Rebuilding Smarter: Lessons from Ukraine for Resilient Smart Cities

For many governments, the idea of a smart city has traditionally been associated with efficiency: better transport, connected infrastructure, digital public services, environmental monitoring and data-driven decision-making.

Ukraine’s experience adds another dimension. Cities are operating under the pressures of war while also preparing for long-term reconstruction. In this context, smart infrastructure has to be efficient, resilient, secure, interoperable and capable of functioning under disruption.

This is the challenge at the centre of our 2025–2027 research project at Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Development of Tools for Smart City Infrastructure Advancement Considering the Challenges of War and Post-War Recovery in Ukraine. The project brings together legal, technological and public governance perspectives to explore how Ukrainian cities can develop smart infrastructure that responds to both immediate wartime pressures and future recovery needs.

Our work examines how artificial intelligence, digital technologies, data, environmental monitoring and governance frameworks can support the transformation of Ukrainian cities. The research includes legal and policy recommendations, digital tools, approaches to environmental and cultural heritage management, and mechanisms for addressing information threats.

The experience so far points to five lessons that may be useful for governments far beyond Ukraine.

1. Resilience has to be designed into smart infrastructure from the beginning

Smart-city programmes often start with a technology question: which platform, sensor, data system or AI tool should a city introduce?

Ukraine’s experience suggests that the more important first question is whether that infrastructure will continue to support public functions when conditions become unstable.

War places unusual pressure on urban systems. Infrastructure can be physically damaged, communications can be disrupted, cyber risks can increase and public institutions may need to operate under severe resource constraints. These conditions change the meaning of “smart”.

A highly connected system may be efficient in normal conditions but vulnerable when dependencies are disrupted.

For this reason, our research treats resilience as part of the architecture of smart infrastructure rather than as an additional feature. The project is built around the need to improve the legal, technological, social, economic and environmental conditions for sustainable urban development under wartime and post-war conditions.

This includes questions of cybersecurity, interoperability, data protection, institutional responsibility and continuity of public services.

For policymakers, the implication is clear: resilience criteria should be included at the design stage of smart-city strategies, procurement and digital transformation projects.

2. Technology, law and institutions have to evolve together

One of the clearest lessons from the project is that smart-city development cannot be treated as a purely technological exercise.

During the first stage of the research, our team analysed Ukrainian legislation and European regulatory approaches to digital transformation and smart-city development. This work contributed to the preparation of a draft Strategy for the Development of Smart Infrastructure of Smart Cities in Ukraine.

The strategy is designed as a policy and legal framework covering the legal, technical, organisational and economic requirements for transforming municipal infrastructure through modern technologies, including the Internet of Things, artificial intelligence, blockchain and cloud computing.

The governance dimension is equally important. The research considers mechanisms for public participation, data protection, cybersecurity and ethical AI governance, including alignment with European regulatory approaches such as GDPR, NIS2 and the EU AI Act.

This creates an important sequencing lesson for governments.

Technology should not be implemented first and governed later.

Questions about accountability, data use, cybersecurity, interoperability and human oversight should be addressed at the same time as technical design.

Otherwise, public authorities risk building systems that are technically advanced but difficult to govern, integrate or scale.

3. Governments should start with public problems, not with AI

Artificial intelligence is increasingly becoming part of smart-city strategies. But “using AI” should not itself be a policy objective.

The more useful question is: what public problem are we trying to solve, and can AI contribute to solving it?

Our project examines several very different areas where AI and data-driven tools may create public value.

One area is environmental management. The research includes approaches for monitoring air quality, water bodies and urban green zones, as well as the use of large datasets to assess environmental indicators, forecast changes and support public decision-making.

Another area is cultural heritage. The project explores the use of AI to analyse information about cultural heritage assets, forecast risks and support preservation strategies. This work is combined with technologies such as 3D scanning and virtual reality.

A third direction concerns the urban information environment. The project investigates AI-supported approaches to detecting disinformation, fake news and hate speech and to strengthening the resilience of the information ecosystem of smart cities.

These applications may all involve AI, but they are not the same problem.

They require different datasets, different expertise, different risk assessments and different governance arrangements.

This is why governments should avoid creating AI programmes that are disconnected from specific public needs. Public value should determine where AI is used, not the availability of the technology itself.

