“Smarter & Inclusive Cities” is a course developed by Arup, TalTech, and Climate-KIC in collaboration with the M4EG initiative, supported by the European Union and UNDP. The general theme is empowering cities through the adoption of digital tools, participatory methodologies, and social inclusion programs. The goal of Smarter & Inclusive Cities is to promote new urban growth models that consider the variety of local communities, paying particular attention to efficiency, sustainability, and equal opportunities. The course offers practical examples and performance indicators for public administrators, citizens, and anyone interested in delving deeper into these dynamics.
Smarter & Inclusive Cities: Local and Global Challenges for Inclusivity
The digital transformations at the heart of the “Smarter & Inclusive Cities” concept have opened up unprecedented avenues for improvement, making available platforms, apps, and solutions aimed at more effective management of public services and infrastructure. The idea of making cities “smart” is closely linked to the goal of including all segments of the population in this process, from younger to older age groups, while recognizing that people with disabilities and minorities often encounter greater barriers and limitations in accessing technological tools.
The “Smarter & Inclusive Cities” document highlights that 66% of the world’s population is connected to the Internet, whereas Europe shows an average of about 89%. This gap indicates the need for guidelines and interventions to reduce the digital divide, which would otherwise widen existing economic and social disparities. The study notes that 69% of men worldwide have internet access compared to 63% of women, and that the percentage of people living in urban areas who are connected is higher than in rural areas. This digital gap is not only geographic but also generational, given that 75% of young people between 15 and 24 use the Internet—ten percentage points higher than the average in other age brackets. It becomes evident that new technologies can act either as a catalyst for development or as a source of marginalization, depending on how they are designed and implemented. This leads to a reflection on the importance of creating accessible digital services to reduce gender and socioeconomic disparities, paying attention to real skills and the risks of exclusion.
Experience from some urban areas confirms that simply deploying sensors and high-tech solutions does not automatically improve residents’ quality of life. The case of Songdo in South Korea—designed as an ultra-technological, low environmental impact city—demonstrated how limited public engagement can undermine initial objectives. Similarly, Santander in Spain introduced a vast number of sensors but had to deal with major maintenance demands and data privacy issues. Based on these negative examples, the “Smarter & Inclusive Cities” analysis underscores the importance of placing people at the center, with participatory processes starting from the design phase. Technology should not be the only driver of development but rather a tool to address real problems, from air pollution to access to basic services like education and healthcare.
For a city to be inclusive and smart, a holistic approach is therefore needed, one in which social and economic dimensions interact with the digital realm, all with a focus on meeting people’s needs. This implies involving residents in decision-making processes, fostering partnerships with universities, startups, local businesses, and community associations, and developing data analysis methods that respect privacy and fundamental rights.
Smarter & Inclusive Cities: Fostering Participation and Digital Inclusion
The inclusion strategies proposed by “Smarter & Inclusive Cities” focus on a key element: community engagement. Experiences in Rotterdam (Netherlands) show how co-designing digital solutions can have positive impacts on service efficiency and management costs. With the creation of the Meld’R app—co-designed with citizens and aimed at real-time reporting of issues in public spaces—70% of all reports are now channeled through the digital platform, saving over 180,000 euros in the first year alone. After this success, the local administration decided to extend the same user-centric approach to other municipal areas, confirming how co-creation can lead to tangible results and increased institutional trust.
At the same time, various governments have launched digital training programs targeting people with limited computer skills, often women and seniors. In Greater Manchester (UK), the Digital Inclusion Agenda aims to achieve total coverage, providing skills and devices to those who cannot afford them. The same spirit drives Sihanoukville in Cambodia, where public areas are being equipped with free Internet and IT literacy courses for the most vulnerable groups. This initiative is rooted in the idea that only by removing barriers to new technologies can all social segments be given a real opportunity to participate, thereby enhancing the economic and social vitality of a region.
The experiences of Tartu in Estonia demonstrate how a participatory budgeting project, defined through inclusive procedures and user-friendly digital platforms, can make citizens key players in the decision-making process. In Tartu, the city allocated a portion of resources (about 1% of the investment budget) for projects proposed directly by residents. This mechanism, called Participatory Budgeting, generated concrete initiatives such as urban redevelopments and additional services while reducing the distance between the municipality and the public. The main takeaway is that an informed and involved local population feels more responsible for the outcome, promoting more efficient resource management.
