change Global Innovation Hub and the Global Covenant of Mayors. The United Nations is the leading global organisation coordinating international action on key challenges including climate change. The United Nations Global Innovation Hub for Climate Change promotes innovation as a catalyst for achieving global climate and sustainability targets. Their first global dialogue series focused on cities specifically because of their potential to integrate technological, social, and policy innovations. The Global Innovation Hub emphasizes systemic approaches to urban innovation, fostering cross-sectoral collaboration and community engagement to create sustainable, climate resilient development in urban environments. The Global Covenant of Mayors (GCoM) represents an alliance of more than 13,000 cities combatting climate change. Through its Innovate4Cities initiative, launched in 2019 in response to the Edmonton Cities and Climate Change Science Conference (Oke et al., 2022), the GCoM alliance outlines the knowledge gaps and action priorities for urban innovation, research and implementation, sharing data and best practices, and unlocking financing for scalable urban innovation projects. Both work closely with the Mission Innovation Urban Transitions Mission, which launched at COP 26 in 2021. This organisation empowers cities worldwide in their transition towards net-zero, resilient, and people-centred cities, mobilizing decision-makers across all levels of government to prioritize pathways enabled by clean energy and systemic innovation across all sectors and in urban governance (Urban Transitions Mission, 2024). The Urban Transitions Mission develops innovation systems capable of transforming cities to address climate change, including a focus on coordinating city level research and innovation challenges (European Commission, 2022).These organisations form part of a Global Innovation Alliance (GIA), which is engaging cities and relevant partners to build a worldwide urban innovation policy agenda for climate and sustainability goals. This policy agenda is complemented by the Global Research and Action Agenda on Cities and Climate Change Science, which provides a cross-sectoral, systems-based foundation for knowledge to enable urban innovation. This document launched at the Cities and Climate Change Science Conference in Edmonton, Canada in 2018, and in its latest iteration following the 2024 Innovate4Cities Conference, serves as an evidence base for the knowledge and innovation outputs being co-created by researchers, governments, businesses, and civil society (Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, UN-Habitat & University of Melbourne, 2024). These initiatives demonstrate the growing ambition for science to inform action and facilitates the exchange of knowledge to support stronger and more ambitious urban solutions and partnerships.The priorities and initiatives of these international organisations individually and collectively show that urban innovation has become central to the delivery of global climate and sustainability goals at multiple levels of governance. Urban innovation is being promoted as a way to develop solutions to challenges in sectors ranging from energy and transport to housing and social justice. By cutting across domains, and more closely engaging economic and knowledge production, urban innovation represents an exciting new way to create more sustainable cities. However, as Bai (2024) notes in relation to the potential of cities to deliver the SDGs, action on the ground requires clarity of roles. The term 'urban innovation' is used widely now in policy and research, but in different ways by different groups to mean different things, not necessarily with sustainability or justice and equity as core values. Realising the potential of urban innovation to deliver climate and sustainability goals requires greater clarity in defining what exactly it is, how it should be done in practice, and who is supposed to be doing it. Given the political weight and resource behind it, researchers have an important role to play in helping to ensure that urban innovation is an equitable and effective. Addressing rather than exacerbating inequalities and making sure successful innovations are actually transformative lie at the forefront of this challenge. This Grand Challenge article builds upon the high levels of current ambition and activity associated with key international initiatives like the Global Innovation Alliance and Global Research and Action Agenda on Cities and Climate Change Science to frame a broad and inclusive research agenda for sustainable cities and urban innovation.Innovation relates to the development of new services, products or processes that generate value through being of use to customers or users. The concept of innovation was arguably first framed as a place-based agenda in scholarship and policies relating to regional innovation clusters. These often developed near universities, most famously in the case of the Silicon Valley innovation cluster in California that grew up around Stanford University. The focus was on supply-side technology development though, with little consideration of the demands of cities and their residents. The emergence of the idea of smart cities in the early Twenty-First Century dramatically changed this, positioning innovation as a key element of place-making. Urban innovation became an activity focusing on how to deploy digital technologies to improve cities and urban services (Angelidou, 2015). Successful examples include the replacement of traditional incandescent bulbs with LED for street lighting, and the adoption of digital information and payment platforms for citizens to engage with municipal authorities. Evidence suggests that cities investing in smart city projects tend to generate economic benefits associated with traditional innovation, gauged through measures such as numbers of patent filings (Caragliu and Del Bo, 2019). A rapidly growing body of work from China suggests a correlation between the innovative capacity of cities and their environmental performance (see for example Tan, et al., 2022;Yang, et al., 2022;Guo, et al., 2023). Work in this context has also identified a positive relationship between the existence of a digital economy and the achievement of low carbon transitions in larger Chinese cities (Liu et al., 2024). However, it is the distinct idea of urban innovation as a directed process that brings different stakeholders together to develop solutions to problems in their own cities that has gained traction beyond smart cities. In relation to environmental policy, the need for practical action to complement international commitments on climate change and sustainable development, coupled with the emergence of world cities as major political actors (Bulkeley, 2013), has provided fertile ground for urban innovation to emerge as a potential driver of societal change. Urban innovation represents the culmination of a longer-term metamorphosis of cities from being framed as sources of sustainability problems to sources of sustainability solutions (Angelo and Wachsmuth, 2020). In principle, urban innovation offers a way to situate and address the United Nation Sustainable Development the context of cities and 2024). In practice, the term urban innovation local a way to their own a to create sustainable and inclusive and new for their is urban innovation has rapidly become a priority to deliver global climate and sustainability emergence of urban innovation as a driver of sustainability and climate goals has by of research and innovation in but also the and of this has provided to by to new solutions in to demonstrate and how work in world like urban the of urban et al., a of sustainability solutions have in cities, successful projects have to up beyond their This has a focus on the in which projects and the need to build the capacity of cities to and innovations As notes examples of successful urban that help deliver global climate and sustainability goals the current policy agenda in the of leading global organisations promotes urban innovation as a rather than a discrete The systems to urban innovation from a of systems and and innovation upon the associated concept of an innovation innovation to a of and resources that work to the development and of new and products such as universities, governments, and research a regional or global context to enable innovation through knowledge and and 2020). urban innovation as an innovation brings focus a of that city provide et al., 2024). organisations provide local provide and help through The systems urban innovation by ways to and support the innovative capacity of cities while the and with of urban at and levels has a of in innovation as a to drive and address major societal challenges & and the of urban innovation is as a driver of systemic change. Urban innovation address place-based challenges by bringing and organisations change is critical in the context of climate and sustainability which of all of how we but to achieve governance and economic benefits at city level at 2024). often innovation the context of et al., and However, this focus the social, and political that are critical for sustainability Evidence suggests that social problems have become a major driver of urban innovation environmental challenges 2019). Urban innovation is not new technologies or projects but fostering systemic change through the of development and of new businesses, and approaches that sectors has urban innovation for transitions in cities by as of their innovation in the Urban Transitions The systemic of urban innovation more in to address societal change, like relating to sustainability and climate rather than more framed 2023). requires new forms of governance at the and city with distinctive approaches that across traditional of activity (European Commission, et al., innovation be specific urban for it to et al., The key the urban innovation agenda what larger societal innovation like climate change and sustainability meet local urban et al., innovation is in global policy as best as an innovation and to drive transformative towards major societal goals. Urban innovation from of it is in cities rather than or industrial and different including by all urban urban innovation is political and requires local The of many smart city projects the of to for projects as local and have solutions as being on et al., 2019). Urban innovation is also cross-sectoral rather than focused on the of a specific These urban innovation to develop the of solutions to be sustainable and but more The and use of energy, and housing stakeholders for these urban innovation different to forms of innovation, and the to which urban innovation be like innovation and innovation, the to address with the of the urban innovation research community is of how urban innovation takes place in practice, the of urban innovation that are successful in urban problems and societal and the as and that are