Smart-City Citizen Engagement: The Answer to Energy Savings in an Economic Crisis?

Abstract

As the populations of cities grow, it is obvious that they need more and more resources. Energy is currently one of the most desirable resources due to the economic and energy crisis, but it needs to be used in a sustainable manner. There are cities that achieve smart city (SC) status that provide smart policies towards sustainable development. The aim of the present paper is to determine whether citizen engagement in SC can contribute to reduced energy consumption in the current economic crisis. The paper presents an original survey intended to collect primary data and a study conducted based exclusively on qualitative methods. The results concern a broad and multifaceted review of literature concerning SCs, as well as citizens’ engagement and their role in SC development. The study allows understanding of the economic phenomena taking place in SCs and filling the gaps regarding the behavior of SC citizens. It shows that SCs create smart citizens that feel responsible for the environment and aggregate a more responsible environment for public actions with citizen engagement. In terms of energy savings, the study shows that it is possible to specify the economic and energy benefits of SC citizen engagement.

1. Introduction

The EU covers a surface area of 4 million km² and is inhabited by 446.8 million people (after a first decline in population growth in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the EU’s population decreased again in 2021, from 447 million on 1 January 2021 to 446.8 on 1 January 2022) [1]. The EU’s population lives mainly in cities and towns [2], with 68% of the population projected to live in urban areas by 2050 [3]. According to the UN’s population forecast, the global population will increase by nearly a thirdby2050 (ca. 2.4 billion) to 9.725 billion people and will probably reach 10 billion in 2056. Thereafter, the global population growth will be slower. In Europe and in the EU, the population will be lower, i.e., about 707 million in Europe and 500 million in the EU [4].

The EU demographic and economic situation, together with its social systems, especially those in the EU’s developing economies, cause and will cause migration. The migrants will require energy as one of their basic needs.

One of the EU’s objectives is to implement energy policies that counteract climate change [3]. In 2020, the EU produced around 42% of its own energy (compared to 40% in 2019), while 58% (compared to 60% in 2019) was imported. This decrease in imports is partly linked to the economic crisis caused by COVID-19. The EU’s energy mix, i.e., the range of energy sources available, consists mainly of five different sources: petroleum products (including crude oil—35%), natural gas (24%), renewable energy (17%), nuclear energy (13%) and solid fossil fuels (12%) [5].

In 2014, the UE decided to increase the use of renewable energy sources and its energy effectiveness by 27% by 2030.

Considering the energy crisis, it is necessary to take into account consumers’ energy consumption aside from energy production. Many EU states have implemented initiatives intended to lower citizens’ energy consumption, not only due to the economic crisis (growing prices) but also due to the energy crisis (insufficient energy to meet citizens’ needs).

The importance of energy savings, not only during the crisis but also as an element of sustainability, is shown by different EU goals and politics, such as the Green Deal 2030. Under the Paris Agreement, the EU obligated itself in 2015to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by at least 40% compared to the 1990 levels by 2030. In 2021, the target was changed to a minimum 55% reduction by 2030 and to climate neutrality by 2050 [6]. The objective of the European Green Deal is to achieve zero net emissions by 2050. In 2021, the EU made climate neutrality, the goal of zero net emissions by 2050, legally binding within its borders. It set an interim target of 55% emissions reduction by 2030. The concrete legislation that will allow Europe to reach the Green Deal objectives is laid down in the Fit for 55 package presented by the European Commission in July 2021. The package will include a revision of existing legislation on emission reduction and energy [7]. The EU is also working on achieving a circular economy by 2050, creating a sustainable food system and protecting biodiversity and pollinators [8].

The aim of the present paper is to determine whether citizen engagement in smart cities (SCs) can contribute to reduced energy consumption in the current economic crisis. For this purpose, the paper provides an overview of the smart cities concept as well as citizen engagement. The study utilizes the desk research method and data collection, and is based exclusively on qualitative methods. The study allows the drawing of conclusions concerning the impact of SC citizen engagement on energy savings, also in the economic dimension.

