## 3 Results
### RQ3--How Have These Proposals Contributed to Addressing Different Levels of Violence?
#### 3.4.1 Implementation Technical Aspects  
The analyzed proposals exhibit high scalability, indicating their potential for deployment in complex urban environments. However, some solutions (e.g., S2, S3, S4, S7, S8, S10, S15, S27, S34, S36, S38, S39) face limitations due to high computational requirements, restricting their feasibility in resource-constrained settings. Despite these challenges, most intrusion detection, cyberattack prevention, and physical threat monitoring systems demonstrate feasibility for integration into urban infrastructures, provided that implementation and processing requirements are optimized.  
Regarding implementation feasibility, most analyzed solutions present moderate complexity, requiring specialized configurations and appropriate infrastructure. Their integration into urban environments remains feasible with proper technical planning. However, some proposals (e.g., S38-S42) pose greater challenges due to the need for high-performance computational processing and complex algorithmic models. Furthermore, certain solutions (e.g., S27-S29) do not specify this aspect, raising concerns about practical feasibility.  
Code availability is another critical factor in implementing these solutions. While some studies (e.g., S5, S6, S7, S8, S10, S11, S14, S16, S19, S20, S25, S26, S30) provide access to source code, facilitating validation and continuous improvement, a significant majority (e.g., S1-S4, S9, S12, S15, S18, S21, S23, S24, S27-S45) do not, limiting transparency and customization potential. The lack of open-source code hinders scientific collaboration and the development of more robust and scalable solutions, restricting their integration into diverse urban infrastructures.  
The implementation cost of these solutions varies significantly depending on system complexity and resource requirements. Most studies do not specify implementation costs, leading to uncertainty regarding the investment required for large-scale deployment and the long-term sustainability of these solutions within urban security infrastructures. This may be attributed to the fact that 91% of the proposals were tested only in experimental settings and not in real-world urban environments. Only studies S18, S26, S29, and S23 were tested in real scenarios. S26 used real-life CCTV images, while S45 employed real-life violence situations and hockey fight datasets to assess model performance. These real-world tests, although limited, provide valuable insights into how well the models perform under conditions resembling those in actual smart city environments.  
The analyzed proposals exhibit high scalability, indicating their potential for deployment in complex urban environments. However, some solutions (e.g., S2, S3, S4, S7, S8, S10, S15, S27, S34, S36, S38, S39) face limitations due to high computational requirements, restricting their feasibility in resource-constrained settings. Additionally, certain proposals do not specify their scalability, introducing uncertainty regarding their large-scale applicability. Despite these challenges, most intrusion detection, cyberattack prevention, and physical threat monitoring systems demonstrate feasibility for integration into urban infrastructures, provided that implementation and processing requirements are optimized.  
Regarding the ease of implementation, most analyzed solutions present moderate complexity, requiring specialized configurations and appropriate infrastructure. Their integration into urban environments remains feasible with proper technical planning. However, some proposals (e.g., S38-S42) pose greater challenges due to the need for high-performance computational processing and complex algorithmic models. Furthermore, certain solutions (S27-S29) do not specify this aspect, raising concerns about practical feasibility.