Dimensions of Urban Social Sustainability: A Study Based on Polish Cities

Abstract

This article focuses on two dimensions of social sustainability in contemporary cities: (1) social participation as a form of communication between residents and city authorities and (2) urban inclusivity. The assessment of these dimensions was conducted on a representative sample of 1863 residents from 19 Polish cities, seeking to answer the following research question: How do residents assess two key dimensions of social sustainability: social participation and urban inclusivity? The results were analyzed using descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests. The findings indicate that social participation in the studied cities is not fully developed. Respondents positively evaluate the idea of participatory budgets but are not satisfied with the cooperation between city authorities and residents, or with the possibilities for controlling local government actions. In terms of urban inclusivity, residents perceive themselves as quite open to diversity, but critically assess the city authorities’ efforts to counteract social exclusion. The research also shows that despite similar regional conditions, the social sustainability varies considerably, which highlights the importance of local policy in creating fully sustainable Smart Cities. The findings advance Smart City theory through practical social sustainability assessment and identification of improvement areas. This diagnosis provides insights for municipal authorities and offers guidance for policymakers developing legislation to foster social sustainability, strengthen civic participation, and combat urban exclusion.

1. Introduction

In the last two decades, interest in the Smart City (SC) concept has been systematically growing in both theory and practice [1,2,3,4]. This is a modern approach to city management that uses information and communication technologies (ICT) to improve quality of life for residents. However, residents’ quality of life cannot only be increased by technological achievements; it is also influenced by economic, environmental, and social conditions [5,6,7]. For these reasons, the original assumptions of the SC concept are still being modified and expanded, which is reflected in successive generations of Smart Cities from 1.0 to 5.0. Along with the evolution of the Smart City, the group of stakeholders involved in creating intelligent urban solutions is growing. In the 21st century, it includes not only city authorities and business technology providers but also scientists, the local community, and environmental organizations [8,9,10].

In view of the above, contemporary cities aspiring to be smart must be fully sustainable, which entails simultaneous technological, environmental, social, and economic development.

In practice, the implementation of these ambitious and valuable assumptions is difficult, especially in the social and environmental areas [11,12,13], which are not directly related to the commercialization of urban life and therefore do not provide measurable economic benefits to stakeholders. It is thus difficult to find altruistic individuals willing to devote their time and resources to the realization of collective goals that satisfy collective public needs in the distant, multi-generational future. Therefore, it can be concluded that the partial failure of the Smart City concept is determined not so much by the flaws of the idea itself, but by the imperfection of human nature and the Machiavellian approach to life that prevails among most urban stakeholders.

Nevertheless, efforts are constantly being made in the literature and in practice to strengthen the social and environmental activities of Smart Cities [14,15,16], which raises the level of awareness and knowledge of individual stakeholders and brings about evolutionary changes with a slow but effective impact. For these reasons, the author of this article focuses on the aspect of social sustainability—a topic present in contemporary analytical trends but studied from a top-down approach without taking into account the perspective of the local community.

Social sustainability depends on multiple factors, such as the involvement of the local community in creating and developing a Smart City. The study investigates two selected dimensions. The first dimension refers to social participation (cooperation with city authorities, civic control, participatory budgets). The second refers to the inclusiveness of Smart Cities and their openness to diversity and counteracting exclusion. These dimensions are analyzed from the residents’ perspective, which is a rare and valuable approach. It allows for confronting the assumptions of theory and declarations of local authorities with the actual feelings of residents—the main stakeholders in a Smart City.

The main research focus of this article is to answer the following question: How do residents assess two key dimensions of social sustainability—social participation and urban inclusivity? In order to obtain an answer to the above question, research was conducted on a representative sample of 1863 residents of 19 Polish cities in the last quarter of 2024 based on a questionnaire created by the author.

The first stage included a review of the literature, divided into two main research directions: social participation and urban inclusivity. This review enabled the identification of the research gap and the formulation of three research hypotheses (second stage). Next, survey questions were developed and research was conducted among residents. The obtained results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. In the hypothesis verification process, a non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test [17,18] was used. Additionally, Spearman’s correlation [19,20] coefficient was used to determine correlations between variables relating to urban inclusivity. In the next stage, as part of the discussion, the obtained results were compared with those of previous research. Recommendations were formulated for city authorities regarding social sustainability. This article concludes with a summary of the main findings, the contribution of this analysis to the development of the Smart City concept, and research limitations and directions for further consideration.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participation as a Dimension of Urban Social Sustainability

A literature review was conducted to identify the research gap in detail and select the appropriate research methodology. The literature studies presented below address two main research directions: urban participation and inclusivity issues.

In the contemporary literature on the subject, a systematic, albeit slow, process of moving away from the idea of top-down creation and development of smart urban structures can be observed. Researchers are increasingly emphasizing the need for a bottom-up analysis that takes into account the perspective of residents [21,22,23]. It follows from a growing awareness that limiting cooperation to the city–business–science axis is insufficient to achieve sustainable cities and a real improvement in the quality of life of residents [24,25,26,27]. Furthermore, such an approach may lead to the exclusion and isolation of certain groups within the local community [28].

