Exploring socio-technical imaginaries on smart city sustainability Open Access

Initiatives for redesigning cities to become smarter and more sustainable are spreading worldwide. However, the success of such initiatives depends on effective collaboration among the various actors involved (Cardullo and Kitchin, 2019). Moreover, when encapsulated in a city, smartness exceeds its technical premise. It becomes the cornerstone of a historically and culturally embedded sociotechnical imaginary, which is a set of ideas and beliefs about the future of urban development (Jasanoff and Kim, 2013). As a socio-technical imaginary, a smart city can be considered as a process of becoming and expanding in terms of scope and outcomes (Sadowski and Bendor, 2019). Successful sustainable smart city projects rely on aligned, if not shared, imaginaries of various city actors.

However, smart city projects have been criticized for being state- and market-centric. Furthermore, traditional performance outputs have been used to measure smart city performance (Kitchin, 2015; Kitchin et al., 2019; Cohen and Karatzimas, 2022; Leclercq and Rijshouwer, 2022; Träskman, 2022). Although these projects eventually serve city users, their ideas are less often incorporated into the projects. Some argue that achieving a user-centric perspective requires a change from focusing only on performance outputs (i.e. what organizational services or activities produce) to engaging in smart city sustainability (Kitchin et al., 2019; Vanolo, 2016).

Additionally, a dialogue between smart city creators and users is essential for designing programs that can provide public satisfaction and contribute to sustainability. This is related to the values primarily associated with citizens and is delivered when their lives improve because of government services (such as smart city projects) (Grossi and Trunova, 2021). However, research on how smart city sustainability is created, negotiated and accounted for by multiple actors in smart city projects is limited (Grossi et al., 2020; Rodríguez Bolívar, 2019). Sustainability issues are critical for building transparency, auditing and accountability in smart cities.

This study explores city creators’ and users’ sociotechnical imaginaries of smart city sustainability. Our research question is as follows:

Our empirical materials were collected through visual analysis based on 40 photo-elicitation interviews with city creators and users in two smart cities in Poland. Photo-elicitation is a field method that uses pictures and imagery to enable participants to describe their experiences, ideas and beliefs as complements to a single spoken story (Warren, 2005). It is used to identify meanings attributed to certain visual materials (Smith, Beorchia and Jung, 2023). Visual research is an emerging phenomenon in sociology, accounting and management disciplines (Parker, 2009; Parker and Warren, 2017; Warren, 2005). The researcher-driven photographs used in this study allowed us to trigger respondents’ memories and perceptions linked to smart city initiatives. They increased their reflexivity while verbalizing their experiences and knowledge (Prosser and Schwartz, 2004, p. 344). Specifically, photographs that capture the six dimensions of the smart city, as proposed by Giffinger et al. (2007), were used to expand ideas about capturing and visualizing sustainability issues resulting from various smart cities, as seen by city creators and users. These ideas were grouped using the three pillars of sustainability in line with the United Nations (UN) Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (Grossi and Trunova, 2021). Finally, the collected material was interpreted through the theoretical lens of socio-technical imaginaries.

Overall, we contribute to the emerging inter-disciplinary debate on the sustainability of smart cities (Bibri and Krogstie, 2017; Blasi et al., 2022; Sharifi et al., 2024). A growing body of research has addressed the phenomenon of urban social and environmental transformation from various perspectives (Trunova et al., 2022). For instance, some studies have analyzed smart cities from a technocentric perspective, where ICT drives development. Others have considered a human-centric perspective that focuses on the relationships among local governments, citizens and community entities, as well as the active role and imaginaries of different actors (creators and users) in enhancing urban smartness (Argento et al., 2020; Mora et al., 2019; Vanolo, 2016). Trunova et al. (2022) emphasized human-centric elements in a smart city strategy that maintains a holistic and citizen-focused vision throughout the evaluation process of smart city outcomes. Our study highlights the divergent sociotechnical imaginaries of smart city sustainability between creators and users. Our study also reinforces the need for a more inclusive, participatory and human-centric approach to smart city projects, leading to a sustainable future.

It also offers methodological insights into the use of visuals in research. As noted previously, we used visual elements (photographs) to elicit creators’ and users’ imaginaries regarding smart city sustainability. According to Langley et al. (2023, p. 712), images, like language, “are seen as a medium for constructing the social world through its representation.” Therefore, the decision to use visuals is intended to address the call to apply different approaches to data collection (Parker, 2009). Visual research methods have rarely been explored in accounting and sustainability studies (Dobija, Grossi, and Staniszewska, 2023; Parker and Warren, 2017; Pesci and Costa, 2014).

