Smart Technologies for Resilient and Sustainable Cities: Comparing Tier 1 and Tier 2 Approaches in Australia

Abstract

Smart city research often emphasises technology while neglecting how governance structures and resources influence outcomes. This study compares Tier 1 (Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Adelaide) and Tier 2 (Geelong, Newcastle, Hobart, Sunshine Coast) Australian cities to evaluate how urban scale, economic capacity, governance complexity, and local priorities influence smart-enabled resilience. We analysed 22 official strategy documents using a two-phase qualitative approach: profiling each city and then synthesising patterns across technological integration, community engagement, resilience objectives and funding models. Tier 1 cities leverage extensive revenues and sophisticated infrastructure to implement ambitious initiatives such as digital twins and AI-driven services, but they encounter multi-agency delays and may overlook neighbourhood needs. Tier 2 cities deploy agile, low-cost solutions—sensor-based lighting and free public Wi-Fi—that deliver swift benefits but struggle to scale without sustained support. Across the eight cases, we identified four governance archetypes and six recurring implementation barriers—data silos, funding discontinuity, skills shortages, privacy concerns, evaluation gaps, and policy changes—which collectively influence smart-enabled resilience. The results indicate that aligning smart technologies with governance tiers, fiscal capacity, and demographic contexts is essential for achieving equitable and sustainable outcomes. We recommend tier-specific funding, mandatory co-design, and intergovernmental knowledge exchange to enable smaller cities to function as innovation labs while directing metropolitan centres towards inclusive, system-wide transformation.

1. Introduction

The rapid advancement of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) and the Internet of Things (IoT) has positioned “smart cities” at the forefront of contemporary urban planning discussions [1,2]. Advocates argue that sensor networks, real-time data analytics, and AI-driven solutions can facilitate faster service delivery, minimise environmental impacts, and strengthen resilience against a range of urban challenges and shocks. Yet the rising threats from climate change, economic volatility, and health crises underscore the necessity of moving beyond technology alone, necessitating policy frameworks that embed resilience within broader governance structures [3,4].

Emerging studies indicate that incorporating resilience goals into smart city initiatives produces numerous benefits, mitigating both economic damage and loss of life while enhancing adaptive capacities [5,6]. In federated systems such as Australia, however, the interplay of national, state/territory, and local governance introduces layers of complexity to policy formation and implementation [5,6]. Australia’s national Smart Cities Plan exemplifies this complexity, as it must be implemented within each state or territory and, ultimately, local councils (see Figure 1) [6,7]. As a result, there is increasing interest in understanding how different governance “tiers” shape the efficacy of smart city projects, particularly concerning funding mechanisms, administrative oversight, and community engagement.

This study addresses that gap by comparing two distinct urban tiers in Australia:

• Tier 1: Major metropolitan centres such as Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane are often equipped with substantial resources and robust digital infrastructures.
• Tier 2: Mid-sized or regional cities, such as Geelong, Newcastle, Hobart, and the Sunshine Coast, typically operate under tighter budgets while benefiting from more agile governance and closer community connections [8,9].

Figure 2 provides an overview of the selected Tier 1 and Tier 2 urban centres across Australia, while Figure 1 illustrates the country’s three-tiered governance system, emphasising the roles of federal, state/territory, and local councils in shaping smart city initiatives [7]. Prior research noted that smaller cities, despite their resource constraints, can serve as “innovation labs”, rapidly implementing targeted pilot projects that are sometimes overlooked in large-scale metropolitan plans [10]. However, there remains limited empirical analysis of how these smaller (Tier 2) contexts can effectively utilise smart technologies for resilience and how their approaches differ from the more complex, better-funded Tier 1 systems.

This paper accordingly poses the following question:

“How do smart city technologies improve urban resilience across different governance tiers in Australian cities?”

To address this question, the research investigates policy documents, strategic frameworks, and reported outcomes from eight Australian cities, four Tier 1 and four Tier 2. Using a two-phase qualitative approach, it analyses four thematic pillars: technological integration, policy and governance, community engagement, and resilience/sustainability goals. By contrasting findings across these themes, the study identifies the facilitators and barriers that influence real-world implementation, including how different tiers manage digital infrastructure rollouts, stakeholder coordination, and funding challenges.

Ultimately, this comparative lens clarifies how governance tiers, resource capacities, and sociopolitical contexts influence the adoption of smart city initiatives as resilience-building tools. The findings not only illuminate strategies for Australia’s multi-level governance framework but also offer broader lessons for federated systems worldwide, where smaller municipalities frequently act as key drivers of innovation despite their limited budgets. By highlighting the opportunities and constraints encountered by Tier 1 and Tier 2 cities, this paper aims to inform more equitable, future-oriented urban planning solutions that bridge digital divides and sustain resilient communities.

2. Literature Review

Smart cities utilise ICT and IoT to enhance service delivery, minimise environmental impacts, and improve the overall quality of urban life [11,12,13]. Early models often promoted top-down, technocentric approaches that focused on sensor networks, big data analytics, and digital infrastructure [12]. However, more recent frameworks adopt a holistic approach that integrates social capital, sustainable practices, and effective governance, recognising that technology alone does not guarantee equitable or sustainable outcomes [11,14].

