Barriers to restorative social justice in South African smart cities: urban segregation,governance and resource distribution

Abstract

Despite progress on various fronts in realizing South Africa’s smart city goals, systemic barriers to inclusion remain, obstructing restorative social justice and perpetuating apartheid-era inequalities. This study investigates how, in the context of more general technological advances, urban segregation, governance and resource distribution intersect to reinforce inequity in the smart cities of Johannesburg, Cape Town and Ekurhuleni. Drawing on interviews with community members, local government officials and urban planners, the study reveals that entrenched spatial segregation continues to restrict access to smart technologies – excluding marginalized voices, favouring affluent areas, and deepening the digital divide and socioeconomic disparities. By outlining how resource allocation shapes outcomes for disadvantaged groups, the study identifies governance strategies that can mitigate these challenges. By providing place-based evidence, it supports more equitable urban development, and calls for policies that give marginalized communities increased access to vital digital and physical infrastructure.

Keywords

smart cities urban segregation social justice governance barriers resource distribution South Africa

I. Introduction

Smart urbanism, characterized by the deployment of Internet of Things (IoT) sensors, public WiFi networks, data analytics and citizen-centric digital platforms, promises to transform South African cities into efficient, resilient, sustainable and inclusive environments. Real-time data and ICT-enabled governance can potentially optimize resource management, modernize infrastructure and enhance service delivery, thereby advancing UN Sustainable Development Goal 11.⁽¹⁾ Despite these technological advances, the deeper goal of restorative social justice to redress apartheid-era inequities through equitable governance and resource allocation remains unrealized. Embedding these principles within smart-city frameworks is crucial if digital advancements are to foster meaningful social inclusion.⁽²⁾

South Africa continues to bear the imprint of spatial segregation and uneven development. Nearly 60 per cent of the population resides in underserved informal settlements, where access to basic services remains unreliable or absent.⁽³⁾ Scholars raise critical questions about whether smart-city initiatives can genuinely bridge these historic divides, or whether they risk reinforcing entrenched patterns of exclusion and marginalization. While some⁽⁴⁾ highlight the potential for smart technologies to reproduce inequality when implemented without contextual sensitivity, they do not fully resolve whether such interventions can disrupt apartheid-era spatial logics in the South African setting. This study addresses these gaps by empirically examining how the inclusivity of smart-city development across Johannesburg, Cape Town and Ekurhuleni is shaped by segregation, governance practices and resource allocation.

II. South African Context

Cities across South Africa are increasingly adopting digital solutions to confront multifaceted urban challenges. It is imperative that such interventions do not inadvertently reinforce existing patterns of exclusion. This research responds to growing calls for a justice-oriented model of smart urbanism that embeds principles of equity, inclusion and redress into the design and governance of digital urban systems.⁽⁵⁾ It contributes to a nascent but expanding literature by interrogating the socio-political dimensions of smart-city development in the global South. The analysis, grounded in three major metropolitan municipalities, the smart cities of Johannesburg, Cape Town and Ekurhuleni, aims to generate contextually relevant insights for a broad spectrum of stakeholders – including policymakers, urban planners, civil society actors and academic researchers.

Restorative social justice in this context refers to the intentional process of redressing historical and structural inequities through equitable urban policies, participatory governance and fair resource allocation.⁽⁶⁾ While smart-city initiatives are often presented as one pathway towards addressing these inequities, scholars caution that such interventions can as easily reproduce exclusion when implemented without sensitivity to local contexts.⁽⁷⁾ This tension is evident in South Africa. For example, the City of Johannesburg’s programme to install more than 1,000 free WiFi hotspots successfully expanded connectivity in affluent suburbs, yet had reached only 10 per cent of planned coverage in informal settlements by 2020.⁽⁸⁾ Similar patterns have been documented in Cape Town, where large settlements such as Khayelitsha remain underserved despite the city’s broader digital efforts.⁽⁹⁾ These disparities highlight that achieving restorative social justice requires more than the deployment of physical or digital infrastructure. It necessitates governance reforms that ensure historically marginalized communities gain meaningful voice, equitable access and real avenues for redress.⁽¹⁰⁾ Case studies consistently emphasize the need for inclusive, bottom-up participation and place-specific design to prevent technology-driven projects from exacerbating existing inequalities.⁽¹¹⁾

This study investigates how urban segregation, governance practices and unequal resource distribution constrain restorative social justice in South Africa’s emerging smart cities. Although smart initiatives promise inclusivity, scholars warn that they may reinforce exclusion if spatial and historical inequalities are ignored.⁽¹²⁾ Persistent spatial legacies and institutional unevenness further shape digital marginalization,⁽¹³⁾ prompting three focused research questions. First, how does enduring urban segregation shape inclusion and exclusion within smart-city systems, and how does this inhibit the realization of the goal of restorative social justice?⁽¹⁴⁾ Second, which governance structures and practices enable or constrain equitable participation in the planning and implementation of smart-city initiatives, particularly in contexts marked by historical exclusion? ⁽¹⁵⁾ Third, how does the unequal distribution of digital and physical smart-city resources, such as connectivity, data infrastructure and public service technologies, affect the opportunities and life chances of historically marginalized communities?⁽¹⁶⁾ By differentiating between structural causes (segregation), institutional mechanisms (governance) and lived impacts (resource access), these questions enable a clearer and more comprehensive assessment of justice in South Africa’s smart cities.

From an academic perspective, this research offers a critical intervention in the fields of urban studies and digital governance by centering justice in discussions about smart cities in the global South. From a practical standpoint, it informs evidence-based policymaking and strategies to address both technological innovation and socio-spatial equity. The study offers a framework for advocacy and participatory engagement in shaping digital urban futures for civil society organizations and historically excluded communities. By addressing systemic barriers to equitable smart-city development, this study contributes to constructing technologically advanced urban environments that are also socially just, inclusive and resilient.

The paper is structured as follows. Section III develops the theoretical foundations that frame the analysis. Section IV synthesizes key scholarly insights on smart urbanism, segregation, governance and equity. Section V outlines the methodology, and Section VI presents the findings. Section VII discusses the results within the broader context of scholarly debates on justice-oriented smart urbanism. Section VIII highlights the study’s contributions and limitations, while Section IX proposes policy recommendations.

III. Theoretical Review

Three interconnected theories are especially pertinent in grounding the study’s analysis: urban political economy theory, good governance theory and digital divide theory. Each provides essential insights into the systemic dynamics that influence the relationship between urban segregation, governance frameworks and resource distribution in the achievement of South Africa’s smart-city goals.

Urban political economy theory is especially relevant to the first research question: How does enduring urban segregation shape inclusion and exclusion within South Africa’s smart-city systems, and how does this hinder restorative social justice? The theory provides a structural lens for understanding spatial and socioeconomic disparities embedded in urban environments. It argues that urban space is produced through historical, political and economic forces that privilege capital and power while marginalizing many.⁽¹⁷⁾ Although segregation is often expressed through unequal access to housing, infrastructure and public services, it cannot be explained by resource disparities alone. Instead, it is a pattern of separation that shapes where people live, how they move and the social and institutional networks they can access.⁽¹⁸⁾ Urban political economy theory helps explain how these deeper spatial logics persist, and why smart-city initiatives that focus narrowly on infrastructure provision may inadvertently reproduce inequality if they fail to address the structural, place-based power relations underlying segregation.⁽¹⁹⁾

Good governance theory helps to answer the second research question: Which governance structures and practices enable or limit equitable participation in smart-city planning and implementation? The theory highlights the significance of transparency, accountability, participation, responsiveness and adherence to the rule of law⁽²⁰⁾ for constructing inclusive institutions, and ensuring citizen trust and legitimacy.⁽²¹⁾ In the smart-city realm, this theory helps to determine whether decision-making processes are inclusive and participatory, rather than technocratic and top-down.⁽²²⁾ This is particularly pertinent in South Africa, where historically marginalized communities have frequently been excluded from urban planning and governance initiatives.⁽²³⁾ Employing this theory enables investigation into how well smart governance frameworks integrate citizen feedback and promote equitable results, especially for those previously excluded from urban decision-making processes.