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2 discusses the literature on sustainability in smart cities. Section 3 introduces the theoretical framework based on the socio-technical imaginaries of smart city sustainability based on the European Smart Cities Framework (Giffinger et al., 2007). Section 4 describes the context of the study, research method and data collection. Section 5 presents the results of the study. The final section presents a discussion, conclusions and recommendations for future research.

Smart cities are often connected to technological advancement without appropriately considering the outcomes of a large set of variables that can identify citizens’ needs, expectations and perceptions regarding smart cities (Dameri and Rosenthal-Sabroux, 2014). The traditional concept of a smart city under the New Public Management paradigm is influenced primarily by market forces. Furthermore, it can be used to create efficient initiatives for citizens, where progress is monitored using the right metrics (Cosgrave et al., 2014). The emerging human-centric perspective of smart cities underlines the importance of a wider concept of sustainability that should be established and communicated to citizens and should not merely focus on economic issues (Barrutia et al., 2022; Grossi et al., 2020; Neumann et al., 2019; Neuroni et al., 2019). Trust, efficacy, accountability and equity are also key to driving and motivating changes in reformational notions (Stoker, 2006). As the smart city concept is broad and difficult to define, one particular problem is creating unified sustainability indicators that can measure the effects of the actions undertaken (Dameri and Rosenthal-Sabroux, 2014). Sustainability is the final step in creating a smart city, which means that all initiatives must be created in line with citizens’ needs and expectations.

Notably, smart city creators struggle to implement complex concepts that would bring value to their citizens (Hollands, 2008). This may be partially because of the convoluted nature of a city in which many intertwined forces interact. To effectively transform cities into thriving entities, dialogue between smart city creators and users is required (Aleksandrov et al., 2022). Although citizen participation is a major theme in smart city literature (Castelnovo, 2016), scholars have paid surprisingly little attention to the outcomes of smartness-focused municipal transformations (Grossi et al., 2020; Rodríguez Bolívar, 2019). A smart city is based on the multi-sectoral collaboration of multiple actors such as local governments, associations, non-governmental organizations, activists, communities and private institutions. By contrast, sustainability is primarily related to citizens (Grossi and Trunova, 2021). Thus, examining the services provided to citizens is crucial for understanding their fundamental values, underlying tensions and emergent insights. The dilemma is how to measure and visualize the sustainability issues resulting from urban smartness; however, this question remains unanswered (Criado and Gil-Garcia, 2019; Grossi and Trunova, 2021).

While the research emphasizes the widespread use of smartness metrics, a growing body of literature concentrates on citizen engagement in urban design and development (Hollands, 2008). The emergence of socially creative technologies can ensure an increase in public confidence and the establishment of partnership agreements among the many actors engaged. This thereby facilitates the process of bringing multiple sustainability dimensions into a city’s smartness. Creators and users must identify a vast set of variables in a well-defined general framework capable of identifying citizens’ needs, expectations and perceptions of smart cities in their daily lives (Dameri and Rosenthal-Sabroux, 2014; Osborne et al., 2022). The final outcome of smart cities should be to create sustainability and be accountable for it; this requires that all efforts be focused on not only numbers but also humans and their needs (Cardullo and Kitchin, 2019).

The sustainability of smart cities has been studied extensively. Meijer and Rodriguez Bolívar (2016) saw sustainability as an outcome of smart city governance. Meanwhile, Dameri and Benevolo (2016) highlighted the need to integrate economic and social dimensions into smart city sustainability. Neumann et al. (2019) recognized that sustainability may refer to different non-financial dimensions such as service quality, integrity, equal opportunities and citizen involvement. Mora et al. (2019) presented three dimensions of sustainability: efficiency and cost savings (financial dimension), quality and environmental performance (environmental dimension) and societal challenges and social inclusion (social dimension). Previous studies have conceptualized smart city sustainability as involving economic, environmental and social dimensions with a temporal focus on short- and long-term values (Grossi and Trunova, 2021; Yigitcanlar and Kamruzzaman, 2018).

It is important to highlight the body of literature focusing on the role of human and social capital, in addition to new technologies, in developing smart cities that aim to improve economic, social and environmental sustainability (Giffinger et al., 2007; Hollands, 2008; Nam and Pardo, 2011; Neirotti et al., 2014; Guarini et al., 2022).

Scholars from different disciplines share a consensus that, in addition to technological innovations, smart cities should achieve clear sustainability outcomes (Nesti, 2020). This can be visualized and measured through specific accountability systems (Argento et al., 2020; Brorström et al., 2018). This literature review also highlights the need for more studies on smart city sustainability that encompass multiple dimensions (not only economics) of smart city sustainability.