In response to these challenges, Paskaleva et al. [29] call for the active involvement of residents in the process of improving Smart Cities, with a particular emphasis on the implementation of demand-driven solutions. The author highlights the importance of evaluating the actions of city authorities from a social perspective, going beyond that of individual stakeholder groups, which most often benefit directly from the proposed infrastructure solutions. This kind of holistic assessment not only provides objective and diverse information, but also significantly supplements knowledge about the actual functioning of a Smart City. Proper use of the knowledge gained in this way can contribute to more effective urban management.

Despite the above observations, the authorities of modern cities still encounter problems in the practical implementation of the quadruple helix and the involvement of local communities in the process of co-decision-making and co-creation of SC. This is pointed out by Borghys et al. [30] in describing the role of commercial platforms in creating urban innovation. According to their observations, local government usually engages in these solutions as an observer and does not want to play the role of an active participant, or even a coordinator or regulator. Very often, it lacks the appropriate competences and resources to effectively meet the above expectations. This clearly illustrates the gaps in the implementation of the quadruple helix concept and local community participation in the life of a Smart City.

The shortcomings of practice in involving residents in the development of smart urban structures are also described by Bastos et al. [31] through an assessment of strategies for the use of modern IT solutions for social participation. Based on an extensive literature review, the authors note that residents are most often described as passive stakeholders who report infrastructure problems to local authorities via online applications. Furthermore, their analysis shows that contemporary cities do not involve communities in urban planning decisions and are not interested in deepening urban democracy.

Levenda et al. [32] note that even very well-developed cities treat social participation as symbolic and image-building. Describing case studies from Calgary (Canada), they conclude that Smart City authorities do not fully exploit the benefits of citizen participation in urban management. Meanwhile, active citizen participation in city life would allow for better identification and prevention of social concerns. It would enable more effective solutions to problems of equality and social justice, and contribute to better recognition of the risks associated with exclusion and ways to mitigate them. Cities are therefore missing out on an opportunity to significantly improve the quality of life of their residents.

The limited scope of social participation is pointed out in a literature review conducted by Senior et al. [33]. They show that, in practice, residents’ involvement in urban management is limited to providing information and consultation. Co-creation of plans and co-decision-making are very rare. Participation is therefore mostly illusory and promotional.

Given the above findings and Arnstein’s ladder of participation—a model in public participation theory that comprises three main levels: nonparticipation, tokenism, and citizen power [34]—it can be concluded that social participation has not reached the highest level of citizen power in virtually any city. This final level, citizen power, signifies the socialization of power and, consequently, the delegation of competences and the exercise of civic control by the local community. This level is desired and recommended in fully sustainable Smart Cities. It means that the local community is a partner of city authorities and participates in urban decision-making processes. This signifies the successful implementation of the quadruple helix concept. In most cities, citizens are dealing with either a lack of participation or tokenism [35,36]. Furthermore, residents often act as information providers [37]. However, the very idea of participation is noticeable, accepted, and developed at various levels of advancement [38,39].

Meanwhile, social engagement is extremely important for the proper development of a Smart City. This is because the few direct studies of residents—such as that conducted by Xu and Zhu [40]—show that increasing levels of social engagement has a positive effect on the satisfaction of the local community. It also improves the quality of urban life. Social participation is therefore a natural stage in the development of a sustainable Smart City.

One of the forms of social participation identified in the literature [41,42,43,44] is civic budgets, which in practice boil down to giving residents the initiative to propose and select investment projects financed from the city’s public funds. An example of the use of this form of local community activation is described by Bednarska-Olejniczak and Olejniczak [45] based on Wrocław (Poland). Interestingly, this city had a long-term civic budget that supported its transformation towards Smart City 3.0. Smart Cities of generation 3.0 focus on a citizen-centered approach [46,47] and broad participation of residents in decision-making. Long-term, comprehensive, and continuously present participatory budgets enable the implementation of this expected transformation. They have also proven to be an effective measure in optimizing the selection of urban projects and a good tool for activating previously passive social groups. This illustrates their importance in shaping social sustainability. It is worth adding that such budgets also develop systems of urban communication with residents [48,49].

However, populism should be avoided when promoting participatory budgets, as this may discourage the local community from becoming more involved in the life of the city. As described by Treija et al. [50], a non-transparent approach to this issue may lead to a loss of trust in local authorities. On the other hand, excessive pressure for decentralization can weaken the city’s position. Civic budget initiatives must therefore be carefully thought out and prepared so that they support urban sustainability and do not cause further tensions and distortions, which is particularly important for the promotion and effective development of the Smart City concept.

2.2. Inclusion as a Dimension of Urban Social Sustainability

Numerous contemporary studies [51,52,53,54,55,56,57] point to a close link between the development and strengthening of social participation and access to modern technologies. The limited access of cities and local communities to these tools therefore translates directly into lower levels of citizen engagement in urban life. This correlation not only deepens the differences between cities, but also constitutes a source of digital exclusion at the territorial and individual levels. In this context, Willis [58] also emphasizes that in real Smart Cities, the model of citizenship is reconfigured through the instrumentalization of technology and data, which in turn exacerbates urban social inequalities.

