Smart Cities and Affective-Symbolic Urbanism: A Dual Tourist/Resident Perspective

Abstract

This study examines how individuals engage with smart city technologies (SCTs) through the dual roles of residents and tourists. Drawing on a new conceptual framework of affective-symbolic engagement, it explores not only adoption patterns but also users’ emotional responses and perceived inclusion. A quantitative analysis of 194 respondents reveals that while adoption rates are similar across roles, residents and tourists differ in usage routines, usability experiences, and sensitivity to symbolic cues. Tourists report more interface challenges and rely on third-party sources, while residents engage more with civic platforms. Age predicts usability barriers, but education does not significantly affect engagement. Emotional comfort and symbolic belonging are shaped less by demographic background and more by situational role and perceived design inclusivity. The findings extend smart city theory by incorporating role-sensitive, affective, and symbolic dimensions of digital engagement and support policies aimed at inclusive, human-centered urban technologies.

1. Introduction

The growth of smart cities has reshaped how individuals navigate, experience, and interact with urban life. By embedding digital technologies into transportation, public services, and governance systems, SCTs promise enhanced efficiency, sustainability, and participation (Bibri, 2020). Yet, as cities become more technologically mediated, questions emerge not only about access and adoption, but also about how people emotionally and symbolically engage with digital infrastructures (Hollands, 2008; Vanolo, 2016). Understanding these patterns is essential for building inclusive systems that respond to the diverse needs and identities of urban users.

Most existing studies have examined SCT adoption in singular roles, typically as residents, relying on rationalist models such as Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) or Diffusion of Innovation model (DOI) that focus on behavioral intention and perceived usefulness (Venkatesh et al., 2003; Rogers, 2003). While this approach has advanced knowledge of functional engagement, it overlooks how individuals may experience the same technologies differently depending on their position in the city. Tourists, for instance, may face symbolic exclusion or interface friction not encountered by residents. Despite the expansion of smart tourism research (Gretzel et al., 2015), few studies explore how the same individuals engage with SCTs in both resident and visitor roles.

This study addresses that gap by introducing the Affective-Symbolic Engagement Framework, which foregrounds emotional comfort and symbolic recognition as core dimensions of technology experience. Drawing on theories of practice, situated interaction, and technological mediation, the study explores how engagement varies not only across user types but within individuals who occupy multiple urban roles. Using an extended dataset that includes newly added emotional response items, we compare residents’ and tourists’ interactions with SCTs across dimensions of usability, comfort, and perceived inclusion.

In doing so, the study moves beyond traditional adoption models and proposes a more nuanced, role-sensitive, and emotionally informed approach to smart city engagement. It contributes both theoretically, by extending urban technology models to include affect and symbolic fit, and practically, by identifying design priorities that enhance inclusivity for both permanent and transient users.

2. Theory

2.1. Moving Beyond Adoption: Toward an Affective-Symbolic Perspective

Smart city research has long been shaped by rationalist models that emphasize behavioral predictors of technology use, especially in relation to adoption and utility. Parasuraman (2000) introduced the Technology Readiness Index (TRI) highlighting the role of personal stances. Further, frameworks like the UTAUT (Venkatesh et al., 2003) and the DOI model (Rogers, 2003) highlight factors such as perceived usefulness, effort expectancy, and social influence. More recently Osman and Elragal (2023) developed the City Stakeholder Model (SCSM) where city infrastructure and management define the use and adoption of SCT. While valuable for understanding initial engagement, these models do not offer complete insight into the emotional and symbolic dimensions of digital participation.

Recent research challenges the idea of smart cities as neutral infrastructures. Critical perspectives argue that smart technologies not only influence behavior but also mediate affect, identity, and inclusion (Cardullo et al., 2019; Luque-Ayala & Marvin, 2015). These views have expanded attention to how users emotionally interpret and symbolically relate to digital systems. Ash (2015) explores how digital interfaces shape spatial experience through affect, while Datta (2018) foregrounds emotion, embodiment, and interpretation in digital urbanism. Rodríguez Bolívar and Meijer (2016) similarly highlight the role of symbolic recognition in citizen-centered smart governance.

In line with this shift, the present study introduces the concept of affective-symbolic engagement to examine how emotional and symbolic responses to SCTs vary by urban role. Rather than treating residents and tourists as interchangeable users, we consider how digital systems are experienced differently depending on familiarity, recognition, and perceived alignment. This framework extends existing critical perspectives by emphasizing the role of emotion and symbolic fit in shaping user experience.

2.2. Practice Theory and Situated Interaction

Practice theory provides a foundational lens for understanding how smart technologies become embedded in everyday life. Rather than viewing use as a discrete, intentional act, it emphasizes the routinized, embodied, and socially situated nature of digital practices (Reckwitz, 2002; Shove et al., 2012). Smart city services, such as navigation apps, transport platforms, and digital payments, are adopted within broader activity systems shaped by habit, context, and role. Residents often engage with these technologies through routine practices, while tourists use them to navigate unfamiliar environments and enhance short-term experiences. Practice theory helps explain how digital engagement varies not only by frequency but by how technologies are inhabited in specific roles.

