Reimagining public space through technology: a systematic review and conceptual framework linking digital technologies to spatial characteristics

1 Introduction

Public spaces have long been recognised as vital elements of urban environments, serving as inclusive settings where people meet, interact, and engage in community life (Goffman, 1973; Sepe, 2021; Ujang et al., 2018). They contribute significantly to enhancing individual and collective well-being by fostering social cohesion, encouraging physical activity, and providing opportunities for cultural expression (Anderson et al., 2017; Hutomo and Fuad, 2020; Zhang et al., 2023). These spaces, such as parks, streetscapes, waterfronts, and community squares play a crucial role in improving public health, enabling recreational activities, and supporting psychological restoration. As integral components of liveable cities, public spaces continue to shape the quality of everyday life and strengthen the social structures of communities across the world (Yang et al., 2022).

Despite their importance, the usage of public spaces has been significantly impacted by various contemporary factors, including safety and security concerns, limited accessibility and convenience, and a lack of modern functionalities. Concerns regarding personal safety and crime are paramount in influencing the usage of public spaces (Badiora et al., 2020). Fear of violence, particularly among vulnerable populations such as women and the elderly, can deter individuals from visiting these areas, especially during certain times of the day. Studies have shown that inadequate lighting and the presence of anti-social behaviour contribute to feelings of insecurity, further exacerbating the reluctance to engage with public spaces (Afentou et al., 2024).

Accessibility remains a significant barrier to the effective use of public spaces. Many public areas lack essential amenities such as clean facilities, charging stations for electronic devices, and adequate transportation links, which can discourage people from utilizing these spaces (Kapsalis et al., 2024; Olsson et al., 2021; Park and Chowdhury, 2018; Rosenberg et al., 2013). For individuals with mobility disabilities, the absence of features like curb ramps and accessible pathways can make these spaces virtually unusable (Bezyak et al., 2017; Kapsalis et al., 2024; Rosenberg et al., 2013). As societal needs evolve, traditional public spaces often fail to meet modern expectations. The absence of functionalities such as electric vehicle charging stations, free Wi-Fi, and interactive elements can render these spaces less appealing to contemporary users (Bojorquez et al., 2018; Renaud-Blondeau et al., 2023; Weiss and Villiere, 2022).

The reduced usage of public spaces has profound psychological and social consequences, as well as implications stemming from a shift toward online engagement (van Zoonen et al., 2017). The decline in public space usage has been linked to heightened feelings of social isolation and mental health issues (Rugel et al., 2019). As individuals opt to avoid public spaces due to safety concerns or lack of amenities, they may experience loneliness, which can exacerbate mental health problems such as anxiety and depression (Hampton et al., 2015). The absence of communal gathering places diminishes opportunities for social interaction, leading to a weakened sense of community and belonging (Xu and Miao, 2022). Research indicates that public spaces serve as essential venues for social capital development, where individuals can engage in collective activities and build relationships (Zakariya and Harun, 2018). The lack of these interactions can lead to a fragmented social fabric, reducing the overall resilience and cohesion of communities (Barber et al., 2022).

Even though public spaces are expected to embody a range of spatial characteristics that support inclusivity, comfort, and meaningful interaction (Perera et al., 2024; Polat, 2024; Rassia and Zervou, 2019), these intended qualities are often not fully realised in practice (Blaszczy et al., 2020). Public spaces are fundamentally designed to facilitate social interactions, outdoor activities, and a sense of belonging, yet several studies show that many spaces fail to deliver these intended experiential and functional qualities (Askarizad et al., 2024). For instance, inadequate lighting, insufficient amenities, and the presence of anti-social behaviour directly undermine the qualities of comfort, safety, and protection that well-designed public spaces are supposed to offer (Afentou et al., 2024; Badiora et al., 2020). Similarly, when essential infrastructure such as accessible pathways, ramps, and clean facilities is absent, public spaces fall short of the expected standards of accessibility and permeability, making them difficult or impossible to use for many individuals, especially those with disabilities (Bezyak et al., 2017; Kapsalis et al., 2024; Rosenberg et al., 2013).

Traditional public spaces are also increasingly unable to meet evolving user expectations related to convenience, connectivity, and modern functionality. The absence of features such as charging stations, free Wi-Fi, and interactive amenities leads to diminished comfort, reduced engagement, and weakened user satisfaction (Bojorquez et al., 2018; Renaud-Blondeau et al., 2023; Weiss and Villiere, 2022). These deficits directly affect core spatial attributes of public spaces such as liveability, robustness, and richness. As a result, even though public spaces are theoretically designed to serve as vibrant, accessible, and engaging urban environments, their practical shortcomings limit their effectiveness and contribute to declining usage.

As traditional public spaces struggle to fulfil fundamental characteristics such as safety, accessibility, comfort, and engagement, technological integration has emerged in global research as a viable means to strengthen these qualities. Many of the issues that undermine spatial characteristics such as poor lighting, lack of information, inadequate amenities, weak sense of safety, or limited opportunities for interaction can be directly addressed through technological interventions. For instance, the implementation of smart lighting systems can enhance safety by improving visibility during nighttime hours, while surveillance cameras can deter crime and provide a sense of security for users (Badiora et al., 2020; Koohsari et al., 2015; Lin et al., 2015; Navarrete-Hernandez et al., 2021). These technologies directly reinforce spatial characteristics such as protection, comfort, and liveability.

Technology can also improve accessibility and connectivity, which are often compromised in conventional public spaces. The use of mobile applications enables real-time navigation, information on events, and safety alerts, thereby enhancing user convenience and enabling more seamless movement within public environments (Prasandya et al., 2023). Similarly, digital kiosks that provide information about local history, services, and events support characteristics like legibility, richness, and engagement by offering interactive and context-sensitive content (Malhotra and Dobriyal, 2021). Features such as electric vehicle charging stations and free Wi-Fi cater to modern needs and expectations, transforming public spaces into more functional, contemporary, and user-friendly environments (Hajialiakbari et al., 2021; Sami Al-Obeidy and Ali, 2017).

Global examples further illustrate the potential of technology to enrich spatial characteristics. Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park in London, United Kingdom, integrates interactive digital displays, free Wi-Fi, energy-generating paving, microclimate sensors, smart benches, Augmented Reality (AR) applications, and Internet of Things (IoT)-based infrastructure, significantly improving user experience and engagement (Ferreri and Trogal, 2018; Smith, 2014). Kelvin Grove Urban Village in Brisbane, Australia, similarly incorporates smart lighting, digital wayfinding, and interactive public art to foster social interaction and cultural significance (Anderson et al., 2017; Ujang et al., 2018). These interventions collectively demonstrate how technology can enhance qualities such as engagement, permeability, visibility, connectivity, and overall comfort.

However, global evidence also highlights that technological interventions are not universally positive. Significant financial investments, ongoing maintenance demands, privacy risks, and concerns related to data governance accompany these enhancements (Bakıcı et al., 2013; Gabrys, 2014; Ho, 2017; van Zoonen, 2016). These challenges illustrate that technology must be integrated strategically to support spatial characteristics without creating new forms of exclusion or surveillance.

This gap justifies the need to systematically investigate the technological interventions identified across global studies and align them with the spatial characteristics of public spaces. Understanding these linkages is essential for developing a structured framework that can guide designers, planners, and policymakers in selecting appropriate technologies to strengthen specific qualities of public spaces. Therefore, this study aims to develop a characteristic-led, stage-based framework for technology integration in public spaces.

