Skip to Content
You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

SustainabilitySustainability
PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

15 April 2026

18 Pages

Smart Culture in a Smart City and Its Manifestations in the Public Spaces of Vilnius

and
Department of Public Administration and Political Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Klaipeda University, H. Manto 84, 92294 Klaipeda, Lithuania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability2026, 18(8), 3925;https://doi.org/10.3390/su18083925
This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Local Development: AI and Digital Innovations in Urban Smart Cities
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to conceptualize smart culture as an important yet under-researched dimension of smart cities, and to empirically demonstrate the extent to which cultural events in Vilnius’ public spaces align with the key principles of smart culture. The theoretical section of the article provides a definition of smart culture in a smart city, based on which four categories of analysis are identified: accessibility, the integration of technology into the cultural experience, engagement of the population, and promotion of community building. The methodology consists of an instrumental case study, analysis of secondary sources, and directed content analysis. The research findings reveal that Culture Night festival events in Vilnius not only reduce social and geographical barriers to culture but also create spaces for active participation of the population, fostering community and the application of technological solutions in cultural activities. Culture Night represents a clear example of smart culture, highlighting the importance of this dimension in smart city policies. The study shows that the identified characteristics of smart culture may support inclusive and sustainable urban development trends associated with SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

1. Introduction

A growing number of cities around the world are striving to be smart. It is driven by increasing technological development and smart urban governance, as well as cities’ desire to be competitive, modern, fashionable, and attractive to investors, residents, and tourists. Smart cities are a concept that dates to the twentieth century, so there is no lack of definitions of it in scientific literature [1,2]. Nevertheless, as time has moved on and the world has changed, its understanding has evolved.
In 2000, a smart city was described as a safe, ecological, and efficient urban model for people and the environment, in which all structures are designed, built, and maintained using advanced integrated materials, sensors, electronics, and networks linked to computerized systems [3]. Later, in 2011, the concept of a smart city was expanded and described as an urban entity where innovations in technology, governance, and policy are widely implemented [4]. Meanwhile, in 2014, a more community-oriented perspective emerged, arguing that a smart city is first and foremost a smart community composed of many different specific groups: residents, business, culture and arts, science, education, politics, and others, and that its priorities and strategic goals should be relevant to all or at least most of the city’s communities [5].
Some newer definitions emphasize the links of smart cities not only to technology, electronic services, or the spread of information, but also to the strengthening of community, human, and social ties [6]. It is also reflected in one of the most recent and so far most developed generations of smart cities, Smart City 3.0, which is a city that uses information and communication technologies to foster civic engagement and active participation, allowing for continuous dialogue, where the initial strategy is developed in close collaboration with citizens and relevant stakeholders [7]. The people-centered orientation of smart cities is also highlighted in recent United Nations research reports and proposed development guidelines [8,9].
The scientific literature identifies six key dimensions of a smart city that dominate both theoretical and empirical research: smart economy, smart mobility, smart environment, smart people, smart living, and smart governance [10,11,12,13,14]. However, there are many more dimensions of a smart city that can be found in the academic literature that are not as widespread and widely researched but are also inevitably an important part of a smart city. These include, for example, smart buildings [15,16], smart tourism [17,18], or smart healthcare [19,20]. The exact number of variations of such smart city dimensions is unknown and, moreover, is constantly evolving. In 2020, scholars identified 11 dimensions [21], while a 2024 study found as many as 38 different dimensions, one of which was culture [22].
Smart culture is a dimension of a smart city that can be found in academic research [22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31]. However, it tends to play a peripheral role, with culture being treated as a complementary rather than an essential part of a smart city [23,24]. Nevertheless, culture is a driver and tool for sustainable development [32], as well as a vital element of economic competitiveness and attractiveness, image, and identity [33]. The importance of this dimension is also demonstrated by the fact that every year since 1985, one European city has been awarded the European Capital of Culture award. It aims to promote shared cultural values and help preserve and raise awareness of the traditional cultures of the Member States. To date, two Lithuanian cities have been awarded the status of European Capital of Culture: Vilnius (2009) and Kaunas (2022). The Lithuanian capital, Vilnius, is one of the fastest-growing smart cities in the world, rising by 13 places to hold the 34th place out of 146 cities in the latest IMD Smart City Index 2025 [34].
Proper integration of cultural policy into the overall development of the social system can influence and change cultural values and beliefs, directing them towards sustainability and sustainable behavior [35]; however, there is a noticeable research gap, as the concept of smart culture in Lithuania has not yet been enshrined in policy documents or analyzed in the scientific literature. Moreover, there is a lack of empirical analyses showing how smart culture manifests itself in practice. In this context, Vilnius—as a rapidly developing smart city—can be a valuable object of research in this smart city dimension. Thus, this article raises two related questions: (1) How can smart culture be conceptualized as an independent dimension of a smart city? (2) How does smart culture manifest itself in the public spaces of Vilnius?
The aim of this paper is to conceptualize smart culture as a dimension of smart cities and to analyze the extent to which cultural events in Vilnius’ public spaces align with key principles of smart culture. It is particularly important given that prevalent smart city dimensions often suppose that “smartness” primarily means technological capacity and governance efficiency, while culture is treated as a soft or complementary domain. Such an approach limits the understanding of how social inclusion, trust, and community ties are formed in urban environments. Therefore, this article introduces smart culture as an analytical dimension that highlights the interaction between technology, public space, and resident co-creation become the driving forces of smart cities.
The methodology consists of an instrumental case study, secondary source analysis, and directed content analysis. These methods were chosen because they enable the analysis of cultural events and illustrate their connections to smart culture. The paper invites a broader discussion on the integration of smart culture into urban development strategies in Lithuania and other countries. It stresses that culture should not be perceived as a complementary element of a smart city, but rather as one of the key factors in shaping a progressive, creative, and innovative smart city environment.