Smart city sustainability tools have been developed at the top-down level by experts and consultants without the clear involvement of users (Bibri and Krogstie, 2017). However, scholars advocate the integration of citizen-led, participatory and localized approaches (Aleksandrov et al., 2022). Nonetheless, smart city literature also focuses on empowering users (Trencher, 2019), including marginalized groups and activists, through political leadership. However, because of weak guidance, especially at the local level, this focus can result in the incoherent prioritization of tasks and allocation of resources (Mondschein et al., 2021). As active stakeholders, citizens should be included in the smart city process while also being responsible for the sustainability of smart city initiatives. Smart city governments are progressively using participatory and citizen co-creation rhetoric. Thus, scholars and activists remain skeptical about whether their approach has fundamentally changed the neoliberal nature or whether this indeed contributes to creating more equal and democratic cities (Hollands, 2008; Kitchin et al., 2019; Leclercq and Rijshouwer, 2022). Previous literature has highlighted the need to explore how smart city sustainability is perceived by different actors, such as the relevant public and other users, and not just the creators of smart cities.

In smart city governance, different actors (creators and users), governments and non-governmental organizations have different sociotechnical imaginaries. Sociotechnical imaginaries exist between the constructs of imaginaries in political and cultural theories and sociotechnical systems (Jasanoff and Kim, 2013). This means that they benefit from both theoretical approaches and create a bridge to fill the gap between moral values, power, policy and technology (Rudek, 2021).

Social imaginaries are based on conventional narratives embedded in practices, stories, ordinary people’s sense of legitimacy, shared insights into what is right or wrong, mutual recognition and representation (Taylor, 2004). Social imaginaries are central reference points for all human values, norms and practices developed by society (Castoriadis, 1987). However, Jasanoff and Kim (2013) focused strictly on technical imagination. Jasanoff (2016) also highlights the technology paradox because the technologies with which we hope to improve ourselves are our creations; hence, they partake in the flaws of our fallible imaginations. Even the best technological designs are not failsafe and do not always behave as expected. Moreover, technologies articulate normative visions of life and how it should be lived (Jasanoff, 2016, p. 74).

Technological imaginaries have always been embedded in historically and culturally situated sociotechnical imaginaries (Jasanoff and Kim, 2013). The success of new socio-technical imaginaries, such as smart city initiatives, relies on their fit with existing cultural norms and moral values, social structures, material infrastructure, political institutions, economic systems and hopes and aspirations (Sadovski and Bendor, 2019). Regarding smart cities, sociotechnical imaginaries are often dominated by powerful institutions and elites influenced by neoliberal ideologies. In contrast, corporate imaginaries are more oriented toward technological dimensions and may prioritize business and economic values over social and public ones, creating social polarization and inequality (Brenner and Theodore, 2002; Hollands, 2008).

In contrast, we want to integrate the human-centric perspective of smart cities, in which citizens are not only objects but also subjects of decision-making when they are included in the construction of smart cities (Grossi et al., 2020). This new human perspective is primarily based on social- and user-centric imaginaries. Smart city creators (public managers and consultants) should build relationships and remove organizational barriers for users (citizens, activists and other stakeholders) (Akterujjaman et al., 2022; Aleksandrov et al., 2022).

We used the theoretical lens of sociotechnical imagery to investigate how the three sustainability dimensions (economic, social and environmental) are perceived by both creators and users of smart cities (Figure 1).

We used the smart city framework developed by Giffinger et al. (2007), the European Smart Cities Ranking, which remains the most widely quoted, used and applied in several European smart cities and Poland. It has been developed to enable the comparison of cities and to assess their development in the necessary direction (Bibri and Krogstie, 2017). Accordingly, it has been used as a classification system based on six distinct dimensions – smart mobility, smart environment, smart living, smart people, smart economy and smart governance – against which smart cities can be gauged. Each dimension comes with a set of factors or criteria that evaluate success under that dimension (Giffinger et al., 2007; Steinert, Revital, Phillippe, Veiga, and Witterns, 2011).

The economic pillars of smart city sustainability include smart economy and smart governance. The smart economy includes factors related to economic competitiveness, such as innovation, entrepreneurship, trademarks, productivity, labor market flexibility and integration in the (inter-)national market. Smart governance includes factors such as political participation, services for citizens and administrative functioning (Giffinger et al., 2007).

The societal pillars of smart-city sustainability include smart people and smart living. Smart people describes citizens’ levels of qualification or education as well as the quality of social interactions regarding integration, public life and openness toward the external world. Smart living includes different aspects of quality of life, such as culture, health, safety, housing and tourism (Giffinger et al., 2007).

The environmental pillars of sustainability in smart cities include smart environments and mobility. A smart environment is characterized by attractive natural conditions (climate, green spaces, etc.), pollution, resource management and efforts toward environmental protection. Smart mobility refers to local and international accessibility as well as the availability of information and communication technologies and modern and sustainable transport systems (Giffinger et al., 2007).