to successful urban policy agenda for urban innovation around widely and capacity The first of these how to achieve sustainability goals over the but specific in the urban The has emerged from specific challenges urban innovation have in through in urban The represents current around how to that enable urban innovation. The of the paper the key of and research priorities to help forms the focus of the urban innovation policy local urban innovation are with engagement to ensure innovation processes include all groups et al., 2018). The iteration of the Global Research and Action Agenda for Cities and Climate Change Science that and between all levels of government and stakeholders are for the Sustainable Development and change (Global Covenant of & University of Melbourne, 2024). collaboration with businesses, and stakeholders to develop solutions to the and of specific and for in more the of urban innovation and benefits are more Innovation that and benefits all is a priority for urban innovation, but a series of it is for cities to who should be in the of problems and how to to and the of different of community engagement in different et al., 2018). These the political context in which cities and local The of political and adoption of which tend to over it more to stakeholders in actors are on the urban as traditional municipal are to or et al., and play important in policy in smart cities et al., The as knowledge between research and practice, often helping to create of cities that work the of these new have for et al., 2022), the to which the and of urban innovation has little economic innovation as a of the role of and societal challenges as et al., 2024). This is as urban innovation for climate and sustainability goals takes place through governance and associated political and of different et al., 2023). the of governance are and cities have often to beyond for governance to how to change on the & This has to the emergence of new forms of governance that are more and to local Urban and innovation for with policy, and services that traditional forms of governance not et al., 2018). place-based to the need to stakeholders together to urban innovation. technologies play a transformative citizens to in urban governance in and ways that drive more and place forms of innovation & 2024). A has emerged around urban and but are major gaps in of how place-based of innovation integrate or social, environmental and economic and and drive in different urban et al., problems that most cities in the SDGs, are more but less like adequate housing and with which innovation. research on urban sustainability et al., research on innovation to focus on cities in the Global actors and the and the of the urban live in cities in the Global the of urban knowledge and systems in urban innovation are less in of their and In practice, this that while the context for urban innovation is different in the Global approaches and policy around urban sustainability challenges tend to of the Global et al., of innovation, civil society often innovation and the a less role has by development for in relation to the and achievement of the et al., and is but less in the urban innovation in knowledge and provide solutions to sustainability have developed sustainable like which and to or used traditional to to the of climate change et al., innovation is and solutions local resources et al., but in relation to transport include with in to greater or with for transport in In the context of urban city often provide like and energy for in and ways This urban innovation is to and such as innovation not associated with innovation on new solutions that like the of urban in of urban et al., and their in like 2024). The need for innovation that and benefits social groups is in Global and Global et al., in to include citizens in the of regional innovation challenges et al., urban innovation to address global climate and sustainability goals more and researchers help the of what innovation by its governance and and that of innovation are to be an frame for of inclusive the of this be to for the of innovations the actors and their the of and the in which a work is to and how forms of innovation, like innovation, or et al., A priority has identified in the on urban the of what as innovation is critical to new forms of governance and on more and processes of innovation and while policy and have to focus on innovation as a way to create new cities are a leading role in the of technologies including and that and from technologies and services be as governance innovations in as as ways to drive innovation to the that is and 2020). include cities that have to transport technologies et al., Work on the governance of 'urban or the of technologies in cities, is but represents an important research urban innovation for climate and sustainability need for a societal change to achieve climate and sustainability goals has a policy focus on how successful initiatives up to drive projects address challenges in a specific place in a up but the solutions are to more widely as the governance of cities to of different In of the challenges of place-based approaches is successful local initiatives beyond the to its by or its it more and et al., et al., social and support and fostering a of cross-sectoral in these is in and research as across that are including the and are the role of and knowledge in urban innovation and This the between and fostering inclusive forms of innovation. on environmental change the