Mapping Open Design and Participation in Smart City Solutions: A

Systematic Literature Review

avio Henrique Alves

1 a

, Maria Cecilia Calani Baranauskas

2 b

and Alexandre L’Erario

3 c

Department of Information Technology – Federal University of Paran

a, Curitiba-PR, Brazil

Institute of Computing State University of Campinas, Campinas-SP, Brazil

Department of Systems and Dep. of Computing - Federal Technological University of Paran

a, Corn

elio Proc

opio, Brazil

ﬂ

Keywords:

ICT, Open Design, OpenDesign Platform, Smart City, Semiotic.

Abstract:

This article presents a systematic review on the adoption of open design practices in smart cities, considering

how Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) enhance sustainable and inclusive urban solutions.

After applying the PRISMA protocol in databases such as ACM, IEEE, Springer and Scopus, 74 articles pub-

lished from 2013 to 2024 were selected. The results of analysis reveal that, although there are advances in the

application of IoT, in platforms for citizen engagement, and in environmental sensors technology, there are still

gaps in the standardization of deﬁnitions for “smart city” and a lack of evaluation methods. There is a strong

concentration of research in Europe and North America, suggesting the need to expand research to contexts

of other continents and regions of the world. The analysis is conducted through the Semiotic Framework and

contextual factors, showing that the acceptance of solutions depends on a balance between the social world,

the digital world and infrastructure offered. In conclusion, open design emerges as a promising strategy for the

development of truly smart cities, demanding more multidisciplinary cooperation, robust evaluation method-

ologies and greater inclusion of diverse social contexts.

1 INTRODUCTION

The exponential advances and applications of Infor-

mation and Communication Technologies (ICT) have

changed society’s relationships in the context of the

cities (Fu and Lin, 2014). At the same time, such

technologies can potentially increase the complexity

of people’s interaction with the cities. This is a clear

concern in human-computer interaction (HCI) to un-

derstand the complexity of designing for people living

in those cities (Slingerland and Overdiek, 2023).

The concept of a smart city has become recurrent

in political speeches and in the media, but there is

no consensus on its deﬁnition or meaning (Opromolla

et al., 2015; Rocha et al., 2022). urthermore, smart

cities are evolving from a strongly technological ori-

entation toward more inclusive and participatory ap-

proaches, where citizens are expected to play an ac-

tive role in their planning and development. (Keskin

and Markus, 2024).

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0806-9726

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4830-5298

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5233-7113

ICTs have been considered potential solutions to

contemporary challenges, often related to the United

Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

(UN, 2015). Previous studies (Lilis et al., 2015; Ha-

yar and Betis, 2017; Dinc and Sahingoz, 2019) show

that the world concentrates on good and promising

results that demonstrate an evolution in dealing with

smart cities.

However, from 2019 to 2023, a pandemic affected

the way of life in cities worldwide (Fariniuk, 2020)

and has put many aspects of smart cities to the test.

Although these cities have the potential to offer inno-

vative solutions, the crisis has revealed some limita-

tions and challenges, such as connectivity and digital

inequality, and the reliance on digital technologies for

essential services such as telemedicine and education.

Mobility and social distancing with public trans-

port and urban mobility have been affected. Cities

need to rethink planning to ensure safety, health care,

and to deal with the decline of rights and press free-

dom, privacy and data security, and disinformation.

Cities must balance innovation with data protection.

Indicators such as the Social Progress Index (SPI)

(Wilm et al., 2024) reveal that the world is indeed

Alves, F. H., Baranauskas, M. C. C. and L’Erario, A.

Mapping Open Design and Participation in Smart City Solutions: A Systematic Literature Review.

DOI: 10.5220/0013474000003929

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems (ICEIS 2025) - Volume 2, pages 657-667

ISBN: 978-989-758-749-8; ISSN: 2184-4992

657

moving very slowly toward achieving the Sustainable

Development Goals (SDGs); so slowly that the 2030

goals require more energetic actions to be met. This

shows that there is still a long way to go and sev-

eral challenges to be faced to consolidate what are

expected to be smart cities. The pandemic has high-

lighted the importance of active citizen participation

in urban decisions. Smart cities must involve the com-

munity in their development.

For this involvement to happen, we argue that the

concept and methods of smart city design could bene-

ﬁt from Open Design (OP) approaches (Baranauskas,

2015) with open, collaborative, and voluntary work in

which everyone can participate at any stage of the pro-

cess. In these approaches, process, information, and

product are accessible, participatory, and (re)usable

by anyone and for any purpose (da Silva et al., 2019).

Whereas OP aims to involve the active partici-

pation of the community, market, sources, contribu-

tors, and operation in the design of solutions, smart

cities use advanced technologies to improve inhabi-

tants quality of life and make cities more efﬁcient and

sustainable.

1.1 The Current Research

This paper presents a comprehensive, systematic syn-

thesis of the literature raised on works involving open

or participatory or codesigned design of smart cities.

