Are Smart Cities ‘Sustainable?’ Revisiting the ‘Helix Model’ of the ASEAN Smart Cities Network

Are Smart Cities ‘Sustainable?’... | F1000Research "use strict";function _typeof(t){return(_typeof="function"==typeof Symbol&&"symbol"==typeof Symbol.iterator?function(t){return typeof t}:function(t){return t&&"function"==typeof Symbol&&t.constructor===Symbol&&t!==Symbol.prototype?"symbol":typeof t})(t)}!function(){var t=function(){var t,e,o=[],n=window,r=n;for(;r;){try{if(r.frames.__tcfapiLocator){t=r;break}}catch(t){}if(r===n.top)break;r=r.parent}t||(!function t(){var e=n.document,o=!!n.frames.__tcfapiLocator;if(!o)if(e.body){var r=e.createElement("iframe");r.style.cssText="display:none",r.name="__tcfapiLocator",e.body.appendChild(r)}else setTimeout(t,5);return!o}(),n.__tcfapi=function(){for(var t=arguments.length,n=new Array(t),r=0;r 3&&2===parseInt(n[1],10)&&"boolean"==typeof n[3]&&(e=n[3],"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]("set",!0)):"ping"===n[0]?"function"==typeof n[2]&&n[2]({gdprApplies:e,cmpLoaded:!1,cmpStatus:"stub"}):o.push(n)},n.addEventListener("message",(function(t){var e="string"==typeof t.data,o={};if(e)try{o=JSON.parse(t.data)}catch(t){}else o=t.data;var n="object"===_typeof(o)&&null!==o?o.__tcfapiCall:null;n&&window.__tcfapi(n.command,n.version,(function(o,r){var a={__tcfapiReturn:{returnValue:o,success:r,callId:n.callId}};t&&t.source&&t.source.postMessage&&t.source.postMessage(e?JSON.stringify(a):a,"*")}),n.parameter)}),!1))};"undefined"!=typeof module?module.exports=t:t()}(); dataLayer = dataLayer || []; // Standard GTM initialization - Google Consent Mode handles consent automatically (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start': new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0], j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src= 'https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl+ '>m_auth=hzk0Vc3qFsQYhCrIoHz68A>m_preview=env-1>m_cookies_win=x';f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f); })(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-MWFK8L5J'); ;window.NREUM||(NREUM={});NREUM.init={distributed_tracing:{enabled:true},privacy:{cookies_enabled:true},ajax:{deny_list:["bam.nr-data.net"]}}; ;NREUM.loader_config={accountID:"438030",trustKey:"438030",agentID:"772317073",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073"} ;NREUM.info={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net",licenseKey:"97f8f67f26",applicationID:"772317073",sa:1} ;/*! For license information please see nr-loader-spa-1.236.0.min.js.LICENSE.txt */ (()=>{"use strict";var e,t,r={5763:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P_:()=>l,Mt:()=>g,C5:()=>s,DL:()=>v,OP:()=>T,lF:()=>D,Yu:()=>y,Dg:()=>h,CX:()=>c,GE:()=>b,sU:()=>_});var n=r(8632),i=r(9567);const o={beacon:n.ce.beacon,errorBeacon:n.ce.errorBeacon,licenseKey:void 0,applicationID:void 0,sa:void 0,queueTime:void 0,applicationTime:void 0,ttGuid:void 0,user:void 0,account:void 0,product:void 0,extra:void 0,jsAttributes:{},userAttributes:void 0,atts:void 0,transactionName:void 0,tNamePlain:void 0},a={};function s(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");if(!a[e])throw new Error("Info for ".concat(e," was never set"));return a[e]}function c(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All info objects require an agent identifier!");a[e]=(0,i.D)(t,o),(0,n.Qy)(e,a[e],"info")}var u=r(7056);const d=()=>{const e={blockSelector:"[data-nr-block]",maskInputOptions:{password:!0}};return{allow_bfcache:!0,privacy:{cookies_enabled:!0},ajax:{deny_list:void 0,enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},distributed_tracing:{enabled:void 0,exclude_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_newrelic_header:void 0,cors_use_tracecontext_headers:void 0,allowed_origins:void 0},session:{domain:void 0,expiresMs:u.oD,inactiveMs:u.Hb},ssl:void 0,obfuscate:void 0,jserrors:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},metrics:{enabled:!0},page_action:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30},page_view_event:{enabled:!0},page_view_timing:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:30,long_task:!1},session_trace:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10},harvest:{tooManyRequestsDelay:60},session_replay:{enabled:!1,harvestTimeSeconds:60,sampleRate:.1,errorSampleRate:.1,maskTextSelector:"*",maskAllInputs:!0,get blockClass(){return"nr-block"},get ignoreClass(){return"nr-ignore"},get maskTextClass(){return"nr-mask"},get blockSelector(){return e.blockSelector},set blockSelector(t){e.blockSelector+=",".concat(t)},get maskInputOptions(){return e.maskInputOptions},set maskInputOptions(t){e.maskInputOptions={...t,password:!0}}},spa:{enabled:!0,harvestTimeSeconds:10}}},f={};function l(e){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");if(!f[e])throw new Error("Configuration for ".concat(e," was never set"));return f[e]}function h(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");f[e]=(0,i.D)(t,d()),(0,n.Qy)(e,f[e],"config")}function g(e,t){if(!e)throw new Error("All configuration objects require an agent identifier!");var r=l(e);if(r){for(var n=t.split("."),i=0;i {r.d(t,{D:()=>i});var n=r(50);function i(e,t){try{if(!e||"object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires an object as input");if(!t||"object"!