Government in the metaverse: Requirements and suitability for providing digital public services

Abstract

Digital government comprises all means to enable governments to interact with their constituents digitally. The metaverse provides a virtual reality environment where various activities can be carried out without physically visiting the places of interest, including the public authorities. Yet, how governments can use the metaverse is unknown. This paper aims to extend the understanding of the metaverse architecture requirements and their suitability for digital public services provision. We used the systematic literature review, experts' assessment using the Delphi method, and quantitative analysis to attain this goal. Our research contributes to the literature by eliciting the structure and composition of the functional and non-functional requirements. The contributions include (1) identification and classification of 50 functional and 16 non-functional metaverse-related architecture requirements, (2) determination and relevancy of 15 most important functional and 6 non-functional requirements for digital public services provision, and (3) suitability assessment of the 21 services recommended for provision in the EU's metaverse platform with the highest potential to attract users. These findings show that governments pose unique requirements on the metaverse. Not all types of services are suitable for providing in the metaverse. Those focused on empowering citizens and helping them to develop are most important.

Full text

Citation
Lnenicka, M., Rizun, N., Alexopoulos, C., & Janssen, M. (2024). Government in the metaverse:
Requirements and suitability for providing digital public services. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 203, 123346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123346
Government in the metaverse: Requirements and suitability for
providing digital public services
Martin Lnenicka, Nina Rizun, Charalampos Alexopoulos, and Marijn Janssen
Abstract: Digital government comprises all means to enable governments to interact with their
constituents digitally. The metaverse provides a virtual reality environment where various
activities can be carried out without physically visiting the places of interest, including the public
authorities. Yet, how governments can use the metaverse is unknown. This paper aims to extend
the understanding of the metaverse architecture requirements and their suitability for digital
public services provision. We used the systematic literature review, experts' assessment using the
Delphi method, and quantitative analysis to attain this goal. Our research contributes to the
literature by eliciting the structure and composition of the functional and non-functional
requirements. The contributions include (1) identification and classification of 50 functional and
16 non-functional metaverse-related architecture requirements, (2) determination and relevancy
of 15 most important functional and 6 non-functional requirements for digital public services
provision, and (3) suitability assessment of the 21 services recommended for provision in the EU's
metaverse platform with the highest potential to attract users. These findings show that
governments pose unique requirements on the metaverse. Not all types of services are suitable for
providing in the metaverse. Those focused on empowering citizens and helping them to develop
are most important.
Keywords: metaverse; requirements; architecture; digital public services; digital government;
expert assessment
1 Introduction
The applications of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) and other digital
concepts have transformed the delivery of public services (Anthopoulos et al., 2007; Bertot et al.,
2016; Lynn et al., 2022). Because citizens continually demand greater openness, efficiency, and
responsiveness from public organizations (Lynn et al., 2022; Twizeyimana and Andersson, 2019),
governments are expected by their citizens to look for new opportunities and ideas that will result
in new innovations in the provision of better, faster, sustainable, and more efficient digital public
services (Bertot et al., 2016; Choi et al., 2022; Osborne et al., 2015). The current strategies and
plans for initiatives are driven by new technologies such as Artificial Intelligence (AI), Internet of
Things (IoT), blockchain, smart cities, 5G, Virtual Reality (VR), Augmented Reality (AR),
robotics, and 3D printing (United Nations, 2022). The concept of e-government serves as an
umbrella term for these strategies in the public sector (Anthopoulos et al., 2007; Twizeyimana and
Andersson, 2019). This concept covers digital processes and resources in the public sector that use

ICT to improve the adoption of these technologies in internal operations as well as the delivery of
digital public services to citizens and businesses. E-government strategies address how digital
innovations are applied to transform digital government (Janowski, 2015).
The latest E-Government Survey 2022 by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social
Affairs reports that countries are increasingly shifting public services to VR platforms (United
Nations, 2022). However, it is always a challenge to satisfy the needs and expectations of both the
governments and citizens towards improving their relationships and finding sufficient resources
(Twizeyimana and Andersson, 2019). The use of ICT in e-government and their successful
implementation and integration in relevant platforms are affected by numerous factors such as
costs, the willingness of governments, expectations of citizens, skills and knowledge of users, ICT
penetration, Internet users, broadband availability and speed etc. (Lemke et al., 2020; Lynn et al.,
2022; Twizeyimana and Andersson, 2019). All these prerequisites have reached such levels in
some countries (United Nations, 2022) that it is possible to consider a large-scale use of new
approaches such as metaverse. The government often poses unique requirements on the use of
technologies, like the ability to enable access for all (inclusion), transparency, and accountability.
The metaverse seems to be a promising digital concept that can enhance the interactions between
citizens and public organizations (Ning et al., 2021; Park and Kim, 2022; Wang et al., 2023; Xu et
al., 2023). By 2026, 25% of individuals, according to technology research and consulting firm
Gartner, will spend at least an hour each day in the metaverse (Rimol, 2022). The metaverse can
be viewed as a network of 3D, interconnected virtual worlds focused on socializing, learning,
exploring the content etc. (Park and Kim, 2022). The emergence of metaverse into broader public
use is enabled by improvements in infrastructure networks, hardware capacity and performance,
computational efficiency, content availability, and the priority focus of scientific and governmental
institutions (Dionisio et al., 2013; Park and Kim, 2022; Xu et al., 2023). Investments in the
metaverse are influencing future public services and the use of ICT because of how important
social media are for Internet users, particularly for Generation Z (Narin, 2021; Park and Kim,
2022). Several governments have announced their interest in extending their e-government and
smart cities concepts by the metaverse services such as Korean Metaverse, Metaverse Seoul, or
Barbados Metaverse Embassy (Choi et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2021; Xu et al., 2023).
According to Jung and Jeon (2022), the research on the metaverse has evolved through the years
from the conceptual approach to the ecosystem approach that requires considering different
requirements, components, and their relationships. Bertot et al. (2016) highlight the need for novel
government skills to offer innovative digital public services. In the context of metaverse services,
these issues were explored by Dionisio et al. (2013) as an architectural direction for a scalable
metaverse. Duan et al. (2021) then emphasized that the metaverse's requirements on the
architecture should cross from the physical world to the virtual world. According to Giang Barrera
and Shah (2023) and Hollensen et al. (2023), the metaverse architecture emerges from the
convergence of multiple technological building blocks. Components affecting the practical
application of the metaverse were identified by Jung and Jeon (2022). Wang et al. (2021) focused

on the requirements resulting from the challenges and standardization of the metaverse and
developed a system architecture and framework. However, often the unique characteristics of
government are not considered. While work on the concepts of representing e-government in the
metaverse is slowly becoming a distinct academic field, there has been little focus in the research
literature on developing a proper classification of metaverse-related requirements and examining
its applicability to digital government service delivery.
To address this gap, the overall study's objective is to provide a deeper understanding of metaverse-
related architecture requirements and which types of digital public services can be provided in the
metaverse. A digital public service typically pertains to public services delivered via a digital
platform (Madsen and Kræmmergaard, 2015), utilizing internet technologies (Jansen and Ølnes,
2016; Lindgren and Jansson, 2013). We will focus on both functional and non-functional
requirements. A functional requirement can be defined as a system component carrying out a part
of the system task (International Organization for Standardization, 2022). A non-functional
requirement defines how the system should behave and operate in conjunction with users
(International Organization for Standardization, 2022). An architecture describes the conceptual
level of a system in relationship to other systems The metaverse platform in our study is viewed
as an environment for digital public service provision. We adopted a three-fold approach toward
investigating the metaverse-related architecture requirements and their suitability for the provision
of digital public services, including the Systematic Literature Review (SLR), expert assessment
using the Delphi method, and quantitative analysis methods. We chose the European Union's (EU)
e-government system as an environment in which we evaluate the provisioning of digital public
service in the metaverse.
The findings extend the theoretical grounding of the metaverse in the context of its relevance for
digital public services provisioning in the EU's environment. We also contribute to the current
theoretical body of literature in the field of information systems, information technology, and
requirements, summarizing, structuring, and conceptualizing current research in the area of the
government in the metaverse. This study reflects the composition and classification of the
functional and non-functional requirements that must be met and considered when providing
services to the metaverse in the e-government system. The practical contributions for key
stakeholders, i.e., governments and policymakers, are the most important functional and non-
functional requirements in the metaverse architecture for the defined environment and digital
public services with the highest potential to attract users were recommended to be provisioned in
the EU's metaverse platform. Our findings are important for a better understanding of requirements
that should be met and which should be considered by public officials while providing the
metaverse services. The developed classification provides valuable guidance on how to categorize
and organize requirements. The insights that emerged from experts' assessment represent the
recommendation for developing metaverse architecture and provisioning of digital public services
in the metaverse by governments.

The structure of this paper is as follows. Section 2 provides a research background on basic terms
and research of the metaverse in the public sector. The research methodology adopted in this study
is presented in Section 3. The results and findings are presented in Section 4 and discussed in
Section 5 together with implications. We provide concluding remarks in Section 6.
2 Research background
2.1 Metaverse: Basis terms and previous research
The metaverse is often characterized as an embodiment of the Internet and is expected to contribute
towards developing novel ecosystems of service provisions (Lee et al., 2021; Xu et al., 2023).
Fundamentally, it involves a computational interpretation of human users' cognition, emotion, and
motivation, simplifying daily life's experience into logical and procedural rules (Bibri and Allam,
2022a; Bibri and Allam, 2022b). Metaverse is based on interactions of users with virtual
environments in which they can engage in different activities (Ilyina et al., 2022) with the help of
VR and AR services (Damar, 2021); provides novel models of engagement, participation, and
creation through the communities established and the virtual goods offered (Giang Barrera and
Shah, 2023); and offers users a unique experience of presence and immersion in a space that may
be challenging to access (Choi et al., 2022). Scientific and practical interest in the metaverse first
appeared in 2008 and peaked in 2010 due to the conceptualization of the connection between the
metaverse and the first decentralized blockchain (Abbate et al., 2022; Damar, 2021). In 2020-2021,
the metaverse again became a hot trend and attracted huge attention and discussion in academia
and industry (Wang et al., 2023). Among the main areas of research in the field of the metaverse
are (i) the identification of the components of the metaverse; (ii) the description of practical
application opportunities; and (iii) the identification of real and potential challenges and
limitations.
Identification of the components of the metaverse. The metaverse research framework and its
components are presented from the perspective of state-of-the-art technologies and the metaverse
ecosystem and the stages of its development are defined in the works (Jung and Jeon, 2022; Lee
et al. 2021). Representative applications in infrastructure, interaction, and ecosystem were
presented by Duan et al. (2021), along with a three-layer metaverse architecture that includes a
concise timeline for the development of the metaverse. Further, Zarantonello and Schmitt (2023)
introduced a framework that conceptualizes and explores how the technologies of the metaverse
shape and influence the consumer and service experience at different stages of the consumer
journey. Zhao et al. (2022) put forth a framework outlining how graphics, interaction, and
visualization methods support the creation of the metaverse's visuals and user-centric exploration.
Three categories of visual components that constitute the metaverse were presented along with
two graphical approaches for constructing a pipeline; a taxonomy of interaction technologies
founded on user actions, interaction tasks, feedback, and multiple sensory channels; and a
taxonomy of visualization techniques that facilitate user awareness.

Extending the metaverse concept, Huynh-The et al. (2023) explore current AI-based approaches
in AI-powered approaches in six technical aspects, which show great potential for the metaverse
platform, including natural language processing, machine vision, blockchain, networking, digital
twin, and neural interface. In the context of AI applications, Wang et al. (2023) and Fernandez and
Hui (2022) provided a comprehensive overview of the foundations, security and privacy, ethics,
and governance of the metaverse, specifically exploring the new distributed metaverse architecture
and its key characteristics when interacting with the trinity of the world. Di Pietro and Cresci
(2021) work examined the fundamental aspects of the metaverse, followed by an exploration of
the new privacy and security challenges that have emerged because of this innovative paradigm.
Additionally, they expanded the scope of their study by elucidating the far-reaching but logical
implications of the metaverse on various domains.
Practical application opportunities. As noted by Dwivedi et al. (2022), the metaverse can augment
the real world with tasks that are difficult to accomplish in reality, for example due to their cost
(such as creating virtual offices, face-to-face classes, simulations); or because of the complexity
of their technical implementation (for example, to simulate various complex technical processes
in the aircraft industry, or investigation of remote areas). Many politicians and institutions are
beginning to understand the importance of the metaverse and other virtual spaces in the lives of
their constituents and do not want to miss this new opportunity to expand their electoral results
(Ricoy-Casas, 2023). has the potential to offer novel possibilities for healthcare by tackling the
issues of hospital overcrowding and critical staff shortages. The metaverse environment has the
potential to alleviate psychological issues such as depression, anxiety, and cognitive impairments,
as well as conditions like dementia, schizophrenia, and autism (Sun et al., 2022; Usmani et al.,
2022); and can foster positive social interactions between users and facilitate the development of
social skills through co-learning (Oh et al., 2023). It becomes possible to build a sufficient
technical infrastructure that will support the management of energy resources and equipment
products (Narin, 2021; Ning et al., 2021). In this context, it may be necessary to implement policy
measures at the government level to train and guide traditional manufacturing companies to adopt
new technological advancements for their survival and continuity (Dwivedi et al., 2022).
Simulating social phenomena, ethical dilemmas, and political matters without bias or social
discrimination is another potential benefit of utilizing the metaverse (Dwivedi et al., 2022; Hilken
et al., 2022).
Challenges and limitations. Several real and potential challenges and limitations come from the
first results of the application of the metaverse in the public sector. Digital exclusion of certain
parts of society that lack the technology or skill set to participate, including the elderly, disabled
and low-income groups (Schmitt, 2022; Tatavarti, 2022; Zallio and Clarkson, 2022). Over-reliance
on the metaverse and creating a parallel reality instead of solidity, inclusion, and cooperation can
lead to division and discontent in the population (Schmitt, 2022). It became obvious that “in the
absence of any government services designed to engage all households, the technology access gap
will continue to widen and widen the social disparity of the metaverse's engagement” (Anderson
and Rainie, 2022).

