The proposed framework addresses an interconnected set of pressures affecting resource-dependent cities: environmental degradation, population loss and out-migration, limited entrepreneurship, weak technological modernization, insufficient economic diversification, infrastructure pressures and institutional vulnerability. Concentration around one industry or a small group of related activities can expose local economies to commodity-price fluctuations, technological change, resource depletion and industrial restructuring. Kazakhstan’s 2024 policy context identified 20 single-industry towns, while an estimated 1.3 million to 1.5 million people were associated with mining and primary processing. The study treats each monotown as an urban-regional system linking public authorities, dominant enterprises, infrastructure, universities, communities and emerging businesses, rather than as an industrial project in isolation.

At the center of the framework is a distinction between technological capability and sustainable transformation. Digital transformation encompasses artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, sensors, cloud platforms, geographic information systems and data analytics, but also changes in decision-making, service delivery, knowledge management, stakeholder engagement and organizational capacity. Urban digital twins and generative artificial intelligence are described as potential tools for simulation, planning and scenario analysis. Connected systems could also support environmental monitoring, predictive infrastructure maintenance, energy and water management, waste services, mobility and digital public services. These are proposed capabilities, not measured outcomes in Kazakhstan’s monotowns, and the authors emphasize that installing technology does not by itself make a city resilient, inclusive or environmentally responsible.

The study connects digital capabilities to ESG-oriented urban governance, interpreting environmental, social and governance principles as a governance lens rather than simply importing a corporate structure into city administration. The environmental dimension includes pollution, emissions, resource efficiency, water, waste and ecological rehabilitation. The social dimension covers employment, skills development, inclusion, public services, community participation and quality of life. The governance dimension emphasizes transparency, accountability, stakeholder engagement, institutional coordination and responsible investment. Digital data can support monitoring and public reporting, while ESG priorities can direct technology and investment toward environmental performance, workforce transition and equitable access. The framework also distinguishes ESG adoption from ESG effectiveness, warning that fragmented standards, weak reporting and ineffective accountability can leave commitments without substantive results.

Open innovation is positioned as the bridge between technological and governance transitions. Drawing on Open Innovation Theory, the framework emphasizes knowledge exchange across organizational boundaries, joint experimentation, technology diffusion and co-creation rather than innovation confined to a dominant company or municipal department. The Quadruple Helix model identifies four participant groups: government contributes planning, regulation, infrastructure and public services; industry supplies investment, technology, employment and industrial capabilities; universities provide research, expertise and skills; and communities contribute local knowledge, participation and social legitimacy. In Kazakhstan, the authors expect this collaboration to be institutionally mediated through controlled data-sharing arrangements, digital participation platforms, pilot projects and partnerships involving firms, educational institutions and communities, rather than through unrestricted local exchange.

Four conditional propositions summarize the proposed relationships. First, digital and smart transformation may support sustainable urban transformation by improving infrastructure, public services, environmental management, resource efficiency, institutional adaptability and resilience, provided adequate institutional and digital capacity exists. Second, ESG-oriented governance may integrate environmental stewardship, social inclusion, stakeholder accountability, responsible investment and institutional capacity into urban and industrial transition where implementation and accountability mechanisms are sufficiently developed. Third, open innovation may connect digital transformation with ESG governance when knowledge exchange, institutional coordination, stakeholder participation and technology diffusion are supported. Fourth, context-sensitive collaboration among government, industry, universities and communities may enable knowledge co-creation, participatory governance, human-capital development, place-sensitive innovation and institutional learning. These propositions are theoretical expectations derived from conceptual synthesis, not causal effects or statistically tested relationships.

Urban-territorial resilience is the framework’s intended transformation outcome and is defined as the capacity of an urban system to anticipate, absorb, adapt, recover from and transform in the face of economic, environmental, technological, social and institutional change. Six related dimensions are identified. Economic resilience depends on diversification and entrepreneurship; infrastructure resilience on modernization and intelligent management; environmental resilience on pollution reduction and resource efficiency; social resilience on jobs, skills, inclusion and community engagement; institutional resilience on adaptive and accountable governance; and innovation resilience on knowledge creation, diffusion and shared learning. This multidimensional account suggests that an industrial strategy, infrastructure upgrade or stand-alone smart-city program would each address only part of the challenge facing a resource-dependent urban region.

The framework also cautions that collaboration does not automatically create shared power. State institutions and city-forming enterprises may retain substantial control over finance, information, infrastructure and employment, while universities, residents and civil-society organizations may have fewer resources and less influence. Concentrated access to information and financing, together with weak civil-society participation, could make an apparently open process largely symbolic. The proposed safeguards include meaningful participation, transparency, information access and accountable institutions. The authors also call for attention to distributional consequences, including differences in connectivity, digital skills, income, employment, age and geographic access. A university presence in every monotown is not required: regional research teams, digital collaboration, satellite hubs, outreach, applied projects and vocational and technical colleges could contribute knowledge and technical capacity.

The framework implies a sequence of policy priorities while leaving their implementation dependent on local conditions. Digital investment should be linked to infrastructure needs, service quality, resource efficiency, environmental monitoring, public-service modernization and diversification rather than treated as a stand-alone technology program. ESG criteria should inform urban planning, infrastructure investment and industrial transition, while open-innovation platforms should support joint diagnosis, experimentation and learning. Diversification should reflect each place’s industrial heritage, environmental pressures, infrastructure, skills and institutional readiness; national policy can establish common digital, sustainability and financing goals, but regional and municipal actors must adapt implementation. Progress should be assessed through service quality, environmental performance, resource efficiency, economic diversification, employment and skills, citizen participation and institutional responsiveness, rather than the number of digital systems installed. The study remains conceptual, so its explanatory power, generalizability and causal effects still require primary-data, longitudinal, multilevel and comparative testing across multiple Kazakhstan monotowns and other resource-dependent cities.

Subject of Research: Conceptual framework for sustainable transformation of Kazakhstan’s resource-dependent monotowns

Article Title: Open innovation for sustainable urban transformation in Kazakhstan's monotowns: integrating digital transformation, ESG governance, and urban-territorial resilience

Article References: Abikayeva, M., Potluri, R. M., Omarkozhayeva, A., Omarkhanova, Z., Tleuzhanova, D., Zholdayakova, G., & Yanovskaya, O. (2026). Open innovation for sustainable urban transformation in Kazakhstan's monotowns: integrating digital transformation, ESG governance, and urban-territorial resilience. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 8, Article 1995961. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2026.1995961

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/frsc.2026.1995961

Keywords: Kazakhstan monotowns, open innovation, digital transformation, ESG governance, urban resilience, smart cities, Quadruple Helix, resource-dependent cities, sustainable cities, economic diversification, Open, innovation