This aim is achieved through:

• Mapping technologies identified in global literature against public space characteristics to determine how different technologies support specific spatial qualities across the stages of creation, maintenance, and review.
• Synthesising the positive and negative implications of integrating technologies into public spaces.

1.1 Characteristics of public spaces

Urban design and public space scholarship consistently argues that public space performance is not determined solely by physical provision, but by a set of interrelated characteristics that shape how people move, interpret, inhabit, and value public environments. Classical and contemporary accounts converge around attributes that influence spatial accessibility and intelligibility, the diversity and adaptability of uses, experiential quality, and the social and institutional conditions that enable safe, inclusive, and meaningful public life (Carmona, 2019; Carr et al., 1992; Department.of the Environment Transport & Regional Affairs, 2000; Ellin, 2013; Gehl, 2008; Jacobs and Appleyard, 1987; Lynch, 1964; McGlynn et al., 2013; Weisman, 1981). In this study, these characteristics are treated as a coherent set of 16 qualities that together explain why public spaces succeed or fail in supporting everyday use and community life.

Figure 1 illustrates the process used to derive the 16 public space characteristics adopted in this study. The diagram shows how characteristics identified from seminal and contemporary urban design sources were compared, grouped, and consolidated based on conceptual similarity. Since different authors use varied terms to describe related spatial qualities, overlapping ideas were merged while distinct concepts were retained. This synthesis resulted in a consolidated set of 16 characteristics, which provides the theoretical foundation for the subsequent mapping of technologies against public space performance. A summary of derivation of characteristics from literature sources is in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of derivation of characteristics from literature sources.

There are characteristics concern movement, access, and spatial comprehension. Among them, Permeability reflects the availability of multiple routes through and into a place, and requires both physical connections and visual openness so that route choice is not limited to those already familiar with the area (Department.of the Environment Transport & Regional Affairs, 2000; McGlynn et al., 2013). Empirical work further links permeability to pedestrian movement and wayfinding, inclusion, social interaction, and even ecological flows within urban systems (Adiv and Wolf-Powers, 2019; Alonso de Andrade et al., 2018; Dai et al., 2023; Dubinina et al., 2022; Nadia et al., 2022; Swai, 2013). Legibility complements permeability by addressing how easily users can “read” a place through its layout, landmarks, cues, and the alignment between physical form and activity patterns supporting orientation, rapid comprehension by outsiders, and a deeper sense of authenticity and meaning (Carmona, 2019; Department.of the Environment Transport & Regional Affairs, 2000; Ellin, 2013; Jacobs and Appleyard, 1987; Lynch, 1964; McGlynn et al., 2013; Thombre and Kapshe, 2022; Vaitkevičiūtė, 2019; Weisman, 1981).

When emphasises diversity, flexibility, and long-term functional relevance, variety refers to the mix of uses, users, activities, and meanings that occur across time, enabling experiential choice and supporting discovery; it is strengthened by hybridity in functions, populations, and formal/informal or public/private blends (Carr et al., 1992; Department.of the Environment Transport & Regional Affairs, 2000; Ellin, 2013; Loo and Fan, 2023; McGlynn et al., 2013). Robustness addresses whether a space can accommodate a wide range of activities over time without losing its identity, maintaining relevance under changing social and environmental conditions (Carmona, 2019; McGlynn et al., 2013). The literature therefore frames successful public spaces as those that both host diverse uses and remain adaptable, particularly where land is constrained and multiple user needs must be served within limited space.

Moreover, there are characteristics focus on experiential and sensory quality, identity, and everyday comfort. Visual appropriateness concerns the extent to which the appearance of buildings and spatial elements communicates function and aligns with context, reinforcing coherence, identity, and intuitive understanding (Alwah et al., 2024; Department.of the Environment Transport & Regional Affairs, 2000). This attribute is also shaped by lighting and aesthetic parameters that influence visual comfort and night-time usability, while requiring careful management to avoid negative externalities such as light pollution (Ganna, 2022; Kononenko, 2024); and can be reinforced through arts and design that reflect local culture and strengthen sense of place (Okeke, 2025). Richness extends beyond visual form to multisensory experience such as sound, smell, touch, microclimate, and movement affecting enjoyment, emotional response, and intentions to revisit or engage with a place (Beck et al., 2017; Dai and Zheng, 2021; Gehl, 2008; McGlynn et al., 2013; Ramkissoon et al., 2024). Personalisation captures how users imprint identity and belonging through physical appropriation, symbolic display, and participation in shaping space, supporting attachment and inclusivity and increasingly extending into digital public interfaces (Astuti et al., 2016; Carr et al., 1992; Jacobs and Appleyard, 1987; Kurdyukova et al., 2012; Madeira et al., 2019; McGlynn et al., 2013; Parker et al., 2016). Liveability and relaxation address the extent to which public space supports quality of life through cleanliness, maintenance, seating, climate comfort, safety, and psychological ease conditions that influence the duration of stay and the likelihood of return (Carmona, 2019; Carr et al., 1992; Cheshmehzangi, 2015; Gehl, 2008; Jacobs and Appleyard, 1987; Southworth, 2016; Vukmirović et al., 2023).

Public space performance as contingent on safety, governance, and socio-ecological resilience. Balance describes how pedestrian priority and safety can be reconciled with necessary vehicle access through shared-space design, crossings, and traffic-calming shaping driver behaviour and reducing conflict risks (Carmona, 2019; Dostál et al., 2024; Gitelman et al., 2020; Kaparias et al., 2012; Kaparias and Wang, 2020; Ogendi et al., 2013). Sustainability (urban self-resilience) frames public spaces as ecological and operational systems that can enhance air quality, reduce noise, conserve water and energy, and support resilience to climate and usage pressures through greener materials and efficient operations (Jacobs and Appleyard, 1987; Shaban et al., 2025). Accessibility extends beyond physical entry to include people’s ability to reach public spaces, services, and activities through suitable mobility options and transport connectivity, as well as the inclusive use of routes, facilities, amenities, and digital information by people of diverse ages and abilities. It therefore encompasses barrier-free and universal design, accessible digital interfaces and wayfinding information, intergenerational needs, multicultural representation, elastic programming, and the inclusion of marginalised groups (Fathi and O’Brien, 2024; Jacobs and Appleyard, 1987; Lesan and Gjerde, 2021; Liu and Kim, 2021; Macikūnaitė and Kamicaitytė, 2022; Bensemann, 2021 “Movement Through the Marginalised: An Urban Landscape Investigation”, 2021; Nelischer and Loukaitou-Sideris, 2023; Phlix et al., 2024; Qiu et al., 2023; Simões Aelbrecht et al., 2022). Connectivity further extends to both physical networks (walkability, cycling, transit integration, universal design continuity) and social/digital connectivity that shapes interaction, information access, and inclusion while recognising that connectivity alone may not predict use without supportive surrounding conditions (Carmona, 2019; Dong et al., 2020; Ellin, 2013; Hampton et al., 2010; Jacobs and Appleyard, 1987; Lintner, 2022; Moore, 2021; Samad et al., 2018; Sheller, 2004; Temple, 2023).