Creators’ imaginaries are often oriented toward the economic dimension of sustainability and technological issues. They are dominated by the utility mentality of commercial organizations involved in the creation of smart cities. User imaginaries are often related to societal and environmental issues of sustainability around values, trust and engagement. They are dominated by the human-centric mentality of citizens and noncommercial actors (Zheng et al., 2024).

The research was conducted in Warsaw and Krakow, the largest cities in Poland by population (Statistics Poland, 2023) and the only cities classified as “smart” according to the IMD Smart City ranking (IMD, 2023). The IMD Smart City Index evaluates residents’ perceptions of their city’s infrastructure and technology. It focuses on two pillars, structure (city infrastructure) and technology (technological services), assessed across five areas: health and safety, mobility, activities, opportunities and governance. Examples of such initiatives include clean air programs, waste segregation systems and promoting smart mobility solutions such as public transport and city bike services.

Warsaw and Krakow achieved significant economic growth and social development through sustainability initiatives, primarily in the past decade (Masik, Sagan, and Scott, 2021). Their substantial funding from the European Union (EU) and roles as innovation centers further support their relevance for studying smart city sustainability in this context (European Commission, 2022). International and local events, such as the Smart City Expo Poland, the Smart Metropolia Congress in Gdansk and the Smart City Forum in Warsaw, demonstrate sustained interest in smart city concepts.

However, this process is not without challenges. The Polish debate highlights that while smart city strategies aim to address sustainability issues, they often operate within a political vacuum characterized by limited governance capacity (Masik et al., 2021; Sikora-Fernandez, 2018). Despite the financial and strategic support from the EU, the absence of a strong national urban framework hinders cohesive policy development. Consequently, Polish cities and their governments tend to prioritize economic and social development. This is often at the expense of environmental goals, reflecting the challenges of post-socialist urban governance (Przywojska et al., 2019). Understanding these gaps requires examining the perspectives of city creators and users to align strategies with local needs and sustainability objectives.

As noted by Shaw (2013), photo-elicitation interviews enable participants “to be creative, imaginative, and metaphorical” (p. 795). This method is particularly valuable within the theoretical framework of socio-technical imaginaries of our study. These interviews stimulated memory, evoked deeper individual consciousness and provoked more nuanced expressions of participants’ imaginative ideas (Harper, 2002). Specifically, the use of photographs offers a richer dimension to understanding often unconscious ideas that may otherwise remain inaccessible (Van Auken, Frisvoll, and Stewart, 2010). This added value lies in its ability to go beyond traditional written and verbal responses by capturing the participants’ inner worlds and enhancing their reflexivity (Richard and Lahman, 2015).

In accounting and sustainability research, methodological review papers have established the groundwork for visual research, including photo-elicitation research (Davison and Warren, 2009; Parker, 2009; Tyson, 2009; Warren, 2018). It is referred to as a “visual turn” (Bell and Davison, 2013; Meyer et al., 2013). This emerging approach holds promise for advancing accounting research methodologies (Parker, 2009). However, this study is still one of the few empirical applications of this approach to accounting and sustainability research (Dobija et al., 2023; Parker and Warren, 2017; Pesci and Costa, 2014).

For this project, we chose an outside-in supportive approach (Smith et al., 2023). Researchers use this approach to “capture visuals in the field to document what they see” (Smith et al., 2023, p. 10). Photographs created by researchers can enhance the credibility of research projects (Lincoln and Guba, 1985) by demonstrating that researchers have invested substantial time in the field (Smith et al., 2023) and have developed a better understanding of the study context. Consistent with the outside-in supportive approach, we treated photography as secondary data in the project and not as an analytical component leading to theoretical insights (Smith et al., 2023). Thus, we used photographs taken during discussions with the participants to elicit richer responses. Although not systematically analyzed, these photographs were incorporated into the research findings to visualize specific smart city initiatives and provide readers with a clearer understanding. Following the method of Warren and Parker (2009), we use a theoretically informed ethnographic approach based on a hybrid strategy. Specifically, we combined in-depth and photo-elicitation interviews, as suggested by Spanò et al. (2021, p. 10) “[…], to increase participants’” control of data generation and observations.

First, a team member collected photographs from Warsaw and Krakow to illustrate the six dimensions of a smart city proposed by Giffinger et al. (2007) – smart mobility, environment, living, people, economy and governance – which serve as benchmarks for evaluating smart cities. Next, the six dimensions were mapped to the three pillars of sustainability outlined by Grossi and Trunova (2021): economic (smart economy and smart governance), societal (smart people and smart living) and environmental (smart environment and smart mobility) (Figure 1). Subsequently, the research team classified the photographs based on predefined criteria derived from the literature (Giffinger et al., 2007; Grossi and Trunova, 2021; Steinert et al., 2011). For example, smart mobility includes public transportation systems, car-sharing stations and electric vehicle infrastructure. In contrast, the smart environment focuses on initiatives such as waste segregation systems and air quality monitoring. This classification process was guided by the explicit goals of the initiatives and their alignment with the theoretical frameworks of the smart city dimensions and sustainability pillars.