of the in including the and that how define or systems and as as their and through with and to urban innovation in more inclusive and researchers this beyond the focus on and policy to with less innovation actors and requires new for governance and policy on the and of innovation governance et al., 2024). and on action are challenges in the climate research and response and policy are key at the city and levels to create for urban innovations to deliver climate and sustainability goals et al., and Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, UN-Habitat & University of Melbourne, 2024). change requires innovation to deliver value across a of including the and as as civil and over a than achieve this, development and their to support initiatives that prioritize sustainability rather than and financing to the achievement of specific sustainability In the case of for payment to upon the energy through In the urban policies and innovation and their like and innovation have a role to These are not as for knowledge and development, the for to and for innovative solutions to Their role in urban innovation for sustainability, in relation to and is but less economy including services and for urban et al., 2022). and the and of or products et al., In and for that for and and reduce carbon and in the et al., 2022). urban innovations is the of societal challenges the of and often for local benefits that in et al., 2022). This process requires at the of innovation processes that also be through specific like innovation urban innovation policy focus relates to the of key including and to build the capacity of cities to et define policy capacity as the and that are used to and has a in relation to environmental et (2024) show how key international on climate change and sustainability, the first on and Urban Agenda in research on urban climate and capacity has towards the of stakeholders and across cities and local to The Climate Innovation launched by the Global Covenant of Mayors (2024) in with a The to regional and of climate innovation at their urban and urban climate innovation as of urban stakeholders to and new or products or processes to to the challenges by climate local at the of this process the policy of urban innovation, while engagement from civil and in the The Climate Innovation is to from focused on governance and systems the on how their work upon systems and of climate resilient development across the their The Cities Mission represents influential and important governance innovation to help cities drive the energy climate transition by for to et al., The ways in which such capacity including its and and to change as are critical research digital technologies data and digital of urban that the capabilities of cities to problems and potential solutions 2018). cities a of problems and the of innovations to address but be resource to et al., or not to cities in ways that use 2018). in many cities the most transport data is by like forms of and environmental data are and to this, major of urban sustainability have little data and are important helping to and urban The potential of digital and to improve urban is but to be from in urban research help ensure technologies to the priorities and of and new forms and of governance that are more to local and et al., 2024). also the of cities to and use which represents a in urban governance et al., in which like these have transformative sustainability benefits important for capacity of cities to also on their to from their innovation and what In relation to the and a that and the local of innovation including its on and Evidence how are are to how to goals like innovation with sustainability and social justice et al., et al., 2022). measures the of the on the This such as or to the of the from Evidence the by different in urban innovation is to help cities to their capacity the process including and resource et al., 2019). This help and improve more from urban is and tend to focus on such as the role of or policy in specific for rather than the between different and their on innovation for climate and sustainability goals et al., 2023). and of not the and but of the for urban innovation et al., as that that requires organisations to not their but also their and political and urban engage with the processes of change and governance 2023). The concept of transformative which is the to and is not a but a of the relationship between the and actors et al., 2024). urban innovation projects are a of and to and drive this process & their of transformative innovation policy more et up the capacity of policy to and transformative as a key be by with actors a of critical in the the in groups became for the local by with the and through to deliver and et al., 2022). of or is but to what and et al., urban innovation capacity global to evidence and successful of data and evidence the and of initiatives has as being of critical to the capacity of cities to address sustainability and climate challenges across a of from to and local solutions to across and to be in diverse such as the Cities and or the Urban Innovation Hub in for how urban innovation be at and These are in the platforms for cities to and build across However, the growing of city focused on global challenges such as climate change, of the of these is often to policy such as to the delivery of carbon reduction goals et al., city are to play a role in global urban we need more process of how and for systemic are in innovative capacity and innovation