Complementing this view, situated cognition suggests that interaction is shaped by the material and social contexts in which it occurs (Suchman, 1987). A tourist using a transport app interprets unfamiliar cultural cues, whereas a resident draws on habitual knowledge. Similarly, domestication theory shows how users integrate technologies into everyday routines and meanings, turning new systems into familiar tools (Silverstone & Hirsch, 1994). In smart cities, residents may gradually naturalize digital platforms, while tourists adopt more tactical or temporary forms of use (Wilken & Humphreys, 2021). Together, these perspectives offer a nuanced view of how digital experiences differ across urban roles and contexts.

2.3. Affective Urbanism: Emotions in Digital Urban Life

Complementing this situated view, affective urbanism foregrounds the emotional dynamics of city life in digitally mediated contexts. Scholars have shown that smart infrastructures and urban interfaces elicit affective responses such as anxiety, trust, or comfort, which shape how digital services are evaluated and experienced (Anderson, 2014; Anderson & Holden, 2008; Ash, 2015). These emotions are not peripheral but central to the way users interpret their place in the digital city. In smart urban environments, emotional comfort is often influenced by interface familiarity, perceived control, and symbolic inclusion. Residents may feel confident when systems align with familiar routines, while tourists may experience confusion or exclusion when platforms assume prior knowledge or local access (Pink & Fors, 2017). Research on digital public space further suggests that emotional inclusion must be a core priority for smart city design and policy (Abusaada & Elshater, 2020).

2.4. Technological Mediation and Symbolic Inclusion

While affective urbanism captures emotional experience, technological mediation theory elucidates how smart technologies shape perception, agency, and symbolic recognition. Verbeek (2011) posits that technologies are not neutral instruments but actively mediate human–world relations, influencing how people perceive options, define problems, and experience moral or social inclusion. In smart cities, this mediation manifests through language availability, interface clarity, access pathways, and identity recognition. A navigation app that functions seamlessly may enhance a sense of control; conversely, a government service portal that assumes local residency may signal exclusion to a visitor.

These interactions transcend mere usability issues; they are symbolic encounters that affect how individuals feel positioned within the city. For tourists and newcomers, SCTs that fail to accommodate transient or multilingual users may reinforce their outsider status (Van Dijck et al., 2018). Clark (2020) further argues that while smart city initiatives aim for inclusivity, they often inadvertently perpetuate existing social inequalities, highlighting the need for more equitable design practices. Caprotti et al. (2022) introduce the concept of platform urbanism, emphasizing that digital platforms in urban settings can create new forms of inclusion and exclusion, depending on how they mediate access and participation.

2.5. The Affective-Symbolic Engagement Framework

This study introduces the Affective-Symbolic Engagement Framework as a new lens for understanding how people interact with SCTs. It emphasizes how emotional responses, such as comfort or confusion, and symbolic interpretations, such as inclusion or exclusion, are shaped by users’ roles and contexts. Rather than treating users as fixed categories, the framework highlights the situational nature of engagement shaped by familiarity, perceived inclusivity, and recognition. Figure 1 illustrates this novel framework.

This approach moves beyond traditional adoption models that focus on functional use or behavioral intention (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Research in user experience has shown that emotional fit and symbolic meaning influence how digital systems are understood and integrated into daily life (Greenfield, 2022; Hassenzahl & Tractinsky, 2006). However, few studies in smart city research explore how the same individual engages differently across roles or how these shifts affect trust, belonging, or exclusion. By focusing on affect and meaning, the framework supports a more human-centered evaluation of smart cities and responds to calls for experiential rather than purely data-driven assessment (Vanolo, 2016). It encourages analysis of how technologies are interpreted and lived, not just whether they are adopted, offering new directions for design, comparison, and policy.

3. Research Questions and Hypotheses

Grounded in practice theory, affective urbanism, and technological mediation, this study shifts the analytical focus from functional use of SCTs to the emotional and symbolic dimensions of engagement. Rather than assessing adoption or usability alone, it investigates how individuals feel, interpret, and position themselves in relation to SCTs, especially when comparing experiences as residents and as tourists. The following research questions guide the analysis:

RQ1: How do individuals emotionally experience SCTs in their roles as residents and tourists?

RQ2: In what ways do SCTs shape feelings of inclusion, exclusion, or urban belonging across user roles?

RQ3: What emotional states, such as comfort, confidence, or alienation, accompany SCT engagement in resident and tourist contexts?

RQ4: How do demographic and socioeconomic factors influence emotional and symbolic interpretations of SCTs?

RQ5: How does perceived inclusivity or design alignment affect users’ emotional responses and sense of recognition within the smart city?