We focus on the ways practices are integrated into de-

velopment of solutions, highlighting the technologies

employed, design phases, user engagement, and sus-

tainability impacts. Considering the literature found,

this paper offers four main contributions to smart city

contexts. First, it provides a comprehensive review

of the characteristics of existing studies on open or

participatory design practices in smart cities. Sec-

ond, this review summarizes the current deﬁnitions of

”smart cities,” which helps to understand how the con-

cept is treated and sense is made in this scientiﬁc con-

text. Third, the review contextualizes the factors that

impact implementation and acceptance of these prac-

tices across different sectors, allowing stakeholders to

gain a broader understanding of the challenges and

enablers of involvement of people in different urban

contexts. Finally, the paper summarizes the technolo-

gies and technological artifacts used and highlights

best practices and appropriate models for evaluating

the effectiveness of open and participatory design in

smart cities. A set of research questions were formu-

lated to structure the review, as follows.

RQ1: What are the characteristics of existing stud-

ies on open or participatory design practices in smart

cities?

RQ2: What are the current deﬁnitions of ” smart

cities” in the literature, and how do these deﬁnitions

inﬂuence the design and implementation processes?

RQ3: What factors impact the implementation

and acceptance of open or participatory design prac-

tices in different sectors related to smart cities?

RQ4: What technologies and technological arti-

facts are used in open or participatory design pro-

cesses in smart cities, and what best practices and

models are effective in evaluating the success of these

implementations?

This paper aimed to identify relevant literature

and summarize the types of research projects and

paradigms considered in published studies on prac-

tices that consider the involvement of people in the

design of solutions in smart cities. This allows us

to highlight the complexity of the research conducted

and the limitations that should be addressed in future

studies.

2 METHODOLOGY

In this section, the activities deﬁned and the proce-

dures adopted to achieve the results of this study are

described. The systematic review was conducted fol-

lowing the PRISMA guidelines.

2.1 Search Strategy and Eligibility

Criteria

The study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for

Systematic Reviews and meta-Analysis (PRISMA)

guidelines (Gough et al., 2012) (Figure 1).

The authors developed the search strategy, ﬁrst

carried out in July 2023, and updated to consider pub-

lications from 2013 to 2024, in the English language.

The search string contained the terms (Table 1) looked

for in the title, abstract or keywords, and full text.

Table 1: Search Terms Used in the Review.

Four databases were searched: ACM Digital Li-

brary, IEEE Xplore, Springer Link, and Scopus.

ICEIS 2025 - 27th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

658

Figure 1: Steps for identifying relevant literature (based on

PRISMA) (Gough et al., 2012)).

There was no need to manually include papers, as

the search generated a signiﬁcant number of relevant

studies.

2.2 Screening and Selection

A total of 5154 articles were identiﬁed, of which 2588

articles were identiﬁed as ineligible by the platform

settings considering the deﬁned criteria (Table 2), In

addition to articles published before the year 2013,

duplicates, books, languages other than English, Por-

tuguese, or Spanish and number of pages less than 4

and greater than 50.

After this step, we conducted a three-step screen-

ing with three reviewers on the 2,566 articles iden-

tiﬁed. Since database searches capture many studies

that use the same terms but do not have the same fo-

cus, we systematically applied exclusion criteria dur-

ing the screening. Thus, articles that did not meet the

criteria were disregarded.

During the initial screening, which involved read-

ing the title and keywords of each article, 2,425 were

excluded, while 141 articles were selected for abstract

reading. We identiﬁed that 11 articles were not acces-

sible, so 130 articles were selected for abstract read-

Table 2: Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria.

ing.

The abstract reading stage was initiated consider-

ing the inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table 2); 130

articles were analyzed, of which 74 were selected as

eligible for full reading.

In the complete reading stage, the second and

third authors read 8.2% (n=6) and 9.6% (n=7), respec-

tively; the remaining 60 articles were analyzed by the

ﬁrst author, who represents 82.2% of the selected ar-

ticles.

Mapping Open Design and Participation in Smart City Solutions: A Systematic Literature Review

659

2.3 Control of Similarity of Responses

Between Authors

To ensure the consistency and reliability of the analy-

ses performed in the systematic review, a control pro-

cess involving three authors who evaluated the same

articles was carried out. The objective was to test the

responses’ similarity to a structured form used to cap-

ture data from reading. Five articles were selected

from the 74 for full reading. Each reviewer received

the same articles to read and complete the form.

The ﬁrst author treated Open-ended responses qual-

itatively, and the simple agreement rate between the

reviewers was calculated for questions with nominal

variables. For example, “Does it involve the user?”

showed 100% agreement, indicating total alignment

between the authors.

2.4 Data Extraction

Data were extracted according to a form with a pre-

speciﬁed checklist. The form

was made available

online (Google Forms) for access by the authors. The

checklist included questions to ensure a systematic

and comprehensive analysis. First, we sought to iden-

tify the design processes used in the studies, consid-

ering whether these processes involve the user, how

this involvement occurs, in what phases of the process

they are, the application domain, and whether there

is consideration of sustainable objectives, such as the

UN Sustainable Development Goals.

Next, the technological artifacts produced and the

types of technologies used were investigated. We also

assessed how the developed artifacts were tested or

validated. In addition, the questions included ver-

iﬁcation of the authors’ afﬁliation and the location

where the research was carried out. Finally, we an-

alyzed how the document presented the concept of

smart cities and there was space for additional com-

ments from the reviewer. These questions enabled

the standardized and detailed extraction of informa-

tion relevant to the study.

3 RESULTS

In this section, we analyze open and participatory de-

sign practices in smart cities. Through a review of 74

articles, we explored aspects such as the level of user

involvement, the prevailing deﬁnitions of smart cities,

and the factors that inﬂuence the implementation of

these practices. In addition, this section examines the

Form used in data extraction: Appendix 5

most widely used technologies, such as engagement

platforms and IoT, and the evaluation methods used

to measure the success of these initiatives. Finally,

we identify interconnected elements that demonstrate

actions that promote more inclusive and effective so-

lutions in smart cities.

3.1 What Are the Characteristics of

Existing Studies on Open or

Participatory Design Practices in

Smart Cities? (RQ1)

Of the 74 selected articles, 14 did not have effective

user involvement. These articles addressed collabora-

tive practices (examples) and used only user data to

analyze and understand user perception. In 60 arti-

cles, user involvement in at least one process of par-

ticipatory practices was reported. When performing a

descriptive analysis on the year of publication of the

articles analyzed, it is noted that there was a ﬂuctu-

ation in publications over the years, we can separate

them into 3 moments and relate them to global con-

ﬂicts that moved ICTs.

The period from 2013 to 2018 can be associated

to the consolidation of emerging technologies; during

this period, the expansion of the IoT contributed to

the integration of connected devices that enabled the

boosting of the use of technology in cities that aimed

for the smart city status (Zanella et al., 2014).

In the period from 2019 to 2021 there is a down-

ward trend, which may be related to the impact of the

pandemic; this global crisis has signiﬁcantly affected

people’s intentions (Magare et al., 2020) and hindered

research and development activities.

The resumption of publications in the period from

2022 to 2024 may be associated with the recovery of

the post-pandemic economy and the exponential ad-

vances in artiﬁcial intelligence (B P et al., 2022)

Considering the afﬁliation of the authors’ coun-

tries Table 3, Europe, and North America are at the

top in terms of scientiﬁc contribution, with the coun-

tries with the highest number of publications being

Italy and the United States, both with 13 publications

each, reﬂecting a high concentration of research in de-

veloped countries.

Signiﬁcant presence from Asia, including coun-

tries such as Japan and China contributing a signiﬁ-

cant number of publications, with 11. Modest con-

tributions from Africa and South America, indicating

areas with potential for future expansion or with little

focus on the topic.

Regarding the demographic distribution of the

countries hosting the studies, the countries with more

ICEIS 2025 - 27th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

660

Table 3: Author by country.

studies were European countries, such as: Italy 13

studies, Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom

with 7 studies each and Finland and Denmark with

5 studies each. North America also stands out with

the United States with 12 studies. On the other hand,

we have underrepresented regions such as Africa and

parts of South America that have a smaller number of

studies.

Regarding the focus of the articles on scoring or

citing which SDG or sustainable initiative they ad-

dress (Figure 2), there is a percentage of 75.68% (59)

of the selected articles that do not provide informa-

tion. Thus suggesting that most publications still do

not explain how their initiatives relate to sustainable

development goals at a global level, despite dealing

with smart cities and considering open design.

Figure 2: Articles that consider SDGs.

The goals are part of the UN 2030 Agenda to

promote prosperity, equity and global sustainability,

however only 6 of the 17 existing objects were men-

tioned. Among them, goal #11 - Sustainable Cities

and Communities stands out with 15 mentions, which

reﬂects the intention of improving urban services and

social inclusion, essential factors for the development

of smart cities centered on people.

In a smaller proportion, goal #13 - Climate Ac-

tion appears with two mentions. The unique presence

of the other goals and the absence of others shows

that, to date, the focus themes of the 2030 agenda are

issues that have not yet been addressed or explicitly

related to global sustainability goals in most of the

selected articles. Broader goals, such as SDG #1 - No

Poverty, #2 - Zero Hunger and Sustainable Agricul-

ture or #6 - Clean Water and Sanitation, end up not

being addressed directly, as they do not seem to be

seen as the core of the development of technological

solutions or open design models aimed at smart cities.

Although the concept of open design can beneﬁt vul-

nerable groups and promote inclusion, the studies do

not directly correlate it with deeper social problems,

such as goal #5 - Gender Equality or #10 - Reduced

Inequality.

3.2 What Are the Current Deﬁnitions of

”Smart Cities” in the Literature,

and How Do These Deﬁnitions

Inﬂuence the Design and

Implementation Processes? (RQ2)

Of the selected studies 28 (37,84%) did not have a

clear deﬁnition of smart city. The absence of a com-

mon deﬁnition in the reviewed articles reﬂects both

the complexity of the topic and the multidimensional

nature of work on smart cities. For example, an arti-

cle presents gamiﬁed methods and co-creation in ur-

ban planning, without exploring the concept of ”smart

city” as a whole (Kavouras et al., 2023).

In the article (Kudo, 2016) explores co-design and

co-production in smart mobility systems, without ar-

ticulating how these practices ﬁt into a broader model

of a smart city. In the article (Jensen et al., 2021) ad-

dresses eco-feedback systems, but limits its analysis

to environmental issues, without discussing the gen-

eral concept of a “smart city”.

Articles that propose to deﬁne smart cities total 46

(62,16%), in Figure 3 illustrates through a word cloud

the most common words in the deﬁnitions of smart

cities used in the articles. It is possible to notice a

pattern that relates to the use of technology to consti-

tute the social world, digital world and infrastructure.

The words in Figure 4 categorized by social, dig-

ital and infrastructure, illustrate factors that might

impact the implementation and acceptance of design

practices in smart cities:

• Social Layer: Engaging citizens, people and em-

Mapping Open Design and Participation in Smart City Solutions: A Systematic Literature Review

661

Figure 3: Most frequent words in the deﬁnition of smart

cities.

Figure 4: Most frequent words in the deﬁnition of smart

cities.

powering the public requires collaborative gover-

nance and open discussion processes.

• Digital Layer: ICT, together with other technolo-

gies, function as a platform for information col-

lection and communication. However, it is essen-

tial that these solutions are co-created, prioritizing

digital inclusion and usability.

• Infrastructure Layer: Urban transformation in-

volves modernizing infrastructure and smart sys-

tems. Successful smart city projects combine

these components with social participation, cre-

ating sustainable solutions aligned with real local

demands.

In summary, when analyzing the frequency of

words in the different categories, the importance of ar-

ticulating the social world, digital world and physical

world in a balanced way becomes evident, ensuring

that innovations in smart cities not only incorporate

new technologies, but also meet people’s needs and

strengthen participatory governance.

3.3 What Factors Impact the

Implementation and Acceptance of

Open or Participatory Design

Practices in Different Sectors

Related to Smart Cities? (RQ3)

The implementation and acceptance of open and par-

ticipatory design practices in smart cities are strongly

inﬂuenced by semiotic dimensions and the socio-

technological context in which they are inserted. The

correlation of the articles with each of the semiotic

dimensions of Open Design was explored through

the use of the Semiotic Framework (Figure 5) ad-

dressed by Open Design Platform

to offer an insight

into the impact of these factors on participatory de-

sign practices (Dos Reis et al., 2020; Gonc¸alves and

Baranauskas, 2021; Alves et al., 2024; Baranauskas

et al., 2024).

• Social World: the interaction between signs and

their meanings is central to the social world, as

communities attribute different values and mean-

ings to proposed solutions according to their cul-

tural and social realities. In the case of vulner-

able communities, such as Detroit (Singh et al.,

2022), participatory design reveals how residents,

through design workshops, shape the collective

meaning of solutions. The analysis of the rela-

tionship between design practices and the expe-

riences of participants shows how the spaces and

solutions designed have to be culturally sensitive

and adapted to local realities, which reinforces

the idea that communities play an active role in

the co-creation process. This process of meaning

making is vital for the acceptance of practices, as

it involves not only the creation of solutions, but

also the understanding and internalization of the

concepts that support them.

• Pragmatics: accentuates the desire for action and

the consequences can be seen in the dynamics of

political participation between citizens and other

stakeholders, as illustrated in the Long Beach

studies (Sidqi et al., 2022) and Windhoek (Se-

berger and Shaffer, 2023). These cities used in-

teractive games as a participatory design tool, al-

lowing citizens to act as co-designers in solutions

to urban problems. The “well-played game” ap-

proach in Long Beach not only encouraged par-

Open Design Platform:

https://opendesign.ic.unicamp.br/

ICEIS 2025 - 27th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

662

Figure 5: Open Design - Semiotic Framework artifact

(Gonc¸alves et al., 2020).

ticipation, but also promoted active communica-

tion between different interest groups, reﬂecting

a pragmatic design practice where the intention

is to achieve a balance between local needs and

technological solutions.

In the example of Newcastle (Gordon et al.,

2023), citizen engagement in environmental data

collection and the development of digital tools for

air quality monitoring illustrates the pragmatics

of participatory design. The aim of using new

data collection methods is to provide a quantita-

tive measure of willingness to raise awareness and

local action on environmental issues, with a direct

impact on changing citizen behavior.

• Semantics: the signs used to represent urban so-

lutions and their interactions are crucial to the ac-

ceptance of design practices. The use of digital

and physical representations, such as 3D models

or digital twins, allows citizens to understand and

interpret proposed changes in their urban environ-

ments. This can be seen, for example, in the ar-

ticle of (Gama, 2017), which describes the con-

struction of interactive urban models for visual-

izing suggested solutions. The semantics of 3D

models facilitates the perception of the impacts of

urban solutions, helping citizens to visualize how

their contributions translate into tangible changes

in the urban space.

The creation of “models of the future” (Righi

et al., 2015) in co-creation workshops also exem-

pliﬁes how semantic representations help foster a

shared understanding of communities’ needs and

desires. Artistic or digital representations allow

citizens to explore future scenarios and better un-

derstand the impact of designed solutions, facili-

tating the acceptance of innovative solutions.

• Syntactics: which addresses the organization and

combination of signs without considering their

speciﬁc meaning, is clearly observed in the tech-

nological platforms used in smart cities. The ap-

plication of technologies such as sensors, data col-

lection platforms and gamiﬁcation, as seen in arti-

cles (Van Kleunen et al., 2021) and (Rocha et al.,

2022), is a demonstration of how the structure and

organization of information can facilitate citizen

participation. The use of data collected by sen-

sors (Freeman et al., 2019) and the transformation

of this information into practical actions demon-

strate the importance of syntactics in creating a

common language between technologies and citi-

zens.

In the example from Windhoek, the use of interac-

tive games as a design tool (Seberger and Shaffer,

2023) shows how the syntax of digital interactions

can be used to transform data and decisions into

playable elements, creating a framework that not

only engages citizens but also enables them to in-

teract in an informed and meaningful way with the

participatory design process.

• Empirical: Collecting and analyzing quantita-

tive data on user behavior is essential to evaluat-

ing the effectiveness of participatory design solu-

tions. In papers such as Newcastle (Gordon et al.,

2023) and “creative safety” with LEGO model-

ing (Paraschivoiu et al., 2022), empirical analy-

sis provides a solid basis for adapting and validat-

ing proposed solutions. Collecting data through

surveys and tools such as questionnaires or inter-

Mapping Open Design and Participation in Smart City Solutions: A Systematic Literature Review

663

active games (Bastos et al., 2022) allows design

decisions to be constantly evaluated and adjusted

based on citizen responses.

The use of data for environmental monitoring

(Keskin and Markus, 2024) exempliﬁes how em-

pirical data collection can be used to validate pro-

posed changes and adjust solutions according to

urban reality and observed real-world impacts.

• Physical World: the material space where par-

ticipatory design takes place, inﬂuences the im-

plementation of solutions. Urban infrastructure,

such as digital platforms (Freeman et al., 2019)

and the use of sensor technologies (McCord and

Becker, 2023), play a crucial role in the percep-

tion of design solutions. Accessibility and tech-

nological suitability are essential to ensure that

citizens can actively participate in and understand

proposed solutions.

The adoption of prototypes and physical environ-

ments, such as the co-creation workshops men-

tioned in Articles (Van Kleunen et al., 2021) and

(Sakamoto and Nakajima, 2016), highlights the

importance of developing concrete, accessible and

interactive solutions for citizens. This approach

ensures that proposals go beyond theory, being

tested, reﬁned and understood in the real, physi-

cal context of the city.

3.4 What Technologies and

Technological Artifacts Are Used in

Open or Participatory Design

Processes in Smart Cities, and What

Best Practices and Models Are

Effective for Evaluating the Success

of These Implementations? (RQ4)

Information about artifacts and technologies was

grouped according to their frequency of use and is

presented in Figure 6. Looking at Citizen’s En-

gagement Platforms and Documentation and Training

Manuals, they stand out as the most used technologi-

cal artifacts in the design of smart cities, reﬂecting the

focus on empowering and interacting with urban solu-

tions. Engagement Platforms facilitate active partici-

pation by the population, while Manuals and Training

are essential to ensure the adoption and effective use

of technologies.

A diversity of technologies and technological arti-

facts was found, which are presented in Figure 7. En-

vironmental Monitoring and IoT Devices play impor-

tant roles in data collection and analysis, contributing

to urban sustainability and efﬁciency. The lack of in-

Figure 6: The Technological Artifacts Produced.

formation on some technological artifacts reﬂects the

diversity and gaps in documentation, highlighting the

complexity and variation in smart city implementa-

tions.

IoT Devices, Data Management Systems, Sensors,

and Communication Networks technologies stand out

for enabling the collection, analysis, and transmission

of data in real time. Next, Dashboards and Strate-

gic Planning Tools provide visualization of indica-

tors and support strategic decisions, while Cloud and

Mobile Computing ensure availability and continuous

engagement of citizens. Technologies such as Big

Data, Crowdsourcing, Digital Platforms, Gamiﬁca-

tion and Machine Learning, although less frequent in

the sample reviewed, demonstrate potential data ori-

ented uses.

Figure 7: Technologies Used.

Regarding evaluation tools Focus Groups are

highlighted with greater frequency, highlighting the

relevance of group discussions with key participants.

Expert Assessment appears next and may be related

to assurance, technical validation and the viability

of proposed solutions through expert analysis, which

should complement users’ perceptions.

ICEIS 2025 - 27th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

664

Direct Observation and Field Research stand out

as approaches that allow us to understand the “in

loco” use of technologies and artifacts, identifying us-

ability problems or functional gaps directly in the ur-

ban environment.

Usability testing can be considered the systematic

evaluation of the user experience, which allows iden-

tifying friction points and opportunities for improve-

ment. A/B Testing, although less frequent, has proven

effective for comparing solution variants and objec-

tively measuring the performance of each version.

Case studies provide a broad view of how tech-

nologies and technological artifacts behave in speciﬁc

scenarios, enabling the extrapolation of good prac-

tices to other contexts. Models such as Living Labs,

User-Centered Design and Design Thinking encour-

age continuous cycles of prototyping, testing and re-

formulation of solutions, supported by empirical data

and stakeholder feedback. However, the lack of trans-

parency in methodological reporting in several studies

compromises the replicability and comparison of re-

sults, highlighting the need for better documentation

practices.

4 DISCUSSIONS

This paper presented a systematic review of the state

of the art on design practices that consider users par-

ticipation in smart cities, focusing on technological

contributions, user involvement and the impact of sus-

tainability initiatives. Based on the deﬁned research

questions (RQ1–RQ4), it was possible to:

• Understand the characteristics of existing stud-

ies (RQ1 - subsection 3.1): A diversity of stud-

ies was identiﬁed, with different levels of user in-

volvement and varied methods of data collection

and analysis. A certain concentration of research

was also observed in developed countries, mainly

in Europe and North America, indicating research

opportunities in underrepresented regions, such as

Africa and South America.

• Understanding the deﬁnitions of “smart cities”

(RQ2 - subsection 3.2: The analysis revealed that

there is no consensus on the term “smart city”.

Several articles use digital technologies and seek

more sustainable urban solutions, but only 46 of

the 74 papers provide clear deﬁnitions of what

they consider a smart city. The importance of bal-

ancing the social layer (people and interactions),

the digital layer (ICTs, data) and the infrastructure

layer (urban systems) to meet the real demands of

society was noted.

• Identify factors that impact the implementa-

tion and acceptance of participatory design

practices (RQ3 - subsection 3.3): Using the

Semiotic Framework of the OpenDesign platform,

it was found that the successful adoption of par-

ticipatory practices requires an understanding of

the social context, clarity, and coherence in com-

munication processes, the relevance of the content

and functionalities offered (semantics and prag-

matics), as well as the adequacy of technologies

(syntax) to the local reality and the needs of cit-

izens (physical world). These factors are crucial

to ensuring active community engagement and the

sustainability of initiatives.

• Mapping assessment technologies and best

practices (RQ4 - subsection 3.4): The techno-

logical tools adopted are varied, including en-

gagement platforms, training guides, environmen-

tal monitoring sensors, and integration with IoT,

among others. Regarding evaluation practices, the

adoption of approaches such as focus groups, us-

ability tests, ﬁeld research, and case studies was

highlighted to validate the developed artifacts, en-

suring relevance and alignment with urban de-

mands.

Although the results indicate considerable

progress in the development of participatory solu-

tions for smart cities, there are still important gaps.

First, the lack of standardization in the deﬁnition

of “smart city” makes direct comparison between

studies difﬁcult and may compromise the application

of good practices in different contexts. Second, many

studies do not report their evaluation methods in

detail, limiting replicability and the consolidation

of robust empirical evidence. Furthermore, the

concentration of research in developed countries re-

inforces the need to investigate more diverse realities,

including developing regions, where the application

of participatory design can generate signiﬁcant social

impacts.

5 CONCLUSION

The concept of a smart city has become recurrent in

political speeches and in the media, despite the un-

clear meanings and deﬁnitions. Works on smart cities

have lately evolved from a strongly technological ori-

entation toward more participatory approaches, where

citizens can have a role in their design. This paper

presented results of a systematic literature review con-

ducted to raise aspects of open and participatory in-

volvement of people in the design of smart cities.

Mapping Open Design and Participation in Smart City Solutions: A Systematic Literature Review

665

Data extracted from the analyzed articles conﬁrm

the potential of open and participatory design as a

strategic approach for developing sustainable, inclu-

sive urban solutions aligned with the population’s de-

sires. As further work, a community-oriented de-

sign is suggested, based on the OpenDesign Platform.

Through it anyone can propose and participate in de-

sign projects and everyone can express their concerns,

propose ideas and debate solutions in a democratic

manner.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work is ﬁnancially supported by the Coordina-

tion for the Improvement of Higher Education Per-

sonnel (CAPES) - Program of Academic Excellence

(PROEX) and PQ scholarship CNPq 309442/2023-0

REFERENCES

Alves, F., Baranauskas, M., and L’Erario, A. (2024). De-

sign analysis of smart water meters: An open design

approach. In Proceedings of the 26th International

Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Vol-

ume 2: ICEIS, pages 435–442. INSTICC, SciTePress.

B P, A., R M, S., and Sumathi, R. (2022). Artiﬁcial in-

telligence in smart city applications: An overview.

In 2022 6th International Conference on Intelligent

Computing and Control Systems (ICICCS), pages

986–993.

Baranauskas, M. C. C. (2015). Opendesign: Tech-

niques and artifacts for the socially aware de-

sign of computational systems. Technical report,

FAPESP/MCTI/MC–2015 Strategic Research Propos-

als on the Internet 2015 . . . .

Baranauskas, M. C. C., Pereira, R., and Bonacin, R. (2024).

Socially aware systems design: a perspective towards

technology-society coupling. AIS Transactions on

Human-Computer Interaction, 16(1):80–109.

Bastos, D., Fern

andez-Caballero, A., Pereira, A., and

Rocha, N. P. (2022). Smart City Applications to

Promote Citizen Participation in City Management

and Governance: A Systematic Review. Informatics,

9(4):89.

da Silva, D. P., Fedechen, E. A., Baranauskas, M. C. C., and

Pereira, R. (2019). Open design: a systematic map-

ping. In Proceedings of the 18th Brazilian Symposium

on Human Factors in Computing Systems, IHC ’19,

New York, NY, USA. Association for Computing Ma-

chinery.

Dinc, G. and Sahingoz, O. K. (2019). Smart home secu-

rity with the use of wsns on future intelligent cities.

In 2019 7th International Istanbul Smart Grids and

Cities Congress and Fair (ICSG), pages 164–168.

Dos Reis, J. C., Dos Santos, A. C., Duarte, E. F.,

Gonc¸alves, F. M., de Franc¸a, B. B. N., Bonacin, R.,

and Baranauskas, M. C. C. (2020). Articulating so-

cially aware design artifacts and user stories in the

conception of the opendesign platform. In ICEIS (2),

pages 523–532.

Fariniuk, T. M. D. (2020). Smart cities e pandemia: tecnolo-

gias digitais na gest

ao p

ublica de cidades brasileiras.

Revista de Administrac¸

ao P

ublica, 54(4):860–873.

Freeman, G., Bardzell, J., Bardzell, S., Liu, S.-Y. C., Lu, X.,

and Cao, D. (2019). Smart and Fermented Cities: An

Approach to Placemaking in Urban Informatics. In

Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human

Factors in Computing Systems, pages 1–13, Glasgow

Scotland Uk. ACM.

Fu, Z. and Lin, X. (2014). Building the Co-design and

Making Platform to Support Participatory Research

and Development for Smart City. In Hutchison, D.,

Kanade, T., Kittler, J., Kleinberg, J. M., Kobsa, A.,

Mattern, F., Mitchell, J. C., Naor, M., Nierstrasz,

O., Pandu Rangan, C., Steffen, B., Terzopoulos, D.,

Tygar, D., Weikum, G., and Rau, P. L. P., editors,

Cross-Cultural Design, volume 8528, pages 609–620.

Springer International Publishing, Cham. Series Title:

Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

Gama, K. (2017). Crowdsourced Software Development

in Civic Apps - Motivations of Civic Hackathons Par-

ticipants:. In Proceedings of the 19th International

Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, pages

550–555, Porto, Portugal. SCITEPRESS - Science

and Technology Publications.

Gonc¸alves, F. M., Prado, A. B., and Baranauskas, M. C. C.

(2020). Opendesign: Analyzing deliberation and ra-

tionale in an exploratory case study. In ICEIS (2),

pages 511–522.

Gonc¸alves, F. M. and Baranauskas, C. (2021). Opendesign

of scientiﬁc research in pandemic context. In Proceed-

ings of the X Latin American Conference on Human

Computer Interaction, CLIHC ’21, New York, NY,

USA. Association for Computing Machinery.

Gordon, E., Harlow, J., Teng, M., and Christoferetti, E.

(2023). Toward A Collaborative Smart City: A

Play-Based Urban Living Laboratory in Boston. In-

ternational Journal of Human–Computer Interaction,

39(2):302–318.

Gough, D., Oliver, S., and Thomas, J. (2012). An Introduc-

tion to Systematic Reviews. SAGE Publications.

Hayar, A. and Betis, G. (2017). Frugal social sustainable

collaborative smart city casablanca paving the way to-

wards building new concept for ”future smart cities

by and for all”. In 2017 Sensors Networks Smart and

Emerging Technologies (SENSET), pages 1–4.

Jensen, R. H., Teli, M., Jensen, S. B., Gram, M., and Har-

boe Sørensen, M. (2021). Designing Eco-Feedback

Systems for Communities: Interrogating a Techno-

solutionist Vision for Sustainable Communal Energy.

In C&T ’21: Proceedings of the 10th International

Conference on Communities & Technologies - Wicked

Problems in the Age of Tech, pages 245–257, Seattle

WA USA. ACM.

Kavouras, I., Sardis, E., Protopapadakis, E., Rallis, I.,

Doulamis, A., and Doulamis, N. (2023). A Low-Cost

Gamiﬁed Urban Planning Methodology Enhanced

ICEIS 2025 - 27th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems

666

with Co-Creation and Participatory Approaches. Sus-

tainability, 15(3):2297.

Keskin, D. and Markus, A. (2024). Creating Value to Ad-

dress Urban Challenges in Nascent Ecosystems: A

Study of Effectuation in Smart City Context. IEEE

Trans. Eng. Manage., 71:11951–11964.

Kudo, H. (2016). Co-design, Co-creation, and Co-

production of Smart Mobility System. In Rau, P.-L. P.,

editor, Cross-Cultural Design, volume 9741, pages

551–562. Springer International Publishing, Cham.

Series Title: Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

Lilis, G., Conus, G., Asadi, N., and Kayal, M. (2015). In-

tegrating building automation technologies with smart

cities: An assessment study of past, current and future

interroperable technologies. In 2015 International

Conference on Smart Cities and Green ICT Systems

(SMARTGREENS), pages 1–6.

Magare, S. S., Kondekar, S. R., and Dudhgaonkar, A. A.

(2020). Smart city during covid-19 lockdown and its

future impact. In 2020 International Conference on

Smart Innovations in Design, Environment, Manage-

ment, Planning and Computing (ICSIDEMPC), pages

209–215.

McCord, C. W. and Becker, C. (2023). Beyond Transac-

tional Democracy: A Study of Civic Tech in Canada.

Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact., 7(CSCW1):1–

37.

Opromolla, A., Ingrosso, A., Volpi, V., Medaglia, C. M.,

Palatucci, M., and Pazzola, M. (2015). Gamiﬁcation

in a Smart City Context. An Analysis and a Proposal

for Its Application in Co-design Processes. In De Glo-

ria, A., editor, Games and Learning Alliance, volume

9221, pages 73–82. Springer International Publishing,

Cham. Series Title: Lecture Notes in Computer Sci-

ence.

Paraschivoiu, I., Shawash, J., Dziabiola, M., Marji, N.,

Meschtscherjakov, A., and Thibault, M. (2022). Co-

designing the Affective City: Speculative Explo-

rations of Affective Place-Based Experiences. In Pro-

ceedings of the 25th International Academic Mindtrek

Conference, pages 313–317, Tampere Finland. ACM.

Righi, V., Sayago, S., and Blat, J. (2015). Urban ageing:

technology, agency and community in smarter cities

for older people. In Proceedings of the 7th Interna-

tional Conference on Communities and Technologies,

pages 119–128, Limerick Ireland. ACM.

Rocha, N. P., Bastardo, R., and Pav

ao, J. (2022). Citi-

zens’ Participation in the Co-Design of Smart Cities’

Applications, a Scoping Review. In Proceedings of

the 10th International Conference on Software Devel-

opment and Technologies for Enhancing Accessibility

and Fighting Info-exclusion, pages 172–177, Lisbon

Portugal. ACM.

Sakamoto, M. and Nakajima, T. (2016). Making Citizens’

Activities Flourish Through a Crowdsourcing-Based

Social Infrastructure. In Enriching Urban Spaces with

Ambient Computing, the Internet of Things, and Smart

City Design, pages 232–256.

Seberger, J. S. and Shaffer, G. (2023). Changing the Rules

of Play in Long Beach, California: Smart Cities, In-

frastructure, and the Well-Played Game. International

Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 39(2):286–

301.

Sidqi, Y., Zimmermann, F., Hegner, L., and Ponomareva, A.

(2022). Citizens empowerment in smart energy com-

munities. In 2022 IEEE International Smart Cities

Conference (ISC2), pages 1–6, Pafos, Cyprus. IEEE.

Singh, P., Lynch, F., and Helfert, M. (2022). Analysis

of Citizen’s Feedback from the Lens of Smart City

Framework: A Case Study Based Approach. In Klein,

C., Jarke, M., Helfert, M., Berns, K., and Gusikhin,

O., editors, Smart Cities, Green Technologies, and In-

telligent Transport Systems, volume 1612, pages 107–

124. Springer International Publishing, Cham. Series

Title: Communications in Computer and Information

Science.

Slingerland, G. and Overdiek, A. (2023). Beyond human

sensors: More-than-human Citizen Sensing in biodi-

versity Urban Living Labs. In The 11th International

Conference on Communities and Technologies (C&T),

pages 27–38, Lahti Finland. ACM.

UN, U. N. (2015). 17 goals to transform our world. Ac-

cessed in 08/06/2022. Available at https://www.un.

org/en/exhibits/page/sdgs-17-goals-transform-world.

Van Kleunen, L., Muller, B., and Voida, S. (2021). ”Wiring

a City”: A Sociotechnical Perspective on Deploying

Urban Sensor Networks. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput.

Interact., 5(CSCW1):1–22.

Wilm, M., Santos, D., Ver

ıssimo, B., Mosaner, M., Seifer,

P., Marangoni, S., Coelho, L., Silva, C., Albuquerque,

R., Vilhena, A., and Ver

ıssimo, R. (2024).

Indice de

Progresso Social Brasil 2024: Qualidade de vida nos

5.570 munic

ıpios do Brasil. Instituto do Homem e

Meio Ambiente da Amaz

onia (Imazon), Bel

em.

Zanella, A., Bui, N., Castellani, A., Vangelista, L., and

Zorzi, M. (2014). Internet of things for smart cities.

IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 1(1):22–32.

APPENDIX

The data used in this study are stored in the Zenodo

repository, ensuring reproducibility and accessibility.

They can be accessed directly at the following ad-

dress: 10.5281/zenodo.14715439

We included in this repository:

• Form template used.

• Original dataset extracted from the selected arti-

cles used for analysis.

• List of references.

We recommend that readers interested in replicat-

ing this study consult the ﬁles available in the reposi-

tory.

Mapping Open Design and Participation in Smart City Solutions: A Systematic Literature Review

667