has become central to global policy to sustainability and climate change. as a way to societal policy on urban innovation around the of and capacity This paper has identified a series of how these play in specifically urban with research priorities to support urban innovation for global sustainability and climate of innovation. Urban sustainability researchers are to contribute to this Urban innovation for climate and sustainability goals across all of how we manage and live in cities, requires that how we innovation and in urban Urban innovation the role of cities in societal change, for cities as key in global climate and sustainability The urban innovation agenda to be and that urban sustainability A community of researchers in making initiatives to improve cities, and as and have an important role to play in more inclusive and forms of place-based urban innovation et al., innovation is a to research and is by The of and to urban innovation for sustainability and climate change up a greater role for and research in urban innovation towards sustainability and climate goals. systems approaches that and data to deliver and equitable action in climate resilient development of In approaches that integrate multiple case including the of and challenges a and of practical and The to which urban innovation be like innovation and innovation, In many the of urban innovation are being the and of urban governance. In urban governance not with this Work on urban provides a of and but is more to in innovation policy and but to goals like cross-sectoral and change of research to be the urban innovation In with the of the to Action on Climate Research and this agenda research that is with stakeholders and to cities, and access to and case in Sustainable Cities was on a to and sharing knowledge to help cities become more Cities are around the world but not have the or resources to the role as a global research community is to evidence and that help urban innovation as and as
Open access
Smart Cities and Technologies
Innovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
Or Yatzkan, Reuven Cohen, Eyal Yaniv, Orit Rotem-Mindali
Urban energy efficiency and sustainability are critical challenges, as cities worldwide attempt to balance economic growth, environmental sustainability, and energy consumption. This systematic review examines the dynamics of urban energy management, focusing on how local authorities navigate energy transitions through efficiency measures, renewable energy adoption, and policy interventions. Specifically, it seeks to answer the following research question: how do local authorities implement energy-efficient practices and adopt renewable energy technologies to reduce emissions, optimize cost-effectiveness, and influence urban policy-making? The goal of this study is to assess the effectiveness of these approaches in different urban contexts. By reviewing 47 articles, this study identifies the unique characteristics of urban energy management and highlights the need for tailored, context-specific solutions, such as integrating decentralized renewable energy systems, optimizing building energy performance, and developing policy incentives that consider local socio-economic conditions. The findings reveal varying degrees of success among cities, with particular challenges in lower-income municipalities, where financial and institutional barriers hinder the implementation of sustainable energy projects. This study concludes that localized approaches and long-term strategies are essential for achieving sustainable urban energy transitions, offering a comprehensive perspective on the complexities of urban energy systems and their evolving policy landscape. Future research should focus on assessing the long-term impact of municipal energy policies, exploring innovative financing mechanisms for renewable energy integration, and examining the role of digital technologies in optimizing urban energy management.
The intersection of quantum urbanism and non-fungible tokens (NFTs) offers a new paradigm for remapping urban futures, wherein digital and physical realms merge into dynamic, decentralized ecosystems. This article examines how quantum computing, by applying principles such as superposition and probabilistic optimization, can simulate extremely intricate urban systems, from energy networks to traffic patterns, with unprecedented efficiency. Meanwhile, NFTs are transforming the notion of virtual land ownership, allowing decentralized control and hybrid economies that bypass geographical constraints. By integrating these domains, cities can become vibrant spaces where quantum algorithms optimize virtual land value, and NFT-based platforms democratize urban development. However, this transformation poses fundamental challenges: the energy consumption of quantum-blockchain infrastructures risks compromising sustainability goals, while algorithmic opacity and digital divides risk reproducing historical inequalities in virtual realms. Ethical governance policy and principles must concentrate on renewable energy integration, algorithmic transparency, and fair access to prevent exploitation. Drawing from emergent metaverse economy trials and quantum urban simulations, the paper argues that such a nexus would be capable of driving Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), namely SDG 9 (innovation), SDG 11 (sustainable cities), and SDG 17 (partnerships) if they are premised on participatory design and cross-sectoral collaboration.