2. Smart Culture

2.1. Current Perceptions of Smart Culture in Scientific Literature

Smart culture analyses are not very common in scientific literature. Some authors argue that smart culture is not an independent phenomenon: it is a component of information and media culture [36]. As a result, researchers often include smart culture in other dimensions of a smart city, such as a smart economy [37]. Furthermore, it is sometimes equated with digital culture [38]. The lower relevance of smart culture is also confirmed by its categorization as one of the “soft” areas of a smart city (while the “hard” areas are health, mobility, and public safety) [39].
However, some articles identify this dimension as central to the smart city and accordingly propose a definition of it. In this case, the role of technology is often emphasized. It is argued that the technologies inherent in smart cities can stimulate the cultural aspects and further enhance their contribution to the urban structure in terms of job creation, income generation, and sustainability [24]. Smart culture can also be seen as a specific field of activity in which humans, through smart technologies, create, disseminate, and preserve cultural products (ideas, norms, values, phenomena, behavioral standards, etc.) necessary for the unity of the inner and outer space [25].
Smart culture is sometimes presented as a new dimension of society’s existence—an evolutionary stage and a unity of the meanings of theoretical approaches to understanding the nature of modern society, which aims to ensure comfortable living conditions and personal development, created with the help of the latest technologies, in symbiosis with the achievements of science and the valuable achievements of civilization, and without which its development is not possible [26]. In addition, smart culture can be understood as an innovative approach to the field of culture, which, through information and communication technologies and other achievements of scientific and technological progress, improves the quality of people’s lives, contributes to their spiritual growth and transformation, preserving and providing access to the accomplishments accumulated by humankind (writing, religion, works of art, languages, educational methods, traditions, etc.) [27].
Some authors further expand the definition of smart culture. In the broadest sense, smart culture is the collection of advances in information and communication, digital, and smart technologies and other scientific and technological developments. These developments are designed to improve the quality of people’s lives, to create smart people and, with them, a smart society, and to contribute to their spiritual growth and transformation; accordingly, such changes preserve and provide access to accumulated cultural heritage. In the narrow sense, smart culture is a set of competences of an individual, characterizing their ability to use smart technologies, which allow using them to accelerate the performance of various routine tasks and make their life more comfortable and free [28]. Smart culture has a positive impact on three levels: personal (allowing to enhance and personalize the cultural experience and to involve vulnerable social groups), industrial (helping to preserve, protect and promote cultural heritage, thus promoting citizen participation, engagement, and increasing the consumption of culture), and societal (socio-economic impacts: new learning and business opportunities, increased competitiveness, addressing sustainability issues) [29]. However, there are also studies that emphasize not only the positive features of smart culture, but also its shortcomings—digital technology in art and culture may also be a factor of social isolation rather than of sharing [30].
In addition to the theoretical contributions, there are a number of practical case studies of smart culture. The purpose of smart culture in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, is that tangible and intangible culture emerge and flourish, and it acts as an umbrella that provides a foundation for the development of other smart programs, such as smart education and smart tourism [31]. Meanwhile, some researchers have compiled the factors influencing the emergence of smart culture: negative factors include internal resistance to change, lack of funding and information, strict vertical control and international sanctions, while positive ones include accessibility and choice, the availability of modern information technologies, the development of websites, the evolution of online communities, and government support [27].
Nevertheless, the most visible source of smart cultural empowerment is the preservation of cultural heritage. Smart cultural heritage can help preserve and promote the identity (tangible and intangible) of places and communities using smart technologies [40]. Moreover, smart cultural heritage integrates technology with cultural heritage to promote, enhance, and protect culture through technologies such as augmented reality, virtual reality, and others [41]. It is also applied in case studies such as Tulusbesar Village [41]. However, smart cultural heritage, as well as smart culture itself, can be part of the concept of a smart city, even though it does not figure as an essential component in conceptual models [42].

2.2. Defining Smart Culture in a Smart City

Based on the definitions of smart city and smart culture discussed above (both in the introduction and Section 2.1; see Table 1), this paper synthesizes these perspectives and conceptualizes smart culture as an independent dimension of the smart city, which, in addition to the cultural side, also incorporates technological and social aspects essential to smart city development—that is, a technologically enabled, inclusive and universally accessible cultural expression in a city.
Table 1. Key definitions of smart city and smart culture.
Thus, in this article, smart culture in a smart city is understood as a contemporary cultural practice that uses information and communication technologies as a means to ensure wider accessibility, inclusion, and interaction. Smart culture is oriented towards openness to all city residents, regardless of their social status, age, or technological abilities, and strives to reduce economic, geographical, and social barriers to cultural participation. An important feature of smart culture is the active participation of residents, which encourages creativity, experimentation, new forms of cultural expression, and community involvement, thereby strengthening social ties and local identity. In practice, smart culture can be expressed through free and open cultural events, the revitalization of public spaces through art and cultural interventions, as well as technological solutions that expand the boundaries of cultural experience.
Theoretically, this approach shifts the focus of smart cities from technology as the main criterion of “smartness” to social logic. It emphasizes when and how technology functions to reduce cultural and social barriers, encourages participation, and co-creation. In this perspective, smart culture is not treated as an extension of existing smart city dimensions such as smart living or smart people, but a separate analytical framework that provides a basis for analyzing cultural initiatives in public spaces as drivers for urban transformation. The theoretical contribution of this study lies in the operationalization of smart culture through four analytical categories: accessibility, the integration of technology into the cultural experience, engagement of the population, and promotion of community building. These categories provide a clear framework for understanding how cultural practices can contribute to an inclusive smart city. In this way, the proposed approach complements established smart city frameworks in which culture often remains a peripheral element.
In this research, we deliberately distinguish smart culture from related concepts. Digital culture, for example, often refers to the dissemination or consumption of content through digital channels, characterized by the constant recycling of old and new media content [43]. However, it does not necessarily transform the structure of participation or reduce social barriers. Cultural participation [44], in turn, is a broad concept that can take place without technology as a means of shaping cultural experience. In this article, we therefore analyze not only participation itself, but also its structure and mechanisms in public spaces, focusing on when and how participation becomes a process of inclusion, co-creation, and community building in which technology supports interaction and experience. The creative city discourse, by contrast, is more often oriented towards economic competitiveness and the growth of creative industries [45] rather than the use of technology for inclusion, and co-creation in public spaces. Finally, the concept of smart culture use in the paper differs from the notion of smart cultural heritage mentioned earlier. It reflects a shift from merely consuming or preserving culture through digitization toward actively creating and co-creating cultural practices. In this perspective, technology is not an end itself but a tool for strengthening inclusiveness and enabling urban transformation. A key condition for smart culture is therefore that technology acts as a means of interaction and inclusion rather than as background infrastructure.
This paper presents smart culture through its manifestations in the public spaces of Vilnius, focusing on free, open events where technology, communities, and spaces merge into a living urban cultural experience—the smart culture of a smart city.

