Conceptualizing an Informational Paradigm in the Pursuit of Sustainable Cities and Communities

3.1. Literature Review: Mapping Gaps and Framing ‘Informational Sustainability’ Framework At the turn of the decade, two significant late 20th-century mega-trends, Sustainable Development and the Information Society, have gained prominence, particularly in advanced nations [15]. Originally, Sustainable Development emerged as an environmental concern for “intergenerational solidarity” [2], aiming to ensure an equitable quality of life for both present and future generations [24]. Later, it was leveraged through strategic commercial marketing for green-trending technological ad-hoc wired to conventional approaches. This phenomenon, termed ‘false sustainability’ by Pallasmaa [25], involves economically benefiting from greenwashing unsustainable approaches by labeling them as green, since what is considered economically advantageous is often filtered through the lens of ecological sustainability [2,6]. Consequently, sustainability has evolved into a branding method, promoting investments in consumerism. Yet, the realization of the social dimensions of Sustainable Development is a recent concern, grown by the awareness that current approaches in sustainability tend to create a conservative community, while excluding the community in the first place [26,27,28,29,30]. The key challenge in Sustainable Development (SD) is finding a balance among its components [31]. Despite advancements in researching technical aspects of sustainable applications, there’s been a disproportionate focus on economic [25] and environmental aspects [32] over the social dimension [26,33,34,35]. The advancement in understanding the role of social attributes in environmental applications is notable [26,27,28,30], yet the development of sustainable communities rooted in the integration of social theories into practical applications remains insufficiently explored. This gap may be attributed to the inherent challenge of relying on incalculable values dictated by the normative nature of social indicators, complicating their implication and assessment [36,37,38]. This limitation results in prevalent environmental solutions favoring a universal approach, lacking nuanced socially informed interpretations in their configuration [26]. On the other hand, as the evolution of ICT progressed, with informational augmentation becoming the dominant function in the globalized information-intensive economy, the communicative turn also initiated changes fostering the grassroots of democracy, promoting social emancipation, and empowering communities [4,5,6,11,14,39–41]. Its integration into environmental concerns has not gone unnoticed, given its capability to generate reliable and indisputable information for monitoring practices through its information storage capacity, resulting in significant improvements in environmental governance [13,17,40,42]. Sustainable Development has broadened its scope to incorporate social aspects into its comprehensive vision for the future [15,17]. Simultaneously, ICT’s role in environmental governance has evolved, extending beyond assessing environmental conditions to include social factors [40,41]. This transition is crucial in our contemporary ‘hybrid society’ and prompts a reevaluation of the role of knowledge and information in addressing complex environmental and social challenges [4,16,40,43]. The impacts of both forces, ICT and SD, have become evident on the economy, ecology, and society, yet their intersection remains relatively unexplored, with information technology developers focusing more on sustainability—encompassing ecological, cultural, and social aspects—than environmental actors emphasizing the significance of integrating information technologies to advance Sustainable Development Goals [3,9,15,42,43]. The United Nations (UN) initially enacted the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2000 to target socio-economic development challenges primarily in developing countries [44]. As the MDGs’ target year neared, it became evident that progress had been made, yet substantial disparities persisted, highlighting the need for a more comprehensive approach to address the interconnected nature of global development challenges [17]. This resulted in the adoption of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in 2015, comprising 17 goals that encompass a broader scope, addressing social, economic, and environmental dimensions to tackle global challenges such as environmental sustainability, inequality, climate change, peace, and justice in both developed and developing countries [45]. Critics voice concerns about the accountability of the SDGs, highlighting conflicts between economic development and environmental preservation, along with perceived issues of outdatedness [46]. Political shifts over time have profoundly reshaped the sustainability concept, and the confluence of these changes with economic transformations has paved the way for a digital transformation, fundamentally reshaping our perception of equity. This is particularly relevant given the diverse nature of urban structures and the evolving dynamics of traditional gender identities. These considerations cast doubt on how the SDGs intend to achieve inclusive and equitable treatment and transform our lives without adequately addressing the realities of our transformed world [46,47,48]. The SDGs aim to transcend the “developing” versus “developed” dichotomy through a comprehensive approach but face challenges as a one-size-fits-all model may lead to unequal treatment, neglecting societal differences [46,47,48]. Scholars and policymakers stress the impracticality of centralization in development and advocate for localized governance tailored to unique societal dynamics to enhance transparency, accountability, and ensure inclusive distribution of resources and services [48]. Historically, development dynamics for categorizing countries’ development levels considered various factors. 1. Vertical Inequalities; Disparities in well-being among income groups, classified by the World Bank as low-middle income (LMI), upper-middle income (UMI), and high income. 