S1. Introduction

By 2050, over 68% of thets perform a number of important func world’s population will live in urban areas [1]. As well as economic benefits, increased urbanisation presents significant challenges to governments and municipal authorities. Cities consume over two-thirds of the world’s energy and are responsible for over 60% of greenhouse gas emissions [1]. Furthermore, increased urbanisation can lead to significant urban health issues related to road traffic injuries, air and noise

pollutions, and have a wide range of activities performed in them. There is a small but growing barriers to safe physical activity, amongst others [1]. Against this backdrop, many urban areas are struggling with the strain urbanisation is putting on a decaying infrastructure [2]. In response, the concept of the smart city has emerged and gained traction over the last three decades; while there is an ongoing debate on the definition of a smart city, there is agreement that it involves the diffusion of information and communication technology (ICT) to improve how different urban subsystems operate to meet the needs of people and communities [3,4]. The challenge with smart cities is one of scale. Working at city scale requires an often unprecedented investment of public funds, coordination, and a suitably long term horizon which presents significant governance, economic, and technology challenges, amongst others [5,6]. Furthermore, the focus on streets as a cities also neglects the needs of those who live in small and rural communities [7]. Unsurprisingly, streets have been proposed as a more generalizsable, atomizsed, and therefore more manageable unit of development and analysis than for improving urban subsystems and meeting the needs of both urban and rural communities [8,9]. Streets typically represent the largest portion of the public realm in towns and cities. Despite the public realm being one of the largest physical spaces on streets, the impact and potential of digitalization projects on this realm is rarely consideredAs well as a thoroughfare for traveling from one point to another, streets play an important role in public health and safety, quality of life, environmental sustainability, social equity, and the economy [10–12]. Streets also play a less visible role; they incorporate much of the critical urban infrastructure to support towns and cities including, for example, telecommunication, water, energy, and waste [13]. More importantly, in the context of this paper, streets allow the live testing, experimentation, and evaluation of smart city technologies in a small-scale yet realistic setting. The digitalisation of streets is an under-researched area and smart streets are at an early stage of maturity. This article stems from our reflection on the extant literature and the research challenges for smart city and CPSS projects, as well as our experience working on several digital town projects. This reflection suggests a dearth of conceptual tools to inform the envisioning of smart streets and related research projects, a prevalence of site-specific and use case-dependent conceptualisations and implementations that hinder wider generalisation, a lack of general design principles for integrating the social aspect into intelligent public infrastructure, as well as a failure to consider CPSS from a multidisciplinary perspective. The aim of this article is to raise awareness, stimulate discussion, and propose some initial avenues of research on smart streets. In this article, we make a number of contributions. Firstly, following a review of the smart street and CPSS literature, we extend the definition of smart streets to accommodate social networks between humans, computers, and humans and computers, and furthermore reflect the literature on CPSS. Secondly, we propose a novel general framework for conceptualising a smart street as a cyber-physical social platform and enabling the exploration of the complexity of a street as a system of systems without necessarily requiring adherence to a specific technological solution or reference architecture. In this article, the smartness of a street is deway, it can be used to explore the concept of smart streets from multiple disciplinary perspectives. Thirdly, we scrutinise the literature on smart streets, digital platforms, and CPSS and elicit six avenues for future research on smart streets as cyber-physical social platforms. The rest of this article is organised as follows. In Section 2, we discuss the evolution

of streets to smart streets, the motived from the ation for our conceptual framework. We then briefly discuss the nature of cyber-physical social systems and platforms in Section 3. In Section 4, we present our general framework for conceptualising smart streets as a cyber-physical social infrastructure in tplatform and explicate each of the components of a smart street. We identify and briefly discuss key implications of our framework as well as opportunities for future research including infrastructural and platform studies in Section 5 before concluding. 