The scientific hypothesis of the article assumes that inequality in access to digital infrastructure, inequality in digital skills and digital literacy, inequality in the use of digital technologies are new forms of social stratification and forms of manifestation of various digital divides. We argue that digital inequality objectively acquires new forms of manifestation. Digital and spatial inequality coexist in at least two forms of manifestation â digital periphery and digital gentrification. Digital periphery is the result of the formation of territories with limited access to digital infrastructure, which in the context of digitalization of economic processes inevitably leads to economic marginalization. An analysis of the literature has shown that digital gentrification is considered as a consequence of the increase in the cost of housing in areas with developed digital infrastructure due to the internal migration of digital workers. We believe that this approach to defining digital gentrification requires further study, because in the era of digitalization, digital technologies not only change the physical space of cities, but also create new forms of spaces â digital environments, digital platforms, digital communities. This allows us to develop the concept of "digital gentrification" as a phenomenon that describes the processes of displacement, exclusion and transformation in digital space. The purpose of the study is to determine the essence of digital gentrification and its typology, which will allow us to characterize the positive and negative consequences of gentrification processes for inequality from the perspective of socio-spatial transformation. We define the digital environment as the communication environment of digital devices and the environment of digital inequality. By considering the digital environment as the basis of a complex network of digital interactions, we can better understand the differences that arise in access to technologies, their use, and technology-related skills. In the context of spatial inequality, the household is a key entity, since its socio-economic situation directly depends on spatial opportunities: access to infrastructure, jobs, social services, environmental conditions, etc. The spatial localization of the household determines its inclusion in socio-economic processes and opportunities for development. In the context of digitalization, the concept of "household" is significantly modified. Under the conditions of digital transformation, traditional households are being modified into âdigital communitiesâ (groups of individuals united by common interests or goals in the digital space, who carry out economic activities) or âvirtual collectivesâ (temporary associations of individuals for the implementation of short-term projects such as crowdsourcing initiatives) or into decentralized autonomous organizations (forms of collective economic activity based on blockchain technologies and smart contracts). Hybrid households are being formed â distributed households. We propose to consider digital gentrification as a process of transformation of digital interaction spaces and digital platforms, which is characterized by a change in the nature and intermediary functions of the digital environment, accompanied by a revaluation of digital assets in the interests of new user groups or data-driven companies, marginalization or displacement of initial users, forced simplification of digital specialization due to the development of ICT, which allowed us to distinguish platform gentrification, spatial digital gentrification, infrastructure digital gentrification, algorithmic gentrification, cultural digital gentrification, informational gentrification, economic digital gentrification, professional digital gentrification, virtual-spatial gentrification.
As generative AI (GenAI) technologies proliferate in urban governance, the challenge of building trustworthy AI systems becomes increasingly urgent. This chapter critically examines âtrustworthinessâ not as a purely technical attribute, but as a socio-political construct shaped by power, participation, and policy. Focusing on smart cities as testbeds of algorithmic governance, it explores how decentralized Web3 technologiesâsuch as blockchain, DAOs, and data cooperativesâcan offer structural alternatives to centralized, opaque systems. Drawing on action research from the Horizon Europe ENFIELD project and framed by EU policy developments like the AI Act and the Draghi Report, the chapter proposes a multi-layered governance model. It evaluates seven emerging techniques to strengthen GenAI accountability: (i) federated learning, (ii) blockchain provenance tracking, (iii) zero-knowledge proofs, (iv) DAO-based verification, (v) digital watermarking, (vi) explainable AI (XAI), and (vii) privacy-preserving machine learning (PPML). The chapter ultimately argues that trustworthy AI must be embedded in participatory governance, algorithmic transparency, and plural civic oversight. By reframing trust as a relational, institutional, and democratic issue, it contributes to reimagining smart cities not as technocratic projects, but as inclusive arenas for data justice and democratic renewal.
This chapter explores the technopolitical dynamics underpinning the monopolistic rise of data-opoliesâdominant tech corporations such as GAFAMâand their implications for democracy in the age of AI. Drawing on Calzadaâs conceptual framework and action research, it investigates how algorithmic governance in smart cities displaces democratic deliberation, eroding civic trust and transparency. The chapter critically engages with Web3 technologiesâblockchain, DAOs, and data cooperativesâas possible countermeasures to platform capitalism, while remaining attentive to their ideological tensions, especially the crypto-libertarian vision of âNetwork Statesâ Ă la Srinivasan. By linking the governance of AI systems with Richard R. Nelsonâs âMoon and Ghettoâ metaphor, the chapter underscores a key paradox: technological innovation soars, yet foundational democratic deficits remain unresolved. Through a multidisciplinary lens, it interrogates how decentralized infrastructures might reclaim digital sovereignty and foster more equitable innovation systems. The chapter concludes by proposing a pluralistic governance model rooted in algorithmic transparency, data ethics by design, and multistakeholder engagementâcritical steps toward re-democratizing the datafied city.
