Ecosystem services are essential for cities and are key factors in achieving many of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Such services are best delivered through green infrastructure, which works in resourceful, multifunctional, synergistic, and environmentally sensitive ways to deliver ecosystem services and provide alternative cleaner pathways for the delivery of multiple urban services. It is unclear if current research supports the necessary linkages between ecosystem services, cities, and green infrastructure in order to achieve the SDGs. To answer this question, we conducted a systematic review analysing 3392 studies on the SDGs from the WoS database. The contents of 66 of those with relevance to ecosystem services and urban research were reviewed in depth. We applied network-analytic methods to map the relationships of different knowledge clusters of SDGs research (1) across time, (2) across disciplines, and (3) in relation to ecosystem services and cities. The results of our analysis show that research on the SDGs have developed stronger networks from 2010–2018, but this research has not been sustained. Further, whilst research on cities now occupies a central place in the SDGs literature, research on ecosystem services only shows tentative links to both green-infrastructure research and SDGs research. Such literature on urban green infrastructure remains peripheral to the central challenge of sustainable urban transitions. We conclude that when it comes to the SDGs, research articles typically consider urban services independently of green infrastructure. Further, it suggests that green infrastructure is not generally considered as a sustainable alternative to conventional urban infrastructures. To address this serious shortcoming, we recommend transdisciplinary approaches to link urban ecosystem and urban green infrastructure research to the 2030 global sustainability agenda.

Urban planning has long pursued the improvement of health and wellbeing through the rapidly evolving scholarship and practice of health-supportive environments, underpinned by the seminal World Health Organization’s Healthy Cities Framework. Although a much more recent development, technology has been informing urban planning, as well as advancing healthcare and personal wellbeing monitoring and assessment. Known as the Smart City movement, it has much to offer regarding life in towns and cities, as well as how they are managed, maintained, and developed. There is also a growing appreciation of the potential for smart city technology to enhance human and environmental health in the context of urban planning and public place making. This has been reinforced by the COVID-19 pandemic with its reawakening of community interest in health and wellbeing, including mental illness, a greater awareness of the importance of local environments, and an explosion of technological knowhow in the embrace of remote working, online shopping, and education. Using the example of the authors’ “Smart Social Spaces” project, this entry discusses the potential benefits of an evolving integrative concept called “Smart Healthy Social Spaces”. The aim is to support community wellbeing as part of everyday living, especially associated with social connection, in densely populated and culturally diverse urban environments, where locally situated public spaces are increasingly important for all citizens.

Behavior mapping is the systematic observation of people using their environments. The Smart Social Spaces research project, recently completed in Sydney, Australia, is used as a vehicle to illustrate the usefulness of this method for understanding the relationships between people and public spaces in cities. Behavior mapping was the central method used to establish what impact the inclusion of smart technology and street furniture had on people’s use of two public spaces. Using this method, it is possible to record real-time patterns of people’s use of public space, enabling local authorities to better support the social use of public space and the management of its infrastructure.

This article addresses gaps in knowledge about whether or not smart street furniture could enhance the relationship between people and place, and whether it improves the design, amenity and management of public open space. An Australian design team, comprising a local council, a street furniture manufacturer, and academics, designed, built, piloted, and assessed a new piece of smart street furniture called a ‘ChillOUT Hub’. This Hub is an integrated street furniture system, designed for public open spaces. It is enabled with ‘smart’ technology features such as Wi-Fi, mobile device charging stations, plus infrastructure usage and environmental sensors. The Hub aims to support social health, improve microclimatic conditions, and provide equitable access to technology. Street survey processes were undertaken with both ‘users’ and ‘non-users’ of the Hubs. The findings help to identify what value digitally enhanced street furniture actually has in open space and how that value is perceived by the public. The Council and Hub users overwhelmingly appreciated the newly designed street furniture and its smart amenities. Non-users clarified why they did not use smart street furniture and discussed the option of having digital amenities in public spaces more generally.