Personal security, safety, and privacy challenges (Falchuk et al., 2018) that can be broadly
categorized as risks to (i) informational privacy (refers to the protection against access by third
parties to all types of information about a person such as his/her thoughts, statements,
correspondence, financial, medical and educational records); (ii) risks to physical privacy (refers
to a sort of refuge from third party sensory access to the body and actions of the individual); and
(iii) risks to associational privacy (refers to individual control over the exclusion and inclusion of
third parties in certain specific events) (Nalbant and Aydin, 2023; O’Brolcháin et al., 2016; Sun et
al., 2022). Although South Korea is the only government that issued the ethical guidelines for the
metaverse (Park, 2022), it did not have jurisdiction to make rules for the metaverse (Bojic, 2022).
Autonomy challenges can be described by three components: (i) Filter bubbles or
cyberbalkanization can pose a threat to the knowledge condition of autonomy by regulating
individuals' understanding and interpretation of the world, and manipulating their viewpoints
through the presentation of information based on algorithmic analyses of their interests; (ii)
challenges to freedom comes from arising the potential addiction (losing touch with external
reality, developing bad social or behavioral habits, mental health issues) and from governments
using information gathered from these technologies to restrict freedom; (iii) challenges of
authenticity or being one's own person may come from increased pressure from the inner circle or
the government, leading people away from real life (Dwivedi et al., 2022; O’Brolcháin et al., 2016;
Rosenberg, 2022).
Unfairness is a critical challenge regarding the guidelines and principles that will be applied in the
metaverse for behavioral profiling and social sorting of users in the virtual world. This is primarily
due to the fundamental vision of the metaverse based on algorithmic methods and strategies of
engagement in a constantly observed urban society. In this regard, the metaverse should consider
algorithmic fairness as a core value of its projects and support procedural fairness to perform
governance roles (Lee et al., 2021; Woodruff et al., 2018). Abusive and objectionable behavior,
including user harassment, sexualization of avatar interactions, data use, and unregulated gambling
(Dwivedi et al., 2022; Jamison and Glavish, 2022) can also be a challenge for the metaverse.
Challenges related to laws, regulations, and protections of intellectual property of metaverse's
users (Mourtzis et al., 2022). The financial obstacle is rooted in the complications that arise from
utilizing cryptocurrencies within the metaverse, which already has an unregulated payment system.
A potential solution to this issue is implementing a central bank digital currency (Mourtzis et al.,
2022). The establishment of a standard for the metaverse that involves creating guidelines that
cover all processes, protocols, hardware, and software, with a focus on incorporating
interoperability as a critical element in the design and execution of the metaverse, should be
considered (Mourtzis et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2021).
2.2 Research of a metaverse in the public sector
Governments use virtual-world environments to connect with citizens through novel means, foster
internal collaboration, facilitate training and simulations, attract personnel, and promote economic

growth (Eom, 2022; Wyld, 2008). Most of the applications in the public sector setting are focused
on tourism destinations, telemedicine, social service centers, city halls, virtual embassies and
consulates etc. (Wiederhold and Riva, 2022; Xu et al., 2023). The metaverse perspective for
governments also applies to address pressing urban issues such as urban planning (such as
modelling development proposals), the use of accessible urban spaces (such as participation in
social and musical events), creating new job opportunities, and education. In addition, the
implementation of metaverse blockchain has the potential to enhance the effectiveness and
transparency of public notary services, document certification and authentication, as well as public
administration registry management (Scutella et al., 2022). Thus, Dubai and Switzerland have used
blockchain to create digital passports compatible with smart doors and scanners (D'Cunha, 2017).
It is also expected that in the future, city authorities will be able to manage without the need for a
physical presence, such activities as face registration and identity verification on virtual platforms,
and the metaverse will make the whole process authentic (Allam et al., 2022).
The metaverse can present local governments with possibilities (i) to improve interactions with
citizens by offering prompt, efficient, and real-time services, as well as improved management of
assets like urban spaces, (ii) for new revenue streams (implementing complex and capital-intensive
projects), and (iii) to restructure existing urban planning models (to cover human and social
aspects) (Allam et al., 2022). The widespread introduction of new networked digital technologies,
numerous applications for smartphones and social networks, the sharing economy, and data-driven
e-government platforms underlie the desire to develop and update the metaverse through
platformization. This entails the integration of digital platforms' infrastructures, economic
processes, and government structures into different areas of the economy and aspects of life and
involves the restructuring of cultural practices and concepts related to these platforms (Bibri and
Allam, 2022b; Poell et al., 2019). The Korean government has established its own e-government
framework and operating environment (Choi et al., 2022). Seoul, South Korea, proposes adopting
the metaverse concept for using some public services and cultural products in the digital
environment (Squires, 2021). With the help of VR headsets or AR glasses, Seoul residents can file
civil complaints, and virtually tour some of the city's assets, such as virtual social halls, museums,
and parks (Allam et al., 2022; Gaubert, 2021). For Korean government agencies to utilize the
metaverse, it is crucial that it is set up and maintained within a specialized cloud environment,
utilizing the e-government framework (Choi et al., 2022; Um et al., 2022).
The value of the metaverse in tourism for the government lies in the fact that it offers opportunities
to improve the efficiency of public services and reduce costs in terms of smart tourism and
economic society (Chen et al., 2023; Um et al., 2022; Wei, 2022). In Switzerland, to address the
fragmentation of the tourism sector, the creation of a national public blockchain platform is
recommended based on the results of interviews with professionals (Fragnière et al., 2022).
Implementing a public transportation system into the metaverse is becoming increasingly possible
(Deveci et al., 2023). By incorporating the metaverse into everyday activities such as public
transportation, it becomes possible to gather data about the starting and ending points of journeys
using virtual representations of people known as avatars. By including transportation options

within the metaverse, advantages such as reducing traffic demand and minimizing negative effects
on road networks, improving public transportation safety and operation, and enhancing traffic flow
can be achieved (Pamucar et al., 2022). Huynh-The et al. (2023) noted that creating a metaverse
ecosystem that includes administrative services like environment, education, transportation,
culture, and other civil services is a crucial and difficult undertaking for the metropolitan
government. The utilization of AI technologies to analyze big data from various authenticated
sources within the boundaries of agreed rules of use, ethics, and security can enhance and deliver
numerous government services in the metaverse, ensuring a secure environment (Zhang et al.,
2023). However, the metaverse development also may be constrained by significant economic and
political barriers, i.e., government-controlled worlds (Dionisio et al., 2013). Establishing
regulatory foundations, governance models, and processes that mitigate all mentioned in the
previous subsection's metaverse challenges and limitations is not an easy task (Rosenberg, 2023).
3 Research methodology
This section consists of the following: Section 3.1 presents Research Questions (RQs) and provides
the research framework. Section 3.2 describes the strategy of the SLR. Section 3.3 introduces the
process of the assessment of the metaverse-related architecture requirements and digital public
services.
3.1 Research design
Our research study seeks to provide a deeper understanding of metaverse-related architecture
functional and non-functional requirements and which types of digital public services can be
provided in the metaverse. To this end, we formulated three RQs to guide this study:
RQ1: What metaverse architecture functional and non-functional requirements can be found in
the literature? And how can they be classified?
RQ2: What are the most important functional and non-functional requirements for a metaverse
architecture in terms of relevance for digital public services provisioning in the EU's environment?
RQ3: What digital public services have the most potential to attract users and thus should be
provisioned in the EU's metaverse platform among the first ones?
This study considers the metaverse as the e-government sub-system including its components and
relationships that influence the provision of digital public services. The e-government system can
be defined on the city, regional, national, supranational, or international level. The components
comprising the e-government system and their relationships were derived from Lnenicka et al.
(2022) and adapted for the objective of this study. We distinguish between functional
requirements, which are components of the system that perform specific tasks, and non-functional
requirements, which dictate how the system should interact with users. Our research focuses on
the metaverse platform within the EU's e-government system, emphasizing its role in delivering
digital public services. The research framework presented in Figure 1 aims to enhance our

comprehension of the metaverse and its constituent elements within the context of relationships in
the e-government system.
Figure 1. The research framework (source: own elaboration)
Method-wise, a three-fold triangulation approach was used in this study. First, the SLR included
studies collection and selection, content analysis, and systematic synthesis to identify relevant
requirements, classify them to develop the metaverse architecture and assess their relevant
contribution to providing digital public services in the e-government system (RQ1). Second, to
assess the metaverse-related architecture requirements and digital public services, the experts'
assessment using the Delphi method was applied (RQ2 and RQ3). As the method of inquiry, we
chose an online expert questionnaire to collect data directly from ten experts, involved in several
research and consulting projects on information systems, software engineering, and data

management in digital transformation and e-government. Third, we used quantitative analysis to
process and summarize the results received by both the SLR and experts' assessment approaches.
3.2 Systematic literature review
Figure 2 gives an overview of the research stages. In the 1. Stage of our methodology, we followed
the SLR approach proposed by Webster and Watson (2002) and Brous et al. (2020) to
methodologically analyze and synthesize relevant literature and to answer RQ1. The goal of the
SLR is the analysis of the concept and applications of the metaverse to identify relevant
requirements and classify them to develop the metaverse architecture. In the process of the SLR,
three main steps were conducted.
Figure 2. Overview of steps of the research methodology (source: own elaboration)
In Stage 1.1, the systematic literature search and collection were performed to build the final
dataset for further analysis. For this, three sets of complex search queries of criteria were used to
build the database of extant literature. The first set of keywords characterizes selected terms and
definitions of digital public services in the metaverse context, such as metaverse AND e-
government / electronic government / e-governance / electronic governance / public sector / public
administration / public services / digital public services / online services. The second set of
keywords characterizes the implications of the metaverse for the public sector, namely: metaverse

AND positive sentiment keywords = benefit(s) OR advantage(s) OR contribution(s) OR
opportunitie(s), metaverse AND negative sentiment keywords = issue(s) OR risk(s) OR barrier(s)
OR problem(s) OR obstacle(s) OR challenge(s). Finally, to determine concrete requirements and
to be able to set them up for the digital public services and e-government context, we used the
following query: metaverse AND architecture OR framework OR requirement OR characteristic
OR component. When collecting input publications, the search was carried out in (1) digital
libraries: ACM Digital Library, ScienceDirect, Web of Science, IEEE Explore, and Scopus, and
(2) grey literature, such as non-academic surveys, government reports, news, article summaries,
discussions. We considered the publications with title, abstract, and keywords in English. A total
of 2187 articles and proceedings/chapters were collected. The summaries of the search results are
presented in Appendix 1.
Then, for study selection, based on defined inclusion and exclusion criteria (see Appendix 2), we
first removed duplicates and non-English studies. As a result, 902 articles were excluded. Then we
identified eligible publications through a screening process involving the evaluation of their titles
and abstracts, where we evaluated both their relevance and quality of the study. For this, relevance
and quality assessment criteria were developed (see Appendix 2) (Bassey et al., 2022; Zuiderwijk
et al., 2021). Three independent experts, i.e., academics with experience in participating in
research and consulting projects on digital transformation and e-government, were involved in the
evaluation process. At least two experts independently examined every title and abstract to comply
with the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Minor differences of opinion were discussed and resolved
in a meeting during which an agreement and significant inter-coder reliability were reached.
Finally, 157 full-text publications were included in the eligibility assessment step. In the analysis
of their full texts, we simultaneously detected forward and back citations to enhance search results
(Webster and Watson, 2002). As a result of second-round evaluations conducted by independent
experts, which assessed the selected full-text publications' quality and relevance, 21 publications
were included in the quantitative synthesis. Then, grey literature was added to the list of
publications to understand global trends. Finally, we arrived at a sample of 27 full-text
publications' sources.
In Stage 1.2 the systematic content analysis of the final full-text publications' dataset was
conducted (i) to identify the positive and negative implications of the metaverse for the public
sector and its digital public services and e-government context and (ii) to extract and collect the
metaverse-related functional and non-functional requirements. In Stage 1.3 Thereafter, the
systematic synthesis was performed to classify the results obtained in the previous stage into the
architecture requirements of the metaverse for digital public services provisioning. The results of
the systematic content analysis and systematic synthesis are presented in the metaverse-related
architecture requirements and classification section.

3.3 Evaluation process of the metaverse-related architecture requirements and
digital public services
Stage 2 of our methodology aims to perform the experts' assessment of metaverse-related
architecture requirements and digital public service using the Delphi method and includes (i) a
definition of the environment, (ii) selection of relevant experts to build the expert panel, (iii)
questionnaire development, (iv) application of the Delphi method, and (v) quantitative analysis to
process and summarize the results.
3.3.1 The study's environment and resources
The EU was chosen as the environment in which we assessed the provision of digital public
services. This choice was justified by the availability of many official government documents and
reports related to the implementation of ICT in digital public services and e-government, which
enable us to describe the metaverse-related environment, considering the comprehensive strategy
and experience of the most mature EU countries. The main source is a series of e-government
benchmark reports (European Commission, 2022). Other resources, such as Europe's digital
decade or European data strategy, also support our efforts to explore the topic of digital public
services provisioning in the metaverse.
The environment of our study is determined by the EU's priorities and policies on digital society
and advanced digital technologies (European Commission, 2021) and by the document prepared
by Madiega et al. (2022) for the Members and staff of the European Parliament. It emphasizes new
challenges that the VR environment poses and calls for setting up the conditions that will enable
the EU to benefit from the opportunities the metaverse provides. We expect that the EU will be an
owner of the metaverse platform, which is expected to be a sub-system of the e-government system
and should provide digital public services for the Member States.
To select the most relevant digital public services that could be provisioned in the EU's metaverse
platform, among the first we used the list of digital public services for citizens and businesses that
are defined and measured regularly by the EU in the e-government benchmark reports. There are
seven categories of services for citizens and two categories of services for businesses (European
Commission, 2022).
3.3.2 Experts' selection
The choice of environment also determined the methodology for building an expert panel for the
assessment of the metaverse-related architecture requirements and digital public services from
carefully selected experts representing the EU countries. The experts first validated the
classification of requirements, i.e., to what extent they agree with the classification and
completeness of functional requirements and non-functional requirements. Second, after the
required adjustments, the experts approved the list of requirements. Finally, the experts were asked
to select the most relevant digital public services that should be provisioned in the defined
environment.

Experts' qualifications are summarized in Appendix 3, including a country, job position, years of
experience, and professional expertise. We used purposive sampling to recruit two key groups of
EU countries' experts: (1) government employees and consultants (20%) and (2) academics and
researchers involved in a range of research projects on digital transformation and e-government
(80%). The choice of these groups was driven by the desire to maximize the coverage of the
knowledge and practical experience of (i) the context of the study (digital transformation, e-
government, digital public service provision), (ii) the subject (metaverse), and (iii) the specific
object of the research (metaverse-related architecture requirements). The collection of data was
carried out between December 2022 and March 2023. Each expert consented to take part in each
round of the Delphi process and confirmed familiarity with the research problem proposed for the
assessment and the steps in the Delphi method. Motivation of experts together with clear and
concise instructions, ensure that the dropout rate of experts will be low and findings will be
representative (Grisham, 2009; Okoli and Pawlowski, 2004). The external validity of the results is
established by ensuring that the process is reliable, consistent, and transparent and that it fulfills
the quality requirements derived from prior applications of the Delphi method (Grisham, 2009).
3.3.3 Questionnaire development
We opted for an online expert questionnaire as our chosen method of inquiry to gather data directly
from ten experts selected for our expert panel. The questionnaire developed for this study consisted
of two main sections: (1) introductory section, including a definition of the metaverse, definition
of the environment, examples of the provision of digital public services, and aims and instructions,
and (2) evaluation section, offering experts to directly (i) assess the importance of the functional
and non-functional requirements that the metaverse platform should meet and how the system
should behave and operate in conjunction with users and (ii) select digital services that have the
most potential to attract users and thus should be provisioned in the EU's metaverse platform
among the first ones.
In the introductory section, the metaverse was presented as a novel concept worth investigating in
terms of public services provision under the digital transformation process. As an example of the
application of the metaverse into the public service provision, we suggested imagining the business
creation service/process. More specifically, for businesses needing onsite checks from different
public authorities. Transferring the auditors to the actual place remotely provides the opportunity
to make calculations of the building and the necessary equipment as well as to check the validity
of building plans meeting necessary conditions as well as the necessary documents. This may be
applied to doctor offices, restaurants, classrooms etc. or even to the provision of the building permit
service. This will embed VR and AR to maximize user experience in terms of understanding. Non-
Fungible Token (NFT) technologies potentially ensure authentication and security of operations
towards the realization of the services into the metaverse environment (meta-worlds). We also
suggested the concepts regarding how the building permit could look in the metaverse. There will
be 3D modeling visualizations (understanding the design) as well as connections to the real-world
area for checking (spatial representation of the building and the area). All necessary public