Based on these questions and the preceding theoretical discussion, the following hypotheses are proposed:

Hypothesis 1 (H1).

Perceived design inclusivity is positively associated with emotional comfort and symbolic belonging in both roles.

This draws on the concept of technological mediation, which holds that design features shape users’ emotional and moral experiences (Verbeek, 2011). When digital systems reflect users’ cultural, linguistic, or social identity, affective engagement is enhanced (Cardullo et al., 2019; Van Dijck et al., 2018).

Hypothesis 2 (H2).

Individuals report higher emotional comfort and belonging in the resident role than in the tourist role.

According to practice theory (Shove et al., 2012), repeated engagement and contextual familiarity foster affective ease.

Hypothesis 3 (H3).

SCT familiarity is positively associated with emotional comfort and symbolic belonging, particularly in the resident role.

Research in urban human–computer interaction links familiarity with reduced cognitive load and greater confidence (Ash, 2015; Pink & Fors, 2017), effects that are more evident among consistent users of city systems.

Hypothesis 4 (H4).

Frequency of SCT use predicts emotional comfort and symbolic belonging in the resident role but not in the tourist role.

Regular use supports technological embeddedness and emotional alignment (Reckwitz, 2002). Tourists, who use SCTs more tactically, may not experience these benefits.

Hypothesis 5 (H5).

Age is negatively associated with affective-symbolic engagement, due to generational gaps in digital fluency and perceived inclusion.

Older adults face higher barriers to adoption and lower symbolic recognition in digital environments (van Deursen & Helsper, 2015; Luque-Ayala & Marvin, 2015).

These hypotheses are tested through regression analysis using data from participants who completed the affective-symbolic module. The aim is to identify psychological and situational predictors of emotional engagement with SCTs and explore how these vary between the resident and tourist roles.

4. Materials and Methods

Sample and Data Collection

Data were collected in early 2025 using SurveyMonkey Audience, a managed online panel platform that provides access to a verified and demographically diverse pool of U.S.-based respondents. Online panels are widely used in urban studies and human–computer interaction research due to their efficiency, scalability, and ability to target specific user profiles (Boas et al., 2020). Participants were pre-screened to ensure prior interaction with smart city technologies (SCTs) in both resident and tourist roles.

The initial sample included 138 participants, which exceeded the conservative minimum of 120 respondents based on regression modeling recommendations that call for at least 10–15 cases per predictor variable (Green, 1991; Babyak, 2004). In response to concerns about statistical power and subgroup robustness, a second wave of data collection was conducted, increasing the total sample to 194 respondents. This final sample supports the planned multivariate analyses involving seven predictors, comfortably exceeding the N ≥ 106 threshold required for testing overall model significance (Green, 1991).

To support the introduction of the affective-symbolic dimension, a targeted subsample of 56 participants completed an additional module assessing emotional comfort, symbolic belonging, and perceived design inclusivity. While this subsample does not meet the formal minimum for confirmatory regression, it is appropriate for exploratory analysis, especially in theory-driven studies with a limited number of predictors and high item communalities (Fabrigar et al., 1999; MacCallum et al., 1999). All participants in both waves were recruited using identical screening and demographic criteria.

Role-based responses were analyzed using a within-subjects structure, prompting participants to report separately on their experiences as residents and as tourists. This approach enhances statistical sensitivity by controlling for between-subject variability and aligns with best practices in situated behavior research (Bolger et al., 2003; Klein & Kozlowski, 2000). The split-sample design allowed the integration of broad behavioral indicators with focused theoretical constructs while minimizing survey fatigue and dropout (Galesic & Bosnjak, 2009).

Gender distribution in the full sample was 59% female and 41% male. Age was distributed as follows: 19% were between 18 and 29 years old, 27% between 30 and 44, 34% between 45 and 60, and 21% over 60. Educational attainment was diverse, with 26% holding an associate degree, 24% a bachelor’s degree, and 23% a master’s degree. Household income levels were similarly varied, with the most common brackets being $25,000–49,999 (21%), under $10,000 (19%), and $10,000–24,999 (17%).

Participation was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained prior to access. All responses were anonymous and collected in accordance with GDPR, CCPA, and other relevant privacy standards. Ethical procedures followed established guidelines for online research (AAPOR, 2021), and no personally identifiable information was collected or stored.

5. Survey Instrument

The survey included two modules. The first, completed by all participants (N = 194), contained standardized items adapted from prior SCT research. The second module, developed specifically for this study, was completed by the subsample (n = 56) and focused on affective and symbolic dimensions of SCT engagement. Items were pretested for clarity using cognitive probing techniques (Willis, 2005).

Core variables included familiarity with SCTs, frequency of use in each role (1 = Rarely/Never to 5 = Very Frequently), information sources, perceived usefulness and ease of use, benefits such as efficiency and safety, and barriers including usability, privacy, and technical issues. All items followed a consistent role-based structure, asking participants to report separately on their experiences as residents and as tourists. This split-role approach aligns with recommendations for disaggregated, context-sensitive self-reporting (Bolger et al., 2003; Tourangeau et al., 2000).