Interviews were conducted in the participants’ native language (Polish) and lasted between 45 and 90 min. Because of COVID-19 safety precautions, they were held online using platforms such as Zoom, Google Meet or MS Team. Photographs were displayed as multimedia presentations during interviews. In line with our approach, images of specific smart city initiatives were organized into three categories – economic, social and environmental – to facilitate and contextualize the discussion.

Interviewees were chosen through purposive sampling based on their roles in smart city initiatives. The participants were recruited through targeted outreach and referrals in the two cities. Table 1 presents an overview of the study participants classified as city creators and users from Warsaw and Krakow. City creators include local government officials (strategic planners and environmental policy specialists), consultants (urban management and civic technologies) and NGO representatives. City users include citizen representatives (activists and entrepreneurs) and educators. Before the interviews, the researchers ensured that the participants identified their respective roles as city creators or users.

To understand the participants’ imaginaries, we asked them questions to explore the different aspects of their experiences with smart city projects. We asked city creators about their involvement in designing and implementing projects, including their motivations, challenges and visions regarding their impact on city development. For city users, we focused on their experiences and interactions with smart city initiatives as residents, including their perceptions of the project’s effects on their daily lives, their satisfaction with services and any concerns or suggestions for improvement. This allowed us to examine the convergence and divergence in how different roles and experiences with smart city initiatives shaped their perceptions and interpretations of the three pillars of sustainability within smart cities.

Textual data from the interviews was analyzed using MAXQDA software (Kuckartz and Rädiker, 2019). The interviews were coded separately by two team members. Researchers consulted the coding tree during the coding process to discuss code convergence (Saldaña, 2013). A common code tree was created and used to code the 40 interviews. Coding was performed at three levels: open, axial and selective (Strauss and Corbin, 1998).

Open coding identified initial codes such as “accessibility,” “public transportation,” “green spaces,” “city budget,” “digitalization” and “inclusion.” To establish their connection with the three pillars of sustainability, these codes were analyzed regarding their functions and roles in smart city projects. For example, “digitalization” and “city budget” were associated with the economic pillar through aspects of smart economy and governance, such as increasing efficiency and improving citizen services. “Inclusion” and “accessibility” were linked to the societal pillar as they relate to smart living and smart people, addressing social integration and quality of life. Similarly, “public transportation” and “green spaces” were connected to the environmental pillar by aligning them with smart mobility and environmental management. This emphasized their role in reducing mobility barriers to transportation and promoting eco-friendly urban solutions.

Axial and selective coding further refine these connections by exploring how city creators and users perceive, interpret and experience the three pillars of sustainability. These coding stages revealed differences in how city creators and users understood and prioritized these pillars. For instance, city creators linked “digitalization” to smart city governance, emphasizing its role in reporting and using the budget. By contrast, city users associated it with the exclusion of older adults from smart city initiatives.

Although the vision of smart city sustainability among city creators and users may be unified, certain sociotechnical imaginaries vary considerably. For instance, city creators who actively engage in developing smart city initiatives may be guided more by distinct motives and values than city users, who are not accountable for designing and executing these initiatives. Here, we highlight the convergence and divergence between the imaginaries of city creators and users across the three pillars of sustainability following Grossi and Trunova (2021). We found a mismatch in how people imagine and execute smart city projects. Below, we present the sociotechnical imaginaries of city creators and users regarding smart city initiatives. Examples of the selected codes with quotations and visualizations are presented in Table 2. The table depicts how the pillars of sustainability connect with the smart city characteristics presented by Giffinger et al. (2007) and the specific initiatives that are further supported by exemplary quotations.

The most convergent views of smart cities regarding sustainability among city users and creators relate to environmental aspects. These imaginaries appear to be the most convergent, although a few important divergences exist. While surface-level agreements exist on broad environmental goals such as CO₂ reduction and health benefits, a deeper analysis reveals significant structural tensions in implementation and accessibility. Illustrative examples include initiatives such as the introduction of city bikes and electric cars valued for their health and ecological motives by both actors. Both groups considered public transportation to be inclusive, ecologically friendly and convenient. Moreover, they recognized the need for continued improvement, as stated by a city user:

The mobility initiatives illustrate this convergence. Despite both groups advocating sustainable transportation, actual implementation revealed a class-based divide. Although both actors highlighted a strong need for infrastructure development and the inclusion of citizens in the process, city users highlighted the demand for more legal regulations that the city creators did not report. City users also observed a strong need to include all citizens. This inclusion aspect is understood to provide expected solutions while considering the needs of diverse social groups.