3. Materials and Methods

The study follows the principles of qualitative methodology, which allows for an in-depth analysis of a phenomenon in a real-world context. This methodological approach is built on strategies such as narratives, phenomenology, ethnography, grounded theory, or case studies, where the researcher focuses on a single concept or phenomenon and interprets the existing data [46].
This research is based on an instrumental case study. An instrumental case study is appropriate when there is a research question, a puzzlement, or a need for general understanding, and it is believed that the case can provide the necessary insights [47]. Importantly, the use of a case study here is intended to comprehend something else—it is purely instrumental, serving not so much to grasp the specific case, but as a tool, an analytical lens to explore a broader phenomenon [48]: in this case, the forms and expressions of smart culture. This study uses an instrumental case study to empirically reveal how smart culture manifests itself in the public spaces of Vilnius. This type of case study is chosen because it allows for a contextual and in-depth examination of a specific phenomenon—in this case, aspects of smart culture—using real urban examples. The aim is to demonstrate how the principles of smart culture are applied in practice.
The paper focuses on a single case study: Culture Night (lt. Kultūros naktis) in Vilnius, which is a one-night culture and art festival that has been taking place since 2007. Vilnius was selected for this article because it was named the European Capital of Culture 2009, is one of the fastest-growing smart cities, and was also elected as European Green Capital 2025. In addition, Vilnius also demonstrates progress in social inclusion in smart city governance [2]. Meanwhile, the Culture Night events were analyzed using the four analytical categories derived from the definition of smart culture presented in the theoretical part:
  • Accessibility;
  • The integration of technology into the cultural experience;
  • Engagement of the population;
  • Promotion of community building.
Additionally, it should be mentioned that the festival under analysis is organized regularly (annually), covers various public spaces in the city, attracts a lot of attention from the media and the residents, and has become an important part of the identity of the city of Vilnius.
It is important to note that Culture Night is not the only cultural event in Vilnius (important cultural events in the city include, for example, Capital Days, Midsummer Vilnius, and Open House Vilnius). However, this article uses an instrumental case study, so the case was selected for its informative value, allowing the phenomenon to be clearly observed in a real urban context. Culture Night is an annual, high-visibility event that encompasses various public spaces in Vilnius and has consistently publicly available documentation (programs, descriptions, and institutional communications), which allows for a systematic analysis of the expression of smart culture over several recent cycles.
In the study, information is collected in the national language of the city under analysis (Lithuanian) using a keyword-based search. The key phrase used to search for information on the Google platform is: “Kultūros naktis (eng. Culture Night) + year.”
Data collection is based on the analysis of secondary sources. Secondary sources include data resources and other information published, collected, or archived by others [49]. This type of analysis has a number of advantages: the large amount of available data, the need for relatively low resources for data collection, the limited potential for bias and prejudice to distort the data collection process, and the greater validity of the internal study as the observations are made by a third-party and sourced from a less biased database [50]. This paper systematically analyses official descriptions of events, programs, websites, media articles, and audiovisual material (photographs, videos). Only official sources of information are included in the analysis, so, for example, people’s opinion blogs are not analyzed.
The collected data is analyzed and classified based on directed content analysis. It is a qualitative research method where content is analyzed using predefined categories, criteria, or theoretical principles. This method occupies an intermediate position between structured and unstructured content analysis. It has the advantage that coding of the data can start immediately, and further analysis can identify additional sub-categories as needed [51]. Directed content analysis is a robust, transparent, and comprehensive method that not only increases the accuracy of data analysis but also allows the generation of valuable practical insights [52].
The four analysis criteria mentioned above are also the categories of analysis under which the research is carried out. A more detailed explanation of the categories is given in Table 2.
Table 2. Categories of analysis, their explanation, and importance.
These categories also correspond to the notion of public space, which, like smart culture, is not definitively or permanently defined. A public place can be understood as a space that is permanently or at a fixed time accessible to the public or a part of it, whether freely or commercially, by membership or otherwise, and is used for business, entertainment or other legitimate purposes, and includes secluded areas to the extent that they do not involve the exercise of the right to privacy [57]. This understanding can be further expanded by stating that public space is an important site for individuals and communities to develop and enrich their lives—it is an arena for public life, a meeting place for different social groups, a space for the display of public symbols and images, and part of the system of communication between urban activities [58]. These understandings of public space are the basis for this work.
The unit of analysis was a specific Culture Night activity/event description (in the program, on official event pages, in communications from partners or institutions), and in some cases, general organizational measures that apply to the entire festival (e.g., free admission, accessibility of information, mobility solutions). Each unit was coded according to four predefined categories (Table 2), allowing for more than one category to be assigned if clearly visible in the source.
Qualitative coding was performed according to a deductive system consisting of four analytical categories. Each category was defined according to specific coding rules and systematically applied to all events and years included in the data set. Table 3 presents the coding scheme, including assignment rules and examples of coded excerpts. The code was assigned only when the indicator was clearly expressed in the source; if the information was ambiguous or unnamed, it was marked as unclear and not interpreted.
Table 3. Coding scheme.
To ensure consistency, the coding rules were tested on a sample of the materials and refined before full coding, and all subsequent decisions were recorded in a coding log to maintain consistent logic. Where possible, factual statements (e.g., about measures, formats, technologies) were cross-checked across multiple official sources to reduce interpretative error.
As the Culture Night events have been taking place for almost two decades, it was important to select a clear, valid, and relevant period for analysis in this research. It was decided to analyze the events between 2021 and 2025, as these years cover the five most recent cycles of the festival, for which the most reliable information is available (media, programs, audiovisual material).

4. Results

4.1. Culture Night Festival in Vilnius

Culture Night in Vilnius is a celebration of culture open to everyone and one of the most prominent examples of how smart culture influences the city’s public spaces and manifests itself as an independent dimension of a smart city. It is an annual one-night culture and art festival that has been running since 2007, attracting hundreds of artists and over 150,000 visitors every year—not only those who want to dance till dawn, but also those who want to explore the city with their families and see how artists are changing the everyday face of the city [59]. In this section, Culture Night is used as an instrumental case to analyze and understand smart culture as a conceptual construct and how it manifests in the public spaces of the city of Vilnius. The examples provided are representative and serve as empirical indicators, and the interpretation is based on the patterns that recur during 2021–2025 and the aspects through which they shape the structure of smart culture.

4.1.1. Accessibility

One of the most prominent features of smart culture is accessibility, which manifests itself not as a single solution, but as a combination of measures to reduce multiple barriers. During the 2021–2025 Culture Night events, accessibility was primarily achieved through the removal of economic barriers: all festival activities were free of charge, so participation did not require financial resources. The events are officially identified as a gift from the artists, cultural organizations, Vilnius City Municipality, and the festival partners to the residents and guests of Vilnius City [60]. The number of events during the period under analysis ranged from around 90 to 120 annually.
Another aspect of accessibility is the conscious inclusion of different groups (especially families) in the program. Families were consistently emphasized in 2021–2025: family spaces were created (located in Bernardine Garden or Reformators Park), where educational activities, workshops, theater performances, and interactive installations took place [61]. Such practices enable even the youngest to experience culture from an early age and form the foundations of a conscious culture. Of course, this and other spaces were also easily accessible for seniors and people with disabilities. A further important part was reducing the information barrier: the cafés of the festival’s partner Caffeine offered a free paper publication with the all-night program, and some of the cafés also had Culture Night information centers where volunteers could be asked for help. It demonstrates that information accessibility is not created solely through digital channels—it also includes groups that do not use information technology or do not have access to it.
Moreover, the geographical scope of the festival extends beyond the central part of the city, with events taking place in different districts, such as Šnipiškės, Antakalnis, Naujoji Vilnia, and Viršuliškės [62]. It allowed for the involvement of people from different neighborhoods, without the need to travel to the city center, thus ensuring the decentralization of cultural experience and reducing the distance to culture, an important element of smart culture. Mobility solutions also contribute to this: the night buses provided residents with a more convenient way to get from the city center to their place of residence (between 2021 and 2024, there were no regular night buses in the city, which were only run during some events, whereas in 2025, when regular weekend night buses were already in place, the municipality allocated higher-capacity buses for the Culture Nights events).
These indicators show that accessibility is being created structurally—through the removal of economic barriers, geographical decentralization, and a hybrid information infrastructure (digital channels and physical information points). As a result, culture functions as a means of inclusion in public spaces, rather than as a one-off event for those who traditionally attend. Thus, the Culture Night festival clearly embodies the principle of smart culture—accessibility.