The affective-symbolic module introduced five new items designed to operationalize constructs from the study’s conceptual framework. These measured emotional comfort, symbolic belonging, perceived confidence, and design inclusivity. Two items elicited role-based responses, such as “Using SCTs makes me feel like I belong in a city” and “Using smart services in a city makes me feel confident and at ease.” A third item, common to both roles, was worded as “SCTs feel designed for people like me.” All items were measured on a five-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree), in line with established practices for assessing perceptions and attitudes (Joshi et al., 2015). Demographic variables including age, gender, education, and income were collected to test their association with affective-symbolic outcomes.

6. Analytical Strategy

Descriptive statistics were computed to summarize emotional and symbolic responses. Measures of central tendency and dispersion were calculated for each role condition to establish baseline patterns. To compare within-subject role differences, paired-sample t-tests were conducted on the three role-specific items. Where normality assumptions were violated, Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were applied (Lakens, 2013). Bivariate associations were assessed through Pearson or Spearman correlations, depending on distributional assumptions. Predictor variables included demographic characteristics, usage frequency, SCT familiarity, and perceived inclusivity.

Linear regression models were used to identify predictors of emotional comfort and symbolic belonging in both roles. Independent variables included usage frequency, perceived inclusivity, familiarity, and demographics. Models were checked for multicollinearity (VIF < 5) and influential outliers (Cook’s distance) (Cook & Weisberg, 1982). Due to the modest subsample size (n = 56), model complexity was limited and adjusted R² interpreted with caution (Babyak, 2004).

An exploratory factor analysis was also conducted to examine the latent structure of the five affective-symbolic items. Principal axis factoring with oblique rotation was applied, with factor retention guided by eigenvalues above 1 and scree plot inspection. Sampling adequacy was confirmed using the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test (Fabrigar et al., 1999). All analyses were performed in IBM SPSS (v28), using two-tailed tests and a significance threshold of p < 0.05 (Field, 2013; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2019).

7. Results and Discussion

7.1. General Patterns of SCT Use and Perception

Before examining affective-symbolic engagement, this section summarizes role-based differences in how participants interact with and evaluate SCTs. Based on the full sample (N = 194), participants reported moderate overall familiarity with SCTs, with identical mean scores for both the resident and tourist roles (M = 2.30). However, usage frequency was significantly higher in the resident role (M = 2.31) than in the tourist role (M = 2.10), with p = 0.0018. This suggests that individuals are more likely to use SCTs routinely in familiar environments.

Perceived usefulness did not differ significantly between roles, although tourists rated SCTs slightly more positively (M = 2.62) than residents (M = 2.53), p = 0.181. The same pattern was observed for perceived ease of use, which was marginally higher in the resident condition (M = 2.88) than in the tourist condition (M = 2.84), p = 0.440. These findings indicate that functional evaluations of SCTs are broadly consistent across roles, with differences in usage patterns more likely tied to context rather than perceptions of effectiveness.

Participants were more likely to report usability challenges when describing their experience as tourists (M = 0.30) compared to their experience as residents (M = 0.21). This difference approached statistical significance (p = 0.060), suggesting that tourists may be more susceptible to interface and accessibility issues, even when overall usefulness is rated similarly. While results related to perceived benefits and design orientation were not available for this batch, earlier analyses indicate that tourists are more likely to perceive SCTs as not explicitly designed for their needs. This aligns with broader research on digital inclusivity and representational design (Luque-Ayala & Marvin, 2015; Van Dijck et al., 2018).

In summary, SCT use is more frequent in the resident role, but perceptions of usefulness and usability are largely consistent across roles. The modest increase in reported challenges among tourists highlights potential gaps in design accessibility and contextual support. These contrasts establish a behavioral and perceptual baseline for the subsequent analysis of emotional and symbolic engagement.

7.2. Predictors of Belonging and Emotional Comfort

This section presents the regression results identifying predictors of emotional engagement with SCTs, assessed through measures of symbolic belonging and emotional comfort. Analyses were conducted separately for resident and tourist roles using the subsample of 56 participants who completed the affective-symbolic module. Each model included the same predictors: SCT familiarity, usage frequency, perceived design inclusivity, and demographic variables (age, gender, income, and education). The goal was to examine whether emotional outcomes are more strongly shaped by routine use or by perceived symbolic fit.

In the resident role, perceived design inclusivity emerged as a significant predictor of symbolic belonging. Participants who agreed that SCTs were “designed for people like me” reported a stronger sense of belonging in the city. This supports theoretical claims that symbolic recognition underpins digital engagement (Van Dijck et al., 2018; Verbeek, 2011). Frequency of use showed a marginal effect, suggesting that routine interaction may enhance belonging but plays a secondary role. Familiarity and demographic variables were not significant. In the tourist role, perceived inclusivity was again the only significant predictor, with a stronger effect than in the resident model. All other predictors, including usage frequency and familiarity, were non-significant. These results suggest that without habitual engagement, tourists rely primarily on symbolic cues to feel emotionally connected to the smart city environment. Emotional attachment weakens when users do not perceive SCTs as personally relevant, regardless of prior exposure.