In the context of Smarter & Inclusive Cities, it is also important not to underestimate the risk of exclusion created by overly relying on digital-only channels. The approach supported by the researchers of “Smarter & Inclusive Cities” involves keeping hybrid formats for service provision, allowing physical access to information and onsite support for those who do not have adequate technological skills. This dual-track method is essential to ensure the continuity of services during the digital transition, preventing certain user groups (such as the elderly or individuals with special needs) from being left behind. Participation and co-creation thus acquire a concrete and proactive dimension, where urban development processes are built together with the community rather than merely imposing top-down solutions.
Smarter & Inclusive Cities: Security and Digital Access
A core point emerging from the “Smarter & Inclusive Cities” document is the importance of digital infrastructure and its proper management. It is not sufficient to cover a large portion of the urban territory with broadband or 5G connections; it is also necessary to think about how to make these infrastructures accessible and reliable, aligned with robust security standards. The European Union, for instance, aims to provide Gigabit coverage to all populated areas by 2030, but reaching this goal requires ongoing dialogue among public agencies, telecommunications companies, universities, and civil society organizations. Such dialogue is crucial to anticipating any potential issues related to cost or long-term sustainability.
Amsterdam in the Netherlands offers a significant example of how data management must be addressed with well-defined and transparent procedures. The city has developed a standard for handling mobility data (City Data Standard for Mobility – CDS-M) intended to use information produced by citizens without violating privacy and the rights of those traveling daily. This approach combines the need to optimize traffic flows with the desire not to turn residents into “passive data providers.” Such initiatives illustrate how clear rules of digital governance are indispensable for aligning economic and urban innovation objectives with ethical and legal principles.
Alongside data management, “Smarter & Inclusive Cities” emphasizes the central role of cybersecurity. Between July 2021 and June 2022, 24% of recorded global cyberattacks targeted public administration. As local governments become more digital, they find themselves increasingly exposed to threats that can disrupt entire services, leading to reputational and economic harm. Therefore, it is crucial to incorporate cybersecurity into strategic planning, starting with staff training and progressing to emergency protocols that safeguard operational continuity. Helsinki, through its innovation entity Forum Virium, and Singapore, through targeted investments in data protection, represent two successful examples of reconciling a connected city’s needs with the protection of information systems. In this setting, strong institutional leadership is key to promoting accountability policies and targeted public information, ensuring that greater digitalization does not lead to security gaps that are difficult to manage.
Transitioning to more inclusive and smarter cities from an infrastructure standpoint thus involves a renewal process spanning technological, regulatory, and sociocultural aspects. Models of data ownership must be studied to ensure transparency and respect for individual freedom, paying special attention to open standards and interoperability among different systems. Collaboration between public and private entities is vital: for instance, telecommunications companies have an economic interest in expanding networks but need suitable guidelines and incentives to ensure accessibility for the more vulnerable segments of the population. In this regard, the analysis points out that an “intelligent city” is not just a collection of interconnected devices but an ecosystem of decisions and shared responsibilities.
Smarter & Inclusive Cities: Driving Innovation in Urban Governance
Inclusion and smart approaches to urban areas also translate into collaborative governance. According to the researchers, municipalities have a dual task: govern and coordinate a multi-stakeholder framework by initiating processes of consultation, cooperation, and information exchange. The “Smarter & Inclusive Cities” document describes how Bristol in the UK has adopted the so-called One City Approach, a model that brings together public and private organizations, universities, and civil society groups to pursue common objectives. The city has established thematic boards on transport, healthcare, and economic development, ensuring that responsibility does not fall solely on the municipal authority.
To make an inclusive approach a reality, action is required on multiple fronts. On one hand, it is essential to develop medium- to long-term strategies that encompass carbon emission reductions, cultural enhancement, and digital skills growth. On the other hand, administrative procedures need to be set up to facilitate the launch of pilot projects—often rapid and relatively low-cost minipilots (in the range of tens of thousands of euros)—to test innovative ideas in small, controlled environments. Some Northern European cities, such as Turku in Finland, have used this strategy to reduce car traffic in central areas by deploying intelligent camera systems to analyze vehicle flow. A small-scale experimental approach makes it possible to evaluate costs and benefits without affecting the entire urban system.
Another critical step is defining Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). It is not enough to merely state goals; they must be measured in a clear and consistent way. Indicators can encompass a variety of dimensions: reducing energy consumption, increasing the recycling rate (as in Ljubljana, which managed to exceed 63% correct waste differentiation thanks to a smart waste management system that uses sensors and optimizes vehicle routes, coupled with constant awareness campaigns for citizens), promoting the use of green transportation, expanding co-housing projects, or creating digital social and health services for vulnerable groups. Vienna, with its Smart City Strategy, shows how regular monitoring pushes the administration to periodically review its policies by producing evaluation reports in which results are compared with initially stated objectives. This data-driven mindset promotes timely adjustments and continual improvement of initiatives.