The problems of digital amateurism and a lack of understanding of the essence of Smart Cities have also been identified by Tadili and Fasly [59] based on in-depth interviews with international experts on smart urban structures. In addition, the authors point to the lack of holistic and long-term strategies for social participation, as well as the lack of dedicated budgets for their implementation. All these factors effectively prevent the local community from fully participating in the co-governance of the city.

Meanwhile, distortions in the sustainable implementation of the Smart City concept can lead to serious consequences in the form of economic exclusion. This is particularly evident in Egypt, where the concept of a Smart City was used as a tool to eliminate political opponents by restricting their access to urban amenities. Additionally, the range of services available to supporters of the ruling political party was increased. This instrumental approach to urban technology has led to a significant deepening of existing social differences and the creation of new forms of exclusion based on political criteria. This precedent has been described and criticized by Waisová [60].

Besides digital, economic, and social exclusion, contemporary cities very often encounter issues with the marginalization of certain social groups. As a rule, these are communities with less influence, smaller populations, health difficulties, or educational problems. The lack of a common, strong voice makes it difficult for them to participate fully in city life. Given these factors, urban policy should be geared towards accepting diversity and preventing exclusion. This is a fundamental condition for the sustainability of a Smart City.

Among the groups particularly at risk of exclusion are people with disabilities, who may have problems using urban infrastructure that is not always adapted to their needs [61,62,63,64]. Research and analysis by Makkonen and Inkinen (2024) [65] clearly show that the expectations of people with disabilities are taken into account by local authorities in a very selective manner, and the vast majority of cities are not fully inclusive in this regard.

Similar problems are faced by older people, despite their numbers steadily increasing due to changing demographic factors around the world [66,67]. In a technologically advanced Smart City, the lack of accessibility and understanding of modern information and telecommunication solutions is particularly acute for them [68]. Urban mobility is also a challenge for older people, as it is very diverse but does not always take into account their limitations [69]. For these reasons, it is extremely important to consider the diversity of residents when designing Smart Cities, as this is the key to avoiding various forms of exclusion [70,71].

The literature on Smart Cities also describes the threat of gender-based exclusion, which mainly affects women [72]. It is also very often exacerbated by racism, cultural pressure, or homophobia [73,74,75]. Women are a social group that is particularly marginalized in very traditional cultures based on strong patriarchy and in emerging economies, where gender pay gaps can be very large [76,77].

Another contemporary trend that exacerbates urban social exclusion is economic and climate migration [78,79,80]. This challenge is difficult for even highly civilized and developed European cities to address [81]. However, according to research by Monachesi and Witteborn [82], migrants can play a helpful role in promoting smart urban solutions thanks to their personal and online networks. It is therefore worth involving them in the life of Smart Cities, especially as migration will intensify and interest in better living conditions in cities will grow [83].

The above review shows that diversity is a typical, inevitable phenomenon that occurs with high intensity in contemporary cities [84,85,86]. Therefore, for a peaceful and balanced life, residents must be open to diversity and to city authorities taking measures aimed at preventing exclusion [87,88,89,90]. Without both of these conditions being met, it is not possible to create sustainable Smart Cities [91,92].

2.3. Identification of Research Gaps and Formulation of Research Objectives

In this subsection, research gaps are identified and research objectives are formulated in order to address them. Furthermore, the methodology used to answer the questions posed and verify the empirical hypotheses is described.

The research process is presented in Figure 1. It illustrates the stages of the research along with the methods used. A detailed description of each individual stage is presented later in this subsection.

The literature review showed that social sustainability in most cities, even smart ones, is not fully developed. Furthermore, it is studied almost exclusively from a top-down perspective, involving city authorities, researchers, or experts. The research methodology used for this purpose is primarily based on literature reviews [93,94,95], case studies [96,97,98], participant observation, and analyses of source documentation from city authorities. The bottom-up perspective, which refers to the views and assessments of residents, is practically absent from the considerations and analyses.

Furthermore, the literature [99,100,101,102,103,104,105] includes numerous case studies of large, recognizable Smart Cities such as Barcelona, Singapore, London, Amsterdam and Dubai. However, if we want to promote the SC concept, we must also analyze and encourage the development of other cities, including those operating in emerging and developing economies. This is a prerequisite for the sustainability of the Smart City concept, as clearly emphasized by Makushkin et al. [106] using the example of the Russian economy, whose imbalance strongly affects the socio-economic development of the entire country.

Taking into account the above observations and previous studies, the following research question is formulated in this article: How do residents assess two key dimensions of social sustainability—social participation and urban inclusivity?

The study’s method is tailored to such assessment. The survey questionnaire is designed based on five questions. Three of them refer to social participation, sensu stricto, understood as actively taking part in municipal decisions—in accordance with the third rung of Arnstein’s participation ladder:

• Cooperation between city authorities and residents, expressing residents’ satisfaction with the participatory policy of city authorities.
• Opportunities for residents to express their opinions on city authorities’ decisions (e.g., on public websites), illustrating the scope of civic control.
• The use of civic budgets, reflecting the scale of use of one of the main tools of social participation.