The models predicting emotional comfort revealed a parallel pattern. Among residents, both perceived inclusivity and usage frequency were significant. This dual pathway suggests that emotional ease is generated through both symbolic alignment and routinized use. These findings support the idea that SCTs become emotionally meaningful when they are embedded in daily practices and designed with users in mind (Reckwitz, 2002; Shove et al., 2012). Among tourists, only perceived inclusivity was significant, reinforcing the argument that in the absence of habitual interaction, emotional comfort depends on design cues that convey relevance and recognition.

Across all models, perceived inclusivity consistently emerged as the strongest and most reliable predictor of emotional engagement. Frequency of use played a role for residents but not for tourists. These patterns support the conclusion that affective-symbolic engagement is not primarily a function of use or familiarity, but a context-dependent response to how digital systems reflect users’ identity, needs, and urban status.

7.3. Assessing Research Questions and Hypotheses

RQ1: How do individuals emotionally experience SCTs in their roles as residents and as tourists?

Descriptive statistics indicated moderate levels of emotional comfort and symbolic belonging in both roles. On a five-point scale, emotional comfort averaged 3.29 for residents and 3.38 for tourists, while symbolic belonging averaged 3.23 and 3.27, respectively. These differences were not statistically significant (p = 0.322 and p = 0.709), suggesting that the overall intensity of emotional engagement does not differ markedly by role. However, regression analyses revealed distinct underlying mechanisms.

For residents, emotional comfort was significantly predicted by both frequency of use (β = 0.275, p = 0.024) and perceived design inclusivity (β = 0.411, p = 0.001). Symbolic belonging was also predicted by design inclusivity (β = 0.306, p = 0.025), while frequency of use showed a marginal effect (β = 0.269, p = 0.053). These results support Hypotheses 1 and 4, indicating that affective engagement in the resident role stems from both symbolic alignment and habitual interaction. This pattern reflects the role of routinized use emphasized in practice theory (Shove et al., 2012), where repeated interaction fosters both familiarity and emotional ease.

Among tourists, emotional responses were driven almost exclusively by perceived inclusivity. Significant coefficients were observed for symbolic belonging (β = 0.498, p < 0.001) and emotional comfort (β = 0.495, p < 0.001), while usage frequency and familiarity had no significant effect. This supports Hypothesis 1 but only partially supports Hypothesis 4, as frequency mattered only in the resident context. These findings align with prior research on short-term digital interaction, where recognition and representation in design matter more than prior experience (Ash, 2015; Pink & Fors, 2017).

The contrast underscores a central insight: emotional engagement with SCTs is role specific. Residents benefit from ongoing interaction that builds both symbolic coherence and behavioral fluency. Tourists, lacking these routines, rely on immediate symbolic signals embedded in interface design. This reflects Verbeek’s (2011) theory of technological mediation, which posits that technologies shape moral and affective experience through their design, especially in unfamiliar or transitional contexts.

While the intensity of emotional response appears similar across roles, the mechanisms differ. For residents, emotional comfort is reinforced through both recognition and repetition. For tourists, recognition is the critical precondition for engagement. These patterns confirm that SCT experiences are shaped by users’ spatial and social position within the city and are not neutral or uniform across contexts.

RQ2: In what ways do SCTs shape feelings of inclusion, exclusion, or urban belonging for different user roles?

Regression models provided strong and consistent evidence that symbolic design recognition, operationalized as the belief that SCTs are “designed for people like me,” is the key predictor of symbolic belonging across roles. For residents, the standardized coefficient was β = 0.306 (p = 0.025), while for tourists it was even stronger, β = 0.498 (p < 0.001). These results support Hypothesis 1, confirming that symbolic inclusion drives affective responses in both contexts.

This finding aligns with a growing body of smart city research emphasizing the importance of representational design. Emotional and moral engagement with digital infrastructures depends not only on usability or access, but on perceived cultural fit, relevance, and recognition (Cardullo et al., 2019; Van Dijck et al., 2018). Interfaces that fail to reflect users’ social roles, linguistic expectations, or behavioral norms may feel not simply unfamiliar, but exclusionary. This is especially salient for tourists, who lack the embedded familiarity that may buffer residents from symbolic misalignment.

The stronger effect in the tourist context carries theoretical weight. While earlier studies have explored exclusion among disadvantaged residents (Makkonen & Inkinen, 2024), the current findings suggest that transient users such as tourists are particularly responsive to symbolic signals embedded in system design. Unlike residents, who may adapt to poorly aligned interfaces through routine use, tourists rely more heavily on immediate cues of accessibility and fit. When design features appear tailored to residents or insiders, tourists may experience a form of affective exclusion, even when systems are technically accessible.