2. History

As discussed above, streets are not merely thoroughfare ps that connect one point with another. The public realperform a wide range of activities in streets that can be categorised as (i) mandatory (e.g., going to work or school and shopping), (ii) selective (wandering or sitting and watching street life), and (iii) social

activities (having conversations) while human including data obtained from sensors, the interconnection behaviour in streets can be classified as (i) moving, (ii) visual perception, and (iii) resting behaviours, which can occur discreetly, successively, or concurrently [14]. As such, it is a public realm that is actively and passively consumed depending on how it is structured as a public space. These structures highly influence the norms for how such a space is moved through and consumed by individuals or groups [15]. Streets are multidimensional spaces from one property line to another and comprise a number of tangible and intangible elements that need to be taken into account. Furthermore, they can be apportioned into three common zone types: the building edge, sidewalks, and roadbeds [11]. These zones may include distinct sub-zones and different design features and serve different functions. For example, sidewalks may include frontage (building edge), clear paths, street furniture, and buffers [11]. Sidewalks serve a transportation function in that they are both spaces of access, enabling people to move from one place to another facilitating access between different services, technologies and social actors, intelligence derived from analysis of the data, and optimization of operations within a street. This article properties and to people. They also serve a function for stationery activities, e.g., retail and infrastructure [17]. In addition to this, they play a critical bordering role providing citizens and pedestrians safety from vehicles and other risks [18]. Similarly, roadbeds may include transit facilities, ancillary lanes for cyclists or delivery vehicles, parking for motor vehicles and cyclists, and planting, amongst others [11]. Within these elements service street furniture and infrastructure are provided both on the surface and substrate. It is important to note that poorly planned streets can inhibit use and streets can be the site of conflict, anti-social behaviour, and undesirable activities [19]. Lynn et al. [9] define a smart street as... a basic unit of urban space that leverages cyber-physical infrastructure to provide enhanced services to stakeholders, and through stakeholder use of the street, generates data to optimize its services, capabilities, and value to stakeholders. Lynn et al. [9] proceed to define eight examples of smart street technology categories; namely, (i) connectivity, (ii) smart street information systems, (iii) traffic and transit management, (iv) accessibility, safety, and security, (v) smart street furniture, (vi) climate protection, environmental monitoring, and weather mitigation, (vii) environmental sustainability, and (viii) other technologies that encourage street activity [11]. Table 1 defines each category and provides examples with reference to the extant literature. It is important to note that these technology categories are not mutually exclusive and may complement or even depend on each other. While it is inferred from this definition and the associated technology categories that the street create value through stakeholder engagement, the definition is ambiguous with respect to two inter-related issues: (i) social interaction and (ii) the degree to which the street is an open or closed loop system. Firstly, we argue that given the range of human behaviours and activities on a street, the social interaction between different human actors, between human actors and technical artifacts, and between computers as social actors needs to be more explicit. Secondly, Cassandras [21] has argued that to (i) avoid unintended consequences (and presumably malfeasance), (ii) provide intelligent support for decision making, and (iii) integrate humans in the loop while recognising human actors may have different, potentially conflicting, motivations requires governance and therefore a closed loop. Accordingly, Cassandras [21] recommends that municipal governments view smart city systems as cyber-physical social systems (CPSS) when developing and implementing the policies necessary to provide incentives and deliver the value of CPSS to smart cities.

3. Applications 

Our conceptualizes smart streets as basic units of urban space that leverages cyber-sation of smart streets brings together concepts from two emergent literature bases; namely, cyber-physical social systems and platforms, into a general conceptual framework. In the last three decades, we have seen the emergence of the Internet of Things (IoT) and with it a renewed and increased interest in cyber-physical systems (CPS). Such systems integrate computation with physical objects and processes, a literal co-mingling of the physical world and the cyber world (including computation, communication, and control systems) [64]. CPS has been cited as the computation substrate that will connect future public critical infrastructure to intelligent systems and software [7]. More recently, the literature on CPS has expanded to integrate social systems, bridging the gap between human intelligence and machine intelligence by including a social domain characterised by human participation and interactions [65]. In such cyber-physical social systems (CPSS), humans, software, and physical objects (through sensors) are linked through a CPSS to meet a given actor’s social interaction demands and react to the physical world [65]. Central to the concept of CPSS is at least one physical social infrastructure to provide and enable enhanced services to and between stakeholders, and througcomponent responsible for sensing and actuation, one cyber component for computations, and one social component for actuating social functions [66]. Place is an important and increasingly complex construct in the CPSS literature, including physical spaces, virtual spaces, social networks [65,67], and the overlay of these spaces through technologies such as augmented and extended reality. Given the role of purpose and place in CPSS, context awareness is a critical component of CPSS [65]. Commonly cited CPSS use cases are unsurprisingly related to places, including smart homes, but also to larger urban spaces, e.g., smart cities [21,65,68,69]. Indeed the latter has attracted the attention of leading technology companies worldwide, most notably and somewhat controversially, Google’s Sidewalk Toronto project [51]. Platforms and the related term, platformisation, are widely referenced in both the scholarly literature and the media, while once platforms were largely defined from a production or computational perspective, they increasingly have wider political, figurative, and architectural connotations [70]. Meyer and Lehnard [71] define product platforms as ...a set of subsystems and interfaces that form a common structure from which a stream of derivative products can be efficiently developed and produced. In this conceptualisation, a product architecture is the combination of subsystems and interfaces [71]. What distinguishes a platform architecture from a product architecture is its capacity to enable the creation of derivative products [71], while Meyer and Lehnard note that services, both in the real world and online, are not inconsistent with this conceptualisation of the platform or platform architectures [71], their conceptualisation infers a finished product or completed service. More recently, we have seen the emergence and