Finally, the literature highlights that successful public spaces remain open to change while ensuring safety and meaningful participation. Vulnerability captures the deliberate openness of public space to imperfection, appropriation, and evolving social and environmental dynamics an “unfinished” quality that depends as much on governance and cultural tolerance as on physical form (Department.of the Environment Transport & Regional Affairs, 2000; Ellin, 2013). Protection addresses safety from traffic, crime, and environmental discomfort through design measures such as visibility, passive surveillance, safe crossings, and climatic mitigation (Gehl, 2008). Engagement synthesises the capacity of public space to attract and sustain presence through active participation and passive involvement (e.g., people-watching), strengthened by surrounding uses, events, and design features that provide reasons to return (Carmona, 2019; Carr et al., 1992; Department.of the Environment Transport & Regional Affairs, 2000; Ellin, 2013; Jacobs and Appleyard, 1987). Collectively, these sixteen characteristics provide the conceptual foundation for interpreting how interventions including digital and smart technologies may support public space performance in targeted and stage-appropriate ways.

1.2 Digital and smart technologies in public spaces

Digital and smart technologies in public spaces comprise a heterogeneous group of networked, sensing, modelling, interactive, operational and analytical systems. These technologies differ not only in their technical functions, but also in how they interact with users, physical infrastructure and public-space management processes. Some technologies operate as visible user-facing interfaces, such as mobile applications, kiosks and interactive displays, while others function in the background by collecting data, controlling infrastructure or supporting management decisions. Individual technologies may also perform several functions simultaneously. For example, a mobile application may support navigation, service access and public participation, while a digital twin may integrate spatial models, sensor data and analytical capabilities to support monitoring and simulation (Houghton et al., 2014; Kourtit et al., 2017; Samih, 2019; Weil et al., 2023).

To avoid treating technology as a single undifferentiated intervention, the technologies identified in the reviewed literature were organised into six functional families, as presented in Table 2. This author-developed classification distinguishes technologies according to their primary role in public spaces while recognising that the categories are not mutually exclusive. Its purpose is to clarify the technological landscape examined in the study rather than to replace the detailed technology–characteristic and stage-based mappings presented in Supplementary Tables S1 and S2.

Table 2. Functional classification of digital and smart technologies applied in public spaces.

Several related technologies require further distinction. Cameras, sensors and other data-acquisition devices capture information about public-space conditions, whereas computer vision, artificial intelligence and big-data systems analyse such information to identify patterns or support predictions. A digital twin combines a digital representation of a physical environment with spatial, operational or sensor-derived data to support monitoring, simulation and management. Augmented reality overlays digital content onto a user’s view of the physical environment, whereas virtual reality places the user within a digitally simulated environment. Geographic information systems organise and analyse georeferenced information, while dashboards communicate selected indicators and analytical results to planners, managers or users (Hunter et al., 2022; Kourtit et al., 2017; Marasinghe et al., 2024; Weil et al., 2023).

2 Research methodology

2.1 Research design

This study adopted a sequential review-based research design consisting of three stages: narrative synthesis, systematic literature review, and structured mapping. First, a narrative literature review was conducted to identify and consolidate public space characteristics discussed in seminal and contemporary urban design literature, where overlapping concepts and varied terminologies were merged to derive 16 distinct characteristics. Second, a systematic literature review was undertaken to identify technologies integrated into public spaces across global contexts. Finally, each identified technology was mapped against the 16 public space characteristics and classified according to the stage at which it supports spatial performance: creation, maintenance, or review. This design enabled the study to move beyond a technology-centred review and develop a characteristic-led framework for understanding how digital and smart technologies can enhance public spaces.

2.2 Scope of research and search strategy densification

The research question of the Systematic Literature Review was “What is the influence of emerging technologies in redefining public spaces and their impact on Community Engagement” for this study was developed using the CIMO while CIMO represents “Context, Intervention, Mechanism, Outcome” (Kochan and Nowicki, 2018). CIMO was selected because it is particularly suited to design-oriented research synthesis that seeks to explain how an intervention operates through specific mechanisms within a defined context to produce intended outcomes, thereby supporting context-sensitive and practically relevant propositions rather than merely cataloguing interventions (Denyer et al., 2008).

Following the CIMO approach, the first step was to construct a logic grid (Table 3) and conduct an initial search using the key terms in the grid. Alternative terms or synonyms for the identified concepts were then identified by scanning the titles and abstracts of retrieved articles in this initial search to populate a comprehensive logic grid.

Table 3. Initial logic grid aligned with the CIMO elements of the review question.

Thereafter, a comprehensive logic grid was developed by identifying alternative expressions or synonymous terms related to the key concepts, derived through a review of the titles and abstracts of the initially retrieved articles. Table 4 presents a detailed search string that includes both keywords/free-text terms and index terms. The index terms were identified through a thorough review, using the list of keywords gathered from the initial literature search. As the final step in constructing the search string, search-field descriptors and wildcard characters were added to the selected keywords and index terms from the logic grid (Table 5).

Table 4. Logic grid with identified keywords added.

Table 5. Disproportional technological focus across characteristics.

After collecting and finalising all search terms, the final search string was formulated. At first, the key terms and their synonyms from the logic grid were combined using Boolean operators: ‘OR’ to link terms within the same column and ‘AND’ to connect terms across different columns. Following this, the final search was carried out across all selected citation databases using the constructed search string, as illustrated in Figure 2.

Once the final search was conducted, the search strategy was further refined by selecting relevant filters under search fields, publication year, subject/research area, document type, and language as mentioned in Table 6.

Table 6. Filters assigned for the literature search.

2.3 Eligibility, screening and study selection

The next step of the structured literature review involved the selection of databases. Since the use of high-ranking and indexed scholarly journals and conference proceedings are recommended, the search was conducted within two highly recognised citation databases: Scopus and Web of Science. These databases allowed a literature search within a broad range of international scientific journals such as Cities, Community Development, and Sustainability, as well as in high-ranking conference proceedings. Furthermore, a Google search was also con ducted to identify non-journal sources such as periodic reports issued by subject-related organisations. Finally, all the records generated from the above-mentioned databases were imported to the Mendeley software for screening and systematic analysis, where duplicate records were identified and removed. The remaining records were screened first by title and abstract and subsequently through full-text assessment against the eligibility criteria presented in Table 7. Reasons for full-text exclusion were recorded, and the complete selection process is presented in the PRISMA flow diagram in Figure 3.

Table 7. Eligibility criteria applied during study selection.

2.4 Data extraction, coding and synthesis

A structured extraction matrix was used to record each study’s bibliographic information, geographical context, public-space type, technology, research design, data-collection method, analytical technique, reported findings and positive or negative implications. The matrix also recorded the public-space characteristic or characteristics supported by each technology and the stage at which the contribution occurred. The complete extraction framework is provided in Supplementary Table S3.

Technology–characteristic relationships were coded where the included study explicitly reported or demonstrated a relevant contribution. Multiple coding was permitted where one technology supported more than one characteristic. Creation referred to establishing or designing a spatial quality; maintenance referred to sustaining its operational performance; and review referred to monitoring, evaluation or adaptive management. Descriptive counts were used to examine the distribution of technologies across characteristics and stages, while qualitative thematic synthesis was used to consolidate the positive and negative implications.

2.5 Study selection process and search results

The database searches identified 1,445 records, comprising 726 records from Scopus and 719 from Web of Science. After 154 duplicates were removed, 1,291 records were screened by title and abstract, of which 1,159 were excluded. Of the 132 reports sought for full-text retrieval, nine could not be retrieved. The remaining 123 reports were assessed against the eligibility criteria, and nine were excluded due to not discussing about community engagement through the technology. The final review therefore included 114 studies, as presented in Figure 3. This study limits the selection criteria to English-language journal articles due to the constraints of language barriers, translation accuracy, and accessibility. While countries such as Japan and China have produced significant research on public spaces and smart technologies, much of this work is not readily available in English or cannot be accurately interpreted due to language limitations. Additionally, English is the dominant language in high-impact academic publishing, and most internationally recognized databases (Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, and Elsevier) primarily index English-language research. Given the need for reproducibility and academic rigor, this review focuses on English-language studies while acknowledging the potential limitation of excluding non-English research.