4.1.2. The Integration of Technology into Cultural Experience

The example of Culture Night shows how technology is used not only instrumentally (e.g., as stage technology), but also in shaping the cultural experience itself. It is important because technology is no longer an additional feature but a tool that shapes the experience—it changes the limits of perception, the experience of space, and the role of the viewer.
In 2021, light, laser, and sound installations that combine interactivity, aesthetics, and digital forms of expression were widely used: a portal and laser installation were opened at the Užupis Art Incubator; In Kūdrų Park, visitors could see Eva Lauma’s light and object installation exhibition Tarp žvaigždžių (eng. Among the Stars), while the National Art Gallery hosted orchestra Trimitas’ experimental program Nakties muzika (eng. Music of the Night), which sought to expand the usual concept of concert performance and combine the synergy of space, light, and sound, presented compositions by American avant-garde classics [63]. In 2022, several examples of technology integration can be found in the audiovisual Czech dance performance Guide at the Arts Printing House, which transported viewers to a world without boundaries, astonishing them with its ingenuity, dynamics, and optical light illusions, as well as the art installation Misukasu miškas (eng. Misukasu Forest) in the courtyard of the Užupis Art Incubator, where laser technologies and professional dancers were used to create the image of a Japanese forest [64]. In 2023, Romos Mikalauskytė’s exhibition of light projections, glass objects, and installations, Hyperplanas (eng. Hyperplane), stood out, as did the audiovisual installation Vilnelės Sapnas (eng. The Dream of Vilnelė), located at the Užupis Art Incubator, which combined light projections and music [65]. These examples demonstrate a recurring pattern: the technological component acts as cultural material (light/sound/video solutions) rather than mere background support. In this way, technology has become a means of interactivity and a new interpretation of public space.
In 2024, Montreal artist Martin Messier presented his minimalist light and sound performance Elusive Matter, in which light projections, fog, and smoke transformed into screen spaces, architectural forms, and the mist of secret dreams. Technology was also integrated into the sound and light installation Baldas (eng. Furniture), a project in which the sound of a piano was combined with light effects to create a conceptual and astonishing installation, into the work of Lukas Gecevičius’ (Aetherways) in which the latest digital and interactive art technologies were used to create a virtual spatial matter that connects everything, called a “cultural fiber,” the world of ether [59]. Finally, in 2025, it was possible to visit the world of live butterflies in ultraviolet light and to experience Nato Kuno’s live interpretation, Blue Radiance, which combined light, fog, and sound.
It can be noted that the technologies used in the festival from 2021 to 2025, ranging from light installations to audiovisual experiences, were not merely aesthetic additions. They become new forms of cultural expression that connect the world of technology with public urban space. It indicates that culture in today’s smart city can function as a transdisciplinary platform (light–sound–architecture–movement), where technology creates conditions for interactivity and engagement. At the same time, this enables a more precise definition of the distinction: smart culture manifests itself here when technology is a tool for experience/inclusion rather than merely a technical service.

4.1.3. Engagement of the Population

Culture Night harnesses the potential of festivals to enable residents to be not only consumers of culture but also conscious participants by organizing activities that encourage active participation: these are not just passive concerts or performances, but also creative workshops, interactive exhibitions, dances, and educational activities, which constitute smart culture.
In 2021, workshops on mandala drawing, origami folding, and water painting were held. The festival also featured discussions between artists and visitors: the musical project Perimetras (eng. Perimeter) invited visitors to “get to know” the performers after the concerts [66]. The involvement of blind people in the festival’s activities is also important. The State Small Theatre of Vilnius hosted the spatial sound music concert Muzikiniai pasakojimai in 5D (eng. Musical Stories in 5D), with sounds spreading in all directions—both horizontally and vertically—appealing to blind people, who usually orient themselves in space by sound. In 2022, residents were able to participate in various activities at the festival: night tours of judicial institutions (the prosecutor’s office, the Supreme Court) allowed for interested individuals not only to see how state structures work, but also to sit in the prosecutor’s and judge’s chairs and try on a judge’s robe; a bicycle decoration workshop was held in the courtyard of the Užupis Art Incubator, followed by a 16 km marathon through the streets of Vilnius, while the Smoke Factory in Naujoji Vilnia invited residents to participate in doll-making and beer-brewing workshops [67]. In 2023, the Japanese Embassy invited people to participate in the traditional Mikoshi carrying procession, during which residents could join the colorful procession, carry the shrine, participate in Shinto rituals, and dance traditional Bon-odori dances [68]. There was also an interactive exhibition organized by the Institute of the Lithuanian Language, Paliesk lietuvių kalbą rankomis (eng. Touch the Lithuanian Language with Your Hands), where participants could physically experience the language and feel its uniqueness through interactive exhibits. The common feature of these examples is the transition from cultural consumption to participation, in which the city becomes a stage for action (opening of institutions, processions, interactive formats) and residents become active participants.
In 2024, a more engaging involvement of residents was possible through the performance Absorptio, where contemporary opera was performed between two buildings, involving visitors in spatial movement, first through a soundtrack heard through headphones and later through the all-encompassing, live performance of the piece’s finale [59]. In addition, simpler methods are also noteworthy: The Energy and Technology Museum offered not only a tour of the museum’s various spaces filled with art, history, science, music, and dance, but also the opportunity to engage with science through scientific experiments, and at the end of the evening, to move to the rhythm of music on the museum’s roof terrace. Meanwhile, the Museum of Culture and Identity of Lithuanian Jews invited visitors to paint alongside famous Lithuanian artists, and after the event, all the paintings were exhibited in one of the museum’s halls [69]. The year 2025 was again marked by the involvement of residents in the festival’s activities. Creative workshops Animatest: Judanti naktis (eng. Animatest: Moving Night) were organized, where participants could try out stop-motion, pencil, and body animation [70]. Additionally, creative workshops for children and their parents—Pepei Ilgakojinei—80! (eng. Pippi Longstocking—80!)—were held at the Martynas Mažvydas National Library of Lithuania, while the Vilnius County Adomas Mickevičius Public Library hosted a Tylioji diskoteka (eng. Silent Disco), which combined dancing with wireless headphones and a nighttime reading room. It shows that engagement in the context of smart culture is not just about a single workshop; it becomes the logic that structures the program, systematically creating opportunities for co-creation and expanding the role of participants.
During the period from 2021 to 2025, a recurring pattern of engagement of the population is noticeable in the Culture Nights events: creative workshops, interactive formats, dialogue with creators, and the opening of institutions to the public constantly blurred the line between the viewer and the creator. It suggests that engagement functions as a condition of smart culture: the goal of culture is not only to show, but also to activate—to encourage initiative, curiosity, and critical thinking among the population. At the same time, this avoids mere labeling: smart culture manifests itself where engagement has a clear structure of participation.