adoption of Web 2.0 and the stakeholders’ use of the street, generates data to oo-called Third IT Platform, while the former emphasised the role of users through co-creation, participation, ease of use, and interoperability [72], the latter heralded a cyber-physical future that emphasised interdependencies between mobile computing, social media, cloud computing, information/analytics, and the IoT [73]. Here, as Ramaswamy and Oczan [74] note, digitalised platforms differ in that: ...the offering is no longer “finished” in the traditional sense, and the creation of value continues in a joint space of interactional value creation, between engaging actors (often consumers and their social networks) interacting with organizing actors (often the firm and its associated organisational ecosystem). The traditional notion of offerings as goods and services to be optimize its services, capabilities, and value to stakeholders. A proposed conceptual framework is used to identify and explore how streets can be augmented and create value through cyberd in terms of a fixed set of features and attributes is inadequate in connecting with the new opportunities for creating value in an age of digitalized interactions. This wider conceptualisation of a platform is one in which a multitude of actors can interact with digital systems and one another to create value. In this way, the platform is a multi-sided network in which goods, services, and increasingly data are exchanged between the actors to create value [75]. In addition to providing an enabling infrastructure and system core, the platform plays a vital role mediating between different groups of actors [75,76]. While platforms can be merely conceived as product platforms in line with Meyer and Lehnard [71] in that they provide an extensible codebase to which third party modules can be added [76], the socio-technical view of digitalised platforms conceives the platform as comprising technical elements (software and hardware) and associated organisational processes and standards [76]. The agency of the user is a critical difference between non-digital and digital platforms. As de Reuver et al. [76] note, non-digital platforms assume a stable core and a variable periphery governed by an overall design hierarchy typically determined by the platform owner or sponsor, but digital platforms are not necessarily constrained by such design hierarchies. The separation of concerns combined with the ability to reprogram, re-edit, and re-use data and code, particularly in the context of open source software and open data, enables platforms to evolve and new applications to emerge in ways often unplanned and unexpected. Indeed, the generative dynamics of digital platforms, particularly when coupled with openness, are seen not only as a key enabler of the platform evolution but as a critical success factor in adoption[77]. Poniatowski et al. [75], building on de Reuver et al. [76] and Van Alstyne et al. [78], conceptualise digitalised platforms as comprising three layers—platform infrastructure, platform core, and platform periphery. Infrastructure implies an underlying socio-technical system characterised by ubiquity, reliability, invisibility, gateways, and breakdown [79]. Similar to other infrastructures, for example electricity grids, it is defined by control. Similarly, platform infrastructure is the foundation of any platform, is largely hidden from third parties, and is controlled by the platform sponsor [75]. The platform core sits on the platform infrastructure and is controlled by the platform core owner, who may or may not be the platform owner [75]. Third parties participate and contribute to the platform through the platform periphery, again controlled by the platform owner [75]. This model can be illustrated by reference to Amazon. Amazon both are the platform sponsor for Amazon Web Services and the platform core that comprises Amazon.com, which includes Amazon’s own retail business but also a periphery comprising other retailers and service providers. It is important that a platform may have multiple platform cores. Again, in the context of Amazon, Amazon Web Services leverages Amazon platform infrastructure to support its cloud business which comprises platform-as-a-service, software-as-a-service, etc. This infrastructure is both used by Amazon and by a wide range of third parties.