organizations will have access to this environment with specific rights to check, approve, or reject.
The designs will bring the NFTs of the designer and manufacturer, ensuring authentication and
security of operations, so nothing will be reused wrongly in the process with the right to check and
revoke any false use of the NFT. The outcome would be the improvement of the process efficiency.
Finally, creating the EU's metaverse environment to support such a service (building permit) will
reform the real estate sector.
The evaluation section distributed the questionnaire, including instructions, questions, and
response scales, to all experts. First, for the lists of 50 functional (presented in three categories)
and 16 non-functional requirements, the experts were asked about the importance of each
requirement for the metaverse platform, determined as an environment for a digital public service
provision in the EU's e-government system. A four-point Likert scale (high, moderate, low, none)
was applied for this purpose. Second, for each list of functional and non-functional requirements,
the experts were then asked to what extent they agreed with the classification of requirements. We
were able to include both degrees of (dis)agreement – strong, usual, and indifferent view – by
using a six-point Likert measure. Third, we provided two open questions for each list of
requirements, i.e., (1) would you remove any category or item(s) in the list of requirements and
(2) do you see any missing requirements? Fourth, the questionnaire proposed the list of 93 digital
public services presented in 7 categories (see Appendix 4) and the experts were asked to select the
services that have the most potential to attract users and thus should be provisioned in the EU's
metaverse platform among the first ones. A four-point Likert scale (high, moderate, low, none)
was applied for this purpose. At the end of the questionnaire, ideas, and opinions of experts about
their recommendations, further steps, and future research areas were collected. To process and
summarize the results, received from the expert panel, the statistical analysis was performed. The
Cronbach's alpha coefficient was presented as an indicator to assess the reliability of the results
for the questionnaire used in the study. The results of this stage are provided in the section dealing
with experts' assessment results.
4 Results
4.1 The metaverse architecture requirements and classification
Metaverse architecture requires that the system's significant requirements be first obtained from
stakeholders with respective expertise viewing requirements from different perspectives based on
the boundaries of the environment in which the architecture is considered (Beinke et al., 2019).
The classification then serves as a basis for the evaluation of these requirements.
In our study, to answer RQ1: What metaverse architecture functional and non-functional
requirements can be found in related literature? And how can they be classified?, the metaverse
architecture is formed by the sets of functional and non-functional requirements that resulted from
the SLR focused on the applications and implications of the metaverse and related architectures
for digital public services. We identified three main categories of functional requirements
(hardware and resources, software and technologies, and content and data), including 50 functional

requirements and 16 non-functional requirements. At the same time, the hardware and resources
functional category is represented by 15 specific requirements grouped into three subcategories –
(1) data infrastructures (4 requirements); (2) networks and communication (5 requirements), and
(3) physical devices, sensors, and controllers (6 requirements); the software and technologies
category is represented by 23 specific requirements grouped into three subcategories – (1)
technologies and concepts (10 requirements); (2) recognition, rendering, and modeling
environments (8 requirements), and (3) management, maintenance and service (5 requirements);
content and data category is represented by 12 specific requirements grouped into two
subcategories – (1) content management (6 requirements) and (2) user interactions' data (6
requirements). A complete initial list of collected and preliminary classified requirements with
their description and references is presented in Appendix 5.
According to Park and Kim (2022), the progress of metaverse requirements through the years is
associated with the growing proportion of social activities and content. Thus, it is expected that
content and data is the category that will grow the most. Moreover, Giang Barrera and Shah (2023)
highlighted the importance of considering technological blocks, i.e., the technologies and concepts
category provides key concepts to interrelate them.
4.2 Experts' assessment results
The results of the experts' assessment of the collected and preliminary classified metaverse-related
architecture requirements (see Appendix 5) and digital public services (see Appendix 4) were
processed and analyzed in two rounds. In the first round, the results of the experts' evaluation of
the degree of importance of each requirement that the metaverse platform should meet to provide
digital public service were analyzed. All answers, given on a four-point ordinal Likert scale, were
transformed into scores as follows: rank 3 indicates "High importance", rank 2 – "Moderate
importance", rank 1 – "Low importance", and rank 0 – "None importance". To check the
significance of our results, the following statistics for the experts' assessment sample were
analyzed. The experts agreed on the classification as it was done at the level of synthesis of the
SLR results. Through the provision of their assessments, they allowed us to identify the most
important functional and non-functional requirements as well as to revise the list of requirements,
dropping some of them as non-important ones. They did not provide any further comments on the
classification of the requirements.
For the identified non-functional requirements, (1) the Average Normalized Standard Deviation
(ANSD) for the entire sample is 0.24; (2) the range of ANSD for each of the requirements is [0.10;
0.49]; and (3) the Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient is 0.73 (acceptable internal consistency).
These statistics confirmed the reliability of the results and validity of the survey instrument for
non-functional requirements. So, the list of non-functional requirements stays as it was created
from the SLR. For functional requirements (1) the ANSD for the entire sample is 0.32; (2) the
range of ANSD for each of the requirements is [0.10; 0.84]; and (3) the Cronbach alpha reliability
coefficient is 0.55 (poor internal consistency). These statistics did not confirm the reliability of the
results and validity of the survey instrument for functional requirements. In this regard, we planned

to provide for the second round of the experts' assessment applying the selection criteria for the
functional requirements included in the questionnaire.
In the second round, given the poor level of Cronbach alpha reliability among experts regarding
the level of importance of functional requirements, we conducted the second round of the
assessment, in which only that met the agreed selection criteria were presented: (1) the mean and
median values of the requirements importance scores should be above the average scores for those
indicators for the entire sample and (2) the ANSD values should be below the average score for
the entire sample (the full descriptive statistics are presented in Appendix 6). As a result, after the
required adjustments, the experts approved the list of 15 most important functional requirements
in the metaverse architecture in terms of relevance for digital public services provisioning in the
EU's environment. This round also raised the level of Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient to
0.76 (acceptable internal consistency). So, we revised the final list of functional requirements,
which were subsequently employed in the subsequent data analysis steps, as presented in Table 1.
4.3 Essential requirements
To answer RQ2: What are the most important functional and non-functional requirements for a
metaverse architecture in terms of relevance for digital public services provisioning in the EU's
environment?, the top-5 most important functional requirements are identified as follows: (1)
computation, including loud-edge-end computing paradigm, efficient AR/VR cloud-edge-end
rendering, scalable AI model training, quantum computing; (2) digital twin and 3D modeling
technologies; (3) Web and other related standards and tools; (4) scene and object recognition and
understanding tools; and (5) scene and object generation tools – 3D reconstruction. The most
important category is software and technologies (mean=2.75) (see Figure 3). The most
representative functional requirements category is hardware and resources, which includes three
sub-categories of functional requirements. At the same time, the average importance of this
category (mean=2.63) is somewhat inferior to the category content and data (mean=2.65). These
results are connected to the already provided and envisaged services that could be built or meant
to be developed in the metaverse as presented in the research background section as well as in the
scenarios of the questionnaire of the current study.

Figure 3. The average importance of functional requirements categories in the metaverse
architecture
The most important non-functional requirements have been identified according to the selection
criteria introduced in the previous section (the full descriptive statistics are presented in Appendix
7). As a result, the top-6 most important non-functional requirements are presented as follows
(Table 1): (1) accessibility to digital public services without restrictions, convert public events to
virtual worlds, support of digital literacy and education to reduce; (2) consistency of data and
information, transmission, processing, storage though the metaverse, between the physical and
digital worlds; (3) privacy to ensure the prevention of privacy leakage, threats to customized
privacy, threats to digital footprints, and cluster users into social groups for trustworthiness
characterization, data ownership and integrity; (4) security and cybersecurity to ensure safety in
the physical vs. the digital world, and employ security standard; (5) policy and governance to
ensure that the legal framework must be in place, consider legal aspects, meet general standards
of governance, new laws and regulations for virtual crimes; and (6) quality of service to ensure
measuring of factors (human, system, or context) that may affect the user experience, network-
and application-level metrics. Moreover, the first four requirements showed the same high
importance scores (mean=2.90) and experts' opinion consistency (ANSD=0.10).
Table 1. The most important functional and non-functional requirements
Requirements
Description
Average
importance
Functional - Hardware and Resources

Requirements
Description
Average
importance
Data
infrastructures
should include…
Computation - the cloud-edge-end computing paradigm,
efficient AR/VR cloud-edge-end rendering, scalable AI model
training, quantum computing - programs, instructions,
algorithms
2.90
Storage - local caching, edge caching, cloud caching,
decentralized edge data storage and sharing, cloud computing,
local storage, long-term storage
2.60
Networks and
communication
should include…
Physical and virtual service providers - real-time physical-
virtual synchronization, communication services
2.60
Wireless 5G/6G networks, tactile internet
2.60
Physical devices,
sensors, and
controllers should
include…
Users’ devices and equipment - general (text, audio, video)
devices
2.50
Head-mounted displays (equipment) and controllers - AR/VR
smart glasses
2.60
Functional - Software and Technologies
Technologies and
concepts
connecting the
metaverse should
include…
Digital twin and 3D modeling technologies - 3D simulation, 3D
reconstruction, data fusion
2.90
Web and other related standards and tools such as
authentication, interoperability, accessibility etc.
2.80
Recognition,
rendering, and
modeling
environments
should include…
Scene and object recognition and understanding tools
2.80
Scene and object generation tools - 3D reconstruction
2.70
Translation, recommendation, and testing tools - enable correct
settings for users
2.60
Identity modeling - authentication, resolution tools
2.50
Functional - Content and Data
Content
management should
include…
Content creation - authoring, creator culture
2.70
User interactions’
Agent persona (virtual entity) modeling
2.60

Requirements
Description
Average
importance
data should
include…
Social computing - social networks, swarm intelligence
2.60
Non-functional
Accessibility
Should ensure access through all existing digital devices, to all
people without restrictions, convert public events to virtual
worlds, support digital literacy and education to reduce
challenges.
2.90
Consistency
Should ensure data and information, transmission, processing,
storage etc. though the metaverse, between the physical and
digital worlds.
2.90
Privacy
Should ensure prevention of privacy leakage in data
transmission, processing, storage etc., threats to customized
privacy, threats to digital footprints, cluster users into social
groups for trustworthiness characterization, data ownership and
integrity.
2.90
Security and
cybersecurity
Should ensure safety in physical vs. digital world, ensure
hardware (device), software, data/information, content, and
network security, employ security standards, authentication and
access control, federated learning, adverse machine learning,
digital proxemics.
2.90
Policy and
governance
Should ensure that the legal framework must be in place,
consider legal aspects, meet general standards of governance,
new laws and regulations for virtual crimes.
2.80
Quality of service
Should ensure measuring of factors (human, system, or context)
that may affect the user experience, network- and application-
level metrics.
2.80
4.4 Selection of digital public services in the metaverse
To answer RQ3: What digital public services have the most potential to attract users and thus
should be provisioned in the EU's metaverse platform among the first ones?, 21 the most relevant
digital public services have been identified according to the selection criteria introduced in section
4.2 (the full descriptive statistics are presented in the Appendix 8). For digital public services: (1)
the ANSD for the entire sample is 0.49, (2) the range of ANSD for each of the requirements is
[0.18; 0.54], and (3) the Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient is 0.81 (good internal consistency).
These statistics confirmed the reliability of the results and validity of the survey instrument for the
identification of relevant digital public services. The top-10 most relevant services are presented
in Table 2. As we can see, most services focus on guidance and e-consultation features that should

empower the citizens and help them develop. So, they are focusing on services that require
communication between individuals which is a strong characteristic of the metaverse. These
services can help citizens with employment and career issues, health consultations on simple
issues, studying abroad, debt management, and housing benefits. Another important feature is the
actual monitoring of facilities, which is also one of the most prominent characteristics of the
metaverse.
Table 2. A list of the 10 most relevant digital public services
Category
Digital public service
Average
relevance
Citizens – Career
Get guidance with how to arrange help during invalidity,
sickness and employment injuries
2.60
Citizens – Studying
Get guidance with how to arrange internships and starting your
career
2.60
Citizens – Health
Apply for e-consults with a hospital doctor (teleconsultation)
2.60
Citizens – Studying
Get guidance with how to arrange studying abroad
(international office)
2.50
Citizens – Health
Get guidance and information about where you can get
healthcare
2.50
Citizens – Moving
Monitor the availability of local facilities (e.g., schools, health
facilities, sport facilities)
2.50
Citizens – Career
Get guidance with how to arrange housing benefits
2.40
Citizens – Career
Get guidance with how to arrange debt counselling
2.40
Citizens – Career
Get guidance with how to arrange health promotion programs
2.40
Citizens – Career
Get guidance with how to find a job
2.40
Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that out of 93 services, only 22.58% are considered important
to be offered through the metaverse. Casual services like VAT and other declarations and refunds,
obtaining different kinds of permits, and any kind of registration services are lagging in terms of
their importance to be offered through the metaverse. This result means that these services are
considered trivial and have no value to be offered through a next-generation platform or that they
are already well offered through the current e-government systems. Also, the European
Commission has a very specific concept on the high-level services provision that is connected to
real life and business events and that these kinds of services are important, but they need to be

offered in the background as supportive ones. Thus, it could be deduced that the metaverse will be
closely related to the provision of services of actual value to the citizens and businesses.
The three most representative categories out of 21 most relevant services are: (1) career, which
includes 7 public services, (2) business start-up (5 public services), and (3) studying (4 public
services) (Appendix 8). The selection was made in accordance with the criterion that (1) the mean
and median values of the services relevance scores should be above the average scores for those
indicators for the entire sample and (2) the ANSD values should be below the average score for
the entire sample. Finally, this study identifies the categories with the highest average score of
potential to attract users that should be provided on the EU's metaverse platform. Health, moving,
and transport are placed first. This is reasonable regarding the new functionality and opportunities
the metaverse could deliver through its architecture. Easy communication with enhanced
background information and checks of the surroundings using VR and AR technologies would
allow a new era of services to be provided virtually. The next three categories deal with e-
consultation services as well as virtual participation in real processes. These categories include
studying, career development and start-ups as well as justice services. The average relevance level
of these categories displayed in Figure 4 represents the most suitable services to be offered through
the metaverse against traditional digital means.
Figure 4. The average relevance level of digital public services' categories in the metaverse
architecture

5 Discussion and limitations
The metaverse can potentially transform the delivery of digital public services by providing
immersive and interactive experiences beyond traditional websites, web portals, and mobile
applications. By leveraging the power of VR, the metaverse can offer more personalized and
tailored public services that consider the unique needs and preferences of individual citizens. By
offering immersive and interactive experiences, the metaverse can help to foster a sense of
community and encourage citizens to engage with public services in new and meaningful ways. In
this direction, the metaverse can also provide a platform for co-creation and collaboration,
allowing citizens to work alongside public service providers to develop and improve services.
Overall, the use of the metaverse for digital public services provisioning presents both
opportunities and challenges and requires careful consideration and planning to realize its full
potential as a tool for improving digital public services delivery.
In terms of functional requirements, our research confirmed that first, hardware and resource
requirements for implementing digital public services in the metaverse are important
considerations. Hardware infrastructure and resources for the metaverse must be prepared for data-
intensive applications and high-performance computing (Wang et al., 2021). Existing cloud
computing infrastructures can play an important role (Lee et al., 2021). Moreover, the metaverse
relies on a high-speed internet connection for smooth and seamless interactions between users and
digital objects (Wang et al., 2022; Xu et al., 2023). However, it can be a challenge for public
service providers operating in areas with limited or unreliable internet connectivity. The use of
advanced graphics and rendering technology can help enhance user engagement, promote a sense
of presence and immersion, and help create visual and interactive environments that enable citizens
to better understand complex information and data (Lee et al., 2021). Public service providers must
ensure that they can meet all the requirements of the significant hardware and resource
requirements needed to render these environments in real-time (Koohang et al., 2023).
Secondly, software and technologies' requirements are essential for the effective implementation
of digital public services in the metaverse (Choi et al., 2022). The metaverse requires specialized
software and technologies to create, render and manage the 3D environments and objects. Digital
twin and 3D modeling technologies can help to create realistic and immersive environments that
enable citizens to interact with public services more engagingly and intuitively (Lv et al., 2022).
Scene and object recognition technologies can help to identify and track objects in the metaverse,
enabling the creation of more personalized digital public services (Zhao et al., 2022), but also can
help to ensure that citizens' data and privacy are protected, while also enabling secure and
transparent transactions (Lee et al., 2021). Furthermore, translation, recommendation, and testing
tools can help ensure that digital public services are accessible to citizens of different languages
and abilities while also ensuring that these services are optimized for performance and usability
(Smith, 2022). The psychological mechanisms underpinning users' experiences with these
realities‐enhancing technologies should also be considered because they can create and destroy the
value for citizens and businesses (Hilken et al., 2022).

However, the cost of purchasing, maintaining, and updating these technologies can be a significant
challenge for public service providers, particularly for those with limited budgets (Mystakidis,
2022). The high cost of these technologies can create equity concerns, as it may limit the ability
of certain public service providers to effectively compete with others who can afford to invest in
more advanced technologies. The funding and resource requirements associated with software and
technologies can also be limiting factors in terms of the speed and scale of implementation.
Additionally, the complexity of these technologies may require specialized knowledge and skills,
which may be a challenge for public service providers who do not have access to these resources
(Park and Kim, 2022). Thus, open-source platforms, tools, and services can offer a cost-effective
solution for public service providers to access and utilize these technologies. Additionally,
outsourcing to the private sector may also be a viable option for public service providers, enabling
them to leverage the expertise and resources of specialized technology firms.
Thirdly, as our study proved, content and data are essential requirements for the development of
digital public services in the metaverse. They provide citizens with access to information,
resources, and services that can enhance their quality of life (Pamungkas, 2022). Social computing
technologies, such as social networks and swarm intelligence, can enable citizens to connect and
collaborate, sharing information and knowledge to solve complex problems (Rathore, 2023). The
agent personas or virtual entities can provide a more intuitive and natural way for citizens to
interact with digital public services (Park and Kim, 2022). On the other hand, by leveraging data
analytics and AI, public service providers can gain insights into citizens' preferences and
behaviors, enabling them to deliver more customized and relevant digital public services (Watson,
2022). However, ensuring the accuracy, reliability, and security of data, privacy and data
protection concerns can create barriers to the sharing and use of citizen data for the development
of digital public services (Choi et al., 2022). Furthermore, using AI and data analytics can also
raise ethical concerns around bias and discrimination, as well as the potential for algorithmic
decision-making to replace human judgment and decision-making (Anshari et al., 2023). To
address these challenges, it is essential to develop social norms and cultural values that can guide
the development and use of content and data for digital public services in the metaverse (Sriram,
2022).
In terms of non-functional requirements, first, the metaverse aims to provide a unique opportunity
to build digital services that are more accessible to citizens. The use of virtual environments in the
metaverse can allow citizens with physical disabilities to access public services that may not have
previously been available in the physical world (Yfantis and Ntalianis, 2022). However, the use of
certain technologies, such as VR headsets, may create challenges for citizens with visual,
vestibular, or cognitive disabilities who may need additional support to navigate and interact with
digital government services (Seigneur and Choukou, 2022). Digital literacy remains a major
barrier for many citizens, especially those living in underserved communities or with limited
access to technology (Kemec, 2022). Public service providers must be mindful of these issues and
work to ensure that their digital services are accessible and inclusive for all citizens. This can be
achieved through targeted outreach and education initiatives (Zallio and Clarkson, 2022), as well

as through the development of more user-friendly and accessible digital interfaces (Koohang et al.,
2023).
Ensuring consistency between the physical and digital worlds is also one of the most important
requirements for the provision of digital public services (Mozumder et al., 2022). One of the major
challenges is managing data across multiple servers and platforms, which can lead to
inconsistencies in data transfer and processing (Xu et al., 2023). Integrating data from different
sources can also create data quality and accuracy issues, as different sources may have different
levels of reliability or consistency (Nica et al., 2022). To address this issue, public service
providers may need to adopt standard protocols and formats for transmitting and processing data
to ensure consistency across different servers and platforms (Hollensen et al., 2023). Ensuring the
integrity and confidentiality of citizens' data as they are exchanged between the physical and digital
worlds is critical (Zallio and Clarkson, 2022).
Security and cybersecurity requirements have become increasingly important for ensuring the
safety of citizens and their data (Choi et al., 2022). Unlike the physical world, where security
measures are often more tangible and easier to implement, the metaverse presents unique
challenges for security and cybersecurity (Dwivedi et al., 2022). For example, the decentralized
nature of the metaverse can make it more difficult to regulate and monitor access and activity,
leading to potential security breaches and cyber-attacks (Chen et al., 2022). Additionally, using
immersive and interactive technologies in the metaverse can create new opportunities for social
engineering and phishing attacks, which can be challenging to detect and prevent (Qamar et al.,
2023). The collection, storage, and processing of citizens' personal data in the metaverse can create
vulnerabilities that can be exploited by malicious actors (Huang et al., 2023). Additionally, using
AI and machine learning in digital public services can create ethical and legal challenges around
data use and privacy (Yang et al., 2022). As such, public service providers need to prioritize
security and cybersecurity in developing and implementing digital public services in the
metaverse, while ensuring that citizens' data privacy and protection are upheld (Park and Kim,
2022). This can be achieved using encryption, multi-factor authentication, and other security
measures that can help to mitigate the risks associated with the metaverse (Choi et al., 2022).
The next requirement for regulating the metaverse is the lack of a clear policy and governance
framework (Dwivedi et al., 2022). The metaverse exists in a complex legal landscape that
encompasses different jurisdictions, legal systems, and cultural norms (Kalyvaki, 2023).
Policymakers must work to clarify the legal status of virtual assets and transactions, establish clear
rules for virtual property ownership and transfer, and define the boundaries of acceptable behavior
in virtual spaces (Macedo, 2022). They must also ensure that law enforcement agencies have the
resources and expertise to investigate and prosecute virtual crimes such as theft, fraud, and
harassment (Katterbauer et al., 2022). To combat virtual crime in the metaverse, policymakers
must adopt a comprehensive approach that includes legal frameworks, law enforcement
capabilities, and user education. Governments must engage with users and educate them about the
risks of virtual crime and the measures they can take to protect themselves (Sia, 2023).

User experience in this virtual world relies heavily on the service quality provided by the network
and applications (Choi et al., 2022). Network-level metrics such as latency, throughput, and packet
loss can impact user experience in the metaverse. Similarly, application-level metrics such as
frame rate, rendering time, and overall system performance can also influence user experience
(Cheng et al., 2022). Similarly, device capabilities such as graphics processing power can affect
the rendering time and frame rate, which can impact the overall user experience (Duan et al., 2021).
Therefore, quality of service requirements should consider these factors and ensure that measuring
these metrics is conducted to maintain a consistent and high-quality user experience in the
metaverse (Du et al., 2023). At the general level, as the metaverse is still in its infancy, there are
no established standards or best practices for metaverse development (Wang et al., 2021). This
lack of standardization may create compatibility issues with existing e-government systems,
hindering the integration of metaverse technology into existing systems (Lv, 2023). The challenges
with interoperability can also lead to a fragmented user experience, resulting in citizens having to
navigate through different metaverse platforms to access different public services (Mourtzis et al.,
2022). This may discourage citizens from using metaverse technology for digital public services.
In the EU, achieving an agreement on laws and legislation regarding the metaverse could prove to
be difficult due to the complex nature of this virtual world. One of the main challenges in the
governance of the metaverse is the issue of data privacy. The EU has strict regulations regarding
the handling of personal data, such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
1
. The
metaverse introduces new challenges for data privacy (Canbay et al., 2022). For example, the Open
Data Directive
2
, which aims to make public data more accessible and usable, presents challenges
in the metaverse as personal data can easily be exposed. Another challenge in the governance of
the metaverse is the issue of intellectual property rights (Kalyvaki, 2023). The EU needs to work
towards a harmonized regulatory framework that considers the unique nature of the metaverse.
This will require collaboration between Member States and businesses and a willingness to adapt
to new technologies and ways of doing things. At the same time, it should also be noted that the
funding will be required to develop the EU's metaverse platform and promote the benefits of
metaverse towards citizens and society.
5.1 Theoretical implications
Our findings contribute to the literature in the field of information systems, information
technology, and architecture requirements, summarizing, structuring, and conceptualizing current
research in the area of the digital government and digital public services in the metaverse. First,
we extend the knowledge on the metaverse-related architecture requirements and how they can be
classified. We found that both categories of requirements, i.e., functional and non-functional, have
their specifics that must be met and considered when providing services to the metaverse in the e-
government system. The functional requirements are characterized by data-intensive
infrastructures and networks that must be designed to meet flows of large amounts of data coming
1
https://gdpr.eu/
2
https://data.gov.ie/pages/open-data-directive

from different physical devices, sensors, and controllers. The non-functional requirements then
focus primarily on accessibility of digital public services and consistency of data and information
transmission, processing, and storage through the metaverse. Second, we contribute to the
literature in terms of summarization of functional requirements on software and technologies-
related concepts, environments, and platforms as well as types of content and data created in the
metaverse. The non-functional requirements then provide insights for the literature on quality of
information systems and architectures.
Theoretical implications of our findings are especially important for researchers exploring and
modeling different aspects of information systems architectures. These should be linked with other
areas such as big data, AI, and machine learning to understand the issues better. Also, this study
contributes to the literature on the positive and negative aspects of government in the metaverse
and its suitability for providing digital public services.
In essence, our study enhances the theoretical foundation of the metaverse, with a specific focus
on its implications for the public sector and service delivery. Rooted in William Gibson's
"cyberspace" concept and incorporating elements of VR and AR (Park, 2022), in our study, the
metaverse as a theory emphasizes its role as a service- and context-centric, socially relevant
platform that does not rely exclusively on immersive technologies. Looking ahead, the metaverse
may evolve into the next iteration of VR and AR or even emerge as an all-inclusive package for
the next generation of the Internet. While speculative, further exploration through research, case
studies, and analysis is essential to unravel the full potential of this emerging field.
5.2 Practical and policy implications
There are three categories of key stakeholders who should consider transforming the research
findings of our study for use in practice, namely (1) public officials responsible for legislative
procedures in the EU, (2) national governments, and (3) regional and city-level public officials.
Although our study is set up in the environment represented by the EU's metaverse platform, using
a bottom-up approach can help turn recommendations into actions on the EU level. In addition,
other stakeholders, such as citizens, businesses, and non-governmental organizations, are
important partners in developing such solutions in practice.
First, we provided the list of core functional and non-functional requirements in the metaverse
architecture for the defined environment. Additionally, we introduced a classification system that
offers valuable direction on categorizing and structuring these requirements. These results could
serve as actionable guidelines, assisting government officials in prioritizing critical requirements
for provisioning metaverse services within the e-government system. Second, the insights gained
from experts' assessments provide practical guidance on selecting digital public services with the
highest potential to attract users for inclusion in the EU's metaverse platform. These
recommendations offer tangible steps for designing the architecture and provisioning of
government digital services within the metaverse. Third, this study includes experts'
recommendations on future actions in this area, focusing on analyzing the current state and

preparedness of governments to implement digital public services in the metaverse platform. We
encourage key stakeholders to focus on other issues, such as security and privacy.
To sum up, we can define the following actionable recommendations:
• Actively involve stakeholders with diverse expertise in defining metaverse architecture
requirements. Regular consultations should be conducted to adapt to evolving perspectives
and needs.
• Implement an iterative classification process for metaverse-related architecture
requirements. Regularly update the classification based on emerging technologies and
evolving stakeholder needs.
• Prioritize resources for the development of content and data-related architecture
components. Regularly monitor social activity and content trends to align with the evolving
landscape.
• Allocate resources based on the top-5 most important functional requirements, giving
priority to computation, digital twin, 3D modeling technologies, web standards, and
scene/object tools.
• Integrate the top-6 non-functional requirements, emphasizing accessibility, data
consistency, privacy, security, policy and governance, and service quality, into the
metaverse architecture.
• Prioritize the provision of user-centric digital public services, particularly focusing on the
top-10 most relevant services related to guidance, e-consultation, career development,
business start-up, studying, health, moving, and transport.
• Establish a continuous monitoring mechanism for service relevance. Regularly update the
service portfolio based on user feedback and emerging trends.
• Involve users in the design and development of metaverse-based services. Understand user
preferences and expectations to enhance the user experience and adoption of digital public
services.
• Promote collaboration and standardization efforts across sectors to ensure interoperability
and seamless integration of digital public services in the metaverse.
5.3 Limitations
This research has several limitations that need to be acknowledged. First, it is focused on the
metaverse within the context of the EU's e-government system. This may limit the generalizability
of findings to other regions or global contexts. The metaverse landscape may differ significantly
in other geographical areas with distinct cultural, political, or technological environments. Second,
the topic of the metaverse is very current and various studies, as well as government strategies, are
increasing very quickly. In addition, the data collection span from December 2022 to March 2023
might not fully capture the dynamic nature of the metaverse landscape. Therefore, our findings
regarding the most important metaverse architecture requirements may not stand up to the latest
studies and practices. Third, the classification of metaverse-related architecture requirements may

involve subjective judgments during the systematic content analysis and synthesis stages. The
interpretation of positive and negative implications of the metaverse for the public sector may vary,
potentially influencing the final classification. Fourth, the assumption that the EU will be the
owner of the metaverse platform might not align with future developments in the metaverse
ecosystem. Ownership and governance structures could evolve, impacting the study's applicability
and recommendations. Fifth, the study focuses on seven categories of digital public services for
citizens and two categories for businesses based on EU e-government benchmark reports. This
may not fully represent the diverse spectrum of potential digital services that could emerge in the
metaverse.
Finally, the use of the Delphi method also has several limitations. The method's effectiveness relies
on the assumption that repeated rounds of feedback lead to convergence, but divergent views may
be suppressed. The selection of experts using purposive sampling, while providing in-depth
insights, may introduce bias. The chosen experts may have specific perspectives or biases that
influence the assessment outcomes. Additionally, due to the limited number of experts involved,
we may not be able to capture the full range of perspectives and ideas on this topic. However, our
findings focused on the opinions of experts with the maximum degree of consistency, provide
valuable guidance to policymakers regarding the strategy and requirements for deploying public
services to the metaverse platform.
5.4 Future research areas
Our study suggests several directions for potential future research pathways that could benefit
academics and the wider scientific community exploring themes linked to areas of the digital
government and digital public services provision in the metaverse.
Avenue for future research 1: Focus on validations and improvements of developed classification
and list of functional and non-functional requirements in practice. All of these are needed to be
confronted with understanding, expectations, needs, and preferences among the key stakeholders
relevant to the defined environment (Chen et al., 2023; Dwivedi et al., 2022; Mourtzis et al., 2022).
Their involvement is important for the specification of concrete metaverse domains in which
digital public services will be provided. Because as argued by one of the experts “the metaverse
platform cannot meet so many requirements and ensure their support if we don't know exactly
what users will want and actually use in the virtual environment”. In this regard, the key areas are
represented by software and technologies and content and data, which are most affected by users'
expectations and preferences.
Avenue for future research 2: Accessibility, compatibility, interoperability, and usability of
interfaces through which digital public services will be provided is also an important topic because
of the solutions and tools used by citizens and businesses (Abilkaiyrkyzy et al., 2023; Al-Ghaili et
al., 2022; Wang et al., 2021). More precisely, compatibility of existing architecture solutions as
well as portability and connectivity to existing personas of users in other architectures, is another
area that deserves further research.

Avenue for future research 3: Investigate the possibility of differentiating between requirements
on governments and requirements on citizens and businesses. Some of the requirements are and
should be supported and provided by governments, such as infrastructures, networks, virtual
environments, and content, while the other requirements are relevant for the private sector that
ensures the availability of VR/AR devices for citizens and businesses, software and technologies
and platforms that could be used by governments etc. In this regard, the requirements should be
gained from all these stakeholders, and they should prioritize them as well (Abilkaiyrkyzy et al.,
2023; Dwivedi et al., 2022; Xu et al., 2023). Therefore, future research on metaverse-related
architecture frameworks should help to overcome these issues and enable clarification of the
requirements and formalizing the architectural components and relationships in terms of the key
stakeholders.
Avenue for future research 4: Consider the deeper analysis of the current state and preparedness
of governments to implement digital public services in the metaverse platform. As argued by one
of the experts, future research should be focused on exploring the linking and integration tools to
existing e-government services. These should result in requirements dealing with data-intensive
transfers because most of the outputs of metaverse activities realized by citizens and businesses
must be transferred to public sector information systems or base registries in which these changes
must be recorded and verified (Cai et al., 2022; Lee et al., 2021; Zhang et al., 2023). In this regard,
the preparedness analysis should focus on the concrete environment and its settings considering
available computing, financial, and human resources to get a clear view on these resources and
existing systems and their architectures. Because as noted by one of the experts, “it can be easier
to start with standalone environments, e.g., on the level of cities, because integration of metaverse
services with existing systems will be a very challenging task”.
6 Conclusions
The concept of the metaverse has gained increasing attention and interest in recent years. The
metaverse is a virtual space that is interconnected with the real world and allows for immersive
and interactive experiences. This study aimed to extend the theoretical grounding of the metaverse,
deepening the understanding of the metaverse-related architecture requirements and their
relevance for digital public services provisioning in the EU's environment. Our results identified
the most important technologies to support the functional requirements, including high-end
computation methods and AI, 3D modeling technologies, object recognition, understanding and
reconstruction. Our research expands the understanding and extends the theoretical grounding of
the metaverse, especially in the context of the public sector and public services provision. As a
theory, metaverse, on the one hand, draws inspiration from William Gibson's "cyberspace" concept
and VR and AR; aiming for seamless integration of the digital and physical worlds; addresses the
evolving landscape of digital spaces, providing a solution for meaningful virtual interactions and
representing a progression beyond the mobile internet; on the other hand - stands out as a service-
oriented, socially meaningful platform; may not exclusively rely on AR and VR technologies,
emphasizing sustainability and social relevance; and its scalability, accommodating a large user

base, is crucial for reinforcing social significance. In the future, the concept of metaverse can be
viewed as the next generation of VR and AR, or even as an all-inclusive package for the next
internet generation. While this is also an assumption, further exploratory research, case studies,
and analysis are needed to delve into this emerging field and unravel its potential.
Our findings identified the most suitable services to be offered through the metaverse against the
traditional digital means. These categories of services include career, business start-up, and
studying-related public services. This also shows that among the digital public services that have
the potential to attract new users and should be deployed in the metaverse platform, among the
first ones are services that provide guidance for citizens and businesses in life events. In the
metaverse, the visualization of information is crucial for creating engaging and interactive
experiences. With the help of advanced graphics and visualization technologies, data can be
presented more intuitively and immersively, allowing users to explore and interact with
information in a more natural and intuitive way. For a metaverse to succeed, it will need to be
accessible and inclusive to a diverse range of users and will require collaboration and
standardization across different platforms and technologies.
The development of a metaverse is a complex and ongoing process, and how it will evolve and
impact society in the future remains to be seen. However, there are also concerns about privacy,
security, and potential negative impacts on mental health and social relationships. Our findings
may serve as the foundation for the strategy for the design of the research as well as provide
guidance for the fieldwork. Overall, the requirements of the metaverse are complex and
multifaceted, requiring a collaborative effort by stakeholders from different sectors to ensure the
development of a safe, secure, and inclusive virtual environment. In addition, the developed
classification can be used as an effective guide for categorizing and organizing the requirements
for creating a metaverse in relation to other environments. The results of our study provide further
research directions, as well as theoretical and practical implications for governments as they
narrow their focus on services that have the greatest potential to attract users and can be
recommended to be among the first to be presented on the EU's metaverse platform.
Considering the challenge of rapid technological progress in the metaverse and the increasing
interest among scientists, our study acknowledges as a critical consideration the need to ensure the
ongoing relevance of our resulting classification of functional and non-functional requirements for
metaverse architecture by its continuous improvement and validation. To overcome this aspect,
we propose to conduct systematic quarterly reviews that involve evaluations and comprehensive
documentation of the current state of the literature. These reviews will aim to validate our research
findings and pinpoint emerging trends in immersive technology and metaverse architectural
requirements. A crucial component of these reviews is to collect and analyze the successful case
studies and best practices of provisioning digital public services in the metaverse by governments.
A complete revision of our catalogue of functional and non-functional requirements can be
anticipated in at least a year. Following our methodology, this review is reasonable to complement
by new rounds of expert evaluation, aiming to refine and validate the digital service metrics with

the greatest potential to attract users. We expect that this plan's iterative revision process will be
able to ensure that our research remains adaptive and maintains its relevance in the ever-evolving
landscape of the metaverse.
In line with the recommendations provided by the experts, we will devote our future research steps
to advance the understanding of these requirements among the key stakeholders as well as
analyzing the current state and preparedness of governments to implement digital public services
in the metaverse platform.
References
Abbate, S., Centobelli, P., Cerchione, R., Oropallo, E., & Riccio, E. (2022). A first bibliometric literature
review on metaverse. In 2022 IEEE Technology and Engineering Management Conference (TEMSCON
EUROPE) (pp. 254-260), IEEE.
Abilkaiyrkyzy, A., Elhagry, A., Laamarti, F., & Elsaddik, A. (2023). Metaverse key requirements and
platforms survey. IEEE Access, 11, 117765-117787.
Al-Ghaili, A. M., Kasim, H., Al-Hada, N. M., Hassan, Z., Othman, M., Hussain, T. J., ... & Shayea, I.
(2022). A review of metaverse’s definitions, architecture, applications, challenges, issues, solutions, and
future trends. IEEE Access, 10, 125835-125866.
Allam, Z., Sharifi, A., Bibri, S. E., Jones, D. S., & Krogstie, J. (2022). The metaverse as a virtual form of
smart cities: opportunities and challenges for environmental, economic, and social sustainability in urban
futures. Smart Cities, 5(3), 771-801.
Alpala, L. O., Quiroga-Parra, D. J., Torres, J. C., & Peluffo-Ordóñez, D. H. (2022). Smart factory using
virtual reality and online multi-user: Towards a metaverse for experimental frameworks. Applied Sciences,
12(12), 6258.
Anshari, M., Syafrudin, M., Fitriyani, N. L., & Al-Mudimigh, A. (2023). Ethical concerns in the metaverse
business. In Metaverse Applications for New Business Models and Disruptive Innovation (pp. 35-47). IGI
Global.
Anderson, J., & Rainie, L. (2022). The Metaverse in 2040. Pew Research Center. Available at
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2022/06/30/the-metaverse-in-2040/
Anthopoulos, L. G., Siozos, P., & Tsoukalas, I. A. (2007). Applying participatory design and collaboration
in digital public services for discovering and re-designing e-Government services. Government Information
Quarterly, 24(2), 353-376.
Bassey, E., Mulligan, E., & Ojo, A. (2022). A conceptual framework for digital tax administration - A
systematic review. Government Information Quarterly, 39(4), 101754.
Bertot, J., Estevez, E., & Janowski, T. (2016). Universal and contextualized public services: Digital public
service innovation framework. Government Information Quarterly, 33(2), 211-222.
Beinke J. H., Fitte C., & Teuteberg F. (2019). Towards a stakeholder-oriented blockchain-based
architecture for electronic health records: design science research study. Journal of Medical Internet
Research, 21(10), 1-14.

Bibri, S. E., & Allam, Z. (2022a). The metaverse as a virtual form of data-driven smart urbanism: on post-
pandemic governance through the prism of the logic of surveillance capitalism. Smart Cities, 5(2), 715-
727.
Bibri, S. E., & Allam, Z. (2022b). The Metaverse as a virtual form of data-driven smart urbanism:
platformization and its underlying processes, institutional dimensions, and disruptive impacts.
Computational Urban Science, 2, 24, 1-22.
Bojic, L. (2022). Metaverse through the prism of power and addiction: what will happen when the virtual
world becomes more attractive than reality? European Journal of Futures Research, 10, 22, 1-24.
Brous, P., Janssen, M., & Herder, P. (2020). The dual effects of the Internet of Things (IoT): a systematic
review of the benefits and risks of IoT adoption by organizations. International Journal of Information
Management, 51, 101952.
Cai, Y., Llorca, J., Tulino, A. M., & Molisch, A. F. (2022). Compute-and data-intensive networks: The key
to the metaverse. In 2022 1st International Conference on 6G Networking (6GNet) (pp. 1-8). IEEE.
Canbay, Y. , Utku A., & Canbay P. (2022). Privacy concerns and measures in metaverse: a review. In 2022
15th International Conference on Information Security and Cryptography (ISCTURKEY) (pp. 80-85).
IEEE.
Chen, S., Chan, I. C. C., Xu, S., Law, R., & Zhang, M. (2023). Metaverse in tourism: drivers and hindrances
from stakeholders’ perspective. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 40(2), 169-184.
Chen, Z., Wu, J., Gan, W., & Qi, Z. (2022). Metaverse security and privacy: An overview. In 2022 IEEE
International Conference on Big Data (Big Data) (pp. 2950-2959). IEEE.
Cheng, R., Wu, N., Chen, S., & Han, B. (2022). Reality check of metaverse: a first look at commercial
social virtual reality platforms. In 2022 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces
Abstracts and Workshops (VRW) (pp. 141-148). IEEE.
Choi, S., Yoon, K., Kim, M., Yoo, J., Lee, B., Song, I., & Woo, J. (2022). Building Korean DMZ Metaverse
Using a Web-Based Metaverse Platform. Applied Sciences, 12(15), 7908.
D'Cunha, S. (2017). Dubai Sets Its Sights On Becoming The World’s First Blockchain-Powered
Government. Available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/suparnadutt/2017/12/18/dubai-sets-sights-on-
becoming-the-worlds-first-blockchain-powered-government/
Damar, M. (2021). Metaverse shape of your life for future: a bibliometric snapshot. Journal of Metaverse,
1(1), 1-8.
Deveci, M., Mishra, A. R., Gokasar, I., Rani, P., Pamucar, D., & Ozcan, E. (2023). A decision support
system for assessing and prioritizing sustainable urban transportation in metaverse. IEEE Transactions on
Fuzzy Systems, 31(2), 475-484.
Di Pietro, R., & Cresci, S. (2021). Metaverse: security and privacy issues. In Third IEEE International
Conference on Trust, Privacy and Security in Intelligent Systems and Applications (TPS-ISA) (pp. 281-
288). IEEE.
Dionisio, J. D. N., Burns, W. G., & Gilbert, R. (2013). 3D virtual worlds and the metaverse: current status
and future possibilities. ACM Computing Surveys, 45(3), 1-38.
Du, H., Ma, B., Niyato, D., Kang, J., Xiong, Z., & Yang, Z. (2023). Rethinking quality of experience for
metaverse services: a consumer-based economics perspective. IEEE Network, 1-8.

Duan, H., Li, J., Fan, S., Lin, Z., Wu, X., & Cai, W. (2021). Metaverse for social good: a university campus
prototype. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Multimedia (pp. 153-161). ACM.
Dwivedi, Y. K., Hughes, L., Baabdullah, A. M., Ribeiro-Navarrete, S., Giannakis, M., Al-Debei, M. M., ...
& Wamba, S. F. (2022). Metaverse beyond the hype: multidisciplinary perspectives on emerging
challenges, opportunities, and agenda for research, practice and policy. International Journal of
Information Management, 66, 102542.
Eom, S.-J. (2022). The emerging digital twin bureaucracy in the 21st century. Perspectives on Public
Management and Governance, 5(2), 174-186.
European Commission. (2021). Shaping Europe’s digital future: Policies. Available at https://digital-
strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies
European Commission. (2022). eGovernment Benchmark 2022 Background Report: Synchronising Digital
Governments. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.
Falchuk, B., Loeb, S., & Neff, R. (2018). The social metaverse: battle for privacy. IEEE Technology and
Society Magazine, 37(2), 52-61.
Fernandez, C. B., & Hui, P. (2022). Life, the metaverse and everything: an overview of privacy, ethics, and
governance in metaverse. In 2022 IEEE 42nd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems
Workshops (ICDCSW) (pp. 272-277). IEEE.
Fragnière, E., Sahut, J.-M., Hikkerova, L., Schegg, R., Schumacher, M., Grèzes, S., & Ramseyer, R. (2022).
Blockchain technology in the tourism industry: new perspectives in Switzerland. Journal of Innovation
Economics & Management, 37(1), 65-90.
Gaubert, J. (2021). Seoul to become the first city to enter the metaverse. What will it look like? | Euronews.
Available at https://www.euronews.com/next/2021/11/10/seoul-to-become-the-first-city-to-enter-the-
metaverse-what-will-it-look-like
Giang Barrera, K., & Shah, D. (2023). Marketing in the metaverse: conceptual understanding, framework,
and research agenda. Journal of Business Research, 155(PA), 113420.
Grisham, T. (2009). The Delphi technique: a method for testing complex and multifaceted topics.
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 2(1), 112-130.
Hilken, T., Keeling, D. I., Chylinski, M., de Ruyter, K., Golf Papez, M., Heller, J., ... & Alimamy, S. (2022).
Disrupting marketing realities: A research agenda for investigating the psychological mechanisms of next‐
generation experiences with reality‐enhancing technologies. Psychology & Marketing, 39(8), 1660-1671.
Hollensen, S., Kotler, P., & Opresnik, M. O. (2023). Metaverse – the new marketing universe. Journal of
Business Strategy, 44(3), 119-125.
Huang, Y., Li, Y. J., & Cai, Z. (2023). Security and privacy in metaverse: a comprehensive survey. Big
Data Mining and Analytics, 6(2), 234-247.
Huynh-The, T., Pham, Q.-V., Pham, X.-Q., Nguyen, T. T., Han, Z., & Kim, D.-S. (2023). Artificial
intelligence for the metaverse: a survey. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence, 117, 105581.
Ilyina, I. A., Eltikova, E. A., Uvarova, K. A. and Chelysheva, S. D. (2022). Metaverse-death to offline
communication or empowerment of interaction?. In 2022 Communication Strategies in Digital Society
Seminar (ComSDS) (pp. 117-119), IEEE.