The next two questions address the inclusivity of Smart Cities, without which full participation of the local community in municipal decisions is not possible. They concern the following:

• The openness of residents to diversity/otherness (cultural, national, religious, etc.), referring to social acceptance of otherness and, at the same time, a social expression of inclusiveness.
• Support provided by city authorities to people at risk of exclusion (individuals on a low income, those with disabilities, older people, migrants, etc.), reflecting the commitment of city authorities to counteracting various forms of exclusion.

The residents assessed these aspects on a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 represented a negative assessment and 10 represented an ideal state, or full satisfaction of residents.

During the research, the following hypotheses were formulated:

H1: 

The level of resident satisfaction with the participatory policies of local authorities differs between cities, despite their location in the same region.

H1a: 

overall assessment of cooperation;

H1b: 

assessment of participatory budgets;

H1c: 

assessment of civic control.

H2: 

The level of openness to diversity among residents differs between cities, despite their location in the same region.

H3: 

The assessment of policies to prevent social exclusion varies between residents of different cities, despite their location in the same region.

H4: 

The level of openness to diversity among residents is positively correlated with the assessment of local authorities’ policies to prevent social exclusion.

The first hypothesis refers directly to the participatory dimension of social sustainability. The subsequent hypotheses relate to the inclusive dimension of social sustainability. Their verification enables assessment of how municipal authorities’ policies shape social sustainability and helps identify cities with best practices in participation and counteracting social exclusion.

2.4. Characteristics of the Sample and Research Methods

As mentioned, the survey was conducted among 1863 residents of 19 Polish cities located in the Silesian Province. This is a representative sample for each of the surveyed units, selected with a 95% confidence level, a fraction of 0.5, and a relative error of 10%. The characteristics of the cities surveyed are presented in

Table 1. The characteristics of surveyed cities.

City	Strengths	Weaknesses
Bielsko-Biała	attractive in terms of tourism and culture; good climate quality	low industrialization; migration of young residents to more economically attractive cities
Bytom	accessibility of transport and logistics routes; long mining traditions	high unemployment; ineffective reindustrialization after the closure of coal mining
Chorzów	sports, cultural, and entertainment attractions; accessibility and numerous transport connections	depopulation of the local community; high environmental pollution
Częstochowa	religious tourism; crossroads of important national transport routes	dependence of the labor market on traditional heavy industries; environmental pollution
Dąbrowa Górnicza	good logistics; development of the metallurgical industry	environmental degradation; dependence on traditional industries
Gliwice	development of the automotive and IT sectors; development of universities and modern technologies	high cost of living; increasing urbanization and its negative effects
Jastrzębie-Zdrój	location near the Polish border; activities of a strategic mining company (coke coal mining)	migration of young people to larger cities; dependence on traditional industry
Jaworzno	recreational attractions—lots of green areas; investment in renewable energy sources	environmental degradation related to the mining past; high unemployment
Katowice	provincial capital—business and cultural center; well-developed transport network	high cost of living; environmental pollution related to mining industry residues
Mysłowice	low cost of living; development of logistics and services	heavy traffic; lack of local attractions
Piekary Śląskie	religious tourism; many green and recreational areas	ineffective reindustrialization after the closure of coal mines; degradation of post-industrial areas
Ruda Śląska	favorable transport location; long mining tradition	depopulation; mining damage and environmental pollution
Rybnik	opportunities for cross-border cooperation; good quality of life	strong dependence on traditional industries; post-mining environmental degradation
Siemianowice Śląskie	good transport links; low cost of living	high unemployment; migration to more attractive cities
Sosnowiec	development of trade and services; well-developed transport hub	degradation of housing stock; depopulation
Świętochłowice	low cost of living; small size and availability of green areas	high unemployment; degradation of urban infrastructure, especially housing
Tychy	development of the automotive industry; attractive place to live due to its development and sports and recreational attractions	low industrial diversity; rising cost of living
Zabrze	good transport links; sports, mining and post-industrial traditions	ineffective reindustrialization following the closure of coal mines; deterioration of housing stock and mining damage
Żory	well-developed entrepreneurship; clean environment and plenty of green space	peripheral location; depopulation

.

The cities described in Table 1 were guided by the following aspects:

• Cities aspiring to be smart are typically large units with significant decision-making power. In Poland, such cities are those with county rights. In the case of this research, these are all counties from 1 region—the Silesian Voivodeship.
• Inter-city comparisons were a focus of this research. For their results to be useful for individual policies of local authorities, the cities should operate under similar regional conditions. This criterion is met due to their location in close proximity within the Silesian Voivodeship.
• Previous empirical research on Smart Cities covers very large metropolises, capitals of countries, or capitals of regions. This trend was avoided in this research, especially since not only flagship cities of a given country can aspire to be smart. Therefore, this research included 19 large cities operating in the same region with aspirations to be smart, but also with everyday problems in their local communities.

Statistical methods were used in the analysis of the survey results. Descriptive statistics were used to determine the scope of social sustainability in the cities. Its average rating allowed for the creation of city rankings in each of the analyzed areas.

