Abstract
This dissertation examines how local communities evaluate the balance between perceived safety benefits and civil liberties concerns within smart city surveillance frameworks. Drawing upon a systematic literature synthesis of recent empirical studies across diverse urban contexts—including the United States, China, Japan, and the Netherlands—this research investigates the complex factors shaping public attitudes toward surveillance technologies. The findings reveal that residents frequently acknowledge safety benefits from visible surveillance infrastructure, particularly in areas with elevated crime concerns. However, this acceptance does not constitute a straightforward trade-off with privacy rights. Rather, communities consistently demand both effective safety measures and robust civil liberties protections simultaneously. Critical factors influencing public evaluation include transparency of data governance, awareness of discriminatory policing risks, democratic accountability mechanisms, and the integration of surveillance within broader community-based safety strategies. The research demonstrates that public trust erodes significantly when surveillance policies lack consistency, transparency, or meaningful community oversight. These findings carry substantial implications for urban policymakers, suggesting that sustainable smart city surveillance programmes require genuine community engagement, clear purpose limitations, and equitable governance frameworks rather than purely technological solutions to public safety challenges.
Introduction
The proliferation of smart city technologies represents one of the most significant transformations in contemporary urban governance. Cities worldwide increasingly deploy interconnected sensor networks, closed-circuit television (CCTV) systems, facial recognition software, and artificial intelligence-driven analytics to monitor public spaces and manage urban environments. Proponents argue these technologies enhance public safety, improve resource allocation, and enable more responsive municipal services. However, the expansion of surveillance capabilities raises fundamental questions about the appropriate boundaries between collective security and individual privacy rights in democratic societies.
The concept of the smart city encompasses a broad range of technological interventions, from traffic management systems to environmental monitoring networks. Within this constellation of technologies, surveillance systems designed to enhance public safety occupy a particularly contested position. Unlike sensors measuring air quality or traffic flow, safety-oriented surveillance directly monitors human behaviour, movement patterns, and, increasingly, biometric characteristics. This monitoring capacity creates potential for both legitimate crime prevention and concerning forms of social control, discrimination, and democratic erosion.
Academic discourse has traditionally framed public attitudes toward surveillance through the lens of a privacy-security trade-off, suggesting individuals consciously exchange privacy for enhanced protection. This framing implies a rational calculation wherein citizens accept reduced privacy as the necessary cost of improved safety. However, emerging empirical research challenges this simplified model, revealing far more nuanced and contextually dependent community evaluations that resist reduction to binary trade-offs.
Understanding how local communities actually evaluate smart city surveillance carries significant academic, social, and practical importance. Academically, this question intersects with critical debates in surveillance studies, urban sociology, democratic theory, and technology governance. Socially, the rapid deployment of surveillance infrastructure in cities globally affects millions of residents who may have limited awareness of or influence over these technological transformations. Practically, policymakers and urban planners require robust evidence about community perspectives to design governance frameworks that maintain public trust whilst achieving legitimate safety objectives.
The urgency of this inquiry has intensified as artificial intelligence capabilities expand the scope and intensity of possible surveillance. Machine learning algorithms can now process vast quantities of visual and sensor data to identify individuals, predict behaviour, and flag perceived anomalies in ways impossible with previous generations of technology. These capabilities amplify both the potential benefits and risks of surveillance infrastructure, making community evaluation of these technologies an increasingly consequential matter for democratic governance.
Aim and objectives
The primary aim of this dissertation is to examine how local communities evaluate the relationship between perceived safety benefits and civil liberties concerns in the context of smart city surveillance technologies.
To achieve this aim, the following specific objectives guide the research:
1. To synthesise existing empirical evidence regarding community perceptions of safety benefits derived from smart city surveillance systems across diverse urban contexts.
2. To analyse how residents understand and articulate concerns about privacy, discrimination, and democratic accountability in relation to surveillance technologies.
3. To evaluate whether the traditional privacy-security trade-off framework adequately captures the complexity of community attitudes toward smart city surveillance.
4. To identify the key factors that influence community trust and acceptance of surveillance technologies, including transparency, governance structures, and integration with broader safety strategies.
5. To develop evidence-based recommendations for policymakers seeking to implement surveillance technologies in ways that maintain public trust and respect civil liberties.
Methodology
This dissertation employs a systematic literature synthesis methodology to examine community evaluations of smart city surveillance. Literature synthesis represents an established approach for consolidating empirical findings across multiple studies to develop comprehensive understanding of complex social phenomena. This methodology proves particularly appropriate for examining community attitudes toward surveillance, as relevant evidence emerges from diverse geographic contexts, disciplinary perspectives, and methodological traditions.