International Organization for Standardization (2022). ISO/IEC/IEEE 42010:2022 Software, systems and
enterprise – Architecture description (ISO Standard No. 42010:2022). Geneva: International Organization
for Standardization.
Jamison, M., & Glavish, M. (2022). The Dark Side of the Metaverse, Part I. American Enterprise Institute
- AEI. Available at https://www.aei.org/technology-and-innovation/the-dark-side-of-the-metaverse-part-i
Janowski, T. (2015). Digital government evolution: From transformation to contextualization. Government
Information Quarterly, 32(3), 221-236.
Jansen, A., & Ølnes, S. (2016). The nature of public e-services and their quality dimensions. Government
Information Quarterly, 33(4), 647-657.
Jung, S. H., & Jeon, I. O. (2022). A study on the components of the metaverse ecosystem. Journal of Digital
Convergence, 20(2), 163-174.
Kalyvaki, M. (2023). Navigating the metaverse business and legal challenges: intellectual property, privacy,
and jurisdiction. Journal of Metaverse, 3(1), 87-92.
Katterbauer, K., Hassan, S. Y. E. D., & Cleenewerck, L. (2022). Financial cybercrime in the Islamic finance
metaverse. Journal of Metaverse, 2(2), 56-61.
Kemec, A. (2022). From reality to virtuality: re-discussing cities with the concept of the metaverse.
International Journal of Management and Accounting, 4(1), 12-20.
Koohang, A., Nord, J. H., Ooi, K. B., Tan, G. W. H., Al-Emran, M., Aw, E. C. X., ... & Wong, L. W.
(2023). Shaping the metaverse into reality: a holistic multidisciplinary understanding of opportunities,
challenges, and avenues for future investigation. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 63(3), 735-
765.
Lee, L. H., Braud, T., Zhou, P., Wang, L., Xu, D., Lin, Z., Kumar, A., Bermejo, C., & Hui, P. (2021). All
one needs to know about metaverse: a complete survey on technological singularity, virtual ecosystem, and
research agenda. Journal of LATEX class files, 14(8), 1-66.
Lemke, F., Taveter, K., Erlenheim, R., Pappel, I., Draheim, D, & Janssen, M. (2020). Stage models for
moving from e-government to smart government. In Electronic Governance and Open Society: Challenges
in Eurasia. EGOSE 2019. Communications in Computer and Information Science (pp. 152-164). Springer,
Cham.
Lindgren, I., & Jansson, G. (2013). Electronic services in the public sector: a conceptual framework.
Government Information Quarterly, 30(2), 163-172.
Lnenicka, M., Luterek, M., & Nikiforova, A. (2022). Benchmarking open data efforts through indices and
rankings: Assessing development and contexts of use. Telematics and Informatics, 66, 101745.
Lv, Z. (2023). Metaverse age: scheduling strategies for digital resource management. IEEE Consumer
Electronics Magazine, 12(4), 4-6.
Lv, Z., Xie, S., Li, Y., Hossain, M. S., & El Saddik, A. (2022). Building the metaverse by digital twins at
all scales, state, relation. Virtual Reality & Intelligent Hardware, 4(6), 459-470.
Lynn, T., Rosati, P., Conway, E., Curran, D., Fox, G., & O’Gorman, C. (2022). Digital Public Services. In
Digital Towns (pp. 49-68). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Macedo, C. R., Miro, D. A., & Hart, T. (2022). The metaverse: from science fiction to commercial reality—
protecting intellectual property in the virtual landscape. NYSBA Bright Ideas, 31(1), 13-20.

Madiega, T., Car, P., Niestadt, M., & van de Pol, L. (2022). Metaverse: Opportunities, risks and policy
implications. EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service. Available at
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2022/733557/EPRS_BRI(2022)733557_EN.pdf
Madsen, C., & Kræmmergaard, P. (2015). Channel choice: a literature review. In Electronic Government.
EGOV 2015 (pp. 3-18), Springer, Cham.
Mozumder, M. A. I., Sheeraz, M. M., Athar, A., Aich, S., & Kim, H. C. (2022). Overview: technology
roadmap of the future trend of metaverse based on IoT, blockchain, AI technique, and medical domain
metaverse activity. In 2022 24th International Conference on Advanced Communication Technology
(ICACT) (pp. 256-261). IEEE.
Mourtzis, D., Panopoulos, N., Angelopoulos, J., Wang, B., & Wang, L. (2022). Human centric platforms
for personalized value creation in metaverse. Journal of Manufacturing Systems, 65, 653-659.
Mystakidis, S. (2022). Metaverse. Encyclopedia. 2(1),486-497.
Nalbant, K. G., & Aydin, S. (2023). Development and transformation in digital marketing and branding
with artificial intelligence and digital technologies dynamics in the metaverse universe. Journal of
Metaverse, 3(1), 9-18.
Narin, N. G. (2021). A content analysis of the metaverse articles. Journal of Metaverse, 1(1), 17-24.
Nica, E., Poliak, M., Popescu, G. H., & Pârvu, I. A. (2022). Decision intelligence and modeling,
multisensory customer experiences, and socially interconnected virtual services across the metaverse
ecosystem. Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations, 21, 137-153.
Ning, H., Wang, H., Lin, Y., Wang, W., Dhelim, S., Farha, F., Ding, J., & Daneshmand, M. (2021). A
survey on metaverse: The state-of-the-art, technologies, applications, and challenges. arXiv preprint
arXiv:2111.09673.
O’Brolcháin, F., Jacquemard, T., Monaghan, D., O’Connor, N., Novitzky, P., & Gordijn, B. (2016). The
convergence of virtual reality and social networks: threats to privacy and autonomy. Science and
Engineering Ethics, 22(1), 1-29.
Oh, H. J., Kim, J., Chang, J. J. C., Park, N., & Lee, S. (2023). Social benefits of living in the metaverse: the
relationships among social presence, supportive interaction, social self-efficacy, and feelings of loneliness.
Computers in Human Behavior, 139, 107498.
Okoli, C., & Pawlowski, S.D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design
considerations and applications. Information & Management, 42(1), 15-29.
Osborne, S. P., Radnor, Z., Kinder, T., & Vidal, I. (2015). The SERVICE framework: A public‐service‐
dominant approach to sustainable public services. British Journal of Management, 26(3), 424-438.
Pamucar, D., Deveci, M., Gokasar, I., Tavana, M., & Köppen, M. (2022). A metaverse assessment model
for sustainable transportation using ordinal priority approach and Aczel-Alsina norms. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 182, 121778.
Pamungkas, B. (2022). The future of cities in the metaverse era: are Indonesian cities ready?. In The 4th
Open Society Conference, OSC 2022 (pp. 101-119). Universitas Terbuka.
Park, D. (2022). S.Korea’s science ministry announces ethical principles for the metaverse. Yahoo Finance.
Available at https://finance.yahoo.com/news/korea-science-ministry-announces-ethical-044143407.html
Park, S. M., & Kim, Y. G. (2022). A metaverse: taxonomy, components, applications, and open challenges.
IEEE Access, 10, 4209-4251.

Poell, T., Nieborg, D., & van Dijck, J. (2019). Platformisation. Internet Policy Review, 8(4), 1-13.
Rathore, B. (2023). Digital transformation 4.0: integration of artificial intelligence & metaverse in
marketing. Eduzone: International Peer Reviewed/Refereed Multidisciplinary Journal, 12(1), 42-48.
Qamar, S., Anwar, Z., & Afzal, M. (2023). A systematic threat analysis and defense strategies for the
metaverse and extended reality systems. Computers & Security, 128, 103127.
Ricoy-Casas, R. M. (2023). The metaverse as a new space for political communication. In Communication
and Applied Technologies. Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies (pp. 325-334), Springer,
Singapore.
Rimol, M. (2022). Gartner Predicts 25% of People Will Spend At Least One Hour Per Day in the Metaverse
by 2026. Gartner. Available at https://www.gartner.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2022-02-07-gartner-
predicts-25-percent-of-people-will-spend-at-least-one-hour-per-day-in-the-metaverse-by-2026
Rosenberg, L. (2022). Regulation of the Metaverse: A Roadmap. In ICVARS '22: Proceedings of the 6th
International Conference on Virtual and Augmented Reality Simulations (pp. 21-26). ACM.
Rosenberg, L. B. (2023). The growing need for metaverse regulation. In Intelligent Systems and
Applications. IntelliSys 2022 (pp. 540-547), Springer, Cham.
Seigneur, J. M., & Choukou, M. A. (2022). How should metaverse augment humans with disabilities?
AH2022: 13th Augmented Human International Conference (pp. 1-6). ACM.
Sia, C. C. (2023). The role of legal governance framework in the metaverse world. In Strategies and
Opportunities for Technology in the Metaverse World (pp. 321-330). IGI Global.
Schmitt, M. (2022). Metaverse: Bibliometric Review, Building Blocks, and Implications for Business,
Government, and Society. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4168458
Scutella, M., Plewa, C., & Reaiche, C. (2022). Virtual agents in the public service: examining citizens’
value-in-use. Public Management Review, 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2022.2044504
Squires, C. (2021). Seoul is developing a metaverse government platform. Available at
https://qz.com/2086353/seoul-is-developing-a-metaverse-government-platform
Smith, P. (2022). Black immigrants in the United States: Transraciolinguistic justice for imagined futures
in a global metaverse. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 42, 109-118.
Sriram, G. K. (2022). A comprehensive survey on metaverse. International Research Journal of
Modernization in Engineering Technology, 4(2), 772-775.
Sun, M., Xie, L., Liu, Y., Li, K., Jiang, B., Lu, Y., Yang, Y., Yu, H., Song, Y., Bai, C., & Yang, D. (2022).
Clinical eHealth The metaverse in current digital medicine. Clinical EHealth, 5, 52-57.
Tatavarti, S. (2022). How the metaverse can be a force for good in an uncertain world. World Economic
Forum. Available at https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/05/how-metaverse-can-be-a-force-for-good-
in-an-uncertain-world/
Twizeyimana, J. D., & Andersson, A. (2019). The public value of E-Government – A literature review.
Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), 167-178.
Um, T., Kim, H., Kim, H., Lee, J., Koo, C., & Namho, C. (2022). Travel incheon as a metaverse: smart
tourism cities development case in Korea. In Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism
2022. ENTER 2022 (pp. 226-231). Springer, Cham.
United Nations. (2022). United Nations e-Government Survey 2022. New York: UN Publishing Section.

Usmani, S. S., Sharath, M., & Mehendale, M. (2022). Future of mental health in the metaverse. General
Psychiatry, 35(4), e100825.
Wang, D., Yan, X., & Zhou, Y. (2021). Research on metaverse: concept, development and standard system.
In 2021 2nd International Conference on Electronics, Communications and Information Technology
(CECIT) (pp. 983-991). IEEE.
Wang, G., Badal, A., Jia, X., Maltz, J. S., Mueller, K., Myers, K. J., ... & Zeng, R. (2022). Development of
metaverse for intelligent healthcare. Nature Machine Intelligence, 4, 922-929.
Wang, Y., Su, Z., Zhang, N., Xing, R., Liu, D., Luan, T. H., & Shen, X. (2023). A survey on metaverse:
fundamentals, security, and privacy. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 25(1), 319-352.
Watson, R. (2022). The virtual economy of the metaverse: computer vision and deep learning algorithms,
customer engagement tools, and behavioral predictive analytics. Linguistic and Philosophical
Investigations, 21, 41-56.
Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review,
MIS Quarterly, 26(2), 13-23.
Wei, D. (2022). Gemiverse: The blockchain-based professional certification and tourism platform with its
own ecosystem in the metaverse. International Journal of Geoheritage and Parks, 10(2), 322-336.
Wiederhold, B. K., & Riva, G. (2022). Metaverse Creates New Opportunities in Healthcare. Annual Review
of Cybertherapy and Telemedicine, 20, 3-7.
Woodruff, A., Fox, S. E., Rousso-Schindler, S., & Warshaw, J. (2018). A qualitative exploration of
perceptions of algorithmic fairness. In CHI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human
Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1-14). ACM.
Wyld, D. C. (2008). Government in 3D: How public leaders can draw on virtual worlds. IBM Centre for
The Business of Government. Available at
https://www.businessofgovernment.org/sites/default/files/Wyld3dReport.pdf
Xu, M., Ng, W. C., Lim, W. Y. B., Kang, J., Xiong, Z., Niyato, D., ... & Miao, C. (2023). A full dive into
realizing the edge-enabled metaverse: visions, enabling technologies, and challenges. IEEE
Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 25(1), 656-700.
Yang, Y., Siau, K., Xie, W., & Sun, Y. (2022). Smart health: intelligent healthcare systems in the metaverse,
artificial intelligence, and data science era. Journal of Organizational and End User Computing (JOEUC),
34(1), 1-14.
Yfantis, V., & Ntalianis, K. (2022). Exploring the potential adoption of metaverse in government. In Data
Intelligence and Cognitive Informatics: Proceedings of ICDICI 2022 (pp. 815-824). Springer Nature
Singapore, Singapore.
Zallio, M., & Clarkson, P. J. (2022). Designing the metaverse: a study on inclusion, diversity, equity,
accessibility and safety for digital immersive environments. Telematics and Informatics, 75, 101909.
Zarantonello, L., & Schmitt, B. H. (2023). Experiential AR/VR: a consumer and service framework and
research agenda. Journal of Service Management, 34(1), 34-55.
Zhang, H., Lee, S., Lu, Y., Yu, X., & Lu, H. (2023). A survey on big data technologies and their applications
to the metaverse: past, current and future. Mathematics, 11(1), 96.
Zhao, Y., Jiang, J., Chen, Y., Liu, R., Yang, Y., Xue, X., & Chen, S. (2022). Metaverse: perspectives from
graphics, interactions and visualization. Visual Informatics, 6(1), 56-67.