2. Smart Cities and Smart Citizens as Economic Concepts

The smart city (SC) is a concept, the definition of which is constantly evolving in the scientific discourse; however, it is used on a broad scale, not only in science but also in the public domain. Therefore, the understanding of it is not precise, and in different circles it might take on different meanings. It is impossible to find a single fixed definition of the SC in the scientific literature, as it is a relatively new concept that is still being defined by scientists and is rapidly evolving.

The SC concept appeared in the scientific discourse in 1992 in the paper of Gibson, Kozmetsky and Smilor titled “The technopolis phenomenon: smart cities, fast systems, global networks” [9]. The authors used it to signify how urban development was turning towards technology, innovation and globalization. Caragliu et al. claimed that a city becomes smart “when investments in human and social capital and traditional (transport) and modern communication infrastructure (ICT) fuel sustainable economic growth and a high quality of life, with a wise management of natural resources, through participatory government” [10]. What makes a city smart is the use of ICTs “to deliver its core services to the public in a remarkably efficient manner” [11]. When it comes to its inhabitants, a smart city is required to get accustomed to user needs and provide an interface to enable communication. In terms of urban planning, smartness is associated with achieving policy success by governments in their jurisdictions. In terms of technology, “smart” brings the focus to the autonomic computing principle [12].

The use of technology to benefit citizens and future generations in SCs also appears in the definition provided during the Energy Forum at the Samuel Neaman Institute. The authors tried to bring the focus to the balance between social, environmental and economic costs [13]. Damieri [14] also brings focus to the use of ICTs in her smart city definition, in which she claimed that the goal of a smart city was to benefit its citizens in terms of “well-being, inclusion and participation, environmental quality, intelligent development”. Cohem [15] spoke about three distinct phases in the perception of smart cities, addressing the shift from the tech company-driven to city government-driven and finally to the citizen-driven approach. According to the European Commission, a smart city is a city “where traditional networks and services are made more efficient with the use of digital solutions for the benefit of its inhabitants and business” [3]. SC is also seen as its own individual space, being considered a system in itself, as a part of a greater operation between other cities in a specific region, country, and the entire world [16]. Ordonez-Ponce [17] argued that smart cities are developed through the implementation of ICTs in various processes and systems.

Studies on the SC concept provide the following definitions: “city having a certain intellectual ability, which refers to innovative sociotechnical and socioeconomic aspects of growth” [18], “a developed urban area that creates sustainable economic development and high quality of life by excelling in multiple key areas; economy, mobility, environment, people, living, and government” [19].

The smart city concept requires citizens to take an active role in city creation. It is through the data collected from them that new investments and initiatives could be undertaken.

The smart city concept requires citizens to take an active role in city creation. It is through the data collected from them that new investments and initiatives could be undertaken. “Smart people” are without a doubt a key factor in SC, and the importance of their role is highlighted in Figure 1.

In order for a service to be efficiently provided, there must be enough customers who purchase a subscription. This can be achieved by offering service packages that are most suitable for customers, whether it is a single person, a family or a corporation. Lifestyle affects the selection of mobility-as-a-service (MaaS) subscription models [21]. Based on subscription-selection behavior models, Kim and Rasouli derived two user groups linked to using Maas: price-sensitive, public followers, and peer followers. The first group consists of people that are highly sensitive to the subscription’s price and overall public review, while people belonging to the second group rely on and follow opinions in their social networks. The significance of this differentiation lies within the ability to design the service in a way that will encourage citizens to use it, for transport operators to refine strategies, and for network providers to optimize their service offers.

The smart city concept operates in an environment of closely interconnected things and brings value to people [22], rather than just taking up space or storage, and this applies to all kinds of infrastructure—buildings, cars, cameras. Citizen engagement in a sharing economy would lead to the creation of an effective system of systems [23], where all things work according to their purpose and are used to their full potential, thereby making the city less overcrowded [24].

3. Materials and Methods

In Poland, the SC concept puts emphasis on development, which is understood not only as state-of-the-art solutions but also as a focus on the relationship between the citizens and local governments.

The Polish SCs include such cities as (in alphabetical order) Białystok, Gdańsk, Gdynia, Kielce, Kraków, Poznań, Rzeszów, Szczecin, Warszawa (the most developed SC in Poland), and Wrocław. An analysis of the literature shows that the citizens are a key factor in a smart city’s development. However, their engagement depends on their willingness to act; therefore, it is necessary to analyze the practical reasons for their motivation.

The objective of the study was to investigate SC citizens’ perception of the SC concept and to analyze the factors affecting their willingness to take part in city development, to find out whether, and if yes, how, SC citizen engagement can contribute to energy savings in the current economic crisis.

Another objective was to determine whether citizen engagement in SCs can contribute to reduced energy consumption in the current economic crisis.

This background allowed for the formulation of the following research issue:

• Are SC citizens ready to change their habits to achieve energy savings and more sustainable behaviors?

The following detailed research questions were used to investigate the main issue:

2.

Are SC citizens conscious of being smart city citizens?

3.

Are SC citizens ready to make changes to achieve the Green Deal 2030’s objectives, and if yes, what kind of changes are they ready to make?

4.

Are they conscious of the possibilities provided by the SC’s concept and actions?

The following research hypothesis was then formulated:

H: SCcitizens are taking part in the creation of sustainable development, including auxiliary hypotheses:

H1 

: SC governors are recognized and supported by the citizens.

H2 

: One of the direct effects of SC engagement is energy savings.

An original survey was created to collect the primary data. The study was conducted based on the survey’s results.

The study focused exclusively on qualitative methods, supported by statistical methods, including open questions, that enabled the respondents to expand their answers and to talk at length, using their own words and opinions, and utilized the individual calculation technique. The participants were recruited via web-based channels. The respondents were notified about the anonymity of the collected data.

The survey was conducted online between January and June 2022 among Polish SC inhabitants. The study was conducted on a sample of active SC citizens representative in terms of sex, age, and size of the SC. The sample size was 500 people, but due to a 79% survey return rate (which was very high when compared to surveys conducted during the pandemic and postpandemic periods), it ultimately amounted to 395 respondents. The respondents were of legal age.

4. Results

The survey consisted of questions grouped into four sections, each having its own field of interest.

A majority of the respondents were women, accounting for 54% of all participants, while men accounted for 46%. All respondents had at least basic vocational education; however most of them, i.e., 51%, had higher education, while 43% have secondary education. Most respondents had a full-time job. The second-biggest group hada part-time job, while the same number of respondents featured students or pensioners, with two individuals being unemployed for different reasons. In terms of age, the group was represented mostly by people between 26 and 35 years old, i.e., 32% of respondents. The second-biggest groups were people aged between 18 and 25 and between 36 and 45, each adding 23% to the sample pool. The rest of the respondents were above 45 years of age: 12% were aged between 46 and 55, 4% were aged between 56 and 65, and 6% were aged above 66.

4.1. The Smart City Concept from the Respondents’ Perspective

The first group of questions was related to the perception of the smart city concept. The control question was asked to recognize whether the respondents knew the SC concept. The objective was to investigate the concept’s popularity, familiarity and the perception of the smart citizens’ place in a smart city. This section consisted of several questions, one of which was a multiple-choice question, in which the respondents were asked to choose the key components of a smart city. The answers are presented in Figure 2.

In the respondents’ opinion, three of the most important factors for a smart city include the use of technology (ICTs) (89%), sustainable development (81%) and cohesion between city governors and officials (68%), which confirms the H2 hypothesis. Most respondents who declared not knowing about the smart city concept pointed to the use of technology (ICTs) as an important factor for an SC, which is correct, because ICTs lay the foundation for a smart city. Moreover, most people (60%) in this group also stated that smart citizens are among the most important smart city factors; however, that opinion was not popular among participants who declared familiarity with the smart city concept, as only 27% of them recognized the importance of smart citizens for a smart city.

Interestingly, respondents were aware of the cohesion in a smart city and declared that it is important. It is a significant finding, as highly cohesive societies have a greater chance of applying smart city ideas with great efficiency.

Very few respondents deemed cost balance important; however, this is not surprising considering that they are not responsible for the costs, meaning that the cost balance is within the scope of the government’ sduties. However, part of the government’s funds come from taxes collected from the citizens, and thus it should not be ignored when considering the smart city concept.