Electric mobility solutions, marketed as environmental innovations, effectively reinforce existing socioeconomic inequalities. Some initiatives implemented by private companies, such as city scooters, differ completely in terms of the imaginaries of city creators and users. While city creators viewed this as an inclusive means of reducing smog, city users highlighted financial exclusion and age discrimination. Furthermore, city users highlighted the need for stricter legislative restrictions to govern such efforts. Citizens stated that while bicycles were considered inclusive and accessible to all, scooters were associated with younger citizens, potentially indicating a preference for more active transportation modes. Moreover, city user perceptions that electric cars are currently expensive and dedicated to wealthy individuals highlight the disparity in accessibility, suggesting a need for a more equitable distribution of transportation options:

Moreover, city creators noted that both local and international private enterprises pressure decision-makers for their financial purpose while covering it up with “city smartness” in terms of environmental issues. Thus, private corporations were “pressing” municipalities to apply their technological solutions (e.g. charging stations for electric cars) without respect for the real citizens’ needs.

Regarding environmental projects, we observed that common goals were divided into divergent imaginaries. The waste management case further demonstrates the disconnection between regulatory compliance and genuine environmental impacts. City creators’ focus on meeting legal requirements and budgetary constraints rather than fostering meaningful behavioral change suggests a bureaucratic approach that prioritizes formal compliance over substantive environmental outcomes. However, city users placed more value on improving regulations, health and education despite both groups caring about a well-functioning waste segregation system.

Most critically, the findings reveal how private corporate interests significantly influence environmental initiatives under the guise of “smart city” development. Corporate pressure on municipalities to adopt specific technological solutions reveals how environmental sustainability often serves to cover commercial interests.

An analysis of smart-living initiatives revealed fundamental contradictions in the design of urban spaces. Although both groups imagine that smart city initiatives should focus on improving the quality of life and inclusion, this is not always the case. While city creators must consider the financial and promotional values of city creation, city users care more about reducing financial discrimination and providing accessible leisure facilities. City users not only stressed that they recognize the city’s efforts to provide green or leisure spaces but also pointed out that these efforts are not inclusive but intended for a selected few. This tension is particularly evident in the transformation of public spaces, as highlighted by users’ critiques of commercial shopping mall development:

The gap in smart city governance becomes evident in how participatory initiatives are implemented. While city creators construct narratives of democracy and transparency, their priorities reveal a marketing-driven agenda under commercial pressure, as demonstrated by one creator’s statement:

Furthermore, the participatory budget system exemplifies the limitations of citizen engagement. Despite democratic pretenses, this study reveals how institutional power structures continue to prioritize certain interests over genuine citizen participation. We only observed some alignment in educational initiatives between users’ and creators’ imaginaries. This suggests that projects with clear public good characteristics, such as inclusion, higher qualifications and societal awareness, face less tension. Educational projects are perceived as such (Plate 3).

The analysis of smart governance and economic initiatives reveals fundamental tensions between digital democratization and technological exclusion. While digitalization is framed as a path to increased accessibility, it simultaneously creates new forms of social stratification. Within economic governance initiatives, citizens appreciated digitalization and emphasized the activation of citizens through initiatives, accessibility and convenience:

Governance initiatives expose significant disconnects between institutional priorities and social realities. Although creators focus on budgetary efficiency and administrative accountability, they fail to address the fundamental issues of digital literacy and access. This technocratic approach to governance reflects a broader pattern of privileging administrative convenience over genuine inclusivity, specifically for older adults who are unfamiliar with technological innovation:

The economic development narrative surrounding business hubs and startup initiatives reveals stark contradictions. Smart economy projects primarily serve economic development, bringing significant financial benefits and prioritizing business and economic value. The city creators’ perspective demonstrates how these projects primarily serve as vehicles for city branding and EU fund absorption rather than genuine economic growth. This approach reveals how smart city economic initiatives often prioritize institutional metrics and external funding opportunities over meaningful local economic empowerment. However, city users perceive these initiatives as exclusive and offer selective assistance to entrepreneurs. Thus, in city users’ imaginaries, smart economy projects such as business hubs have negative connotations of being selective and excluding certain people. The citizens imagined that these initiatives would become more accessible. Although city users were aware that government involvement assisted entrepreneurs and start-ups, they still had high expectations regarding project performance and results, which were not always visible (Plate 5).

In summary, city users and creators have diverse views on the sociotechnical imaginaries of smart city sustainability. Some projects, such as City Bikes, follow similar approaches. However, they had completely divergent views on certain initiatives, such as city scooters and civic budgets. Below, we present a table of all the sociotechnical imaginaries of smart city initiatives as imagined by both city creators and users. The table highlights various relationships, showing convergence in environmental priorities, such as emphasis on air quality and ecological motives, along with divergence in societal and economic priorities (Table 3).

