Next Article in Journal
Harnessing the Four Horsemen of Climate Change: A Framework for Deep Resilience, Decarbonization, and Planetary Health in Ontario, Canada
Next Article in Special Issue
Learning and Teaching Interdisciplinary Skills in Sustainable Urban Development—The Case of Tampere University, Finland
Previous Article in Journal
University Teaching in Times of Confinement: The Light and Shadows of Compulsory Online Learning
Previous Article in Special Issue
Alternative Governance Model for Historical Building Conservation in China: From Property Rights Perspective
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Social Inclusion Indicators for Building Citizen-Centric Smart Cities: A Systematic Literature Review

1
Social, Environmental and Developmental Sustainability Center (SEEDS), Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, University Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi 43600, Selangor, Malaysia
2
School of Built Environment, Queensland University of Technology, 2 George Street, Brisbane, QLD 4000, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(1), 376; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su13010376
Submission received: 11 October 2020 / Revised: 17 November 2020 / Accepted: 17 November 2020 / Published: 4 January 2021

Abstract

:
Despite the rhetoric of “citizen-first,” which has been tokenized in recent years by the smart city administrations, what it means has long been unclear to many, including the public at large. Put simply, this rhetoric concerns the mindset of the members of a local community and places them at the heart of the smart city initiatives. In order to bring further clarity to this issue under the current neoliberal urbanism, this study aimed to identify the key indicators of citizen-centric smart cities from the perspective of participative governance practices and citizens’ responsibilities. To achieve this aim, this study involved a systematic literature review of the social inclusion indicators for building citizen-centric smart cities. The social inclusion indicators that were formed were verified by practitioners to suit the local contexts of an emerging and developing country, in this case, Malaysia. The findings of the review revealed that: (a) the acceptance of social inclusion indicators was mainly limited to the realm of democratic developed countries, leaders’ understanding of citizenship, the delegation of decision-making power in governance practices, the participative culture of societies, and individual citizens’ self-discipline; (b) the social inclusion indicators may not be welcomed in emerging and developing countries; (c) in the long term, these indicators would shed light on the rise of self-organizing cities that will gain popularity in potential city developments, be it in developed or developing countries.

1. Introduction

To date, considering citizens’ perceptions about and perspectives of smart city development is seen as a sound strategy for many political and administrative leaders. Particularly, this has taken the form of promoting eGov (citizen centricity in e-government) that has been upheld in Europe since the mid-2000s [1] and is rooted in the perspective of “citizens as customers” under the new public management [2]. Based on this influence, apart from technological needs or smart cities, in recent years, city administrators have shifted their focus to co-creating smart cities with their citizens [3,4,5,6].
The rhetorical smart city visions in emerging and developing countries [7,8], such as the slogans of the federal government of Malaysia and the state government of Selangor’s “Peduli Rakyat” (literally care for citizens) [9], have rightly inspired and motivated the general public, who are entirely depending on government resources or actions. Nevertheless, the targeted passive users, beneficiaries, or the public are unaware of their responsibilities, even though “citizen-centric smart city initiatives are rooted in stewardship, civic paternalism, and a neoliberal conception of citizenship” [10]. These neoliberal conceptions “prioritized choice of consumption and individual autonomy within a framework of state and corporate-defined constraints that focused on market-led solutions to urban issues, rather than being grounded in civil, social, and political rights, and the common good” [10]. In other words, the market-led solutions put a high dependency on corporate technological sectors in most of the current forms of smart urban governance and tokenize the proactive response from users/citizens [11]. More so, [12] rightly pointed out that the citizen-centered idea is less compatible with neoliberalism because local governance needs to prioritize offering incentives to investors if it is to compete within the world system of cities.
Furthermore, in studies that investigated citizen centricity in smarter cities [13], the main interest was concentrated on measuring a citizen-centric approach by monitoring cities’ abilities to safeguard citizenship rights. However, in a more holistic view of the citizenship regime [14], citizenship should include rights, governance practices, and citizens’ responsibilities. Additionally, some recent studies [15,16] revealed that the current British Smart City Standards and the Malaysia Smart City Framework have an explicit citizenship rationale for guiding the standards and development of a smart city, although these guidelines displayed some substantial shortcomings and contradictions.
These shortcomings include superficial and unclear explanations of the citizenship regime in forming a citizen-centric smart city and contradictions in citizens’ priorities against the profit gained from technological markets and the legitimacy of paternity governance. Hence, the social inclusion indicators that can provide clarity to the public and administrators in measuring the shortcomings and contradictions of building a citizen-centric smart city need to be identified. As such, the research question that formed the study rationale was as follows: “What are the key social inclusion indicators supporting the emergence of a citizen-centric smart city?” With this question in mind and realizing the influence of neoliberal urbanism, this study aimed to identify the key indicators for citizen-centric smart cities from the perspective of participative governance practices and citizens’ responsibilities.
Regarding the methodological approach, this study adopted a systematic literature review technique. Sound constructs detailing the items for building a citizen-centric smart city were scarce in the literature in the Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus databases, other than from the citizen’s rights perspective, with some exceptions [13,17]. For scholars and practitioners sensitive to humanistic values in smart city construction, this article resembles a valuable starting point to quantify the popular yet vague and contested concept of citizen centricity in smart and future city development and governance. Thus, from the perspective of humanistic values, this review provided invaluable information to humanistic-conscious scholars and practitioners for realizing the importance of the participatory aspect of smart city development and governance [18,19,20,21,22,23].
This paper is structured as follows. The following sections include the introduction, the literary background on citizenship and citizen centricity practices in smart cities, governance practices and citizens’ responsibilities, the introduction of theoretical and conceptual frameworks, the methodology of the systematic literature review and indicators’ verification through interviews, the study findings, discussions, and conclusions.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Citizenship and Citizen Centricity Practices in Smart Cities

Citizenship is a term that generally refers to the legal right to belong to a country as a citizen and accepting citizenship responsibilities [24]. In the current dynamic world of smart cities, the meaning of citizenship has expanded. This article follows the framework of citizenship by [14,25], whereby the changes in citizenship regimes consist of three intersecting dimensions, namely the citizens’ rights, responsibilities, and participatory governance practices. To date, topics on citizens’ rights (mainly linked to the seminal work of Henri Lefebvre’s right to the city) has been widely researched, but little is known on the citizens’ responsibilities and participatory governance practices.
With regard to the citizens’ rights in smart cities, this aspect has been thoroughly studied by [13,17] through fundamental texts, namely the European and Global Charter—Agenda for the Safe-guarding of the Human Rights in the city, in comparison to other European and international smart cities in terms of standardizations, such as the National Standardization Association in Spain or the International Standardization Organization (ISO). Based on relevant literature reviews, the inclusive social standard safeguarding citizens’ rights was summarized and deemed comprehensive in measuring the citizens’ rights in smart cities.
Furthermore, in a study of the smart citizenship regime in the British Smart City Standard, [15] confirmed: “an explicit citizenship rationale guiding the smart city (standard), although this displays some substantive shortcomings.” These shortcomings, also identified by [13], include the lack of research on the roles (responsibilities) of citizens and the need for citizens’ direct participation to be incorporated into designing the standards for citizen-centric individuals, as is the case with smart city standardizations.
Against these research gaps, authors have additionally reviewed contemporary literature, mainly on the importance of having citizen centricity guidelines in smart city development (Appendix A). The majority of scholars assumed the definition of citizen centricity to be “fulfilling the citizens’ needs and viewed citizens as passive end users/beneficiaries” and emphasized the designs or services of the digital technology platform to users. These scholars exemplified the “technology-driven method” thinkers who dominated the current smart cities literature that is pro-technology, with little consideration on human capabilities [26]. This disposition could be due to the irrefutable strength of digital technology inventions or products in tracking engagement patterns or human behaviors and encourages consumerism, with little interest in turning citizens into potential beneficiaries’ or decision-makers.
In the long term, according to [26], citizens would be the “potential losers” under such a method. The term “citizens as losers” was hypothetically possible. Following the neoliberal logic of citizen-focused smart cities, the proponents of neoliberalism believed that the market should provide well-being for all, set a high public responsibility in city governance, and avoid public affairs [14,27], with a focus on personal lives and personal values. Nonetheless, the fact that capitalists would take the opportunity, tokenize the public, and indirectly switch the costs of city development were forgotten and would burden the majority of taxpayers and citizens [11].
To date, smart cities are enacting a blueprint of neoliberal urbanism and encouraging a form of neoliberal citizenship [27]. Although the initial concept of “citizen-centric” has been put forward, there remains a lack of discussions from the more inclusive angle of citizenship [15,27,28,29]. These works of literature mostly overemphasized technological and big data elements in urban governance to meet the needs of human experiences or enabling human behavior [30,31]. On the other hand, “human-driven method” thinkers, such as [10,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39], perceived technology as a catalyst to human capital improvement, with the primary concern of encouraging the genuine involvement of the people in smart cities, particularly in decision-making, co-creating ideas, or co-producing projects.

2.2. Governance Practices and Citizen Responsibilities

The “citizen-centric, people-centered, or citizen-oriented” approach, which was viewed as an “inclusive” approach to sustainable development [40], has a long history in the national urban sustainable development policy of developed and developing countries, such as France, the Netherlands, Singapore, China, India, Pakistan, and Malaysia, along with cities, such as New York, London, Barcelona, and Bilbao [41,42,43,44]. Nonetheless, the policy was frequently regarded as the “ends” of governance strategy and was used as a rhetoric term referring to the ideal state of citizens’ needs fulfillment, but the policy was not utilized in the dialectical thinking of citizens’ responsibilities or roles in contributing to the nation or the city.
In considering how citizens could contribute to smart governance, a participatory type of governance is necessary [45,46,47,48,49]. In other words, the decisions in government projects would have to be made with the full involvement of the beneficiaries, keeping in mind that any delays occurring as a result of the consultation process should be minimized [50,51]. Nevertheless, even the citizens’ involvement in the consultation process is considered an act of tokenism [52], where the power of decision-making would not be truly delegated to the people [53].
Notwithstanding the aforementioned, the challenges in building participatory governance are mounting. First, only the emphasis on technological corporate factors in smart governance has been criticized for failing to solve the issues concerning smart cities [10,26]. Beyond this, the human factor involved in the smart city program needs serious consideration [38,54] and is seen as a “critical intervention” in a dominant type of corporate smart city [55]. Second, the fundamental role that can be played by people remains vague, as citizens are often regarded as passive users whose opinions are not taken seriously [49,56,57].
Third, global development agendas, such as the New Urban Agenda (NUA) pioneered by the United Nations (UN), has lauded the importance of citizen involvement and inclusion to all parties [58,59]. Nonetheless, the current situation has been criticized by many parties regarding the fact that corporate smart cities are against the current global agenda and have often manipulated the issue of people’s involvement and popularized social polarization [60,61,62,63]; furthermore, parties have also criticized the NUA framework and emphasized that smart cities would fail if the community refused to get involved [64]. Communities’ refusal to participate is most likely due to a lack of understanding in terms of the involvement, type, or process contained in authentic engagement matters [65]. As such, [64] also suggested “dissensus” as a living indicator. This proposal is against the current practice of “building consensus,” where the different opinions of the people should be considered, even if the consultation process is “painstaking.”
In Malaysia, the planned development of smart cities, such as Cyberjaya, which is located within the Multimedia Super Corridor (MSC), is often criticized by scholars due to a lack of participatory governance [66,67,68]. On the other hand, existing planned development, such as Petaling Jaya City, is now integrated into the Smart Selangor Blueprint and faces challenges in terms of coordinating the people’s role in the new smart city and Local Agenda 21 projects that were launched two decades ago [9]. The main challenge faced by both types of smart city governances in Malaysia is the lack of local context indicators for implementing the element of involvement and the people’s role if there is an intention to develop toward citizen-centric city development.