3 Findings

The findings are presented in two parts. First, the identified technologies are mapped against public-space characteristics and the stages of creation, maintenance and review. Second, the positive and negative implications of technology integration are synthesised from the reviewed studies.

3.1 Phase I: Mapping technologies with public space characteristics

3.1.1 Overview of the public space characteristic-led and stage-based mapping

This study moves beyond technology-centred interpretations of smart or digital public spaces by adopting public space characteristics as the primary unit of analysis. Rather than examining individual technologies in isolation, the findings demonstrate how technologies contribute to enhancing specific spatial characteristics and how these contributions vary across different stages of a characteristic’s lifecycle. By conceptualising characteristics as dynamic qualities that are created, maintained, and reviewed over time, the analysis provides a structured lens through which technological interventions can be meaningfully interpreted within public space theory.

The mapping exercise, derived from the systematic and narrative reviews, reveals that technologies are not uniformly applicable across all characteristics or stages. Instead, distinct clusters of technologies repeatedly align with particular characteristics and stages, indicating that their value lies not merely in their presence, but in how and when they are deployed within public spaces. The complete technology–characteristic mapping is provided in Supplementary Table S1, while the stage-based mapping is presented in Supplementary Table S2.

3.1.2 Technologies supporting the creation of public space characteristics

At the creation stage, technologies are primarily used to establish foundational spatial qualities that shape initial user experiences. The analysis shows that digital modelling, mixed reality, connectivity infrastructure, and interactive media technologies are most strongly associated with characteristics such as permeability, legibility, accessibility, engagement, and liveability (Figure 4).

For example, technologies such as 3D modelling, digital twins, and mixed reality support the creation of legibility (Sarmiento et al., 2021; Zhi and Yang, 2023; Houghton et al., 2014; Boem and Turchet, 2023; Jung et al., 2015; Schweiger et al., 2021; Lai, 2024; Bolognesi et al., 2023; Kim et al., 2009) and websites, mobile apps, and web portals support the creation of permeability (Shaker et al., 2021) by enabling designers to visualise movement patterns, spatial relationships, and user navigation before and during implementation. Similarly, connectivity-enabling technologies, including 5G networks and Wi-Fi hotspots, are repeatedly linked to the creation of connectivity (Zheng et al., 2022; Murena et al., 2020; Skaržauskiene and Mačiuliene, 2019; Horning et al., 2014; Ozdenizci Kose et al., 2023; Al-Shafi and Weerakkody, 2009; Shaban et al., 2025; Jiang et al., 2022; Bruni and Garzia, 2023; Itair et al., 2023) and liveability (Murena et al., 2020), reflecting the growing expectation that public spaces accommodate digital interaction alongside physical use.

3.1.3 Technologies supporting the maintenance of public space characteristics

In the maintenance stage, technologies shift from enabling design intentions to sustaining day-to-day performance. The evidence highlights a strong association between infrastructure-oriented and service-based technologies and characteristics such as protection, accessibility, connectivity, and liveability.

Technologies including smart lighting systems, surveillance cameras, traffic and parking sensors, and smart public transport systems are predominantly used to maintain safety, manage movement, and ensure continued accessibility. For instance, smart lighting and camera systems contribute to protection (Zheng et al., 2022; Amsellem, 2021; Adnan et al., 2023; Atiqur and Li, 2020; Hee-Woong, 2023; Turna and Bhandari, 2023; Schwendinger and Ross, 2022; Llido Escriva et al., 2018; Shaban et al., 2025; Itair et al., 2023) by improving visibility and deterring anti-social behaviour, while sensor-based transport and parking systems help sustain connectivity (Hee-Woong, 2023; Zhou et al., 2021; Anghelescu and Stefan, 2017; Marathe et al., 2023) by reducing congestion and improving mobility.

3.1.4 Technologies supporting the review and adaptive management of public space characteristics

The review stage is characterised by technologies that enable monitoring, evaluation, and adaptive decision-making. The findings show that sensor-driven and data-intensive technologies, such as environmental monitoring systems, computer vision, and digital twin platforms, are most strongly aligned with this stage.

These technologies support characteristics such as protection, sustainability, accessibility, connectivity, and liveability by providing continuous feedback on environmental conditions, user behaviour, and operational performance. For example, computer vision systems enable authorities to assess safety conditions and crowd dynamics (Shaban et al., 2025; Huang et al., 2019; Itair et al., 2023; Xie et al., 2024), while environmental sensors support sustainability by monitoring air quality, noise, and thermal comfort (Turna and Bhandari, 2023; Murali et al., 2024; Itair et al., 2023).

3.2 Phase II: positive and negative implications of technology integration in public spaces

The second part of the findings synthesises the wider implications of integrating technologies into public spaces. While Phase I explains how technologies are mapped to public space characteristics, Phase II critically considers the broader consequences of these interventions. The reviewed literature shows that technology integration can improve accessibility, navigation, engagement, safety, environmental management, service efficiency, and educational value. However, the same interventions may also produce privacy risks, data-security concerns, digital exclusion, surveillance anxieties, disruption of public space experience, implementation difficulties, and governance challenges.

This phase is therefore essential for interpreting the framework critically. A technology may support a particular characteristic, but its practical value depends on whether it strengthens public space experience without undermining inclusion, openness, trust, or publicness. For example, surveillance technologies may enhance protection, but they may also generate concerns about monitoring and control. Similarly, mobile applications and digital platforms may improve accessibility and engagement for some users, while excluding those without digital access, technical literacy, or trust in digital systems. Therefore, technology integration should be evaluated through both its spatial benefits and its social, ethical, managerial, and governance-related consequences.

3.2.1 Positive implications of integration of Technology in Public Spaces

3.2.1.1 Enhanced quality of life and urban environment

Technology improves the efficiency and sustainability of urban services and infrastructure (Ali and Khan, 2023). It also optimises resource utilisation, decreases waste and pollution, and generally enhances the quality of life for residents (Ali and Khan, 2023). In addition, it promotes a healthier environment, strengthens public safety, enhances traffic, and improves street lighting (Hee-Woong, 2023). Digitalisation leads to the creation of services managing spatial systems (Baymuratova et al., 2024). For instance, it can help identify pedestrian hotspots and inform future locations of traffic lights and street configurations to make the city more pedestrian friendly (Carter et al., 2020). The overall level of development of financial inclusion can promote a city’s economic vitality (Rui and Li, 2024). Moreover, digital technologies and new media are creating new urban spaces by altering how people produce, live, and socialise (Rui and Li, 2024). The digital transformation directly impacts urban vitality (Rui and Li, 2024). Furthermore, it helps create vibrant, inclusive, and sustainable public spaces that enhance the quality of life for all (Shaban et al., 2025). Such interventions can foster social interaction, environmental sustainability, and a sense of place within urban environments (Shaban et al., 2025).

3.2.1.2 Improved accessibility and navigation

Technology has significantly improved how people access, navigate, and interact with public spaces. For example, “smart benches” are considered an initial step for micro-scale interventions in urban public spaces, which can include electric vehicle charging stations and solar-powered parking meters for self-powering (Turna and Bhandari, 2023). Solar-powered benches with USB charging ports are also mentioned as providing convenient and sustainable resting places (Shaban et al., 2025). Interactive benches and seats can be equipped with charging stations and speakers that play local history, news, and information, thereby adding to the sense of place and connection to the historical roots of the space (Shaban et al., 2025).

