*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 **??**). 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 [15,27–29]. 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 [10,32–39], 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.