The literature search strategy prioritised peer-reviewed academic sources published in established journals within surveillance studies, urban sociology, technology governance, and public policy fields. Primary sources included empirical studies employing quantitative surveys, qualitative interviews, ethnographic observations, and mixed-methods designs. Geographic scope encompassed studies from North America, Europe, and East Asia to capture variation in cultural contexts, governance structures, and surveillance technology deployment patterns.
Selection criteria emphasised studies directly examining community or resident perspectives on smart city surveillance, rather than purely technical assessments or policy analyses lacking citizen voice. Studies were evaluated for methodological rigour, including appropriate sampling strategies, transparent analytical procedures, and acknowledgment of limitations. Both large-scale survey research and in-depth qualitative investigations were included to balance breadth of representation with depth of understanding.
The analytical approach involved thematic synthesis, wherein findings from individual studies were coded according to emergent themes and subsequently organised into coherent analytical categories. This process enabled identification of consistent patterns across diverse contexts whilst remaining attentive to important contextual variations. Particular attention was paid to identifying areas of convergence and divergence in community attitudes, as well as factors moderating these attitudes.
Limitations of this methodology include potential publication bias toward studies finding significant results, reliance on researchers’ interpretations of community perspectives rather than direct community engagement, and inevitable gaps in geographic and demographic coverage within the available literature. These limitations are acknowledged whilst maintaining that literature synthesis provides valuable consolidation of existing knowledge to inform both academic understanding and policy development.
Literature review
### Perceived safety benefits of surveillance technologies
Substantial empirical evidence indicates that residents in diverse urban contexts perceive safety benefits from visible surveillance infrastructure. Research conducted in Chinese cities demonstrates that public security cameras correlate with increased perceptions of safety among urban residents. Liang et al. (2025) present large-scale evidence from Chinese urban areas showing heterogeneous but generally positive impacts of camera presence on residents’ safety perceptions. Similarly, Li et al. (2024) conducted a detailed case study in Nanjing examining smart city construction effects on citizen safety perceptions, finding positive associations between smart city infrastructure and perceived security.
Evidence from Japan reinforces these findings whilst highlighting important contextual factors. Yang et al. (2024) investigated surveillance camera impacts in Kakogawa City, demonstrating positive effects on crime prevention perceptions. Notably, this research found that camera effectiveness was enhanced when combined with community safety activities, suggesting technological surveillance functions most effectively as a complement to rather than replacement for social approaches to safety.
In the United States context, Ardabili et al. (2024) conducted survey research in Charlotte examining public perceptions of video surveillance and AI-driven monitoring technologies. Results indicated substantial support for these technologies among respondents concerned about crime, though attitudes varied significantly across demographic categories including age, gender, race, and educational attainment. This demographic variation suggests community evaluation of surveillance technologies cannot be assumed uniform and requires attention to differential impacts on distinct population groups.
### The role of fear and local context
Research consistently demonstrates that fear of crime and local contextual factors predict surveillance acceptance more strongly than abstract privacy attitudes. Butot et al. (2020) found in Rotterdam that residents’ direct experience with crime and perceptions of neighbourhood safety shaped attitudes toward smart urban safety technologies more powerfully than generalised privacy concerns. This finding challenges assumptions that privacy attitudes exist as stable individual characteristics applied consistently across contexts, instead suggesting situational factors strongly moderate evaluation of surveillance technologies.
The relationship between fear and surveillance acceptance carries important implications for equity considerations. If heightened fear drives surveillance acceptance, communities experiencing elevated crime rates may accept more intensive monitoring despite potentially bearing disproportionate risks from discriminatory application of these technologies. This dynamic could create feedback loops wherein already marginalised communities experience both higher crime exposure and more intensive surveillance without necessarily benefiting from enhanced safety.
### Community expectations beyond simple trade-offs
A crucial finding emerging from qualitative research is that residents do not engage in simple privacy-for-safety trade-offs. Butot et al. (2020) demonstrate through detailed investigation in Rotterdam that citizens expect both effective safety enhancement and strong privacy protections simultaneously. Rather than accepting reduced privacy as the inevitable cost of security, residents articulate expectations that well-designed surveillance systems should achieve safety objectives without compromising civil liberties.
This rejection of binary trade-offs reflects sophisticated community understanding of technological possibilities. Residents recognise that design choices, governance frameworks, and implementation practices shape whether surveillance technologies enhance safety, threaten privacy, or achieve both outcomes simultaneously. Shaffer (2025) found through “data walks”—guided walks through urban environments examining surveillance infrastructure—that residents developed nuanced evaluations distinguishing between acceptable and concerning surveillance applications based on perceived purpose, transparency, and accountability.
Butot et al. (2023) employed similar walking methodologies in their research on subjective experiences of smart city surveillance, finding that direct engagement with surveillance infrastructure prompted complex reflections exceeding simple acceptance or rejection. Residents expressed acceptance of certain surveillance functions whilst raising concerns about others, depending on perceived justifications, limitations, and oversight mechanisms.
### Privacy concerns and awareness gaps
Research reveals significant gaps between the actual extent of smart city surveillance and residents’ awareness of monitoring practices. Many residents remain unaware of how pervasive sensor networks are, what data is collected, how it is stored, and with whom it is shared. Shaffer (2023) developed platforms specifically designed to increase transparency about smart city data collection, motivated by findings that residents lacked basic information about surveillance practices affecting them.
When made aware of surveillance scope and data practices, residents frequently express discomfort, particularly regarding discriminatory policing implications and profiling of minority communities. Shaffer (2025) documents that awareness-raising activities consistently generated concern among participants previously unaware of surveillance extent, suggesting that observed acceptance levels may partially reflect information deficits rather than informed consent.
Van Zoonen (2016) provides a valuable analytical framework for understanding privacy concerns in smart cities, distinguishing between personal data used for surveillance purposes and impersonal data collected for service delivery. This framework helps explain why certain smart city applications generate greater concern than others: data collected to monitor individual behaviour triggers stronger privacy objections than data used to manage traffic flow or environmental conditions, even when both involve extensive sensing infrastructure.
### Concerns about discrimination and social justice
Qualitative research consistently finds that residents articulate concerns about surveillance in terms of social justice and discrimination rather than privacy in the abstract. Butot et al. (2023) found Rotterdam residents worried specifically about over-policing of minority communities rather than generalised privacy invasion. Similarly, Shaffer (2025) documents that Long Beach residents expressed concern about discriminatory impacts of surveillance technologies, particularly regarding how algorithmic systems might reproduce or amplify existing biases in policing.
These findings suggest that effective community engagement about surveillance technologies must address justice concerns directly rather than framing discussions purely in privacy terms. Communities appear less concerned about being observed per se than about who is observed, for what purposes, and with what consequences for different population groups.
### Governance, transparency, and trust
The relationship between governance quality and community trust emerges as a critical theme across the literature. Strover, Lalwani and El-Masri (2024) demonstrate that inconsistent local surveillance policies erode public trust, finding that unclear or unevenly applied regulations generate scepticism about official safety claims. When communities cannot ascertain what surveillance occurs, what rules govern its use, or what accountability mechanisms exist, trust in surveillance institutions diminishes regardless of actual safety benefits achieved.
Earlier work by Strover et al. (2021) examined the intersection of public policy and public surveillance, finding that transparency about surveillance practices correlates with more positive community evaluation. This suggests that perceived legitimacy of surveillance depends not only on actual privacy protections but also on whether those protections are visible and comprehensible to affected communities.
Butot et al. (2020) found that some residents viewed smart safety technologies as inevitable or purely functional but still felt they lacked meaningful influence over deployment decisions. This finding reveals that acceptance can coexist with disempowerment—residents may accommodate surveillance technologies whilst experiencing democratic deficits in how decisions about those technologies are made.
### Integration with community-based safety strategies
Research consistently indicates that surveillance technologies achieve strongest community acceptance when integrated with broader, human-centred safety strategies. Liang et al. (2025) found that camera effects on perceived safety were enhanced when combined with community social ties and collective efficacy. Yang et al. (2024) similarly demonstrated that surveillance cameras worked most effectively alongside community safety activities, suggesting technological and social approaches to safety complement rather than substitute for one another.
This evidence challenges purely technological approaches to public safety that position surveillance infrastructure as standalone solutions. Communities appear to evaluate surveillance more favourably when it forms part of comprehensive strategies that also address underlying social conditions, build community capacity, and maintain human presence and connection in public spaces.
Discussion
### Complexity beyond the trade-off framework
The accumulated evidence strongly challenges the traditional privacy-security trade-off framework that has dominated much academic and policy discourse about surveillance. Rather than engaging in conscious calculations exchanging privacy for safety, communities express expectations that well-governed surveillance systems should achieve both objectives. This finding carries significant theoretical implications, suggesting that binary framings of surveillance debates obscure more than they reveal about actual community attitudes.
The inadequacy of the trade-off framework appears to stem from its failure to account for governance quality as an independent variable. When residents express acceptance of surveillance, that acceptance appears conditional on appropriate oversight, purpose limitations, and accountability mechanisms. Acceptance should not be interpreted as willingness to sacrifice privacy but rather as confidence—sometimes misplaced—that privacy protections will accompany safety benefits. Conversely, rejection of surveillance often reflects distrust of governance rather than rejection of safety objectives.
This interpretation suggests that policy debates framed as choices between safety and privacy may be fundamentally misconceived. The relevant question is not how much privacy communities will sacrifice for security but rather what governance frameworks can deliver both outcomes simultaneously. This reframing opens productive space for policy innovation focused on design choices, oversight mechanisms, and accountability structures.
### The centrality of transparency and awareness
The consistent finding that residents lack awareness of surveillance practices carries troubling implications for democratic legitimacy. If acceptance partly reflects information deficits, observed public support for surveillance may not constitute meaningful consent. The research demonstrating that awareness-raising activities generate concern among previously unaware residents suggests that informed communities might evaluate surveillance quite differently than uninformed ones.
This awareness gap creates ethical obligations for researchers, policymakers, and advocates. Meaningful community evaluation requires accessible information about what surveillance occurs, what data is collected, how it is used, and what protections exist. The platforms developed by Shaffer (2023) to increase transparency represent one approach to addressing this deficit, though broader institutional reforms may be necessary to ensure communities possess adequate information for democratic participation in surveillance governance.
Transparency mechanisms must extend beyond mere disclosure to encompass comprehensibility. Technical descriptions of data collection practices may satisfy formal transparency requirements whilst remaining inaccessible to lay audiences. Effective transparency requires communication strategies that make surveillance practices understandable to affected communities without requiring specialised technical knowledge.
### Differential impacts and equity considerations
The finding that surveillance attitudes vary across demographic categories demands serious attention to equity implications. If communities experiencing elevated crime fear accept more intensive surveillance, this dynamic may concentrate monitoring in already marginalised areas. The simultaneous finding that residents express concern about discriminatory policing and over-policing of minorities reveals a potential contradiction: the communities most likely to accept surveillance may also be most vulnerable to its discriminatory application.
Addressing this tension requires governance frameworks specifically designed to prevent discriminatory impacts. Technical solutions such as algorithmic auditing and bias testing represent partial responses, but structural approaches addressing who controls surveillance technologies and how accountability operates may prove more fundamental. Community oversight mechanisms that grant affected populations genuine influence over surveillance practices could help ensure that safety benefits do not come at the cost of concentrated harm to particular groups.
### The importance of human-centred approaches
Evidence that surveillance technologies work most effectively when integrated with community-based safety strategies carries significant implications for urban policy. This finding suggests that purely technological approaches to safety may both achieve weaker safety outcomes and generate stronger community resistance than integrated strategies combining technology with social investment.
Human-centred approaches to smart city safety might involve ensuring that surveillance infrastructure supports rather than replaces community policing, that technology deployment accompanies investment in social services addressing underlying causes of crime, and that affected communities participate meaningfully in decisions about how surveillance resources are deployed. Such approaches would treat technology as one tool among many rather than as a standalone solution to complex social challenges.
The emphasis on integration also suggests evaluation criteria for surveillance programmes should extend beyond narrow crime metrics to encompass effects on community cohesion, trust, and wellbeing. Technologies that achieve marginal crime reduction whilst damaging community relationships may prove counterproductive over longer time horizons, as trust deficits undermine cooperation with authorities and erode the social ties that contribute independently to community safety.
### Implications for policy development
The synthesis of evidence points toward several principles for surveillance governance likely to maintain community trust whilst achieving legitimate safety objectives. First, purpose limitation emerges as critical: surveillance systems should operate for clearly defined, bounded purposes with explicit prohibitions on function creep. Second, transparency must be genuine and accessible, providing communities with comprehensible information about surveillance practices. Third, accountability mechanisms must include meaningful community oversight rather than purely internal review processes. Fourth, equity considerations must be central, with specific attention to preventing discriminatory impacts on marginalised communities. Fifth, surveillance should be embedded within comprehensive safety strategies that include social investment and community engagement rather than positioned as standalone technological fixes.
These principles align with broader governance frameworks for emerging technologies that emphasise proportionality, necessity, and accountability. Their application to smart city surveillance represents an opportunity to demonstrate that technological advancement and civil liberties protection can proceed in tandem when appropriate governance structures are established.
Conclusions
This dissertation has examined how local communities evaluate the relationship between perceived safety benefits and civil liberties concerns in smart city surveillance contexts. Through systematic literature synthesis, the research has achieved its stated objectives and generated findings with significant implications for both academic understanding and policy development.
The first objective, synthesising evidence regarding community perceptions of safety benefits, reveals that residents across diverse contexts frequently perceive safety improvements from visible surveillance infrastructure. However, these perceived benefits are strongest when surveillance is integrated with community-based safety activities rather than deployed as standalone technological intervention.
The second objective, analysing how residents understand civil liberties concerns, demonstrates that community concerns extend well beyond abstract privacy to encompass discrimination, over-policing, and democratic accountability. Residents articulate sophisticated concerns about who is surveilled, for what purposes, and with what consequences for different population groups.
The third objective, evaluating the trade-off framework, finds this traditional framing inadequate for capturing community attitudes. Rather than trading privacy for safety, communities expect well-governed surveillance to achieve both objectives and express conditional acceptance contingent on appropriate oversight and accountability.
The fourth objective, identifying factors influencing trust and acceptance, reveals transparency, governance quality, awareness, and integration with broader safety strategies as critical determinants of community evaluation. Trust erodes when policies are inconsistent, opacity prevails, or communities lack meaningful influence over surveillance decisions.
The fifth objective, developing policy recommendations, generates principles centred on purpose limitation, genuine transparency, community accountability, equity protection, and integration within comprehensive safety strategies.
The significance of these findings extends to both academic theory and practical governance. Theoretically, the research challenges dominant frameworks that conceptualise surveillance debates as zero-sum competitions between safety and privacy. Practically, the findings offer evidence-based guidance for policymakers seeking to deploy surveillance technologies in ways that maintain democratic legitimacy and public trust.
Future research should extend community evaluation studies to additional geographic and cultural contexts, investigate longitudinal changes in attitudes as surveillance technologies evolve, examine the effectiveness of different transparency and accountability mechanisms, and develop methods for meaningful community participation in surveillance governance. As artificial intelligence capabilities continue expanding surveillance possibilities, understanding and responding to community perspectives will only grow more urgent for democratic societies navigating the promises and perils of smart city technologies.
References
Ardabili, B., Pazho, A., Noghre, G., Katariya, V., Hull, G., Reid, S. and Tabkhi, H., 2024. Exploring public’s perception of safety and video surveillance technology: A survey approach. *Technology in Society*, 78, 102641. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2024.102641
Butot, V., Bayerl, P., Jacobs, G. and De Haan, F., 2020. Citizen repertoires of smart urban safety: Perspectives from Rotterdam, the Netherlands. *Technological Forecasting and Social Change*, 158, 120164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120164
Butot, V., Jacobs, G., Bayerl, P., Amador, J. and Nabipour, P., 2023. Making smart things strange again: Using walking as a method for studying subjective experiences of smart city surveillance. *Surveillance & Society*, 21(1), pp.36-52. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v21i1.15665
Li, D., Shang, X., Huang, G., Zhou, S., Zhang, M. and Feng, H., 2024. Can smart city construction enhance citizens’ perception of safety? A case study of Nanjing, China. *Social Indicators Research*, 171, pp.937-965. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-023-03304-5
Liang, P., Liu, Y., Guo, Y. and Zeng, F., 2025. The heterogeneous impact of public security cameras on safety perceptions in cities: Evidence from China. *PNAS Nexus*, 4(1), pgaf331. https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf331
Lyon, D., 2007. *Surveillance studies: An overview*. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Shaffer, G., 2023. Designing and deploying a platform to increase transparency and limit data collection by smart cities. *SSRN Electronic Journal*. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4533993
Shaffer, G., 2025. Close encounters: Gauging residents’ comfort and trust levels with smart technologies during “data walks”. *Surveillance & Society*, 23(2). https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v23i2.16560
Strover, S., Esteva, M., Cao, T. and Park, S., 2021. Public policy meets public surveillance. *AoIR Selected Papers of Internet Research*. https://doi.org/10.5210/spir.v2021i0.12247
Strover, S., Lalwani, S. and El-Masri, A., 2024. Uneven eyes: The impact of inconsistent local surveillance policies on public trust. *Proceedings of the Second International Symposium on Trustworthy Autonomous Systems*. https://doi.org/10.1145/3686038.3687088
van Zoonen, L., 2016. Privacy concerns in smart cities. *Government Information Quarterly*, 33(3), pp.472-480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.06.004
Yang, S., Nakajima, H., Yang, Y., Shin, Y. and Koizumi, H., 2024. The impact of surveillance cameras and community safety activities on crime prevention: Evidence from Kakogawa City, Japan. *Sustainable Cities and Society*, 113, 105858. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2024.105858