4. Current status

Unlike purely digitised platforms, the term ‘cyber-physical social platform’ implies a platform infrastructure and digital enhancements. We conclude with a discussion ocomprising physical and cyber platform elements upon which a platform core resides, that can enact physical, computational, and social processes by itself or through the interaction of other entities through the platform periphery. This conceptual framework is general in that it is capable of being used to understand and explore smart street-related research questions or problems in conjunction with widely accepted levels of generalisation (abstraction) in different academic disciplines, including both the social sciences and computer sciences. Addressing the issues with earlier definitions of smart streets [9], we assume an updated definition of smart streets that accommodates social networks between humans, computers, and humans and computers, and reflects the literature on CPSS. However, while a closed loop is most likely desirable from the perspective of municipal authorities who have a legal responsibility for the public realm that is the street, it leaves the issue of whether the system per se is open or closed, undetermined in order to support a general level of abstraction for theoretical and practical

exploration. Accordingly, we define future avenues of researchsmart streets as a basic unit of urban space that leverages cyber-physical social infrastructure to provide and enable enhanced services to and between stakeholders, and through stakeholder use of the street, generates data to optimise its services, capabilities, and value to stakeholders. The proposed conceptual framework provides a sufficiently general abstraction of smart streets to facilitate sense making without getting into a non-generalisable level of granularity or worrying about specific definitions of smart streets or indeed cyber-physical social platforms. In this framework, five core entities are identified and defined: Social Actors, Artifacts, Networks, Places, and Infrastructure. 

The diffusion of ICT to improve the subsystems in the lived environment and meet the needs of people and communities is only going to increase in importance and proliferation. Research on so-called smart city technologies and cyber-physical social systems is hindered by reductionist approaches and access to real-world city-scale testbeds. In this article, we focus on the street as a more feasible starting point and building block for smart city research. and propose a We make three primary contributions. Firstly, following a review of the smart street and CPSS literature, we extend the definition of smart streets to accommodate social networks between humans, computers, and humans and computers, as well as reflecting the literature on cyber-physical social systems. Secondly, we propose a novel general framework for conceptualizingsing a smart street as a cyber-physical social platform that integrates concepts from smart streets as a , digital platforms, and the cyber-physical social platformsystem literature. Thirdly, we elicit and discuss six avenues for future research on smart streets as cyber-physical social platforms that addresses gaps and failings in existing computer science, social science, and IS research. The conceptual framework presented in thiunderlying motivation for this article has been to raise awareness, stimulate discussion, and propose some initial avenues of research. In this respect, we believe the concept of smart streets as cyber-physical social platforms opens up exciting new avenues for research, not only for computer scientists, but those from urban engineering, cognitive sciences, and social sciences to collaborate in an inter- and multi-disciplinary way to explore and populate with clarity and depth.

5. References

1. World Heartilth Organization. Urban Health, World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021.

2. KPMG International. Cities Infrastructure: A Report on Sustainabile ity, KPMG International: Zurich, Switzerland, 2012.

3. Albino, V.; Berardi, U.; Dangelico, R.M. Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions, perovformance, and initiatives. J. Urban Technol. 2015,

22, 3–21.

4. Batty, M.; Axhausen, K.W.; Giannotti, F.; Pozdnoukhov, A.; Bazzani, A.; Wachowicz, M.; Ouzounis, G.; Portugali, Y. Smart cities

of the future. Eur. Phys. J. Spec. Top. 2012, 214, 481–518.

5. Rana, means N.P.; Luthra, S.; Mangla, S.K.; Islam, R.; Roderick, S.; Dwivedi, Y.K. Barriers to the development of smart cities in Indian

context. Inf. Syst. Front. 2019, 21, 503–525.

6. Del-Real, C.; Ward, eC.; Sartipi, M. What do people want in a smart city? Exploring the stakeholders’ opinions, priorities and

perceived barriers in a medium-sized city in the United States. Int. J. Urban Sci. 2021, 27:sup1, 50-74.

