In the contemporary context, the focus has shifted to exploring the potential of geotechnology in facilitating the transition of urban areas towards the concept of ‘smart’ cities, within the broader paradigm of urban sustainability. Smart cities adopt different solutions derived from the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) to address urban challenges in relation to the three key elements of sustainability (economic, social and environmental). These solutions can be categorised as follows: socio-economic innovation, participatory governance, improvement of public services, and collaborative planning and decision-making (Khan et al., 2015).

Geotechnologies such as geographic information systems (GIS), remote sensing and global positioning systems (GPS) play a fundamental role in this field. It is imperative to acknowledge the pivotal role these systems play in enhancing the efficiency, sustainability, and responsiveness of contemporary urban centres in addressing the demands of their denizens. GIS facilitates the management and optimisation of urban spaces through the collection, analysis and visual representation of spatial data. Remote sensing, using satellites and aerial sensors, provides detailed information on the urban fabric and its variations, while GPS improves navigation and tracking, which is essential for effective traffic management and rescue operations. In the following section, we proceed to analyse three pivotal domains which substantiate the notion that the concept of the smart city is in a state of perpetual evolution.

The first of these, as emphasised by Hernández-Muñoz et al. (2011, p.450) and Mitton et al. (2012), pertains to the optimisation of urban operations through the utilisation of advanced communication and information technologies. This approach involves the integration of networks and sensors to enhance the efficiency of urban infrastructure, with the objective of enhancing quality of life and reducing environmental impact. The second strand of research, as emphasised by Ballina (2020), Alawadhi et al. (2012) and Caragliu et al. (2011), focuses on the development of innovative governance methods based on collaboration and open data, with the aim of improving the efficiency of public services, especially in sectors such as energy, water and transport. Finally, the third strand of research, as described by Kourtit and Nijkamp (2012), Nam and Pardo (2011), Naphade et al. (2011) and Roche et al. (2012), focuses on active urban citizenship and citizen participation. This area is of particular importance in relation to urban innovation and the active role of its inhabitants, which are fundamental to the construction and improvement of city life.

However, the concept of the smart city encompasses more than a mere compilation of technological solutions; it is an integrated and intricate ecosystem wherein technology, innovative governance and citizen participation amalgamate to engender a more efficient, inclusive and sustainable urban environment. In this context, geotechnology is revealed as an essential tool for connecting these different areas, providing the basis for smarter and more responsive urban management. It is therefore evident that geographic information systems (GIS) play a crucial role in this regard, serving as a fundamental pillar for social infrastructure and spatial citizen participation initiatives. Crowdsourcing and voluntary and participatory geographic information (VGI), which include geolocation-based social networks, are established as primary sources of geospatial data, offering a dynamic and up-to-date view of urban life (see Ratti and Haw, 2012; Vaccari et al., 2010).

In an era of increasing connectivity and computerisation, individuals act as human sensors, contributing significantly to the acquisition of spatial data and urban collective intelligence (Goodchild and Li, 2012). This forms a fundamental contribution to the advancement of participatory urban science. In this regard, it is the contention of this paper that geotechnology can provide support in at least three key areas:

It is widely acknowledged that geospatial data and GIS play a pivotal role in enhancing numerous dimensions of smart cities, including the social, transport and mobility, environmental, economic, life and governance aspects (Giffinger, 2007, p.11; Sánchez Fuentes et al., 2023, p.3). It has been demonstrated that they are capable of supplying a georeferencing framework that fosters the organisation of information, decision-making processes informed by geoanalysis, and the dissemination of public information (Tao, 2013, p. 25).

In the context previously delineated, the implementation of smart governance has been identified as the primary impediment to the efficacy of smart cities (Harrison et al., 2012). It encompasses innovations in e-government and citizen participation, in conjunction with the economic structure of the city (Caragliu et al., 2011). This process entails a convergence of various actors involved in the decision-making process and public services (Albino et al., 2015), in conjunction with investments in emerging technologies (Przeybilovicz et al., 2017, p.481). In essence, it signifies a comprehensive array of technologies, human resources, policies, practices, resources, social norms, and information that collectively facilitate city government operations (Chourabi et al., 2012, p. 2292). There is a notable correlation with privacy, security, the economy, social inclusion, and other issues that are supported by information and communication technologies (hereinafter ICT) (Batty et al., 2012, p. 481). According to Pereira et al. (2017, p. 213), these characteristics are responsible for the transformation of conventional governance into smart governance. From this standpoint, smart governance is understood to be founded on good governance, which, as posited by Graham et al. (2003, p. 2), can be conceptualised as a form or model of governance that culminates in social, environmental and economic outcomes that citizens desire. These principles encompass participation, consensus, accountability, transparency, responsiveness, effectiveness and efficiency, equity and inclusion, respect for the law and a future-oriented strategic vision.

European policies that are designed to promote the growth of cities according to the principles of the smart cities model represent a fundamental aspect in the context of sustainable and innovative urban development. The European Union has recognised the importance of smart cities for the future of Europe, and has implemented various initiatives and programmes on its path towards urban sustainability. These programmes promote the adoption of technologies in urban areas.

In the context of successive European Union environmental action programmes, attention to environmental issues in European cities began with the publication of the ‘Green Paper on the Urban Environment’ (EU, 1990), with the objectives of making cities more attractive and reducing their contribution to global pollution. This was followed by the establishment of an Expert Group on the Urban Environment (1991), one of whose objectives was to examine the feasibility of incorporating environmental objectives into urban planning and land use strategies. This was followed by the formulation of planning tools, including the European Union Strategy for the Urban Environment (2006), and relevant documents, such as the Leipzig Charter (2007). The latter was approved by the Ministers of Urban Development and Territorial Cohesion in the search for a consensus on the development of sustainable cities in Europe. The aim was to improve policies related to sustainable urban development, especially to address climate and environmental change (in 2020, a New Leipzig Charter was published, updating its contents).

Furthermore, particular programmes were emphasised, including Local Agenda 21 (a derivative of the Agenda for the 21st Century, which was formally adopted in Rio de Janeiro in 1992). In accordance with this programme, each city has implemented measures designed to enhance its environmental situation, frequently within the framework of the ‘European Sustainable Cities Campaign’ that was initiated in 1994 with the endorsement of the Aalborg Charter (Cañizares, 2010, p. 903 et seq.). The Resource-efficient and Leaner Production in Small and Medium-sized Cities (RFSC) programme was of particular relevance. Initiated in 2010, the programme functioned as a conduit through which the objectives and recommendations contained in the Leipzig Charter could be transformed into concrete actions. The programme’s overarching objective was to develop strategies applicable throughout Europe in order to support cities in creating sustainability action plans and implementing pilot projects that would test innovative solutions. The participatory approach of the programme involved local authorities, businesses and citizens, as well as encouraging cooperation between European cities for the exchange of good practices, thus promoting the development of networks of sustainable cities. The objective of the initiative was twofold: firstly, to raise awareness among the general public of the importance of sustainability; and secondly, to encourage a shift towards more sustainable behaviours.

The European Union is currently implementing measures that are intended to encourage the adoption of smart solutions in urban areas. These measures include the funding of innovative projects and the promotion of specific policies. It is anticipated that these initiatives will result in a significant improvement in the quality of life in European cities and facilitate long-term sustainable progress. In this context, two key initiatives merit particular consideration:

The first of these is Horizon Europe, a funding programme for research and innovation that included several initiatives to support smart city projects managed by the Commission between 2014 and 2020. In the specific domain of research and innovation, for instance, the Horizon 2020 Lighthouse programme merits particular attention. The second is the Smart City Marketplace, which aims to bring together various actors, such as cities, industries, investors, banks and researchers, to promote the development of smart cities. The initiative has garnered substantial support throughout Europe, with a commitment to enhancing the quality of urban life, augmenting the competitiveness of European cities and industries, and contributing to the realization of the EU’s energy and climate objectives. In addition to the aforementioned initiatives, the Commission’s present Faro initiative (2021-2027) is worthy of note. The European Mission for Smart and Climate-Neutral Cities is an ambitious undertaking that aims to assist 100 EU cities in achieving climate-neutrality by 2030, thereby establishing a model for all other EU cities to emulate by 2050. It is evident that these objectives are inextricably linked to the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, more specifically the targets outlined in Agenda 2030.

Since the close of the previous century, Europe has been engaged in endeavours to enhance urban areas, seeking to transcend dated policies that regarded each sector in isolation. The objective is now to engage local and regional authorities in the formulation of urban strategies that are in accordance with the concept of smart cities, within the context of the ‘Urban Agenda for the European Union’, which is derived from the New Urban Agenda that was approved by the UN at the Habitat III Summit held in Quito (2016). This vision aims to enhance the quality of life in urban areas in the long term, a concept that has already been incorporated into the European Union’s funding policies for the 2014-2020 period, as outlined in the Partnership Agreement for the same period. This agreement employs structural funds and investments to facilitate the design of cities in a more intelligent and inclusive manner. The role of regions in this process is significant, as evidenced by the “Città Metropolitane” programme and the initiatives promoted by the Urban Agenda.

The Italian Urban Agenda signifies Italy’s contribution to the objectives of the Urban Agenda for the European Union, which emphasises the shared commitment to fostering inclusive, intelligent, and sustainable urban environments. This commitment is centred on addressing the needs of citizens, with the objective of creating urban spaces that are not only more liveable but also demonstrate resilience in addressing contemporary challenges, ranging from social inclusion to environmental sustainability. This necessitates a radical rethinking of urban planning, transport, resource management and services, thereby laying the foundations for a transformation towards smart cities. The Agenda devotes particular attention to the concept of territorial cohesion. The objective is to mitigate the disparities between diverse urban regions and the central city and suburbs, thereby ensuring the equitable distribution of the advantages of progress and innovation. This commitment is evidenced by a diverse portfolio of projects, encompassing initiatives such as urban regeneration, the implementation of digital infrastructure, the promotion of sustainable mobility, and the development of more liveable and inclusive public spaces. Moreover, the Italian Urban Agenda aligns with the United Nations’ 2030 Agenda’s sustainability goals, emphasising the significance of an integrated approach that considers economic, social, and environmental dimensions in a holistic manner.

In the context of contemporary urban planning initiatives that are both sustainable and intelligent, the focus will be on the city of Turin, which is located in the Piedmont region in north-western Italy. Turin has participated in numerous national and international projects promoting urban sustainability and has developed its own ‘smart city’ programme. The Torino 2030 initiative presents a detailed action plan that aims to transform Turin into a sustainable and resilient city. The approach under discussion here seeks to actively involve citizens in decision-making processes, promoting culture, innovation and economic development. The text under discussion emphasises the need for a more accessible, circular, healthy and green city, with a strong commitment to social solidarity and rights. Strategies to be implemented include the following: improvements in digital technology, civic co-design projects and the implementation of policies to promote a liveable and attractive urban environment. The objective of the Torino Smart City initiative is to establish a smart and sustainable urban environment, with initiatives encompassing traffic management, smart public lighting, security, waste management and sustainable mobility.

In an era of increasing global interconnectedness, the teaching of geography assumes a pivotal role, particularly in the context of urbanisation, where the proliferation of cities has led to a notable increase in global population density (González et al., 2023, p. 258). The development of smart cities necessitates a comprehensive understanding of numerous domains, encompassing not only the physical characteristics of the territory, but also the socio-economic and cultural dynamics that govern regional dynamics. It is evident that geography has evolved beyond a mere study of maps and territories; it now encompasses the analysis of the intricate relationships between humans and their environment. In the contemporary context, it has evolved into a valuable discipline for comprehending our unequal world and has become essential for the effective and efficient planning and management of urban spaces.

In the context of geospatial data interpretation, which is imperative for the monitoring of traffic flow, resource distribution and the prevention of natural disasters, this skillset is of particular value in smart cities, where optimal resource management and environmental sustainability are of paramount importance. The study of geography has been demonstrated to facilitate the development of a global vision, a skill which is imperative for the comprehension and respect of the cultural and social diversity of the various communities inhabiting smart cities. It also provides the tools to analyse demographic trends, predict urban changes and respond proactively to the needs of an ever-evolving population (Leininger-Frézal, 2023, p.2). Consequently, geographical education emerges as a fundamental element in the exploration of the possibilities offered by smart cities. It can assist in guiding their design and management so that they are not only environmentally friendly, but also attentive to the needs and well-being of the people who live in them.

Geography education is embedded at all levels of education, from primary school to university, and is adapted to contemporary pedagogical and didactic trends. The advent of computerisation has precipitated a paradigm shift in the manner in which educational content is prepared, interpreted and presented, thus rendering digital geography a pivotal component of the teaching process. In this context, many authors from various academic disciplines have identified the benefits of using geotechnologies in geography teaching (Buzo-Sánchez, 2022, p.1205). However, research-based evidence on the benefits of using GIS in learning is generally scarce and fragmented (Baker et al., 2015, p. 118; Schulze, 2021, p. 769). Favier (2011) proposes a number of methodologies for the integration of geotechnology into geography instruction, encompassing the potential for shifting the emphasis of the process towards a more technological or geographical orientation. The responsibility for this integration, whether delegated to the instructor or the student, is also a salient consideration.

The adaptation of geography teaching to prepare students for the specific challenges of smart cities must commence with the integration of technology into the classroom. In an era where smart cities utilise the Internet of Things (IoT), artificial intelligence (AI) and big data analysis to optimise urban functioning, it is imperative that geography students possess proficiency in the utilisation of these tools.

Turin, a city located in north-western Italy, offers a particularly intriguing case study in the realm of socio-economic and urban transformation. The city is the fourth largest in Italy in terms of population (2023), with a population of 841,625, and is a crucial hub in the national economy. Turin’s historical significance as an industrial city is primarily attributed to its status as the headquarters of the Fiat automotive conglomerate. For a period of one hundred years, FIAT occupied a central role in the local economy, exerting a profound influence on the physical, social and economic characteristics of Turin (Bagnasco, 1986). The close association of the city with the automotive industry had a profound impact on the urban landscape and the social identity of the city.

From the 1970s onwards, Turin, akin to other cities with economies concentrated on a single company or industry, confronted the challenges posed by the crisis of Fordism. This change had a significant impact on the economic destiny of FIAT and, consequently, on the social fabric of the city. Despite the city’s ongoing efforts to transition towards a post-Fordist model and the continued significance of its industrial sector within the economy, there have been endeavours to diversify its economic base. This endeavour has encompassed the promotion of alternative sectors, including information and communication technologies (ICT), university education, cultural industries and tourism. A significant milestone in the ongoing process of reinvention was the hosting of the Winter Olympics in 2006, which was perceived as a valuable opportunity to stimulate tourism and cultural development. However, this initial optimism was tempered by the presence of high local debt, the repercussions of the global economic crisis, and the ongoing crisis in local manufacturing industries. These factors contributed to a significant increase in unemployment in the province of Turin, which rose from 6.1% in 2004 to 9.8% in 2012, and to a youth unemployment rate of 34%.

In this context, the debate on transforming Turin into a ‘smart city’ has gained relevance. In accordance with the assertions put forward by Raco and Flint (2012), the economic crisis has precipitated a shift in political priorities, whereby environmental sustainability has been superseded by economic sustainability. This suggests a concentration on leveraging the capacity for urban advancement through the integration of smart technologies (Gibbs, Krueger and MacLeod, 2013; While et al., 2010). However, the adoption of the concept of smartness in Turin has not followed the model of other cities, but has been driven mainly by European policies. Moreover, rather than a process of authentic adaptation, there has been a tendency to relabel existing initiatives (Crivello, 2014, p.915), which gives rise to questions regarding the effectiveness and sustainability of such transformations.

The Turin case is of particular pertinence in this regard, as it exemplifies the challenges and opportunities inherent in the transformation of a traditional industrial city into a smart and sustainable city. The study of this case provides a unique opportunity to explore the interaction between economic policy, social identity and urban development in the context of the transition towards sustainability and technological innovation.

The participants are primary school students, as the dissemination of the SDGs in schools mainly takes place during this stage of education, hence the selection of this sample. The pilot study was conducted with twenty-one Year 5 primary school pupils from a state school in Turin, who employed the same teaching methodology and digital tool to carry out the project during the 2023/24 academic year. This is a semi-experimental study that employs a mixed methodology, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative research methods.

The collection of data is conducted via a questionnaire on the ArcGIS Survey123 platform, the structural design of which is substantiated by the pedagogical objective of the proposal (see Table 1).

The present study employs a teaching methodology divided into three consecutive phases (see Figure 2) to explore knowledge about the use of participatory geotechnology in the geography classroom. For Phase 1, a lecture on urban sustainability in the local area, specifically the city of Turin, is proposed. The main objective of this lecture is to provide the theoretical knowledge established in the primary education curriculum on sustainability. Given its absence, concepts such as Smart cities and geotechnologies will be addressed, with a view to building on knowledge that the students already have (see waste collection, vehicle use and pollution, etc.). In Phase 2, a series of activities are undertaken, the initial one being the creation of paper maps. These maps are utilised for the identification of various locations, including homes, schools, and the routes taken to access these locations, as well as familiar places such as shops and parks. The subsequent stage of the present study will be to initiate a discussion of which of the aforementioned locations might be utilised in order to enhance the sustainability and smartness of the city. In the subsequent phase, the information previously documented on paper is supplemented by digital mapping. In order to achieve this objective, we undertook a search for and subsequent insertion of the information available on the City of Turin’s geoportal (http://geoportale.comune.torino.it/geocatalogocoto/?sezione=mappa). This allowed the subjects to complete their paper map and identify elements that had not been previously identifiable. In order to accomplish this objective, the following terminology, as defined by B. Cohen (2012), is employed: restrictions, education, environment, commerce, social and health services, safety, traffic, culture and sport. Following the acquisition of the information and the subsequent engagement with the Turin city geoportal, the third exercise is initiated, which involves the conversion of the information from a paper format to a digital format utilising the Survey123 form. In order to accomplish this objective, it is necessary to complete the data requested in Table 1. This will result in the generation of a digital map layer, which in turn will create a data layer specific to each learner. Finally, in phase 3, two exercises are proposed. The first is a debate in which the results obtained are critically analysed, sharing the highlights and shortcomings found in relation to the Smart City in Turin and possible alternatives or solutions to improve the situation. Subsequent to this, a Story Map is created in which the results of all the work can be seen, including both the digital cartography and the conclusions and proposals. The transition is from paper to digitalisation, thereby improving knowledge of geotechnologies and smart cities.

It is evident that the educational objective of the proposal is realised in each of the objectives set.

In the initial section, which is structured around an analysis of the sources of information on smart cities in Turin through scientific literature, European, national and local programmes, together with online geo-portals containing this information, it was possible to confirm the almost total absence of knowledge transfer in relation to projects launched in the field of education. A limited number of examples were identified, predominantly in the context of specific areas of study, such as Basse di Stura, where it is asserted that ‘education has the capacity to sensibilise and raise awareness among present and future generations concerning the area (e.g. social justice or waste recycling)’ (Bottero et al., 2021, p. 5). Beyond the environmental measures and the absence of any concrete actions in the classroom, no further issues were identified in this regard within the set of information available.

This finding indicates that Turin’s initiatives for the advancement of the region towards a smart city paradigm do not yet encompass educational interventions within the curriculum. It is evident from the extant literature that, despite the existence of projects pertaining to smart cities, the transfer of knowledge between universities and cities remains limited. This is despite the potential of educational institutions to contribute to such projects (Doering et al., 2021).

Consequently, it is asserted that this constitutes an imbalance, resulting in students becoming alienated from the intricacies inherent in the transformation of an urban environment. Consequently, it is imperative to incorporate the concept of smart cities within these educational curricula, with the objective of cultivating the capacity for critical thinking within the geographical environment in which students reside and navigate their daily lives, leveraging the integration of geotechnologies (Ferrero et al., 2022). Examples of collaborative projects in Turin, such as CrowdMapping Mirafiori Sud, demonstrate how the active participation of students and the integration of information and communication technologies can raise awareness about the use of public space (Coscia & Filippi, 2020).

The survey, conducted using the ArcGIS Survey123 tool, has enabled the acquisition of real-time data and its geolocation. Drawing upon the resources furnished by the Geoportale e Governo del Territorio (http://geoportale.comune.torino.it/), we were able to ascertain the extent to which the smart city model is manifested in the neighbourhood surrounding the school, and to what extent these manifestations are perceived by students. The data has been adjusted to align with the dimensions outlined by Cohen (2012), thereby demonstrating the capacity to identify all dimensions, albeit with variations (see Figure 4). Society (23.0%), Ways of life (20.6%), Environment (18.6%), Economy (16.2%) and Mobility (16.2%), leaving those related to Government (5.4%) in last place.

However, upon closer examination of the components of each of these dimensions, the homogeneity among the responses becomes apparent, revealing significant variations within them (Figure 5). For instance, the economic dimension demonstrates that students are better able to identify Local/Global Connection (8.3%) than opportunity (3.9%) and productivity (3.9%), which are more abstract and diffuse concepts for this age group. Conversely, the sections on Ways of Life evince a certain homogeneity, attributable to the clear identification of each of these areas: cultural, health or safety. Government and government infrastructure have been readily identifiable in their neighbourhoods. Although this may appear challenging for students to perceive, it remains marginally below average, though without the disproportionate perspective previously observed. With regard to environmental issues, urban planning emerges as a prominent field of study (7.8%), surpassing waste management (6.4%) and smart buildings (4.4%). The Mobility dimension reflects a favourable perception of multimodal access buildings (6.9%) and efficient transport (6.4%), in comparison to technological infrastructure (2.9%), which is more challenging for them to detect. Finally, in the Society dimension, the Education section (schools/libraries) (10.8%) far exceeds those of integration (6.9%) and creativity (5.4%). This phenomenon can be attributed to the close proximity of educational institutions and libraries within the neighbourhood, thereby facilitating the tangible perception of physical space among students. In contrast, abstract concepts such as creativity and integration within smart cities may not be as readily perceived.

In this context, and following a geospatial assessment of the area surrounding the school, it was determined that the level of smart city in the area was improvable or normal, with a lower proportion of responses opting for more extreme options, such as “poor” or “very good”, the latter option being at a clear disadvantage compared to the rest (Figure 6).

Subsequent to the identification and mapping of the primary elements, proposals for enhancement were addressed in order to advance the smart city model. In this regard, the responses obtained (Figures 7 and 8) reveal the difficulties students had in proposing solutions in some areas. Consequently, the concept of ‘Government’ was omitted from the proposed improvements, as the students did not suggest any solutions in this area. Conversely, ‘Environment’ (32.1%), ‘Mobility’ (30.9%) and ‘Lifestyles’ (29.6%) exhibited comparable percentages, with ‘Economy’ (6.2%) and ‘Society’ (1.2%) demonstrating a significant disparity. As previously, the sections covering each dimension have received proposals that vary in number and specificity. Within each of the specified dimensions, such as Economy, the section with the most proposals was ‘Productivity’ (3.7%), while ‘Opportunity and Local/Global Connection’ received 1.23% of the proposals. These included parking availability alert systems, intelligent street lighting systems, buses equipped with real-time seat availability information, and sensors to indicate available parking spaces in proximity to schools.

The ‘Lifestyle’ dimension has been one of those with the highest and most consistent number of proposals, tied with ‘Safety and Healthcare Centres’ (11.11% each), while ‘Culture and Assets’ has decreased to 7.41%. Among these proposals, we highlight the use of robots to treat the sick, cars that automatically do not exceed the speed limit on the road, and drones that extinguish fires in tall buildings. The ‘Environment’ category received the most proposals, with ‘Urban Planning’ (13.58%) being the most prevalent, followed by ‘Waste Management’ (11.11%) and ‘Smart Buildings’ (7.41%). In this instance, students proposed a number of initiatives, including the installation of roofs that collect rainwater for use in cisterns and irrigation systems in residential properties, the implementation of recycling machines that offer incentives to users, and the creation of pavements designated for electric scooters, separate from those reserved for pedestrians.

Conversely, the ‘Mobility’ dimension has been identified as the one in which differences are most pronounced. Indeed, the technological infrastructure section has received the highest number of proposals of all (16.05%), compared to ‘Efficient transport’ (11.11%) and ‘Multimodal access’ (3.7%). The proposals are focused on the utilisation of ‘smart’ maps, which are designed to provide comprehensive information regarding public transportation, real-time location, and estimated arrival times. Additionally, the proposals encompass car parks that are equipped with charging infrastructure for electric vehicles, eliminating the requirement for direct plugging in, akin to the functionality of smartphones in vehicles. Furthermore, the proposals call for the implementation of smart traffic lights that selectively permit pedestrian crossings, prioritising the safety of vulnerable road users. In conclusion, the Society dimension comprised a proposal to enhance the aesthetic appeal of library spaces.