**1. Introduction**

Since the early 2000s, smart city development has been gaining global momentum. Thus, many models or concepts have been formed, adopted, and evaluated [1]. For example, the seminal smart city concept by [2] laid the basis for the formation of six smart city domains (i.e., smart economy, people, governance, mobility, environment, and living) and emphasized activities that would cultivate independent citizens. Since then, many models have been adopted and adapted from the concept of [2], such as the smart cities wheel by [3], the initiative framework of the smart city by [4], the alternative framework for

**Citation:** Lim, S.B.; Malek, J.A.; Yussoff, M.F.Y.M.; Yigitcanlar, T. Understanding and Acceptance of Smart City Policies: Practitioners' Perspectives on the Malaysian Smart City Framework. *Sustainability* **2021**, *13*, 9559. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su13179559

Received: 5 August 2021 Accepted: 23 August 2021 Published: 25 August 2021

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

smart city governance by [5], the conceptual framework for defining the smart city by [6], and the Unified Smart City Model by [7]. On the other hand, top-down smart policies that have been adopted and adapted from the work of [2] include the Hong Kong Smart City Blueprint [8] and the Malaysian Smart City Framework (MSCF) [9].

Furthermore, many studies have evaluated smart city performance. For instance, Ref. [2] developed the European medium-sized (smart) city indicators and ranking; Ref. [10] used the analytic network process (ANP) to investigate the relations between smart city domains, actors (i.e., government, industry, university, and civil society), and strategies; Ref. [11] examined the Malaysian smart city domains through the AHP; Ref. [12] developed a smart city descriptor scoring table to qualitatively compare smart city domains performance in Singapore, Korea, and Malaysia; Ref. [13] developed a smart city sharable framework to evaluate 17 smart cities in China; Ref. [14] developed a fuzzy synthetic evaluation of the challenges facing smart city development in developing countries; Ref. [15] developed a typology of smart city assessment tools and evaluated 122 cities; Ref. [16] developed the smart city index and ranking; and ref. [17] recently developed a smart city measurement framework for inclusive growth.

Nevertheless, far less research has been conducted on evaluating the smart city policy, with the exception of scholars such as [18], who made a general evaluation of the smart city policy and the challenges facing five UK cities. It is crucial to evaluate each planned top-down policy, especially from the public perspective. With just internal assessments by the authorities and departments, actual situations and shortfalls may be overlooked. This might result in overall failure and wasted investment and resources. Taking the case of the MSCF, launched in 2019, to date there have been no evaluation reports on the strategies being planned. Furthermore, the period from 2021 to 2022 has been scheduled as the time to implement smart initiatives nationwide [9]. Many local authorities lack suitable references and benchmarking on the details of the smart city domains and strategies to be adopted [19]. Without reference to evaluation, authorities or officers on the ground tend to believe that a blueprint is perfect and will follow it to the letter. Thus, in this research, and given the practical knowledge gaps, the authors intend to answer the following questions:


Based on these research questions, this study aims to evaluate the understanding and acceptance of practitioners from various sectors who are involved in smart city development in developing countries (using Malaysia as a case study). Knowing the levels of public understanding and acceptance was intended to be the output of this study, which would thus provide guidance to governments and policymakers to improve the smart city strategies and policies so that more smart and inclusive living is available to their citizens.