7. Mynatt, E.; Clark, J.; Hager, G.; Lompresti, D.; Morrisett, G.; Nahrstedt, K.; Papplexitas, G.; Patel, S.; Rexford, J.; Wright, H.; et al. A

national research agenda for intelligent infrastructure. arXiv 2017, arXiv:1705.01920.

8. Pˇribyl, P.; Pˇribyl, O. Definition of a stmart street as a ssmart city’s building element. In Proceedings of the 2015 Smart Cities

Symposium Prague (SCSP), IEEE, Prague, Czech Republic, 26–27 May, 2015; pp. 1–6.

9. Lynn, T.; Rosati, P.; Fox, G. Smart streem of ts: Definition, principles, and infrastructural elements. In Proceedings of the ICDS 2020:

The Fourteenth International Conference on Digital Society, Valencia, Spain, 22–26 March, 2020; pp. 1–10.

10. Gehl, J.; Westermark, E.; Rison, J.; Mortensen, H.; Adams, R.; Rorbech, J. World Class Streets: Remaking New York Citys’s Public Realm,

New York City Dems wpartment of Transportation: New York, NY, USA, 2008.

11. Global Designing Cities Initiathoive. Global Street Design Guide, Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2016.

12. Lahart, J.; Kelly, P.; Kiernan, A.; McGrath, S.; Taylor, D.; Taylor, J. Design Manual for Urban Roads and St nreets. Irish Department of

Transport, Tourism and Sport and Irish Department of Housing, Planning and Loceal Government: Dublin, Ireland, 2019.

13. Chaberek, G. Designing Streetsarily adher for Smart Cities. In Geospatial Technology and Smart Cities; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021;

pp. 59–74.

14. Jung, S.; Lee, J.K.J.; Ha, J. A Study on Analysis of User Behavior in Urbang t Central Street: On the Dongsung Street in Daegu. J.

Reg. Assoc. a Archit. Inst. Korea 2009, 25(11): 299-306.

15. Dellenbaugh, M. Normative Properties of Street Furniture. Available online: httpecific s://www.sharedcities.eu/material/physical-socialnormative-properties-street-furniture-mary-dellenbaugh/index.html (accessed on 26 January 2023)

16. Lee, J.H.; Lee, W.J. A Study on thechnol Impact of Ubiquitous Street Furniture on Human Behavior-Based on Media Poles Installed on

Seoul’s Gangicnam Boulevard. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng. 2013, 12, 181–188.

17. Ehrenfeucht, R.; Loukaitou-Sideris, A. Pl soanning urban sidewalks: Infrastructure, daily life and destinations. J. Urban Des. 2010,

15, 459–471.

18. Jacobs, J. The uses of sidewalks: safety. In Urban Design Reader; Roution ledge: Abingdon-on-Thames, England, 2007; pp. 147–152.

19. Loukaitou-Sider refereis, A.; Ehrenfeucht, R. Sidewalks: Conflict and Negotiation over Public Space; MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2011.

20. Song, D. A Study on the Planning Direce archtion of Street Furniture in Urban-street Space–Focused on the Dae-Chung Road in Busan

City. J. Rectug. Assoc. Archit. Inst. Korea 2006, 8, 60.

21. Cassandras, C.G. Smart cities as cyber-physical social systems. Engineering 2016, 2, 156–158.

22. Alhilal, A.Y.; Finley, B. The und; Braud, T.; Su, D.; Hui, P. Street Smart in 5G: Vehicular Applications, Communication, and Computing.

IEEE Access 2022, 10, 105631–105656.

23. Farooq, M.S.; Nadir, R.M.; Rustam, F.; Hur, S.; Park, Y.; Ashraf, I. Nested Bee Hive: A Conceptualyi Multilayer Architecture for 6G

in Futuristic Sustainable Smart Cities. Sensors 2022, 22, 5950.

24. Lee, Y.L.; Qin, D.; Wang, L.C.; motivaSim, G.H. 6G massive radio access networks: Key applications, requirements and challenges. IEEE

Open J. Veh. Technol. 2020, 2, 54–66.