4.1.4. Promotion of Community Building

Promoting community building in the context of smart culture means not only communication but also strengthening social ties and aspects of urban identity. Spaces for minority and district communities, joint concerts featuring Lithuanian and foreign artists, various groups of people, as well as projects combining different branches of art—all of this provides a platform for social interaction.
In 2021, guests invited by the Lithuanian Jewish (Litvak) community gathered in Petras Cvirka Square, where the event was dedicated to commemorating and promoting the cultural heritage of the community, along with concerts and educational programs. In 2022, the promotion of community spirit was evident in the solidarity with Ukraine—the festival participants included many Ukrainian artists, as well as Lithuanians expressing their support for Ukraine through their works and projects. The association LATGA, which joined the Culture Night events in 2022, also made an important contribution to the promotion of community building. In 2022, it brought together well-known Lithuanian and Ukrainian authors in one space and combined their works, promoting cultural dialogue, while in 2023, a large group of both well-known and emerging authors in the fields of music, cinema, theater, literature, and visual arts gathered on the big stage [71].
In 2024, Catalan musicians Sound de Secà performed Possê, a piece about community, group, and family, calling for the streets to be reclaimed for the city, not as a place of conflict but as a space for gathering [72]. Meanwhile, the Stopgap Dance Company’s dance performance, Frock, involved people with disabilities and used movement as a tool to change society’s perception of differences and privileges in dance, to unite people, and to raise issues of social awareness [73]. In 2025, the Summer Terrace event Muzika, kuri jungia (eng. Music That Connects) was noteworthy, featuring live music ranging from alternative to rock, with the terrace itself becoming a “meeting point pulsating with the rhythm of the heart” [74]. The Smoke Factory, located in Naujoji Vilnia, also invited visitors to a festival within a festival, organized in collaboration with the Naujoji Vilnia Music and Art Schools, which offered a tour of the district and an opportunity to get acquainted with the works of young artists.
These examples illustrate community building as the creation of a horizontal communication infrastructure: the Culture Night festival brings communities together, strengthens local identity, promotes cultural dialogue between different communities within a city (and between different cities and countries), and therefore realizes the potential of smart culture at the societal level. As a result, Culture Night functions as a social phenomenon that builds trust in culture as a common good. Simultaneously, it is important to note a limitation: since this is a temporary, high-visibility event, connections here may be intense but episodic—the long-term impact on everyday social structures is not guaranteed.

4.1.5. Overview

In summary, the analyzed Culture Night festival activities indicate that smart culture is not a label for specific events, but rather a recurring template that combines: (1) the reduction in barriers, (2) the use of technology for interactive experiences, (3) the active participation of the population, and (4) the strengthening of community relations. When these elements interact, a cultural event becomes a tool for urban transformation—it changes how public spaces are used and involves broader groups. The findings provide empirical support for the claim that smart culture can function as an independent dimension of a smart city, rather than merely an add-on to smart living or smart people. At the same time, technological modernity alone, without inclusion and the principle of co-creation, does not in itself create smart culture.

5. Discussion and Conclusions

The aim of this paper was to conceptualize smart culture as an independent dimension of a smart city and to analyze the extent to which cultural events in Vilnius’ public spaces align with key principles of smart culture, based on the case of Culture Night. The results indicate that smart culture can be operationalized through specific analytical categories (accessibility, the integration of technology into the cultural experience, engagement of the population, and promotion of community building) and that these characteristics are visible in contemporary urban cultural practices.
This study has highlighted the importance of the smart city dimension—smart culture—and contributed to the development of a more diverse understanding in the academic literature. The findings complement previous studies on smart cities, which mainly focus on technology, governance, or economics [3,4,10], but often leave culture in a peripheral role, as a supplementary or “soft” smart city area. Although some authors [5,7] emphasize the role of community in a smart city, their studies do not analyze culture as a separate component. Our analysis shows that culture can be one of the key drivers of a progressive, creative, and innovative smart city environment and acts as an integrating tool, linking technological solutions with social participation.
The paper also expands on theoretical insights into the importance of culture in smart cities [23,24] by providing empirical examples in the context of public spaces. Unlike some authors [26,27], who define smart culture in rather vague terms, this article proposes an analytical framework (four categories) that allows for the analysis of real urban initiatives. Furthermore, the study goes beyond the narrower definition of smart cultural heritage [40,41], showing a transition from the digitization of culture to its co-creation. In this article, the smart culture in a smart city was understood as a contemporary cultural practice that uses information and communication technologies to ensure wider accessibility, inclusion, and interaction.
An empirical analysis of Culture Night allows us to make statements about the impact of smart culture at the personal, industrial, and societal levels [29] and, at the same time, provides grounds to discuss the concern that digital culture may contribute to social isolation [30]. The case of Culture Night demonstrates that technology-based cultural practices not only broaden individual cultural experiences but also promote social cohesion and community engagement. It aligns with the people-centered orientation of smart cities [8,9] and highlights the potential of culture to contribute to sustainable cities.
On the other hand, smart culture initiatives can generate unintended consequences. The combination of culture and technology can reinforce the logic of commercialization and city branding, where cultural experiences are used primarily to promote visibility or consumption rather than to address the needs of the local communities. Although such initiatives can generate economic benefits and global recognition, scholars have raised concerns about the potential erosion of cultural and spiritual values [75,76]. Furthermore, there is a risk that public spaces may become places of exclusion: high-profile events may privilege a certain audience, cause tensions and disturb the peace of nearby residents, or temporarily displace the everyday users of public spaces. Similarly, excessive tourism and the potential privatization of public spaces can cause social and cultural friction, while the waste and pollution generated by large-scale events can raise environmental sustainability issues [77]. Finally, technology based cultural experiences (e.g., apps, interactive solutions) may raise privacy or data protection issues that are beyond the scope of this study.
From a practical perspective, the results show that cultural events can be strategically used as a means of reducing social exclusion, revitalizing public spaces, and strengthening community ties. For urban planners and policymakers, this indicates that culture should be integrated into smart city strategies, not as a complementary element but as one of the key elements of sustainable urban development. In this study, we formulate the SDG connection through aspects identified by four analytical categories. SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) is most closely related to the principles of accessibility and inclusion. When economic and geographical barriers to culture are reduced, and participation is expanded beyond traditional audiences, this creates conditions for social inclusion and less segregation. SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) is linked here to the activation of public spaces and social connections: cultural interventions in public spaces encourage their use, implement a people-friendly urban environment, and strengthen community ties. In this framework, technology serves as a means of interactivity and inclusion (rather than just a sign of modernity), so the SDG link is based not on technological fact but on how technology helps achieve the goals of inclusion and community. Therefore, the principles of smart culture can be interpreted as contributing to SDG 10 and SDG 11 through mechanisms of inclusion and activation of public spaces, although SDG indicators are not directly measured in this study.
When it comes to transferability, it is important to understand that the transferable outcome of this research is not the degree of success of the festival, but a set of measures: barrier reduction (accessibility), technology as a means of experience/interactivity (not just a tool) and co-creation and community building in public spaces. These tools can also be applied to other urban cultural practices, provided that minimum conditions are met (organizational stability, accessibility of public spaces, and information channels). However, their intensity and impact may vary depending on the size, infrastructure, and cultural maturity of the city. Therefore, the results of this paper should not be interpreted as representative or direct evidence of everyday urban cultural reality, suggesting that such practices have the same impact in other cities.
The limitation of this study is that it analyzes a single, highly visible, and temporary (one-night) event, so the results primarily demonstrate the analytical applicability of the proposed framework and the possible aspects of smart culture, rather than their prevalence in the everyday cultural life of the city. It is also acknowledged that choosing an instrumental, informative-value case may reduce the contrast with less successful initiatives. The analysis period (2021–2025) was chosen due to data reliability and contemporary forms of expression, but it may not reveal long-term trajectories of change from previous festival cycles. Furthermore, the study relies on secondary sources, so the analysis depends on how events are described and what information is generally made public; this may mean that events that are better documented will be more visible in the data, while those that are less described will remain less recorded. In this study, high-risk factors (commercialization, privacy, digital divide) are discussed conceptually, but they are not measured empirically; future studies should test this with additional data (e.g., participant surveys/interviews). Future research should apply the same framework to smaller, more commercial, or less technologically advanced events in other cities, to more clearly identify tensions, gaps, and contradictions. It would also be valuable to examine how smart culture principles can be integrated into national and municipal political strategies.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.K.; methodology, E.K. and J.D.; investigation, E.K.; writing—original draft preparation, E.K.; writing—review and editing, E.K. and J.D.; visualization, E.K.; supervision, J.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The author confirms that all data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article. If additional information is desired, it can be provided by the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
SDGSustainable Development Goal
UNUnited Nations