Information kiosks serve as a platform for the efficient dissemination of accurate information. They can guide users in universities, identify facility locations, answer frequently asked questions, and promote the university (Sarmiento et al., 2021). Interactive kiosks and information pillars can offer wayfinding information, public announcements, and emergency alerts, thereby improving accessibility and public awareness (Shaban et al., 2025). Smart digital boards have been used to improve the accessibility of parks (Turna and Bhandari, 2023).

Urban civic AI can provide personalised transportation recommendations (Chauncey and McKenna, 2024). It allows for the integration of bike lanes, walking paths, and public transit stops to promote active and sustainable transportation options and increase connectivity (Chauncey and McKenna, 2024). Technology can be integrated for bike share programs and electric car charging stations (Chauncey and McKenna, 2024).

LinkNYC kiosks provide free Wi-Fi, mobile phone charging, and domestic calls, and facilitate access to governmental agencies and information (Amsellem, 2021; Niculescu et al., 2016). Wi-Fi provision in parks and squares (Skaržauskiene and Mačiuliene, 2019) and free Wi-Fi in public parks (Al-Shafi and Weerakkody, 2009; Shaban et al., 2025) generally increase the accessibility of services and expand social, government, and business networks (Al-Shafi and Weerakkody, 2009).

Smartphone apps provide a quality on-site experience to visitors (Shaker et al., 2021) and can combine efficient mobility, statistical analysis, bi-directional communication, and detailed information about flora/fauna (Shaker et al., 2021). Location-based services (LBSs) use mobile phones’ internet connection and GPS to locate users in physical space and provide information about that space. They allow users to transform the city into a “database city” by reordering and mashing up different pieces of information about the spaces they move through (Frith, 2012). Hybrid spaces, formed by the merging of physical and digital information, offer a qualitatively different and enhanced experience of mobility for those with access to the necessary technologies. Travel time can also be made more productive (Frith, 2012).

Voice-assisted guide mobile application systems for blind people offer a scalable solution to improving accessibility in public spaces. This includes integrating QR codes with existing braille walkways to provide physical and auditory cues (Santoso et al., 2022).

3.2.1.3 Contribution to social inclusion and equitable participation

Social inclusion in public spaces concerns the ability of diverse groups to access, participate in, and benefit from public-space activities and services on equitable terms. Digital technologies can support this inclusion by reducing informational, physical, participatory, and representational barriers experienced by people with disabilities, older adults, linguistic minorities, low-income groups, and users with limited access to conventional planning processes.

First, digital interfaces can broaden access to information and services. Mobile applications, interactive kiosks, public displays, and web platforms can provide wayfinding, service information, emergency alerts, and cultural content through multiple languages, audio, visual, and simplified formats. Assistive technologies such as voice-guided applications, QR codes linked with tactile routes, and accessible navigation information can also support blind and partially sighted users in moving through public environments more independently (Santoso et al., 2022; Vozza et al., 2024). Public Wi-Fi and digital information points may further improve access to governmental, social, and community services for users who lack reliable private connectivity (Al-Shafi and Weerakkody, 2009; Amsellem, 2021).

Second, digital participation platforms, social media, interactive displays, and digital placemaking initiatives can provide additional channels through which communities express needs, contribute local knowledge, and participate in public-space design and management. These tools may extend participation beyond conventional meetings and enable groups that are less visible in formal planning processes to contribute to decision-making and community representation (Fredericks et al., 2018; Houghton et al., 2014; Hunter et al., 2022; Skaržauskiene and Mačiuliene, 2019).

However, digital technology does not produce social inclusion automatically. Its inclusive contribution depends on affordability, accessible interface design, digital literacy, language availability, user trust, and the continued provision of human assistance and non-digital alternatives. When these conditions are absent, technology may reinforce inequalities by privileging users who possess suitable devices, connectivity, technical skills, and confidence while excluding others (Frith, 2012; Kourtit et al., 2017; McShane and Middha, 2021). Therefore, socially inclusive technology integration requires both digital opportunities and safeguards that ensure participation remains available through multiple accessible channels.

3.2.1.4 Increased engagement and social interaction

Technology plays a vital role in enhancing social dynamics and user participation in public spaces. Augmented Reality (AR) is crucial for community engagement in urban spaces, allowing users to visualise and interact with virtual environments in physical space, and empowering citizens within public spaces (Hunter et al., 2022). AR empowers a sense of agency and ownership over the engagement process. It can help make public spaces feel personal to individuals, enabling them to reclaim control and relevance in their relationship with city councils (Hunter et al., 2022). AR games activate public spaces, increasing community interaction and facilitating city exploration (Hunter et al., 2022). Augmented reality can be used to provide stakeholders with a more immersive and engaging experience of proposed urban initiatives, helping to build public support for these initiatives (Chauncey and McKenna, 2024).

Digital placemaking initiatives provide new opportunities for inclusive city making, using a collaborative approach involving all stakeholders (Fredericks et al., 2018). ICT provides a new mechanism for planners to communicate and interact with communities. It can help build collective agency in communities and facilitate participatory design (Houghton et al., 2014). ICT can enhance park users with different needs, such as promoting active recreation or involving them in urban games, thereby helping to shorten social distance, decrease feelings of stigmatisation, and bring more relaxation (Blaszczy et al., 2020).

Attracting more people into places with wireless connectivity is seen as a positive way to activate spaces and increase public presence (Houghton et al., 2014). The use of social media and other digital channels can enable new forms of spontaneity in public spaces, leading to the creative building of communities (Houghton et al., 2014). Digital apps and platforms enable event coordination online, allowing for digitally/virtually organised social gatherings that can temporarily convert unused sites into significant gathering places (Shaban et al., 2025).

Technology can connect users with the historical details of a place, providing informative, entertaining, and socially connecting experiences (Houghton et al., 2014). Live and interactive signs with visual and audio displays in public spaces can enhance culture, accessibility, and inclusivity by sharing local cultural and historical information in multiple languages (Shaban et al., 2025). Urban civic AI can be used to foster ethical interactions and civil discourse in urban spaces, offering new perspectives that can positively shape idea generation and decision-making (Chauncey and McKenna, 2024). AI systems can be used to personalise urban civic initiatives to the needs and preferences of individual residents (Chauncey and McKenna, 2024).

3.2.1.5 Promoted sustainability and environmental management

Technology integration in public spaces contributes significantly to environmental sustainability and efficient resource management. IoT programs enhance municipal services like energy distribution, transportation infrastructures, and natural resource management (Llido Escriva et al., 2018). IoT sensors are used for wetland monitoring of factors such as temperature, humidity, pH levels, CO2 emissions, dissolved oxygen, and soil moisture, as well as supporting environmental smart farming monitoring (Warrier et al., 2024).

Smart governance and maintenance practices ensure efficient waste management by directing all types of waste to recycling facilities. The entire facility is monitored and controlled through internet-enabled systems (Turna and Bhandari, 2023). Smart technology helps to reuse water for irrigation purposes, greatly aiding in water conservation (Turna and Bhandari, 2023). Smart parks are adaptable to changes in climatic conditions, population density, and land use (Turna and Bhandari, 2023).