In this expanded view, successful smart cities require inclusive and participatory processes to align local governments, the private sector, and community stakeholders, ensuring that digital solutions address genuine societal needs [15]. In particular, debates on “Smart City 2.0” emphasise the need for civic engagement, socio-economic inclusivity, and adaptive governance, transcending purely technological solutions to foster genuine urban transformation [16].

2.1. Smart Technologies as Enablers of Urban Resilience

Urban resilience refers to a city’s ability to anticipate, absorb, recover from, and adapt to environmental, economic, or social shocks while maintaining essential functions [3]. Historically, resilience strategies have concentrated on enhancing physical infrastructure (e.g., flood defences) and social networks [17]. More recently, however, smart city initiatives have been introduced and added a crucial additional layer of technological capacity. In particular, IoT sensors and AI-driven platforms have been found to significantly strengthen both immediate responsiveness and long-term planning for resilience. For instance, sensor networks can detect floods in real time or manage traffic flows during emergencies [18,19], while AI-enabled data analytics can predict resource shortages and enhance early warning systems [20].

Research suggests that technology alone is inadequate for achieving robust resilience outcomes, however [3]. Effective governance, equitable stakeholder engagement, and transparent data practices are crucial for aligning digital solutions with local needs [21]. Without coordinated efforts among communities, governments, and private-sector actors, even the most sophisticated analytical tools risk failing to address deeper social and environmental vulnerabilities [4]. Therefore, smart-enabled resilience must incorporate participatory processes, inclusive governance frameworks, and careful consideration of socio-economic contexts [22,23].

Recent discussions highlight “citizen data ownership” and “digital equity” as pivotal concerns:

• Citizen data ownership raises questions about who controls and profits from the vast amounts of data collected by sensors and platforms, sparking ethical and privacy debates [24,25].
• Digital equity involves ensuring that all residents, not just affluent or tech-savvy groups, can access and benefit from digital services [2]. Where these issues are unaddressed, smart city agendas risk reproducing social inequalities rather than alleviating them.

2.2. Australian Smart City Initiatives Across Governance Tiers

Australia’s national Smart Cities Plan [6] represents a federal-level commitment to technology-driven urban development, guiding investments in initiatives such as open-data platforms, advanced IoT applications, and digital twins [10]. Within this national framework, Tier 1 cities (e.g., Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane) are characterised by large populations, robust digital infrastructures, and extensive multi-stakeholder governance systems [9]. Their ability to mobilise resources and partnerships often results in ambitious city-wide deployments, such as wide-area IoT networks or digital twin models for metropolitan planning [20]. In contrast, Tier 2 municipalities (e.g., Geelong, Newcastle, Hobart) display more streamlined governance and smaller budgets, leading them to pursue agile, community-oriented projects, such as sensor-based street lighting or free public Wi-Fi [8,18]. However, far from being “laggards”, mid-sized cities have the capacity to serve as “innovation labs”, testing socially embedded solutions that address immediate local needs, often with quicker implementation cycles [20]. Also, their smaller scale can encourage greater resident engagement, potentially fostering inclusive, bottom-up forms of smart city governance that notably differ from the top-down, large-scale model observed in Tier 1 contexts.

2.3. Key Implementation Challenges

Smart cities promise many benefits, but implementation challenges remain persistent. Financial constraints, particularly evident in Tier 2 contexts, restrict the range and speed of technology adoption [8,26]. Meanwhile, data privacy and cybersecurity concerns present ethical and legal conflicts, while the complexity and continuous costs of upgrading outdated urban infrastructure to accommodate emerging ICT systems remain as challenges [17,27]. Moreover, critics warn that technological solutions risk increasing social inequalities if they fail to incorporate equitable access or community-driven priorities [16,21]. In Australia, digital divides persist, highlighting the need for robust policies that enforce inclusive broadband coverage, capacity-building, and opportunities for citizen participation [27]. Policymakers are increasingly recognising that bridging these divides is essential for realising the broader societal benefits of smart city innovations.

2.4. From “Smart” to “Resilient”: Theoretical Convergence

Cities striving for “smart-enabled resilience” aim to embed real-time data and predictive analytics across governance functions, from climate adaptation to socio-economic planning [23]. Australian examples include bushfire alert systems that combine IoT sensors with meteorological data and flood management tools that integrate with local emergency protocols [10]. However, effectively aligning technology with resilience goals requires cross-sector partnerships, transparent data sharing, and sustained community engagement [21]. In theoretical terms, this shift resonates with “Smart City 2.0” paradigms, which advocate for citizen-centric innovations and a more comprehensive urban systems approach, prioritising human well-being alongside digital infrastructure [16,23].