References

  1. Sancar, N.; Cavus, N. Smart Skills for Smart Cities: Developing and Validating an AI Soft Skills Scale in the Framework of the SDGs. Sustainability 2025, 17, 7281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  2. Kruhlov, V.; Dvorak, J. Social Inclusivity in the Smart City Governance: Overcoming the Digital Divide. Sustainability 2025, 17, 5735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  3. Hall, R.E. The Vision of a Smart City. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Life Extension Technology Workshop, Paris, France, 28 September 2000; Available online: https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/773961 (accessed on 10 January 2026).
  4. Nam, T.; Pardo, T.A. Smart City as Urban Innovation: Focusing on Management, Policy, and Context. In ICEGOV 2011: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance; Estevez, E., Janssen, M., Eds.; Association for Computing Machinery: New York, NY, USA, 2011; pp. 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  5. Jucevičius, R. Sumaniojo miesto vystymo strateginės dimensijos. Viešoji Polit. Adm. 2014, 13, 427–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  6. Kvieskienė, G. Sumanaus miesto ir gyvenimo kokybės sąsajų tyrimai. Soc. Ugdym. 2018, 49, 112–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  7. Correia, D.; Teixeira, L. From Smart City 1.0 to Smart City 3.0: Deep Understanding of the Smart Cities Concept and Evolution. In Smart Cities and Tourism: Co-Creating Experiences, Challenges and Opportunities; Buhalis, D., Taheri, B., Rahimi, R., Eds.; Goodfellow Publishers: Oxford, UK, 2022; pp. 43–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  8. United Nations Human Settlements Programme. International Guidelines on People-Centred Smart Cities; UN-Habitat: Nairobi, Kenya, 2025; Available online: https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2025/02/international_guidelines_on_people_centred_smart_cities_10.02.25_shared.pdf (accessed on 11 January 2026).
  9. United Nations Development Programme. Building Responsible Smart Cities: A Toolkit for Public and Private Sector Actors; UNDP: Bangkok, Thailand, 2025; Available online: https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2025-07/undp-rbap-building_responsible_smart_cities_toolkit_july2025.pdf (accessed on 11 January 2026).
  10. Giffinger, R.; Fertner, C.; Kramar, H.; Kalasek, R.; Milanović, N.; Meijers, E. Smart Cities: Ranking of European Medium-Sized Cities; Centre of Regional Science, Vienna University of Technology: Vienna, Austria, 2007; Available online: https://www.smart-cities.eu/download/smart_cities_final_report.pdf (accessed on 11 January 2026).
  11. Achmad, K.A.; Nugroho, L.E.; Djunaedi, A.; Widyawan. Smart City Model: A Literature Review. In Proceedings of the 2018 10th International Conference on Information Technology and Electrical Engineering (ICITEE), Bali, Indonesia, 24–26 July 2018; IEEE: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 488–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  12. Kozłowski, W.; Suwar, K. Smart City: Definitions, Dimensions, and Initiatives. Eur. Res. Stud. J. 2021, 24, 509–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  13. Attaran, H.; Kheibari, N.; Bahrepour, D. Toward integrated smart city: A new model for implementation and design challenges. GeoJournal 2022, 87, 511–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  14. Al Sharif, R.; Pokharel, S. Smart City Dimensions and Associated Risks: Review of Literature. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2022, 77, 103542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  15. Apanaviciene, R.; Vanagas, A.; Fokaides, P.A. Smart Building Integration into a Smart City (SBISC): Development of a New Evaluation Framework. Energies 2020, 13, 2190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  16. Singh, T.; Solanki, A.; Sharma, S.K. Role of Smart Buildings in Smart City—Components, Technology, Indicators, Challenges, Future Research Opportunities. In Digital Cities Roadmap: IoT-Based Architecture and Sustainable Buildings; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2021; pp. 449–476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  17. Khan, M.S.; Woo, M.; Nam, K.; Chathoth, P.K. Smart City and Smart Tourism: A Case of Dubai. Sustainability 2017, 9, 2279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  18. Matos, A.; Pinto, B.; Barros, F.; Martins, S.; Martins, J.; Au-Yong Oliveira, M. Smart Cities and Smart Tourism: What Future Do They Bring? In New Knowledge in Information Systems and Technologies; Rocha, Á., Adeli, H., Reis, L.P., Costanzo, S., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 358–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  19. Poongodi, M.; Sharma, A.; Hamdi, M.; Maode, M.; Chilamkurti, N. Smart healthcare in smart cities: Wireless patient monitoring system using IoT. J. Supercomput. 2021, 77, 12230–12255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  20. Ghazal, T.M.; Hasan, M.K.; Alshurideh, M.T.; Alzoubi, H.M.; Ahmad, M.; Akbar, S.S.; Al Kurdi, B.; Akour, I.A. IoT for Smart Cities: Machine Learning Approaches in Smart Healthcare—A Review. Future Internet 2021, 13, 218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  21. Wahab, N.; Wee, S.; Mat Radzuan, I.S.; Mohamed, S. A Systematic Literature Review on the Dimensions of Smart Cities. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2020, 498, 012087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  22. Ulya, A.; Susanto, T.D.; Dharmawan, Y.S.; Subriadi, A.P. Major Dimensions of Smart City: A Systematic Literature Review. Procedia Comput. Sci. 2024, 234, 996–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  23. Allam, Z.; Newman, P. Redefining the Smart City: Culture, Metabolism and Governance. Smart Cities 2018, 1, 4–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  24. Allam, Z.; Newman, P. Revising Smart Cities with Regenerative Design; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  25. Тихoмирoва, Е.Г. Smart-культура: генезис. Вестник МГУКИ 2023, 114, 38–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Levcheniuk, Y.; Vlasenko, F.; Tovmash, D.; Atashkadeh, R.; Stezhko, S. Anthropological Dimension of Smart Culture. Wisdom 2021, 17, 184–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  27. Курчеева, Г.И.; Клoчкoв, Г.А. «Умная культура»: прoблемы и фактoры развития. π-Economy 2021, 14, 40–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Баринoв, В.И. Смарт-Образoвание в Кoнтексте Сoвременнoй Смарт-Культуры. Ph.D. Dissertation, Saint Petersburg State University, Saint Petersburg, Russia, 2023. Available online: https://disser.spbu.ru/zashchita-uchenoj-stepeni-spbgu/1012-barinov-vladimir-ivanovich.html (accessed on 14 January 2026).