Zuiderwijk, A., Chen, Y., & Salem, F. (2021). Implications of the use of artificial intelligence in public
governance : A systematic literature review and a research agenda. Government Information Quarterly,
38(3), 101577.
APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Results of the systematic search
Digital Library
Web of
Science
Scopus
ACM Digital
Library
Scien
ce
Direc
t
IEEE
Key words
combinations
Proce
eding
s/Cha
pters
Journ
als
Proceed
ings/Ch
apters
Journal
s
Procee
dings/
Chapt
ers
Journ
als
Journ
als
Proce
eding
s
Journa
ls
Digital public services in the metaverse context
metaverse AND e-
government
0
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
metaverse AND
electronic
government
0
0
0
0
2
0
8
0
2
metaverse AND e-
governance
0
0
0
0
4
0
6
0
0
metaverse AND
electronic
governance
0
0
1
0
2
0
10
0
0
metaverse AND
public sector
0
0
3
2
2
0
13
1
0
metaverse AND
public administration
0
0
0
0
2
0
4
1
0
metaverse AND
public services
0
1
3
8
6
0
7
2
2
metaverse AND
digital public
services
0
0
2
3
24
0
14
0
0

Digital Library
Web of
Science
Scopus
ACM Digital
Library
Scien
ce
Direc
t
IEEE
metaverse AND
online services
0
0
11
16
17
0
25
11
4
Implications of the metaverse for the public sector
metaverse AND
benefit
3
8
24
31
5
1
8
9
7
metaverse AND
advantage
2
13
28
23
3
0
7
13
6
metaverse AND
contribution
3
14
15
12
5
0
6
3
9
metaverse AND
opportunity
2
10
40
51
4
0
17
17
8
metaverse AND
issue
2
23
47
46
5
0
9
20
26
metaverse AND risk
3
12
19
12
3
0
3
8
0
metaverse AND
barrier
1
3
9
6
4
0
4
1
1
metaverse AND
problem
18
27
53
41
6
0
10
30
13
metaverse AND
obstacle
0
1
7
2
1
0
1
5
2
metaverse AND
challenge
6
12
80
71
16
0
22
52
23
Requirements for the digital public services and e-government context
metaverse AND
architecture
22
44
52
37
5
0
2
33
17
metaverse AND
framework
24
65
62
57
10
0
14
36
23

Digital Library
Web of
Science
Scopus
ACM Digital
Library
Scien
ce
Direc
t
IEEE
metaverse AND
requirement
1
6
26
25
11
0
3
16
10
metaverse AND
characteristic
0
4
27
39
9
0
6
12
7
metaverse AND
component
5
6
22
20
2
1
5
20
5
Appendix 2: Study selection and evaluation criteria – adapted from Bassey et al.
(2022) and Zuiderwijk et al. (2021)
Inclusion
criteria
- studies written in English
- academic or commercial studies
Exclusion
criteria
- theoretical speculations
- work-in-progress papers
- duplicates, i.e., studies of the same author on the same topic (only the most relevant
ones are selected)
- extended abstracts
Study
relevance
- Metaverse in the context of digital public services or online services should play a
substantial or major role in the study (its RQs, objective, etc.). Studies in which the focus
on metaverse use in private sector was minor or secondary were excluded in this phase
- the implications of the use of metaverse in digital services in public sector context should
be central to the study. If the study did not (at least partly) address metaverse implications
in the context of the public sector it was excluded in this phase.
- the requirements for the digital public services and e-government context should be as
a one of the central research focus
- focus only on theoretical aspects
- that the research output is accessible to the researcher for evaluation
Quality
assessment
- The study's objective is explicitly outlined, and there is a comprehensive explanation of
the methods used for data collection. Important claims in the paper are substantiated by
relevant references.
- The study's design aligns well with its research objective. It successfully addresses the
RQs.
- The study's chosen research methodology is sufficiently elucidated, providing adequate
details for comprehension.

Appendix 3. List of experts and their profiles
No.
Country
Job position
Years of
expertise
Professional expertise
1.
Czech
Republic
Assistant
professor, e-
government
consultant
12
The respondent has over 10 years of experience in
e-government, open government, big and open
linked data, and impacts of modern technologies in
the public sector
2.
Estonia
Assistant
professor
8
Information Systems, Software Engineering, Data
management, focusing on data quality and data
integration issues, open data and open government
data (OGD) related subtopics, covering both
technological and societal aspects of OGD
3.
Germany
Government
employee
(under the
State)
10
PhD in Computer Science, employed at a
university for 4 years as a researcher – research on
information systems, 6 years experience as a
system analyst and designer in the public sector
3.
Germany
University
professor
35
12 years of experience in Business Modeling and
Knowledge Engineering, Semantic Web and
public sector digitization
5.
Greece
Senior
researcher
12
Computer science
6.
Italy
Researcher/
developer
8
Software development; scalable web applications
development; PhD in recommender systems
7.
Netherlands
Researcher
8
Open data, back-end developer
8.
Poland
Assistant
professor
17
The respondent has over 15 years of experience in
computational linguistics, AI, and machine
learning and their application for business
processes and service improvement in the public
sector
9.
Poland
Assistant
professor
12
Co-creation, service design, project management,
e-government
10.
Spain
Researcher
7
Researcher in the domain of computer science and
e-government.
Appendix 4. List of digital public services whose delivery is compared by the series of
e-government benchmark reports by the EU
For citizens (7 categories):
Career - 1.1 Registering as unemployed, 1.2 Calculate unemployment benefits (duration and height), 1.3
Apply for unemployment benefits, 1.4 Appeal against decision when unemployment benefits are not

granted, 2.1 Check eligibility for additional unemployment benefits, 2.2 Get guidance with how to arrange
housing benefits, 2.3 Get guidance with how to arrange debt counselling, 2.4 Get guidance with how to
arrange health promotion programs, 2.5 Get guidance with how to arrange help during invalidity, sickness
and employment injuries, 2.6 Apply for a tax refund or other allowances affected by unemployment, 3.1
Check obligations for keeping unemployment benefits, 3.2 Submit evidence that proves you are looking
for work, 3.3 Register circumstances that impede you from looking for work, 4.1 Get guidance with how
to find a job, 4.2 Register employment to stop unemployment benefits, 4.3 Declare personal income taxes,
5.1 Calculate future pensions, 5.2 Apply for state pension, 5.3 Check entitlement for pension when moving
abroad or returning from another country.
Family - 1.1 Check conditions for parental leave, 1.2 Register child with competent authority, 1.3 Register
parental authority (e.g. with court in case not married), 1.4 Apply for child allowance, 2.1 Register with
civil/local registry in order to get married or to close a civil partnership, 2.2 Register divorce with civil/local
registry in order to end marriage or a civil partnership, 3.1 Obtain passport, 3.2 Obtain birth certificate, 3.3
Obtain for a European Health Insurance Card, 4.1 Check requirements for registering the death of a relative.
Studying - 1.1 Monitor study programs provided by universities, 1.2 Check admission requirements for
enrolling in higher education, 2.2 Register in higher education, 2.3 Apply for student grants, 2.4 Calculate
additional financial possibilities, 2.5 Apply for additional social benefits, 3.1 Apply for portability of
student grant (abroad), 3.2 Monitor grades and personal data, 3.3 Get guidance with how to arrange studying
abroad (international office), 3.4 Get guidance with how to arrange internships and starting your career.
Health - 1.1 Get guidance and information about where you can get healthcare, 1.2 Monitor online
information on doctor’s registration, specialty and necessary licenses etc., 1.3 Obtain a European Health
Insurance Card, 2.1 Register and (re)schedule appointment at the hospital, 2.2 Apply for e-consults with a
hospital doctor (tele-consultation), 2.3 Obtain e-prescription from a hospital doctor, 2.4 Apply for electronic
health records.
Justice - 1.1 Check procedural steps for starting a small claims procedure, 1.2 Check relevant legislation
and rights for defending your case, 2.1 Submit small claims procedure (issue the claim to court), 2.2 Submit
evidence/supporting documents, 3.1 Monitor status of case, 3.2 Appeal against court decision.
Moving - 1.1 Monitor the availability of local facilities (e.g. schools, health facilities, sport facilities), 1.2
Register new address in municipality register, 1.3 Register new address with additional organizations, 1.4
Obtain proof of residence, 1.5 Register you signing out from old municipality, 1.6 Apply for disabled
facilities grant or similar benefit to cover for costs for making changes to a house in order to allow to
continue living at one’s property independently.
Transport - 1.1 Register a second-hand car, 1.2 Apply for government support for alternative fueled car,
2.1 Obtain a parking permit, 2.2 Declare vehicle/road tax, 2.3 Obtain permit for toll roads or vignettes, 2.4
Obtain emission stickers, 3.1 Check information and plan a journey (involving multiple types of public
transport), 3.2 Obtain public transport tickets (standard tariff), 3.3 Appeal and claim a ticket refund.
For businesses (2 categories):
Business Start-Up - 1.1 Check requirements for starting a business, 1.2 Get guidance with how to write a
business plan, 1.3 Get guidance with how to explore financial possibilities, 2.1 Obtain certificate of no
outstanding charges, 3.1 Register company for the first time, 4.1 Obtain tax identification card/number, 4.2
Obtain VAT collector number, 5.1 Register with Social Security Office, 5.2 Get guidance with how to

arrange (mandatory) pension insurance, 5.3 Get guidance with how to arrange (compulsory) healthcare
insurance, 6.1 Register your company as an employer, 6.2 Register employee before first workday, 6.3
Check contractual obligations for hiring employees, 6.4 Check working conditions for employing
employees, 7.1 Check conditions for environmental permits, 7.2 Obtain pollution/environmental permit.
Economic - 1.1 Declare corporate tax, 1.2 Declare social contributions, 1.3 Submit financial reports to
business registration office, 1.4 Submit company data to statistical offices, 2.1 Declare VAT, 2.2 Apply for
a refund of VAT, 2.3 Appeal against VAT decision, 3.1 Register illness of employee with competent
administration, 3.2 Register the end of a contract of an employee with competent authority, 3.3 Register
new address with competent authority.
Appendix 5. List of functional and non-functional requirements of the metaverse
architecture
Requirements -
functional
Description
References
HARDWARE AND RESOURCES
Data
infrastructures
should include…
Computation - the cloud-edge-end
computing paradigm, efficient
AR/VR cloud-edge-end rendering,
scalable AI model training,
quantum computing - programs,
instructions, algorithms
Choi et al. (2022); Duan et al. (2021); Giang
Barrera and Shah (2023); Hollensen et al.
(2023); Huynh-The et al. (2023); Lee et al.
(2021); Mozumder et al. (2022); Ning et al.
(2021); Schmitt (2022); Wang et al. (2021);
Wang et al. (2023); Xu et al. (2023)
Storage - local caching, edge
caching, cloud caching,
decentralized edge data storage
and sharing, cloud computing,
local storage, long-term storage
Choi et al. (2022); Duan et al. (2021);
Huynh-The et al. (2023); Lee et al. (2021);
Ning et al. (2021); Wang et al. (2023); Zhao
et al. (2022)
Blockchain - the blockchain-based
metaverse system, blockchain
scalability and interoperability,
blockchain in edge resource
management, secure and persistent
data transfers and storage
Duan et al. (2021); Dwivedi et al. (2022);
Giang Barrera and Shah (2023); Huynh-The
et al. (2023); Ning et al. (2021); Wang et al.
(2021); Wang et al. (2023); Xu et al. (2023)
Other hardware and general
infrastructure equipments to
support data lifecycle and data
intensive design
Choi et al. (2022); Hollensen et al. (2023);
Wang et al. (2021); Wang et al. (2023); Xu et
al. (2023)
Networks and
communication
should include…
Physical and virtual service
providers - real-time physical-
virtual synchronization,
communication services
Alpala et al. (2022); Duan et al. (2021);
Mozumder et al. (2022); Ning et al. (2021);
Wang et al. (2021); Xu et al. (2023)
Wireless 5G/6G networks, tactile
Jung and Jeon (2022); Hollensen et al.

internet
(2023); Huynh-The et al. (2023); Lee et al.
(2021); Mozumder et al. (2022); Ning et al.
(2021); Park and Kim (2022); Wang et al.
(2021); Xu et al. (2023)
Optical and wired networks
Jung and Jeon (2022); Park and Kim (2022);
Wang et al. (2021)
IoT and sensor networks of
intelligent objects
Al-Ghaili et al. (2022); Giang Barrera and
Shah (2023); Jung and Jeon (2022); Lee et al.
(2021); Mozumder et al. (2022); Ning et al.
(2021); Wang et al. (2021); Xu et al. (2023)
Network services and resources
management - slicing,
orchestration, integration
Ning et al. (2021); Wang et al. (2021); Xu et
al. (2023)
Physical devices,
sensors, and
controllers should
include…
Users’ devices and equipment -
general (text, audio, video) devices
Dwivedi et al. (2022); Giang Barrera and
Shah (2023); Wang et al. (2021); Xu et al.
(2023)
Head-mounted displays
(equipment) and controllers -
AR/VR smart glasses
Alpala et al. (2022); Giang Barrera and Shah
(2023); Jung and Jeon (2022); Lee et al.
(2021); Mozumder et al. (2022); Park and
Kim (2022); Wang et al. (2021); Wang et al.
(2023)
Hand-based input devices and
controllers - VR gloves, wristband,
smart ring, haptic gloves
Alpala et al. (2022); Giang Barrera and Shah
(2023); Jung and Jeon (2022); Lee et al.
(2021); Mozumder et al. (2022); Park and
Kim (2022); Wang et al. (2021); Wang et al.
(2023)
Non-hand-based input devices and
controllers - haptic suit
Alpala et al. (2022); Jung and Jeon (2022);
Lee et al. (2021); Mozumder et al. (2022);
Park and Kim (2022); Wang et al. (2021);
Wang et al. (2023)
Motion input devices and eye
tracking devices and controllers
Alpala et al. (2022); Park and Kim (2022);
Wang et al. (2021)
Robotics - connected vehicles,
drones, human-robot interaction
Dwivedi et al. (2022); Lee et al. (2021)
SOFTWARE AND TECHNOLOGIES
Technologies and
concepts
connecting the
metaverse should
Big data, data analytics, data
lifecycle management
Dwivedi et al. (2022); Lee et al. (2021);
Wang et al. (2021); Wang et al. (2023); Xu et
al. (2023); Zhao et al. (2022); Zhang et al.
(2023)

include…
Cloud, edge, quantum computing
Al-Ghaili et al. (2022); Choi et al. (2022);
Duan et al. (2021); Dwivedi et al. (2022);
Lee et al. (2021); Wang et al. (2021); Wang
et al. (2023); Xu et al. (2023)
XR (AR, VR, MR), brain-
computer interface (BCI) and
interactive and immersive
technologies
Al-Ghaili et al. (2022); Alpala et al. (2022);
Giang Barrera and Shah (2023); Huynh-The
et al. (2023); Lee et al. (2021); Ning et al.
(2021); Mozumder et al. (2022); Rosenberg
(2023); Schmitt (2022); Wang et al. (2023);
Xu et al. (2023)
Digital twin and 3D modeling
technologies - 3D simulation, 3D
reconstruction, data fusion
Duan et al. (2021); Giang Barrera and Shah
(2023); Huynh-The et al. (2023); Wang et al.
(2021); Wang et al. (2023); Xu et al. (2023)
AI - machine learning and deep
learning technologies
Al-Ghaili et al. (2022); Duan et al. (2021);
Giang Barrera and Shah (2023); Huynh-The
et al. (2023); Lee et al. (2021); Mozumder et
al. (2022); Ning et al. (2021); Schmitt
(2022); Wang et al. (2021); Xu et al. (2023)
Virtual economy - markets and
mechanisms, marketing, payments
Duan et al. (2021); Dwivedi et al. (2022);
Hollensen et al. (2023); Lee et al. (2021);
Schmitt (2022); Wang et al. (2021); Xu et al.
(2023)
Blockchain - consensus
mechanisms, smart contracts,
NFTs, decentralized finance
Al-Ghaili et al. (2022); Duan et al. (2021);
Dwivedi et al. (2022); Giang Barrera and
Shah (2023); Huynh-The et al. (2023); Lee et
al. (2021); Ning et al. (2021); Mozumder et
al. (2022); Schmitt (2022); Wang et al.
(2021); Wang et al. (2023)
Biometrics and bioinformatics -
human-in-the-loop communication
Dwivedi et al. (2022); Wang et al. (2023);
Xu et al. (2023)
Nanotechnology - battery life,
display resolution and viewing
angles
Mozumder et al. (2022); Ning et al. (2021)
Web and other related standards
and tools such as authentication,
interoperability, accessibility etc.
Choi et al. (2022); Hollensen et al. (2023);
Ning et al. (2021); Wang et al. (2023); Xu et
al. (2023); Zhao et al. (2022)
Recognition,
rendering, and
modeling
environments
Scene and object recognition and
understanding tools
Choi et al. (2022); Duan et al. (2021);
Huynh-The et al. (2023); Park and Kim
(2022); Lee et al. (2021); Wang et al. (2023);
Zhao et al. (2022)

should include…
Scene and object generation tools -
3D reconstruction
Al-Ghaili et al. (2022); Park and Kim (2022);
Wang et al. (2023); Zhao et al. (2022)
Sound and speech recognition
tools - pose estimation, action
recognition
Duan et al. (2021); Huynh-The et al. (2023);
Park and Kim (2022); Zhao et al. (2022)
Sound and speech synthesis tools
Huynh-The et al. (2023); Park and Kim
(2022); Zhao et al. (2022)
Motion rendering and image
processing tools (restoration and
enhancement)
Choi et al. (2022); Duan et al. (2021);
Huynh-The et al. (2023); Lee et al. (2021);
Park and Kim (2022); Wang et al. (2023);
Zhao et al. (2022)
Translation, recommendation, and
testing tools - enable correct
settings for users
Alpala et al. (2022); Wang et al. (2023);
Zhao et al. (2022)
Identity modeling - authentication,
resolution tools
Huynh-The et al. (2023); Mozumder et al.
(2022); Ning et al. (2021)
Computer vision - localization and
mapping, body and gaze tracking
tools
Lee et al. (2021)
Management,
maintenance and
service platforms
should include…
Metaverse production and
implementation platforms
Choi et al. (2022); Lee et al. (2021); Jung
and Jeon (2022); Wang et al. (2021); Zhao et
al. (2022)
Metaverse maintenance and
service platforms
Choi et al. (2022); Lee et al. (2021); Jung
and Jeon (2022); Wang et al. (2021); Zhao et
al. (2022)
Energy management -
equipment/network/service energy
consumption
Ning et al. (2021)
Resource management - discovery,
addressing, allocation
Ning et al. (2021)
Session management -
single/multi-session management
Ning et al. (2021)
CONTENT AND DATA
Content
management
Content creation - authoring,
creator culture
Choi et al. (2022); Duan et al. (2021);
Hollensen et al. (2023); Lee et al. (2021);

should include…
Schmitt (2022); Wang et al. (2021); Zhao et
al. (2022)
Scenario generation and evaluation
Park and Kim (2022); Zhao et al. (2022)
Content editing and upload -
multi-user collaboration
Choi et al. (2022); Duan et al. (2021);
Hollensen et al. (2023); Lee et al. (2021);
Schmitt (2022); Wang et al. (2021); Zhao et
al. (2022)
Content audit and supervision -
licenses, censorship
Duan et al. (2021); Lee et al. (2021); Wang
et al. (2021); Zhao et al. (2022)
Conversion and transfer of
contents - 3D converter
Choi et al. (2022)
Widgets - visual parts of the
applications (customization
adapted)
Alpala et al. (2022)
User interactions’
data should
include…
Agent persona (virtual entity)
modeling
Dwivedi et al. (2022); Lee et al. (2021);
Wang et al. (2021); Park and Kim (2022);
Schmitt (2022); Zhao et al. (2022)
Multimodal content representation
(interaction)
Duan et al. (2021); Dwivedi et al. (2022);
Lee et al. (2021); Park and Kim (2022); Zhao
et al. (2022)
Multimodal entity linking and
expansion
Park and Kim (2022); Zhao et al. (2022)
Multi-task interaction
Dwivedi et al. (2022); Park and Kim (2022);
Zhao et al. (2022)
Embodied interaction
Dwivedi et al. (2022); Park and Kim (2022);
Zhao et al. (2022)
Social computing - social
networks, swarm intelligence
Mozumder et al. (2022); Ning et al. (2021);
Rosenberg (2023)
Requirements -
non-functional
Description
References
Accessibility
Should ensure access through all
existing digital devices, to all
people without restrictions,
convert public events to virtual
worlds, support digital literacy and
education to reduce challenges.
Alpala et al. (2022); Choi et al. (2022);
Dionisio et al. (2013); Duan et al. (2021);
Zallio and Clarkson (2022)
Consistency
Should ensure data and
information, transmission,
Mozumder et al. (2022); Ning et al. (2021)

processing, storage etc. though the
metaverse, between the physical
and digital worlds.
Ethics and
behavior
Should ensure ethical
consciousness in which various
avatars can live, ethical behavior,
guidelines and rules of users’
groups, psychological safety and
people behavior.
Falchuk et al. (2018); Hollensen et al.
(2023); Lee et al. (2021); Ning et al. (2021);
Park and Kim (2022); Schmitt (2022); Wang
et al. (2021); Zallio and Clarkson (2022)
Heterogeneity and
diversity
Should ensure and guarantee
users’ equity, diversity, fairness,
cultural diversity, prevent users’
addiction and cyberbullying, foster
a positive sense of diverse
communities, heterogeneous
virtual spaces, devices, and data
types.
Duan et al. (2021); Dwivedi et al. (2022);
Lee et al. (2021); Ning et al. (2021); Wang et
al. (2021); Wang et al. (2023); Xu et al.
(2023); Zallio and Clarkson (2022)
Hyper
spatiotemporality
Should ensure a virtual world
parallel to the real world and how,
where, and why people locate and
move across various worlds with
different spatiotemporal
dimensions.
Mozumder et al. (2022); Ning et al. (2021);
Wang et al. (2023)
Immersiveness
Should ensure that the computer-
generated virtual space is realistic
to allow users to feel
psychologically and emotionally
immersed in the experience.
Technology-related factors may
manipulate the degree (i.e., low to
high) of telepresence.
Al-Ghaili et al. (2022); Choi et al. (2022);
Dionisio et al. (2013); Duan et al. (2021);
Dwivedi et al. (2022); Giang Barrera and
Shah (2023); Wang et al. (2021); Wang et al.
(2023); Xu et al. (2023); Zhao et al. (2022)
Interoperability
Should ensure a multi-
technological environment,
employ existing standards, users
can seamlessly move across virtual
worlds, virtual worlds are
interchangeable across distinct
platforms, data exchange.
Abbate et al. (2022); Al-Ghaili et al. (2022);
Choi et al. (2022); Dionisio et al. (2013); Lee
et al. (2021); Ning et al. (2021); Wang et al.
(2023); Xu et al. (2023); Zhao et al. (2022)
Policy and
governance
Should ensure that the legal
framework must be in place,
consider legal aspects, meet
general standards of governance,
new laws and regulations for
virtual crimes.
Dwivedi et al. (2022); Giang Barrera and
Shah (2023); Lee et al. (2021); Rosenberg
(2023); Schmitt (2022); Wang et al. (2021);
Kalyvaki, M. (2023)

Privacy
Should ensure preventing privacy
leakage in data transmission,
processing, storage etc., threats to
customized privacy, threats to
digital footprints, cluster users into
social groups for trustworthiness
characterization, data ownership
and integrity.
Al-Ghaili et al. (2022); Choi et al. (2022); Di
Pietro and Cresci (2021); Dwivedi et al.
(2022); Falchuk et al. (2018); Huynh-The et
al. (2023); Lee et al. (2021); Mozumder et al.
(2022); Ning et al. (2021); Park and Kim
(2022); Schmitt (2022); Wang et al. (2023);
Xu et al. (2023); Zallio and Clarkson (2022)
Quality of service
Should ensure measuring of
factors (human, system, or
context) that may affect the user
experience, network- and
application-level metrics.
Choi et al. (2022); Du et al. (2023); Dwivedi
et al. (2022); Hollensen et al. (2023); Lee et
al. (2021)
Scalability
Should ensure the capacity of
metaverse to remain efficient with
the number of concurrent
users/avatars, the level of scene
complexity, and the mode of
user/avatar interactions.
Al-Ghaili et al. (2022); Dionisio et al.
(2013); Wang et al. (2023); Xu et al. (2023)
Security and
cybersecurity
Should ensure safety in physical
vs. digital world, ensure hardware
(device), software,
data/information, content, and
network security, employ security
standards, authentication and
access control, federated learning,
adverse machine learning, digital
proxemics.
Abbate et al. (2022); Al-Ghaili et al. (2022);
Choi et al. (2022); Di Pietro and Cresci
(2021); Dwivedi et al. (2022); Huynh-The et
al. (2023); Lee et al. (2021); Mozumder et al.
(2022); Ning et al. (2021); Park and Kim
(2022); Schmitt (2022); Wang et al. (2021);
Wang et al. (2023); Xu et al. (2023); Zallio
and Clarkson (2022)
Sociability
Should ensure interactions among
users, i.e., sharing, collaborating,
and co-creating contents,
experiences, and objects,
personalized experience, and
shareable stories.
Al-Ghaili et al. (2022); Giang Barrera and
Shah (2023); Huynh-The et al. (2023); Lee et
al. (2021); Xu et al. (2023); Zallio and
Clarkson (2022); Zhao et al. (2022)
Sustainability
Should ensure that the metaverse
maintains a closed economic loop
and a consistent value system with
a high level of independence.
Prevent from being controlled by a
few powerful entities.
Choi et al. (2022); Dwivedi et al. (2022);
Giang Barrera and Shah (2023); Park and
Kim (2022); Wang et al. (2021); Wang et al.
(2021); Wang et al. (2023)
Trust and
accountability
Should ensure fairness, power and
control, auditing, trusted execution
environments, people are
comfortable with and embrace the
technologies.
Al-Ghaili et al. (2022); Choi et al. (2022);
Dwivedi et al. (2022); Lee et al. (2021)

Appendix 6. The most important functional requirements’ statistics
Category
Functional requirements
Mean
Median
ANSD
Data infrastructures
Computation - the cloud-edge-end
computing paradigm, efficient AR/VR
cloud-edge-end rendering, scalable AI
model training, quantum computing -
programs, instructions, algorithms
2.90
3.00
0.10
Technologies and
concepts
Digital twin and 3D modeling
technologies - 3D simulation, 3D
reconstruction, data fusion
2.90
3.00
0.10
Technologies and
concepts
Web and other related standards and
tools such as authentication,
interoperability, accessibility etc.
2.80
3.00
0.18
Recognition, rendering,
and modeling
environments
Scene and object recognition and
understanding tools
2.80
3.00
0.18
Recognition, rendering,
and modeling
environments
Scene and object generation tools - 3D
reconstruction
2.70
3.00
0.23
Content management
Content creation - authoring, creator
culture
2.70
3.00
0.23
Data infrastructures
Storage - local caching, edge caching,
cloud caching, decentralized edge data
storage and sharing, cloud computing,
local storage, long-term storage
2.60
3.00
0.27
Networks and
communication
Physical and virtual service providers -
real-time physical-virtual
synchronization, communication
services
2.60
3.00
0.27
Networks and
communication
Wireless 5G/6G networks, tactile
internet
2.60
3.00
0.27
Physical devices,
sensors, and controllers
Head-mounted displays (equipment)
and controllers - AR/VR smart glasses
2.60
3.00
0.27
Recognition, rendering,
and modeling
environments
Translation, recommendation, and
testing tools - enable correct settings
for users
2.60
3.00
0.27
User interactions’ data
Agent persona (virtual entity) modeling
2.60
3.00
0.27
User interactions’ data
Social computing - social networks,
2.60
3.00
0.27

Category
Functional requirements
Mean
Median
ANSD
swarm intelligence
Physical devices,
sensors, and controllers
Users’ devices and equipment - general
(text, audio, video) devices
2.50
2.50
0.28
Recognition, rendering,
and modeling
environments
Identity modeling - authentication,
resolution tools
2.50
2.50
0.28
Appendix 7. The most important non-functional requirements’ statistics
Non-functional requirements
Mean
Median
ANSD
Accessibility
2.90
3.00
0.32
Consistency
2.90
3.00
0.32
Privacy
2.90
3.00
0.32
Security and cybersecurity
2.90
3.00
0.32
Policy and governance
2.80
3.00
0.42
Quality of service
2.80
3.00
0.42
Scalability
2.60
3.00
0.52
Sociability
2.60
3.00
0.70
Trust and accountability
2.60
3.00
0.52
Ethics and behavior
2.50
2.50
0.53
Heterogeneity and diversity
2.50
2.50
0.53
Interoperability
2.40
2.00
0.52
Sustainability
2.40
2.50
0.70
Immersiveness
2.30
2.00
0.67
Hyper spatiotemporality
2.10
2.00
0.32
Appendix 8. The most relevant digital public services to be provisioned in the EU's
metaverse platform
Category
Digital public service
Mean
Median
ANSD

Citizens –
Career
2.5 Get guidance with how to arrange help during
invalidity, sickness and employment injuries
2.6
3
0.27
Citizens –
Studying
3.4 Get guidance with how to arrange internships
and starting your career
2.6
3
0.49
Citizens –
Studying
3.3 Get guidance with how to arrange studying
abroad (international office)
2.5
3
0.50
Citizens –
Health
1.1 Get guidance and information about where you
can get healthcare
2.5
2.5
0.28
Citizens –
Moving
1.1 Monitor the availability of local facilities (e.g.,
schools, health facilities, sport facilities)
2.5
3
0.50
Citizens –
Career
2.2 Get guidance with how to arrange housing
benefits
2.4
2
0.27
Citizens –
Career
2.3 Get guidance with how to arrange debt
counselling
2.4
2
0.27
Citizens –
Career
2.4 Get guidance with how to arrange health
promotion programs
2.4
2
0.27
Citizens –
Career
4.1 Get guidance with how to find a job
2.4
2.5
0.49
Citizens –
Studying
1.1 Monitor study programs provided by
universities
2.4
2.5
0.49
Citizens –
Transport
3.1 Check information and plan a journey
(involving multiple types of public transport)
2.4
2.5
0.49
Businesses –
Business Start-
Up
1.3 Get guidance with how to explore financial
possibilities
2.3
2
0.46
Businesses –
Business Start-
Up
1.2 Get guidance with how to write a business plan
2.2
2
0.18
Businesses –
Business Start-
Up
5.3 Get guidance with how to arrange
(compulsory) healthcare insurance
2.2
2
0.18

Citizens –
Justice
1.2 Check relevant legislation and rights for
defending your case
2
2
0.44
Businesses –
Business Start-
Up
5.2 Get guidance with how to arrange (mandatory)
pension insurance
2
2
0.22
Citizens –
Studying
1.2 Check admission requirements for enrolling in
higher education
1.9
2
0.54
Businesses –
Business Start-
Up
1.1 Check requirements for starting a business
1.9
2
0.32
Citizens –
Career
5.1 Calculate future pensions
1.8
2
0.40
Citizens –
Career
5.3 Check entitlement for pension when moving
abroad or returning from another country
1.8
2
0.40
Citizens –
Family
3.1 Obtain passport
1.8
2
0.40