2.5. Comparative Urbanism and the Tiered Lens

An increasing body of literature on comparative urbanism examines how the availability of local resources, the capacity of policies, and the scale of cities influence the trajectory of smart city initiatives [20]. In Australia, Tier 1 municipalities benefit from extensive institutional depth but may encounter multi-layered bureaucratic hurdles, whereas Tier 2 municipalities implement agile rollouts yet face challenges with limited, often discontinuous funding. By contrasting these approaches, researchers illuminate how the constraints of smaller cities may foster innovative governance or community-led solutions that are often overlooked in large metropolitan contexts [8].

2.6. Identified Research Gaps

Despite a growing enthusiasm for ICT-enabled and resilient urban development, three distinct research gaps persist:

• Comparative Analyses: Few studies systematically compare Tier 1 and Tier 2 smart city strategies, which limits our understanding of how context-specific factors (e.g., governance scale, resource capacity) influence adaptation and scalability [27].
• Resilience Outcomes: Empirical evaluation remains limited, leaving unanswered questions about whether city size influences long-term preparedness, social equity, or the success of disaster management [3].
• Innovation in Smaller Cities: Mid-sized municipalities often lack thorough exploration in academic and policy debates, overshadowed by the emphasis on large metropolitan centres. Nevertheless, these smaller cities may function as vital “innovation labs,” particularly in relation to digital equity and local co-design [20].

This paper aims to address these gaps by adopting a tier-based comparative lens within a federated governance framework. In doing so, it provides novel insights into how multi-level governance and resource disparities influence the implementation of “Smart City 2.0” principles, particularly concerning inclusive engagement and resilience outcomes. By situating Australia’s experience within broader theoretical debates (e.g., urban systems theory, multi-level governance, and citizen data ownership), the study illustrates how context-sensitive strategies can more effectively utilise digital innovation to promote sustainable, equitable urban development.

3. Materials and Methods

This study employs a two-phase qualitative research design to examine how Australian cities of varying scales implement smart city technologies and incorporate resilience measures. The first phase involves an individual city analysis, while the second consists of a cross-case comparative analysis and synthesis. By comparing Tier 1 (major metropolitan) and Tier 2 (mid-sized or regional) cities, the study explores the interplay between governance complexity, resource availability, and local priorities, thereby illuminating distinct pathways to smart city innovation (see Figure 3).

3.1. Rationale for Tier-Based Classification

Although Australia does not formally differentiate between “Tier 1” and “Tier 2” cities, this tiered perspective provides a practical method for understanding how population size, funding structures, and administrative levels can influence technological capacity and policy ambition [10,16]. Tier 1 cities, such as Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, and Perth, each boast populations exceeding two million people and typically operate multi-level governance frameworks with substantial budgetary resources. These characteristics often correspond with extensive IoT networks, advanced data analytics, and strategic collaborations across government and industry. In contrast, Tier 2 cities, including Geelong, Newcastle, Hobart, and the Sunshine Coast, generally possess populations under 600,000, more limited fiscal capacities, and streamlined administrative structures and concentrate on smaller-scale, community-driven smart initiatives. While these definitions are unofficial, they illustrate significant differences in levels of investment, stakeholder engagement, and technology deployment.

3.2. Case Selection

An initial national scan identified 15 Australian cities recognised for having publicly available smart city or resilience strategies. Three were excluded after a closer review because they (a) did not provide detailed policy documentation suitable for comparative analysis, (b) lacked substantial evidence of implemented projects (beyond aspirational statements), or (c) overlapped significantly in governance structures and geographic context with already selected cases. From this selection, 12 cases were chosen according to three criteria:

• Presence of Explicit Frameworks: Cities have published strategic documents referencing IoT, AI, or broader digital innovation.
• Documented Initiatives: Strategies or policy programmes included reports on tangible pilot projects or outcomes.
• Governance Diversity: Selected cases captured a mix of large metropolitan areas (Tier 1) and smaller or regional centres (Tier 2) to facilitate comparative analysis of governance complexity and resource allocation.

This selection aimed to capture variations in population sizes, administrative complexity, and socio-economic conditions, thereby enhancing the transferability of the findings. Excluding the three remaining cities may restrict the comprehensiveness of the sample; however, the chosen set still adequately represents the main governance tiers and diversity of Australian urban contexts.

3.3. Data Collection

Data sources included official strategies, city council reports, policy documents, and publicly accessible plans related to digital innovation and resilience. Whenever possible, additional information such as council meeting minutes, media releases, or publicly available performance indicators was used to provide context or cross-check claims in the strategy documents. Utilising published, policy-focused materials facilitated an analysis based on real-world directives rather than hypothetical goals. A list of all documents examined is located in Appendix A.

3.4. Data Analysis

Every document retrieved was subject to a thematic analysis [28], using NVivo 12 qualitative software to facilitate the process. The coding process incorporated deductive and inductive approaches:

• Initial Coding Framework: The study’s research question and related literature on smart cities and urban resilience informed the development of five primary codes: (1) governance structures, (2) community engagement, (3) resilience and sustainability, (4) funding mechanisms, and (5) implementation challenges.
• Emergent Sub-Themes: As coding progressed, new subcategories emerged inductively (e.g., stakeholder collaboration, digital equity, and pilot scalability). These were incorporated into the coding tree to capture nuanced variations across city documents.
• Iterative Refinement: The coding schema was refined through repeated reviews to ensure consistency and clarity [29]. Where possible, reliability checks were conducted by having a second researcher cross-check a subset of coded materials, resolving discrepancies through discussion and consensus.