Digital divide theory lends itself to the third research question: How does unequal access to digital and physical smart-city resources influence the opportunities and life chances of historically marginalized communities? This theory, applied to disparities in access to, and utilization of, information and communication technologies (ICTs), emphasizes how digital inequality may deepen wider socio-economic and spatial inequalities.⁽²⁴⁾ Research indicates that digital inclusion is closely connected to wider patterns of educational achievement, income levels and investment in infrastructure.⁽²⁵⁾ Although smart cities promise improved service delivery and enhanced citizen welfare for all, the uneven distribution of digital infrastructure, including broadband internet access, public WiFi and smart utility meters, can worsen exclusion by limiting access to the opportunities and benefits of technological innovation.⁽²⁶⁾

Together, these theories provide a multi-dimensional analytical lens for interrogating barriers to achieving restorative social justice in South African smart cities (Figure 1). While there are points of tension, particularly between the critical structural orientation of political economy and the normative institutional ideals of good governance, these theories also complement each other by spanning different but interrelated dimensions of justice: historical, institutional and technological. Integrating these perspectives allows the study to move beyond a narrow technocentric reading of smart cities and instead develop a holistic framework for assessing how segregation, governance and resource allocation intersect to enable or constrain restorative justice outcomes.

Figure 1

Conceptual framework integrating urban political economy, good governance and digital divide theories to explain how structural, institutional and technological factors interact to shape barriers to restorative social justice in South African smart cities

IV. Empirical Literature Review

Most existing smart-city research in South Africa and the broader global South has given limited attention to questions of restorative social justice and structural inequality. Scholars increasingly acknowledge this gap,⁽²⁷⁾ yet much of the literature still treats inequity as a downstream effect rather than a central analytical focus. The present study extends this emerging body of work by examining how segregation, governance arrangements and resource distribution jointly shape the justice outcomes of smart-city transformations. Each section below, organized around the study’s core themes, identifies the conceptual and empirical gaps that motivate this research.

a. How does urban segregation hinder restorative social justice in smart cities?

Urban segregation remains a defining obstacle to just smart-city development in South Africa. Research from Cape Town shows that advanced smart infrastructure, surveillance networks, sensor-based grids and digital platforms are more easily deployed in affluent neighbourhoods where existing capacity lowers implementation risk.⁽²⁸⁾ This does not necessarily mean elites receive more municipal funding – rather, their infrastructural readiness enables them to absorb new technology more quickly, while informal settlements lack the foundations needed for similar investments. Neoliberal planning logics embedded in smart-city frameworks reinforce these patterns by privileging efficiency and economic return over redistributive justice.⁽²⁹⁾ In Johannesburg, geospatial analyses confirm that informal settlements remain weakly integrated into urban planning, allowing digital innovation to overlay rather than unsettle apartheid-era geographies.⁽³⁰⁾

Although this literature convincingly demonstrates spatial inequality in smart-city initiatives, it remains limited in several important respects. First, existing studies rarely examine segregation as a multidimensional phenomenon that shapes institutional trust, political participation and community-state relations – all of which influence the effectiveness and legitimacy of smart-city interventions. Second, while intersectional vulnerabilities related to gender, disability and migration status are acknowledged in emerging scholarship,⁽³¹⁾ these insights are seldom connected to questions of spatial design or technological access, resulting in partial explanations of exclusion. Third, while comparative metropolitan research could illuminate how segregation is experienced and reproduced differently across urban contexts, most analyses focus on single-city cases.

By analysing Johannesburg, Cape Town and Ekurhuleni together, this study fills these gaps by demonstrating how segregation shapes access not only to technology, but also to trust, engagement and lived experiences across multiple urban contexts. The next section therefore shifts attention from spatial conditions to the governance practices that reproduce or challenge these patterns.

b. What governance structures mitigate or reinforce exclusion in smart cities?

Existing literature shows that governance failures, not only spatial inequalities, undermine inclusive smart-city development. Many initiatives in South Africa have followed technocratic, top-down implementation models that limit meaningful citizen participation.⁽³²⁾ Analysis of municipal strategies for eThekwini reveals hierarchical governance, weak accountability and limited opportunities for public input.⁽³³⁾ It also highlights the disconnect between digital platforms and municipal planning, leading to siloed operations and fragmented service delivery,⁽³⁴⁾ and argues for co-production and context-sensitive planning, warning that exclusion intensifies when digital systems are introduced without community involvement.

Johannesburg’s public WiFi programme illustrates these risks. Although intended to bridge the digital divide, inadequate maintenance, limited deployment in informal settlements and the absence of community consultation resulted in uneven access and declining trust.⁽³⁵⁾ Scholars caution that such initiatives risk becoming symbolic rather than transformative.⁽³⁶⁾

At the same time, positive governance examples do exist, a nuance largely absent from the literature. Ekurhuleni’s co-designed WiFi rollout, developed in partnership with non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and neighbourhood associations, demonstrates that inclusive governance can produce more equitable outcomes by grounding technological interventions in local needs. Similar successes have been documented elsewhere: participatory budgeting initiatives in several Latin American and Asian cities have enabled marginalized communities to directly influence technology investments,⁽³⁷⁾ while certain Indian municipalities under the Smart Cities Mission have introduced citizen dashboards and open-data systems that enhance transparency and service responsiveness.⁽³⁸⁾ However, these examples remain isolated and have not been systematically analysed or compared, particularly in the South African context, where evidence of inclusive digital governance remains scattered and under-examined.

This study contributes to the literature by examining how governance structures differ across the three metropolitan areas, identifying which practices facilitate inclusion and which reinforce hierarchy, and by showing how governance mediates the social justice implications of smart-city interventions.

c. How does the distribution of urban resources shape access to social justice?

Research consistently shows smart infrastructure investments inadvertently entrenching socioeconomic inequalities. In Durban,⁽³⁹⁾ studies revealed that smart lighting and surveillance were concentrated in affluent districts, while informal settlements remained underserved. In Johannesburg, smart water meters, though implemented under the Free Basic Water policy, have resulted in interrupted access for financially strained households who exhaust their daily allocation and cannot afford top-ups. These interruptions function as de facto disconnections,⁽⁴⁰⁾ illustrating how technology without social safeguards can worsen precarity.

Persistent infrastructure disparities reinforce these challenges. Communities with historically poor service delivery lack the stable electricity, broadband and transport systems required to benefit from smart upgrades.⁽⁴¹⁾ Similar patterns are widely documented across the global South, including in Nairobi, Lagos, Rio de Janeiro and multiple cities in India.⁽⁴²⁾

Despite this extensive body of evidence, the literature remains fragmented in several important respects. First, very few studies undertake a comparative analysis of distributional injustice across multiple South African cities, resulting in limited understanding of how exclusion manifests differently across metropolitan contexts.⁽⁴³⁾ Second, insufficient attention has been given to the interaction of resource allocation with institutional trust and intersectional vulnerabilities, despite growing recognition that gender, disability, class and migration status significantly shape access to digital and urban services.⁽⁴⁴⁾ Third, much existing scholarship relies heavily on policy documents and spatial analyses, with relatively little empirical work to capture how communities interpret and experience these inequalities.⁽⁴⁵⁾ By incorporating firsthand insights from planners, municipal officials, community leaders and civil society actors across Johannesburg, Cape Town and Ekurhuleni, the present study addresses these gaps and offers a more integrated understanding of how resource distribution influences lived experience, institutional behaviour and broader social justice outcomes.