25. Weinsteion n, S.B.; Lou, Y.Y.; Hsing, T.R. Intelligent Network Edge with Distributed SDN for thie Future 6G Network. In Proceedings

of the 2021 IEEE Internarticle tional Conference on Microwaves, Antennas, Communications and Electronic Systems (COMCAS), IEEE,

Tel Aviv, Israel, 6–8 November 2021; pp. 261–265.

26. Toh, C.K.; Sas been to raisnguesa, J.A.; Cano, J.C.; Martinez, F.J. Advances in smart roads for future smart cities. Proc. R. Soc. A 2020,

476, 20190439.

27. Tapia, A.; Maitland, C.; Stone, awarenesM. Making IT work for municipalities: Building municipal wireless networks. Gov. Inf. Q. 2006,

23, 359–380.

28. Haleem, A.; Allen, A.; Thompson, A.; Nijdam, stM.; Garg, R. A decentralized wireless network, 2018, Available online:

http://whitepaper.heliumu.com/ (accessed on 23 January 2023).

29. D ˛abrowska-Zółtak, K.; Wojtowicz, J.; Wrona, S. Reconfigurable Neighborhood—Mechate ronisation of the Urban Design. ˙ Sustainability 2021, 13, 13547.

30. Colcough, G.; Nouwens, H. Humble Lamppost; 2022. Available online: https://smart-cities-marketplace.ec.europa.eu/actionclusters-and-iscussion anitiatives/action-clusters/integrated-infrastructures-and-processes/humble (accessed on 23 January 2023).

Sensors 2023, 23, 1399 20 of 22

31. Gangneux, J.; Joss, S.; Humphry, J.; Hanchard , M.; Chesher, C.; Maalsen, S.; Merrington, P.; Wessels, B. Situated, yet silent: Data

relations in smart street furniture. J. Urban Technol. 2022, 29:3, 19-39.

32. European Commission. Smaropose sot Cities; 2020 Available online: https://commission.europa.eu/eu-regional-and-urbandevelopment/topics/cities-and-urban-development/city-initiatives/smart-cities (accessed on 23 January 2023).

33. Ghaemi, A.A. A cybe initir-physical system approach to smart city development. In Proceedings of the 2017 IEEE International

Conference on Smart Grid and Smart Cities (ICSGSC), IEEE, Singapore, 23–26 July 2017; pp. 257–262.

34. Perkovi´c, T.; Šoli´c, P.; Zargariasl, H.; Coko, D.; Rodriguenus, J.J. Smart parking sensors: state of the art and performance evaluation. ˇ

J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 262, 121181.

35. Christensen, ofH.; Paz, D.; Zhang, H.; Meyer, D.; Xiang, H.; Han, Y.; Liu, Y.; Liang, A.; Zhong, Z.; Tang, S. Autonomous vehicles for

micro-mobility. Auton. Intell. Syst. 2021, 1, 1–35.

36. Sell, R.; Soe, R.M.; Wang, R.; Rassõlkin, A. Autonomous vehicle shuttle in Smart City teseatbed. In Proceedings of the International

Forum on Advanched Microsystems for Automotive Applications; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 143–157.

37. Dunn, M. Melbourne In this respectroduce Pilot Trial for Technology Allowing Blind People to Navigate Public Spaces; 2017 Available online: https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/inventions/melbourne-introduce-pilot-trial-for-technology-allowingblind-people-to-navigate-public-spaces/news-story/6fb9810401eb34225f801e6e3f72a98c (accessed on 23 January 2023).

38. Wiig, A. Secure the city, we belierevitalize the zone: Smart urbanization in Camden, New Jersey. Environ. Plan. C Politics Space 2018,

36, 403–422.

39. Shah, J.; Kothari, J.; Doshi, N. A survey of tsmart city infrastructure via case study on New York. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2019,

160, 702–705.

40. Mavrokapnidis, D.; Mohammadi, N.; Taylor, J. Community dynamics in smart city digital twins: A compute r vision-based

approach foncept or monitoring and forecasting collective urban hazard exposure. In Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International

Conference on smarSystem Sciences, Maui, HI, USA,5-8 January 2021.

41. Brisimi, T.S.; Cassandras, C.G.; Osgood, C.; Paschalidis, I.C.; Zhang, Y. Sensing and classifying roadway obstacles in stmart cities:

The street bump s ystem. IEEE Access 2016, 4, 1301–1312.

42. Sidla, O.; Loibner, G. A s cymart camera based traffic enforcement system: experiences from the field. In Proceedings of the Video

Surveillance and Transportation Imaging Applications, SPIE, San Francisco, California, 19 March 2013, Volume 8663, pp. 105–116.

43. Gehlot, A.; Alshamrani, S.S.; Singh, R.; Rashid, M.; Akram, S.V.; AlGhamdi, A.S.; Albogamy, F.R. Internet of things and

long-range-based smart lampposts for illuminating smart cities. Sustainability 2021, 13, 6398.

44. University of Chicago. Arraysic of Things; 2020. Available online: http://arrayofthings.github.io/ (accessed on 23 January 2023).

45. Gómez-Carmona, O.; Casado-Mansil sla, D.; López-de Ipiña, D. Multifunctional interactive furniture for smart cities. In

Proceedings of the Multidial plsciplinary Digital Publishing Institute Proceedings, Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, 4–7 December

2018, Volume 2, p. 1212.

46. Manholm, L.; Fridén, J.; Olsson, B.E. Deploymentforms o considerations for 60 GHz backhaul using smart street furniture. In Proceedings

of the 2015 , IEEE, Lisbon, Portugal, 13–17 April 2015; pp. 1–3.

47. Nassar, M.A.; Luxford, L.; Cole, P.; Oatley, G.; Koutsakis, P. The current ans ud future role of smart street furniture in smart cities.

IEEE Commun. Mag. 2019, 57, 68–73.

48. Mirchandani, S.; Wadhwa, S.; Wadhwa, P.; Joseph, exR. IoT enabled dustbins. In Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference

on Big Data, IoT and Data Science (BID), IEEE, Pune, India, 20–22 December 2017; pp. 73–76.

49. Milioti, C.; Pramatari, K.; Kelepouri, I. Modelling consumers’ acceptance for the click and collect service. J. Retail. Consum. Serv.

2020, 56, 102149.

50. Kirithika, S.; Kumar, L.M.; Kumar, M.K.; Keerthana, E.; Lohalavanya, R. Smart Public Toiting nelets using IoE. In Proceedings of the

2020 International Conference on Emerging Trends in Information Technology and Engineering (IC-ETITE), IEEE, 24–25 February,

Vellore, India, 2020; pp. 1–5.

51. Sidewalk aLabs. Sidewalk Toronto: Vision Sections of RFP Submission, Sidewalk Labs: New York, NY, USA. 2017.

52. Loprencipe, G.; de Almeida Filho, F.G.V.; de Oliveira, R.H.; Bruno, S. Validation of a low-cost pavement monitoring inertial-based

system for urban road nes tworks. Sensors 2021, 21, 3127.

53. Nia, E.M.; Zawawi, N.A.W.A.; Singh, B.S.M. A review of walking energy harvesting using piezor reelectric materials. In Proceedings

of the IOP Conference Series: March terials Science and Engineering; IOP Publishing: Bristol, UK, 2017; Volume 291, p. 012026.

54. Saifan, R.; Ali, L.A.; Shreikh, A.A.; Alnabelsi, S.H. Smart Walk: Case Studies ot only for computen Hybrid Power Generation System of Piezoelectricity and Solar Power. In Proceedings of the 2019 International Conference on Electrical and Computing Technologies and

Applications, IEEE, Swat, Pakistan, 24–25 July 2019; pp. 1–6.

55. Frost, A. Smart scientists City Project Aiming to Harvest Energy from Passing Traffic; 2019. Available online: https://www.traffictechnologytoday.com/news/electricvehicles-ev-infrastructure/smart-city-project-aiming-to-harvest-energy-from-passing-traffic.html (accessed on 23 January 2023).

56. Qabur, A.; Alshammari, K. A syst thoematic review of energy harvesting from roadways by using piezoelectric materials technology.

Innov. Energy Res. 2018, 7, 1–6.