All the collected documents were subjected to thematic analysis [28] using NVivo. The process involved developing a coding framework based on key themes related to the research question of the study. These were “Governance Structures”, “Community Engagement”, “Resilience and Sustainability”, “Funding Mechanisms”, and “Implementation Challenges”. As coding progressed, emergent sub-themes were inductively incorporated from existing literature on smart cities and urban resilience [3,11]. The final coding schema was refined through iterative review to ensure reliability and clarity [29].

3.5. Phase 1: Individual City Analysis

In the first phase, the documents from each city were meticulously examined to outline local priorities, document any pilot projects, and identify how resilience concepts intersected with smart city objectives. These analyses produced structured profiles that emphasised each city’s strategic vision and stated policy goals, governance approach (e.g., role of municipal, state/territory, and federal agencies), and technological focus (IoT applications, AI services, data-driven initiatives), along with any noted implementation barriers (funding constraints, bureaucracy, community acceptance). This phase offered a detailed understanding of each city’s policy environment and innovation trajectory. Appendix B is a copy of the template used as data sheets to construct the profile for each city.

3.6. Phase 2: Comparative Synthesis

The template used to create the spreadsheet for comparative analysis is provided in Appendix C. The resulting cross-city matrices were then analysed to reveal trends, outliers, and unique characteristics of different approaches across the cities (see Appendix D for a summary of this analysis). By comparing Tier 1 and Tier 2 strategies side by side, the study identified how resource availability shaped project scale, how participatory methods varied according to city size, and which governance mechanisms promoted long-term implementation. This comparative perspective highlighted how Tier 1 and Tier 2 contexts, despite shared national frameworks, diverge in strategic priorities, scale of implementation, and stakeholder collaboration (Appendix C). Figure 3 illustrates these steps in the research design.

3.7. Limitations and Scope

Although policy documents provide valuable insights into official objectives and reported outcomes, they can overstate ambition and overlook operational challenges. The lack of interviews or ethnographic fieldwork means that on-ground experiences and differing stakeholder perspectives could not be triangulated; therefore, the analysis focuses on documented rationales and declared results rather than lived realities.

Quantitative datasets at the city level were also inconsistent. Reliable statistics on digital inclusion levels and detailed smart city budgets exist for some councils (e.g., Sydney’s AUD 40 m digital twin allocation) but are absent or non-comparable for others, which hinders a uniform cross-city comparison. Only publicly verifiable indicators that met minimum comparability criteria (e.g., service delivery performance, environmental outcomes) were included.

Furthermore, the tier typology used here is an analytical construct, not an official Australian classification. Although it helps to clarify how governance scale and resource capacity influence smart resilience strategies, the categories inevitably oversimplify a spectrum of municipal contexts.

Despite these constraints, the dual-phase thematic approach provides a strong comparative lens on how various Australian cities adapt smart city agendas to local opportunities and limitations. The findings that follow illustrate how governance levels, resource availability, technological implementation, and community engagement interact to influence resilience outcomes across the urban spectrum.

4. Results

This section examines how Australian Tier 1 and Tier 2 cities implement smart city measures to enhance urban resilience, including community well-being and sustainability. Based on policy documents and frameworks (Appendix D), it details (1) technological integration and resource allocation, (2) governance and policy, (3) community engagement and equity, and (4) resilience and sustainability. In the final section, a cross-tier synthesis is provided, highlighting notable differences among local governments.

4.1. Technological Integration and Resource Allocation

4.1.1. Tier 1 Cities

Large metropolitan councils frequently invest in ambitious digital networks to address areas such as traffic management, environmental monitoring, and service efficiency, including city-wide IoT deployments, digital twins, and artificial intelligence [30,31]. Among others, Adelaide’s “Smart Cities Framework” integrates ICT for traffic flow optimisation, interactive maps, and smart parking, reflecting partnerships at both state and city levels that result in high-tech urban solutions. Similarly, Melbourne’s inner-city councils (e.g., City of Stonnington, City of Casey, Maribyrnong, Wyndham) concentrate on data-driven approaches, encompassing smart irrigation, digital citizen engagement platforms, and sensor-based environmental management [32,33]. Although such projects receive various funding sources, including federal and state grants and private sector investments, multi-agency oversight can hinder their implementation. Moreover, integrating emerging technologies into existing infrastructure often necessitates extensive organisational reform and long-term budgeting [10].

Concrete Tier 1 deployments showcase the scale and ambition of metropolitan programmes, such as Sydney’s NSW Spatial Digital Twin. The state’s 4-D model, now live for Western Sydney, allows planners to simulate flood scenarios and infrastructure upgrades in real time, enhancing decision-making processes in urban planning and emergency management [34]. Melbourne’s 2.5 km “Intelligent Corridor” on Nicholson Street integrates intersection sensors with cloud-based AI; preliminary simulations indicate that diverting just 4% of vehicles could increase person throughput by approximately 12%, and the system streams live multimodal data to the city’s open platform [35,36].

