*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.


**Table 2.** Items of "citizen centricity in a smart city" that was derived from the literature (source: authors).

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.


**Table 3.** Items for the construct of "understanding of participation" (source: authors).

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.


**Table 4.** Items for the construct of "types of participation" (source: authors).

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.

**Table 5.** Items for the "processes of participation" (source: authors).

