Cybersecurity in local governments: a systematic review and analysis of key issues

Introduction. Cybersecurity has become a major issue in modern urban governance, as local governments are now not only responsible for managing traditional infrastructure, but also ensuring the protection of digital systems and citizens' data in increasingly digitalized smart cities. Despite the importance of reliable cyber security measures, there is a serious problem: local governments are often insufficiently prepared to counter growing cyber threats. This discrepancy highlights the need for a comprehensive study of the issues that hinder effective cybersecurity in local governments.

Purpose. To give an idea of the most important cybersecurity issues faced by local authorities, as well as formulate specific recommendations that will help city politicians, administrators and researchers to increase resilience to cyber threats in this important but little-studied area.

Methods. This study uses a systematic literature review using the three-step PRISMA methodology (Preferred Reporting Elements for and Meta-analyses).

Results. In the course of a systematic analysis, we have identified and classified the main significant problems that hinder the adoption of effective cybersecurity measures in local authorities. The problems are listed in descending order of the frequency of their mention in the literature. This ranking reflects the prevalence and perceived impact of each issue in the context of local government cybersecurity.

Conclusions. Among the many problems identified, the most common were a clear lack of funding, a shortage of qualified personnel, and a lack of cybersecurity policies or regulatory requirements. These problems are not only frequently mentioned in the existing literature, but are also compounded by the tight budget constraints under which local governments usually operate. Another major challenge for local governments is the lack of robust cybersecurity policies or regulatory requirements that address the unique needs of local governments. The lack of standardized cybersecurity management systems in local governments hinders the development and implementation of effective security strategies, leading to inconsistencies in cybersecurity issues between different agencies. As we move deeper into the digital age, the security of our digital infrastructure is becoming synonymous with the security of our communities. Therefore, it is urgently necessary to rethink the approach to cybersecurity and consider it not as an unnecessary expense, but as an essential investment in public safety and trust. Therefore, immediate action is required in several key areas. First, it is necessary to strategically reallocate budgets to ensure that the necessary cybersecurity measures are taken. Secondly, priority should be given to the development and implementation of a comprehensive cybersecurity policy. Thirdly, it is necessary to develop cooperation both within and between government agencies, as well as with the private and academic sectors. Such cooperation can lead to pooling resources, sharing experiences, and developing cost-effective solutions.

1. Degterev D.A., Ramich M.S., Piskunov D.A. The approaches of the USA and China to global cyberspace governance: the «new bipolarity» in the «network society». Bulletin of International Organizations: education, Science, New Economy. 2021;16(3):7–33. EDN: RHBSFR. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2021-03-01

2. Zinovieva E.S. Cyber support and the digital security dilemma in American expert discourse. International processes. 2019;17(3(58)):51–65. EDN: LVKPIA (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17994/IT.2019.17.3.58.4

3. Zinovieva E.S. The formation of digital borders and information globalization: an analysis from the perspective of critical geography. Polis. Political Studies. 2022;(2):8–21. EDN: AJDIQL (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2022.02.02

4. Zinovieva E.S., Shitkov S.V. Digital sovereignty in the practice of international relations. International life. 2023;(3):38–51. EDN: HBTQYT (In Russ.)

5. Sobekin S.A. The system of international information security in the context of political turbulence. Bulletin of St. Petersburg University. International relations. 2023;16(2):170-190. EDN: JQHKPU (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu06.2023.205

6. Ponka T.I., Ramich M.S., U. Y. Information policy and information security of the PRC: development, approaches and implementation. Bulletin of the Peoples' Friendship University of Russia. Ser. International Relations. 2020;20 (2):382–394. EDN: UANODL (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-0660-2020-20-2-382-394

7. Rebro O.I., Gladysheva A., Suchkov M.A., Sushentsov A.A. The category of «Digital sovereignty» in modern world politics: challenges and opportunities for Russia. International Processes. 2021;19(4(67)):47– 67. EDN: QPXXVU (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17994/1X2021.19.4.67.6

8. Lebedeva M.M. New World order: parameters and possible contours. Polis. Political Studies. 2020;(4):24-35. EDN: DNORYR (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2020.04.03

9. Safranchuk I.A., Lukyanov F.A. Modern world order: adaptation of actors to structural realities. Polis. Political Studies. 2021;(4):14–25. EDN: JVPZJB (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2021.04.03

10. Konyshev V.N., Parfenov R.V. Hybrid Wars: between myth and reality. World Economy and International Relations. 2019;63(12):56–66. EDN: NQTLHW (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2019-63-12-56-66

11. Istomin I.A. The wars of the future in the light of the experience of the past. World Economy and International Relations. 2022;66(11):101–114. EDN: IRAVWZ (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.20542/0131-2227-2022-66-11-101-114

12. Rib O.I., Gladysheva A., Suchkov M.A., Sushentsov A.A. The category of «Digital sovereignty» in modern world politics: challenges and opportunities for Russia. International Processes. 2021;19(4(67)):47–67. EDN: QPXXVU (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17994/1X2021.19.4.67.6