The ethical city, in contrast to many other adjectives used to describe our cities, implies an approach to urban development that is about doing the right thing for and by urban citizens. Acknowledging the rich traditions of urban development studies and human ethics, this article draws on examples of existing practices in cities that reflect a principled and ethical approach to leadership, governance, planning, economic development, sustainability and citizen engagement. An increased focus on ethics and justice is central in shaping how we respond effectively to global pressing issues such as climate change while at the same time tackling diverse social and economic problems in our cities including inequality, marginalization and lack of access to opportunities for the most vulnerable. While an ethical city points towards sustainability, resilience, inclusion and shared prosperity, the opposite direction could lead to corruption, poverty and social disaffection.

This paper examines how the discourses and practices of design can be applied to both mitigate the damaging impacts of (un-)natural disasters and guide resilient post-disaster recovery. Integrated with systems analysis, design can provide both an innovative window for understanding the complexities of disaster-risk reduction and recovery, as well as a conceptual bridge to new ways of building socio-economic and physical resilience in disaster-affected communities. However, the skills of key systems and design thinkers, such as architects, urban planners, and landscape architects, are seldom employed, despite their demonstrated capacity to work with disaster-prone or -impacted communities to develop integrated spatial responses to guide both disaster-risk reduction and long-term rebuilding after a disaster. Indeed, there has been little focused investigation of the potential contributions of design per se in developing strategies for disaster-risk reduction and recovery. Similarly, there has been little attention in design education to complementing the creative problem-solving skills of the designer with the contextual and systemic understandings of disaster management and disaster-resilient design. This paper addresses these omissions in both disaster management and design education though a review of research on design contributions to disaster issues and provides a case study of the curriculum and pedagogical approaches appropriate to build capacity for enhancing this contribution.

Cities increasingly utilise digital technologies to tackle climate risks and urban shocks, yet their real impact on resilience remains uncertain. This paper systematically reviews 115 peer-reviewed studies (2012–2024) to explore how smart city technologies engage with planning instruments, governance arrangements, and social processes, following PRISMA 2020 and combining bibliometric co-occurrence mapping with a qualitative synthesis of full texts. Three themes organise the findings: (i) urban planning and design, (ii) smart technologies in resilience, and (iii) strategic planning and policy integration. Across these themes, Internet of Things (IoT) and geographic information system (GIS) applications have the strongest empirical support for enhancing absorptive and adaptive capacities through risk mapping, early warning systems, and infrastructure operations, while artificial intelligence, digital twins, and blockchain remain largely at pilot or conceptual stages. The review also highlights significant geographical and hazard biases: most cases come from high-income cities and concentrate on floods and earthquakes, while slow stresses (such as heat, housing insecurity, and inequality) and cities in the Global South are under-represented. Overall, the study promotes a “smart–resilience co-production” perspective, demonstrating that resilience improvements rely less on technology alone and more on how digital systems are integrated into governance and participatory practices.

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.