AI adoption by local governments outpaces public trust, survey finds – London implications

A survey published this week by Smart Cities Dive finds that local governments in the United States are adopting artificial intelligence tools faster than residents trust them. While the data comes from US municipalities, the pattern resonates in London, where the Greater London Authority and boroughs are increasingly deploying AI for planning applications, traffic management, housing allocation and public service chatbots.

The survey, conducted by the Centre for Public Impact and the Boston Consulting Group, drew responses from more than 1,000 residents and 50 local government officials in the US. It found that 72 percent of officials reported using or piloting AI tools, but only 48 percent of residents felt their local government was transparent about how AI was used. The gap was widest in areas of digital infrastructure quality and data sharing.

Por que importa

Key facts

Source: Centre for Public Impact / Boston Consulting Group survey, reported by Smart Cities Dive.

Survey findings: a trust deficit in digital services
The survey reveals a consistent pattern: officials rate their own digital capabilities and transparency higher than residents do. On transparency, only 48 percent of residents agreed that their local government clearly explains how it uses AI, compared with 68 percent of officials. Trust in responsible AI use followed a similar pattern – 71 percent of officials expressed confidence, against 54 percent of residents.

Contexto

The quality of digital infrastructure – the underlying broadband, data platforms and user interfaces that support AI tools – was also a point of divergence. While 62 percent of officials described their infrastructure as good or excellent, only 44 percent of residents agreed. The gap suggests that even when AI systems are technically sound, residents may not experience them as reliable or inclusive.

Transparency and digital inclusion gap
The survey’s authors highlight that without clear communication, AI adoption risks deepening the divide between government and the public. Residents who do not understand how AI is used may be less likely to engage with digital services, particularly those affecting housing, benefits or planning decisions.

The findings align with earlier research on the “digital trust gap” in public services. In the UK, the Office for Statistics Regulation has warned that public confidence in data-driven decision-making is fragile, especially when algorithms are used without clear explanation or redress mechanisms.

London’s digital governance: progress and pressure points
London’s local government landscape is more fragmented than the US model, but the same trust dynamics apply. The GLA coordinates the Smart London movement, which includes the Smart London Board and the London Office of Technology and Innovation (LOTI). Boroughs such as Camden, Hackney, Newham and Barnet have piloted AI tools for planning document processing, housing application triage, and traffic signal optimisation.

Transport for London uses machine learning for predictive maintenance of the Tube and bus network, and for real-time crowding data. The GLA has also published a Digital Inclusion Strategy and a Data for London programme, but transparency about specific AI tools remains uneven. A 2024 review by LOTI found that fewer than half of boroughs had published an AI ethics or transparency statement.

The survey’s finding that residents perceive digital infrastructure as weaker than officials do has a direct London parallel. The capital’s digital divide is well documented: the 2023 London Assembly report “Digital Exclusion in London” found that 11 percent of households had no home internet access, and that older residents, renters and low-income households were disproportionately affected. If AI tools are introduced without bridging this infrastructure gap, they risk excluding the residents who most need public services.

What this means for London’s boroughs and the GLA
The survey does not provide direct data on London, but its conclusions offer a useful benchmark. For London policymakers, the key takeaway is that adoption alone is insufficient. The GLA and boroughs need to invest in both the digital infrastructure and the public communications that make AI use visible and accountable.

Transparency measures could include mandatory AI registers, plain-language explanations of how algorithms affect decisions, and accessible complaints mechanisms. The London Assembly’s Economy Committee has previously called for the GLA to publish a “London AI Playbook” that sets standards for ethical use across all boroughs. So far, no such document has been produced.

The survey also highlights the importance of co-design. Residents who participated in the design of digital services were more likely to trust them. In London, LOTI’s “Citizen Participation in Digital Services” pilot in Camden and Hackney offers a model, but it remains small-scale.

Next checks for London readers
– Check whether your borough has published an AI transparency statement. LOTI maintains a list of borough digital strategies.
– The GLA’s next Digital Governance Board meeting is scheduled for September 2026; papers are published on the London Datastore.
– The Smart London Board’s annual report, due in autumn 2026, may include updates on AI ethics standards.
– For residents concerned about AI use in housing or planning, the London Boroughs’ Legal Alliance has published a guide on data rights in local government.

The survey’s core finding – that trust lags behind adoption – is not unique to the US. In London, where AI is already reshaping how planning applications are processed, how Tube services are scheduled, and how housing need is assessed, the gap between official confidence and public understanding deserves urgent attention.

Source: Smart Cities Dive, “AI adoption by local governments outpaces public trust: survey” (29 July 2026). https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/ai-adoption-by-local-governments-outpaces-public-trust-survey/826483/