4.2. Smart Engagement from the Respondents’ Perspective

In this section, the respondents were also asked about the role of smart citizens in a smart city as well as to rate the importance of smart citizens. These questions were asked to determine whether the citizens of smart cities are aware of the importance of their role in a smart city. In sum, 86% of the respondents stated that smart citizens constitute an important part of smart cities: 22% were people aged above 56, and avast majority (69%) were people in their 20s and 30s.

However, the lack of recognition of the citizens’ role is contrary to the findings of the part of the study in which the respondents assessed the scope of the role played by the citizens in smart city creation. The results are presented in Figure 3.

The questions proposed in the second section of the survey referred to the view of SC citizens on the smart city itself. The objective was to investigate whether Polish SC citizens have noticed the ongoing changes implemented in order to drive the city toward smartness. The respondents were asked to specifically point out the changes they have witnessed. Furthermore, the respondents were asked to assess the changes in terms of importance and their impact on citizen lives. When asked to rate the importance of citizens in an SC on a scale of 0 to 10, a majority of respondents rated it at 8, i.e., highly important. Only a few, i.e., slightly over 10%, rated it below 5, which was the middle point of lack of opinion and the starting point of declaring that it is of rather low importance. The answers to the questions used in this section were intended to be used to form recommendations to SC governors for helping their citizens to become and feel smart.

The aim was to determine whether the real-life actions of SC governors are recognized by their citizens and what the citizens’ approach is towards the governors. SC officials, mainly by using their websites, provide a comprehensive overview of the actions taken in the city under the smart label and outline short-term and long-term goals of governing the city towards smartness. Nearly 90% of the group declared that they have witnessed changes that transform their city into a smart city. Within this group, the three most common answers were: accessibility of mobile applications, increasing quality of public services, and low-emission public transport. The presented smart initiatives can be grouped into four areas of application: public services, communication, green development, and public transport.

The least popular area among the respondents was the communication between the governors and their citizens. This means that it is necessary to make improvements in this field, as improved communication is itself one of the goals of a smart city, leading to greater engagement and improved efficiency. It is necessary to focus on the involvement of citizens in the decision-making process.

In terms of green development, which is the most interesting part of the study, most participants noticed improvements in the development of green and blue areas across their cities. However, in terms of local projects that meet the citizens’ needs, only one third of the respondents declared that they had noticed the implementation of such projects. Therefore, a better recognition of community needs is necessary in SCs to assess their green development projects.

In terms of public transport, the respondents mostly recognized low-emission transport projects. Every third respondent also declared that the SC public transport is more efficient than prior to the smart transition; however, less than one in ten found it easier to use public transport. Public transport, aside from being sustainable, is intended to serve the inhabitants; therefore, the study findings indicate that there is an urgent need to adapt public transport to the citizens’ needs and make it easier to use.

When asked to evaluate the changes made by the governors under smart projects, nearly respondents (89.2%) recognized the need to implement them. However, only 41.5% of the respondents declared that these changes had a positive impact on their lives. While 3% of the participants deemed the implementations unnecessary, all of them declared that the quality of their lives had improved. The recognition of the necessity of the implemented changes is a positive aspect, as it means that SC citizens see the need for improvement in the aforementioned fields, thereby affirming that the transition towards smartness is a necessity. This kind of approval is itself necessary for the transition of any city to a smart city, as it cannot be done without the citizens’ involvement. The answers are presented in Figure 4.

4.3. Smart Citizens’ Role in SCs from the Respondents’ Perspective

The third section covered the topic of smart citizens. The objective was to determine the perception of SC citizens of themselves as smart citizens. The participants were asked whether they were aware that their cities had smart city status. Then, they were asked whether they were smartphone users and whether they have an internet connection, in order to determine their potential ability to take part in various smart city projects. Furthermore, the respondents gave an answer on their role in an SC; however, this time the question concerned their life in an SC. Lastly, the respondents were asked whether Polish SC citizens consider themselves as smart citizens, and if not, what they are missing in order to become smart citizens.