4.1.2. Tier 2 Cities

It is common for smaller or regional councils to focus on modular, rapidly implemented solutions, such as sensor-driven street lighting, dynamic parking systems, and community Wi-Fi networks [37,38,39]. Darwin’s Smart City Strategy highlights microclimate sensors, public Wi-Fi, and CCTV analytics to enhance service delivery and public safety [40].

Although Tier 2 councils often operate with smaller budgets and depend on specific grants or partnerships, their governance structures and smaller scale of operations enable agile decision-making, allowing pilot projects to commence and be adapted more swiftly [41]. However, long-term expansion continues to pose challenges without a stable funding stream or stronger policy continuity.

4.2. Governance and Policy

4.2.1. Tier 1 Cities

It is common for metropolitan councils in Australian Tier 1 cities to operate within layered governance structures that involve federal bodies, state departments, and private consortia [6,9]. In Adelaide, for instance, local, state, and private partners participate in integrating data-driven service models, although their policy documents do not specifically mention resilience [42]. As part of Brisbane’s “Smart, Connected Brisbane” framework [30], businesses, universities, and communities seek to collaborate to optimise city assets for economic and social resilience. However, as these councils navigate the resulting complex political landscapes, changes in leadership or shifts in state-level agendas have been found to delay or reshape strategic priorities [43]. Similarly, coordinating cross-agency roles for major projects such as digital twins often adds additional administrative overhead, which can hinder or delay their adoption.

4.2.2. Tier 2 Cities

Policy and infrastructure innovations can be implemented much more quickly in Tier 2 cities than in Tier 1 cities because they have many fewer bureaucratic layers [37,39,44]. For example, the Sunshine Coast’s “Smart City Framework” goal of emphasising data-driven governance and pilots of expanding related services has proven relatively easy to realign with local needs on a short timeline [38]. Similarly, Darwin’s strategy for open data and collaboration across sectors has accelerated technological modernisation [40]. Such efforts can, however, fail if there is no broad support from state or federal governments for transitioning pilots into long-term, city-wide (or regional-wide) programmes.

4.3. Community Engagement and Equity

4.3.1. Tier 1 Cities

Large-scale stakeholder consultations in Tier 1 cities can provide extensive feedback from stakeholders, yet it still may not adequately capture hyper-local or minority group perspectives [30,31]. Similarly, city-wide Wi-Fi initiatives and literacy programmes designed to promote digital inclusivity may be challenging to implement across diverse neighbourhoods, especially when local champions or community-based organisations are not fully integrated into the decision-making process. Thus, while there have been successful two-way communication platforms and online tools across Melbourne’s suburban and district-level councils (e.g., Stonnington), it has been a challenge to engage all demographic sectors in less affluent suburban and peri-urban areas (e.g., Casey [33,45]).

4.3.2. Tier 2 Cities

The smaller footprints of projects in the less well-resourced Tier 2 cities have encouraged, in fact catalysed, relatively high levels of resident involvement, including in-person “co-design” sessions that tailor technological solutions to the needs defined by the community [37,39,41]. For example, the human-centred design approach used in Darwin explicitly addresses fair access to digital services, particularly in remote or underrepresented communities [40]. However, these targeted successes may prove challenging to upscale across entire regions and/or for extended periods of time without additional funding or broader digital literacy initiatives.

4.4. Resilience and Sustainability

4.4.1. Tier 1 Cities

Major cities frequently incorporate resilience goals such as climate adaptation, carbon reduction, and integrated mobility into their smart city agendas [31]. Hence, Brisbane’s framework utilises IoT for water conservation and flood risk monitoring [30]. In Adelaide, traffic technology and data-driven urban management indirectly tackle numerous sustainability concerns, although official documents do not always explicitly mention resilience targets [42]. The scale and complexity of Tier 1 initiatives have the potential to be transformative in impact; however, multi-year timelines and shifting political support can hinder the degree of impact being sought [10].

4.4.2. Tier 2 Cities

In mid-sized cities, resilience objectives are frequently integrated with technological rollouts, such as in Hobart’s IoT waste management system and Darwin’s robust disaster preparedness through real-time alerts [39,40]. The City of Greater Geelong includes socio-economic resilience in its smart city plans by partnering across various sectors to embed technology in workforce development and local business support. Similarly, the Sunshine Coast has a programme of green technology partnerships for data-centric resource management, resulting in a synergy between sustainability and digital innovation [38]. However, upscaling these smaller initiatives necessitates stable funding and support from multiple levels of government.

4.5. Cross-Tier Synthesis

Across all themes, Tier 1 municipalities exhibit larger budgets, a broader project scope, and often slower rollouts due to complex governance. In contrast, Tier 2 cities tend to implement narrower, more rapid interventions, achieving immediate local impact but sometimes lacking the funds for systemic expansion.

Table 1. Comparative overview of Tier 1 and Tier 2 smart city approaches in Australia.