57. Perry, fromM.; Beckett, S.; O’Hara, K.; Subramanian, S. WaveWindow: public, performative gestural interaction. In Proceedings of the

ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surban enfaces, 7-10 November 2010, Saarbrücken, Germany, pp. 109–112.

58. Pantano, E. Engagineeringg consumer through the storefront: Evidences from integrating interactive technologies. J. Retail. Consum.

Serv. 2016, 28, 149–154.

Sensors 2023, 23, 1399 21 of 22

59. Montori, F.; Bedogni, L.; Di Chiappari, A.; Bononi, L. SenSquare: A mobile crogwdsensing architecture for smart cities. In

Proceedings of tihe 2016 IEEE 3rd World Forum on Internet of Things (WF-IoT), IEEE, Reston, VA, USA, 12–14 December 2016;

pp. 536–541.

60. Nansen, B.; van Ryn, L.; Ve scientere, F.; Robertson, T.; Brereton, M.; Dourish, P. An internet of social things. In Proceedings of

the Procees andings of the 26th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference on Designing Futures: The Future of Design,

Sydney, sAustralia, 2-5 December 2014, pp. 87–96.

61. Celino, I.; Calegari, G.R.; Fiano, A. Towards Talkin’Piazza: Engaging cial sitizens through playful interaction with urban objects. In

Proceediencengs of the 2016 IEEE International Smart Cities Conference (ISC2), IEEE, Trento, Italy, 12–15 September 2016; pp. 1–5.

62. Nijholt, A. Towards playful and to playable cities. In Playable Cities; Springer: Singapore, Singapore, 2017; pp. 1–20.

63. Fietkau, J. The case follaborate r including senior citizens in the playable city. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Web

Intelligen an ce, Leipzig, Germany, 23–26 August 2017; pp. 1072–1075.

64. Szász, C. Cyber-physical platform developmenter and implementation for industry 4.0. Int. Rev. Appl. Sci. Eng. 2020, 11, 66–72.

65. Zeng, J.; Yang, L.T.; Lin, M.; Ning, H.; Ma, J. A survey: Cyber-physical-social and msystems and their system-level design methodology.

Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2020, 105, 1028–1042.

66. Yilma, B.A.; Panettidiscio, H.; Naudet, Y. Systemic formalisation of Cyber-Physical-Social System (CPSS): A systematic literature

review. Comput. Ind. 2021, 129, 103458.

67. Zhuge, H. Semantic linking through spary wces for cyber-physical-socio intelligence: A methodology. Artif. Intell. 2011, 175, 988–1019.

68. Costanzo, A.; Faro, A.; Giordano, D.; Spampinato, C. Implementing Cy to exber Physical social Systems for smart cities: A semantic

web perspective. In Proceedings of the 2016 13th IEEE Annualore Consumer Communications & Networking Conference (CCNC),

IEEE, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 9–12 Jand puary 2016; pp. 274–275.

69. Anwar, N.; Xiong, G.; Lu, W.; Ye, P.; Zhao, H.; Wei, Q. Cyber-pulate wihysical-social systems for smart cities: An overview. In Proceedings

of the 2021 IEEE clari1st International Conference on Digital Twins and Parallel Intelligence (DTPI), IEEE, Beijing, China, 15 July–15

August 2021; pp. 348–353.

70. Gillespie, T. The politics of ‘platforms’. New Media Soc. 2010, 12, 347–364.

71. Meyer, and M.H.; Lehnerd, A.P. The Power of Product Platforms; Simon and Schuster: New York, NY, USA, 1997.

72. Blank, G.; Reisdorf, B.C. Thept participatory web: A user perspective on Web 2.0. Information, Commun. Soc. 2012, 15, 537–554.

73. Gens, F. Top 10 Predictions. IDC Predict. December 2011. IDC: Framingham, MA, USA, December 2011, IDC #231720, Volume 1.

74. Reamaswamy, V.; Ozcan, K. Offerences availings as digitalized interactive platforms: A conceptual framework and implications. J. Mark.

2018, 82, 19–31.

75. Poniatowski, M.; Lüttenble upon reqerg, H.; Beverungen, D.; Kundisch, D. Three layers of abstraction: a conceptual framework for theorizing

digital multi-sidesd platforms. Inf. Syst. -Bus. Manag. 2022, 20, 257–283.