V. Methodology

This paper is one component of a larger qualitative doctoral research project examining restorative social justice in South African smart cities. The research is based on a constructivist paradigm, highlighting the subjective meanings people ascribe to their experiences.⁽⁴⁶⁾ This paradigm is particularly well-suited for investigating the complex, situation-specific realities of intricate systems like technology integration and urban governance,⁽⁴⁷⁾ and the cultural and socio-political factors affecting how participants interpret restorative justice initiatives in digital contexts.⁽⁴⁸⁾

a. Study area

The research focused on three primary metropolitan areas: Johannesburg, Cape Town and Ekurhuleni, which lead the way in South Africa in adopting smart-city technologies. Each city has distinct challenges and opportunities regarding governance and resource allocation. Johannesburg is the country’s economic hub; Cape Town most emphasizes sustainability; and Ekurhuleni is noted for its expanding industrial sector. Together, they provide a well-rounded view of South Africa’s smart-city initiatives and ensure that the study accurately reflects the broader dynamics of change across diverse urban environments.

b. Target population and sample selection

Study participants comprised 24 professionals and stakeholders actively engaged in urban planning, governance, digital transformation and community development – many of them essential practitioners in the strategic planning, coordination and execution of smart urban initiatives (see Table 1).⁽⁴⁹⁾ Their contributions were crucial for understanding the decision-making processes related to infrastructure and technology, as well as their impacts on spatial and social outcomes. Academic experts specializing in smart cities and urban development were included to provide theoretical and evidence-based insights that help frame policy design, implementation and the broader socio-political consequences of smart urbanism (participants 6, 8, 15).⁽⁵⁰⁾ The study also involved leaders from the private technology sector, a key driver of innovation and the implementation of smart solutions, who collaborated with local governments (participants 6, 8, 15).⁽⁵¹⁾

Table 1

Interview respondents

Participant	City	Profession	Experience
1	Johannesburg	Director: Land Use Management (CoJ)	8 years of experience in urban planning
2	Johannesburg	Public Wi-Fi Network Specialist	4 years of experience in digitalization
3	Not provided	Government and Public Sector Lead (PWC)	Extensive advisory experience
4	Johannesburg	Community Organizer and Civic Activist	Focus on social movements and justice
5	Johannesburg	Director (CoJ)-Town Planner	12 years in spatial planning
6	Johannesburg	Academic, Researcher	PhD in African Studies
7	Cape Town	Urban and City Development: Deputy Director	Urban planning experience
8	Johannesburg	Chief Economist, Lecturer (Wits)	Economics focus on urban development
9	Johannesburg	Head of Innovation Digitalization (CoJ)	6 years leading digital transformation
10	Ekurhuleni	Community Leader, Unionist, Academic	Grassroots leadership combined with academic insights
11	Johannesburg	Head of Innovation Partnerships (CoJ)	20 years in smart city solutions
12	Ekurhuleni	Head of Strategy and Corporate Planning	7 years in city development
13	Cape Town	ICT Strategy Consultant (Cape Town)	38 years advising on ICT governance
14	Ekurhuleni	Divisional Head Strategy and Corporate Planning	8 years of city strategy experience
15	Johannesburg	Researcher, Academic	Expert in smart city concepts
16	Ekurhuleni	Divisional Head, Long-Term Planning	15 years of experience in local government
17	Ekurhuleni	Divisional Head: Spatial Planning	12 years in urban and housing projects
18	Cape Town	Head of Technological Infrastructure	15 years in smart infrastructure
19	Ekurhuleni	Senior Urban Planner	6 years in community-based projects
20	Cape Town	Council Support Officer	4 years of grassroots community development
21	Ekurhuleni	Junior Urban Planner	3 years in spatial development
22	Cape Town	Digital Transformation Analyst	9 years in digitalization projects
23	Ekurhuleni	Senior City Planner	5 years in city development
24	Johannesburg	Developmental Economist, Author, Columnist	Over 10 years advising the national government

Religious and community leaders were also interviewed. Their close connections to local communities and awareness of the difficulties faced by these populations around digital exclusion, service provision and participatory governance were valuable (participants 4, 10, 20).⁽⁵²⁾ Representatives with national-level influence in shaping national policy frameworks also brought a valuable perspective (participants 3 and 24). Finally, representatives from NGOs were included to ensure that civil society perspectives were represented, with their focus on inclusion and equity in urban governance and service delivery (participants 4, 10, 20).⁽⁵³⁾ Collectively, these participants were chosen for their unique yet interconnected roles in the integration of smart technologies in urban planning and governance, and their diverse viewpoints on how these processes relate to the achievement of restorative social justice in smart-city environments. Each participant possessed at least five years of experience in their field, ensuring their insights were based on substantial knowledge.

Participants were selected using both purposive sampling and the “snowball technique” to guarantee a full range of specialized knowledge and pertinent experience. The number of participants ⁽²⁴⁾ is consistent with recommended ranges for qualitative studies seeking both analytical depth and contextual breadth,⁽⁵⁴⁾ and allowed for both thematic saturation and a diversity of perspectives.

This study adhered to ethical research principles, and clearance was obtained from the Ethics Research Committee at the University of Johannesburg (ethical clearance number JBSREC202483). Participants were fully informed of the study’s objectives, methods and intended use of data. Informed consent was obtained in writing before each interview. Participants were explicitly advised that they could withdraw from the study at any stage without negative consequences. Confidentiality was strictly maintained throughout.

c. Data collection and analysis

Interviews were structured around a series of open-ended questions, which allowed for the flexibility to explore emerging themes and topics.⁽⁵⁵⁾ The semi-structured design provided a balance between uniformity across interviews and the opportunity to investigate the unique viewpoints of individuals. Interviews were conducted in person, depending on the participants’ availability.

Thematic analysis of this qualitative data revealed recurring trends across the participants’ responses, which aligned with the central focus of the study on restorative social justice. This analysis was informed by the three theoretical frameworks described above, which ensured that the analysis remained grounded in relevant academic discourse and aligned with the study’s aim of exploring barriers to restorative social justice in South African smart cities.

The analysis adhered to the six-step procedure proposed by Braun and Clarke.⁽⁵⁶⁾ An initial review of the interview transcripts was followed by the creation of initial codes to pinpoint data relevant to the research questions. These codes were then organized into broader categories to try to identify overarching themes. The fourth step involved reviewing and refining the identified themes to ensure they accurately reflected the participants’ main insights. Themes were then defined and labelled to promote clarity and consistency throughout the analysis. In the final step, the themes were structured into a cohesive narrative that addressed the research objectives and underscored the significant findings. The efficiency and precision of the analysis was improved by the use of ATLAS.ti software to support data management, coding and thematic development, which allowed for a rigorous interpretation of the qualitative data.

d. Researcher reflexivity and bias management

Given the interpretive nature of qualitative research, it was important to remain attentive to potential researcher bias. The researchers’ academic background and profession created both insight and the risk of preconceptions. To mitigate this risk, several strategies were employed. First, a reflexive journal was maintained throughout the research process to record impressions, assumptions and evolving interpretations, allowing for ongoing self-awareness and critical reflection.⁽⁵⁷⁾ Second, peer debriefing sessions with academic colleagues were conducted to test emerging interpretations and ensure that alternative explanations were considered. Third, triangulation across multiple data sources, policy documents, interviews and secondary literature helped to cross-validate findings and reduce dependence on a single perspective. Finally, an explicit audit trail of coding decisions was preserved, thereby enhancing transparency and replicability. Collectively, these strategies align with established principles of credibility, dependability and confirmability in qualitative research,⁽⁵⁸⁾ ensuring that reflexivity was systematically integrated into the study design.

VI. Results

The findings from the thematic analysis offer an in-depth perspective on how urban segregation, governance frameworks and the distribution of urban resources shape the pursuit of restorative social justice in South Africa’s smart cities. The results are organized around the three research questions, beginning with the structural drivers of exclusion (RQ1), followed by the governance mechanisms that enable or constrain inclusion (RQ2), and concluding with the lived impacts of unequal resource access on residents’ capabilities and life chances (RQ3).

a. Urban segregation and restorative social justice (RQ1)

Findings for RQ1 show that persistent urban segregation continues to shape the conditions under which smart-city initiatives are deployed in South Africa. Participants emphasized that spatial divides determine where smart technologies are introduced first, which areas attract public and private investment, and how communities are able to interact with local authorities. Thus, the focus of RQ1 is structural – it addresses the underlying spatial arrangements that organize opportunity long before digital technologies reach communities.

Respondents from planning, digital infrastructure and community leadership roles in Johannesburg and Cape Town (participants 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 18, 19 and 22), reported that smart technologies consistently cluster in areas already benefitting from stronger physical infrastructure. In Johannesburg, this is most visible in Sandton, Rosebank and Melrose Arch⁽⁵⁹⁾; in Cape Town it appears in the Central Business District (CBD), Century City and the Atlantic seaboard;⁽⁶⁰⁾ and in Ekurhuleni⁽⁶¹⁾ it is reflected in the focus on the area around the airport, known as Aerotropolis, and the logistics corridors. These patterns indicate that segregated spatial arrangements continue to determine which neighbourhoods are ‘smart-ready’, and remain excluded from early phases of innovation.

As participant 4 in Johannesburg remarked: “While wealthier areas are becoming ‘smart’, our communities are left behind because the infrastructure for digital access is simply not available in informal settlements.” This observation aligns with municipal reports showing that public WiFi and digital upgrades disproportionately serve commercial and transport nodes rather than township schools, clinics or community centres.⁽⁶²⁾ Participants with extensive community-facing roles in Johannesburg and Ekurhuleni (4, 10, 16, 17, 19 and 20) further explained that segregation influences levels of institutional trust, which is critical for inclusive governance. Participant 16 emphasized that: “The legacy of apartheid is still visible in our cities. People from disadvantaged backgrounds don’t trust local government . . .”. This highlights how historical spatial divisions continue to shape social and political relationships.

Trust deficits manifest differently across cities: in Johannesburg they are linked to billing controversies and service inconsistencies; in Cape Town to perceptions of spatial exclusion and gentrification; and in Ekurhuleni to administrative distance and uneven ward representation. These dynamics undermine community engagement even before smart technology is deployed. Participants also noted that spatially segregated governance structures limit the representation of marginalized groups on key decision-making platforms. Participant 14 from Ekurhuleni observed: “The decision-making bodies don’t reflect the diversity of the city . . .”, echoing findings that high-tech procurement processes tend to privilege expert-driven, rather than participatory, approaches.⁽⁶³⁾

Although this study did not interview women, migrants or persons with disabilities, participants who work closely with these groups (4, 10 and 20) explained that spatial segregation largely determines who can physically reach digital touchpoints, including municipal service centres and public WiFi zones. These structural constraints establish the conditions under which further disadvantage arises, including long distances to e-services, inaccessible digital platforms and high opportunity costs. The consequences of these inequities are examined in detail in RQ3.

b. Governance structures and barriers to inclusion (RQ2)

RQ2 focuses on the governance mechanisms that shape how smart-city initiatives are designed, managed and implemented. Across all three cities – participants, particularly those in technical and managerial positions (7, 11, 12, 14, 16 and 23) – described governance systems that are heavily centralized and often consultant-driven, limiting opportunities for citizen input. Participant 7 from Cape Town explained: “The process for deciding on smart-city projects appears to be detached from the individuals it aims to serve.” This concern reflects the City of Cape Town’s Integrated Development Plan (2022), which acknowledges limited public oversight in digital procurement processes.

Despite these shared challenges, participants identified notable city-level differences. In Ekurhuleni, civil-society partnerships were described as comparatively stronger, with the co-design of community WiFi hotspots cited as a positive example. As participant 16 observed: “When local government works alongside grassroots organizations, the outcomes . . . improve.” In contrast, Cape Town displayed high technical capability but low community trust, while Johannesburg’s fragmented governance structures, marked by siloed departments and inconsistent coordination, were seen as barriers to integrated planning.

A concern across cities was the lack of clarity surrounding data governance. Participant 13 in Cape Town stated: “There’s no definitive accountability . . . We are unclear about who is making decisions regarding the data being collected, or how it’s being utilized . . . ”, mirroring national-level critiques of weak municipal data governance by the South African Cities Network (SACN). Participants also emphasized that existing governance systems insufficiently consider the needs of women, migrants and persons with disabilities, because policymaking processes often overlook these groups entirely. This theme points to systemic gaps in policy design and accountability rather than inherited spatial divides.

c. Resource distribution and social justice (RQ3)

RQ3 examines the consequences of unequal access, distinct from the causes discussed in RQ1. In each city, participants described how the inequitable distribution of digital and physical infrastructure limits capabilities, opportunities and life chances. In Johannesburg, participants 10, 19 and 24 highlighted unreliable electricity supply, limited township connectivity and long travel times to administrative service points. As participant 10 noted: “In Johannesburg, while certain neighbourhoods are getting fully integrated smart services, our areas still lack essential services like reliable electricity and clean water.”

In Cape Town, participants 7 and 20 emphasized how documentation barriers systematically exclude migrants from accessing municipal e-services. In Ekurhuleni, participants 12, 14, 17 and 21 explained that township areas lag behind industrial corridors in broadband investment, which constrains small business development and participation in the digital economy.

Unlike RQ1, which analyses structural divides, RQ3 highlights the lived impacts of unequal resource distribution: learners unable to access online platforms, small businesses losing income due to unstable broadband, residents incurring high transport costs to reach administrative services and persons with disabilities unable to navigate digital portals. Migrants are particularly affected, as the absence of documentation prevents them from using e-services, thereby deepening exclusion. These patterns are broadly supported by service delivery audits.⁽⁶⁴⁾ Participant 24 summarized the equity imperative behind these concerns: “If the government concentrated on investing in the poorest regions first, it could help bridge the digital divide . . .”, echoing⁽⁶⁵⁾ recommendations that ICT rollout in underserved areas be prioritized to avoid deepening inequality.

d. Cross-case synthesis of smart-city inequalities across Johannesburg, Cape Town and Ekurhuleni

Table 2 synthesizes cross-city differences and similarities in the participants’ experiences of smart-city development. It draws on both their insights and supporting literature regarding how spatial segregation, governance arrangements and uneven infrastructure provision shape each city’s trajectory towards restorative social justice.

Table 2

Cross-case synthesis of smart-city inequalities across Johannesburg (JHB), Cape Town (CT) and Ekurhuleni (EKU)

Analytical theme	Johannesburg (JHB)	Cape Town (CT)	Ekurhuleni (EKU)	Cross-case insight
1. Spatial segregation and smart-city readiness (RQ1)	Largest spatial contrast between high-tech nodes (Sandton, Rosebank) and townships (Soweto, Alexandra). Fragmented infrastructure limits township smart-city integration.	Strong technical capacity in central and coastal nodes, but extreme inequalities between affluent suburbs and peripheral settlements (Khayelitsha, Philippi).	Investment heavily concentrated around Aerotropolis and logistics hubs; residential townships remain technologically peripheral.	All three cities reproduce apartheid-era spatial divides, but manifestations differ: JHB, fragmented; CT, coastal core vs. periphery; EKU, industrial corridors vs. townships.
2. Institutional trust and community engagement (RQ1 & RQ2)	Trust undermined by billing disputes, service inconsistencies and perceived neglect. Low participation in smart-city initiatives.	Deep mistrust rooted in spatial injustice and gentrification pressures. Community participation less effective despite strong technical governance.	Trust influenced by bureaucratic distance and uneven ward representation rather than overt spatial conflict.	Segregation interacts with city-specific political histories, shaping willingness and ability to participate in smart-city governance.
3. Governance structures and decision-making (RQ2)	Siloed municipal departments and inconsistent coordination limit integrated planning.	Highly technical, consultant-driven processes overshadow community input; centralized decision-making.	More collaborative governance in digital inclusion initiatives; better NGO–municipality partnerships.	Governance capacity varies: CT strongest technical expertise, JHB most fragmented, EKU most collaborative in community-facing programmes.
4. Transparency and data governance (RQ2)	Confusion over billing data and smart-meter regulations reduces trust.	Lack of transparency in data use for surveillance and grid management.	Unclear data governance for Aerotropolis-linked systems; weak public communication.	Data governance is a systemic weakness across all three cities regardless of capacity levels.
5. Distribution of digital & physical infrastructure (RQ3)	Township areas lack stable electricity, broadband and reliable e-services; long travel distances reinforce inequality.	Connectivity gaps severe in peripheral settlements; migrants face documentation barriers for digital systems.	Residential areas receive inconsistent upgrades compared with logistics/industrial nodes; small businesses disadvantaged.	Resource distribution follows existing infrastructure, reinforcing spatial inequality: affluent and economically strategic areas benefit first across all cities.
6. Economic participation in smart-city ecosystems (RQ3)	Township small, medium and micro-enterprise (SMMEs) struggle with unstable broadband; limited integration into digital economy.	Tourism-tech and Central Business Distric-based digital industries benefit affluent zones, widening divides.	Industrial and logistics sectors digitally integrated; township entrepreneurs lag behind.	Smart-city economic benefits accrue to zones already economically connected; marginalized communities remain peripheral.
7. Intersectional vulnerabilities (RQ1–RQ3)	Women caregivers and persons with disabilities face mobility and accessibility constraints.	Migrants face systemic documentation exclusion; poverty-heightened digital barriers persist.	Persons with disabilities affected by inaccessible digital systems; youth in townships face connectivity-related educational disadvantages.	Intersectional inequalities intensify digital divides; challenges differ by city but follow the same exclusionary logic.

