Back to all available

A review and multidimensional framework for AI-enabled smart governance for sustainable cities

artificial-intelligence
data-mining-and-machine-learning
data-science
social-computing
world-wide-web-and-web-science

Abstract

Background. Cities face growing governance pressures as rapid urbanisation, climate risks, and socio-economic inequalities intersect with digital transformation. Smart governance seeks to use digital technologies to support coordinated, participatory, and sustainability-oriented decision-making, but outcomes remain uneven and contested.

Methods. This paper conducts a structured narrative review (2010-2025) spanning smart governance, sustainable cities, public sector AI, urban AI, e-participation, and emerging AI localism. The synthesis integrates conceptual foundations, patterns of AI adoption in local government, and municipal approaches to governing AI.

Results. The review maps major AI application domains in cities and identifies recurring governance instruments, including strategies, procurement rules, algorithm registers, impact assessments, oversight bodies, and participation mechanisms. Across domains, persistent tensions emerge between efficiency-driven rationales and justice-oriented sustainability goals, shaped by institutional context and capacity.

Conclusions. Building on the synthesis, the paper proposes a multidimensional framework linking institutions, governance capacity, data infrastructure, AI systems, governance instruments, participation, and sustainability and justice outcomes. The framework supports more responsible and context-sensitive AI governance research and practice in cities.

Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ Computer Science does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].