Moreover, the following were used in the process of verifying the statistical hypotheses:

• Kruskal–Wallis nonparametric test (Hypotheses H1–H3) used for comparisons of more than two independent groups (significance level: 0.001).
• Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (Hypothesis H4) (significance level: 0.001).
• This research approach was used to assess the overall social sustainability of the examined cities and to verify the proposed research hypotheses.
• After describing the research results, they were compared with previous analyses within the framework of the discussion. In this part of the research, recommendations for improving urban social sustainability were also identified. In the final stage, the obtained conclusions were synthesized, research limitations were indicated, and directions for further considerations were outlined.

3. Results

The results of this research are presented in two parts. The average ratings given by residents for the two dimensions of social sustainability are described in Part I. Then, in Part II, research Hypotheses H1–H4 are verified.

3.1. Assessment of Social Sustainability in the Cities Surveyed

As already mentioned, in the first survey question, residents assessed the overall level of their cooperation with the city authorities. The results of this assessment are presented in Figure 2.

Based on a scale from 0 to 10, it can be assumed that a satisfactory rating is around 5—the mid-point of the scale. Therefore, cooperation with city authorities was rated below satisfactory in 4 out of 19 cities surveyed (Katowice, Częstochowa, Zabrze, and Piekary Śląskie). A rating higher than 5 was given to 7 out of 19 cities (Gliwice, Jaworzno, Ruda Śląska, Siemianowice, Sosnowiec, Tychy, and Żory). Interestingly, residents are not fully satisfied with their contact with the authorities in any of the cities—there are no average ratings above 7.

The worst ratings were given to cities that are provincial capitals (Katowice currently, and Częstochowa in the previous administrative division of Poland), which reflects very poorly on the involvement of these large and recognizable entities in the lives of their residents. Perhaps the reason for such low ratings is the large size of the cities, as all residents find it difficult to recognize pro-citizen activities, although this seems to be contradicted by the high ratings for Gliwice and Tychy (also large cities).

The low ratings of Zabrze and Piekary Śląskie may, in turn, have resulted from the failure of local authorities in the post-mining restructuring process (and the lack of investors after the closure of coal mines). Ineffective implementation of economic changes may be perceived as a lack of involvement in the lives of residents, all the more so as it affects the local labor market and economy.

On the other hand, Tychy and Gliwice, the leaders in the analyzed assessment, are cities with very attractive housing and industrial conditions, which may have a positive impact on the satisfaction of residents and be subjectively perceived as caring for their comfort and quality of life. Nevertheless, maximizing the satisfaction of the local community is the main goal of creating and developing a Smart City.

The overall assessment of the cooperation between cities and their residents is confirmed by the local community’s opinion on the possibility of commenting on the decisions of the city authorities (Figure 3).

However, in the case of this question, the number of cities with ratings above 6 and below 5 both decreased. The cities with the lowest rating in this respect are Częstochowa, Piekary Śląskie, and Zabrze. Gliwice and Tychy are still the leaders. It can therefore be concluded that the authorities’ reluctance to listen to the opinions of residents is positively correlated with their ineffectiveness in managing the city. Such a policy is not conducive to improving satisfaction with urban life and, in times of unfavorable demographic processes, may result in further depopulation and impoverishment of these cities.

Civic control not only fosters positive relations between the city and the local community, but also, and perhaps most importantly, provides feedback on possible improvements and residents’ expectations. Such information, although sometimes negative, is crucial for effective city management.

Referring to the entire surveyed group, it can be concluded that the ratings of most cities, ranging between 5 and 6, certainly do not indicate that the surveyed entities are open to civic control and direct contact with residents. Thus, there are still many challenges to be addressed in this area.

In the next stage, the scope of the use of civic budgets, one of the most popular forms of urban democracy, was assessed. The results are presented in Figure 4. The data presented there shows that all the cities surveyed received a rating between 5 and 7. This is therefore the highest rated aspect of sustainable management in the cities surveyed (average for all cities: 6.11). However, the worst performers in this area were Mysłowice, Zabrze, and Świętochłowice. Civic budgets were rated highest by the residents of Gliwice, Jaworzno, and Tychy.

The new findings allow for the conclusion that civic budgets are present in each of the cities surveyed. Citizens are aware of their existence and therefore recognize the commitment of the city authorities. However, they do not always consider these initiatives to be sufficient and satisfactory (no average ratings above 7).

The next two survey questions concerned the issues of inclusiveness and urban exclusion. The assessment of residents’ openness to diversity/otherness is presented in Figure 5. It shows that this characteristic of the local community is rated lowest in Zabrze and Świętochłowice. These are cities with centuries-old mining traditions. Their communities are quite closed and attached to their own customs, beliefs, and views. This may generate hostility towards people with different regional, national, religious and other roots. These are also cities with a poor economic and social situation, which may further increase the lack of acceptance of “strangers”.

Openness to diversity was rated highest in Gliwice, Tychy, and Jaworzno. These cities were therefore ranked highest in the next category analyzed. This may be a consequence of the general satisfaction with life among residents, which means that diversity is not perceived as a threat. It may also result from the presence of international companies and, in the case of Gliwice, from the presence of large universities that educate foreigners. These factors familiarize people with diversity and may increase the level of acceptance of otherness in the local community.

Openness to otherness was rated very highly by the respondents—average for all cities 5.83—second only to participatory budgeting. This means that the inhabitants of large Silesian cities perceive themselves to be fairly tolerant and inclusive citizens. Nevertheless, it is important to consider that self-assessment results may sometimes reflect personal perceptions rather than objective measures. While the scores are encouraging, objective indicators suggest that tolerance levels in Polish society continue to develop. For instance, in 2025, Poland ranked 39th out of 49 European countries in the ILGA Rainbow Map 2025. This ranking evaluates rights and policies towards LGBTI+ people by analyzing seven categories: equality and non-discrimination, family, hate crimes, legal gender recognition, intersex bodily integrity, civil society space, and asylum [107]. The limited inclusiveness of Polish society is also evidenced by research conducted by Drozdzewski and Matusz [108] among Wrocław residents. These studies reveal that acceptance of diversity is impeded by strong national identity and historical experiences, particularly those related to wartime occupation during World War II.

The last question in the survey concerned the assessment of city authorities’ activities towards preventing exclusion (Figure 6). The average score obtained in this area for all cities clearly indicates that this is the worst-rated area of social balance (average 5.26). As many as 6 out of 19 units surveyed received scores below 5 in this area, suggesting that city authorities do not recognize the problem of exclusion and are not interested in combating it. Only one city (Żory) received a score above 6, which also confirms the focus of most city authorities on the mainstream of the local community, i.e., the main recipients of public services. Residents see the threat of exclusion, but they have a negative perception of top-down measures aimed at reducing this phenomenon.

The situation is worst in Zabrze and Częstochowa, cities affected by failed reindustrialization and therefore threatened by various negative socio-economic consequences. Their poor situation certainly limits the availability and scope of remedial measures, but it cannot be the only justification for social inaction. Such an attitude will only exacerbate existing problems and exclusion.

3.2. Regional Differences in Social Sustainability—The Role of Local Authorities

The assessment of regional differences in social sustainability in all five aspects was carried out using the non-parametric Kruskal–Wallis test. The results are presented in

Table 2. Results of the Kruskal–Wallis test for identifying differences in social sustainability in the cities surveyed.

Cities	Variables
	Cooperation with City Authorities	Civic Control	Participatory Budgeting	Residents’ Openness to Diversity	City Measures Against Exclusion
	Test Parameters
	H (18, N = 1863) = 107.1366; p = 0.0000	H (18, N = 1863) = 75.1068 p = 0.0000	H (18, N = 1863) = 104.7522 p = 0.0000	H (18, N = 1863) = 95.5989 p = 0.0000	H (18, N = 1863) = 105.6684 p = 0.0000
	Mean of Ranks
Bielsko-Biała	959.53	981.33	875.94	1004.32	972.31
Bytom	966.89	929.04	913.46	962.31	929.20
Chorzów	984.39	974.99	973.03	960.35	925.30
Częstochowa	726.27	721.95	810.36	809.43	722.90
Dąbrowa Górnicza	929.29	934.43	899.45	954.99	945.57
Gliwice	1085.83	1079.56	1131.67	1141.33	1091.64
Jastrzębie-Zdrój	811.42	829.34	767.25	776.01	779.28
Jaworzno	1057.10	1062.30	1116.77	1091.98	1089.46
Katowice	782.06	882.94	935.88	936.98	849.18
Mysłowice	860.97	837.00	760.08	821.77	777.18
Piekary Śl.	810.77	818.74	852.88	779.36	811.58
Ruda Śl.	1005.13	983.19	995.53	942.83	982.40
Rybnik	902.05	904.89	975.35	996.08	994.71
Siemianowice Śl.	1023.75	957.83	993.22	944.52	975.67
Sosnowiec	1042.46	1043.40	1031.95	979.12	1016.01
Świętochłowice	817.86	827.84	763.78	737.75	881.85
Tychy	1139.05	1096.39	1113.46	1084.89	1109.16
Zabrze	696.04	775.96	720.60	725.27	711.80
Żory	1104.48	1064.44	1075.43	1054.66	1141.07

.

The data presented in Table 2 show that the cities surveyed differ significantly from each other in all identified dimensions. An analysis of the H statistics indicates that the greatest differences occur in the case of city authorities’ measures to prevent exclusion and cooperation between city authorities and residents. The smallest differences are found in civic control, residents’ openness to diversity, and participatory budgets.

The dimensions that differentiate cities the most were rated rather poorly by residents, while those that differentiate cities the least received high or average ratings. This means that city residents are most dissatisfied with the overall attitude of city authorities towards the local community and with measures to increase inclusiveness. However, in the group of 19 cities, their opinions towards these topics are more extreme than those towards participatory budgets, residents’ openness to diversity, and civic control.

The identified differences between cities, despite their location in the same region and mutual proximity, indicate that they are quite different in terms of their efforts to promote social sustainability. Combined with the very low scores of some cities in individual dimensions, this also means that at least a few of them do not recognize the importance of the urban community and do not take effective measures to strengthen relations between the city and the local community. These cities therefore have no chance of implementing the principles of the quadruple helix or the sustainable Smart City concept.

The results also demonstrate a lack of transfer of good practices and inter-city exchange of experience. The differences in the assessments of individual cities may also suggest a lack of common policy at the provincial level, particularly in terms of counteracting exclusion and establishing broader cooperation with the local community.