Nearly 80% of the respondents declared that they were aware of their cities being SCs. Among the 17.5% of the respondents not knowing this, a majority was aged above 55 and had secondary education. Half of the respondents declared they were not aware that their city was an SC, while also declaring that they did not know about the SC concept. In addition, 60% of them also declared that they have noticed changes that in their opinion had transformed their city towards smartness. The other half of the respondents that were familiar with the SC concept but did not know that their city was an SC indicated the need for better information dissemination between the governors and their citizens. This also confirms the H1 hypothesis.

When asked about their participation in the smart city, nearly all respondents declared that they were users of infrastructure and amenities. A lesser, but a still sizeable, number of them declared that they were using a smartphone application related to the smart city. Participation in projects and/or workshops was declared only by a minority of the respondents. It can therefore be concluded that the citizens’ engagement thus far is rather passive, i.e., they are using the available smart services, while not taking active part in the projects. This might indicate further problems with the implementation of smart programs, which require citizen engagement to be effective.

One important finding is that only a quarter of the participants declared that they perceived themselves as smart citizens. A majority of the respondents did not consider themselves smart citizens.

4.4. Energy Savings in SCs

The last section concerned the SCs citizens’ knowledge about smart initiatives, especially those related to energy consumption and savings. The respondents were asked about their habits, but also preferences and their attitudes towards the energy crisis. The respondents also specified the actions they were ready to undertake to use energy more sustainably and responsibly (to save energy) when asked about the knowledge of local SC projects focused on small-scale actions to improve cohesion between local communities, which is one of the objectives required for a city to transition to smartness. Furthermore, the participants were asked whether they felt sufficiently informed about the smart projects that were implemented in their smart cities, and if not, whether they were willing to participate in the projects if the information dissemination was improved. The control question: “Are you ready to take active actions to save energy?” was also asked in between other questions. The questions and answers are presented in

Table 1. The respondents view (%) on energy savings.

What Would You Do/Change to Save Energy?	Positive Answers (in %) 1
Take public transport instead of driving car to work	38
Limit food shopping	12
Limit clothing shopping	81
Limit other shopping	64
Are you ready to take active actions to save energy?	92
Are you ready to save electricity?	74
Are you ready to save gas energy?	31
Are you ready to reduce your light bulb consumption?	69
Would you reduce heat consumption (air temperature) in your city?	100
Would you grow recommended plants on your balcony/terrace to expand green areas in your city?	97
Would you prefer to buy food produced in your region?	67
Would you limit plane/car travel?	47/58
Would you live in an apartment community?	8
Would you co-share an electric car?	96
Would you co-share other electric utilities?	64

¹ Due to multiple choices available, the answers do not sum up to 100%. Source: own elaboration.

.

The respondents pointed out that they were willing to save energy and were ready to take different actions. All of them (100%) declared that they would like to reduce heat consumption (air temperature) in their SC, e.g., by growing recommended plants on their balconies/terraces to expand the green areas in SCs (97%). They were ready to share electric cars (96%), while 92% declared that they were ready to take active actions to save energy (74% for electric energy, but only 31% for gas energy), such as limiting clothing shopping (81%), reducing light bulb consumption (69%) or sharing different electric utilities (64%). The respondents declared that they were also ready to take broader actions, such as buying food produced in their region (67%) and limiting car (58%) and plane (47%) travel, while 38% of the respondents declared that they would use public transport instead of driving a car to work to save energy. Only 12% of the respondents declared that they would limit food shopping, while 8% declared that they could live in an apartment community to achieve this objective.

The results show that SC citizens are ready to take part in SC actions and are conscious of the need to save energy. When asked about their engagement in SC projects, most of them declared that they would take part if such projects appeared (72%). They also underlined that it would be easier for them to save energy if they were supported by a group or an application (SC project) (84%).

The next step of research was to check the data using Statistica. The Pearson’s chi-square test was carried out with a 0.005 p-value assumption.

Table 2. The results of the significance level test for two variables: other shopping limitation and the importance of turning the city into SC.

STAT: Other Shopping Limitation × the Importance of Turning the City into SC
Statistic	Chi-square	df	p
Chi2	9.9233604	df = 2	p = 0.00700

Source: own elaboration.

presents significant results obtained during the test.

It is possible to state that the significance level has been reached, as the p-value is <0.005. According to research data, the other shopping limitation (other than food and clothes) declared by respondents was visibly connected to, or pointed out by the same respondents, the importance of turning the city into an SC. Interestingly, for those who answered that the importance of turning the city into an SC was of low importance also answered that they were ready limit their other shopping. Conversely, for those who declared that they would not limit their other shopping, turning the city into an SC was important. Results are presented in Figure 5.

Other variables showed dependence: recognition of sustainable development as an important SC factor and the will to grow recommended plants to expand green areas in the SC.

Table 3. The results of the significance level test for two variables: growing recommended plants to expand green areas in the city and importance of SD for SC.

STAT: Growing Recommended Plants to Expand		Green Areas in the SD for SC	City × Importance of
Statistic	Chi-square	df	p
Chi2	4.570428	df = 1	p = 0.03253

Source: own elaboration.

presents statistical data.

Significance was reached, as the p-value is <0.005.Where respondents were willing to grow recommended plants on their balconies and/or terraces to expand green areas, the answers were in accordance with pointing to SD as an important SC factor. This means that respondents who recognized SD as an important factor for an SC were ready to grow recommended plants to expand green areas in the city. These results are presented in Figure 6.

The annual energy cost of items in households was calculated to determine basic electricity savings. These data are presented in

Table 4. Annual costs of energy used by utilities in households (in PLN and EUR).

Action	Calculation Assumptions	Annual Cost in PLN/EUR 1
Laptop connected to the mains	1 item	27/5.61
Correct use of iron	ironing more items at once, buying an iron with lower energy consumption, ironing at smooth surface 1 item - lowering the washing temperature to 40 °C, calculation for 50 washings a year overall per household 4 hours a day per year 10 replaced lightbulbs - 1 item Using pots during cooking, cooking what is needed, boiling 0.5l of water instead 1l 4 times a day per year Using items with lower energy consumption	91/18.92
Cutting grass only once a month Choosing the right energy tariff Washing		23/4.78 298/61.95 20/4.43
Using high-energy class utilities Reduced light bulbs consumption Replacing light bulbs with LEDs Choosing the right energy tariff Reducing opening the oven when baking Cooking		382/79.42 227/47.19 50/10.40 298/61.95 400/83.16 432/89.81
Vacuum cleaner		373/77.55

¹ EUR price: PLN 4/81, official Polish National Bank rate as of 5 October 2022. Source: own elaboration based on the Polish Electric Energy Committee prices and prognoses for households according energy consumption.

.

The total energy savings per household amount to PLN 2621.00/EUR 545.17, meaning high annual savings (the minimum gross salary in Poland as of 5 October 2022 amounts to PLN 3010 per month, i.e., minimum net salary of PLN 2363.56) [25] that exceed the minimum net salary.

At the same time, the proposed household energy savings can be analyzed in terms of energy itself. Taking into account the energy tariff for households in Poland (G11) [26], the price of 1kWh amounts to PLN 0.64, meaning annual energy savings of PLN 4.095.3 kWh per representative household. In these terms, the study confirmed the main hypothesis.

As the presented data confirm the research hypotheses, they also show the importance of SCs citizens’ engagement and demonstrate measurable economic and energy costs (savings).

5. Discussion

The citizens are not the only beneficiaries of the SC concept’s implementation. Our planet is another beneficiary. When there is a cordial relationship among the members of the smart city team, there are bound to be achievements and executions of projects within stipulated budget allocated. The partnership in ideas and overall discipline will propel the activities involved in executing smart cities in the world [27]. The concept should lead cities to self-sustainability, so that they “produce, manage, and consume their resources in an intelligent manner” [28]. This means less pollution and GHG emissions, no more overproduction, sustainable consumption and implementation of zero-waste ideas in all aspects of life for the benefit of the planet.

Authors state [29] that practices leading to achieving these goals, if applied in smart cities [30], can help tackle several development challenges related to sustainability, such as pollution and climate change adaptation, energy or resource consumption.

When viewing the SC concept critically, one can see the danger of using ICTs in its creation. First and foremost, such systems are vulnerable as they can be hacked or abused, or simply crash. Brunnstein [31] classifies certain risks regarding ICTs into the following “vulnerability classes”:

1. Paradigmatic risks: regarding the design process, how the tools and language used while programming can strongly affect the functioning of digital technologies;

2. Implementation risks: regarding the systems, operation, which can slip out of the programmers’ control and behave unpredictably, errors occurring, e.g., due to inadequate testing or production under heavy time pressure;

3. Usage risks: regarding side effects of the above vulnerabilities, occurring during the systems’ operation due to lack of user knowledge and understanding of how the systems work;

4. Criminal risks: regarding deliberate misuse of technologies.

The last aspect mentioned by Brunnstein seems to be a global issue nowadays when data are being collected on a massive scale. The collected data (aside from biometric, this also applies to data regarding the users’ preferences and behaviors) represents value, which has been misused on a great scale [32]. These principles should be taken into consideration during the planning and design stages of any given project with the aim to protect personal data as an integral part of any component [33].

Notification, education and active involvement of citizens starts at the level of primary education, where “conventional education teaches ground truths and well-established rules” [34]. Those ought to set the grounds for economic growth within a given local community. However, the dynamics of the smart city concept require continuous learning and adaptation on behalf of the citizens.

Another challenge is sustainability, which seems to be key to the use of technology within the concept. Moreover, the use of renewable resources must be assured in order for the investments to be as sustainable as possible [35]. The challenges related to and emerging from the implementation of the smart city concept, its beneficial potential outweighing the stress points, can be mitigated with further development and education. It is of great importance that the approach of technology usage should be holistic to enable smart projects to fill the gap and be willingly adapted by citizens [36].

Sustainability plays a key role in the SC definition provided at the Samuel Neaman Institute [37]. Although its key aspect is the efficient use of resources, according to the authors, this should be ensured in a manner that allows maintaining the balance between social, economic and environmental costs. This balance was also mentioned by Dustdar et al. [34], although in a slightly different manner. The authors talked about city strategic planning done well in advance “with big investment budgets through big infrastructural budgets”, and thus it can only be assumed that through strategic planning the authors mean to seek the balance between all (economic, social and environmental) costs, not only economic. The literature points out the linkages between smart governance and SDGs in emerging markets’ smart cities. The findings of this study indicate the need to promote sociotechnical approaches—rather than merely technical perspectives [38].

Social engagement in smart city creation is a necessity [39], keeping in mind the fact that without social cooperation, city governance can go astray, turning an urban space into unlivable infrastructure. Thays et al. [40] has joined the urban development discourse. As shown earlier, the smart city concept itself shifted from a technology-centered approach to a human-centered approach. This is in line with the decentralized approaches strategy, as it is relatively easier to govern a smaller unit created by less people. This also helps to come forward and meet needs of each and every participant, gather relative feedback and improve. However, the lack of recognition of the smart citizens’ role by the citizens themselves indicates that despite the SC concept being familiar to them, they do not fully understand the concept. This is perhaps due to the fact that 90% of the respondents declared that they consider the use of technology important in a smart city. Not recognizing the importance of citizens might also be a form of transferring the responsibility for implementing the concept in real life to the aforementioned technology, which can “do things for us”, or to the governors who shall be responsible for its implementation. This approach is represented in the literature by Rijshouwer et al. [41] and is based on the distinction between “us” and “them”, in which the respondents demonstrated this biased approach when speaking about active engagement in public discussion on the ratification of public space, caused by a fear of being uninformed, unqualified and unequipped to relate to these matters. According to the literature, participating strengthens the political position of the city’s residents, which changes the power distribution and enables forms of collaborative governance [42]

Social cohesion is closely related to social capital, as both terms are conceptually vague, and both of them relate to the social setting and social structure [42]. Interest in social cohesion can be found among policymakers; however, their focus is not only on the social aspects, but possible economic benefits as well [43]. The capacity to sustain social cohesion is shown to have important immediate effects on individuals as well as their communities [44]. For example, as tudy conducted on the COVID-19 pandemic showed that people who feel greater political trust and who perceive governmental restrictions to be appropriate are more likely to adopt health protective behaviors [45]. This indicates that understanding the importance of social cohesion in a smart city is necessary to apply valid smart policies and enable smart governance to take place. Socially cohesive communities, characterized by higher levels of trust and cooperation and stronger shared norms, are more likely to develop or maintain effective local institutions, thereby leading to better economic outcomes [46]. Based on the published expertise in collecting, processing and analyzing data from multiple sources, some smart cities quickly adapted their data platforms for an efficient response against COVID-19. The results highlight the importance of open data, data sharing, innovative thinking, the collaboration between public and private stakeholders, and the participation of citizens, especially in these difficult times [47].

Numerous urban models have been considered, such as the Compact City, the Eco-City, the Sustainable City, and the Smart City, which emerged in response to the challenges of sustainability and urbanization [48]. According to OECD 2020, new inclusive growth models, the smart city among them, that contain more effective redistribution policies and comprehensive social protection programs need to ensure sustainable development and social cohesion [49]. Both of these factors can be found among the smart city objectives, thereby indicating smart city projects will be unsuccessful without social cohesion. The literature points out that public participation in SC construction planning was analyzed from the perspectives of power balance, interest coordination and safeguard measures. The results showed that public participation in smart city construction planning was an important manifestation of the realization of public democratic rights [50].

Research results allow for the statement that there is a substantial gap between the SC ambitions and actual governance capabilities, functionalities and practices in Poland [51]. The barriers to SC development in Poland include the lack of financial resources, top-down governance cultures, insufficient human resources and human knowledge [24]. There is also a gap between the citizens and technologies [52], which requires the development of more interactive systems as well as improved citizen education on the use and application of ICTs. This challenge can be a result of different levels of familiarity with technology of people from different generations. While the X, Y and Z generations are more likely to implement technology into their daily routine, older generations can be unfamiliar with technology and ICTs. In the SC literature, the notion of smartness leans heavily on data collection and analysis. Approaching smart cities through the lens of thinking infrastructures adds an element of exploration to smartness [53]. This would hinder their engagement in the SC creation process and might even exclude them entirely. Social studies are a good way to address this issue and to recognize the needs of vulnerable individuals.

The scientific nature and feasibility of smart city construction planning has been enhanced. The implementation of SC construction planning was an important foundation for promoting SC construction. Therefore, public participation is an important way to safeguard social public interests and build a harmonious society [40].

6. Conclusions

The conducted study shows that smart citizens are a key factor in the development of a smart city. However, their engagement depends on their willingness to act; therefore, practical reasons for their motivation to act can be the subject of further analysis.

The above findings show that although some citizens do not consider themselves as most important for a smart city’s development, they are aware that their role is active and they are an important part of it. Those findings seem contrary, yet might be a result of a biased perspective featuring a division into two groups—the vulnerable citizens and the powerful governors. It is a rather ignorant attitude, which is not beneficial for either side, but it is defined. Smart citizens can act on the same level as the governors in a smart city and should not feel deprived of power. Indeed, the opposite is true: it is the citizens who are the central part of an SC, and once the citizens recognize and understand this, smart projects, including energy-related projects, will be successful.

In summary, it is possible to conclude that smart cities create smart citizens who are responsible for the natural environment. SCs also are also more responsible environments for public actions, such as projects or IT applications with engaged citizens. Such a responsible approach gives the SC authorities a fine opportunity to make real energy savings, which is currently one of the most urgent needs in the EU. Such actions can contribute to energy savings in light of the current energy crisis as well as household savings with a real economic impact.

The study on citizen engagement in the smart city project presented in this paper has its limitations. Due to the health risks caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, the range of techniques available for application in empirical research was limited. The chosen method assured the safety of the researcher and the respondents; however, direct interviews with participants could bring valuable observations and knowledge. Despite the study showing economic and energy-related profits from SC citizen engagement, it was limited to the end of the pandemic and the first postpandemic period. However, the issue is real and it is possible and necessary to further develop such research in SCs across EU states.