Solar-powered smart bins and smart lighting systems utilising wind turbines and solar power are also part of micro-scale interventions (Turna and Bhandari, 2023). Renewable energy sources such as solar or wind power can be used to generate electricity for public spaces (Chauncey and McKenna, 2024). Green infrastructure (e.g., rain gardens, green roofs, permeable pavements) can be incorporated to manage stormwater runoff and improve air quality (Chauncey and McKenna, 2024).

Robot restrooms can prevent the waste of cleaning products and water, reducing the needless refilling of supplies and lessening human impact on natural resources (Nasreen et al., 2024). Smart public spaces are generally eco-friendly (Shaban et al., 2025). They can use advanced technology for water saving, irrigation, renewable energy, smart public lighting, and biodiversity survey and protection (Itair et al., 2023).

3.2.1.6 Boosted safety and security

The integration of technology in public spaces has considerably enhanced safety and security measures. Smart lighting helps provide appropriate illumination for park units and enhances a sense of security (Turna and Bhandari, 2023). Smart lighting contributes to security and sustainability (Shaban et al., 2025). Responsive media can enhance the sense of safety and contribute to community control in public spaces by encouraging clean and safe environments (Shaban et al., 2025). This has been shown to lead to a reduction in violent incidents and improve security (Shaban et al., 2025).

IoT programs can strengthen public safety generally (Hee-Woong, 2023). The incorporation of advanced surveillance technology, such as facial recognition or AI-powered cameras, can deter and prevent crime (Chauncey and McKenna, 2024). A community ambassador program, where trained volunteers monitor the space and report suspicious activity, can also be created (Chauncey and McKenna, 2024).

The “shared safeness” solution, involving a mobile app for visitors, supports park safety processes by allowing anonymous position data transmission to check for gatherings and presence in unauthorised areas, and enables users to send reports on critical issues or risks (Bruni and Garzia, 2023). The cleanliness and maintenance of public bathrooms are directly correlated with the quality of public areas, and smart systems in restrooms can provide real-time warnings, improving reaction times to urgent cleaning requirements (Nasreen et al., 2024). These systems can prevent tampering or malicious attacks on sensors by preventing unauthorised access to the IoT network and implement secure data transmission and storage protocols to prevent data breaches (Nasreen et al., 2024).

3.2.1.7 Facilitated learning and education

Technology integration in public spaces also enhances educational opportunities. AR can function as a pedagogical tool, offering innovative ways to engage with art and urban design. Immersive experiences allow users to gain a deeper understanding of the interplay between sculpture and spatial context, enriching educational frameworks (Đurić et al., 2025). AR applications align with situated and constructivist learning theories (Pombo et al., 2019).

Urban green parks can provide learning experiences about the importance of plants, habitats, and their conservation, and may also influence the values, attitudes, and actions of visitors (Pombo et al., 2019). New interactive technologies in outdoor settings provide opportunities for students to be physically engaged in task solving, participate in non-sedentary activities, experience biodiversity, and value green space protection. This promotes active participation, knowledge construction, and authentic learning (Pombo et al., 2019).

Public displays can be used for instructional means, providing users with new interactive experiences for collaboration and gamified learning. They can support multi-user interaction for learning games and gamified content (Barth and Muller, 2017). Rewilded areas can be used as a living classroom, where schools and community groups can learn about local ecology, conservation, and sustainable living (Chauncey and McKenna, 2024).

3.2.2 Negative implications of integration of technology/ emerging concerns

The integration of technology into public spaces, while offering numerous potential benefits, also brings several negative impacts and challenges. These issues range from privacy and security concerns to social exclusion and disruptions to the intended function of public areas (Abdullah et al., 2021; Amsellem, 2021).

3.2.2.1 Privacy and security concerns

The integration of technology into public spaces introduces significant concerns related to privacy and data security. The collection and transmission of additional data through Internet of Things (IoT) devices and sensors in smart cities raise critical data privacy and security concerns. Ensuring the responsible storage and security of this collected data is crucial for building trust in these initiatives (Ali and Khan, 2023). There is a potential for malicious nodes to transform sensor data, leading to mismanagement and disabling systems, which requires additional computational energy to detect and eliminate (Ali and Khan, 2023).

Systems integrating booking or payment, such as smart parking systems, are vulnerable to cyber-attacks like DDoS attacks and data breaches, eroding user trust (Abd Rahman et al., 2022). Urban kiosks like LinkNYC pose a potential threat to privacy due to their technical capabilities and network spread, raising concerns about unethical data-gathering practices and potentially serving surveillance capitalism. LinkNYC was originally conceived as a “listening tool” with ambitions for data gathering (Amsellem, 2021).

With location-based services (LBSs), privacy issues become more pronounced as individuals share their location, leading to concerns about what users gain in convenience they often lose in privacy (Frith, 2012). The use of responsive media in public spaces can compromise anonymity if technology directly addresses an individual (Shaban et al., 2025). Wearable functionalities often outpace laws, leaving users with limited means to defend their privacy in disputes with providers (Flammer, 2016).

Discrepancies in data gathering methods and lack of transparency can lead to distrust in community engagement processes (McShane and Middha, 2021). In public places, concerns about being watched or judged can influence user behaviour with digital voice assistants (DVAs) (Kowalczuk and Musial, 2024).

3.2.2.2 Social exclusion and digital divide

The integration of digital technologies in public spaces can unintentionally foster social exclusion, particularly for marginalised groups. Many existing public spaces are inaccessible to blind and partially sighted individuals, with self-serve technology presenting significant barriers due to its inherent visual nature (Santoso et al., 2022; Vozza et al., 2024). Issues reported by visually impaired users of self-serve kiosks include poor colour contrast, small font size, lack of audio instructions and screen reading capabilities, time limits, confusing technology, physical barriers, and technical malfunctions. They often require human assistance and generally do not enjoy or wish to continue using such kiosks (Vozza et al., 2024). The replacement of manual work with intelligent systems, such as stop-reporting services by traditional ticket staff, might reduce human-human interaction that previously enhanced accessibility for the visually impaired (Zhang, 2017). The internet, despite its potential, has been described as having “blocked the blind out” of its deeply virtual public interactive space, and the rise of intelligence has altered their relationship with urban space (Zhang, 2017). These accessibility barriers are not inherent to digital technology and can be reduced through established standards. WCAG 2.2 provides internationally recognised, testable criteria for making digital interfaces perceivable, operable, understandable, and robust, including requirements such as text alternatives, screen reader compatibility, keyboard access, captions, sufficient contrast, resizable text, clear navigation, and alternatives to time-limited or touch-only interaction (World Wide Web World Wide Web Consortium, 2024). However, evidence shows that standards alone do not ensure consistent implementation, and users with visual, physical, cognitive, and learning disabilities continue to face significant barriers in digital environments (Ara et al., 2024; Campoverde-Molina et al., 2023; Gartland et al., 2022). As a result, WCAG compliance should be complemented by human evaluation and testing with users with diverse disabilities. In addition, technical compliance cannot address broader barriers such as device access, affordability, digital literacy, language, trust, and the need for human assistance or non-digital alternatives (Frith, 2012; Kourtit et al., 2017; McShane and Middha, 2021).

Digital engagement and technologies are limited to those who use them, often excluding time-poor individuals or those without access to technology, thereby creating a gap in participation (Fredericks et al., 2018; McShane and Middha, 2021). This leads to new concerns of digital distrust and digital exclusion (McShane and Middha, 2021). The “digital divide” means the cognitive ability to exploit urban digital systems is not equally distributed among citizens (Kourtit et al., 2017). Hybrid spaces, formed by the merging of digital information and physical space via mobile technologies, can lead to issues of exclusion and exacerbate access disparities as they are only accessible to those with the necessary technology (Frith, 2012).