SOURCE: Authors’ compilation

Johannesburg, Cape Town and Ekurhuleni share a common foundation of historical spatial inequality. However, the drivers and manifestations of digital and infrastructural exclusion differ across the three cities. Johannesburg presents the most fragmented urban landscape, with pronounced disparities between investment-rich nodes and township communities. Participant 19 noted: “Advanced systems are everywhere in Sandton, but we still struggle with basic electricity stability.” This observation aligns with analysis⁽⁶⁶⁾ of Johannesburg’s uneven infrastructural development. More broadly, participants highlighted that digital transformation often reinforces rather than challenges existing inequalities. As a community leader (participant 4) explained: “Our communities are left behind because the infrastructure for digital access is simply not available in informal settlements”, reflecting wider findings on the prioritization of areas with stronger technical capacity.⁽⁶⁷⁾

Cape Town, while distinguished by robust technical governance capacity, exhibits entrenched spatial divides. One official (participant 20) stressed that: “You can digitize services, but if people can’t clear documentation hurdles, they remain excluded regardless”. This reinforces existing scholarship documenting persistent urban inequality in Cape Town.⁽⁶⁸⁾

Ekurhuleni’s exclusionary patterns stem from its corridor-driven development model, with digital upgrades concentrated in the Aerotropolis and industrial zones. One planning official (participant 16) commented: “Residents outside the Aerotropolis zones feel the upgrades are not meant for them”. This pattern corresponds with analyses of uneven development across the Gauteng city-region.⁽⁶⁹⁾

Across all three cities, issues of transparency and data governance emerged consistently. As participant 13 noted: “There’s no definitive accountability. . . We don’t know who is making decisions about the data being collected”, reflecting national concerns about weak municipal data governance.⁽⁷⁰⁾ Intersectional vulnerabilities intensify these inequalities. Participants working with grassroots communities (4, 10, 20) highlighted that women caregivers, migrants and persons with disabilities face compounded barriers, consistent with broader literature on socially embedded digital divides.⁽⁷¹⁾

While the three metropolitan areas differ in how exclusion is spatially configured, they share a structural tendency for smart-city benefits to accumulate in already advantaged zones. Without intentional, equity-focused interventions, smart-city development risks deepening the very inequalities it aims to address.

e. Summary of findings

The thematic analysis revealed three main insights. First, overly centralized and opaque governance models, shaped by corporate and technocratic decision-making, weaken accountability and citizen participation. Second, the unequal allocation of both basic and digital resources reproduces apartheid-era segregation, leaving disadvantaged groups with limited access to infrastructure. Third, township residents, migrants, women and persons with disabilities face distinct barriers in accessing urban opportunities. These findings suggest that achieving restorative social justice in smart cities requires decentralized governance, participatory decision-making and equity-focused resource allocation.

VII. Discussion of the results

The findings of this study offer insights into the unique circumstances of smart cities in South Africa, while also being consistent with current research on urban inequality, governance and resource allocation.

a. Urban segregation and its impact on restorative social justice

Results confirm that urban segregation remains a significant barrier to achieving restorative social justice, as disparities in access to digital and physical resources continue to reflect apartheid-era legacies. Smart-city development risks reproducing historical divides rather than dismantling them. This aligns with wider debates on the digital divide, which emphasize that unequal access to infrastructure limits civic participation and socio-economic advancement.⁽⁷²⁾ However, it is important to engage also with counterexamples where smart initiatives have promoted inclusion. In Cape Town, community WiFi projects coupled with digital literacy programmes have improved access in low-income neighbourhoods.⁽⁷³⁾ Similarly, Durban’s participatory resilience planning has integrated informal settlement residents into decision-making, suggesting that inclusive processes can offset exclusionary tendencies in smart-city development.⁽⁷⁴⁾ While exclusion remains pervasive, inclusionary outcomes are possible when equity is built into governance and implementation frameworks.

This duality has implications for both theory and policy. On the one hand, neoliberal and technocratic planning approaches, often driven by external consultants and big technology firms, tend to prioritize efficiency and competitiveness over justice, thereby reinforcing inequalities.⁽⁷⁵⁾ However, justice-oriented models⁽⁷⁶⁾ demonstrate that intersectional and community-centred approaches can create more inclusive pathways. The challenge lies not in the technological capacity of South African cities but in their governance frameworks and political priorities. For future research, implications extend beyond generic calls for “greater inclusivity”.

Three areas stand out. First, longitudinal studies are needed to track whether smart-city interventions alleviate or reproduce inequality over time. Second, participatory action research (PAR) could enable communities themselves to co-design and evaluate smart-city initiatives, ensuring their lived experiences shape outcomes. Third, comparative research across global South contexts could identify whether the dynamics observed in South Africa are unique or resonate with broader patterns of exclusion and inclusion in cities such as Nairobi, Lagos or Mumbai.⁽⁷⁷⁾ Such work would help refine theoretical frameworks of justice-oriented smart urbanism and strengthen the relevance of the findings in South Africa.

b. Governance structures and practices

The findings underscore that governance frameworks are central to either reinforcing or dismantling barriers to inclusion in South African smart cities. While participants highlighted the prevalence of centralized, technocratic governance that sidelines local communities, the broader implication is that smart-city development reflects a tension between efficiency-driven models and justice-oriented governance. Technocratic approaches, often dominated by external consultants or technology firms, tend to privilege economic competitiveness and high-profile infrastructure, but also risk reproducing inequalities and deepening mistrust.⁽⁷⁸⁾ This interpretation emphasizes that governance models are not just administratively different, but also embody competing political logics – one privileging growth, the other equity.

Yet, counterexamples also illustrate how participatory governance can enhance inclusivity. In Ekurhuleni, for example, digital literacy initiatives co-designed with neighbourhood associations achieved wider uptake among marginalized residents. In Cape Town, certain pilot e-governance platforms incorporating citizen advisory panels reported greater trust and responsiveness.⁽⁷⁹⁾ Internationally, similar outcomes are noted: in Nairobi, the use of open-data portals strengthened accountability in municipal ICT projects;⁽⁸⁰⁾ and in Curitiba (Brazil), participatory planning mechanisms helped align smart-city investments with community priorities.⁽⁸¹⁾ These examples suggest that inclusive governance is not only desirable, but also feasible when community voice is intentionally incorporated.

The analysis highlights that governance deficits are also about data politics and transparency. Decisions about who collects, owns and controls urban data increasingly shape access to services and resources. Emerging research on AI and “platform urbanism” in African cities shows that opaque algorithmic systems can entrench bias and exclusion unless governance frameworks enforce accountability.⁽⁸²⁾ This expands the discussion by situating South African challenges within wider debates on digital justice and the political economy of data.

c. Distribution of urban resources

The analysis of resource allocation in South African smart cities highlights how unequal distribution continues to reinforce historical patterns of exclusion. Affluent neighbourhoods benefit disproportionately from investments, while underserved areas remain deprived of both basic services and digital access. This produces what global scholars describe as a “dual city model”, where wealthier communities advance rapidly while marginalized ones fall behind.⁽⁸³⁾ From a justice perspective, such patterns illustrate how technocratic urbanism, left uncorrected, can amplify rather than alleviate inequalities.⁽⁸⁴⁾

However, exclusion is not inevitable. Counterexamples suggest that equity-driven design can redirect resource allocation towards more inclusive outcomes. Cape Town’s pilot community WiFi schemes, paired with digital literacy training, provided affordable connectivity in low-income areas and enhanced residents’ participation in e-services.⁽⁸⁵⁾ Durban’s integrated resilience programmes, combining smart infrastructure with participatory governance, demonstrated that targeted investment in informal settlements can improve services and build trust.⁽⁸⁶⁾ Resource allocation can serve as a vehicle for restorative social justice when municipalities actively incorporate inclusionary logics into project design.