Cities venturing down this path must nevertheless navigate institutional complexity, insufficient long-term structural funding, and, at times, cultural resistance among certain social groups. Here, political leadership proves essential for creating a shared vision while also supporting training and participation efforts. Without an adaptable governance structure that engages citizens, there remains a risk of isolated interventions that are difficult to scale or integrate systematically. Within the framework presented by the study, intersectoral coordination is indispensable: bringing together traditionally separate fields such as transport, construction, welfare, and digital innovation.
Smarter & Inclusive Cities: Projects and Future Opportunities
Analysis of initiatives introduced in various urban settings clearly demonstrates that adopting agile and experimental frameworks can produce widespread benefits. The concept of the living lab, for instance, describes physical or virtual spaces where public administrations, research centers, private companies, and citizens collaborate to identify solutions in real time. Some of these labs organize specific challenges—for example, eliminating architectural barriers for people with disabilities or improving air quality through monitoring and emission-reduction mechanisms in specific neighborhoods.
Tartu’s strategy for promoting public bike use or Narva’s Well-being Score project, both in Estonia, illustrate how a seemingly limited idea can create a ripple effect. When a project proves successful, it moves on to the upscaling phase, expanding testing to other parts of the city, engaging additional partners, or replicating the solutions in different geographical contexts while adapting them to respective legal and cultural requirements. These expansion or replication mechanisms are critical for transitioning from smaller-scale interventions—often less visible—to a systemic vision capable of reshaping essential services such as mobility, waste management, public lighting, or energy networks.
Not all pilot projects, however, achieve satisfactory outcomes. Failure is often part of the learning process and should be considered a valuable resource for refining planning. Sometimes new expertise is needed, or a complete overhaul of the approach is required. Helsinki, for example, constantly experiments with minipilots and, when they do not work, uses negative results to improve subsequent calls for proposals. This agile method treats errors not as defeats but as steps toward refining public policies.
Looking at the international landscape, certain challenges are shared. In November 2021, UN-Habitat and the Swedish government launched the Climate Smart Cities Challenge, an international initiative involving four cities: Bristol (UK), Curitiba (Brazil), Makindye Ssabagabo (Uganda), and Bogotá (Colombia). The strength of such programs lies in the exchange of practices and expertise. Transferring a prototype from one city to another is not always straightforward due to different regulations and specific socioeconomic conditions. However, the opportunity to create city networks that share their experiences enables collective progress and significantly reduces research and development costs.
Looking ahead, as repeatedly emphasized in the “Smarter & Inclusive Cities” document, we are likely to see ever-closer collaboration among local governments, international organizations (like UNDP), and private investors who are prepared to support solutions that combine profitability with social impact. Training administrators and officials to manage complex digital projects will be critical, as will the presence of communities and associations that can take part in decision-making processes, and the construction of solid infrastructure to foster large-scale connectivity.
Conclusions
The findings from “Smarter & Inclusive Cities” encourage a realistic reflection on how digital technologies, social inclusion, and urban management converge. The data presented does not fully capture the complexity of the subject, but it does provide a clear picture of what cities have already tested and what remains to be done to make territories more livable, sustainable, and accessible. Public and private actors are already working together to develop e-governance platforms, co-design services, and data analysis methods, while the advancement of practices such as participatory budgeting and living labs makes citizen engagement less theoretical and more tangible.
Other similar, already mature and widespread technologies intersect with environmental monitoring projects or ecological transportation systems. Here, innovation does not simply translate into faster services or widespread sensor deployment but rather into the ability to integrate dimensions that might appear distant, such as administrative efficiency, privacy protection, the reduction of inequality, and long-term sustainability. For entrepreneurs and corporate executives, this approach represents an opportunity to develop cooperative business models grounded in investments that yield both economic and social benefits. A look at global challenges—from climate change to urban robotics—confirms that only those who manage to blend creativity with strategic planning will remain competitive in an interconnected world. This is why the collaboration among international bodies, municipalities, businesses, and citizens continues to be the preferred route for building genuinely inclusive and smart cities, ensuring that the benefits of technological progress do not remain exclusive to a few but become shared resources for an improved quality of life.
Commenti