A “two-tiered system of access” may emerge on city streets as more information traditionally found in analog form (signs, coupons) becomes digital and geolocated, limiting opportunities for those without smartphones (Frith, 2012). Location-based social networks (LBSNs) like Foursquare can foster social connections among friends at the expense of connections between strangers, excluding those outside a user’s network from their perception of a place (Frith, 2012). Moreover, commercial systems can invert the goal of empowering those without a voice, only welcoming stories from certain individuals with access to specific technologies and networks, reinforcing privilege (Frith, 2012). Mobile digital communication can separate social interactions from the physical boundaries of space, potentially undermining local accessibility and leading to individuals being more isolated in their immediate urban setting (Iranmanesh and Atun, 2018).

3.2.2.3 Disruption of public space function and experience

While digital technologies can enrich urban environments, their integration can also disrupt the original function and experience of public spaces. Locative Augmented Reality (AR) games are seen as an intervention to the original function of public spaces, leading to parks being crowded with “digital zombies” who may bother other users with noise and presence (Abdullah et al., 2021). Players of AR games may conquer public facilities without engaging in other physical activities, creating an “awkward environment” and annoying other visitors (Abdullah et al., 2021). Public discomfort arises when AR players cause disturbance, distract movement, and appear unaware of surroundings due to game focus. Limited social interaction between players and the general public is also a concern (Abdullah et al., 2021). Locative AR games also pose numerous safety issues, with reported incidents of driving, biking, or walking related to gameplay (Abdullah et al., 2021).

The mobile experience, while engaging, can also fully absorb and disconnect users from their real-world environment. Technology itself can create barriers by being distracting, incompatible, or not engaging (Carroll et al., 2017). Adding sounds to public spaces (augmented soundscapes) needs careful consideration, as incongruence between sounds and visual environment can be negative (Van Renterghem et al., 2020). High visibility sites for urban kiosks have surprisingly shown a higher intensity of both legitimate and illegitimate activities, undermining the assumption that anti-social behaviour is tied to less visible, unsupervised areas (Natapov and Grinshpun, 2020). Furthermore, the exponential growth of information through new media can lead to “wear and tear on users’ thinking patience” (Jiang et al., 2022).

3.2.2.4 Challenges in implementation and management

Implementing smart city initiatives successfully requires extensive planning and coordination between different stakeholders (city administrations, businesses, locals) (Ali and Khan, 2023). The inherent high level of risk in adopting technological innovation means decisions are sensitive to political cycles, and resources/funds can be ephemeral (Hunter et al., 2022). Challenges include the need for infrastructure, difficulties in data management, and varying community expectations and understanding of new technologies (Hunter et al., 2022). Field studies in public spaces are notoriously difficult to run, leading to data inconsistencies (Fredericks et al., 2018).

The management of smart parks is challenging, requiring multidisciplinary personnel and significant initial installation and setup expenses for IoT infrastructure (Nasreen et al., 2024; Xie et al., 2024). Smart park systems are not perfected enough, lack theoretical support, and there are few excellent case studies (Xie et al., 2024). The “digital first” policies of governments risk becoming a “digital-only” stance, which is problematic given that a significant portion of the population may not have internet access (McShane and Middha, 2021).

Errors in interaction design can undermine a user’s feeling of agency and tarnish attitudes toward the entire engagement process and technology (Hunter et al., 2022). Over-optimism about the democratic and administrative capacities of the digital sphere can lead to experiences falling short of expectations (McShane and Middha, 2021). Digital platforms tend to promote negative concerns over solutions, and nuanced discussions can get lost in linear “discussions” where people dip in and out (McShane and Middha, 2021). Local authorities may lack the necessary knowledge, skills, and time to adequately process feedback from digital sources (McShane and Middha, 2021). There is a potential overemphasis on technological aspects like camera surveillance and smart lighting, which may overshadow broader social, environmental, and aesthetic dimensions of public spaces. A holistic approach requires a careful balance of technological and non-technological factors (Shaban et al., 2025).

3.2.2.5 Governance and control issues

Private developers may design physical and informational access restrictions in privately owned public open spaces (POSPD) to serve their own gains, hindering publicness (Jian et al., 2020). Technological advancements can lead to private companies gaining increased control over public infrastructure (Hee-Woong, 2023). In smart city projects like LinkNYC, private companies can take over public governance through discretionary decisions, leveraging data access to enhance their role over local authorities. This is often facilitated by neoliberal politics where public powers have reduced funding, while private tech companies have resources from data gathering (Amsellem, 2021).

Tech companies may use the physical design and interaction behaviours of robots to subtly reduce users’ privacy concerns and collect more private data, even if legally compliant, this can be misleading (Vitale et al., 2018). Digital platforms used by governments can engage in “push-polling” by using loaded or simplistic questions to elicit desired responses, which are then presented as evidence for wider community support (McShane and Middha, 2021). Additionally, the influence of external opinions and entities in digital spaces, beyond local boundaries, can impinge on local deliberations (McShane and Middha, 2021). Social media can amplify “Not in my backyard” (NIMBY) activism, giving a louder voice to those opposing new development, potentially enlarging existing problems (McShane and Middha, 2021).

4 Discussion

The findings demonstrate that a characteristic-led and stage-based perspective offers a more theoretically grounded basis for interpreting technology integration than conventional smart-city approaches that begin with the capabilities of individual technologies. By treating public-space characteristics as the primary unit of analysis, the framework redirects attention from what a technology can technically perform to the spatial quality it is intended to support and the stage at which that support becomes relevant. This distinction is important because technology is not inherently beneficial, and the identified mappings should not be interpreted as fixed or causal relationships. Public-space characteristics are interdependent, and a technology may strengthen one quality while weakening another. Surveillance and computer-vision systems, for example, may support protection and operational review while simultaneously reducing anonymity, public trust and freedom from monitoring; similarly, mobile applications and digital platforms may improve information access and engagement for some users while excluding those without suitable devices, connectivity, accessible interfaces or digital literacy (Amsellem, 2021; Frith, 2012; McShane and Middha, 2021; van Zoonen, 2016). The framework should therefore be understood as an analytical structure for evaluating potential contributions, trade-offs and contextual suitability rather than as a deterministic prescription for technology deployment.

A major theoretical finding is the uneven distribution of technological attention across the 16 public-space characteristics. Although technological relationships were identified for 11 characteristics, balance, relaxation, robustness, variety and visual appropriateness remained unrepresented in the reviewed evidence. This “digital gap” appears to reflect a measurability bias within the dominant smart-city paradigm. Characteristics such as connectivity, accessibility and protection can be translated relatively easily into network coverage, movement data, illumination levels, recorded incidents and other operational indicators. In contrast, relaxation, aesthetic appropriateness, sensory richness and functional adaptability depend more heavily on embodied experience, cultural interpretation and changes over time, making them less compatible with conventional sensor-based and data-driven assessment. Their limited representation should not be interpreted as evidence that they are less important or unsuitable for technological support. Instead, it suggests that current research privileges qualities that can be quantified and administratively managed, reinforcing functionalist interpretations of public-space performance while overlooking how spaces are experienced, appropriated and valued by different communities (Gabrys, 2014; Ho, 2017; Kourtit et al., 2017). The absence of mapped evidence is therefore a research gap rather than evidence of the absence of possible technological contributions.