While inequitable resource distribution remains a critical barrier to restorative social justice, inclusive planning and participatory governance can transform resource allocation into a driver of equity. Future research must therefore focus not only on identifying exclusionary practices, but also on understanding the institutional mechanisms that enable inclusion, ensuring that smart cities fulfil their transformative promise.

VIII. Conclusion

a. Findings

This study used a thematic analysis of interviews with 24 people from Johannesburg, Cape Town and Ekurhuleni to assess urban segregation, governance and resource distribution to investigate the obstacles to restorative social justice in South African smart cities. The findings show that social inequality is exacerbated, access to digital infrastructure is restricted, and marginalized communities are not only excluded from the benefits of smart-city initiatives, but are also excluded from decision-making processes due to urban segregation. Additionally, it was discovered that centralized governance is a structural impediment to inclusivity because it ignores local needs. On the other hand, collaborative and decentralized governance models showed promise in promoting more equitable urban growth.

The unequal distribution of resources, where wealthier neighbourhoods benefit more from smart technologies, widens the digital divide and sustains systemic inequality. In order to promote digital inclusion and equitable access, this research suggests targeted investments in digital infrastructure within disadvantaged communities. It also highlights how important it is to use decentralized governance frameworks to effectively involve marginalized groups in decision-making. Furthermore, as a way to break down long-standing obstacles and advance social justice, the study emphasizes the importance of distributing urban resources like housing, healthcare, education and digital services fairly.

We conclude that smart-city developments run the risk of escalating rather than addressing current inequalities if restorative justice principles are not purposefully incorporated. By presenting place-based evidence that could guide practical approaches for integrating equity and participatory processes into South Africa’s smart-city models, our research significantly advances the current body of knowledge and offers recommendations for stakeholders and legislators who are dedicated to restorative urban transformation.

b. Limitations

The three selected metropolitan municipalities provide rich and varied perspectives, but cannot fully represent the experiences of all South African municipalities, particularly secondary cities and rural towns, where resource distribution and governance challenges may manifest differently. And because the findings are contextually situated, they cannot be considered statistically representative or universally applicable. Nonetheless, the focus on underlying structural and governance processes enhances the transferability of the study’s findings. Its insights can be meaningfully applied to other South African cities grappling with similar dynamics, and even to comparable global South contexts where smart-city initiatives intersect with entrenched socio-spatial inequalities. Future research could broaden the scope by incorporating smaller municipalities or adopting a comparative regional design to test and refine the patterns identified here.

c. Policy implications and recommendations

The analysis emphasizes the urgent need for policies that actively promote equity, participation and inclusivity in South African smart cities. Three immediate priorities emerge as particularly critical.

The first is the need for targeted resource allocation to historically underserved areas. This requires deliberate investment in affordable housing, reliable electricity, clean water and high-speed internet infrastructure, with municipalities adopting equity-based budgeting frameworks that channel a greater share of smart-city resources to townships and informal settlements. Similar approaches have been applied in Brazil, where targeted investments in low-income communities under the Cidade Inteligente programmes sought to reduce intra-urban inequality.⁽⁸⁷⁾

The second priority is the establishment of participatory and decentralized governance mechanisms. Community involvement must extend across all stages of smart-city planning and implementation, ensuring that project design reflects lived realities. Practical measures such as participatory budgeting and the creation of citizen advisory boards for digital initiatives could institutionalize this inclusion. Evidence from India’s Smart Cities Mission shows that inclusive co-design processes, while unevenly implemented, can enhance the value of projects to marginalized groups.⁽⁸⁸⁾

The third priority is the development of accountability and transparency frameworks to ensure that governance processes and technological interventions are subject to oversight. Clear rules governing the use of data, the management of public spending and the evaluation of projects should be codified, while open-data platforms and the mandatory disclosure of procurement processes can provide concrete mechanisms for ensuring public trust. Lessons from Nairobi’s open-data portals, for instance, suggest that transparency can both reduce corruption and build citizen confidence in municipal governance.⁽⁸⁹⁾ At the same time, it is important to recognize the political economy of implementation. Smart-city initiatives are often shaped by vested interests, including property developers, private technology firms and political elites, whose priorities may conflict with inclusive outcomes. Without deliberate efforts to align incentives, reforms risk being captured or diluted. Strengthening oversight institutions, encouraging independent monitoring and linking conditional national fiscal transfers to demonstrable progress on inclusivity are possible strategies for counteracting these pressures.

The division of responsibilities between national and municipal governments must be more explicitly defined. The role of the national government is to establish regulatory frameworks, set minimum standards for equity and access, and channel targeted fiscal transfers to disadvantaged municipalities. Local governments are best positioned to lead on implementation through context-sensitive planning, direct community engagement and the monitoring of service delivery. A coordinated approach that allows national frameworks to empower municipalities while holding them accountable will be essential for advancing restorative social justice in South Africa’s smart cities.

Footnotes

Appendix

Appendix 1

Literature review matrix

Author(s), year	Study focus	Key findings	Research question (RQ) alignment
Lemanski, 2019	Spatial inequality in Cape Town’s smart-city agenda	Smart-city infrastructure favours wealthy areas; exacerbates existing spatial segregation through neoliberal planning logic.	RQ1 – Urban Segregation
Fourie, 2024	Neoliberal urbanism and infrastructure bias	Modernization efforts skew towards affluent zones; weak restorative justice impact due to growth-centric urban policy.	RQ1 – Urban segregation
Tékouabou et al., 2022	GIS-based analysis of informal settlements in Johannesburg	Technological tools in spatial planning overlook informal areas; reinforce apartheid-era patterns.	RQ1 – Urban segregation
Sibiya, 2023	Infrastructure inequality in Durban	Smart lighting, surveillance tech concentrated in affluent neighbourhoods; lack of planning for poor areas.	RQ3 – Resource allocation
Jieutsa et al., 2024	Smart water metering in Johannesburg	Smart meters led to disconnections in low-income households; increased vulnerability rather than promoting justice.	RQ3 – Resource allocation
Odendaal, 2021	Digital governance in eThekwini	Top-down digital governance marginalizes local voices; weak participatory design.	RQ2 – Governance
Cirolia, 2020	Institutional misalignment in South African metros	Lack of coordination between tech systems and planning; weakens participatory governance and service delivery.	RQ2 – governance
Geyer, 2023	Intersectionality and smart infrastructure in Cape Town	Women in informal areas face greater barriers, digital exclusion, safety concerns, and caregiving burdens.	RQ3 – Resource allocation
Mashabela et al., 2024	Inclusive digital design in Gauteng	Youth and disabled persons excluded from design and planning; poor accessibility features in digital infrastructure.	RQ3 – Resource allocation
Saritas et al., 2024	Role of participatory processes in smart-city development	Top-down implementation leads to exclusion; participatory mechanisms essential for equitable outcomes.	RQ2 – governance
Bwalya, 2019; Abutabenjeh et al., 2022	Distribution of free WiFi in Johannesburg	Free WiFi mostly concentrated in affluent suburbs; informal settlements like Khayelitsha neglected.	RQ3 – Resource allocation
StatsSA, 2021	National access to basic services	Large gaps in piped water, sanitation, and electricity remain in marginalized areas, despite digital advances.	RQ1 & RQ3 – Segregation and resource allocation
Nesti, 2019; Odendaal, 2021; Madonsela, 2019	Governance and technocracy in smart cities	Smart-city governance tends to be overly technical and hierarchical, excluding marginalized groups.	RQ2 – governance
Ziervogel, 2019	Equity-focused climate-smart cities	Emphasizes the need for inclusivity and co-design in city resilience planning.	RQ2 & RQ3
Lunga et al., 2025	Inclusive urban transformation	Need for integrating marginalized voices in smart-city design; social equity depends on inclusive frameworks.	RQ2 – Governance
Mashabela, et al., 2024	Impact of innovation on informal urban areas	Highlights how innovation can bypass marginalized areas without deliberate inclusion mechanisms.	RQ3 – Resource allocation
Alizadeh and Sharifi, 2023	Restorative justice in smart-city frameworks	Smart cities should prioritize redress and equity, not just efficiency.	Cross-cutting – all RQs
City of Cape Town (Madonsela, 2019)	Smart water management during drought	Community engagement and smart solutions helped reduce water usage; illustrates potential when tech is combined with participation.	RQ2 and RQ3

Acknowledgements

I extend my sincere gratitude to local government officials and urban practitioners who shared their lived realities and professional insights with honesty and courage. Their voices give meaning to this work and anchor it in the everyday struggles and aspirations of our cities. I am deeply thankful to my supervisors for their academic guidance, care and intellectual generosity throughout this journey. This study is guided by a commitment to urban justice and by the conviction that digital transformation must serve those who have historically been excluded from dignity and belonging, and it was made possible within the supportive scholarly environment of the University of Johannesburg.

ORCID iD

Ayanda Ntanda

1.

Abutabenjeh et al. (2022); Kaiser (2024); .

2.

Alizadeh and Sharifi (2023); .

3.

Census.

4.

Alizadeh and Sharifi (2023); Ntanda et al. (2023); .

5.

Alizadeh and Sharifi (2023); .

6.

10.

11.

Bwalya (2019); .

12.

Alizadeh and Sharifi (2023); .

13.

14.

15.

Bwalya (2019); .

16.

Cirolia (2020).

17.

Harvey (2009); .

18.

Turok (2016); ; Parnell and Pieterse (2017).

19.

20.

UN-Habitat (2011); .

21.

22.

Odendaal (2015); .

23.

Sitas (2020).

24.

Norris (2001); .

25.

Van Dijk (2020); .

26.

Kaiser (2024); Praharaj, Han and Hawken (2018).

27.

Fourie (2024); .

28.

29.

30.

31.

Mashabela et al. (2024); .

32.

33.

Cirolia (2020).

34.

35.

36.

Nesti (2019); .

37.

Sharma and Rajput (2017); .

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

Odendaal (2021); Guma and Monstadt (2021); Praharaj et al. (2018); Sharma and Rajput (2017); .

43.

Cirolia (2020).

44.

Geyer (2023); .

45.

Odendaal (2021); .

46.

47.

48.

Creswell and Poth (2016).

49.

Cirolia (2020).

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

Creswell and Poth (2016); .

55.

56.

Braun and Clarke (2023).

57.

58.

59.

Sandton, Rosebank, and Melrose Arch are major commercial and financial hubs in Johannesburg, characterized by high-density corporate offices, retail centres and upper-income residential developments.

60.

Cape Town’s CBD, Century City and the Atlantic Seaboard represent key nodes of concentrated investment, combining premium commercial space, mixed-use developments and high-value residential property.

61.

Ekurhuleni’s aerotropolis and logistics corridors refer to the city’s transport-oriented industrial development zones anchored around OR Tambo International Airport, emphasizing logistics, warehousing and global trade connectivity.

62.

City of Johannesburg (2022).

63.

South African Cities Network (SACN) (2021).

64.

; City of Johannesburg (2022).

65.

SACN (2021).

66.

67.

; Cirolia (2020).

68.

Lemanski (2019); .

69.

70.

SACN (2021).

71.

Alizadeh and Sharifi (2023); .

72.

73.

74.

75.

Nastjuk et al. (2022); .

76.

Geyer (2023); .

77.

Praharaj et al. (2018); .

78.

Cirolia (2020); .

79.

80.

Mutula and Wamukoya (2020).

81.

82.

Odendaal (2021); .

83.

84.

85.

86.

87.

88.

89.

Mutula and Wamukoya (2020).

References

Abutabenjeh

Nukpezah

J A

Azhar

(2022), “Do smart cities technologies contribute to local economic development?”, Economic Development Quarterly Vol 36, No 1, pages 3–16.

Alizadeh

Sharifi

(2023), “Toward a societal smart city: clarifying the social justice dimension of smart cities”, Sustainable Cities and Society Vol 95, 104612.

Alizadeh

Prasad

(2024), “The right to the smart city in the Global South: a research agenda”, Urban Studies Vol 61, No 3, pages 426–444.

Alshenqeeti

(2018), “Motivation and foreign language learning: exploring the rise of motivation strategies in the EFL classroom”, International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature Vol 7, No 7, pages 1–8.

Backhouse

(2024), “ICTs and Smart Systems”, in Saritas

Sokolov

Cele

(editors), 21st Century Foresight. Science, Technology and Innovation Studies, Springer, Cham, pages 323–357.

Bandauko

Nutifafa Arku

(2023), A critical analysis of “smart cities” as an urban development strategy in Africa, International Planning Studies Vol 28, No 1, pages 69–86.

Basu

(2019), “Elite discourse coalitions and the governance of ‘smart spaces’: politics, power and privilege in India’s Smart Cities Mission”, Political Geography Vol 68, pages 77–85.

Boyle

Staines

(2019), Overview and Analysis of Cape Town’s Digital City Strategy, URERU Smart City Series, Part 1), Urban Real Estate Research Unit, Cape Town.

Braun

Clarke

(2024), “Thematic analysis”, in Michalos

A C

(editor) Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research, Springer, pages 7187–7193.

10.

Brown

(2022), “Mapping the realities of smart urbanism: a method to promote transdisciplinary smart city approaches”, in Moser

B R

, et al. (editors), Transdisciplinarity and the Future of Engineering, IOS Press, 796 pages.

11.

Brown-Luthango

Reyes

Gubevu

(2017), “Informal settlement upgrading and safety: experiences from Cape Town, South Africa”, Journal of Housing and the Built Environment Vol 32, No 3, pages 471–493.

12.

Bwalya

K J

(2019), “The smart city of Johannesburg, South Africa”, in Anthopoulos

(editor), Smart City Emergence, Elsevier, pages 407–419.

13.

Caprotti

(2019), “Spaces of visibility in the smart city: flagship urban spaces and the smart urban imaginary”, Urban Studies Vol 56, No 12, pages 2465–2479.

14.

Cirolia

L R

Berrisford

(2021), “Smart cities and spatial planning in Africa: fragmentation, politics, and planning challenges”, Urban Forum Vol 32, No 2, pages 237–256.

15.

Collingridge

D S

Gantt

E E

(2019), Republished: “The quality of qualitative research”, American Journal of Medical Quality Vol 34, No 5, pages 439–445.

16.

Creswell

J W

Poth

C N

(2018), Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches, 4th edition, Sage Publications Inc., Los Angeles.

17.

Eidelman

T A

(2021), “Reclaiming Cape Town: spatial justice and the (post) apartheid city”, Doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University.

18.

Fourie

(2024), “The neoliberal influence on South Africa’s early democracy and its shortfalls in addressing economic inequality”, Philosophy & Social Criticism Vol 50, No 5, pages 823–843.

19.

Friedman

(2022), “Smart water metering and social justice in Johannesburg: automation, affordability, and exclusion”, Water Policy Vol 24, No 6, pages 981–996.

20.

Geyer

H S

(2023), “Can informality help create smart, sustainable cities? The vibrancy of self-organised informal settlements in Cape Town”, GeoJournal Vol 88, pages 2471–2489.

21.

Guma

P K

Monstadt

(2021), “Smart city making? The spread of ICT-driven plans and infrastructures in Nairobi”, Urban Geography Vol 42, No 3, pages 360–381.

22.

Harrison

Todes

(2017), “Planning and transformative change in South Africa: learning from the past”, Journal of Planning Education and Research Vol 37, No 4, pages 430–442.

23.

Harvey

(2009), Social Justice and the City, revised edition, University of Georgia Press.

24.

Hesse-Biber

S N

Rodriguez

Frost

N A

(2015), A qualitatively driven approach to multimethod and mixed methods research, available at https://repository.mdx.ac.uk/download/4357dddb4f8535918627a932e4b9cd9c135e7ebc78fbff43397117c3b874a344/249714/AQualitatively-DrivenApproachToMixedMethodResearch.pdf.

25.

James

(2020), The Digital Divide in Developing Countries: Towards an Information Society in Africa, Edward Elgar Publishing.

26.

Jieutsa

Gbaguidi

Nadifi

Koseki

(2024), “Deployment of digital technologies in African cities: emerging issues and policy recommendations for local governments”, Data & Policy Vol 6, page e21.

27.

