# A Systematic Review of Cyber Range Taxonomies: Trends, Gaps, and a Proposed Taxonomy
## 6 Conclusions and Future Work  
The refinements introduced in this proposed taxonomy mark a concrete step forward in how cyber ranges are conceptualized. By building on foundational works such as those by [PERSON] et al. [11] and [PERSON] et al. [12], the taxonomy offers a clearer and more complete framework, one that covers both the capabilities of cyber ranges and the technologies that enable them. The main theoretical addition is the _Technology_ dimension, which addresses an existing blind spot by outlining infrastructure components such as _Virtualization_, _Connection Technologies_, _System Architectures_, and _Artificial Intelligence_. Beyond that, this work updates existing dimensions--_Scenario_, _Environment_, _Monitoring_, _Teaming_, _Learning_, and _Management_--to better reflect how cyber ranges are used today. Characteristics like _Cyber-Physical Systems_, _Network Monitoring_, and _Orchestration Tools_ bring the taxonomy in line with current practices. Still, some gaps remain. _Econometrics_, for instance, was underdeveloped and therefore excluded. This points to a clear area for future research, one that takes economic and organizational factors into account. Practically, the taxonomy gives developers, researchers, and educators a structured way to think about and build cyber ranges. Organizations can use the _Scenario_ and _Teaming_ dimensions to design relevant, role-based exercises, while _Learning_ and _Monitoring_ support feedback and performance tracking. The _Technology_ dimension can guide with architectural decisions, for example, the use of containerization, distributed systems, or AI-based orchestration. While the taxonomy remains grounded in technological and functional perspectives, cyber ranges operate within broader ecosystems that include policy, regulatory, and socio-technical dynamics. Compliance with frameworks such as NIS2 or sector-specific mandates influences scenario design, monitoring scope, and training objectives. Furthermore, human factors, organizational culture, and end-user behavior are increasingly recognized as critical vectors for vulnerability and resilience. Future iterations of this taxonomy may therefore benefit from incorporating dedicated dimensions to account for these socio-technical forces, strengthening the bridge between technical frameworks and real-world cybersecurity governance. Future WorkFuture research should look at linking dimensions introduced in our taxonomy, such as _Technology_ and _Management_, to established theoretical frameworks in the broader cybersecurity, information systems, and organizational management literature. This will strengthen theoretical grounding and enhance the applicability of the taxonomy across different research domains. Another valuable avenue for future research is to investigate how cyber range taxonomies align with established learning theories and knowledge development frameworks. This could further clarify how cyber ranges facilitate effective learning and skill acquisition in cybersecurity training contexts. As this was not in the scope of the current study, future work should address empirical validation of the proposed taxonomy through practical case studies, as well as detailed assessments of the usability, impact, and effectiveness of the Taxonomy Mapping Toolkit in real-world research workflows. Collecting structured user feedback and conducting systematic validation will significantly enhance the applicability of our framework. Additionally, incorporating socio-technical research represents an important direction for future work. Explicitly exploring how governance structures, organizational culture, regulatory frameworks (such as NIS2 and CER directives), and human behavioral factors influence the adoption, design, and effectiveness of cyber ranges will enrich the taxonomy. This integration can strengthen the connection between technical implementations and real-world cybersecurity resilience.