From Fragmentation to Synergy: How Smart Cities Become a New Operating System for Local Governance of Carbon Targets

Governance Fragmentation: The Hidden Obstacle to Cities Fighting on Two Fronts

In contemporary urban governance, smart cities and carbon neutrality have become two major issues that nearly every ambitious city must confront simultaneously. The former promises to improve efficiency and quality of life through digital technology, while the latter requires cities to complete energy transition and emission reduction targets within a limited window. However, these two seemingly aligned tracks often remain separate—and even hinder each other—within real administrative systems.

A case study published in Frontiers in Environmental Science notes that in many local governments, smart city projects and carbon neutrality efforts are often advanced separately by different departments: digitalization and infrastructure departments focus on technology-driven urban efficiency, while environment and climate departments focus on emission data and energy restructuring. This institutional separation not only leads to policy fragmentation, but also squanders the "systemic dividends" that could be generated through coordination.

The China Case: A Laboratory Accelerating the Catch-Up

Researchers selected Chinese local governments as their subjects not by chance. China contributed about 35% of global carbon emissions in 2024, and its transition from carbon peak to carbon neutrality leaves only about 30 years—far shorter than the 40 to 70 years for developed economies in Europe and America. Under such urgent time constraints, relying solely on technological stacking or market regulation is insufficient; the innovative capacity of governance structures becomes crucial.

Through in-depth analysis of one Chinese local government's practice, the study found that effectively integrating smart city and carbon goals is not simply about purchasing more sensors or deploying more algorithms, but requires three interlocking mechanisms:

First, elevate data governance to a high-level institutionalized level. Cities must establish formal cross-departmental rules for data sharing, data ownership, and data analysis, rather than leaving systems isolated from one another. When a carbon emission monitoring data platform can be accessed in real time by transportation, energy, and planning departments, the smart city truly becomes the "perception layer" of carbon governance.

Second, establish a standing cross-departmental coordination platform. The paper emphasizes that temporary project teams or leadership directives are insufficient to sustain long-term coordination. The truly effective mechanism is to embed carbon goals into the performance evaluation and budget allocation processes of smart city construction, so that the two agendas form common interests at the organizational level.

Third, use digital technology to reshape low-carbon public service processes. For example, optimize building energy-efficiency retrofit processes through intelligent approval systems, or use urban data platforms to guide citizens toward green travel. Here, digital tools are not merely automation tools, but mediums that transform policy intent into service experience.

From Policy Coordination to the Urban Operating System

The value of this research goes beyond a summary of one Chinese city's experience. It reveals a key shift in future urban governance: the smart city is no longer just a technical pile-up of "sensors + big screens," but is becoming a foundational architecture that reconfigures administrative power. When data becomes the lifeblood of urban operations and carbon targets become hard constraints, local governments' governance logic shifts from "handling affairs by department" to "dispatching by system."This shift echoes global trends. The European Green Deal has already attempted to embed climate goals into digital projects, while Singapore’s "Virtual Singapore" digital twin platform shares urban models across different departments. The cases in this paper show even more clearly that the real challenge lies not in the maturity of the technology itself, but in how to break down the "departmental walls" within bureaucratic systems.

The Future of Urban Competition: The Ability to Integrate Digital and Green

Looking ahead to the next decade, competition among cities will no longer depend solely on the number of enterprises or the scale of infrastructure, but on whether a city can achieve synergy between digital governance and climate goals at the lowest transaction cost. Cities that can be the first to integrate smart city systems with carbon accounts, energy scheduling, and traffic flow control will gain lower operating costs, higher decision-making efficiency, and greater resilience in coping with extreme weather.

Conversely, cities where digitalization and climate policy remain fragmented may fall into the paradox of "the more advanced the technology, the more chaotic the governance"—because every system generates data, but they cannot talk to one another, and even create new information silos.

Therefore, the core insight of this research is that a city’s level of digitalization should ultimately be measured by whether it can support systematic carbon governance. A smart city should not merely be a tool of efficiency; it should be an architect of value. When data becomes a public utility and algorithms participate in public services, every aspect of urban governance needs to be re-examined: Are we using technology to reinforce old fragmentation, or are we using technology to generate new integration?

For cities that are advancing the construction of digital government, the answer is already written into the blueprint of governance architecture.