Dimension	Tier 1 Cities (Major Metropolitan)	Tier 2 Cities (Mid-Sized/Regional)
Level of Innovation	Advanced pilots (AI, digital twins) City-wide IoT deployments for traffic, waste, etc.	Targeted solutions (e.g., sensor-based lighting, local Wi-Fi) Agile prototyping of small-scale projects
Scale of Projects	Metropolitan or region-wide Often multi-year, large-budget initiatives	Neighbourhood-level or pilot-based Shorter timelines, localised impacts
Governance Complexity	Multi-agency involved Potential of policy misalignment among federal/state/local	Fewer bureaucratic layers Rapid decision-making and simpler oversight
Community Engagement	Large-scale consultations Possible gaps in hyper-local or minority input	Face-to-face “co-design” with residents Stronger community buy-in at smaller scale
Funding and Resources	Diverse sources (federal, state, private) Complex oversight and coordination	Limited municipal/state grants Reliance on well-scoped allocations and partnerships
Implementation Speed	Often slowed by overlapping bureaucracies Extended planning and approval phases	Faster due to simpler governance More iterative “test-and-learn” approach
Resilience and Sustainability	Ambitious, city-wide sustainability or transport target Longer-term strategies and layered timelines	Rapid local gains (e.g., IoT waste monitoring), Scaling up requires additional support/funding

summarises these cross-tier differences.

Thus, while both tiers emphasise digital innovation to enhance resilient urban outcomes, they differ in project scale, speed, and funding flexibility. It seems that urban “smartness” is not solely reliant on technological sophistication or city size, but rather on the city’s capacity to align innovations with community priorities and cooperation across multi-level layers of governance. What follows is a discussion of the implications of these findings for governance, policy, and future research.

To illustrate these cross-tier differences more concretely,

Table 2. Various smart city initiatives in different tier cities, with key challenges and opportunities highlighted.

City (Tier)	Key Smart Initiative	Main Challenge	Outcome/Opportunity
Sydney (T1)	Digital Twin for urban planning Smart LED Street Lighting	Coordinating across multiple agencies High costs of implementation	Opportunity for enhanced traffic flow and energy efficiency Opportunities for scaling real-time environmental monitoring
Adelaide (T1)	Smart Parking Traffic Optimisation	Overlapping bureaucracies Privacy concerns	Improved user experience through automated parking Potential to enhance data integration for wider city services
Darwin (T2)	Microclimate Sensors Advanced CCTV	Resource constraints Funding continuity	Rapid rollout due to streamlined governance Enhanced public safety and emergency response
Sunshine Coast (T2)	IoT-based Waste Management Sensor Networks	Integrating with older infrastructure Data security	Immediate efficiency gains in waste collection Possibility to expand city-wide with further support
Casey (T1)	“Connected Casey” digital community engagement platform	Privacy/security issues Effective resource allocation	Greater citizen participation in local decision-making Opportunity to trial additional e-services
Geelong (T2)	Smart Parking Solutions Citizen Engagement Apps	Robust monitoring and evaluation Funding shortfalls	Deepened socio-economic resilience with stronger local business support Model for other mid-sized cities

provides examples of selected smart city initiatives in both Tier 1 and Tier 2 cities, highlighting key challenges and potential opportunities each project has revealed.

5. Discussion

The comparative insights from Tier 1 and Tier 2 cities illustrate that digital innovation in Australia is influenced by the intersecting factors of governance complexity, resource capacity, and community orientation. While each tier has its distinct advantages and limitations, both strive to enhance urban liveability and resilience. This discussion centres on three overarching themes that resonate with global smart city debates: (1) multi-level governance and policy alignment, (2) inclusivity, resilience, and sustainability, and (3) the tension between incremental and transformative change. The discussion then extends to policy implications, theoretical connections, and global applicability.

5.1. Multi-Level Governance and Policy Alignment

Australia’s federated system illustrates how vertical coordination (among federal, state/territory, and local councils) and horizontal collaboration (across various agencies and private partners) can both expedite and hinder smart city and resilience initiatives [8,9]. Tier 1 cities often benefit from larger financial resources but encounter lengthy approval processes due to multi-agency oversight and longer time periods needed for comprehensive alignments. Conversely, Tier 2 contexts are able to leverage streamlined governance to progress more rapidly on localised projects, yet they risk experiencing “pilot fatigue” if long-term funding or policy continuity is not established [46]. This aligns with international observations that policy coherence and stable funding mechanisms are pivotal for implementing large-scale digital strategies [21].

Policy Implications for Different Governance Levels:

• National (Federal): Offer multi-year funding cycles and clear frameworks that promote local innovation, whilst maintaining consistent nationwide standards.
• State/Territory: Align urban development policies with federal smart city objectives and promote collaborations among local councils to share best practices.
• Local Councils: Adopt flexible governance processes to adapt pilot programmes, foster community partnerships, and ensure that digital innovation responds to real-world realities.

Through this multi-level alignment, pilot projects can more readily evolve into enduring infrastructures, avoiding duplicative or fragmented implementations [5,10].

