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 [3–6].

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-centred 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. 

2. The Conception of Citizen Centricity in Smart City Development

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 by Malek et al. (2021) is the first structured framework of its kind in the literature on smart cities (Figure 1). 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 [49,154–156], which developed beyond the current neoliberal smart cities.

From such a theoretical framework, Malek et al. (2021) has attempted to construct a conceptual framework consisting of six constructs and 47 items (Figure 2). 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.

Malek et al. (2021) 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 practised 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 fulfil but not cultivated and given the opportunities to participate in governance practices. Thus, Malek et a. (2021) 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 [166–168]. Such a context hints that the highest constitution is not as open to democracy as practised by Western countries. Canada, for example, has the Citizenship Act, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Multiculturalism Act [169–171], 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 signalled 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.

References

Malek, J.A., Lim, S.B., Yigitcanlar, T. Social inclusion indicators for building citizen-centric smart cities: A systematic literature review. Sustainability. 2021, 13 (1), 376.

1. Undheim, T.A.; Blakemore, M. A Handbook for Citizen-Centric eGovernment; Version 2.1; European Commission: Brussels,
Belgium, 2007.
2. Hood, C. The “New Public Management” in the 1980s: Variations on a theme. Account. Organ. Soc. 1995, 20, 93–109. [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. [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.
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. [CrossRef]
6. Allwinkle, S.; Cruickshank, P. Creating smart-er cities: An overview. J. Urban Technol. 2011, 18, 1–16. [CrossRef]
7. Watson, V. The allure of ‘smart city’ rhetoric: India and Africa. Dialogues Hum. Geogr. 2015, 36–39. [CrossRef]
8. Datta, A. A 100 smart cities, a 100 utopias. Dialogues Hum. Geogr. 2015, 5, 49–53. [CrossRef]
9. Lim, S.B. Membina Model Bandar Pintar Berpusatkan Rakyat di Malaysia. Ph.D. Thesis, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi,
Malaysia, 2020.
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. [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. [CrossRef]
12. Fainstein, S. The Just City; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, USA, 2010.
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. [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.
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. [CrossRef]
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. [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. [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. [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. [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. [CrossRef]
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. [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. [CrossRef]

23. Tan, S.Y.; Taeihagh, A. Smart city governance in developing countries: A systematic literature review. Sustainability 2020,
12, 2020. [CrossRef]
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.
26. Kummitha, R.K.R.; Crutzen, N. How do we understand smart cities? An evolutionary perspective. Cities. 2017, 67, 43–52. [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. [CrossRef]
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. [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. [CrossRef]
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. [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.
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. [CrossRef]
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.
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. [CrossRef]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. [CrossRef]
40. Yigitcanlar, T.; Kamruzzaman, M. Planning, development and management of sustainable cities: A commentary from the guest
editors. Sustainability 2015, 7, 14677–14688. [CrossRef]
41. Kundu, D.; Sietchiping, R.; Kinyanjui, M. Developing National Urban Policies: Ways Forward to Green and Smart Cities; Springer:
Singapore, 2020. [CrossRef]

42. Angelidou, M. Smart cities: A conjuncture of four forces. Cities 2015, 47, 95–106. [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. [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. [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. [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.
47. Dameri, R.P.; Benevolo, C. Governing smart cities: An empirical analysis. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 2016, 34, 693–707. [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.
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.
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.
51. Cornwall, A.; Nyamu-Musembi, C. Putting the “rights-based approach” to development into perspective. Third World Q. 2004,
25, 1415–1437. [CrossRef]
52. Arnstein, S.R. A ladder of citizen participation. J. Am. Inst. Plan. 1969, 35, 216–224. [CrossRef]

53. Mohseni, H. Public engagement and smart city definitions: A classifying model for the evaluation of citizen power in 2025 Tehran.
GeoJournal 2020. [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.
55. Hollands, R.G. Critical interventions into the corporate smart city. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 2015, 8, 61–77. [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.
57. Vanolo, A. Is there anybody out there? The place and role of citizens in tomorrow’s smart cities. Futures 2016, 82, 26–36. [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. [CrossRef]
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.
60. Benedikt, O. The value citizens of smart cities: The case of Songdo City. Grad. J. Soc. Sci. 2016, 12, 17–36.
61. Graham, S. Bridging urban digital divides? Polarisation and Information and Communications Technologies (ICTs). Urban Stud.
2002, 39, 33–56. [CrossRef]
62. Hollands, R.G. Will the real smart city please stand up? City 2008, 12, 303–320. [CrossRef]
63. Vanolo, A. Smartmentality: The smart city as disciplinary strategy. Urban Stud. 2014, 51, 883–898. [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. [CrossRef]
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. [CrossRef]
66. Kobie, N. Inside Cyberjaya, Malaysia’s failed Silicon Valley. Available online: http://www.wired.co.uk/article/malaysiacyberjaya-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. [CrossRef]
69. Wilcox, D. The Guide to Effective Participation; Delta Press: Brighton, UK, 1994.
70. Bovaird, T. Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public Adm. Rev. 2007,
67, 846–860. [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.
72. Berntzen, L.; Johannessen, M.R. The role of citizens in “smart cities”. In Proceedings of the Management International Conference,
University of Presov; 2016.
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.
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. [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. [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.

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. [CrossRef]
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. [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. [CrossRef]
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. [CrossRef]
81. Xiao, Y.; Watson, M. Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 2019, 39, 93–112. [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. [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. Heal. Inf. Manag. J. 2010, 39, 18–29. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
84. Webster, J.; Watson, R.T. Analyzing the past to prepare for the future. MIS Q. 2002, 26, 13–23.

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.
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.
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. [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. [CrossRef]
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.
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.
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.
92. Zambrano, R. E-governance and development: Service delivery to empower the poor. Int. J. Electron. Gov. Res. 2008, 4, 1–13. [CrossRef]
93. Kamalia Azma, K. Citizen-Centric Demand Model for Transformational Government. Ph.D. Thesis, Universiti Teknologi Mara,
Shah Alam, Malaysia, 2018.
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.
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.
96. United Nations (UN). E-Government Survey 2012: E-Government for the People; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2012.
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. [CrossRef]
98. Jackson, L.S. Contemporary public involvement: Toward a strategic approach. Local Environ. 2001, 6, 135–147. [CrossRef]
99. Abdullah, S. New Politics: Towards a Mature Malaysian Democracy; National Translation Institute of Malaysia: Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia, 2008.
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.
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.
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.
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. [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. [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.

106. Vacha, T.; Pˇribyl, 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.
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 Republic, 7–9 October 2009; pp. 45–59.
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. [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.
110. Held, D. Models of Democracy; Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 1996.

111. Barber, B.R. Strong democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age; University of California Press: Berkeley, CA, USA, 1984.

112. Johnson, C. Engaging Democracy: An Institutional Theory of Participatory Budgeting. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Washington,
Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
113. Harrington, K. Smart city leaders, champions, and entrepreneurs. In Smart Economy in Smart Cities; Kumar, V., Ed.; Springer:
Singapore, 2017; pp. 1005–1012.
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.
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.
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. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
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. [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.
119. Rosener, J.B. Citizen participation: Can we measure its effectiveness? Public Adm. Rev. 1978, 38, 457–463. [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. [CrossRef]
121. Fung, A. Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Adm. Rev. 2006, 66, 66–75. [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.
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.
124. World Bank. The World Bank Participation Sourcebook; The World Bank: Washing DC, USA, 1996.
125. World Bank. Strategic Framework for Mainstreaming Citizen Engagement in World Bank Group Operations; The World Bank: Washing
DC, USA, 2014.
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. [CrossRef]
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. [CrossRef]
128. Pretty, J.N. Participatory learning for sustainable agriculture. World Dev. 1995, 23, 1247–1263. [CrossRef]
129. White, S.C. Depoliticising development: The uses and abuses of participation. Dev. Pract. 1996, 6, 6–15. [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. [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.
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.
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. [CrossRef]
134. Callahan, K. Citizen participation: Models and methods. Int. J. Public Adm. 2007, 30, 1179–1196. [CrossRef]
135. Wang, X. Assessing public participation in U.S. Cities. Public Perform. Manag. Rev. 2001, 24, 322–336. [CrossRef]
136. Irvin, R.A.; Stansbury, J. Citizen participation in decision making: Is it worth the effort? Pub. Admin. Rev. 2004, 64, 55–65. [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. [CrossRef]
138. Thomas, J.C. Citizen, customer, partner: Rethinking the place of the public in public management. Public Adm. Rev. 2013,
73, 786–796. [CrossRef]
139. Cohen, J.; Uphoff, N. Participation’s place in rural development: Seeking clarity through specificity. World Dev. 1980,
8, 213–235. [CrossRef]
140. Paivarinta, T.; Saebo, O. Models of e-democracy. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 2006, 17, 818–840. [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. [CrossRef]
142. Barnes, W.; Mann, B. Making Local Democracy Work: Municipal Officials’ Views of Public Participation; National League of Cities:
Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
143. Anttiroiko, A. City-as-a-platform: The rise of participatory innovation platforms in Finnish cities. Sustainability 2016, 8, 922. [CrossRef]
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.
145. Forest, P.G. “Citizens as analysts” redux: Revisiting Aaron Wildavsky on public participation. J. Public Delib. 2013, 9, 1–13.