The findings reveal fundamental tensions and contradictions in how city users and creators conceptualize and operationalize smart city sustainability. The disconnection between the creators’ and users’ imaginaries extends beyond a simple communication gap, suggesting deeper structural issues in conceiving and implementing smart city initiatives. While city creators emphasize inclusivity and citizen engagement in their rhetoric, our study reveals that this commitment appears largely on performative issues, with a focus on finances, legal compliance and public relations. Our findings show that citizen participation serves more as a legitimizing tool than as a genuine democratic practice.

The divergence in environmental imaginaries is particularly notable. City creators frame ecological initiatives through a technocratic lens, prioritizing measurable outcomes and technological solutions. However, this approach often overlooks the complex socio-ecological relationships that citizens value, creating a disconnect between top-down environmental management and the lived experiences of urban sustainability. The economic dimension reveals, perhaps, the most striking contradiction. Although creators present smart city initiatives as inclusive, our analysis suggests that these projects often serve primarily as city branding exercises and technological showcases. The emphasis on digitalization and profit-driven innovation indicates a market-oriented approach that may exacerbate rather than address urban inequalities.

These findings challenge the prevailing assumption that smart city initiatives align naturally with citizen needs through technological innovation. Instead, they pointed to a more complex reality in which competing interests, power dynamics and institutional constraints shape how sustainability is imagined and implemented within a smart city. The persistent gap between creators’ stated intentions of inclusivity and their practice of prioritizing institutional imperatives suggests a need to fundamentally rethink how smart city initiatives are conceptualized and governed.

The interdisciplinary discourse surrounding smart city sustainability continues to evolve as scholars and practitioners grapple with the challenge of integrating environmental, societal and economic objectives into urban development (Meijer and Rodriguez Bolívar, 2016; Dameri and Benevolo, 2016; Mora et al., 2019). Given that smart cities serve as a nexus for technological innovation, policymaking and social transformation, a critical question arises: How can smart cities contribute effectively to sustainable urban development? This study engages in this debate by examining socio-technical imaginaries within smart city sustainability and identifying both convergence and divergence between key stakeholders: smart city creators and city users. Through an interdisciplinary approach and innovative research methodology, this study provides valuable insights into the intricate inter-organizational dynamics of smart city development and its implications for achieving equitable and sustainable urban futures.

Sociotechnological imaginaries, as collective frameworks, shape how societies interpret the present and envision the future (Taylor, 2004; Castoriadis, 1987; Jasanoff and Kim, 2013). In this study, we moved beyond a purely technological perspective, which often dominates the narratives of technology providers, to explore broader sociotechnical imaginaries of smart city sustainability. These imaginaries encompass not only technological solutions but also cultural norms, values and aspirations (Jasanoff and Kim, 2013). Literature has underscored the importance of adopting a human-centric approach (Grossi et al., 2020; Baruttia et al., 2022) and ensuring that smart city initiatives align with citizens’ needs and expectations. By analyzing sociotechnical imaginaries, we gain a deeper understanding of how different actors perceive and shape smart-city sustainability.

Our findings highlight the complexity of competing sociotechnological imaginaries. The discrepancies between city creators and users in visualizing smart city sustainability underscore the fundamental tension between policy-driven strategies and life experiences. While environmental sustainability enjoys a broader consensus among both groups, significant divergence persists in sociotechnical imaginaries of societal and economic sustainability. Higher alignment on selected socio-technical imaginaries, such as smart mobility initiatives, including city bikes and educational programs within the smart people domain, suggests a shared recognition of pressing environmental and social challenges and the pivotal role of the city government in addressing them.

However, not all smart city initiatives enjoy equal consensus among stakeholders. Previous research has documented the tension between technocratic and human-centric approaches to sustainability (Kitchin, 2015; Grossi and Trunova, 2021), particularly when economic and technological advancements take precedence over social equity and citizen wellbeing (Hollands, 2008; Kitchin et al., 2019). Our study demonstrates that many sociotechnical imaginaries do not fully converge. Some align, while others diverge, reflecting the complexity of multistakeholder urban governance. This misalignment may stem from the inherently multifaceted nature of smart city projects, which involve actors with diverse and sometimes conflicting interests (Argento et al., 2020). Furthermore, disparities may arise because of contradictions between citizens’ aspirations, policymakers’ agendas and technology providers’ commercial priorities (Grossi and Pianezzi, 2017). Our results suggest the need for sustained efforts to strengthen collaboration among key city actors and engage in ongoing dialogue to develop shared sociotechnical imaginaries that support sustainable urban development.

