IfG.CC -
Institute for eGovernment

Abstract:

The world is being urbanized at an unprecedented rate. With the rush to smarten up its cities, the cities in the world are at risk of developing fragile infrastructures that work well when temperatures are normal but fail miserably when subjected to climate pressures. Addressing the multifaceted intricacies of climate resilience is crucial in determining the future and sustainability of our cities. The future of cities is not the most connected but most resilient.

Introduction:

Globally, the urban population has accelerated from 751 million in 1970 to 4.4 billion in 2020 indicating an unprecedented growth and has led to an important disruption towards the urban transformation (United Nations, 2018). Over 50 percent of the global population currently reside in urban areas and by 2050 the number will hit up to 70 percent (United Nations, 2019). This paradigm shift called for an immediate action and hence Smart Cities Mission (SCM) is an initiative launched in India during 2015, though this was prevalent in some parts of the globe since 1994. The emergence of the smart city is a welcome change with the solution to the congestion in cities, energy usage, and governmental inefficiency. Sustainability is a significant aspect that cannot be ignored in any urban environment scenario, specifically in the context of certain limitations it is exposed to (Bibri, 2019). Digital environments, Internet of Things sensors and artificial intelligence are promising smoother and paved way for more sustainable city living. Smart cities and climate change are holistic by themselves and connected to each other through the common goal of envisaging sustainable modern surroundings. Nevertheless, there is an escalating climate change, which is exposing urban areas to floods, heat waves, air pollution and water crisis. The paradox arises, and the cities that are technologically advanced may be the one that are environmental sensitive.

Smartness and vulnerability

The past few years have seen the establishment of smart cities in Europe and Asia, as well as in Africa and Latin America. The Smart City model in Barcelona was used as a reference point on a world scale due to the wide range of applications of IoT in traffic, lighting and governance. However, even Barcelona was forced to change its strategy and implement a Climate Emergency Action Plan 2021-2030, introducing so-called climate shelters, greening, and dual adaptation measures to ensure the safety of the population in the city during extreme heat and floods (Ajuntament de Barcelona, 2021). Smartness was not enough to be resilient and needed to be climate-adapted.

These contradictions are witnessed in the Global South. An example of this is Delhi, in May 2022 it registered record-breaking heat of 49 C despite spending massive amounts of money on digital monitoring systems and transport (BBC, 2022). High temperatures paralyze the electricity supply and put local population at health risks. The megacity of digital promise Jakarta is literally sinking, by an average of seven centimetres a year, as the land subsides and sea levels rise (Shatkin, 2019). Its overambitious move to a new smart capital, Nusantara, is indicative of technological ambition as well as the sheer power of the climate reality.

Why resilience is missing

The empties are not difficult to detect. The investments in infrastructure often focus on monitoring tools, applications, and sensors only, whereas corporeal systems, including stormwater drainage, flood barriers, or green roofs, do not receive adequate investment. The 2015 crippling floods in Chennai unveiled this disparity. Although there was monitoring in place, the submerged city with clogged waterways and poor drainage cost billions of dollars and resulted in widespread social disruption (Seenirajan et al., 2017).

There is another layer of social inequality. The smart city projects are more likely to end up concentrating the benefits in the richer areas. The disadvantaged groups living in informal quarters are usually out of the focus of the digital platform. The 2018 water crisis in Cape Town, where the town was declared to go without running water on the April 2^nd, 2018, demonstrated the effects of climate shocks in increasing inequality. The rich families invested in their own storage and electronic monitoring, and the poor residents could hardly receive the rationed products (Enqvist& Ziervogel, 2019).

Governance is also a detriment to integration. The IT ministries or urban development authorities tend to spearhead the Smart city programs, whereas climate adaptation is delegated to environment or disaster management departments. The silos in the institution are expensive.

Finally, yet importantly, there is the question of data governance. Smart cities generate masses of data, e.g., on mobility, energy, consumption, and rarely transform into climate resilience dashboards. One remarkable exception is Singapore, which has incorporated risk forecasts and environmental statistics in its Smart Nation (Woo, 2020).

Examples of integration

Rotterdam has been the pioneer in the so-called model of Climate Proof which is a mix of smart monitoring and green infrastructure. Its water plazas are used as a common area and also as a temporary reservoir during heavy rains and the underground storage is used to ensure that it does not flood. Such initiatives combine physical resilience initiatives with sensors and predictive models (van de Ven et al., 2016).

Keeping in mind its intelligent mobility and energy systems, Copenhagen made a significant investment in cloudburst management initiatives which integrate digital monitoring and water sensitive design (Larsen et al., 2016). In this case, the use of technology is not a goal but a means to build resilience.

Innovation has been bottom-up in Jakarta. Social media crowdsourcing to map floods in real-time was used in the Peta Jakarta project to enable the authorities to respond dynamically to the monsoon (Holderness and Turpin, 2015). Through the connection between citizen involvement and technology, resilience was increased in areas that had less formal infrastructure.

Even Japan had to learn disaster. Following the 2011 tsunami, its pilot smart city directly included the element of disaster resilience, meaning that energy networks, residential, and community services would be able to withstand shocks (Cabinet Office, Japan, 2020). This integration is an appreciation of the fact that, technology that lacks resiliency is partially complete.

Policy directions

The measures based on connectivity or efficiency alone generate incentives to make superficial investments. To be resilient, indicators (flood preparedness, heat adaptation, and social equity) should be the centre of smart city ranking and evaluation.

Second, there should be redirection of financial flows. Climate-resilient infrastructure should also be a part of the smart city budgets. Projects involving a mix of digital innovation and physical readjustment, like green rooftops with sensor-controlled irrigation can be promoted as a type of public-private partnership.

Third, digital tools that can be used to democratize resilience planning can be participatory. People are not expected to be passive consumers of the applications but proactive contributors of data and thoughts. Peta Jakarta success shows the effectiveness of civic co-production in the development of adaptive response.

Fourth, it should be cross-sectoral governance. Co-ordination should be mandated by ministries of urban development, IT, environment and disaster management. Climate audits of all projects must be part of national smart city missions, and this will ensure no duplication occurs and accountability.

Lastly, there should be long-term vision. Virtual models can be used to stress-test policies by establishing digital versions of cities, known as digital twins, which can simulate the impact of climate shocks. Combined with international plans like the SDGs and the Sendai Framework on Disaster Risk Reduction, they offer a way to have cities that are future proofed.

Conclusion

The city of smarts is one of the greatest experiments in urban governance of the modern times. However, not being resilient, they are in danger of turning into the monuments of frailty, very efficient in normal times, but too easily torn in times when it matters.

References:

• Ajuntament de Barcelona. (2021). Climate emergency action plan 2021–2030. Barcelona City Council
• Bibri, S. E. (2019). On the sustainability of smart and smarter cities in the era of big data: An interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary literature review. Journal of Big Data, 6(1), 1–64. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40537-019-0182-7
• Cabinet Office, Japan. (2020). Japan’s smart cities (Main report). Government of Japan
• Enqvist, J. P., & Ziervogel, G. (2019). Water governance and justice in Cape Town: An overview. WIREs Water, 6(4), e1354. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1354
• Holderness, T., & Turpin, E. (2015). PetaJakarta.org: Assessing the role of social media for civic co-management during monsoon flooding in Jakarta, Indonesia. PLOS Currents: Disasters, 7. https://doi.org/10.1371/currents.dis.aa92b311b1bbdf1ecf6a4e1fe114b5db
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). (2022). Climate change 2022: Impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press.
• Seenirajan, M., Natarajan, M., Thangaraj, R., &Bagyaraj, M. (2017). GIS-based flood damage assessment of Chennai floods 2015. Journal of Geographic Information System, 9, 126–140. https://doi.org/10.4236/jgis.2017.92009
• Shatkin, G. (2019). Futures of crisis, futures of urban political theory: Flooding in Asian coastal megacities. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 43(2), 207–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12756
• United Nations. (2019). World urbanization prospects: The 2018 revision. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. https://population.un.org/wup/
• van de Ven, F. H. M., Snep, R. P. H., Koole, S., Brolsma, R., van der Brugge, R., Spijker, J., &Vergroesen, T. (2016). Adaptation planning support toolbox: Mapping the adaptation space of urban water management. Environmental Science & Policy, 66, 427–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.08.006
• Woo, J. J. (2020). Governing the Smart Nation: Policy, politics and the limits of digital technology in Singapore. Urban Studies, 57(4), 789–805. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098019847415

---

Autor(en)/Author(s): Anuradha P S and Dr Divyashree

Dieser Artikel ist neu veröffentlicht von / This article is republished from: Counter Currents, 13.04.2026

Bitte besuchen Sie/Please visit: