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

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.