5.2. Inclusivity, Resilience, and Sustainability

Australian cities consistently integrate resilience and inclusive governance into their smart city agendas despite multiple variations in governance [18,23]. This occurs in three ways:

• Bridging the Digital Divide: While Tier 1 programmes (e.g., city-wide Wi-Fi) can have a broad reach, Tier 2 initiatives often achieve rapid, targeted impacts, such as delivering internet hotspots or literacy workshops to at-risk neighbourhoods [21,39]. Both approaches demonstrate the importance of tailoring digital inclusion strategies to meet local demographic needs.
• Environmental Stewardship: Real-time monitoring of resources such as water and air quality alongside integrated climate preparedness for bushfires and alerts to flood detection are common features in both tiers, showcasing a commitment to linking technology deployment with ecological resilience [3].
• Community-Led Processes: Tier 2 cities demonstrate how co-design and face-to-face engagement can anchor technology deployments in residents’ lived realities, fostering greater trust and adoption. The larger Tier 1 councils conduct extensive consultations but may have difficulty capturing hyper-local issues in surveys that cover the entire city.

These findings support broader discussions on “smart-enabled resilience” where technology and policy must be integrated into participatory frameworks to ensure equitable outcomes [17]. For Australian municipalities, the challenge is to maintain community partnerships over time, particularly in smaller councils that depend on limited grant cycles.

5.3. From Incremental Innovations to Transformative Futures

In Australia, smart cities initiatives range from modest sensor-based solutions to ambitious city-wide digital twins [10,47]. In Tier 1, advanced IoT platforms and integrated data analytics promise transformative urban change, but they require coherent policies and substantial lead times, sometimes stalling due to political or administrative shifts. Tier 2 strategies, on the other hand, emphasise incremental gains that can build local momentum and trust, but they may fail without additional resources or intergovernmental cooperation. Therefore, scalability remains a crucial issue in the Australian context. The successful transition of Geelong from an ad hoc system to an integrated IoT framework [10,41] exemplifies how Tier 2 can achieve deep impact through institutional support and effective governance. While numerous successful examples are documented and analysed in this paper, instances of explicitly unsuccessful smart city initiatives are less frequently publicised or documented in policy reports. This absence of publicly accessible information regarding less effective or unsuccessful projects represents a limitation, underscoring a potential bias in available sources. Future research could address this gap by conducting more thorough case studies or interviews with stakeholders to identify and learn from unsuccessful or less effective smart city deployments.

Balancing the Two Paradigms

Incremental Gains: Build local trust, refine solutions in real contexts, and address immediate challenges.

Transformative Vision: Leverage higher-tier funding, policy frameworks, and broader stakeholder coalitions to ensure longevity and system-wide impact.

Ultimately, reconciling these two paradigms—incremental versus transformative—may require flexible funding models, technical assistance from higher-tier governments, and shared platforms for knowledge exchange [26,46].

5.4. Implications for Sustainable, Resilient, and Citizen-Centric Urban Development

These findings demonstrate that a federated system of governance, such as Australia’s, can support a wide range of smart city innovations, from top-down, large-scale initiatives to grassroots, community-based initiatives. Tier 1 municipalities have the potential to pioneer advanced technologies if they successfully manage bureaucratic complexity and do not marginalise vulnerable groups, while Tier 2 cities can foster agile, localised projects that strengthen community bonds if they can acquire long-term, stable investments to progress beyond the pilot phase.

Two areas require specific policy attention in order to translate these observations into actionable strategies:

Enhancing Equitable Development:

• Policy Coordination: Federal and state bodies could streamline grant mechanisms designed for mid-sized cities, ensuring that successful local solutions can be scaled up.
• Capacity-Building: Workshops, training, and inter-city collaborations can assist smaller councils in sharing best practices, thereby reducing dependence on short-term or ad hoc funding cycles.
• Governance Frameworks: Clear mandates for inclusive community engagement can prevent technology-led projects from worsening socio-economic disparities.
• Strengthening Urban Resilience:
• Adaptive Funding: Multi-year grants and consistent policy directions can assist Tier 1 in sustaining broad-based transformation while enabling Tier 2 to extend the successes of pilot programmes into systemic resilience strategies.
• Interjurisdictional Collaboration: Mechanisms for cross-council learning, such as data sharing and collaborative cloud platforms, can amplify the impact of local innovations.

5.5. Connection to Broader Theories and Global Applicability

Multi-Level Governance and Urban Resilience

These findings highlight how multi-level governance theories [9] apply to digital innovation contexts: while decentralisation can promote agility, robust intergovernmental alignment is crucial for scaling. In terms of urban resilience frameworks [3], the Australian case exemplifies how resilience requires not only technological upgrades but also inclusive processes, cross-sector partnerships, and adaptive policymaking.

Applicability to Other Federated Systems

Tier-based dynamics are likely relevant for other federated nations, such as Canada, the United States, or Germany, where provincial or state bodies share responsibilities with local governments [8]. Mid-sized cities in the U.S. or Germany, for example, may similarly function as “innovation labs”, quickly implementing novel solutions that feed back into larger metropolitan regions.

However, the generalisability of this approach to strongly centralised governance contexts (e.g., France or China) may be limited. In those systems, local autonomy and funding streams vary, potentially shaping different smart city outcomes. Future comparative research on such countries could clarify how top-down frameworks may replicate the successes or avoid the pitfalls observed in the Australian Tier 1 and Tier 2 models.

5.6. Future Research Directions

To enhance the understanding of how federated contexts influence the evolution of smart cities, future studies should take the following into account:

Longitudinal and Mixed-Method Analyses

Research Focus: Examine how early pilots (e.g., Darwin’s microclimate sensor rollout or Hobart’s IoT waste management) evolve over multiple years—do they expand to city-wide or regional scales, or do they stall due to funding gaps?

Methodological Approach: Integrate quantitative indicators (e.g., digital inclusion rates, budget allocations versus project outcomes) with qualitative insights from key stakeholders to encompass both the breadth and depth of project trajectories.

Stakeholder Perspectives and Empirical Data

Research Questions: How do local officials, community leaders, and private sector partners perceive the benefits and risks of large-scale digital deployments? Which governance or funding mechanisms most effectively facilitate the transition from pilot programmes to permanent infrastructure?

Methodological Approach: In-depth interviews, focus groups, or participant observation can validate or challenge official policy narratives, shedding light on where and why certain projects succeed (e.g., micro-scale sensor programmes) while others fail to gain traction (e.g., underfunded Wi-Fi expansions).

Comparative International Case Studies

Research Focus: Investigate how tier-based governance models function in other federated nations (e.g., Canada, Germany, the United States) or how they differ in centralised systems (e.g., France, China).

Key Aims: Identify the boundary conditions for successful technology adoption across different political, fiscal, and cultural contexts, clarifying how lessons from Australia might (or might not) generalise beyond its federal structure.

Collectively, these recommendations highlight the significance of aligning top-down policy frameworks with locally driven innovation to further smart city initiatives in federated contexts. By balancing ambitious, city-wide agendas (Tier 1) with agile, community-focused approaches (Tier 2), Australia and other nations with similar governance structures can more effectively harness digital technologies for sustainable and inclusive urban development. Future work that captures longitudinal project outcomes, incorporates diverse stakeholder voices, and compares various governance systems will provide deeper insights into how smart city agendas can be scaled while maintaining the local adaptability vital for resilience and equity.

6. Conclusions

This study’s tier-based analysis of Australian smart city initiatives highlights how urban scale, governance complexity, and resource availability significantly influence both the scope and speed of project implementation. Tier 1 cities generally possess more extensive institutional networks and budgets for pursuing large-scale digital twins, advanced IoT solutions, and AI analytics. Nonetheless, these ambitious visions often face lengthy timelines, multifaceted coordination challenges, and the risk of overlooking local community needs. Conversely, Tier 2 cities can implement targeted, community-based solutions to address pressing issues swiftly, such as energy savings, public Wi-Fi, or localised environmental concerns, despite a more limited geographical reach. In summary, Tier 1 excels at macro-transformative platforms (e.g., Sydney’s digital twin), whereas Tier 2 demonstrates the value of low-cost “living-lab” pilots that larger cities can subsequently upscale (e.g., Sunshine Coast smart-compaction bins and Darwin’s ‘Switching on Darwin’ sensor network).

Tier 1 cities need to recognise that inclusive engagement is essential. Mandating neighbourhood-level consultations or advisory groups could help ensure that ambitious projects such as AI-driven infrastructure truly benefit marginalised groups instead of exacerbating existing inequalities. Also, these cities could further protect affordability and inclusiveness by allocating a portion of their smart city budgets to subsidise or provide low-cost digital services. By doing so, large-scale deployments can advance without deepening socio-economic divides.

In contrast, Tier 2 cities should prioritise access to strategic funding. Advocacy for streamlined state and federal grants specifically designed for mid-sized municipalities would support incremental, pilot-based expansions for organic, scalable growth. Additionally, collaborative networks, such as regional alliances for shared IoT initiatives or open-data platforms, are a practical means to pool resources and expertise for the type of initiatives that only Tier 1 cities have been able to afford to date. This could maximise the impact of more limited budgets while ensuring that smaller cities can effectively adopt and adapt to technological innovations.

In light of the dynamic nature of technological and governance frameworks, longitudinal studies would be helpful in clarifying whether early IoT or AI pilots will evolve into city-wide systems as well as how leadership changes may affect consistency. Furthermore, mixed-method research incorporating qualitative interviews may reveal how stakeholder interests shape everyday execution, use and benefits for and from residents to private tech firms. In addition to Australia, other federated systems worldwide (for example, the U.S.A. and Germany) might benefit from this tiered perspective since regional resource disparities and multi-level governance issues are commonly shared.

Ultimately, adjusting smart city strategies to fit local capacities and promoting inclusive, community-oriented approaches are vital for equitable, sustainable urban development. By recognising both ambitious and incremental pathways, cities of all sizes can advance towards resilient, future-proof solutions that align with their unique societal and environmental contexts.