2.3. Theoretical Framework

Two schools of thought influenced the development of smart city scholarship, namely, the technology-driven method and the human-driven method [26]. For the smart city concept, two elements were highlighted by the seminal work of [35], which are related to this study’s problems, namely, smart people and smart governance. Furthermore, the three main parties supporting the success of smart cities are the authorities, technological corporations, and citizens, as outlined by [48].
On another note, two citizen-centric ideologies were formulated by [1,36] as follows: (a) “to the people,” such as authorities using technology to meet the needs of the people, and (b) “with the people,” in terms of the collective thinking of the authorities, technological corporations, and the people when resolving urban issues. By combining both concepts of smart and citizen-centric cities, a basic understanding of the citizen-centric concept in smart cities could be developed.
Furthermore, to develop the concept of “citizen centricity,” it was found that the understanding, types, and processes of involvement were essential aspects worthy of being studied. In addition to involvement, the literature on citizenship, other than salvaging citizens’ rights as studied by [13,17], were not included in this study, as the people’s responsibilities are important in building a smart city [14,56]. This issue of responsibility can be divided into the roles and characters of the people. Based on these literature findings, a theoretical framework (Figure 1) was formed. In the context of this study, a “citizen-centric smart city” is a concept based on humanism with a focus on the participation and responsibilities of the people.

2.4. Conceptual Framework

Based on the conceptualization of items through literature reviews and the verification of items by practitioners, the study’s conceptual framework was formed (Figure 2). This conceptual framework consisted of a construct of a dependent variable—(DV 1) a citizen-centric smart city—and five independent variable constructs—(IV 1) understanding of participation, (IV 2) type of participation, (IV 3) process of participation, (IV 4) role of citizens, and (IV 5) attitude of citizens. This conceptual framework and the questionnaire items were recommended for testing with a five-point Likert scale (refer to [73]), with further quantitative analysis, such as a regression analysis to be conducted.
The authors argued that in constructing a citizen-centric smart city framework, the involvement of urban stakeholders is especially important from the people’s perspective, as the citizens require an understanding of the meanings, types, and processes of participation, and the people’s role and attitude in accordance to the type of citizen-centric development.

3. Methodology

In expanding the theoretical framework to measurable indicators and answering the research question, this study utilized a systematic literature review method, which practitioners verified at the second stage.

3.1. Systematic Literature Review

A complete literature search should not be limited to a single knowledge channel, methodology, journal, or geographical region, but the search should cover all the aspects related to the research topic [74]. Therefore, a systematic literature review method was selected due to the numerous unique procedures in this study. The unique procedures emphasized transparency, a pre-defined research question and protocol, pre-defined search strings, and standard inclusion and exclusion criteria, and justified the data analysis [75]. This study aimed to answer the research question: “What are the key social inclusion indicators supporting the emergence of a citizen-centric smart city?”, as elaborated through the research protocols on the subsections below.

3.1.1. Search Strategy

This study used Google Scholar as a database, as it is more open and inclusive compared to other platforms, such as WoS and Scopus. This database was also found to be used by other smart city scholars, such as [76,77,78]. Through the platform of Google Scholar, the authors were able to refer to articles and other research sources, such as conference proceedings, theses, books, book chapters, reports, and qualified working papers.
The comprehensive search strings developed by the authors were the keywords and their analogous concepts included “smart city(ies),” “citizen-centric,” “citizen centricity,” “people-centered (centred),” “citizen participation,” and “citizenship responsibility(ies).” Unlike [75], the search strings were applied individually without using “OR” as a one-off search. The authors found that too many results were generated under an individual search. Therefore, repeated individual searches were more organized regarding converting the results to a master spreadsheet for data synthesis and analysis.

3.1.2. Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria in the Stage of Identification

According to [79], the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews include the stages of identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion. In the first stage, namely, identification, five inclusion and exclusion criteria were established to guide the authors when gathering the relevant studies for this review. First, both the boxes of “include patents” and “include citations” were unchecked on the Google Scholar page. Patents were irrelevant to this academic study, while citations were found to be repetitive and challenging regarding finding online sources for further investigation.
Second, the “Advanced Search” setting of “Find Articles” was utilized. Articles with the exact phrase were identified and the selected keyword strings were keyed in, as mentioned earlier. The selection of “with all of the words,” “with at least one of the words,” and “without the words” were ignored, as the search results would be too general to review. Third, only the word occurring in the article title but not anywhere was identified. This selection also narrowed down the search results. Fourth, both the boxes of “return articles authored by” and “return articles published in” were ignored, with no limitation to authors and publishers.
Finally, the first box for the search period was left blank, with “2017” written down in the second box. Though the search period included up to December 2017, the authors did not set a specific limit for the beginning of the search period. Unlike [76,77,78], the initial search periods were set in 1992, 1993, and 1997, in line with the argument that these years appeared in the literature that is relevant to smart city concepts. Nonetheless, this study revealed that the topic of citizen centricity in smart cities was relatively discursive and multidisciplinary, with insufficient and reliable sources for an estimated period of two decades. Furthermore, the authors intended to acquire as many articles as possible to define the indicators. The detailed numbers of exclusion records in the first stage of identification are shown in Table 1.

3.1.3. Data Extraction in the Screening Stage

All the studies found through the initial search process using the selected keyword strings were incorporated in a master Excel worksheet. In the second stage of screening, first, duplicates were deleted. As the Google Scholar database was algorithmically autogenerated, the duplications needed to be manually deleted by filtering the worksheet. Furthermore, paper exclusions concerning absent or irrelevant title sources (i.e., PowerPoint presentations, white papers, book introductions, calls for papers, competition announcements, and all non-English works) were performed.

3.1.4. Data Extraction in the Eligibility Stage

In stage 3 (eligibility), justified full-text article exclusions were performed, where we read the article titles and keywords. For example, the most-cited source document of [35] in smart city literature outlined the divergent roots of smart city development, including the elements of a smart economy, people, governance, mobility, environment, and living, thus indicating the diversity of the various smart city papers in the Google Scholar database.
In answering the research question concerning the identification of the indicators of citizen centricity in smart cities, the scope was further narrowed down to papers involving smart people and governance. Nonetheless, both topics were scarce, with there being more literature on ICT-related urban innovations [80]. The consequent exclusion of papers concerning smart economy, mobility, living, and environment drastically reduced the number of eligible papers to 2350 studies.
Furthermore, the papers involving citizen centricity in smart cities were carefully assessed by reading the abstracts and contents, such as introductions and conclusions. In this regard, the irrelevant abstracts and contents were identified, with the number of papers included in the qualitative synthesis narrowed down to 71 studies.

3.1.5. Data Extraction in the Inclusion Stage

In stage 4 (inclusion), the authors performed an additional backward–forward search [74,81] on each identified article besides the identified studies from the Google Scholar database search. The backward–forward search (involving articles dated before or after the identified article) observed the detailed themes or indicators relevant to this study, as the potential article titles were indirectly related to citizen centricity and smart cities.
The authors considered the backward–forward search to be an important step in finding the themes or indicators that were directly related to answering the research question. Hence, five records were found in the backward search, whereas three studies were found in the forward search. Finally, a total of 79 articles were finalized for performing a thematic analysis. The search protocol process is presented in Figure 3 below.

3.1.6. Data Analysis and Risk of Bias

Based on the selected articles, the authors conceptualized the formation of items. A common name was used to describe similar concepts from various authors during the line-by-line coding of the thematic analysis process [74]. For example, “participation” was used as a common name to describe similar concepts of “engagement, collaboration and involvement” [83]. Figure 4 depicts the distribution of the reviewed papers per year, with the earliest article appearing in 1969, which was authored by [52], and the highest number of articles in a year was 14 articles in 2016.
Furthermore, it was discovered that the four most selected publishers were Wiley-Blackwell (nine articles), Springer (eight articles), Taylor & Francis (six articles), and Elsevier (six articles). Organizations such as the OECD, the World Bank, and universities also contributed to this group of articles (Appendix B).
According to [79], no guarantees were provided on the assessment or interpretation of the appropriate content by systemic reviewers. Thus, the authors aimed to report the possible risk of bias across selected studies, depending on the qualitative judgment from the authors when interpreting the contents and extracting suitable themes or items to answer the research question.

3.2. Verification by Practitioners

With the structuring of indicators through the rigorous process of the systematic literature review, all the indicators were verified again by practitioners in the fields of smart city and participation. The verification process also assisted in reducing the risk of bias from qualitative judgment by the authors. The selected practitioners consisted of two groups, which were the “power holders” with 19 people (11 local authority officers, 5 federal or state officers, and 3 politicians), and the “have-not citizens” as the remaining half (8 representatives of community organizations or residents, 2 non-governmental organizations, 3 academicians, and 6 private sector representatives). Overall, the selected informants provided ideas and suggestions to validate the studied items.
Nonetheless, some practitioners were uneasy about how ordinary citizens could understand the technical terms in the verification process. With such limitations, more examples relevant to common terms were applied in the items, such as grants, as opposed to contracts in the form of finance in running city programs (refer to Appendix C for the terms adjusted by practitioners).

4. Findings

4.1. Systematic Literature Review

4.1.1. The Items for the Construct of a Citizen-Centric Smart City (DV 1)

In searching for and suggesting the items for building the study constructs, the authors found sources with few statistical tests. On the other hand, most of the sources were related to conceptual discussions. According to works of literature, the decisions made by local authorities (LAs) should be more focused on citizens’ needs and not merely on technology to reach a consensus with citizens regarding realizing the state of citizen centricity in a smart city. LAs also learned to delegate power to citizens, specifically at the initial level of smart city programs. From the citizens’ perspective, individuals should be free to participate, play voluntary roles, and continuously contribute information. Both the LAs and citizens should play a role in building a good relationship and understanding and trusting each other.
Table 2 was developed to show the comparisons between themes, collected sources, and items [84]. General terms were applied to explain similar concepts from the articles. The majority of the items were derived from [1,35,36]. The suggested items for measuring the construct of citizen centricity in smart cities were converted into understandable sentences.
The design of the items was geared toward the citizens as the respondents. Thus, from the perspective of citizens, the term “we” was chosen and used with caution in representing “I and the community.” Respondents were guided to answer the survey according to the “ideal” situation, but not in the “existing” situation that occurs in reality. Highlighting this point is essential to steer the respondents to answer the survey as objectively as possible and think collectively in terms of personal opinions and the community’s perceptions of the respondents.

4.1.2. The Items for the Construct of Understanding of Participation (IV 1)

An understanding of citizen participation is considered important and influences the effectiveness of citizens’ engagement in city programs [37,119]. This construct attempted to measure the level of citizens’ understanding of the participation concept from the perspective of the citizens.
As such, citizens should have a clear understanding of the objective or aim and be aware of the benefits and obstacles of participating in smart city programs. Furthermore, citizens should be confident in playing relevant roles, evaluating the available options, and choosing to reject any programs that are deemed to be inappropriate. Furthermore, citizens should have the desire to influence priorities, attend the programs without going through a representative, and assist in forming the goals and objectives of smart city programs beyond mere participation. Citizens should also understand that the responsibility to make a communal decision and sign an agreement with the LAs, which is beneficial to the community, depends on the citizens.
The themes, primary references, and items in the sentences for the construct of “understanding of participation” are displayed in Table 3.

4.1.3. The Items for the Construct of Types of Participation (IV 2)

Type of participation refers to the level or stage of participation. This classification distinguished the approach of participation and the distribution of power, where there may be a co-occurrence without a precise point at the beginning or end. This construct attempted to measure the differences at the level or stage of participation, primarily known as the [52] participation ladder.
The highest level of “citizen-power” participation entailed that citizens should ideally have complete control over smart city programs or delegated power to make decisions benefitting the community. Through consultations, citizens should reach the final word (decision) and allow for the joint management of smart city programs. For the middle level of encouraging “token” participation, LAs offered grants (financial incentives), rewards, and conducted questionnaires related to citizens’ perception of smart city programs. For the lowest level of “non-participation,” LAs held communal meetings and broadcasted accurate information to citizens.
Relevant themes were published in the literature, as shown in Table 4. It was revealed that various types of “actions” could be classified as involvement and was also a source of confusion for the LAs, citizens, and the writing of articles by the scholars or organizations concerned. Most importantly, the last item in the construct was deliberately designed as a negative item to test respondents who answered the questionnaire unethically.

4.1.4. The Items for the Construct of Processes of Participation (IV 3)

The processes of participation refer to public engagement in the value chain of a program or activity from the initial process of drafting the agenda to the final evaluation process. Although the idea of the people involved in the value chain process of a city program was quoted from [70], there were no further explanations of the appropriate items. Thus, most of the relevant items were derived from [69].
In explaining the initial “processes” of participation in a program’s value chain, citizens should be involved in formulating the agenda, decision-making, planning, and designing the program’s content. Consequently, citizens should be involved in managing and implementing the programs, together with LAs, in the middle process. Finally, citizens should oversee and evaluate the program after the implementation. Table 5 summarizes the themes, sources, and questionnaire items in layperson’s terms.

4.1.5. The Items for the Construct of Roles of Citizens (IV 4)

The role of the people was discussed as one of the important factors in building citizens’ responsibilities in a citizen-centric smart city. Eight roles were identified in the construct items using language that is easily understood by the average respondents, as shown in Table 6.
The first role that ideal or radical citizens played in smart city programs was in leading authorities to make decisions [147]. The second role was as local champions, where citizens took the initiative to initiate the program and connect to relevant parties. The third role was as co-producers in collaboration with LAs. Furthermore, citizens could play the role of entrepreneurs in producing economic and financial innovations for the community. Citizens could also be solution proposers by suggesting alternatives and advising LAs. For the sixth role, citizens contributed data, consciously or subtly, as human sensors. Citizens could also volunteer to contribute time and help intrinsically. Finally, citizens contributed knowledge and expertise as experts. All the proposed citizen roles would eventually assist LAs with the shortage of human and financial resources involving smart city management.

4.1.6. The Items for the Construct on Characters of Citizens (IV 5)

Along with the people’s responsibility for developing a citizen-centric city, people’s attitudes were equally crucial to the study. Here, the researchers summarized the relevant themes and resources and synthesized the items that fit this study in Table 7.
The first attitude that citizens should possess is the active care of each other, such as neighbors and communities. Furthermore, citizens should pay attention and be sensitive to the programs occurring in the city and the surrounding environment. Citizens should be independent when problem-solving instead of merely relying on governmental resources. Being educated in colleges or universities would also allow for meaningful involvement. Finally, ideal citizens in smart cities should have an attitude that reflects an interest in public life, public values, and acting quickly against the disruptions in community life.

4.2. Verification by Practitioners

Once the six constructs and 49 items were derived from the literature, further verification of the feasibility was conducted by practitioners. The authors confirmed that the six constructs were deemed appropriate to explain a citizen-centric smart city model. However, the exact items needed some modifications, such as including the appropriate usage of words, sentences, and examples to guide respondents in answering the questionnaire with more accuracy [94]. In total, two of the original items were removed, and a total of 47 items were applied in the conceptual framework for future use in the instrument (Appendix D). The details of the items adjusted through the practitioners’ verifications are presented in Appendix C.

5. Discussion and Reflection

The notion of citizen centricity in (smart) city development is not a novel one and is perceived as a continuous trend in the development of e-government, which started in the mid-2000s. It is in line with the concept derived from new public management, where citizens should be viewed as customers to improve public service delivery. As customers, the demands of services have implications that are likely to turn citizens into passive users or beneficiaries who receive and demand from public administrators. It was argued that in constructing a citizen-centric smart city (CCSC), there should be no generalizations in viewing citizens as customers. In fact, there is a need to seriously research and construct a CCSC from the perspectives of both citizenships (to explain the notion of citizen centricity) and literature on the conception of the smart city conception.
The theoretical framework of a CCSC formed in this study is the first structured framework of its kind in the literature on smart cities. This CCSC theoretical framework thoroughly explains the original combination of the source of references for the notion of citizen centricity and the smart city concept. From these combinations, it was revealed that the construction of such detailed indicators and citizenship conception should include three major components, namely, citizens’ rights (not included in this study, as it was already detailed by [13,17]), citizens’ responsibilities, and the practices of citizen participation in governance. This framework is unique, as the framework is viewed from a fundamental perspective of what citizens can contribute to the formation of a CCSC. The focus of the indicators originated from the perspective of the citizens rather than the government’s point of view. Such a perspective would make the role of citizens proactive and similar to the conception of self-organizing cities [49,154,155,156], which developed beyond the current neoliberal smart cities.
From such a theoretical framework, this study has attempted to construct a conceptual framework consisting of six constructs and 47 items. All the constructs were verified carefully by 38 practitioners in the fields of smart city development and community participation. The first stage of the formation of indicators was derived from the majority of literature reviews from scholars in developed Western countries, hence outlining the holistic scope of citizenship notions. Moreover, practitioners from emerging and developing countries with comparatively lower democracy and citizenship conceptions, such as Malaysia, tended to agree with all the indicators from the Western literature and included additional examples from the local context to gain a better understanding of the residents. Thus, the design of such indicators could be said to suit both developed and developing countries. Concerning future implementations, the examples of particular items should be altered with caution to suit other local contexts.
The authors predict that further studies on empirical survey results could yield a less significant result on some indicators, as the mindset and acceptance of democracy and the rights in emerging and developing countries, such as Malaysia, could be lower compared to developed countries. Hence, the full acceptance of the indicators is not possible, as the democratic innovations of developing countries are faced with challenges and restrictions [157]. The proposed democratic innovation includes expanding the role of citizens as co-producers [158], which is rarely practiced in developing countries. Furthermore, with regard to the usage of political slogans in building a CCSC, leaders may appear insincere if people are tokenized as customers with needs to fulfill but not cultivated and given the opportunities to participate in governance practices. Thus, the authors are fully aware of the challenges and costs of participatory and deliberative governance [136,159]. However, to intervene in such neoliberal smart urbanism [160] and realize the possibility of “self-organizing” smart cities, these CCSC indicators are worthy of reference and can be modified in different contexts.
The potential self-organizing cities led by local stakeholders could emerge as responses to unsatisfactory government-driven processes, market failures [161], the intention to legitimize a government’s retreat from sectors that have traditionally played a vital role [162], or the intervention of e-participation through digital technologies [163,164]. This self-organizing and more democratic realm of a CCSC has led to three levels of discussion. The first level is the democratic culture of a country, the leaders’ understanding, and the delegation of decision-making power in governance. The second level is society’s perception of citizenship, the participative culture of societies, and the lack of links to decision-making [165]. The third level is the individual citizens’ discipline and contributions to the country or city.
For an emerging and developing country like Malaysia, the dual forms of Islamic and secular administrations and constitutions are often criticized by scholars in the context of democracy [166,167,168]. Such a context hints that the highest constitution is not as open to democracy as practiced by Western countries. Canada, for example, has the Citizenship Act, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Multiculturalism Act [169,170,171], as opposed to Malaysia. Another example is the Nordic welfare society in the context of a democratic culture, welfarism, and redistributive policies that provide support to the development of participatory and innovative platforms by strengthening social inclusion, regulating the growth mechanisms, and easing the tensions between pro-growth and anti-growth coalitions [143].
In Malaysia, “participatory governance practice” is a tokenized term under the current top-down policy governance practices. The majority of government administrators “listen” and act according to political masters, but less focus is given to grassroots suggestions [172,173]. The lack of participatory governance practices was also similar to other developing countries, such as India, China, and Egypt [23,117,174,175]. In developing India’s 100 smart cities, [174] questioned the liberal electoral democracy in India on the extent to which a smart city can deliver de facto inclusion and participation. [176] added that, instead of testing Indian smart cities as the grounds for democratic participation, smart citizens were nudged as subaltern citizens in urban governance. In China’s smart-eco city projects, [117,177] reported that citizen input in the decision-making phase was quite limited, hence suggesting legislative reforms and the professionalization of Chinese officials in dealing with bottom-up input. In Egypt, [175] recommended that the Egyptian government focus specifically on smart people, such as giving citizens equal opportunity to participate in public decision-making.
Suppose the future survey results of the proposed indicators in this study receive high acceptance. In that case, participatory governance may become a new norm in local governance and mark a transition from party politics, expert dominance, and siloed bureaucracy to citizen participation, consequently supporting citizens’ efforts to co-produce public services and build potential self-organizing smart cities.
At the level of society, the culture of participation in government programs is considered to be low [9,178]. From studies based on the Petaling Jaya and Cyberjaya smart city cases [9], the low level of participation was not interpreted based on the moderate quantity of participative programs involving citizens in the implementation stages, but the interpretation was based on the particularly low (even none) quantity of programs that empowered citizens at the initial stage of decision-making. The situation in Malaysia resembles making “decision by decision,” where the community has no liberty to decide, is constrained by decisions from authorities, and is at the mercy of the authorities [9]. Furthermore, as described by [162], in the context of Amsterdam and Amersfoort, The Netherlands, “self-organization seems to take place in the shadow of a government hierarchy: either a fear-based one or a benevolent one,” particularly in the context of meta-governance. In the context of Helsinki, Finland, self-organization also lacked links to decision-making, thus constraining new solutions and creative actions [165].
Such contexts indicated that society’s mindset is still conservative, with a vague understanding of the citizenship’s regime, leading to a possibly high dependency of people on the government. The evidence in Malaysia, such as the withdrawal of participation from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court [179] and the human rights issues evoked by racially and religiously motivated political parties, had correctly signaled the relatively low appreciation of equality in human rights when race- and religion-based interests are challenged.
At the level of individual Malaysian citizens, people’s self-discipline would increase with the realization of a CCSC. For example, the role of volunteers, local champions, and co-producers with characteristics of proactiveness and awareness of CCSC development are all important responsibilities that a citizen has to contribute to building a CCSC. In a potential majority of highly responsible citizens, this contributes to the building of sustainable and inclusive societies, cities, and a wider scope of progressiveness in Malaysia.

6. Conclusions

The construction of a CCSC is much like developing a democratic society, which requires a higher appreciation of a society with a wider citizenship regime and a self-disciplined and responsible culture for individual citizens. As technology has been identified as a mere catalyst in solving societal issues [180], the new main focus is now on the people (along with good policy) in rightly building a CCSC based on public values and upholding the realms of democracy and citizenship.
Nonetheless, [12] pointed out that hegemonic neoliberal urban growth is mostly incompatible with citizen-centered ideas. Thus, this study’s limitation concerned the non-appreciation of neoliberal thinking parties (specifically ruthless capitalists and far-right and antidemocratic national and local authorities), who have become too used to and trapped under the mainstream of neoliberal smart urbanism. These parties may criticize and strongly oppose the viability of the proposed indicators and provide negative empirical results. Still, the authors encourage further investigations to apply the proposed indicators in the contexts of both developed and developing countries.
More information and refinements on the indicators will eventually yield the acceptance of the CCSC model. As such, the conception of a CCSC is the ideal state of building cities resembling “self-organizing” types, but with possibilities to be rejected by neoliberal-thinking leaders and administrators in practice. However, the authors strongly believe that in an estimated period of 30 to 50 years, the CCSC will receive wider acceptance with the emergence of drawbacks in neoliberal smart cities (see [57,181,182]). In the meantime, the smart cities’ trend of branding, be it the alternative new brandings of cities or the conception of the citizen centricity perspective, will remain valid and strive for realization in a sustainable, just, and humane form of city development [183].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and methodology, J.A.M. and S.B.L.; writing—original draft preparation, software, formal analysis, investigation, and data curation, S.B.L.; supervision, validation, resources, funding acquisition, and project administration, J.A.M.; review and editing, T.Y. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The article processing charges (APCs) were funded by the Malaysian Ministry of Higher Education (grant number FRGS/1/2019/SS06/UKM/02/2). The funder was not involved in the planning, execution, write-up of the systematic review, or other contents of this article.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article and appendixes.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1. Literature discussing the direction of citizen centricity in smart cities’ development (Source: Authors).
Table A1. Literature discussing the direction of citizen centricity in smart cities’ development (Source: Authors).
No.PerspectiveMethodologyScholars and Descriptions
1Technology-driven method:
Stresses the importance of digital technology and big data in helping to attain citizen (centricity) participation in the smart city (services).
1(a) Conceptual discussions[184]—To achieve the Dubai Happiness Agenda through digital technology, which is tokenized on the essence of participation.
[185]—Using (customer relationship management) data analysis to measure the dimensions of smart city services that match the needs of the citizens (i.e., the needs for hedonic, contact, value co-creation, or a real-time response).
1(b) Empirical proofs of the design of web/mobile urban service applications toward achieving a citizen-centeredness state.[32]—Through the design of the IES (Internet Enabled Services) Cities platform to enable citizens to act as prosumers (double consumer and producer).
[186]—Viewed citizens as primary beneficiaries and empowering citizens (deep participation * and data-literate citizenry) as challenges, thus proposed a solution of an Open City Toolkit (OCT) ** through GIScience and open data.
* Deep participation is about raising awareness and enabling communities to have their say in matters related to city life.
** Examples of OCT can be accessed through http://geo-c.eu/opencitytoolkit (European Union’s funding project).
Related papers: [187,188].
[189]—Proposed an open model (open government, open innovation, open data, and open services paradigms) oriented toward the design, production, and deployment of public services and mobile apps ***, where citizens were viewed as co-creators of ideas.
*** Examples of the WeLive platform can be accessed through https://www.welive.eu/ (European Union’s funding project).
Related papers: [190,191].
[192]—Proposed a citizen-centric typology for smart city services from marketing and service science, where citizens were viewed as users and customers. Others: [31,193,194,195,196,197,198].
2Human-driven method:
Stresses the importance of citizenship/social participation perspective in attaining the direction of citizen centricity in smart city development.
2(a) Conceptual discussionsComponent of governance practice:
[33]—Achieving Smart Nation Singapore through citizen-oriented smart city (governance) policies.
Component of a general mention of citizenship:
[34]—Stressed genuine citizen centricity will either happen when citizens were engaged in a partnership or delegated power and involved in the decision-making process in smart city programs. Others: [36,37,38,39].
2 (b) Propose empirical measurements of citizen participation and citizens’ rights in the smart city (standard).[10]—Proposed a “Scaffold of Smart Citizen Participation” to assess the citizen-centric nature of smart city initiatives in Dublin. They concluded that these “citizen-centric” smart city initiatives were rooted in stewardship, civic paternalism, and a neoliberal conception of citizenship, rather than being grounded in civil, social, and political rights, and the common good.
[13,17]—Proposed indicators for safeguarding citizens’ rights.
[35]—Proposed indicators for smart people and smart governance.
Note: * Deep participation is about raising awareness and enabling communities to have their say in matters related to city life; ** Examples of OCT can be accessed through http://geo-c.eu/opencitytoolkit (European Union’s funding project); *** Examples of the WeLive platform can be accessed through https://www.welive.eu/ (European Union’s funding project).

Appendix B

Table A2. List of selected reviewed articles (source: authors).
Table A2. List of selected reviewed articles (source: authors).
No.Source’s TitlePublisherPublicationAuthor
1Citizen-centric approaches to e-government and the back-office transformationAssociation for Computing Machinery (ACM)(Proceedings)[85]
2Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people & institutionsACM(Proceedings)[48]
3Citizen-centered e-government services: benefits, costs, and research needsACM(Proceedings) [86]
4Assessment methodology in smart cities based on public valueACM(Proceedings)[153]
5Models of e-democracyAssociation for Information Systems (AIS)Communications of the Association for Information Systems[140]
6Citizen-centric demand model for transformational government systemsAIS(Proceedings)[95]
7A ladder of citizen participationAmerican Institute of PlannersJournal of the American Institute of Planners[52]
8The smart city from a public value perspectiveAtlantis Press(Proceedings)[152]
9Public value from co-production by clientsAustralia and New Zealand School of Government(Working paper)[151]
10Using the transformational government framework to deliver public sector servicesBrunel University(Working paper)[91]
11A review on public participation in Environmental Impact Assessment in MalaysiaAcademy of Economic Studies, Bucharest, RomaniaTERUM-Theoretical and Empirical Research in Urban Management[146]
12“Citizens as analysts” redux: revisiting Aaron Wildavsky on public participationUniversity of Westminster PressJournal of Public Deliberation[145]
13An institutional analysis of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in Malaysia: social conflict and credibilityDelft University of Technology(Thesis)[114]
14The guide to effective participationDelta Press, Brighton(Book)[69]
15Participatory learning for sustainable agricultureElsevierWorld Development[128]
16From e-government to we-government: defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social mediaElsevierGovernment Information Quarterly[141]
17Transformational change and business process reengineering (BPR): lessons from the British and Dutch public sectorElsevierGovernment Information Quarterly[127]
18Public participation in waste management decision making: analysis and management of conflictsElsevierJournal of Hazardous Materials[137]
19Citizen participation in China’s eco-city development. Will ‘new-type urbanization’ generate a breakthrough in realizing it?ElsevierJournal of Cleaner Production[117]
20Participation’s place in rural development: seeking clarity through specificityElsevierWorld Development[139]
21Citizens’ attitudes towards e-government and e-governance: a UK studyEmeraldInternational Journal of Public Sector Management[87]
22The smart city and its citizens: governance and citizen participation in Amsterdam Smart CityErasmus University(Thesis)[49]
23E-participation—a key factor in developing smart citiesEuropean Citizen and Public Administration(Proceedings)[101]
24A handbook for citizen-centric eGovernmentEuropean Commission(Book)[1]
25A citizen-centric public sector: why citizen centricity matters and how to obtain itInternational Academy, Research and Industry Association (IARIA)(Proceedings)[36]
26Citizen-centric eGovernment services: use of indicators to measure degree of user involvement in eGovernment service developmentIARIA(Proceedings)[105]
27Citizen participation in smart cities: evaluation framework proposalInstitute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE)(Proceedings)[120]
28A web 2.0 citizen-centric model for t-government servicesIEEEIEEE Intelligent Systems[97]
29Understanding smart cities: an integrative frameworkIEEE(Proceedings)[109]
30Involving citizens in smart city projects: systems engineering meets participationIEEE(Proceedings)[106]
31E-governance and development: service delivery to empower the poorIdea Group (IGI) PublishingInternational Journal of Electronic Government Research[92]
32Citizens as sensors/ information providers in the co-production of smart city services.Luiss University Press(Proceedings)[38]
33Where’s wally? In search of citizen perspectives on the smart cityMultidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)Sustainability[126]
34City-as-a-platform: the rise of participatory innovation platforms in Finnish citiesMDPISustainability[143]
35Making local democracy work: municipal officials’ views of public participationNational League of Cities(Book)[142]
36New politics: towards a mature Malaysian democracyNational Translation Institute of Malaysia(Book)[99]
37Being a ‘citizen’ in the smart city: up and down the scaffold of smart citizen participation.National University of Ireland Maynooth(Working paper)[71] *
38Citizens as partners: OECD handbook on information, consultation and public participation in policy-makingOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)(Report)[123]
39Engaging citizens in policy-makings: information, consultation and public participationOECD(Report)[122]
40Models of democracy: from representation to participation?Oxford University Press(Book chapter from) The Changing Constitution[131]
41Critical interventions into the corporate smart cityOxford University Press (Cambridge Political Economy Society)Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society[55]
42Assessing public participation in U.S. citiesSagePublic Performance & Management Review[135]
43Conflicting perceptions on participation between citizens and members of local governmentSpringerQuality & Quantity[116] *
44The role of citizen participation in municipal smart city projects: lessons learned from NorwaySpringer(Book chapter from) Smarter as the New Urban Agenda[56]
45Technology helps, people make: a smart city governance framework grounded in deliberative democracySpringer(Book chapter from) Smarter as the New Urban Agenda[54]
46‘Mind the gap’: e-government and e-democracySpringer(Book chapter from) International Conference on Electronic Government[103]
47‘Mind the gap II’: e-government and e-governanceSpringer(Book chapter from) International Conference on Electronic Government[104]
48Co-production makes cities smarter: citizens’ participation in smart city initiativesSpringer(Book chapter from) Co-production in the Public Sector[37]
49Smart city projects and citizen participation: the case of LondonSpringer(Book chapter from) Public Sector Management in a Globalized World[144]
50The citizens in e-participationSpringer(Book chapter from) International Conference on Electronic Government[132]
51Depoliticising development: the uses and abuses of participationTaylor & FrancisDevelopment in Practice[129]
52Assessing public participation initiatives in local government decision-making in MalaysiaTaylor & FrancisInternational Journal of Public Administration[118]
53Citizen participation: models and methodsTaylor & FrancisInternational Journal of Public Administration[134]
54Will the real smart city please stand up?Taylor & FrancisCity[62]
55Contemporary public involvement: toward a strategic approachTaylor & FrancisLocal Environment[98]
56Caught in the middle: Community Development Corporations (CDCs) and the conflict between grassroots and instrumental forms of citizen participationTaylor & FrancisJournal of the Community Development Society[130]
57Smart cities in EuropeTechnical University of Košice(Proceedings)[107] *
58A comparatives study on public participation in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in Malaysia and European UnionTilburg University, Netherlands(Thesis)[115]
59E-government survey 2012: e-government for the peopleUnited Nations(Report)[96]
60A critical review of citizen participation in smart cities: the citizens at the core of Smart NamurUniversite De Namur(Thesis)[102]
61Influence of citizen-centric perspective on the effectiveness of e-governance systems in MalaysiaUniversiti Putra Malaysia(Thesis)[94]
62Factors influencing participation of rural women in Padzey Project in Taiz Governorate, YemenUniversiti Putra Malaysia(Thesis)[149]
63Citizen-centric demand model for transformational governmentUniversiti Teknologi Mara(Thesis)[93]
64Strong democracy: participatory politics for a new ageUniversity of California Press(Book)[111]
65The role of citizens in “smart cities”University of Presov, Slovakia(Proceedings)[72]
66Engaging democracy: an institutional theory of participatory budgetingUniversity of Washington(Thesis)[112]
67Smart cities: ranking of European medium-sized citiesVienna University of Technology(Report)[35]
68Engaging citizens in democratic governance and the decision-making process with congressional committeesWalden University(Thesis)[100]
69Models of democracyWiley-Blackwell(Book)[110]
70Why are smart cities growing? Who moves and who staysWiley-BlackwellJournal of Regional Science[150]
71Citizen participation: can we measure its effectiveness?Wiley-Blackwell (American Society for Public Administration)Public Administration Review[119]
72Beyond engagement and participation: user and community coproduction of public servicesWiley-BlackwellPublic Administration Review[70]
73Varieties of participation in complex governanceWiley-BlackwellPublic Administration Review[121]
74Citizen participation in decision making: is it worth the effort?Wiley-BlackwellPublic Administration Review[136]
75Citizen, customer, partner: rethinking the place of the public in public managementWiley-BlackwellPublic Administration Review[138]
76Putting the "public" back in public values research: designing participation to identify and respond to valuesWiley-BlackwellPublic Administration Review[133]
77Further dissecting the black box of citizen participation: when does citizen involvement lead to good outcomes?Wiley-BlackwellPublic Administration Review[108]
78The World Bank participation sourcebookWorld Bank(Report)[124]
79Strategic framework for mainstreaming citizen engagement in World Bank Group operationsWorld Bank(Report)[125]
Note: * Ref. [71]—this working paper was published in GeoJournal, 2019; Ref. [116]—this journal article was online first in 2017; Ref. [107]—this proceeding paper was published in Journal of Urban Technology, 2011.

Appendix C

Table A3. Selected and adjusted items after the verification by practitioners (source: authors).
Table A3. Selected and adjusted items after the verification by practitioners (source: authors).
No.Item from LiteratureAdjusted Item with Verification by Practitioners
The Construct of “Citizen-Centric Smart City”
2The decision by LAs needs to reach a consensus with us.Decisions made by LAs are through an agreement, such as dialogues with us.
4LAs delegate power to us, especially at the initial level of smart city programs.LAs delegate authority to us at the initial stages of urban programs, such as meeting with us for decision-making.
6We play the role of volunteers and contribute information continuously.We are responsible and together build a smart city.
The Construct of “Understanding of Participation”
6We are involved in the programs without going through a representative.We attend (without a representative) and join along in the program organization.
8We value the decision-making process together.We value the decision-making process together, and not just comply with LAs.
The Construct of “Types of Participation”
5LAs offer grants (financial incentives) to run smart city programs.LAs offer grants/contracts in the form of finance to run city programs.
6LAs offer rewards, but LAs still have full power.LAs offer rewards/gifts, such as shirts, bins, and others.
8LAs hold meetings with the community.LAs hold meetings with us.
9LAs broadcast the correct information to us.LAs publish accurate information.
The Construct of “Processes of Participation”
(A combination of items 1 and 2)We are involved in setting the program agenda.
(A combination of items 3 and 4)We are involved in planning program activities.
(Original item was 6)We present and join along in the program.
The Construct of “Roles of Citizens”
3As co-producers, we work together with the LAs.As co-producers, we work together with LAs and contribute relevant resources.
6As human sensors, we contribute data.As human sensors, we report issues to the LAs.
The Construct of “Characters of Citizens”
3We choose not to rely on government resources.We choose a less dependent approach to government resources.
4Being educated is important for us to get involved in city programs.Efforts to obtain higher education (BSc and above) are important to prepare us to be involved in the program.
5We are interested in public life, public values, and acting quickly on things that disrupt community life.We are interested in public affairs and act quickly on things that disrupt community life.

Appendix D

Table A4. Instrument construct and items (source: authors).
Table A4. Instrument construct and items (source: authors).
ConstructNum. of Original Items (Based on Literature Review)Num. of New Items (Improved after the Interview)Detail Num. of New Items after AdjustmentDetail Num. of New Items Remaining
(1) Citizen-centric smart city8835
(2) Understanding of participation 9927
(3) Types of participation111147
(4) Processes of participation8653
(5) Roles of citizens8835
(6) Characters of citizens5532
Total4947

References

  1. Undheim, T.A.; Blakemore, M. A Handbook for Citizen-Centric eGovernment; Version 2.1; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  2. Hood, C. The “New Public Management” in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. Account. Organ. Soc. 1995, 20, 93–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Van der Hoogen, A.; Scholtz, B.; Calitz, A.P. Using theories to design a value alignment model for smart city initiatives. In International Federation for Information Processing; Hattingh, M., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 55–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. United Cities and Local Governments (UCLG). Executive Summary of Co-creating the Urban Future: The Agenda of Metropolises, Cities and Territories; UCLG: Barcelona, Spain, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  5. Nabatchi, T.; Sancino, A.; Sicilia, M. Varieties of participation in public services: The who, when, and what of Coproduction. Public Adm. Rev. 2017, 77, 766–776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Allwinkle, S.; Cruickshank, P. Creating smart-er cities: An overview. J. Urban Technol. 2011, 18, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Watson, V. The allure of ‘smart city’ rhetoric: India and Africa. Dialogues Hum. Geogr. 2015, 36–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Datta, A. A 100 smart cities, a 100 utopias. Dialogues Hum. Geogr. 2015, 5, 49–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Lim, S.B. Membina Model Bandar Pintar Berpusatkan Rakyat di Malaysia. Ph.D. Thesis, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Malaysia, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  10. Cardullo, P.; Kitchin, R. Being a ‘citizen’ in the smart city: Up and down the scaffold of smart citizen participation in Dublin, Ireland. GeoJournal 2019, 84, doi. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kummitha, R.K.R. Entrepreneurial urbanism and technological panacea: Why Smart City planning needs to go beyond corporate visioning? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2018, 137, 330–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Fainstein, S. The Just City; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  13. Marsal-Llacuna, M.-L. City indicators on social sustainability as standardization technologies for smarter (citizen-centered) governance of cities. Soc. Indic. Res. 2016, 128, 1193–1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Jenson, J. Redesigning citizenship regimes after Neoliberalism. Moving towards Social Investment. In What Future for Social Investment? Morel, N., Palier, B., Palme, J., Eds.; Institute for Future Studies: Stockholm, Sweden, 2009; pp. 27–44. [Google Scholar]
  15. Joss, S.; Cook, M.; Dayot, Y. Smart cities: Towards a new citizenship regime? A discourse analysis of the British Smart City Standard. J. Urban Technol. 2017, 24, 29–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Lim, S.B.; Jalaluddin, A.M.; Mohd Yusof, H.; Zurinah, T. Malaysia Smart City Framework: A trusted framework for shaping smart Malaysian citizenship? In Handbook of Smart Cities; Augusto, J.C., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 1–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Marsal-Llacuna, M.-L. Building universal socio-cultural indicators for standardizing the safeguarding of citizens’ rights in smart cities. Soc. Indic. Res. 2017, 130, 563–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Martin, C.; Evans, J.; Karvonen, A.; Paskaleva, K.; Yang, D.; Linjordet, T. Smart-sustainability: A new urban fix? Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 45, 640–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Nesti, G. Defining and assessing the transformational nature of smart city governance: Insights from four European cases. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 2018, 86, 20–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Glasmeier, A.K.; Nebiolo, M. Thinking about smart cities: The travels of a policy idea that promises a great deal, but so far has delivered modest results. Sustainability 2016, 8, 1122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Castelnovo, W.; Misuraca, G.; Savoldelli, A. Smart cities governance: The need for a holistic approach to assessing urban participatory policy making. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 2015, 34, 724–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Meijer, A.; Bolívar, M.P.R. Governing the smart city: A review of the literature on smart urban governance. Int. Rev. Adm. Sci. 2016, 82, 392–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Tan, S.Y.; Taeihagh, A. Smart city governance in developing countries: A systematic literature review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  24. Oxford University Press. Oxford Learner’s Dictionaries. Available online: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/citizenship?q=citizenship (accessed on 2 August 2019).
  25. Jenson, J.; Phillips, S.D. Regime shift: New citizenship practices in Canada. Int. J. Can. Stud. 1996, 14, 111–136. [Google Scholar]
  26. Kummitha, R.K.R.; Crutzen, N. How do we understand smart cities? An evolutionary perspective. Cities. 2017, 67, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Cardullo, P.; Kitchin, R. Smart urbanism and smart citizenship: The neoliberal logic of ‘citizen-focused’ smart cities in Europe. Environ. Plan. C Polit. Sp. 2019, 37, 813–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. De Waal, M.; Dignum, M. The citizen in the smart city. How the smart city could transform citizenship. IT Inf. Technol. 2017, 59, 263–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Cowley, R.; Joss, S.; Dayot, Y. The smart city and its publics: Insights from across six UK cities. Urban Res. Pract. 2018, 11, 53–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Dirks, S.; Keeling, M.; Dencik, J. IBM Global Business Services Executive Report: How Smart Is Your City? Helping Cities Measure Progress; International Business Machines Corporation: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Yonezawa, T.; Matranga, I.; Galache, J.A.; Maeomichi, H.; Gurgen, L.; Shibuya, T. A citizen-centric approach towards global-scale smart city platform. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent Advances in Internet of Things, Singapore, 7–9 April 2015; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  32. Aguilera, U.; Peña, O.; Belmonte, O.; López-de-Ipiña, D. Citizen-centric data services for smarter cities. Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst. 2017, 76, 234–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Chang, F.; Das, D. Smart nation Singapore: Developing policies for a citizen-oriented smart city initiative. In Developing National Urban Policies: Ways Forward to Green and Smart Cities; Kundu, D., Sietchiping, R., Kinyanjui, M., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2020; pp. 425–440. [Google Scholar]
  34. Lim, S.B.; Jalaluddin, A.M.; Mohd, Y.H.; Zurinah, T. Citizen participation in building citizen-centric smart cities. Geogr.-Malays.J. Soc. Space 2018, 14, 42–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Giffinger, R.; Fertner, C.; Kramar, H.; Kalasek, R.; Pichler, N.; Meijers, E. Smart Cities: Ranking of European Medium-Sized Cities; TU Vienna: Wien, Astria, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  36. Berntzen, L.; Johannesen, M.R.; Ødegård, A. A citizen-centric public sector: Why citizen centricity matters and how to obtain it. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Advances in Human-oriented and Personalized Mechanisms, Technologies, and Services (AHPMTS), Rome, Italy, 21–25 August 2016; pp. 14–20. [Google Scholar]
  37. Castelnovo, W. Co-production makes cities smarter: Citizens’ participation in smart city initiatives. In Co-Production in the Public Sector; Fugini, M., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 97–117. [Google Scholar]
  38. Castelnovo, W. Citizens as sensors/information providers in the co-production of smart city services. In Proceedings of the 12th Italian Chapter of the Association for Information Systems (IT AIS), Carisolo, TN, Italy, 10–13 February 2016; pp. 51–62. [Google Scholar]
  39. Mainka, A.; Bech-Petersen, S.; Castelnovo, W.; Hartmann, S.; Miettinen, V.; Stock, W.G. Open innovation in smart cities: Civic participation and co-creation of public services. Proc. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2016, 53, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Yigitcanlar, T.; Kamruzzaman, M. Planning, development and management of sustainable cities: A commentary from the guest editors. Sustainability 2015, 7, 14677–14688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Kundu, D.; Sietchiping, R.; Kinyanjui, M. Developing National Urban Policies: Ways Forward to Green and Smart Cities; Springer: Singapore, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Angelidou, M. Smart cities: A conjuncture of four forces. Cities 2015, 47, 95–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Yigitcanlar, T.; Han, H.; Kamruzzaman, M.; Ioppolo, G.; Sabatini-Marques, J. The making of smart cities: Are Songdo, Masdar, Amsterdam, San Francisco and Brisbane the best we could build? Land Use Policy 2019, 88, 104187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Melissen, J.; Caesar-Gordon, M. “Digital diplomacy” and the securing of nationals in a citizen-centric world. Glob. Aff. 2016, 2, 321–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Alawadhi, S.; Scholl, H.J. Smart governance: A cross-case analysis of smart city initiatives. In Proceedings of the 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Koloa, HI, USA, 5–8 January 2016; pp. 2953–2963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Babu, C.M.; Sasankar, A.B.; Prasuna, K. Smart city framework strategies for citizen centric governance. Int. J. Adv. Res. Comput. Sci. Manag. Stud. 2016, 4, 113–121. [Google Scholar]
  47. Dameri, R.P.; Benevolo, C. Governing smart cities: An empirical analysis. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 2016, 34, 693–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Nam, T.; Pardo, T. Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people & institutions. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, College Park, MD, USA, 12–15 June 2011; pp. 282–291. [Google Scholar]
  49. Capra, C.F. The Smart City and its Citizens: Governance and Citizen Participation in Amsterdam Smart City. Master Thesis, Erasmus University, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  50. Sengupta, A.K. Conceptualizing the right to development for the twenty-first century. In Realizing the Right to Development: Essays in Commemoration of 25 Years of the United Nations Declaration on the Right to Development; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 67–87. [Google Scholar]
  51. Cornwall, A.; Nyamu-Musembi, C. Putting the “rights-based approach” to development into perspective. Third World Q. 2004, 25, 1415–1437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Arnstein, S.R. A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Inst. Plan. 1969, 35, 216–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Mohseni, H. Public engagement and smart city definitions: A classifying model for the evaluation of citizen power in 2025 Tehran. GeoJournal 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Alonso, R.G.; Castro, S.L. Technology helps, people make: A smart city governance framework grounded in deliberative democracy. In Smarter as the New Urban Agenda; A Comprehensive View of the 21st Century City; Gil-Garcia, J.R., Pardo, T.A., Nam, T., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 333–347. [Google Scholar]
  55. Hollands, R.G. Critical interventions into the corporate smart city. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 2015, 8, 61–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Berntzen, L.; Johannessen, M.R. The role of citizen participation in municipal smart city projects: Lessons learned from Norway. In Smarter as the New Urban Agenda; A Comprehensive View of the 21st Century City; Gil-Garcia, J.R., Pardo, T.A., Nam, T., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 299–314. [Google Scholar]
  57. Vanolo, A. Is there anybody out there? The place and role of citizens in tomorrow’s smart cities. Futures 2016, 82, 26–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Caprotti, F.; Cowley, R.; Datta, A.; Broto, V.C.; Gao, E.; Georgeson, L.; Herrick, C.; Odendaal, N.; Joss, S. The New Urban Agenda: Key opportunities and challenges for policy and practice. Urban Res. Pract. 2017, 10, 367–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Gil-Garcia, J.R.; Pardo, A.T.; Nam, T. Smarter as the New Urban Agenda: A Comprehensive View of the 21st Century City; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  60. Benedikt, O. The value citizens of smart cities: The case of Songdo City. Grad. J. Soc. Sci. 2016, 12, 17–36. [Google Scholar]
  61. Graham, S. Bridging urban digital divides? Polarisation and Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs). Urban Stud. 2002, 39, 33–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Hollands, R.G. Will the real smart city please stand up? City 2008, 12, 303–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Vanolo, A. Smartmentality: The smart city as disciplinary strategy. Urban Stud. 2014, 51, 883–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Kaika, M. “Don’t call me resilient again!”: The New Urban Agenda as immunology … or … What happens when communities refuse to be vaccinated with ‘smart cities’ and indicators. Environ. Urban. 2017, 29, 89–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. King, C.S.; Feltey, K.M.; Susel, B.O. The question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in public administration. Pub. Admin. Rev. 1998, 58, 317–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kobie, N. Inside Cyberjaya, Malaysia’s failed Silicon Valley. Available online: http://www.wired.co.uk/article/malaysia-cyberjaya-silicon-valley-smart-cities (accessed on 3 July 2017).
  67. Salman, A. Cyberjaya: Malaysia’s promised Silicon Valley a Central Plan, Which Failed. Available online: http://www.ideas.org.my/cyberjaya-malaysias-promised-silicon-valley-a-central-plan-which-failed/ (accessed on 19 November 2018).
  68. Yusof, N.; van Loon, J. Engineering a global city: The case of Cyberjaya. Sp. Cult. 2012, 15, 298–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Wilcox, D. The Guide to Effective Participation; Delta Press: Brighton, UK, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  70. Bovaird, T. Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public Adm. Rev. 2007, 67, 846–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Cardullo, P.; Kitchin, R. Being a ‘Citizen’ in the Smart City: Up and down the Scaffold of Smart Citizen Participation; Programmable City Working Paper No. 30; National University of Ireland Maynooth: County Kildare, Ireland, 15 May 2017. [Google Scholar]
  72. Berntzen, L.; Johannessen, M.R. The role of citizens in “smart cities”. In Proceedings of the Management International Conference, University of Presov; 2016. [Google Scholar]
  73. Bosch, P.; Jongeneel, S.; Rovers, V.; Neumann, H.-M.; Airaksinen, M.; Huovila, A. CITYkeys Indicators for Smart City Projects and Smart Cities; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  74. Shaffril, H.A.M.; Samsuddin, S.F.; Samah, A.A. The ABC of systematic literature review: The basic methodological guidance for beginners. Qual. Quant. 2020, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Greyson, D.; Rafferty, E.; Slater, L.; MacDonald, N.; Bettinger, J.A.; Dubé, È.; MacDonald, S.E. Systematic review searches must be systematic, comprehensive, and transparent: A critique of Perman et al. BMC Public Health 2019, 19, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Cocchia, A. Smart and digital city: A systematic literature review. In Smart City; Dameri, R.P., Rosenthal-Sabroux, C., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2014; pp. 13–43. [Google Scholar]
  77. Anthopoulos, L.; Janssen, M.; Weerakkody, V. A Unified Smart City Model (USCM) for smart city conceptualization and benchmarking. Int. J. Electron. Gov. Res. 2016, 12, 77–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Mora, L.; Deakin, M.; Reid, A. Combining co-citation clustering and text-based analysis to reveal the main development paths of smart cities. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2019, 142, 56–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.G. The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Mora, L.; Bolici, R.; Deakin, M. The first two decades of smart-city research: A bibliometric analysis. J. Urban Technol. 2017, 24, 3–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Xiao, Y.; Watson, M. Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2019, 39, 93–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Purwanto, A.; Zuiderwijk, A.; Janssen, M. Citizen engagement with open government data: A systematic literature review of drivers and inhibitors. Int. J. Electron. Gov. Res. 2020, 16, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Gudes, O.; Kendall, E.; Yigitcanlar, T.; Pathak, V.; Baum, S. Rethinking health planning: A framework for organising information to underpin collaborative health planning. Health Inf. Manag. J. 2010, 39, 18–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  84. Webster, J.; Watson, R.T. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future. MIS Q. 2002, 26, 13–23. [Google Scholar]
