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.

Key terms: community participation; public involvement; representative democracy; public; stakeholders; public interest; citizens; government; governance; community; consultation; engagement; evaluation; information and communication technology; internet. Is planning something done for people? Or is it done to them? Or should planning, in fact, be something done with people? A fundamental principle of representative democracies is that elected individuals should be responsible for, and able to represent, the interests of those who elected them. In the context of planning, elected representatives – whether at the local, state or national level of government – ideally reach a consensus on planning programs, policies and implementation, and work to ensure an equitable, accessible, nurturing and improved quality of life for all their constituents (Healey 2006; Innes 1994). ‘Planning with people’ should therefore be a guiding principle and logical process. Unfortunately, governance and planning have seldom worked so smoothly. In fact, because representative democracy does not always represent all community interests, public involvement in planning has arguably become one of the most significant and debated issues in planning processes. When the people who are being planned for begin to feel that they have little say in or control over planning processes – that, in fact, planning is something being done to them – the planning process and the need for greater public involvement must be questioned. According to the World Bank, public involvement can be defined as ‘a process for involving the public in the decision-making process of an organisation. This can be brought about through either consultation or participation, the key difference being the degree to which those involved in the process are able to influence, share or control the decision-making’ (World Bank 1993, p. 5) (emphasis added).