These results expand the concept of digital inclusion by showing that design orientation is not merely functional or aesthetic, but a key channel through which users assess their right to participate in urban digital environments. Perceiving SCTs as designed for “people like me” increases the likelihood of symbolic belonging. When such recognition is absent, inclusion may falter, not because of technical or legal barriers, but because users do not see themselves reflected in the interface.

This interpretation builds on Verbeek’s (2011) theory of technological mediation by illustrating how interface design shapes role-specific experiences of inclusion. Belonging is not simply the result of access or familiarity; it is formed through symbolic cues that affirm users’ identities and roles. For smart cities to foster meaningful inclusion, especially for non-resident users, design strategies must go beyond functional universality and engage the symbolic dimensions through which individuals recognize themselves within the digital city.

RQ3: What emotional states, such as comfort, confidence, or alienation, are associated with SCT engagement across resident and tourist contexts?

This research focused on two affective states: symbolic belonging and emotional comfort. These were measured using role-specific Likert-scale items and analyzed through correlation and regression. As reported earlier, the two constructs were strongly correlated in both roles (r = 0.77 for residents; r = 0.84 for tourists), indicating a shared underlying dimension likely reflecting affective-symbolic engagement in digitally mediated urban contexts.

Regression models showed that emotional comfort was significantly predicted by symbolic design recognition across both roles. For residents, β = 0.411 (p = 0.001); and for tourists, β = 0.495 (p < 0.001). Frequency of use predicted comfort only for residents (β = 0.275, p = 0.024) and had no measurable effect for tourists. These results confirm Hypothesis 1, which posited that symbolic fit would shape emotional responses, and partially support Hypothesis 4, which anticipated a role-specific effect for usage frequency.

These findings extend prior work that identifies comfort as a key affective outcome of human–technology interaction. Pink and Fors (2017) argue that ease in digital environments arises not only from functional fluency but also from a sense of belonging within sociotechnical systems. The current results support this view by showing that emotional ease is not determined by usage alone, but also by whether the design communicates relevance and recognition. For tourists who lack habitual engagement, comfort stems less from familiarity and more from whether the system feels personally attuned to their identity and needs.

Familiarity had no significant effect in either role (residents: β = 0.111, p = 0.373; tourists: β = 0.041, p = 0.752), offering no support for Hypothesis 3, which anticipated a positive association. This suggests that familiarity may not serve as a reliable proxy for emotional orientation, particularly in short-term or incidental interactions. While usability research has linked familiarity to confidence, these results indicate that symbolic recognition can override experience when shaping affective responses.

Although alienation was not directly measured, the absence of perceived recognition may operate as a form of soft exclusion. This interpretation is consistent with Ash’s (2015) framing of digital interfaces as affectively structured environments. Tourists who do not feel acknowledged by the system may not report usability issues but may also not reach the emotional ease that characterizes supportive digital interactions.

Overall, the emotional states associated with SCT engagement are shaped less by surface-level usability than by deeper patterns of inclusion and recognition. Comfort and belonging should not be treated as secondary outcomes of access or interface quality, but as situated psychological responses to perceived alignment within the urban system. Emotional engagement with SCTs reflects users’ evolving sense of inclusion within the digital landscape, rather than any fixed property of the technology itself.

RQ4: How do demographic and socioeconomic characteristics influence the emotional or symbolic interpretation of SCTs?

To address this question, all regression models included age, gender, education, and household income as predictors. Of these, only age showed a consistent directional trend, although none of its effects were statistically significant. For example, in the resident model for emotional comfort, age had a negative but non-significant coefficient (β = −0.177, p = 0.221). A similar pattern appeared in the tourist model (β = −0.125, p = 0.418). Gender, income, and education were non-significant across all models. These results do not support Hypothesis 5, which anticipated a negative association between age and affective-symbolic engagement due to generational differences in digital fluency and design resonance.

Nonetheless, the consistently negative age coefficients warrant interpretive attention. Prior studies have shown that older adults often report lower comfort and greater perceived barriers in digital environments, particularly when systems are not designed with their expectations in mind (van Deursen & Helsper, 2015). The lack of statistical significance here may reflect sample size limitations or heterogeneity in digital literacy across age groups, but the directional consistency aligns with earlier findings. While age may not directly predict emotional engagement in every context, it may interact with design or accessibility features not captured in these models.

Household income and education also failed to predict either emotional comfort or symbolic belonging. This diverges from research linking socioeconomic status to access, digital confidence, and task competence (Mossberger et al., 2006; Zhou et al., 2024). However, much of that literature emphasizes adoption and functional performance, not symbolic or affective outcomes. The present study suggests that emotional engagement with SCTs is shaped more by symbolic alignment than by economic or infrastructural advantage. In this sense, affective inclusion may cut across conventional digital divide lines, particularly when user interaction is brief and contingent on perceived design orientation.