4. Reconstruction creates an opportunity to redesign how urban data is governed

Post-war recovery will require thousands of decisions about infrastructure, housing, mobility, energy, environmental conditions, cultural assets and public services.

Many of those decisions will depend on data.

But more data does not automatically produce better governance.

Public authorities need to answer several basic questions: who produces the data, how reliable it is, whether systems can exchange it, who can access it, how long it is retained and how it is used in decision-making.

These questions become particularly important when cities use AI for forecasting, classification or risk assessment.

Our project therefore combines technological development with attention to open data, digital platforms, interoperability and public-sector governance. The underlying research model links smart infrastructure to local digital transformation, environmental management, cultural heritage and information security.

The project has also identified broader structural constraints. Ukrainian cities do not have equal financial, technical or human capacity for digital transformation. Insufficient financing, a shortage of qualified specialists and the absence of common technical approaches can make implementation difficult.

This makes scalability and reuse important.

A municipality should not need to develop every digital capability independently. Shared standards, reusable tools and solutions that can operate with modest technical requirements can reduce barriers to implementation.

The project has already been testing AI-supported approaches, including prompt engineering, AI-assisted software development and 3D modelling, with attention to possibilities for relatively low-cost local implementation and scaling.

For governments planning digital reconstruction, this suggests a broader principle: interoperability can be as important as innovation.

5. Human oversight remains essential in AI-supported urban governance

AI can process information faster than people, identify patterns across large datasets and support forecasting or analysis.

But an AI-generated output is not the same thing as a public decision.

That distinction becomes especially important when technology is used in areas involving public safety, cultural heritage, environmental risks, information integrity or access to public services.

In these contexts, governments need clear institutional responsibility.

Who verifies the output of an AI system?

Who can challenge it?

Who is accountable when the system is wrong?

What information about the system is available to citizens?

How are risks to fundamental rights assessed?

Our project approaches these questions through principles of human rights, inclusiveness, safety, technological neutrality and interoperability.

For Ukraine, this is also closely connected to European integration and the development of compatible legal and regulatory frameworks.

The broader lesson for governments is that technological capability and institutional accountability have to develop together.

If AI becomes part of public decision-making without clear human responsibility, the result may be faster processes but weaker governance.

From rebuilding infrastructure to redesigning urban governance

Ukraine’s recovery will inevitably involve the reconstruction of physical infrastructure.

But rebuilding cities exactly as they existed before the war would mean losing an important opportunity.

Reconstruction creates a policy window in which physical infrastructure, digital systems and governance frameworks can be reconsidered together.

This is particularly significant for smart cities.

The project has already produced a draft Strategy for the Development of Smart Infrastructure of Smart Cities in Ukraine and has examined how Ukrainian approaches can be aligned with European governance and regulatory models.

At the same time, the project continues to develop and test digital tools related to environmental monitoring, cultural heritage management, disinformation, cybersecurity and local digital governance. The next stages include further development, testing and practical validation of these instruments.

The research runs until the end of 2027, so it would be premature to present a finished model for Ukraine’s future smart cities.

But several conclusions are already becoming clear.

Smart-city resilience cannot be reduced to technology.

AI needs governance.

Digital infrastructure needs interoperability.

Data needs institutional accountability.

And reconstruction needs to be approached as an opportunity to modernise public governance, rather than simply restore what existed before.

Ukraine is being forced to address these questions under exceptionally difficult conditions.

That experience may prove useful to governments elsewhere.

The smartest city may not be the city with the greatest number of sensors, platforms or AI systems.

It may be the city whose institutions, infrastructure and digital systems can continue to deliver public value when conditions become unpredictable.

About the research

This article draws on the research project Development of Tools for Smart City Infrastructure Advancement Considering the Challenges of War and Post-War Recovery in Ukraine, implemented at Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv from 2025 to 2027.

The project combines research in law, public administration and information and communication technologies. Its areas of work include smart-city governance, artificial intelligence, environmental monitoring, cultural heritage, energy efficiency, information security and the digital transformation of territorial communities.

The project team has also published research on the legal, technological and governance dimensions of smart-infrastructure development in the context of Ukraine’s post-war recovery and European integration.