The results described above confirm Hypotheses H1–H3, which state the following:

H1: 

The level of resident satisfaction with the participatory policies of local authorities differs between cities, despite their location in the same region.

H1a: 

overall assessment of cooperation;

H1b: 

assessment of participatory budgets;

H1c: 

assessment of civic control.

H2: 

The level of openness to diversity among residents differs between cities, despite their location in the same region.

H3: 

The assessment of policies to combat social exclusion varies between residents of different cities, despite their location in the same region.

In the final stage of this study, Hypothesis H4 was verified using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. This coefficient for the relationship between residents’ openness to diversity and the city authorities’ actions against exclusion was 0.6716, with a significance level of p < 0.001. This indicates a statistically significant and strong positive relationship between the indicated dimensions of social sustainability and thus confirms the validity of the above hypothesis.

Based on the above relationship, it can be assumed that city authorities’ actions against exclusion strengthen residents’ openness to diversity and vice versa. This means that the inclusiveness of Smart Cities can be developed simultaneously and synergistically through active urban policy and tolerant attitudes of the local community.

The identified relationship also means that exclusion may be significantly exacerbated if there is a simultaneous lack of openness to diversity among residents and a lack of measures to reduce exclusion. In such a situation, it is important to position the city authorities as the stakeholder responsible for effective city management as soon as possible.

4. Discussion

4.1. Comparison of Research Results with Previous Analyses and Observations

The research clearly demonstrates that the cities under study, similar to many others presented in the literature [30,31], face challenges in developing social sustainability and strengthening relationships with the local community. Residents express this through below-average ratings regarding cooperation with local authorities. It can therefore be concluded that the citizens of the surveyed cities remain merely passive observers of urban life and recipients of public services [32,33].

The ratings given to individual dimensions of social sustainability also show that, in most of the cities surveyed, social participation has not reached the third, desired stage of development [31,32,33]. Nevertheless, residents are aware of the existence of civic budgets and appreciate these initiatives, as well as the opportunity to report problems related to the functioning of the city [37,39].

The research shows that city authorities are very poorly involved in activities aimed at reducing social exclusion. This is the worst-rated dimension of social sustainability. This is the case despite optimistic declarations by the local community about its openness to diversity. It therefore seems that this problem is downplayed by local authorities but recognized by residents who are more sensitive to social issues.

In the future, the identified lack of effort towards addressing this issue may exacerbate the exclusion of older, less skilled, or lower-income individuals [66,67,68]. In the cities surveyed, these groups are quite common due to the aging population and the lack of successful reindustrialization in some parts of the region.

In a new, previously unrecognized context, the analyses indicate significant differences in social sustainability, even though the cities surveyed are located in the same region and theoretically benefit from similar resources and competencies. They are inhabited by communities with similar cultural identities. This illustrates the differences in the individual social policies of cities and highlights the important role of urban management in creating sustainable Smart Cities.

This finding is particularly significant given that the analyzed group includes several entities where most dimensions of social sustainability receive very low ratings. When coupled with their challenging economic circumstances, this situation may precipitate a profound crisis and contribute to their future impoverishment. The current condition of these cities and their evaluation by local communities necessitate urgent intervention and corrective measures.

Another original research finding is the identification of a strong positive correlation between the openness of the local community to diversity and the involvement of city authorities in activities to prevent exclusion. This means that social tolerance and the sensitivity of the city can reinforce and drive each other. In such cases, the city has a chance to move towards full sustainability more quickly.

The above relationship also points to the possibility of deepening exclusion problems in cities with low social openness to diversity and low interest of local authorities towards minorities living among the population.

4.2. Smart Governance Recommendations

Cities that aspire to become a Smart City are currently required to meet many conditions. One of these is establishing a genuine and deep relationship with the entire local community. The cities described in this article perform with varying degrees of success. For this reason,

Table 3. Recommendations for strengthening social sustainability in cities aspiring to become Smart Cities.

Dimension	Recommendations
Cooperation between the city authorities and residents	Inclusion of the issue of cooperation between authorities and residents in city strategies and allocation of separate task budgets for its implementation [59]. Ongoing communication between city authorities and residents aimed at decision-making transparency and strengthening trust. Consultation on urban development plans and large urban projects. Identification of the needs and expectations of different groups of residents. Monitoring of the quality of urban life. Creation of publicly accessible urban spaces conducive to the integration of different social groups. Organizing cultural and entertainment events that unite the urban community and strengthen the sense of belonging. Educating the city administration on the importance and forms of social participation.
Civic control	Developing online platforms for direct contact between residents and the city [42,43]. Organizing meetings with residents (e.g., from specific neighborhoods) to identify social problems and methods for solving them. Providing information about actions taken in response to citizen interventions and reports.
Civic budgets	Expanding the scope of civic budgets, including the inclusion of Smart City initiatives [41]. Extending the time horizon of participatory budgets and making them a permanent feature of the city’s strategy. Identifying inactive social groups and encouraging them to participate in decisions about urban infrastructure.
Openness of residents to diversity	Organizing meetings and workshops to integrate different groups of residents. Promoting tolerance and social empathy. Disseminating good practices and examples of diversity in the workplace, family, and school, and highlighting the benefits associated with them.
Counteracting exclusion	Identifying groups at risk of exclusion and systematically diagnosing and solving their problems. Designing universal infrastructure solutions that take into account the needs of all members of the urban community. Taking into account the needs of different groups of residents in spatial planning to prevent the creation of urban ghettos. Educating with a focus on eliminating fears of diversity and preventing exclusion. Organizing courses and training to prevent digital exclusion, which also limits opportunities for social participation [57].

presents key recommendations for each dimension of social sustainability.

Notably, cities should not be left alone in shaping social sustainability. They most often operate within larger regional communities formalized within the territorial division of a given country. At the regional level, general guidelines in this area can and therefore should be developed. Such an approach has greater communicative power and educational value, and creates a sense of belonging to a larger community, both for city authorities and local communities.

Top-down guidelines are easier to operationalize at the level of individual cities. It is also easier to compare their implementation and ensure consistency in individual dimensions. In this context, inter-city cooperation focused on joint problem-solving and the exchange of knowledge, experience, and best practices may also be helpful.

5. Conclusions

5.1. Summary of the Research Results

The following conclusions can be drawn from this study’s findings and are based on the assessment of social sustainability in Polish cities:

• The social sustainability of the Polish cities surveyed is generally rated between 4 and 6 (on a scale of 0 to 10) in each aspect, which indicates a rather low to average level.
• The hierarchy of assessments of individual aspects in the eyes of residents is as follows: civic budgeting (6.11), residents’ openness to diversity (5.83), cooperation between city authorities and the local community (5.61), and counteracting exclusion (5.26).
• Some cities receive high scores in each of the assessed aspects (Gliwice, Tychy, Jaworzno, and Żory), which indicates consistent and coherent actions by city authorities to promote social sustainability.
• Some cities receive very low scores in each of the assessed aspects (Zabrze, Piekary Śląskie, and Częstochowa). Their common features are a fairly low standard of living and ineffective reindustrialization after the closure of coal mining.
• Provincial cities (Katowice and the former provincial city Częstochowa) do not stand out in terms of social sustainability. This means that social sustainability does not always correspond to the size of the city and its administrative privileges.
• The cities surveyed differ from each other in all the aspects analyzed, particularly in terms of the overall assessment of cooperation between local authorities and the urban community and in terms of counteracting exclusion.
• There is a statistically significant positive correlation between residents’ openness to diversity and the actions taken by city authorities to reduce exclusion.

These conclusions imply a number of more general conclusions of a universal nature for Smart Governance in cities aspiring to be smart:

• Social sustainability in cities in developing economies is not highly rated by residents, but the scores obtained indicate that its dimensions are recognized and that municipal authorities are active in promoting it.
• Unfavorable living and economic conditions can have a negative impact on the social sustainability of cities.
• Social sustainability is a characteristic feature of a given city and varies greatly even at the regional level.
• Therefore, local social sustainability largely depends on the decisions and actions of the city authorities.
• A high level of openness of the local community to diversity/otherness can provide important support in cities’ efforts to achieve social sustainability.

This research contributes to the development of the concept of sustainable urban management in the following areas:

• It closes a substantive research gap relating to the lack of bottom-up research on social sustainability (perspective and assessment of residents).
• It also closes the methodological research gap concerning the lack of extensive research on local communities (resident surveys instead of case studies, analyses of municipal source documents or literature studies).
• It describes the problems faced by cities aspiring to be sustainable and smart (in the face of the dominance of Smart City case studies from highly developed economies).
• It determines the level of residents’ satisfaction with city authorities’ social sustainability policies based on a representative sample of residents from 19 cities.
• It also determines the level of openness to diversity based on a representative sample of 1863 residents.
• It presents an assessment of measures against social exclusion from residents of 19 cities in developing economies.
• It compares residents’ assessment of openness to diversity with the assessment of measures against social exclusion carried out by city authorities.
• The observations mentioned above contribute to the diagnosis and assessment of urban social sustainability in large cities in the emerging European economy. They can be used for comparative analyses and also serve as guidance for strengthening individual areas of local community participation in city life.

5.2. Research Limitations and Directions for Further Analysis

The research presented in this article has three main limitations. First, it is limited to one economy and one region. Nevertheless, the author considers the results to be representative enough, based on a large research sample including residents of 19 cities.

The second limitation is that the results were based on residents’ opinions expressed in survey research. These opinions may be an expression of respondents’ individual feelings, which constitutes a classic disadvantage of this research method. However, it is worth adding that actions to improve quality of life, including social sustainability, are addressed and evaluated by the local community, so there is certain value in obtaining individual opinions.

The third research limitation is the low complexity of the survey questionnaire, which includes five questions. However, these questions refer to two key dimensions of urban social sustainability and diagnose this phenomenon from a practical perspective.

Taking into account the above research limitations, it would be worthwhile to expand the research in the future and assess the level of social sustainability on an international scale. Then, the acquired data can provide an empirical foundation for determining best practices in participatory and inclusive urban governance.

A valuable research approach may also involve assessing the effectiveness of urban sustainability initiatives from the dual perspective of local authorities and residents. The comparative analysis of these evaluations could provide significant insights into the disparities between governmental intentions and citizen perceptions.