By contrast, situational variables showed stronger effects. Among residents, frequency of SCT use significantly predicted emotional comfort (β = 0.275, p = 0.024) and marginally predicted symbolic belonging (β = 0.269, p = 0.053), offering partial support for Hypothesis 4. This supports the idea that routine interaction promotes affective alignment, as outlined in practice theory (Shove et al., 2012). Repeated use can foster both confidence and symbolic resonance, making technology feel more intuitive and personally relevant.

No such pattern emerged for tourists. Usage frequency was unrelated to emotional outcomes, indicating that their affective responses are shaped less by cumulative experience and more by immediate interpretive cues. Tourist interaction with SCTs tends to be short-term, fragmented, or exploratory, limiting the potential for emotional ease through repetition. In such cases, symbolic recognition becomes the primary basis for perceived inclusion and comfort.

In summary, demographic variables and particularly age exert limited but directionally consistent influence, while situational factors, especially symbolic design alignment and routine use, play a more substantial role. Emotional engagement with SCTs appears to depend less on structural characteristics and more on interaction context and perceived representation within the system.

RQ5: How does the perceived inclusivity or design alignment of SCTs affect individuals’ emotional responses and sense of recognition within the smart city?

The models provide a clear answer to this question: perceived design inclusivity was the strongest and most consistent predictor of both emotional comfort and symbolic belonging across roles. In all four regressions, it was the only variable to retain statistical significance. For symbolic belonging, the standardized coefficients were β = 0.306 (p = 0.025) for residents and β = 0.498 (p < 0.001) for tourists. For emotional comfort, the effects were similarly strong: β = 0.411 (p = 0.001) and β = 0.495 (p < 0.001), respectively. These findings offer the clearest empirical support for Hypothesis 1 and affirm the central claim of the affective-symbolic engagement framework: emotional responses to urban technologies are shaped more by perceived recognition and inclusion than by technical functionality.

This conclusion aligns with a broad literature critiquing the presumed neutrality of smart city infrastructures. Van Dijck et al. (2018) argue that platform urbanism embeds social values that privilege certain user groups. Cardullo et al. (2019) similarly show that design elements such as language, iconography, or default assumptions convey implicit messages about who systems are intended to serve. The present findings confirm that users are highly responsive to such symbolic cues. When technologies reflect their identity, role, or expectations, users report greater ease and a stronger sense of belonging. When they do not, emotional connection falters; even when the system is fully accessible.

This effect was particularly pronounced in the tourist role, where perceived inclusivity was the sole significant predictor of both emotional variables. Unlike residents, tourists lacked contextual familiarity or established routines that might compensate for exclusionary design. These results extend conceptual work on affective urbanism (Ash, 2015; Pink & Fors, 2017) by providing empirical support for the claim that tourists’ emotional engagement with SCTs is driven by symbolic fit rather than experience. A lack of familiarity does not itself cause discomfort but heightens sensitivity to representational exclusion.

These patterns have both theoretical and practical relevance. Theoretically, they suggest that emotional alignment with urban technologies is not a secondary outcome of repeated use but a direct response to perceived inclusion. SCTs operate not only as functional platforms but also as affectively loaded systems that communicate recognition or disregard. Practically, the findings underscore the importance of inclusive design, not only for promoting access, but also for enabling meaningful emotional connection. If smart cities aim to serve diverse publics, particularly non-residents or mobile users, their systems must go beyond operational efficiency. They must convey symbolic relevance.

The consistency of this pattern across models elevates perceived inclusivity from a background condition to a central determinant of engagement. Its predictive strength exceeded that of usage frequency, familiarity, or any demographic factor. In short, emotional connection to SCTs is structured by symbolic fit. The perception of inclusion is not peripheral; it is foundational.

7.4. Theoretical Integration

The findings of this study contribute to smart city scholarship by showing that emotional-symbolic dynamics significantly shape user engagement with digital systems, often more so than functional attributes or demographic traits. While prior research has focused on adoption behavior, infrastructural access, and digital literacy, this study identifies perceived design inclusivity as the most consistent predictor of emotional comfort and symbolic belonging.

This pattern affirms central claims in technological mediation theory, which holds that technologies do more than deliver services; they structure users’ interpretive and affective experiences (Verbeek, 2011). In the context of SCTs where digital systems mediate everyday access, navigation, and interaction, feeling “seen” by the interface becomes a crucial component of user evaluation and engagement.

The results also align with affective urbanism, which emphasizes that emotional responses are shaped not merely by interface usability but by embedded signals of inclusion or exclusion (Ash, 2015; Pink & Fors, 2017). Participants’ reported comfort or discomfort reflected symbolic cues in system design that communicate who is meant to belong. Residents, through routine use, could often buffer against symbolic dissonance. Tourists, lacking such embedded familiarity, relied more heavily on immediate cues of fit or mismatch.