146. Marzuki, A. A review on public participation in Environmental Impact Assessment in Malaysia. Theor. Empir. Res. Urban Manag.
2009, 3, 126–136.
147. Yigitcanlar, T. Australian local governments’ practice and prospects with online planning. URISA J. 2006, 18, 7–17.
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.
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.
150. Winters, J.V. Why are smart cities growing? Who moves and who stays. J. Reg. Sci. 2011, 51, 253–270. [CrossRef]
151. Alford, J. Public Value from Co-Production by Clients; Australia and New Zealand School of Government: Carlton, Australia, 2009.
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.
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.
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. [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. [CrossRef]
156. Cabannes, Y.; Douglass, M.; Padawangi, R. Cities by and for the People; Amsterdam University Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
2018. [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.
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. [CrossRef]
159. Jalaluddin, A.M.; Lim, S.B.; Zurinah, T. Understanding the issues of citizen participation. J. Nusant. Stud. 2019, 4, 1–22. [CrossRef]
160. Cardullo, P.; Di Feliciantonio, C.; Kitchin, R. The Right to the Smart City; Emerald: Bingley, UK, 2019. [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. [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. [CrossRef]
163. Allen, P.M. Cities and Regions as Self-Organizing Systems: Models of Complexity; Routledge: London, UK, 1997. [CrossRef]
164. Portugali, J. Self-Organization and the City; Springer: Heidelberg, Germany, 2000. [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. [CrossRef]
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.
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. [CrossRef]

168. Al-Attas, S.M.N. Islam and Secularism; Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1978.
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. [CrossRef]
171. Jenson, J. Fated to live in interesting times: Canada’s changing citizenship regimes. Can. J. Polit. Sci. 1997, 30, 627–644. [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. [CrossRef]
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. [CrossRef]
174. Hoelscher, K. The evolution of the smart cities agenda in India. Int. Area Stud. Rev. 2016, 19, 28–44. [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. [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. [CrossRef]168. Al-Attas, S.M.N. Islam and Secularism; Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 1978.

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.
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. [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.
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. [CrossRef]
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. [CrossRef]
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. [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.
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. [CrossRef]
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. [CrossRef]
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. [CrossRef]
189. Emaldi, M.; Aguilera, U.; López-de-Ipiña, D.; Pérez-Velasco, J. Towards citizen co-created public service apps. Sensors 2017,
17, 1265. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
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.

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. [CrossRef]
192. Lee, J.; Lee, H. Developing and validating a citizen-centric typology for smart city services. Gov. Inf. Q. 2014, 31, S93–S105. [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. [CrossRef]
194. Delmastro, F.; Arnaboldi, V.; Conti, M. People-centric computing and communications in smart cities. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2016,
54, 122–128. [CrossRef]
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. [CrossRef]
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.
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.

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su13010376