Virtual Cities (VCs) transcend simple digital replicas of real-world systems, emerging as complex socio-technical ecosystems where autonomous AI entities function as citizens. Agentic AI systems are on track to engage in cultural, economic, and political activities, effectively forming societal structure within VC. This paper proposes an integrated simulation framework that combines physical, structural, behavioral, cognitive, and data fidelity layers, allowing multi-scale simulation from microscopic interactions to macro-urban dynamics. A composite fidelity metric ($F_{0}$) provides systematic approach to evaluate accuracy variations across applications in VCs. We also discuss autonomy of AI entities and classify them according to their capacity to modify goalsâranging from âtoolsâ with fixed objectives to âentitiesâ capable of redefining their very purpose. We also outline the requirements to define a coefficient to evaluate the degree of autonomy for AI beings. Our results demonstrate that such virtual environments can support the emergence of AI-driven societies, where governance mechanisms like Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) and an Artificial Collective Consciousness (ACC) provide ethical and regulatory oversight. By blending horizon scanning with systems engineering method for defining novel AI governance models, this study reveals how VCs can catalyze breakthroughs in urban innovation while driving socially beneficial AI development - consequently opening a new frontier for exploring human-AI coexistence.
âReFiâ is a rapidly emerging movement in the web3 space that seeks to leverage blockchain technology and decentralized finance (DeFi) protocols to deliver positive real-world impact. While ReFi is short for regenerative finance, regenerative practitioners query the regenerative claims of the movement. This perspective article explains why the regenerative claims of the ReFi movement are under scrutiny and highlights the implications for the Global Commons if the movement does not adhere to regenerative principles. Given that ReFi is a blockchain-enabled movement, the impact of ReFi on the Global Commons is implicitly a blockchain-related concern. This article provides a regenerative practitionerâs perspective on the ReFi movement as a point of reference for blockchain practitioners in the ReFi movement seeking to be a force for good. Long-standing research in ecological economics highlights the negative impacts of over-financialization and commoditization on the natural world. Given that blockchain technology enables more of the worldâs natural assets to become commoditized, securitized, and collateralized than ever before, the article asserts that DeFiâs drive to financialize everything could make the Global Commons the next, and final, commodity frontier. It also asserts that the ReFi movement has the potential to reverse this trend if it can genuinely adhere to the regenerative paradigm.
Abstract The security of the main distributed consensus algorithms used in distributed legers in the digital environment of a smart city is analyzed. A new concept for protecting a smart cityâs distributed legers is presented, which consists of using a hybrid distributed consensus protocol based on the joint use of a tangle-class algorithm and a proof-of-authority-class algorithm, protected by trusted computing and remote attestation technologies. The proposed protocol compensates for the weaknesses and vulnerabilities of the existing distributed consensus algorithms that are inherent in distributed ledger technology and hinder its widespread use in large digital environments of smart cities.
Bruno Henrique Sanches, Marlei Pozzebon, Eduardo Henrique Diniz
Abstract Westernised paradigms dominate the information systems (IS) field, often overshadowing alternative epistemologies. This study challenges the prevailing hegemonic view and contributes to the decolonization of IS research and practice by proposing a Latin American and decolonial approach to technological development that emphasises community centrality and epistemic justice through recognition of local knowledges and Indigenous traditions. Using design ethnography, we follow the development of a solidarity cryptocurrency in a Brazilian favela. Our paper offers two key contributions. By introducing tecnologia social , an underrepresented perspective in IS, we highlight ecology of knowledges, centrality of the local and decolonial reconfiguration as principles that can enrich the understanding of IS projects from a decolonial perspective. In addition, we propose a new conceptâepistemic dialogical tensionâas a process wherein different epistemologies coexist and accommodate each other, encouraging a dynamic interplay of distinct human experiences and worldviews. It offers new paths to IS scholars and practitioners in navigating the complexities of epistemic plurality. We argue that tecnologia social and epistemic dialogical tension provide fertile ground for developing reimagined, decolonized approaches where multiple epistemologies can coexist, favouring the oftenâsilenced communities they are intended to benefit.
Roman Meinhold, Christoph Wagner, Bablu Kumar Dhar
Abstract This review provides a comprehensive analysis of the intersection between digital sustainability (DS) and ecoâenvironmental sustainability (EES), focusing on the opportunities and challenges presented by emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain, electric vehicles (EVs), and cryptocurrencies. The study critically examines the sustainability concerns arising from the increasing demand for digital infrastructure and the depletion of essential natural resources, including tantalum, indium, cobalt, and lithium. Through an interdisciplinary approach, the review evaluates the ethical, technological, and policy implications of integrating DS within the EES framework. It emphasizes the significance of innovative governance and crossâsector collaboration to address the environmental tradeâoffs and digital rebound effects linked with these technologies. Additionally, the review proposes strategies for mitigating the ecological impacts of digital transformation and identifies crucial research gaps, particularly in resource management and longâterm sustainability. The findings aim to guide the alignment of DS with EES, fostering a more balanced and resilient path towards sustainable development. This study offers actionable insights and policy recommendations for industry practitioners, policymakers, and researchers committed to advancing sustainable digital transformation.
Andrew Ebekozien, Clinton Aigbavboa, Wellington Didibhuku Thwala, Mohamad Shaharudin Samsurijan ¡ 7 authors
Purpose Twenty-first century digitalisation birthed new methods of payment systems like the emergence of cryptocurrencies. Cryptocurrency technologies have been identified as drivers for crypto-smart contracts and procurements. Studies regarding the application of cryptocurrency technologies in the Nigerian built environment industry are uncommon. Therefore, this paper aims to explore the relevance of cryptocurrency technologies to the sector, examine the perceived barriers that may hinder cryptocurrency technologies implementation and propose measures to promote the applications. Design/methodology/approach The research conducted a virtual interview across Abuja and Lagos cities to appraise stakeholdersâ perceptions. The interviewees were requested to proffer answers to the research questions. The study conducted 25 semi-structured interviews with knowledgeable stakeholders. The data were analysed, and findings were reported in themes. Findings Enhanced the era of smart contracts, increased liquidity for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and new openings to raise more funds for capital-intensive construction projects emerged as the advantages where cryptocurrency technologies can benefit the sector if allowed to operate. Cryptocurrency technology applications are not without some anticipated hindrances. Risk of loss of investment/price instability, lack of intrinsic value, money laundering, attracting speculators, criminal activities/security issues, lack of clarity and awareness and lack of skills emerged as the frequently anticipated barriers that may hinder cryptocurrency technologies applications. Research limitations/implications The study is limited to cryptocurrency technology applications in Nigeriaâs built environment, and a qualitative method has been adopted. Originality/value Besides uncovering barriers hindering cryptocurrency technology usage via an unexplored mechanism, the study is one of the few studies to proffer measures to improve cryptocurrency technology usage in the built environment.
Blockchain technology is increasingly being used in various industries, including finance, healthcare, energy management, digital records, and IoT. The combination of IoT and blockchain can address privacy, security, and responsibility issues in data-driven environments. Ethical issues are discussed in this chapter, emphasizing responsible governance frameworks. Blockchain-based decentralized systems can empower residents by giving them more control over their data and increasing transparency in municipal government. Ecologically sound architecture strategies prioritize user comfort, security, modernization, and data security. Blockchain technology can address technical and administrative tasks, such as data security and sustainability issues. The advancement of blockchain technology with IoT makes smart cities more secure and user-friendly in various sectors.
Local communities engage production systems based on a set of agreed quality standards to which each member must adhere. Most of these systems, from local food production to renewable energy communities, require continuous and transparent monitoring of sensor values collected from usersâ devices. Existing centralized solutions for data monitoring grant sole authority to a single entity, introducing risks of data manipulation without consensus. Distributed ledger technologies offer promising solutions, but their scalability limitations pose challenges in handling the vast volume of data generated by Internet of Things applications. This paper proposes an innovative approach that leverages distributed ledger technologies to certify sensor data, allowing user groups to customize their certification policies by exploiting the policy templates we provide. We develop our templates and system monitoring as Hyperledger Fabric smart contracts and validate our solution on three different use cases in local communities. Experimental results show that our system reduces blockchain stored data volume and enhances trust and transparency in sensor monitoring while accommodating diverse stakeholder requirements. Our solution enables a simple, detailed analysis of certified policy violations.