This role-based asymmetry contributes to evolving critiques of digital inclusion that extend beyond access and infrastructure. While traditional digital divide research has emphasized connectivity and competence (van Deursen & Helsper, 2015), the current findings highlight that emotional alignment also hinges on representational fit. Users may be able to access digital services but still feel marginal or excluded if system design fails to resonate with their identity or situational role.

Practice theory offers additional insight. Among residents, frequency of use predicted emotional comfort, suggesting that affective ease can emerge through routine interaction and experiential integration (Shove et al., 2012). Tourists, by contrast, lacked this pathway. For them, symbolic recognition served as the primary mechanism for emotional orientation. This distinction illustrates that emotional engagement may result either from repetition or from immediate representational alignment, depending on the user’s positionality.

Taken together, these findings refine and extend multiple theoretical strands by demonstrating that affective-symbolic responses are shaped by the interplay between system design and user context. Rather than being incidental or peripheral, emotional engagement forms a central dimension of how individuals navigate and interpret digital infrastructures in the smart city.

8. Conclusions

8.1. Summary of Key Findings

This study examined how individuals engage with smart city technologies (SCTs) in their roles as residents and tourists. Although overall adoption rates did not differ significantly between the two groups, important role-based differences emerged in usage patterns, information sources, and usability experiences. Tourists relied more on social media and third-party platforms, while residents primarily used official municipal channels (Neuhofer et al., 2015; Yeh, 2017). Tourists also reported more frequent technical difficulties and challenges navigating city-specific services (Gretzel & Koo, 2021; Osman & Elragal, 2023). These usability issues were accompanied by greater variability in emotional responses and perceived symbolic alignment, indicating that digital familiarity does not necessarily guarantee inclusive experiences.

Socio-demographic factors showed limited but role-contingent effects. Education did not predict SCT use or emotional ease, contrasting earlier studies that linked education to digital engagement (Alderete, 2021; Wilson et al., 2003). Age consistently emerged as a barrier, supporting longstanding digital divide findings (Mossberger et al., 2006). Income predicted SCT use only among residents, suggesting that tourists’ interaction with often cost-free services reduces the impact of economic status (Caragliu & Del Bo, 2022; Said et al., 2021).

8.2. Theoretical Contributions

The findings expand core technology adoption theories, such as the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology and the Diffusion of Innovation model (Venkatesh et al., 2003; Rogers, 2003), by showing that user role meaningfully mediates digital interaction. Residents and tourists interpret and respond to the same platforms differently, reinforcing calls for more context-sensitive models of user engagement (Gretzel et al., 2015; Meijer & Bolívar, 2016).

The Affective-Symbolic Engagement Framework introduced in this study further advances theoretical understanding by centering emotion, symbolic fit, and situational awareness as foundational elements of digital urbanism (Vanolo, 2016; Verbeek, 2011). This approach complements rationalist models by foregrounding how SCTs are not only used but also affectively interpreted and socially situated. It also bridges technological mediation theory with affective urbanism, offering a more integrative lens for analyzing digital experiences in cities (Ash, 2015; Datta, 2018).

8.3. Practical Implications and Policy Recommendations

The findings highlight the need for more inclusive and context-aware digital design. Tourists face distinct challenges rooted in interface unfamiliarity, insufficient multilingual support, and perceived exclusion. Municipal systems should prioritize simplified onboarding processes, flexible language options, and accessible services for non-resident users to minimize friction in transient interactions (Kalbaska et al., 2016). Features such as AI-based personalization and in-app guidance can further improve usability and real-time engagement (Gretzel et al., 2015).

Ongoing investment in digital infrastructure remains essential. Public–private partnerships could support broader SCT access in high-traffic tourist zones through subsidized platforms and improved connectivity (Boes et al., 2016). Municipalities should also advance digital literacy initiatives, particularly for older users who report lower confidence and emotional ease (Shin et al., 2021; Wilson et al., 2003). Cross-platform interoperability, enabling SCT apps to function seamlessly across cities, would greatly enhance convenience and reduce onboarding barriers (Osman & Elragal, 2023).

8.4. Limitations and Future Research

This study has several limitations. Although the sample was demographically balanced, it was drawn from a single national context, limiting generalizability. Future studies should test the Affective-Symbolic Engagement Framework in other cultural, economic, and governance settings to evaluate its broader relevance. The reliance on self-reported data also introduces potential recall bias and subjectivity (Rosenman et al., 2011). Supplementing survey responses with behavioral data or app-based analytics would enhance validity.

The study focused on two roles, namely residents and tourists, but many urban users fall into hybrid or transient categories. Future research should examine SCT engagement among digital nomads, migrant workers, or business travelers. Longitudinal studies could also investigate how sustained exposure reshapes symbolic interpretation over time, potentially narrowing the role-based differences observed here.