  29. Fanea-Ivanovici, M.; Pană, M.-C. From Culture to Smart Culture: How Digital Transformations Enhance Citizens’ Well-Being Through Better Cultural Accessibility and Inclusion. IEEE Access 2020, 8, 37988–38000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  30. Goncalves, O.; Lacan, C.; N’Goala, G. Smart Culture, Immersion, Co-creation and Public Engagement. In The Smart and Resilient City; N’Goala, G., Paulhiac Scherrer, F., Durif, F., Eds.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2025; pp. 151–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  31. Iqbal, M. Smart Culture in Smart City Policies: A Case of Yogyakarta City. J. Asian Soc. Sci. Res. (JASSP) 2021, 1, 87–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  32. UNESCO. Culture: A Driver and an Enabler of Sustainable Development. In Thematic Think Piece; UNESCO: New York, NY, USA, 2012; Available online: https://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/Think%20Pieces/2_culture.pdf (accessed on 12 January 2026).
  33. European Commission. Culture in Cities and Regions. Available online: https://culture.ec.europa.eu/policies/culture-in-cities-and-regions (accessed on 14 January 2026).
  34. IMD World Competitiveness Center. Smart City Index 2025. Available online: https://www.imd.org/smart-city-observatory/home/rankings/ (accessed on 14 January 2026).
  35. Burkšienė, V.; Dvorak, J.; Burbulyte-Tsiskarishvili, G. Sustainability and Sustainability Marketing in Competing for the Title of European Capital of Culture. Organizacija 2018, 51, 66–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  36. Вoрoнкoва, В.; Кивлюк, О. Людина у oсвітньoму прoстoрі smart-суспільства. Interdiscip. Stud. Complex Syst. Collect. Sci. Pap. 2017, 10–11, 88–95. Available online: https://enpuir.npu.edu.ua/handle/123456789/17103 (accessed on 14 January 2026).
  37. Jebaraj, L.; Khang, A.; Chandrasekar, V.; Antony, R.; Sriram, K. Smart City: Concepts, Models, Technologies and Applications. In Smart Cities, 1st ed.; Khang, A., Gupta, S.K., Rani, S., Karras, D.A., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2023; pp. 1–20. [Google Scholar]
  38. Borda, A.; Bowen, J.P. Smart Cities and Digital Culture: Models of Innovation. In Museums and Digital Culture; Giannini, T., Bowen, J.P., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 535–556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  39. Neirotti, P.; De Marco, A.; Cagliano, A.C.; Mangano, G.; Scorrano, F. Current trends in Smart City initiatives: Some stylised facts. Cities 2014, 38, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  40. Siountri, K.; Vergados, D. Smart Cultural Heritage in Digital Cities. Sustain. Dev. Cult. Tradit. J. 2018, 1b, 23–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  41. Nurnaningati, S.; Mukaromatul, T.; Saputri, E.E. Smart Cultural Heritage: Strategi Wujudkan Kelestarian Budaya di Era Smart City Terintegrasi Augmented Reality Melalui Platform Mojangki.id. BUMI J. Has. Kegiat. Sos. Pengabdi. Kpd. Masy. 2024, 2, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  42. Borotová, B. Cultural heritage challenges and Smart city concept (a strategic planning tool in a strategic planning framework). Planext-Next Gener. Plan. 2022, 12, 31–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  43. Deuze, M. Participation, Remediation, Bricolage: Considering Principal Components of a Digital Culture. Inf. Soc. 2006, 22, 63–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  44. European Commission. Culture Statistics—Cultural Participation. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Culture_statistics_-_cultural_participation (accessed on 11 March 2026).
  45. Comunian, R. Rethinking the Creative City: The Role of Complexity, Networks and Interactions in the Urban Creative Economy. Urban Stud. 2011, 48, 1157–1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  46. Žydžiūnaitė, V. Tyrimo Dizainas: Struktūra ir Strategijos; Kauno Technologijos Universitetas: Kaunas, Lithuania, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  47. Stake, R.E. The Art of Case Study Research; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  48. Grandy, G. Instrumental Case Study. In Encyclopedia of Case Study Research; Mills, A.J., Durepos, G., Wiebe, E., Eds.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2010; pp. 473–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  49. Stewart, D.W.; Kamins, M.A. Secondary Research: Information Sources and Methods, 2nd ed.; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1993; Volume 4. [Google Scholar]
  50. Rabinovich, E.; Cheon, S. Expanding Horizons and Deepening Understanding via the Use of Secondary Data Sources. J. Bus. Logist. 2011, 32, 303–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  51. Hsieh, H.-F.; Shannon, S.E. Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis. Qual. Health Res. 2005, 15, 1277–1288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  52. Assarroudi, A.; Heshmati Nabavi, F.; Armat, M.R.; Ebadi, A.; Vaismoradi, M. Directed Qualitative Content Analysis: The Description and Elaboration of Its Underpinning Methods and Data Analysis Process. J. Res. Nurs. 2018, 23, 42–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  53. Laaksonen, A. Making Culture Accessible: Access, Participation and Cultural Provision in the Context of Cultural Rights in Europe; Council of Europe Publishing: Strasbourg, France, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  54. Alsaleh, A. The impact of technological advancement on culture and society. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 32140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  55. Cerisola, S.; Panzera, E. Cultural participation in Cultural and Creative Cities: Positive regional outcomes and potential congestion concerns. Pap. Reg. Sci. 2022, 101, 1245–1262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  56. Aol, L. Role of Arts and Cultural Events in Community Development and Social Cohesion. Int. J. Arts Recreat. Sports 2024, 3, 39–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  57. Šimkaitytė-Kudarauskė, R. Viešosios vietos sąvokos samprata ir problematika. Visuomenės Saug. Ir Viešoji Tvarka 2011, 5, 199–219. Available online: https://repository.mruni.eu/handle/007/14829 (accessed on 14 January 2026).
  58. Thomas, M.J. The Demise of Public Space. In Town Planning Responses to City Change; Nadin, V., Doak, J., Eds.; Avebury: Aldershot, UK, 1991; pp. 209–224. [Google Scholar]
  59. Vilniaus Miesto Savivaldybė. Vilniaus “Kultūros Naktis”: Muzika, Erdvės Šeimoms ir Eksperimentinis Menas. Available online: https://vilnius.lt/naujienos/vilniaus-kulturos-naktis-muzika-erdves-seimoms-ir-eksperimentinis-menas (accessed on 18 January 2026).
  60. Vilniaus Miesto Savivaldybė. “Kultūros Naktis 2022” Renginių Programa. Available online: https://vilnius.lt/naujienos/kulturos-naktis-2022-renginiu-programa (accessed on 18 January 2026).
  61. Lrytas. Vilniaus “Kultūros Naktis”: Erdvės Šeimoms, Muzika ir Eksperimentinis Menas. Available online: https://www.lrytas.lt/kultura/meno-pulsas/2024/06/04/news/vilniaus-kulturos-naktis-erdves-seimoms-muzika-ir-eksperimentinis-menas-32230750 (accessed on 18 January 2026).
  62. MadeinVilnius. Vakare—“Kultūros Naktis”: Ką Verta Pamatyti ir Aplankyti? Available online: https://madeinvilnius.lt/pramogos/renginiai/vakare-kulturos-naktis-ka-verta-pamatyti-ir-aplankyti-renginiu-programa/ (accessed on 18 January 2026).
  63. LRT. Kultūros Naktyje: Akademinė Muzika ir Drąsūs jos Eksperimentai. Available online: https://www.lrt.lt/naujienos/kultura/12/1501705/kulturos-naktyje-akademine-muzika-ir-drasus-jos-eksperimentai (accessed on 18 January 2026).
  64. Užupio Meno Inkubatorius. UMI Įvyko Vienas Įspūdingiausių “Kultūros Naktis 2022” Renginių MISUKASU/MIŠKAS. Available online: https://umi.lt/naujienos/umi-vyko-vienas-spudingiausi-kulturos-naktis-2022-rengini-misukasu-miskas (accessed on 18 January 2026).
  65. Užupio Meno Inkubatorius. Kultūros Naktis 2023: Vilnelės Sapnas (Leon Somov x Brigita Barr). YouTube Video. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fvz9YrB_lUs (accessed on 18 January 2026).
  66. Kultūros Naktis. Aušta Nauja Kultūros Naktis: Festivalis į Ritmą Grįžta su Muzika. Available online: https://kulturosnaktis.lt/austa-nauja-kulturos-naktis-festivalis-i-ritma-grizta-su-muzika/ (accessed on 20 January 2026).
  67. Kultūros Naktis. Kultūros Naktis ir Vėl Nušvis Vasarą: Naktinis Festivalis Neleis Pamiršti, Kad Šviesa Visada Laimi. Available online: https://kulturosnaktis.lt/kulturos-naktis-ir-vel-nusvis-vasara-naktinis-festivalis-neleis-pamirsti-kad-sviesa-visada-laimi/ (accessed on 20 January 2026).
  68. MadeinVilnius. Vilniaus Gatvėmis Buvo Nešama Tradicinė Japoniška Šventyklėlė MIKOŠI. Available online: https://madeinvilnius.lt/pramogos/renginiai/vilniaus-gatvemis-buvo-nesama-tradicine-japoniska-sventyklele-mikosi-nuotraukos/ (accessed on 20 January 2026).
  69. LRT. Penktadienį Vilniuje Šurmuliuos “Kultūros Naktis”: Ką Pamatyti? Available online: https://www.lrt.lt/naujienos/kultura/12/2290591/penktadieni-vilniuje-surmuliuos-kulturos-naktis-ka-pamatyti (accessed on 20 January 2026).
  70. Animatest (@anima__test). Šiemet Kultūros Nakties Metu Animatest Dirbtuvės Vyko Net Dviejose Lokacijose. Instagram. Available online: https://www.instagram.com/p/DLBrLdNo1p3/ (accessed on 20 January 2026).
  71. Lrytas. LATGA Autorių Namuose Kūrybiškumą Demonstravo ne Tik Autoriai, Bet ir Žiūrovai. Available online: https://www.lrytas.lt/zmones/muzika/2023/06/18/news/latga-autoriu-namuose-kurybiskuma-demonstravo-ne-tik-autoriai-bet-ir-ziurovai-27409156 (accessed on 22 January 2026).
  72. Fla Photography and Travel. Evening in Vilnius. YouTube Video. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3y4HZBz9EY (accessed on 22 January 2026).
  73. MadeinVilnius. Šiandien Vilniečiai Naktinės: “Kultūros Naktyje”—Žaibai, Perkusija, Šokis ir Scena Tapusi Namu. Available online: https://madeinvilnius.lt/pramogos/renginiai/siandien-vilnieciai-naktines-kulturos-naktyje-zaibai-perkusija-sokis-ir-scena-tapusi-namu-programa/ (accessed on 22 January 2026).
  74. Kultūros Naktis. Kultūros Naktis “Vasaros Terasoje”: Muzika, Kuri Jungia. Available online: https://kulturosnaktis.lt/portfolio/kulturos-naktis-vasaros-terasoje-muzika-kuri-jungia/ (accessed on 22 January 2026).
  75. Nema, V.; Sharma, M. Impact of Commercialization on Our Culture: With Special Reference to Popular Indian Festivals. Indian J. Mass Commun. J. 2024, 4, 27–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  76. Burkšienė, V.; Dvorak, J. Innovative resorts. In Elgar Encyclopedia of City and Place Branding; Oliveira, E., Sevin, E., Bjorner, E., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2025; pp. 196–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  77. Hadj Kilani, B.; Dhaher, N. Conflicts and Tensions in Urban Public Spaces: The Impact of Event Management. Advance 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
The Impact of Sustainable Innovations’ Ecosystem Change on Increasing Enterprise Value in Maritime Sector Companies
Previous
Research on Incentive Mechanisms for Green Production Markets—The Case of the Chinese Passenger Vehicle Industry
Next