Alexandrov et al. (2022) emphasized that meaningful dialogue between city creators and users is essential for transforming cities into thriving, sustainable spaces. Similarly, Akterujjaman et al. (2022) highlighted persistent challenges in the multi-actor co-creation of smart city projects. Our study builds on these insights, proposing that the success of smart city sustainability greatly depends on aligning the sociotechnical imaginaries of diverse stakeholders with existing cultural and social structures. Achieving the objectives outlined in SDG 11 – creating sustainable cities and communities – is likely to be more feasible if shared imaginaries guide collective action. Such an alignment can be fostered through an inclusive process and dialog, wherein the diverse visions of smart city actors are incorporated into the design and implementation of sustainable solutions.

Overall, our findings reinforce the necessity for a more inclusive and participatory approach to smart city projects, leading to a sustainable future. This study highlights the risks of exacerbating social and economic inequalities through top-down technocratic decision-making processes that fail to engage diverse stakeholder groups effectively. For instance, although city creators often view smart mobility initiatives as environmentally advantageous, users critique their accessibility and argue that they may inadvertently reinforce the socioeconomic divide. Addressing these gaps necessitates reimagining smart city projects as co-created endeavors that integrate diverse imaginaries and prioritize inclusion.

From a policy perspective, our study suggests that balancing environmental, societal and economic objectives requires governance frameworks that address power asymmetries among various city actors. Policymakers must ensure that the sociotechnical imaginaries of various city actors are included in decision-making processes, particularly when designing and implementing sustainable smart city initiatives (Vanolo, 2016). Furthermore, our findings emphasize the importance of fostering transparency and accountability in public–private partnerships, which frequently drive smart city development but may prioritize corporate interests over public needs (Grossi et al., 2020).

We adopted an innovative research design that incorporates visual methodologies to investigate the socio-technological imaginaries of smart city sustainability. While traditional qualitative research methods remain valuable, photo-elicitation interviews provide a unique approach by integrating visual elements and participant engagement. This allows for a richer and more nuanced exploration of the subject matter (Harper, 2002; Parker, 2009). By presenting participants with images of smart city solutions, we aimed to elicit deeper reflections and facilitate a more engaged discussion of urban sustainability (Clark-Ibáñez, 2004). Nevertheless, the reliance on photo-elicitation introduces potential limitations, including researcher bias in image selection and participant interpretation. Additionally, the study’s focus on two Polish cities may limit the broader applicability of our findings because sociotechnical imaginaries can vary significantly across cultural and regional contexts. One interesting example is related to the civic budget in the smart people domain, where historical and cultural backgrounds ^[1] can result in completely divergent sociotechnical imaginaries between city creators and users. Future research could address these limitations by incorporating a wider range of cities and using participatory visual methods to co-create research materials with participants (Giffinger et al., 2007).

Our study focused only on the convergence and divergence of sociotechnical imaginaries of smart city sustainability. It would be interesting to understand the processes through which city actors discuss, negotiate and develop shared social-technological imaginaries. Future research should also explore the evolving nature of socio-technical imaginaries across different cultural and political landscapes, moving beyond the current geographic scope (Bibri and Krogstie, 2017). A longitudinal approach could offer valuable insights into how these imaginaries shift over time and influence urban policy and Smart City development (Meijer and Rodriguez Bolívar, 2016). Additionally, examining grassroots movements and citizen-led initiatives could reveal how alternative imaginaries challenge dominant sociotechnological imaginaries (Trencher, 2019).

According to the UN, 66% of the world’s population will reside in urban areas by 2050, posing significant challenges in pollution, density, waste management and public health. Although smart cities are not inherently sustainable, various elements of the smart city agenda can contribute to the broader goal of urban sustainability. For example, intelligent transport systems can help mitigate road congestion and air pollution; science parks can drive economic development; and digital platforms can foster citizen engagement and participation.

However, achieving sustainable urban development requires fundamental changes in technological, economic, social and cultural systems. Sociotechnological imaginaries may have transformative potential as tools for negotiating and developing a shared vision of sustainability. Moving beyond the dominance of unilateral neoliberal approaches to smart city development, sociotechnical imaginaries can help facilitate a more inclusive, participatory and adaptive urban transformation. By fostering dialogue among stakeholders, these imaginaries ensure that smart city initiatives align with the aspirations of diverse communities, paving the way for an equitable, resilient and sustainable urban future.

This study contributes to the growing body of research on smart city sustainability by critically examining socio-technological imaginaries of smart city sustainability. Analyzing the divergence and convergence of imaginaries among key stakeholders highlights the pathways to ensure that smart city initiatives realize their full potential for creating sustainable and equitable cities.

Funding: Narodowe Centrum Nauki, 2019/35/B/HS4/03717.