  85. Luna-Reyes, L.F.; Gil-Garcia, J.R.; Celorio Mansi, J.A. Citizen-centric approaches to e-government and the back-office transformation. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (ICDGR), College Park, MD, USA, 12–15 June 2011; pp. 213–218. [Google Scholar]
  86. Bertot, J.C.; Jaeger, P.T.; Mcclure, C.R. Citizen-centered e-government services: Benefits, costs, and research needs. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference (ICDGR), Montreal, QC, Canada, 18–21 May 2008; pp. 137–142. [Google Scholar]
  87. Kolsaker, A.; Lee-kelley, L. Citizens’ attitudes towards e-government and e-governance: A UK study. Int. J. Public Sect. Manag. 2008, 21, 723–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Sigwejo, A.; Pather, S. A citizen-centric framework for assessing e-government effectiveness. Electron. J. Inf. Syst. Dev. Ctries. 2016, 74, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Wang, J.; Tao, Z. Citizen-centered e-government strategy governance framework: Case of China. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Web Information Systems and Mining, Shanghai, China, 7–8 November 2009; pp. 589–593. [Google Scholar]
  90. Wang, L.; Bretschneider, S.; Gant, J. Evaluating web-based e-government services with a citizen-centric approach. In Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii Annual International Conference on System Sciences, Waikoloa, HI, USA, 3–6 July 2005; pp. 129–137. [Google Scholar]
  91. Borras, J. Using the transformational government framework to deliver public sector services. In Proceedings of the Transforming Government Workshop, Brunel University, London, UK, 8–9 May 2012. [Google Scholar]
  92. Zambrano, R. E-governance and development: Service delivery to empower the poor. Int. J. Electron. Gov. Res. 2008, 4, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Kamalia Azma, K. Citizen-Centric Demand Model for Transformational Government. Ph.D. Thesis, Universiti Teknologi Mara, Shah Alam, Malaysia, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  94. Jafari, S.M. Influence of Citizen-Centric Perspective on the Effectiveness of E-Governance Systems in Malaysia. Ph.D. Thesis, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Seri Kembangan, Malaysia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  95. Kamalia Azma, K.; Nor Laila, M.N. Citizen-centric demand model for transformational government systems. In Proceedings of the 21st Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS), Langkawi, Malaysia, 16–20 July 2017; AISeL: Milan, Italy, 2017. Paper No. 139. [Google Scholar]
  96. United Nations (UN). E-Government Survey 2012: E-Government for the People; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  97. Dais, A.; Nikolaidou, M.; Anagnostopoulos, D. A web 2.0 citizen-centric model for t-government services. IEEE Intell. Syst. 2013, 1, 10–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Jackson, L.S. Contemporary public involvement: Toward a strategic approach. Local Environ. 2001, 6, 135–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Abdullah, S. New Politics: Towards a Mature Malaysian Democracy; National Translation Institute of Malaysia: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  100. Williams, S.I. Engaging Citizens in Democratic Governance and the Decision-Making Process with Congressional Committees. Ph.D. Thesis, Walden University, Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  101. Vrabie, C.I.; Tîrziu, A.-M. E-participation—A key factor in developing smart cities. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference of European Integration Realities and Prospectives (EIRP), Danubius University, Galati, Romania, 20–21 May 2016; pp. 123–128. [Google Scholar]
  102. Simonofski, A. A Critical Review of Citizen Participation in Smart Cities: The Citizens at the Core of Smart Namur. Master’s Thesis, Universite De Namur, Namur, Beigium, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  103. Kolsaker, A.; Lee-kelley, L. ‘Mind the gap’: E-government and e-democracy. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Electronic Government, Kraków, Poland, 4–8 September 2006; Wimmer, M.A., Scholl, H.J., Grönlund, Å., Andersen, K.V., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2006; pp. 96–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Kolsaker, A.; Lee-kelley, L. ‘Mind the gap II’E-government and e-governance. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Electronic Government, Regensburg, Germany, 3–7 September 2007; Wimmer, M.A., Scholl, J., Grönlund, Å., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2007; pp. 35–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Berntzen, L. Citizen-centric eGovernment services: Use of indicators to measure degree of user involvement in eGovernment service development. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Advances in Human-oriented and Personalized Mechanisms, Technologies, and Services (CENTRIC), Venice, Italy, 27 October–1 November 2013; IARIA: Barcelona, Spain, 2013; pp. 132–136. [Google Scholar]
  106. Vacha, T.; Přibyl, O.; Lom, M.; Bacúrová, M. Involving citizens in smart city projects: Systems engineering meets participation. In Proceedings of the Smart Cities Symposium Prague (SCSP), Prague, Czech Republic, 26–27 May 2016; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2016; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  107. Caragliu, A.; Bo, C.D.; Nijkamp, P. Smart cities in Europe. In Proceedings of the 3rd Central European Conference in Regional Science (CERS), Technical University of Košice, Košice, Slovak, 7–9 October 2009; pp. 45–59. [Google Scholar]
  108. Yang, K.; Pandey, S.K. Further dissecting the black box of citizen participation: When does citizen involvement lead to good outcomes? Public Adm. Rev. 2011, 71, 880–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Chourabi, H.; Nam, T.; Walker, S.; Gil-Garcia, J.R.; Mellouli, S.; Nahon, K.; Pardo, T.A.; Scholl, H.J. Understanding smart cities: An integrative framework. In Proceedings of the 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences Understanding (ICSS), Maui, HI, USA, 4–7 January 2012; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2012; pp. 2289–2297. [Google Scholar]
  110. Held, D. Models of Democracy; Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  111. Barber, B.R. Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  112. Johnson, C. Engaging Democracy: An Institutional Theory of Participatory Budgeting. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Washington, Washington, DC, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  113. Harrington, K. Smart city leaders, champions, and entrepreneurs. In Smart Economy in Smart Cities; Kumar, V., Ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2017; pp. 1005–1012. [Google Scholar]
  114. Nor Hisham, M.S. An Institutional Analysis of Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in Malaysia: Social Conflict and Credibility. Ph.D. Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  115. Mokhtar, N. A Comparatives Study on Public Participation in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) in Malaysia and European Union. Master’s Thesis, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  116. Mohammadi, S.H.; Norazizan, S.; Nikkhah, H.A. Conflicting perceptions on participation between citizens and members of local government. Qual. Quant. 2018, 52, 1761–1778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  117. Li, H.; de Jong, M. Citizen participation in China’s eco-city development. Will “new-type urbanization” generate a breakthrough in realizing it? J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 162, 1085–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Halimah, A.M.; Ahmad Martadha, M.; Lawton, A. Assessing public participation initiatives in local government decision-making in Malaysia. Int. J. Public Adm. 2016, 39, 812–820. [Google Scholar]
  119. Rosener, J.B. Citizen participation: Can we measure its effectiveness? Public Adm. Rev. 1978, 38, 457–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Simonofski, A.; Asensio, E.S.; De Smedt, J.; Snoeck, M. Citizen participation in smart cities: Evaluation framework proposal. In Proceedings of the 19th Conference on Business Informatics (CBI), Thessaloniki, Greece, 24–27 July 2017; IEEE: Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2017; pp. 227–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Fung, A. Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Adm. Rev. 2006, 66, 66–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Engaging Citizens in Policy-Makings: Information, Consultation and Public Participation; OECD Public Management Policy Brief; OECD: Paris, France, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  123. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Citizens as Partners: OECD Handbook on Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-Making; OECD: Paris, France, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  124. World Bank. The World Bank Participation Sourcebook; The World Bank: Washing DC, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
  125. World Bank. Strategic Framework for Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in World Bank Group Operations; The World Bank: Washing DC, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  126. Thomas, V.; Wang, D.; Mullagh, L.; Dunn, N. Where’s wally? In search of citizen perspectives on the smart city. Sustainability 2016, 8, 207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  127. Weerakkody, V.; Janssen, M.; Dwivedi, Y.K. Transformational change and business process reengineering (BPR): Lessons from the British and Dutch public sector. Gov. Inf. Q. 2011, 28, 320–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Pretty, J.N. Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Dev. 1995, 23, 1247–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. White, S.C. Depoliticising development: The uses and abuses of participation. Dev. Pract. 1996, 6, 6–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Silverman, R.M. Caught in the middle: Community Development Corporations (CDCs) and the conflict between grassroots and instrumental forms of citizen participation. J. Community Dev. Soc. 2005, 36, 35–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Morison, J. Models of democracy: From representation to participation? In The Changing Constitution; Jowell, J., Oliver, D., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2007; pp. 134–156. [Google Scholar]
  132. Hansen, H.S.; Reinau, K.H. The citizens in e-participation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Electronic Government, Kraków, Poland, 4–8 September 2006; Wimmer, M.A., Scholl, H.J., Grönlund, Å., Andersen, K.V., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2006; pp. 70–82. [Google Scholar]
  133. Nabatchi, T. Putting the “public” back in public values research: Designing participation to identify and respond to values. Public Adm. Rev. 2012, 72, 699–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Callahan, K. Citizen participation: Models and methods. Int. J. Public Adm. 2007, 30, 1179–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Wang, X. Assessing public participation in U.S. Cities. Public Perform. Manag. Rev. 2001, 24, 322–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Irvin, R.A.; Stansbury, J. Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort? Pub. Admin. Rev. 2004, 64, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Wiedemann, P.M.; Femers, S. Public participation in waste management decision making: Analysis and management of conflicts. J. Hazard. Mater. 1993, 33, 355–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  138. Thomas, J.C. Citizen, customer, partner: Rethinking the place of the public in public management. Public Adm. Rev. 2013, 73, 786–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Cohen, J.; Uphoff, N. Participation’s place in rural development: Seeking clarity through specificity. World Dev. 1980, 8, 213–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Paivarinta, T.; Saebo, O. Models of e-democracy. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2006, 17, 818–840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Linders, D. From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Gov. Inf. Q. 2012, 29, 446–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Barnes, W.; Mann, B. Making Local Democracy Work: Municipal Officials’ Views of Public Participation; National League of Cities: Washington, DC, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  143. Anttiroiko, A. City-as-a-platform: The rise of participatory innovation platforms in Finnish cities. Sustainability 2016, 8, 922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  144. Willems, J.; Van den Bergh, J.; Viaene, S. Smart city projects and citizen participation: The case of London. In Public Sector Management in a Globalized World; Andeßner, R., Ed.; Springer: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2017; pp. 249–266. [Google Scholar]
  145. Forest, P.G. “Citizens as analysts” redux: Revisiting Aaron Wildavsky on public participation. J. Public Delib. 2013, 9, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  146. Marzuki, A. A review on public participation in Environmental Impact Assessment in Malaysia. Theor. Empir. Res. Urban Manag. 2009, 3, 126–136. [Google Scholar]
  147. Yigitcanlar, T. Australian local governments’ practice and prospects with online planning. URISA J. 2006, 18, 7–17. [Google Scholar]
  148. Ekelin, A. To be or not to be active: Exploring practices of e-participation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Electronic Government, Kraków, Poland, 4–8 September 2006; Wimmer, M.A., Scholl, H.J., Grönlund, Å., Andersen, K.V., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2006; pp. 107–118. [Google Scholar]
  149. Al-Areqi, B.M.A. Factors influencing participation of rural women in Padzey Project in Taiz Governorate, Yemen. Master’s Thesis, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Seri Kembangan, Malaysia, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  150. Winters, J.V. Why are smart cities growing? Who moves and who stays. J. Reg. Sci. 2011, 51, 253–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Alford, J. Public Value from Co-Production by Clients; Australia and New Zealand School of Government: Carlton, Australia, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  152. Cosgrave, E.; Tryfonas, T.; Crick, T. The smart city from a public value perspective. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on ICT for Sustainability (ICT4S), Stockholm, Sweden, 24–27 August 2014; Atlantis Press: Paris, France, 2014; pp. 369–377. [Google Scholar]
  153. Porto, J.; Macadar, M. Assessment methodology in smart cities based on public value. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, Staten Island, NY, USA, 7–9 June 2017; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 461–470. [Google Scholar]
  154. Savini, F. Self-organization and urban development: Disaggregating the city-region, deconstructing urbanity in Amsterdam. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2016, 40, 1152–1169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Oosterlynck, S.; González, S. “Don’t waste a crisis”: Opening up the city yet again for neoliberal experimentation. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2013, 37, 1075–1082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Cabannes, Y.; Douglass, M.; Padawangi, R. Cities by and for the People; Amsterdam University Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Mikami, N. Trends in democratic innovation in Asia. In Handbook of Democratic Innovation and Governance; Elstub, S., Escobar, O., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing Limited: Cheltenham, UK, 2020; pp. 421–434. [Google Scholar]
  158. Rotta, M.J.R.; Sell, D.; dos Santos Pacheco, R.C.; Yigitcanlar, T. Digital commons and citizen coproduction in smart cities: Assessment of Brazilian municipal e-government platforms. Energies 2019, 12, 2813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  159. Jalaluddin, A.M.; Lim, S.B.; Zurinah, T. Understanding the issues of citizen participation. J. Nusant. Stud. 2019, 4, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Cardullo, P.; Di Feliciantonio, C.; Kitchin, R. The Right to the Smart City; Emerald: Bingley, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Boonstra, B.; Boelens, L. Self-organization in urban development: Towards a new perspective on spatial planning. Urban Res. Pract. 2011, 4, 99–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Nederhand, J.; Bekkers, V.; Voorberg, W. Self-organization and the role of government: How and why does self-organization evolve in the shadow of hierarchy? Public Manag. Rev. 2016, 18, 1063–1084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Allen, P.M. Cities and Regions as Self-Organizing Systems: Models of Complexity; Routledge: London, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Portugali, J. Self-Organization and the City; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany, 2000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Horelli, L.; Saad-Sulonen, J.; Wallin, S.; Botero, A. When self-organization intersects with urban planning: Two cases from Helsinki. Plan. Pract. Res. 2015, 30, 286–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  166. Shamsul, A.B. Nations-of-Intent in Malaysia. In Asian Forms of Nations; Tonnesson, S., Antlov, H., Eds.; Curzon: London, UK, 1996; pp. 323–347. [Google Scholar]