2. Horizontal Inequalities; Social discrimination based on group characteristics like gender, race, ethnicity, disability, or legal and migration status. 3. Intersecting Inequalities; A combination of both vertical and horizontal inequalities that escalate various social, economic, and demographic disparities, compounding each other, creating barriers to development and resulting in persistent inequalities among various societal groups. 4. Spatial Inequalities; Variations in development linked to location-specific traits, such as remoteness, high population density, or inadequate municipal infrastructure. These disparities signify territorial exclusion and frequently align with the aforementioned intersecting inequalities. Such communities are often overlooked in national statistical systems, comprising socially deprived individuals in impoverished areas, including slums and informal settlements, persistently marginalized [47,48,49]. In developing nations with low income, high urbanization, and population growth, limited resources hinder urban integration, sustainable production, and climate protections, leading to persistent inequalities. Weak community organization in marginal areas exacerbates vulnerability to poverty and environmental challenges [48,49,50], while centralized power obstructs social equity efforts. Despite recognizing the importance of empowering local communities, developing countries often prioritize centralization, impeding effective localization of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [9,47,48,50]. Critics argue that the SDGs, designed with a focus on high-income nations, neglect diverse governance systems in developing countries [47,49] and overlook contextual disparities in less developed regions [46,47,48,51]. The urban challenges in developing nations, characterized by a preference for material goods and traditional production methods, impede environmental sustainability [1,52]. This discussion introduces a fifth factor influencing development patterns and disparities across diverse contexts: 5. Technological readiness; This term denotes a country’s reliance on an informational mode of production across various aspects of urban life, including the economy, environmental governance, and social services [6]. It entails a country’s level of adopting an informational mode of production, providing the basis for localizing Sustainable Development Goals through investments in social capital [47,48,49]. The United Nations Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development has emphasized the pivotal role of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in promoting Sustainable Development, citing ICT as a catalyst that can accelerate progress toward the SDGs and create knowledge societies [17]. Although the SDGs indirectly reference ICT’s role in development, explicit references are notably absent within the SDGs themselves [53] (Table 1). The integration issue in achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is not only related to the incorporation of ICT but also stems from inherent challenges within the SDGs themselves. The extensive scope of global social, environmental, and economic objectives in the SDGs creates complexity, with critics noting the difficulty in achieving all targets due to their interdependencies, leading to potential trade-offs and unintended consequences [52,54].For instance, focusing on the research topic, the development of ICT can positively impact economic development, productivity, entrepreneurial opportunities, and safer working conditions (SDG 1, SDG 2, and SDG 8) [52]. Automation of services (SDG 9) like health and education (SDG 3 and SDG 4) and efficient information technology management in environmental monitoring and governance (SDG 6, SDG 13, SDG 14, and SDG 15) also contribute [9,41,48,50,57]. Investment in ICT for knowledge cities and informed communities promotes citizen inclusion, equity-centered decision-making (SDG 5, SDG 10, and SDG 11), and enhances infrastructure for sustainable lifestyles (SDG 7 and SDG 12) [1,3,12,19,23,57,58]. However, these benefits are often skewed toward developed nations, negatively impacting the local economies of developing countries (SDG 1, SDG 2) due to reliance on expensive imported electronic devices, leading to increased informational exclusion (SDG 10) and the rise of cheap labor in IT equipment production (SDG 8) [52,54]. Despite some researchers labeling the potential for change brought by ICT as an impractical utopia, it is undeniable that the future development trajectory leans unmistakably towards Informationalization. Neglecting this transformative power not only risks missing out on its potential benefits but also exposes societies to the risk of falling behind the ongoing digital renaissance [1,4,16,46,50]. It is crucial to note that the negative effects of ICT on SDGs primarily arise due to the low level of technological readiness in recipient countries, where they function as consumers rather than producers of ICT services (SDG 9) [48]. This lack of readiness impedes the ability to navigate the consequences of digital adaptation, leading to environmental and social hazards such as electronic waste disposal (SDG 14 and SDG 15), heightened inequality (SDG 10), social exclusion due to marginalization (SDG 5 and SDG 11), and exploitation of cheap labor (SDG 1 and SDG 8) [14,46,50,52,54]. The challenges in developing countries, contrary to critics’ portrayals, mainly arise from a lack of IT infrastructure rather than inherent risks in integrating ICT for Sustainable Development [48]. Various ICT-based initiatives highlight the potential of ICT to accelerate progress toward the SDGs [15]. Global interest in ICT’s role in sustainable human development was evident in international conferences like the G8 2000 meeting in Tokyo, the WSSD Johannesburg Summit in 2002, and the WSIS Geneva Summit in 2003 [43]. These events underscored the international community’s recognition of the mutually dependent relationship between the Information Society (IS) and Sustainable Development (SD). The WSIS aimed to leverage ICT potential for establishing an inclusive and development-oriented Information Society, aligning its action lines with the SDGs to enhance people’s lives through optimized ICT utilization (Table 2). While using ICT for Sustainable Development is a comprehensive approach to contextualize SDGs and localize strategies for economic prosperity and political participation, interlinking ICT’s action lines with intricately interconnected SDGs adds complexity, making the discussion ‘infinitely more complex.’ The exhaustive exploration of effects between ICT’s action lines and SDGs is notably scarce in research due to the vastness and complexity of this topic [54].This research, centering on Sustainable Development (SD) as a comprehensive plan for people, the planet, and prosperity, primarily explores the substantial role of Information and Communication Technologies, encompassing the dissemination and practical application of these innovations to foster inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable cities [54]. Aligned with the SDGs’ commitment to “leave no one behind,” the study emphasizes the importance of sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11) [47,54] and stresses the need for localized SDG implementation at the community level [48]. The assertion that the “battle for the SDGs will be won or lost in cities [50]” highlights the crucial role of sustainable cities and communities, with SDG 11 identified as a key precursor for the successful implementation of the broader SDG agenda [59]. Hence, the central focus of this study is to explore the prerequisites for constructing sustainable cities and communities, taking into account the transformative socio-cultural and technological shifts facilitated by the advent of inclusive technology access. Existing studies pinpoint challenges in integrating ICT-driven transformation into urban planning and advocate for focused exploration of these issues and potential solutions. The prevailing concept, smart urbanism, encapsulates the current state of implementing ICT in urban development. Although the term is nebulous, it represents the primary approach emphasizing the need for a paradigm shift recognizing technology as a fundamental facilitator for urban development [49]. Although smart cities define themselves as an approach combining ICT and the Internet of Things with infrastructure, urban planning, and people to address social, economic, and environmental issues, there is a weak connection in both the study and approach of smart cities toward delivering SDGs. Sustainability is not commonly discussed within the concept of smart cities, and they are more inclined towards environmental, technical, and economic concerns, resulting in a social and cultural disparity in their approach [50,54]. The new concept of Information and Communication Technology for Development (ICT4D) emerged to address the limitations of smart cities in achieving SDGs and addressing social disparities by integrating social and human factors with technology. However, persistent issues arise as its approach tends to prioritize assessing technology’s contribution to SDGs over aligning development patterns with the digital shift [46]. Furthermore, in acknowledging social dimensions for inclusive development, ICT4D tends to emphasize “hard” attributes of social inclusion [50], functioning primarily as a techno-managerial framework for quantitatively monitoring and assessing socio-spatial attributes of cities [47]. Unfortunately, this approach falls short in analyzing the “soft” attributes of place attachment, such as less quantifiable and context-specific social needs. This one-dimensional approach overlooks the complexity of lived realities and struggles to accommodate local variations effectively [50]. Research has also identified a deficiency in addressing the detrimental effects of ICT on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) within the realm of ICT4D [46]. Hence, the ongoing discourse focuses on balancing environmental conservation and human development, aligning with the evolution of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), which have expanded to include the concept of ‘quality of life’ and emphasize the importance of considering human dimensions beyond purely economic measures [15] (Table 3). This recognition underscores the need to advance human development dimensions, with the emerging Information Society playing a pivotal role in achieving this goal [15,43].Various concepts have emerged to explore the instrumental role of ICT in facilitating Sustainable Development. This recurring thematic convergence underscores the significance of identifying a viable approach to address the identified limitations. This exploration aligns with research on the combined effects of the Information Society (IS) and Sustainable Development (SD), introducing the ‘Sustainable Information Society (SIS)’ concept. This concept emphasizes the human dimension in SD discussions, highlighting the importance of balancing technological progress with environmental and social concerns. It underscores the interconnectedness of democracy, Sustainable Development, human rights, and good governance [15,40,43]. The evolving SIS concept envisions using ICTs as a facilitator to promote Sustainable Development, enhance social inclusion, stimulate economic growth, and minimize negative environmental impacts [17,43]. Yet, it is crucial to adopt a new perspective that acknowledges ICT as both a catalyst and a pivotal force in achieving Sustainable Development, especially in an era where every aspect of life is infused with information. To conceptualize this novel notion, we will draw a parallel with Castells’ informational economy concept [4]. The “information economy” emphasizes information’s role in economic processes, while the “informational economy” goes further, highlighting a societal structure where generating, processing, and transmitting information are key drivers of productivity and influence. This conceptual framework signifies a shift towards an informational paradigm in the economy, wherein an entity’s productivity and competitiveness are inherently connected to its ability to generate, apply, and manipulate information [40]. “Informational Sustainability” expands on this notion, proposing that information fundamentally transforms the mechanisms, institutions, and practices associated with Sustainable Development, diverging from traditional approaches by emphasizing its transformative potential as a driving force, not just a facilitator. Informational Sustainability underscores the role of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) as a precursor in the digital shift, acting as a tool for resistance and reintroducing human and social dimensions to Sustainable Development, fostering “technological urban emancipation” [11]. In an era where communication is no longer just a means to address structural injustice but is recognized as a fundamental structure itself, ICT serves as a vital enabler, leveraging globalization for greater mobility, networked individualism, societal emancipation, and public participation to foster Sustainable Development, global economy, Information Society, world cities, democracy, the Right to the City, and contextualization [6]. As conventional participation methods fall short in representing diverse populations, fostering genuine participation, and providing ample information for decision improvement, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) emerges as a pivotal element in safeguarding and facilitating human rights, particularly the right to freedom of expression and information [9,12,49]. From the perspective of those in power, digital media is seen as a fertile ground for political involvement, community engagement, and social participation, aiming to maximize returns with minimal input, reduce adverse environmental or social impacts, and enhance contributions to natural capital conservation [22,50]. On the public side, utilizing networks offers extensive possibilities for information exchange, knowledge creation, feedback, debate, learning, and innovation [13]. Digital media, serving as a platform for social engineering, challenges established power control over the city by facilitating decentralized information [3,10], enabling grassroots citizenship claims over time and space, and educating citizens to question social and structural inequalities through reflection on institutional strategies [22,48]. Given that Sustainable Development strategies rely on critical factors such as awareness, trust, coordination, and mechanisms for dialogue, effective communication becomes crucial for active engagement between the public and decision-makers [3]. The role of ICT is paramount in fostering inclusivity, transparency, and accountability in this partnership [41,57,58]. As Sustainable Development engages with cross-sectoral entities, encompassing ecology, economy, and society, the shift towards an informational paradigm has similarly expanded to encompass various dimensions, with numerous actors participating at local, national, and global levels [40,43]. However, this evolution has led to a decline in cohesive movements and the emergence of rivalries rather than fostering cooperation [10]. An informational reform within sustainable approaches is thus centered on integrating these dynamics of global challenges through multi-level and multi-actor arrangements, aiming to construct sustainable communities that recognize the dependence of Sustainable Development on the actions of individuals from every sector [40,43]. In this study, Informational Sustainability is introduced as a cradle for developing socially and environmentally sustainable cities and communities, where social cohesion and environmental protection go hand in hand, aiming to enhance the representativeness of the SDG indicators in alignment with local needs and aspirations. It emphasizes the significance of information access, sharing, and communication in constructing sustainable communities while underscoring the adverse consequences of an information-deficient society on environmental exploitation and social equity. These transformative efforts also prompt a reconsideration of the concept of the ‘Right to the City,’ highlighting the need to reassess how individuals’ rights to actively participate in urban development and decision-making are shaped in the evolving landscape of information dynamics. 3.2. Connecting Threads: Bridging Gaps with the ‘Right to the City’ Lefebvre’s 1960s work gains renewed relevance in today’s networked world, offering valuable insights into the intricate interplay between urban spaces, societal aspirations, and the digital realms of the 21st century. His concept of “social space” offers a crucial tool for analyzing social actions in urban environments, unveiling an intermediate phase that reveals the interplay between spatial functions and forms shaping perceptions of social dynamics. Lefebvre’s production of space concept extends beyond physical presence, encompassing mediation in individuals’ interactions, attributions of meaning to urban spaces, and shaping of social reality [21]. This aligns with urban theorists like David Harvey, emphasizing the connection between personal change and the ability to influence transformation within one’s city [61]. These categories outline dimensions in Lefebvre’s production of space theory: 1. Perceived Space; In this dimension, space is conceptualized as an abstract entity, divorced from practical applications. It serves as a caution against oversimplifying space by reducing it solely to logic, overlooking its inherent values. This abstract space can be wielded as a tool for control and even the potential destruction of nature. Despite its political implications, it exhibits limited rationality. 2. Conceived Space; The discourse on space seeks to shape society’s perception by presenting designated spaces as reflections of ideologies. It actively manipulates these spaces, influencing people’s perceptions, aspirations, and needs to exert control and advance its own agenda. This manipulation involves reducing three-dimensional space to two dimensions, as seen in drawings, sections, and projections. Planners, in their role, act as agents who diminish the true reality of these spaces, turning both subjects and objects into passive entities reduced to mere images. As this process unfolds, space ultimately loses its social presence, becoming a medium defined by intense, forceful, and oppressive visualization. 3. Lived Space; Synonymous with representational space, lived space is actively experienced and claimed within socio-spatial realities. It embodies intricate symbolisms, occasionally coded and linked to underground facets of social life. Despite being dominated and passively experienced, lived spaces are also areas where the imagination seeks to change and appropriate. The notion of appropriation in this dimension demands more than mere reflection—it requires active engagement [21]. Lefebvre argued that the persistence of space abstraction through homogenization would continue until a new space emerged, emphasizing differences through direct individual experiences rather than calculations and projections [21]. In the Information Society, mediated spaces enable comprehensive analysis of social dynamics, surpassing historical limitations that favored scientific knowledge over lived experiences, simplifying complex social spaces by eliminating unquantifiable values [58,62,63,64,65]. Lefebvre emphasized the imperative of reintroducing these complexities to attain a comprehensive understanding, while concurrently highlighting interconnected dualistic illusions, notably the “realistic illusion” (quantitative) and the “illusion of transparency” (qualitative). Lefebvre’s advocacy for bridging various forms of space to prevent social division and his introduction of the “space of spaces” concept—encompassing broader societal and cultural dimensions that influence space perception and organization—posed a key theoretical challenge in understanding these spheres and their mediations [21]. Design acts as a mediator, connecting mental perception to social activity in physical space. However, the creators of space sometimes impose representational space on users, prioritizing the interests of influential actors who conflate what is lived and perceived with what is conceived [61]. Integrating lived space in social space formation requires recognizing and incorporating individuals’ subjective experiences and practices within the broader spatial organization. Lefebvre calls for a revolutionary socio-spatial tool, enabling individuals to actively shape their relationships with surroundings, not only interpreting space but also producing it by ‘supercoding’ underlying ideologies and influences that shape how space is produced and understood by a larger group [21]. He introduced the ‘Right to the City’ as the endeavor to express one’s identity within the city’s formation through claim-making, voicing, and the pursuit of recognition. It aims to attach personal values to spatial construction, creating functional and inclusive spaces to address discrimination and marginalization. The goal is to build just, safe, healthy, accessible, affordable, resilient, and sustainable cities that foster prosperity and quality of life for all inhabitants, guided by the fundamental principle of ensuring equal rights, opportunities, and provisions [10]. As urban life thrives on diversity, the creation of inclusive urban spaces requires a collective effort shaped by individual interventions. Emphasizing the importance of a fair distribution of power to empower individuals in decision-making implies a need for a paradigm shift challenging traditional control by national powers, as observed in the decentralizing power of the informational revolution [4,5,9,40]. To establish authority over a space, the acquisition of knowledge becomes crucial, serving as the foundation for individuals to articulate thoughts about everyday objects. Lefebvre’s concept of a ‘new space’ provides insights into how societies shape social and temporal dimensions, influencing representational spaces and spatial representations. This qualitative understanding of social space, envisioned by Lefebvre, holds transformative potential for daily life, language, and the creation of a unified spatial theory through technical systems resembling a ‘technological utopia.’ These systems, encompassing information, communication, messages, codes, and signs, elucidate spatial truth within an illusory space. Utilizing multidimensional methodologies, including geometric space, visual representations, and firsthand experiences, these systems bridge the gap between spoken and unspoken elements, contributing to the creation and appropriation of various space types within contemporary society [21]. Furthermore, leveraging digital media as a self-reflective tool holds significant implications for “technological urban emancipation” [11], improving the realization of the “Right to the City” by directly capturing diverse public ethos and enhancing the representativeness of urban spaces [4]. This transparent communication facilitates space interpretation, suggesting that it can lead to a comprehensive understanding and resolution of social issues, ultimately enhancing the representativeness of urban spaces [21]. Lefebvre’s vision of a virtual socio-spatial realm, once surreal, aligns with society gaining spatial control through the exchange of qualitative knowledge via information systems. This assumes that an encrypted reality can be deciphered, laying the foundation for a universal “language of the city” [66] as a ‘metalanguage’ or comprehensive spatial code embedded in all languages. In a technological society, easy and instantaneous access to knowledge, connectivity, and information facilitates the enhanced concreteness of social participation and the practice of rights, such as the “Right to the City” [9]. ICTs offer potential beyond mere technology, as their true power is realized through how individuals, communities, and institutions employ them for positive change [11]. The transformative impact of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) on social relationships and spatial dynamics embodies Lefebvre’s concept of the “space of spaces.” Lefebvre acknowledges that a society’s space is continually shaped by a triad of lived spatial practices, perceived experiences, and, most crucially, abstract representations of space found in various forms, such as maps, drawings, schematics, ideas, and information. Despite this recognition, he expresses reservations about information-based systems potentially serving as reliable and transparent tools for the ‘readability of the city.’ His skepticism arises from concerns about technology’s autonomy reinforcing domination and the importance of distinguishing between an envisioned “science of space” and the actual knowledge of space production through abstracting qualities within quantifiable social space. Lefebvre emphasizes the necessity for careful consideration and reflection to fully comprehend this new space [21]. The effective transformation brought about by ICTs must align with principles of equity and social justice. Here, the crucial link emerges—the pivotal recognition that the Right to Information precedes the Right to the City. This underscores the need for a meticulous understanding of the interplay between technology, information, and urban development to ensure the positive contribution of ICTs to sustainable and inclusive cities. 3.3. Novel Solutions: The ‘Right to Information’ Paradigm While Lefebvre focused on theoretical aspects of space dimensions [21], Castells offered a practical approach by analyzing the impacts of the Information Age on spatial relationships [4]. The modern embodiment of Lefebvre’s dualistic realities is evident in Castells’ concept of the “space of flows” and “space of places.” In Castells’ theory, the “space of flow” encompasses global interconnected networks of information, communication, and economic exchanges, enabling rapid information sharing and transcending traditional boundaries while still having its geographical presence. In contrast, the “space of places” refers to physical, localized environments where people experience their daily lives and interactions [4,12]. Recognizing that the conceived space forms the foundation for lived experiences highlights the interconnectedness of flows, space, and time, emphasizing that flows are enacted within a space. When contemplating space, it is essential to consider its occupants and how these flows interact with it within a defined timeframe [21]. Contemporary cities embody both these dimensions, as individuals physically move while remaining globally connected, carrying flows and engaging with places. This synthesis between places and flows finds its realization in public spaces, where the “new space” emerges as a social refuge, facilitating the exchange of ideas, ideologies, and cultural representations across various locations and cultures, all embedded within virtual spaces [16]. When compared with Lefebvre’s perspective, the “space of flows” can be equated to what Lefebvre referred to as the "mental space" or "appropriated space," characterized by subjective knowledge or “Connaissance,” representing the truth of space. On the other hand, the “space of places” aligns with what Lefebvre called “true space,” signifying the utilitarian “object” and the physically “dominated” reality of space, often reduced to a practical science “savoir” and utilized by passive consumers [21]. Both Castells and Lefebvre underscored the importance of bridging dualistic realities [4,21]. While Lefebvre’s time may not have allowed a full grasp of the stark contrast between mental, social, and physical spaces, he conceptually laid the groundwork for bridging these emerging spaces. Lefebvre identified the emergence of a new social space operating between the physical “space of places” and the mental “space of flows.” This space became a means for individuals to leave traces of their lived subjective experiences, collectively forming “rhythms” between the “lived” and “conceived” that invest in places without having a distinct place of their own, “an absolute space”. It can be seen as a modern manifesto for analyzing the space of flows to provide feedback on improving the conceived space through the process of “appropriating domination,” transitioning from discourse on space, described as “thought thought,” to “thinking thought,” which represents the operation of knowing the truth of lived space. Lefebvre termed this bridging process “Co-operation,” representing an intermediate practice between domination and appropriation. Lefebvre identified three crucial components for mediating rhythms: means, medium, and intermediary. However, he recognized that during his time, understanding the relationship between the rules governing physical space and rhythmic movements was challenging due to the absence of a suitable medium for analyzing social space. Means can be associated with the physical space forming the basis for spatial practices. To analyze how various mediators within social space generate rhythms and leave their marks on space, a medium is necessary. This medium acts as a channel through which interactions and exchanges are reflected [21]. In the context of ICT and social media, the “medium” could refer to technological platforms and networks facilitating communication between the “space of flows” and the “space of places” [5,12]. The essence lies within the experiential realm of the “intermediary,” serving as a conduit connecting diverse dimensions, thus facilitating interactions and exchanges [2,6,9,12,14,19,20,66]. In the contemporary era, technological tools reveal the previously concealed link in Lefebvre’s theory, shedding light on previously inaccessible dimensions of space production in the virtual parallel world of values (space of flows). This open and unrestricted platform enables time-sharing social practices, serving as the key to understanding nuanced facets of the “lived experience,” encompassing values, meanings, and perceptions, transcending mere abstractions and conceptual spaces [5,7,12]. As the digital landscape continues to evolve, embracing this conceptual triad offers a crucial perspective for examining the convergence of physical and digital spaces, providing insights into the intricate complexities of spatial practices and their profound societal implications in urban development. These spaces act as the foundational elements of culture, serving as organizers of sociability and systems of communication. Within them, we can discern a spectrum of relative order and/or disorder. They can either promote the healthy ‘production’ that fosters democracy through the practice of citizenship and natural stewardship or, as Lefebvre suggested, follow an “anti-nature” approach that leans towards more of a ‘consumption’ pattern, viewing citizens as mere consumers and nature as nothing more than raw materials to be rudely manipulated, where the ‘practice’ becomes a means for gradual destruction. Therefore, the crucial task of Sustainable Development is to ‘discipline sustainability,’ which involves considering both mediations and mediators in practice. This encompasses examining the actions of various groups, factors related to knowledge, common ideologies, social ties, and the layers of society presented through the “absolute space” provided by networks and pathways that facilitate the exchange of values and information. It is intriguing to consider how Lefebvre’s inquiry into the mode of existence of an absolute space relates to the concept of virtual reality and the tangibility of the imaginary layers that have influenced our perception of space. These layers serve as essential tools for bridging the gap between the conceived ‘bodily space’ and the lived experiences of ‘bodies-in-space.’ As Lefebvre stated, the emergence of such a space would be one that contains things but is not itself a tangible object; rather, it is a floating “medium” of “mental” contents that encapsulates the abstractions of social activities and lived experiences. Although imaginary, these contents have social existence, blurring the boundaries between the real and the imaginary, resulting in a ‘surreal’ yet somewhat concrete space [21]. Human beings, as social beings, actively shape their consciousness of the world, even nature itself is apprehended in social life. Thus, humans can be seen as the producers of all products. Lefebvre recognized the need to reflect upon the social space for the practice of appropriating space production, yet he was uncertain about the source capable of providing “a system of feedback between distorting mirrors” [4]. Castells, on the other hand, identified media as an expression of culture, serving as a reflective mirror of social space. This “mirror-consciousness” concept that Lefebvre sought [21] but couldn’t find in his time has become feasible with the rise of ICT and the era of social representation. Lefebvre explores the intricate relationship between perception and reality using the metaphor of mirrors, emphasizing the complex interplay between subjective experiences and the external world, and highlighting the influential role of consciousness and interpretation in shaping our reality. He distinguishes between a ‘real’ mirror, often found in our external world, and an ‘imaginary’ mirror within the living body. When the mirror is ‘real,’ the space it reflects is considered ‘imaginary,’ suggesting that what we see in it is a mental construct, shaped by the ‘Ego’ or the self. Conversely, in the ‘imaginary’ mirror within a living body, the reflections aren’t of external objects but rather internal experiences, thoughts, and perceptions. Precisely as noted by Castells, “all reality is virtually perceived through symbols that frame practices,” establishing unequivocal meanings that extend beyond the confines of semantic definitions [4]. The profound insight here is that the impact of this ‘imaginary’ reflection is genuine, affecting our self-perception and understanding of the world. In this context, when we consider the imaginary mirror as the space of flows and the reflection as the space of places, and we introduce personal imaginaries into this mirror from the perspective of the ego, what emerges is a reflection grounded in one’s self-perception. To illustrate, if our physical environments within the space of places are unsustainable, they subtly guide individuals towards adopting unsustainable lifestyles. This influence is tied to their subjective perception of the reality they inhabit, shaping their choices and behaviors accordingly. This highlights the significance of reevaluating and possibly transforming these perceptions to encourage more sustainable practices, particularly in the dynamic landscape of our digital and physical spaces. As Lefebvre himself identified, reflecting upon the virtual aspects not only guides our understanding of the real (or actual) but also simultaneously illuminates the antecedents and necessary preconditions of that reality [21]. The production of space is dynamic, reflecting ever-evolving elements over time, mirroring social space’s constant flux through flows, space, and time. This necessitates a tool to capture these dynamics, underlining the importance of reshaping perceptions for sustainability, especially in our digital and physical realms. Virtual reality is therefore a concrete visualization of the ‘zeitgeist’ of dominant culture crystallized in time and can be employed to generate, produce, and guide the appropriation of living approaches favoring sustainability. Both Lefebvre and Castells highlight significant issues that are highly relevant in the current era, particularly in the context of social and environmental challenges, and they agree on the importance of addressing the tension between global forces and local agency in shaping the complex dimensions of our society, aiming to undo the traditional domination of nature which invested in anti-nature approaches and behavior by aiding an information-driven civilization, where symbolic representations of the environment link the global space of flows with local spaces of place [4,16,21,40]. Castells suggests that the interplay between the space of flows and the space of places triggers significant shifts in the production of function, form, and meaning in contemporary cities, involving the struggle between global-local influences, addressing the individual and communal dynamics in city planning, and appropriating a shared identity for addressing the problematic of social implications between the personality and cultural interrelations [4]. Lefebvre emphasized that inflexible functionalization obstructs appropriation, exposing the persistent tension between global and local influences [21], as evident in the contemporary dysfunction of many sustainable approaches prioritizing a global strategy over local needs [47,48]. While significant transformations have occurred since Lefebvre’s time, such as the shift from fixed to floating capital and from traditional material-based production to Informationalization, the transition from viewing nature as infinite to recognizing its finite nature, and the prevalence of domination over appropriation with nature often regarded as a commodity rather than a necessity, along with the ongoing consumption of social space as a material commodity, the area of space production through appropriation remains relatively unexplored [4,21,40]. Lefebvre believed that the worldwide will not abolish the local, nor does it aim to do so, as Castells puts it into words, “we are not living in a global village, but in customized cottages globally produced and locally distributed” [4]. This perspective makes Lefebvre’s vision for the “collective management of space and the social management of nature” [21] possible through the decentralization of power, democratization of knowledge, and the embrace of a more inclusive and sustainable approach to spatial organization and the harmonization of human and natural systems. It recognizes that the mobilization of large-scale movements, such as Sustainable Development (SD) and public emancipation, necessitates active social participation achieved by integrating societal imaginary layers into the envisioned space for projecting the idealized image (SDGs) (Figure 2).Lefebvre acknowledged the intricate relationship among technology, social dynamics, and the environment and how they influence the creation, perception, and utilization of space [21]. While cities are currently being shaped to accommodate the requirements of the “space of flows,” [16] it’s becoming increasingly evident that the trajectory of social and environmental reform, particularly in the context of information and environmental justice, should take a different course [67]. This shift in perspective calls for a transformation in urban development theory [16]. Instead of solely concentrating on adapting physical urban spaces to align with the “space of flows,” the emphasis should pivot toward the translation of the dynamics inherent in the “space of flows” into the creation of meaningful “spaces of places.” This shift aims to foster a more equitable and just concept of the “Right to the City” while building sustainable communities. While the Information Society serves as a cradle for advancing environmental justice and constructing socially and environmentally sustainable communities [16], grassroots efforts in promoting Informational Sustainability add their own challenges to the practice of the Right to the City by introducing an extra dimension to be considered: the Right to Information [66]. The intersection where information complements the Right to the City is a more contextual matter of analysis of complex aspects of political struggles [6]. In the emerging urban world, it appears to be dominated by the dual movement of inclusion and exclusion into networks, where urban justice and injustice are now intertwined with the concept of the Right to Information and will increasingly rely on it in the near future [16]. The adoption of ICT in urban development follows a distinct lifecycle, progressing from initial adoption to widespread diffusion and eventual maturity [6]. However, it is crucial to recognize that a society’s e-readiness alone cannot ensure the successful establishment of Informational Sustainability. Equally significant are aspects like ecological knowledge governance, civic society relationships concerning sustainability policymaking, and citizen empowerment. Three key prerequisites underpin the development of Informational Sustainability: motivation, access, and skills [15]. Access for the public entails availability of technical access points, access to information and communication devices, and technological literacy to facilitate information sharing and participation in sustainable initiatives [6,13,19,41,67]. Governments must also acquire the skills necessary to establish policies and professional capacities, ensuring open access, equal Right to Information, addressing the digital divide, and fostering transparency, accountability, and participatory democracy [3,19,58]. These elements are essential for building public trust and motivation to engage in information exchange for Sustainable Development. However, the motivation of the public may wane if they feel unequal in agency, fearing their voices will be lost through the digital divide or mediation, leading to selective representation and concerns about data usage, privacy, and security [57,58]. Governments may also exhibit hesitation regarding the authenticity of shared information and its sources [67]. Non-transparent, unaccountable, and restricted governance can be detrimental to development [57]. Conversely, transparent, accountable, and inclusive governance is advantageous, as ICT can facilitate information dissemination, broaden participation in political processes, and enhance transparency in governance [20,40]. However, when ICT integration for Sustainable Development occurs in societies unfamiliar with its use and governments unsure of its applicability, structural uncertainties must be addressed. This underscores the idea that the integration of ICT for Sustainable Development is context-specific and varies across different countries.