Kaiser

Z A

(2024), “Smart governance for smart cities and nations”, Journal of Economy and Technology Vol 2, pages 216–234.

28.

Kaufmann

Kraay

Zoido

(1999), Governance Matters, SSRN 188568.

29.

Kitchin

(2014), “The real-time city? Big data and smart urbanism”, GeoJournal Vol 79, No 1, pages 1–14.

30.

Lemanski

(2019), “Infrastructural inequality and the smart city agenda: the case of Cape Town”, Urban Studies Vol 56, No 5, pages 937–953.

31.

Lim

W M

(2023), “Philosophy of science and research paradigm for business research in the transformative age of automation, digitalization, hyperconnectivity, obligations, globalization and sustainability”, Journal of Trade Science Vol 11, Nos 2/3, pages 3–30.

32.

Lincoln

Y S

Guba

E G

(1985), Naturalistic Inquiry, Sage Publications, 416 pages.

33.

Lunga

Malandela

Kaifa

J M

Baloyi

Musarurwa

Ramoroka

Kunguma

(2025), “Socially inclusive infrastructure for disaster risk reduction in urban planning: insights from the SADC region”, Frontiers in Built Environment Vol 11, 1586040.

34.

Madonsela

Houghton

Binedell

(2019), “Governance and justice in the smart city era: lessons from Cape Town’s drought crisis”, South African Journal of Public Management Vol 34, No 2, pages 129–145.

35.

Mamokhere

Meyer

D F

(2025), “Challenges affecting e-participation viability in integrated development planning in South African rural municipalities”, Journal of Contemporary Management Vol 22, No 1, pages 434–462.

36.

Manda

M I

Backhouse

(2018a), “Smart city governance: the need for a holistic approach to managing urban systems”, Information Polity Vol 23, No 4, pages 367–378.

37.

Manda

M I

Backhouse

(2018b), “Smart governance for sustainable development: a conceptual framework for smart city governance”, Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, pages 547–556.

38.

Marvin

Luque-Ayala

McFarlane

(editors) (2015), Smart Urbanism: Utopian Vision or False Dawn? Routledge, 212 pages.

39.

Maseko

M M

(2023), “Are South Africa’s metropolitan municipalities failing to effectively use social media in citizen participation? An analysis from Cape Town and Johannesburg”, Journal of Public Administration Vol 58, No 4, pages 1113–1129.

40.

Mashabela

B J

Gumbo

Mahachi

(2024), “Smart Cities and infrastructure development: a case study of the Gauteng city region in South Africa”, in Keep On Planning For The Real World. Climate Change calls for Nature-based Solutions and Smart Technologies. Proceedings of REAL CORP 2024, 29th International Conference on Urban Development, Regional Planning and Information Society, pages 481–491.

41.

Miraftab

(2009), “Insurgent planning: situating radical planning in the global South”, Planning Theory Vol 8, No 1, pages 32–50.

42.

Mollenkopf

(1979), “’The urban question: a Marxist approach’, by Manuel Castells, translated by Alan Sheridan”, American Political Science Review Vol 73, No 4, pages 1175–1177.

43.

Musakwa

Selala

K M

(2020), “Mapping urban informal settlements using integrated geospatial techniques in Johannesburg”, South African Geographical Journal Vol 102, No 2, pages 189–205.

44.

Muzenda

Chikukwa

(2023), Governing African Smart Cities: The Role of Digital Citizenship in Municipal e-Participation. Tayarisha Working Paper, available at https://tinyurl.com/5aney65a.

45.

Nastjuk

Trang

EI Papageorgiou (2022), “Smart cities and smart governance models for future cities”, Electronic Markets Vol 32, pages 1917–1924.

46.

Nesti

(2019), “Urban governance and smart city projects: an institutional perspective”, Cities Vol 89, pages 1–7.

47.

Norris

(2001), Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty, and the Internet Worldwide, Cambridge University Press.

48.

Ntanda

Carolissen

Adegbaju

(2023), “Restorative Social Justice Through Digital Transformation in South African Metropolitan Cities”, 2023 IEEE European Technology and Engineering Management Summit (E-TEMS), April, pages 111–116.

49.

Nyimbili

(2024), “Types of purposive sampling techniques with their examples and application in qualitative research studies”, British Journal of Multidisciplinary and Advanced Studies Vol 5, No 1, pages 90–99.

50.

Odendaal

(2021), “Platform urbanism and hybrid places in African cities”, in Aurigi

Odendaal

(editors), Shaping Smart for Better Cities, Academic Press, pages 203–219.

51.

Odendaal

McCann

(2016), “Spatial planning in the global South: reflections on the Cape Town Spatial Development Framework”, International Development Planning Review Vol 38, No 4, pages 405–423.

52.

Odendaal

Duminy

P Saunders

(2008), “Is digital technology urban? Understanding intermetropolitan digital divides in South Africa”, Proceedings of the 20th Australasian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction: Designing for Habitus and Habitat, pages 97–103.

53.

Pieterse

(2018), “The politics of governing African urban spaces”, International Development Policy | Revue internationale de politique de développement Vol 10, pages 26–52.

54.

Praharaj

Han

J H

Hawken

(2018), “Urban innovation through policy integration: critical perspectives from 100 smart cities mission in India”, City, Culture and Society Vol 12, pages 35-43.

55.

Saunders

Lewis

Thornhill

(2019), Research Methods for Business Students, 8th edition, Pearson, 872 pages.

56.

Sevryugina

Y V

(2025), “Self-plagiarism: a retrospective study of its prevalence and patterns across scientific disciplines”, Accountability in Research, pages 1–33.

57.

Sharma

Rajput

(eds) (2017), Sustainable Smart Cities in India: Challenges and Future Perspectives, Springer, 789 pages.

58.

Sibiya

(2023), “Digital transformation of cities through emerging Industry 4.0 smart technologies and infrastructure in South Africa”, Master’s thesis, University of Johannesburg.

59.

Sitas

Pieterse

Parnell

(2017), “Governing African cities: imperatives for transitional urbanism”, Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability Vol 25, pages 67–72.

60.

Statistics South Africa (StatsSA) (2021), General Household Survey 2021, available at www.statssa.gov.za/publications/P0318/P03182021.pdf.

61.

Stolz

S A

(2023), “The practice of phenomenology in educational research”, Educational Philosophy and Theory Vol 55, No 7, pages 822–834.

62.

Sutherland

Buthelezi

Sim

(2021), “Urban governance, digital infrastructures, and smart city aspirations in South Africa”, Urban Forum Vol 32, pages 457–475.

63.

Tékouabou

S C K

Chenal

Azmi

Diop

E B

Toulni

(2022a), “Urban data: sources and targeted applications for urban planning indicators modelling”, in Ortiz-Rodríguez

Tiwari

Sicilia

M A

Nikiforova

(editors), Electronic Governance with Emerging Technologies. EGETC 2022. Communications in Computer and Information Science Vol 1666, Springer, 239 pages.

64.

Tékouabou

S C K

Chenal

Azmi

Bachir Toulni

(2022b), “Urban data: sources and targeted applications for urban planning indicators modelling”, in International Conference on Electronic Governance with Emerging Technologies, Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, pages 212–226.

65.

Turok

(2016), “South Africa’s new urban agenda: transformation or compensation?”, Local Economy Vol 31, Nos 1–2, pages 9–27.

66.

UN-Habitat (2011) Global Report on Human Settlements 2011: Cities and Climate Change, Earthscan, available at https://tinyurl.com/2hap7w8f.

67.

Van den Berg

Baillie

(2023), “Gender, informality, and access to smart urban services: a participatory study in Cape Town”, Gender, Place & Culture Vol 30, No 3, pages 456–474.

68.

Van Dijk

(2020), The Network Society: Social Aspects of New Media, 2nd edition, Sage Publications.

69.

Warschauer

(2004), Technology and Social Inclusion: Rethinking the Digital Divide, MIT Press.

70.

World Bank (1992), Governance and Development, World Bank Group, Washington DC.

71.

Young

I M

(2011), Justice and the Politics of Difference, 2nd edition, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 304 pages.

72.

Ziervogel

(2019), “Building transformative capacity for adaptation planning and implementation that works for the urban poor: insights from South Africa”, Ambio Vol 48, No 5, pages 494–506.