How publics perceive smart cities: identifying social determinants of citizens’ attitudes to data

Abstract This study examines how citizens perceive the increasing integration of digital and data-driven technologies in (sub)urban governance, commonly referred to as the ‘smart city’. Despite the increasing focus on citizen roles in the co-production of smart city initiatives, little is known about how the public perceives these developments and how such perceptions are socially shaped. Drawing on survey data from 3270 Belgian respondents, this study examines socio-demographic characteristics, familiarity (i.e. awareness, digital literacy and (prior) technology adoption), and risk–benefit perceptions as determinants of public attitudes toward smart cities. Results suggest that attitudes tend to be more positive for older, higher educated and male respondents, although the effects of gender and education become negligible once other variables are considered. Among the familiarity dimensions examined, only technology adoption significantly affects attitudes. This indicates that it is not formal knowledge about smart cities that shapes attitudes, but rather that attitudes are dependent on experiences with different (digital) technologies that smart cities might provide. The strongest associations arise at the level of risk–benefit perceptions: perceived misuse risks are negatively associated with support, whereas perceived benefits exhibit a substantially stronger positive association than perceived risks. These findings refine the traditional ‘familiarity hypothesis’ by demonstrating that public attitudes toward smart cities are not necessarily driven by formal knowledge, but rather shaped by everyday technological experiences and perceptions of potential risks and benefits. This insight highlights the importance of experiential and evaluative dimensions in public perceptions of emerging forms of data-driven governance. Data availability The data that support the findings of this study cannot be shared publicly because it is governed by a data sharing agreement. Access to these data may be obtained from IMEC Flanders (research program: Public Technology), subject to their approval and the completion of a data sharing agreement. Notes Four items were excluded from the final technology adoption factor because of low standardized factor loadings (≤ .45): using mobility-sharing schemes, borrowing goods online, contacting the municipality online, and participating in citizen science projects. As a robustness check, all correlation and regression analyses were replicated using factor scores derived from a CFA including all ten original items. The substantive conclusions remained unchanged. References Allum N, Sturgis P, Tabourazi D, Brunton-Smith I (2008) Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: a meta-analysis. Public Underst Sci 17(1):35–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/096366250607015 Ballon P, Van Hoed M, Schuurman D (2018) The effectiveness of involving users in digital innovation: measuring the impact of living labs. Telemat Inform. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2018.02.003 Bauer MW (2009) The evolution of public understanding of science—discourse and comparative evidence. Sci Technol Soc 14(2):221–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/097172180901400202 Bauer MW, Allum N, Miller S (2007) What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Underst Sci 16(1):79–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506071287 Brewer PR, Bingaman J, Dawson W, Painstil A, Wilson DC (2021) Explaining public attitudes toward facial recognition technology. In: TPRC49: the 49th research conference on communication, information and internet policy. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3897970 Bruckermann T, Greving H, Schumann A et al (2021) To know about science is to love it? Unraveling cause–effect relationships between knowledge and attitudes toward science in citizen science on urban wildlife ecology. J Res Sci Teach 58(8):1179–1202. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21697 Cardullo P, Kitchin R (2019) Smart urbanism and smart citizenship: the neoliberal logic of ‘citizen-focused’ smart cities in Europe. Environ Plan C Polit Space 37(5):813–830. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263774X18806508 Carlisle DP, Feetham PM, Wright MJ, Teagle DAH (2022) Public engagement with emerging technologies: does reflective thinking affect survey responses? Public Underst Sci 31(5):660–670. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625211029438 Chen Z, Chan ICC (2023) Smart cities and quality of life: a quantitative analysis of citizens’ support for smart city development. Inf Technol People 36(1):263–285. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-07-2021-0577 Cole A, Tran É (2022) Trust and the smart city: the Hong Kong paradox. China Perspect. https://doi.org/10.4000/chinaperspectives.14039 Coletta C, Evans L, Heaphy L, Kitchin R (eds) (2019) Creating smart cities. Routledge, London Cui Q, Wei R, Huang R, Hu X, Wang G (2022) The effect of perceived risk on public participation intention in smart city development: evidence from China. Land 11(9):1604. https://doi.org/10.3390/land11091604 Dameri RP, Rosenthal-Sabroux C (2014) Smart city and value creation. Smart city: how to create public and economic value with high technology in urban space. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 1–12 Desdemoustier J, Crutzen N, Giffinger R (2019) Municipalities’ understanding of the Smart City concept: an exploratory analysis in Belgium. Technol Forecast Soc Change 142:129–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.10.029 Drummond C, Fischhoff B (2017) Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 114(36):9587–9592. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1704882114 Emami-Naeini P, Breda J, Dai W, Kohno T, Laine K, Patel S, Roesner F (2023) Understanding people’s concerns and attitudes toward smart cities. In: Proceedings of the 2023 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems. pp. 1–24. Gupta N, Fischer AR, Frewer LJ (2012) Socio-psychological determinants of public acceptance of technologies: a review. Public Underst Sci 21(7):782–795. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510392485 Hartley K (2021) Public trust and political legitimacy in the Smart City: a reckoning for technocracy. Sci Technol Hum Values 46(6):1286–1315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243921992864 Hartley K (2023) Public perceptions about smart cities: governance and quality-of-life in Hong Kong. Soc Indic Res 166(3):731–753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-023-03087-9 Hollands RG (2008) Will the real smart city please stand up? Intelligent, progressive or entrepreneurial? City 12(3): 303–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604810802479126 Horowitz MC, Kahn L, Macdonald J, Schneider J (2024) Adopting AI: how familiarity breeds both trust and contempt. AI Soc 39(4):1721–1735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-023-01666-5 Joss S, Sengers F, Schraven D, Caprotti F, Dayot Y (2019) The smart city as global discourse: storylines and critical junctures across 27 cities. J Urban Technol 26(1):3–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2018.1558387 Kitchin R, Coletta C, Evans L, Heaphy L, MacDonncha D (2017) Smart cities, epistemic communities, advocacy coalitions and the ‘last mile’ problem. Inf Technol 59(6): 275–284. https://doi.org/10.1515/itit-2017-0004 Koenig PD (2025) Attitudes toward artificial intelligence: combining three theoretical perspectives on technology acceptance. AI Soc 40(3):1333–1345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-01987-z Kostka G, Steinacker L, Meckel M (2021) Between security and convenience: facial recognition technology in the eyes of citizens in China, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Public Underst Sci 30(6):671–690. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625211001555 Leclercq EM, Rijshouwer EA (2022) Enabling citizens’ right to the smart city through the co-creation of digital platforms. Urban Transform 4(1):2. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42854-022-00030-y Lee CJ, Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Sci Commun 27(2):240–267. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547005281474 Lupton D, Michael M (2017) ‘Depends on who’s got the data’: public understandings of personal digital dataveillance. Surveill Soc 15(2):254–268. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v15i2.6332 Marangunic N, Granic A (2015) Technology acceptance model: a literature review from 1986 to 2013. Univers Access Inf Soc 14(1):81–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10209-014-0348-1 Mora L, Bolici R, Deakin M (2017) The first two decades of smart-city research: a bibliometric analysis. J Urban Technol 24(1):3–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2017.1285123 Mora L, Gerli P, Batty M et al (2025) Confronting the smart city governance challenge. Nat Cities 2(2025):110–113. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44284-024-00168-9 Nader K, Toprac P, Scott S, Baker S (2022) Public understanding of artificial intelligence through entertainment media. AI Soc 39(2):713–726. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-022-01427-w Park YJ (2026) Algorithmic emotion, personal data, and informational judgment. SAGE Open. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440261423010 Park LYJ, Oh YW, Sang Y (2024) Digital access, digital literacy, and afterlife preparedness: societal contexts of digital afterlife traces. Soc Media Soc. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051241274676 Przeybilovicz E, Cunha MA, Geertman S, Leleux C, Michels A, Tomor Z, Webster WR, Meijer A (2022) Citizen participation in the smart city: findings from an international comparative study. Local Gov Stud 48(1):23–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2020.1851204 Rijshouwer EA, Leclercq EM, van Zoonen L (2022) Public views of the smart city: towards the construction of a social problem. Big Data Soc. https://doi.org/10.1177/20539517211072190 Scheufele DA, Lewenstein BV (2005) The public and nanotechnology: how citizens make sense of emerging technologies. J Nanopart Res 7(6):659–667. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-005-7526-2 Shayan S, Kim KP (2023) Understanding correlations between social risks and sociodemographic factors in smart city development. Sustain Cities Soc. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104320 Shelton T, Lodato T (2019) Actually existing smart citizens: expertise and (non) participation in the making of the smart city. City 23(1):35–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2019.1575115 Slovic P, Finucane ML, Peters E, MacGregor DG (2007) The affect heuristic. Eur J Oper Res 177(3):1333–1352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006 Szafran D, Bach RL (2025) Unfamiliar but desired: citizens’ attitudes toward smart city applications. AI Soc. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-025-02815-8 van Giesen RI, Fischer AR, Van Dijk H, Van Trijp HC (2015) Affect and cognition in attitude formation toward familiar and unfamiliar attitude objects. PLoS ONE 10(10):0141790. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0141790 Van Zoonen L (2016) Privacy concerns in smart cities. Gov Inf Q 33(3):472–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.06.004 Vandermoere F, Blanchemanche S, Bieberstein A, Marette S, Roosen J (2011) The public understanding of nanotechnology in the food domain: the hidden role of views on science, technology, and nature. Public Underst Sci 20(2):195–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662509350139 Vidiasova L, Cronemberger F (2020) Discrepancies in perceptions of smart city initiatives in Saint Petersburg. Russia Sustain Cities Soc 59:102158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102158 Vu HT, Lim J (2022) Effects of country and individual factors on public acceptance of artificial intelligence and robotics technologies: a multilevel SEM analysis of 28-country survey data. Behav Inf Technol 41(7):1515–1528. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2021.1884288 Zhang M (2023) Older people’s attitudes towards emerging technologies: a systematic literature review. Public Underst Sci 32(8):948–968. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231171677 Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge IMEC Flanders, in particular Jan Adriaenssens, Director of Public Technology, and Eva Steenberghs, Project Manager Smart City Meter, for providing the datasets used in this study. Author information Authors and Affiliations Contributions Conceptualization: BE, RG and FV. Formal analysis: RG. Original manuscript: BE. Methods: RG and BE. Results: FV and BE. All authors reviewed the manuscript. Corresponding author Ethics declarations Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests. Additional information Publisher's Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Rights and permissions Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law. About this article Cite this article El-Achkar, B., Geerts, R. & Vandermoere, F. How publics perceive smart cities: identifying social determinants of citizens’ attitudes to data-driven governance. AI & Soc (2026). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-026-03263-8 Received: Accepted: Published: Version of record: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-026-03263-8