The stage-based analysis further reveals that the value of technology depends on its performance across the full lifecycle of a public-space characteristic. Creation-stage interventions are comparatively visible because digital modelling, immersive technologies, connectivity infrastructure and interactive platforms can assist design, visualisation and initial user engagement. However, the establishment of a spatial quality does not ensure that it will be sustained. Maintenance- and review-stage technologies require continuing financial, organisational and technical capacity: sensors need calibration, connected infrastructure requires cybersecurity and software support, smart amenities require repair and replacement, and collected data must be interpreted and translated into management action. Where responsibilities, budgets, technical skills or interoperability arrangements are weak, technologically enhanced facilities may become unreliable, obsolete or externally dependent, potentially reducing rather than improving public-space performance (Hunter et al., 2022; Nasreen et al., 2024; Weil et al., 2023; Xie et al., 2024). The framework therefore indicates that technology selection cannot be separated from institutional readiness, lifecycle costs and governance capacity. This is especially significant when transferring interventions developed in well-resourced smart-city settings to contexts characterised by limited municipal funding, fragmented infrastructure, uneven connectivity or restricted technical expertise.

The framework consequently has both practical and research implications. For practice, it offers planners, designers, managers and policymakers a structured decision pathway: first define the public-space characteristic that requires improvement; then identify whether the intervention is intended to create, maintain or review that characteristic; and finally assess the technology against accessibility, public value, privacy, lifecycle feasibility and institutional accountability. This approach discourages technology-led procurement in which devices are introduced because they are fashionable or technically available rather than because they respond to a demonstrated spatial need. It also requires trade-offs to be evaluated explicitly: accessibility gains must be considered alongside digital exclusion, safety gains alongside surveillance, engagement gains alongside disruption, and environmental monitoring alongside energy use, electronic waste and maintenance demands. For research, the framework provides a basis for empirical validation through case studies, user evaluations and comparative applications across different cultural, economic and governance contexts. Particular attention should be given to the five underrepresented characteristics and to research methods that combine measurable operational data with observation, participatory evaluation and users’ sensory and emotional experiences. The framework’s principal contribution is therefore not to encourage more technology in public spaces, but to support more selective, context-sensitive and publicly accountable technology integration.

5 Conclusion

This study developed a characteristic-led and stage-based framework for understanding how digital and smart technologies can enhance public spaces. By combining a narrative synthesis of 16 public-space characteristics with a systematic review of technology-enhanced public spaces, the study reframes technology integration as a spatially targeted process rather than a general smart-city intervention. The framework clarifies which characteristics technologies support, when they contribute across creation, maintenance and review, and what wider implications arise. Methodological transparency and reproducibility were strengthened through an explicitly documented search strategy, eligibility criteria, PRISMA-based study-selection process, and structured data-extraction, coding and synthesis procedures. The findings indicate that technologies contribute to public space performance in different ways. At the creation stage, visualisation tools, mixed reality applications, digital platforms, connectivity infrastructure, and interactive media mainly support qualities such as legibility, accessibility, engagement, connectivity, and liveability. At the maintenance stage, technologies such as smart lighting, surveillance systems, smart parking, transport systems, and environmental sensors help sustain safety, accessibility, connectivity, and everyday usability. At the review stage, data-driven technologies, including computer vision, environmental monitoring systems, digital twins, dashboards, and analytics platforms, support monitoring, evaluation, and adaptive management.

A key finding is the uneven technological focus across public space characteristics. The reviewed literature shows strong attention to measurable and infrastructure-oriented characteristics such as accessibility, connectivity, protection, engagement, and legibility. However, characteristics such as balance, relaxation, robustness, variety, and visual appropriateness remain weakly represented or absent. This reveals a digital gap in current technology-enhanced public space research, where functional and data-driven qualities are prioritised over more sensory, aesthetic, restorative, and adaptable dimensions.

The study also shows that technology integration has both positive and negative implications. Technologies can improve navigation, safety, engagement, environmental management, accessibility, learning opportunities, and service efficiency. However, they may also create privacy concerns, digital exclusion, surveillance risks, implementation challenges, governance issues, and disruptions to public space experience. Therefore, technology should not be introduced into public spaces as an end in itself, but as a carefully selected support mechanism for strengthening specific spatial qualities while protecting publicness, inclusivity, and user experience.

Looking ahead, the increasing convergence of artificial intelligence, digital twins, ubiquitous sensing, computer vision and real-time urban analytics may enable more predictive, responsive and adaptive management of public spaces. However, these smart city related developments may also intensify surveillance, algorithmic bias, cybersecurity risks, digital exclusion, vendor dependency and reliance on incomplete or unrepresentative data, requiring transparent governance, interoperable systems, human oversight and continued non-digital alternatives.

The findings further indicate that sustainable technology integration in public spaces must be assessed across interdependent environmental, social, economic and institutional dimensions. Environmentally, technologies should contribute to energy and water efficiency, pollution monitoring, biodiversity protection, waste reduction and climate responsiveness without creating disproportionate energy consumption or electronic waste. Socially, they should strengthen accessibility, inclusion, safety, participation and publicness while protecting privacy and maintaining non-digital alternatives. Economically and operationally, technology selection should account for life-cycle costs, maintenance capacity, interoperability, technical obsolescence and the long-term availability of skilled personnel. Institutionally, sustainable integration requires transparent data governance, clear accountability, ethical procurement, public oversight and meaningful community participation. A technologically advanced intervention cannot therefore be considered sustainable when environmental efficiency is achieved at the expense of social inclusion, financial viability or democratic governance.

The proposed framework has practical implications for planners, urban designers, public-space managers, and policymakers. It can help decision-makers select technologies according to clearly defined spatial objectives rather than technological trends. It also supports more transparent evaluation of whether a technological intervention is intended to create, maintain, or review a particular public space characteristic. This is especially relevant for contexts where financial, institutional, technical, and social capacities may limit the success of technology-led interventions. Future applications of the framework should therefore evaluate not only whether a technology supports a spatial characteristic, but whether that support is environmentally responsible, socially inclusive, economically maintainable and institutionally accountable over the full life cycle of the public space.

This study has several limitations. First, it is based on published English-language literature, which may exclude relevant studies and practices reported in other languages or non-indexed sources. Second, the technology–characteristic mapping was developed through interpretive synthesis, meaning that some relationships may require further empirical validation. Third, the framework does not measure the effectiveness of each technology in real public spaces, nor does it rank technologies according to cost, feasibility, user acceptance, or long-term maintenance requirements. Finally, because digital technologies evolve rapidly, the framework should be treated as a developing analytical tool rather than a fixed model.

Future research should empirically test and refine the framework through case studies, user evaluations, expert validation, and context-specific applications. Particular attention should be given to developing-country urban settings, where technological, financial, institutional, and social conditions may differ significantly from advanced smart-city contexts. Further studies should also examine how underrepresented characteristics such as relaxation, robustness, variety, balance, and visual appropriateness can be supported without reducing public spaces to overly monitored, data-driven, or technologically dominated environments.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript. During the preparation of this manuscript, the author used ChatGPT by OpenAI for language editing, structural refinement, and academic phrasing support. The author reviewed, edited, and verified all content, citations, references, and interpretations and takes full responsibility for the final manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

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/frsus.2026.1916510/full#supplementary-material

Supplementary material Supplementary material at the source

Footnotes

Edited by: Diogo Guedes Vidal, Universidade Aberta, Portugal

Reviewed by: Manuela Rosa, Universidade do Algarve - Campus da Penha, Portugal

Gülce Kırdar, Yeditepe University, Türkiye