Blockchain for Cities - A Systematic Literature Review

Blockchain is considered one of the most disruptive technologies of our time. Numerous cities around the world are launching blockchain initiatives as part of the overall efforts toward shaping the urban future. However, the infancy stage of the blockchain industry leads to a severe gap between the knowledge we have and the actions urban policy makers are taking. This paper is an effort to narrow this rift. We provide a systematic literature review on concrete blockchain use cases proposed by the research community. At the macro-level, we discuss and organize use cases from 159 selected papers into nine sectors recognized as crucial for sustainable and smart urban future. At the micro-level, we identify a component-based framework and analyze the design and prototypes of blockchain systems studied in a subset of 71 papers. The high-level use case review allows us to illustrate the relationship between them and the four pillars of urban sustainability: social, economic, environmental, and governmental. The system level analysis helps us highlight interesting inconsistencies between well-known blockchain applicability decision rules and the approaches taken by the literature. We also offer two classification methodologies for blockchain use cases and elaborate on how they can be applied to stimulate cross-sector insights in the blockchain knowledge domain.

💡 Research Summary

This paper presents the first comprehensive systematic literature review (SLR) that maps blockchain applications to urban contexts. The authors collected 159 peer‑reviewed papers that propose concrete blockchain use cases for cities and performed a two‑level analysis.

At the macro level, the 159 papers are organized into nine industrial sectors that align with major smart‑city and sustainability frameworks (e.g., UN Sustainable Development Goals, ISO 37120). The sectors—transport, energy, health‑care, education, housing, public services, data & analytics, economic activity, and governance—are each linked to the four pillars of urban sustainability: social, economic, environmental, and governmental. The review shows how blockchain can enhance transparency (e.g., land registries), improve economic efficiency (token‑based payments), support environmental monitoring (carbon‑tracking), and enable new forms of governance (e‑voting).

At the micro level, a subset of 71 papers is examined in depth using a component‑based analysis framework devised by the authors. The framework captures external factors (regulatory, market drivers) and internal system components: consensus mechanism, smart‑contract platform, token‑economics design, privacy & security measures, and the underlying blockchain architecture (public, private, or consortium). The majority of case studies rely on Ethereum for smart contracts, while consensus choices vary among Proof‑of‑Work, Proof‑of‑Stake, and Byzantine Fault Tolerant protocols. However, cost and performance constraints often lead to a preference for permissioned or consortium chains in real‑world city pilots.

A key contribution is the identification of mismatches between widely cited blockchain applicability guidelines (which recommend adoption when high transparency, immutability, and decentralization are required) and the actual design choices observed in the literature. For instance, several health‑care prototypes use public blockchains despite stringent privacy regulations, and some token‑based payment solutions lack a robust incentive structure, undermining network participation.

To aid cross‑sector insight, the authors propose two classification schemes. The first is role‑based, categorizing participants as data providers, validators, service providers, and regulators, and mapping these roles to the nine sectors. The second is business‑model based, distinguishing four archetypes: token‑exchange platforms, authentication & traceability services, shared‑economy infrastructures, and digitalized public‑service platforms. Together, these taxonomies enable policymakers and practitioners to select appropriate blockchain roles and business models for specific urban challenges.

The paper concludes by highlighting gaps in current research: most studies remain at the conceptual or prototype stage, lacking long‑term empirical evaluation. The authors call for systematic pilots, quantitative assessments of sustainability impacts, comparative analyses of consensus mechanisms in municipal settings, and the development of governance frameworks that reconcile blockchain design with regulatory requirements. Their work provides a foundational reference for anyone seeking to understand, evaluate, or implement blockchain solutions in the pursuit of smarter, more sustainable cities.