  167. Abdul Mutalib, M.F.M.; Wan Zakaria, W.F.A. Pasca-Islamisme dalam PAS: Analisis terhadap kesan Tahalluf Siyasi. Int. J. Islam. Thought. 2015, 8, 52–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Al-Attas, S.M.N. Islam and Secularism; Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  169. Canada Government. Canadian Citizenship Act. 1947. Available online: https://pier21.ca/research/immigration-history/canadian-citizenship-act-1947#footnote-6 (accessed on 10 December 2019).
  170. Goodman, N.; Zwick, A.; Spicer, Z.; Carlsen, N. Public engagement in smart city development: Lessons from communities in Canada’s Smart City Challenge. Can. Geogr./Le Géographe. Can. 2020, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Jenson, J. Fated to live in interesting times: Canada’s changing citizenship regimes. Can. J. Polit. Sci. 1997, 30, 627–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Abdullah, H.S.; Kalianan, M. From customer satisfaction to citizen satisfaction: Rethinking local government service delivery in Malaysia. Asian Soc. Sci. 2008, 4, 87–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  173. Chin, J. History and context of public administration in Malaysia. In Public Administration in Southeast Asia: Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia, Hong Kong and Macao; Berman, E.M., Ed.; Taylor & Francis: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2011; pp. 141–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Hoelscher, K. The evolution of the smart cities agenda in India. Int. Area Stud. Rev. 2016, 19, 28–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Hamza, K. Smart city implementation framework for developing countries: The case of Egypt. In Smarter as the New Urban Agenda; A Comprehensive View of the 21st Century City; Gil-Garcia, J.R., Pardo, T.A., Nam, T., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland; pp. 171–187. [CrossRef]
  176. Datta, A. The digital turn in postcolonial urbanism: Smart citizenship in the making of India’s 100 smart cities. Trans Inst Br Geogr. 2018, 43, 405–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Cheng, H.; Hu, Y. Planning for sustainability in China’s urban development: Status and challenges for Dongtan eco-city project. J. Environ. Monit. 2010, 12, 119–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Mariana, M.O. Stakeholder Participation in the Implementation of Local Agenda 21 in Malaysia. Ph.D. Thesis, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Seri Kembangan, Malaysia, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  179. Noor, E. Foreign and Security Policy in the New Malaysia. Available online: https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/foreign-and-security-policy-new-malaysia#sec41256 (accessed on 8 September 2020).
  180. Mata, A.M. Is smart city an utopia? Lessons learned and final reflections. In Smart and Sustainable Cities for Innovative Urban Planning in Mexico; Editorial Academica Espanola: Beau Bassin, Mauritius, 2018; pp. 198–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Hollands, R.G. Beyod the corporate smart city? Glimpses of other possibilities of smartness. In Smart Urbanism: Utopian Vision or False Dawn? Marvin, S., Luque-Ayala, A., McFarlane, C., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 168–184. [Google Scholar]
  182. Yigitcanlar, T.; Foth, M.; Kamruzzaman, M. Towards post-anthropocentric cities: Reconceptualizing smart cities to evade urban ecocide. J. Urban Technol. 2019, 26, 147–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  183. Chang, D.L.; Sabatini-Marques, J.; da Costa, E.M.; Selig, P.M.; Yigitcanlar, T. Knowledge-based, smart and sustainable cities: A provocation for a conceptual framework. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2018, 4, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  184. Zakzak, L. Citizen-centric smart city development: The case of Smart Dubai’s “Happiness Agenda”. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (dg.o 2019), Dubai, UAE, 18–20 June 2019; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2019; pp. 141–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Kulkarni, U.; Robles-Flores, J.A. Data analytics to improve citizen-centric smart city services. In Proceedings of the 25th Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS), Cancún, Mexico, 15–17 August 2019; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  186. Degbelo, A.; Granell, C.; Trilles, S.; Bhattacharya, D.; Casteleyn, S.; Kray, C. Opening up smart cities: Citizen-centric challenges and opportunities from GIScience. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inform. 2016, 5, 16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  187. Granell, C.; Bhattacharya, D.; Casteleyn, S.; Degbelo, A.; Gould, M.; Kray, C.; Painho, M.; Trilles, S. GEO-C: Enabling open cities and the open city toolkit. In Proceedings of the International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences (ISPRS), Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, 29–31 August 2018; pp. 61–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  188. Degbelo, A.; Bhattacharya, D.; Granell, C.; Trilles, S. Toolkits for smarter cities: A brief assessment. In Ubiquitous Computing and Ambient Intelligence; García, C.R., Caballero-Gil, P., Burmester, M., Quesada-Arencibia, A., Eds.; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 431–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Emaldi, M.; Aguilera, U.; López-de-Ipiña, D.; Pérez-Velasco, J. Towards citizen co-created public service apps. Sensors 2017, 17, 1265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  190. Lopes-de-Ipina, D.; Vanhecke, S.; Pena, O.; De Nies, T.; Mannens, E. Citizen-centric linked data apps for smart cities. In Ubiquitous Computing and Ambient Intelligence. Context-Awareness and Context-Driven Interaction; Urzaiz, G., Ochoa, S.F., Bravo, J., Chen, L.L., Oliveira, J., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2013; pp. 70–77. [Google Scholar]
  191. Kauppinen, S.; Luojus, S.; Lahti, J. Involving citizens in open innovation process by means of gamification: The case of WeLive. In Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (NordiCHI’16), Gothenburg, Sweden, 23–27 October 2016; ACM: New York, NY, USA, 2016. Article No. 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  192. Lee, J.; Lee, H. Developing and validating a citizen-centric typology for smart city services. Gov. Inf. Q. 2014, 31, S93–S105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Alshibly, H.; Chiong, R. Customer empowerment: Does it influence electronic government success? A citizen-centric perspective. Electron. Commer. Res. Appl. 2015, 14, 393–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Delmastro, F.; Arnaboldi, V.; Conti, M. People-centric computing and communications in smart cities. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2016, 54, 122–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  195. Giesbrecht, T.; School, H.J.; Schwabe, G. Smart advisors in the front office: Designing employee-empowering and citizen-centric services. Gov. Inf. Q. 2016, 33, 669–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  196. Ilhan, A.; Möhlmann, R.; Stock, W.G. Citizens’ acceptance of u-life services in the ubiquitous city Songdo. In Citizen’s Right to the Digital City: Urban Interfaces, Activism, and Placemaking; Foth, M., Ed.; Springer: Singapore, 2015; pp. 215–229. [Google Scholar]
  197. Mukhtyar, K. Frost & Sullivan’s Citizen Centric Smart City Development Model. Available online: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/frost-sullivans-citizen-centric-smart-city-model-kavan-mukhtyar%0AFrost (accessed on 15 November 2017).
  198. Purao, S.; Seng, T.C.; Wu, A. Modeling citizen-centric services in smart cities. In Conceptual Modeling; Ng, W., Storey, V.C., Trujillo, J.C., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2013; pp. 438–445. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Theoretical framework (source: authors). Smart city [35,48]; Participation [52,69,70]; Citizen-centric smart city [28,71]; Citizen centricity [1,36]; Citizenship responsibilities [14,72].
Figure 1. Theoretical framework (source: authors). Smart city [35,48]; Participation [52,69,70]; Citizen-centric smart city [28,71]; Citizen centricity [1,36]; Citizenship responsibilities [14,72].
Sustainability 13 00376 g001
Figure 2. Conceptual framework for a citizen-centric smart city (source: authors).
Figure 2. Conceptual framework for a citizen-centric smart city (source: authors).
Sustainability 13 00376 g002
Figure 3. The execution stages of the systematic literature review (source: adapted from [79,82]).
Figure 3. The execution stages of the systematic literature review (source: adapted from [79,82]).
Sustainability 13 00376 g003
Figure 4. The distribution of the reviewed papers per year (source: authors).
Figure 4. The distribution of the reviewed papers per year (source: authors).
Sustainability 13 00376 g004
Table 1. Records of patents and citations that were excluded in the identification stage (source: authors).
Table 1. Records of patents and citations that were excluded in the identification stage (source: authors).
KeywordsSearchExclusion of Patents and CitationsRecords after Patents and Citations Were Removed
Smart city669024204270
Smart cities639023204070
Citizen-centric378127251
Citizen centricity844
People-centered652339313
People-centred632333299
Citizenship responsibility361620
Citizenship responsibilities30921
Citizen participation621031703040
Total21,026873812,288
Table 2. Items of “citizen centricity in a smart city” that was derived from the literature (source: authors).
Table 2. Items of “citizen centricity in a smart city” that was derived from the literature (source: authors).
No.ThemesSourcesCitizen-Centric Smart City Item
1Focus on citizens’ needs, not just technology[1,35,48,54,55,56,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97]The decision by the local authorities (LAs) is more focused on our needs (i.e., both mine and the community’s) and not merely on technology.
2Decision through consensus with citizens[1,91,93,95,98,99,100,101,102,103,104]The decisions by LAs need to reach a consensus with us.
3Learn from users/citizens[1,56,87,94,103,104,105,106]LAs learn from users like us.
4Power needs to be delegated[1,35,36,103,104,105,107,108,109,110]LAs delegate power to us, especially at the initial level of smart city programs.
5Freedom to participate[1,35,36,37,92,100,103,104,107,110,111,112]We are free to involve ourselves in any smart city programs.
6Volunteers needed[35,36,113]We play the role of volunteers and contribute information continuously.
7Build good relationships[1,100,101,109,114,115]We understand each other and build a good relationship with LAs.
8Mutual trust[1,93,108,110,111,114,115,116,117,118]We and LAs trust each other.
Table 3. Items for the construct of “understanding of participation” (source: authors).
Table 3. Items for the construct of “understanding of participation” (source: authors).
No.ThemesSourcesUnderstanding of the Participation Item
1Clear understanding of the objective of participation[98,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126]We have a clear understanding of the aim of participating in smart city programs.
2Be aware of the benefits and obstacles[52,69,127]We are aware of the benefits and obstacles to participating in smart city programs.
3Convinced of your role[69,102,126,128]We are confident about the role we can play in smart city programs.
4Unaware of the minimum rights, responsibilities, and choices[52,128,129,130]We evaluate the options available and choose to reject any programs that are deemed to be inappropriate.
5Desire to influence the priorities[52,116,120]We influence the priorities of the programs to be implemented.
6Focus on non-superficial involvement[36,52,100,130]We are involved in the programs without going through a representative.
7Help set goals[120,70]We assist in the formation of the goals and objectives of the smart city programs.
8Joint decision-making procedure[52,105,131]We evaluate the decision-making procedure together.
9Power-sharing agreement[52]We sign an agreement with the LAs, which is beneficial to the community.
Table 4. Items for the construct of “types of participation” (source: authors).
Table 4. Items for the construct of “types of participation” (source: authors).
No.ThemesSourcesTypes of Participation Item
1The power of the citizens is strong[52,69,71,121,132,133]We (I and the community) have full control over smart city programs.
2Delegation of authority for mutual benefit[52,109,112,116,121,129,130,132]LAs delegate the power to us to make decisions that benefit the community.
3Consultation enables citizens to achieve dominant decision-making power[49,52,69,93,109,112,121,122,124,125,127,130]Through consultation, we managed to reach the final word (decision) in smart city programs.
4Citizens are allowed to co-produce[49,52,69,70,92,105,121,130]We are allowed by LAs to jointly run smart city programs.
5Offering grants (financial incentives)[52,69,112,116,128,129]LAs offer grants (financial incentives) to run smart city programs.
6Offering rewards (material incentives)[52,69,116,128]LAs offer rewards, but LAs are still in full power.
7Conducting questionnaires[52,69]LAs conduct questionnaires related to our perception of smart city programs.
8Hold community meetings[52,116,122,132]LAs hold meetings with the community.
9Inform (educate) through information releases[49,52,69,92,103,104,116,121,123,124,125,130]LAs broadcast the correct information to us.
10Explain misunderstandings (therapy)[52,69,100,108,114,116,132]LAs explain misunderstandings of the smart city program to us.
11Manipulating (emphasizing the purpose of administrative legitimacy, rather than the actual function of the people)[52,100,114,115,128,129]LAs manipulate or use us for a reason.
Table 5. Items for the “processes of participation” (source: authors).
Table 5. Items for the “processes of participation” (source: authors).
No.ThemesSourcesProcesses of Participation Item
1Formulate agendas, where the power of the people is limited[56,69,117,118,133,134,135,136,137]We are involved in formulating the program agenda.
2Make the right decision[56,69,111,116,125,133,134,136,137,138,139]We are involved in decision-making.
3Plan program content [52,69,70,98,116,121,125,140]We are involved in planning the program’s activities.
4Design program details[37,70,120,141]We are involved in designing the program’s content.
5Manage program processes[37,69,70,94,140]We are involved in managing the program’s processes.
6Implement the program[52,69,70,124,125,136,139,141]We implement the program.
7Monitor (supervise) the program’s continuity[70,135,141]We oversee the course of the program.
8Evaluate the program after its implementation[69,70,100,125,139]We evaluate the program after its implementation.
Table 6. Items for the “roles of citizens” (source: authors).
Table 6. Items for the “roles of citizens” (source: authors).
No.ThemeSourceRoles of Citizens Item
1Leaders—lead local authorities to make decisions[52,100]As leaders, we lead LAs to make decisions.
2Local champion—takes the initiative[112,113,116,136]As local champions, we take the initiative to start the program and connect to the relevant parties.
3Co-producers—work together[39,70,112,134,138,142]As co-producers, we work together with LAs.
4Entrepreneurs—bring economic innovation[113,143]As entrepreneurs, we bring economic and financial innovation to the community.
5Solution proposers—advise and propose [71,103,105,109,138,141,144,145]As solution proposers, we suggest alternatives and advise LAs.
6Human sensors—supply data, reports, or complaints[38,56,57,71,72,100,141]As human sensors, we contribute data.
7Volunteers—contribute time and energy[72,102,106,112,113,124,125,136,142,145]As volunteers, we contribute time and help regardless of returns.
8Experts—share competencies or experience[52,72,100,101,102,106,108,116,132,136,146]As experts, we contribute our expertise to help smart city programs.
Table 7. Items for the “characters of citizens” (source: authors).
Table 7. Items for the “characters of citizens” (source: authors).
No.ThemeSourceCharacters of Citizens Item
1Active involvement is known to be important[102,103,123,128,136,137,141,148]We are active and care about each other.
2Aware and sensitive to what is happening[35,100,103,116,132,136,146,149]We are aware and sensitive to the programs that take place in the city and the surroundings.
3Independence in problem-solving[35,38,117,118,129,131,136,137,149]We choose not to rely on governmental resources.
4Higher education allows for meaningful involvement[100,103,108,109,136,149,150]Being educated is important for us to get involved in city programs.
5Interest in public life and public values[5,35,37,38,48,101,151,152,153]We are interested in public life, public values, and act quickly against things that disrupt community life.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Malek, J.A.; Lim, S.B.; Yigitcanlar, T. Social Inclusion Indicators for Building Citizen-Centric Smart Cities: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 376. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su13010376

AMA Style

Malek JA, Lim SB, Yigitcanlar T. Social Inclusion Indicators for Building Citizen-Centric Smart Cities: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability. 2021; 13(1):376. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su13010376

Chicago/Turabian Style

Malek, Jalaluddin Abdul, Seng Boon Lim, and Tan Yigitcanlar. 2021. "Social Inclusion Indicators for Building Citizen-Centric Smart Cities: A Systematic Literature Review" Sustainability 13, no. 1: 376. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/su13010376

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop