Smart Cities and Mental Health: A Systematic Review of Environmental, Digital, and Social Determinants of Wellbeing

Background/Purpose:
Urban environments, while centers of opportunity and innovation, are also associated with increased mental health (MH) risks. In response, Smart Cities aim to enhance urban life by integrating technology, green infrastructure, and sustainable design. These innovations are often expected to support mental wellbeing, yet the actual impact of Smart City features on MH outcomes is not well understood. This systematic review, grounded in the need for social work researchers and policymakers to better understand how Smart City planning affects population wellbeing, synthesizes existing research to examine: (1) how Smart City components influence MH outcomes (e.g., social isolation, stress, wellbeing); (2) what factors shape these effects; and (3) which mechanisms have been proposed linking Smart City development to mental wellbeing.

Methods:
Using PRISMA guidelines, a systematic search was conducted in Web of Science for peer-reviewed, articles published between 2009 and 2024. The search used combinations of “Smart Cit*” with terms including “mental health,” “social isolation,” “stress,” and “wellbeing.” After applying screening criteria, 42 empirical studies were included. Data were extracted on study location, population, Smart City features, MH outcomes, and major findings. A thematic synthesis approach was used to organize determinants and underlying mechanisms that connect Smart Cities to MH outcomes in the literature.

Results:
Six themes emerged. Green infrastructure and urban design were the most frequently studied, often associated with reduced stress and improved opportunities for recreation and social interaction. Mobility and accessibility systems (e.g., smart transportation, walkable neighborhoods, urban navigation tools), were linked to reduced anxiety. Digital services were generally found to support MH by expanding access to information and support, although limited access or overreliance sometimes introduced stress. Surveillance and privacy emerged as key concerns, with several studies noting that high levels of monitoring and unclear data practices could reduce feelings of safety or increase psychological distress. Social connection appeared as both a benefit and a challenge, depending on how Smart City technologies influenced community interaction. Lastly, some studies examined citizen engagement through participatory planning tools and urban feedback systems, suggesting these features may positively affect residents’ perceptions of control and satisfaction. Across studies, the effects of Smart City features were influenced by socioeconomic status, geographic context, and digital literacy, highlighting potential disparities in benefits and harms.

Conclusion/Implications:
Smart City features present promising avenues to support mental health by enhancing environmental design, public systems, and technological access. Green spaces and walkable neighborhoods were consistently linked to lower stress and greater wellbeing, while smart mobility tools improved daily convenience and service accessibility. Digital technologies expanded support options but also raised concerns around overuse and information management. Despite these connections, most studies remain descriptive and cross-sectional. Future research should assess the long-term and equity impacts of Smart City features, particularly in under-resourced communities. Social work researchers, urban planners, and public health professionals must co-design inclusive interventions that advance mental wellbeing and address structural barriers. These findings highlight opportunities for social work to shape Smart City initiatives that effectively promote mental health across diverse urban populations.