=typeof t)return(0,n.Z)("Setting a Configurable requires a model to set its initial properties");const r=Object.create(Object.getPrototypeOf(t),Object.getOwnPropertyDescriptors(t)),o=0===Object.keys(r).length?e:r;for(let a in o)if(void 0!==e[a])try{"object"==typeof e[a]&&"object"==typeof t[a]?r[a]=i(e[a],t[a]):r[a]=e[a]}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occurred while setting a property of a Configurable",e)}return r}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting a Configurable",e)}}},6818:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Re:()=>i,gF:()=>o,q4:()=>n});const n="1.236.0",i="PROD",o="CDN"},385:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{FN:()=>a,IF:()=>u,Nk:()=>f,Tt:()=>s,_A:()=>o,il:()=>n,pL:()=>c,v6:()=>i,w1:()=>d});const n="undefined"!=typeof window&&!!window.document,i="undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis.navigator instanceof WorkerNavigator),o=n?window:"undefined"!=typeof WorkerGlobalScope&&("undefined"!=typeof self&&self instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&self||"undefined"!=typeof globalThis&&globalThis instanceof WorkerGlobalScope&&globalThis),a=""+o?.location,s=/iPad|iPhone|iPod/.test(navigator.userAgent),c=s&&"undefined"==typeof SharedWorker,u=(()=>{const e=navigator.userAgent.match(/Firefox[/\s](\d+\.\d+)/);return Array.isArray(e)&&e.length>=2?+e[1]:0})(),d=Boolean(n&&window.document.documentMode),f=!!navigator.sendBeacon},1117:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{w:()=>o});var n=r(50);const i={agentIdentifier:"",ee:void 0};class o{constructor(e){try{if("object"!=typeof e)return(0,n.Z)("shared context requires an object as input");this.sharedContext={},Object.assign(this.sharedContext,i),Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,r]=e;Object.keys(i).includes(t)&&(this.sharedContext[t]=r)}))}catch(e){(0,n.Z)("An error occured while setting SharedContext",e)}}}},8e3:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{L:()=>d,R:()=>c});var n=r(2177),i=r(1284),o=r(4322),a=r(3325);const s={};function c(e,t){const r={staged:!1,priority:a.p[t]||0};u(e),s[e].get(t)||s[e].set(t,r)}function u(e){e&&(s[e]||(s[e]=new Map))}function d(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:"",t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:"feature";if(u(e),!e||!s[e].get(t))return a(t);s[e].get(t).staged=!0;const r=[...s[e]];function a(t){const r=e?n.ee.get(e):n.ee,a=o.X.handlers;if(r.backlog&&a){var s=r.backlog[t],c=a[t];if(c){for(var u=0;s&&u {let[t,r]=e;return r.staged}))&&(r.sort(((e,t)=>e[1].priority-t[1].priority)),r.forEach((e=>{let[t]=e;a(t)})))}function f(e,t){var r=e[1];(0,i.D)(t[r],(function(t,r){var n=e[0];if(r[0]===n){var i=r[1],o=e[3],a=e[2];i.apply(o,a)}}))}},2177:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{c:()=>f,ee:()=>u});var n=r(8632),i=r(2210),o=r(1284),a=r(5763),s="nr@context";let c=(0,n.fP)();var u;function d(){}function f(e){return(0,i.X)(e,s,l)}function l(){return new d}function h(){u.aborted=!0,u.backlog={}}c.ee?u=c.ee:(u=function e(t,r){var n={},c={},f={},g=!1;try{g=16===r.length&&(0,a.OP)(r).isolatedBacklog}catch(e){}var p={on:b,addEventListener:b,removeEventListener:y,emit:v,get:x,listeners:w,context:m,buffer:A,abort:h,aborted:!1,isBuffering:E,debugId:r,backlog:g?{}:t&&"object"==typeof t.backlog?t.backlog:{}};return p;function m(e){return e&&e instanceof d?e:e?(0,i.X)(e,s,l):l()}function v(e,r,n,i,o){if(!1!==o&&(o=!0),!u.aborted||i){t&&o&&t.emit(e,r,n);for(var a=m(n),s=w(e),d=s.length,f=0;fn,p:()=>i});var n=r(2177).ee.get("handle");function i(e,t,r,i,o){o?(o.buffer([e],i),o.emit(e,t,r)):(n.buffer([e],i),n.emit(e,t,r))}},4322:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>o});var n=r(5546);o.on=a;var i=o.handlers={};function o(e,t,r,o){a(o||n.E,i,e,t,r)}function a(e,t,r,i,o){o||(o="feature"),e||(e=n.E);var a=t[o]=t[o]||{};(a[r]=a[r]||[]).push([e,i])}},3239:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{bP:()=>s,iz:()=>c,m$:()=>a});var n=r(385);let i=!1,o=!1;try{const e={get passive(){return i=!0,!1},get signal(){return o=!0,!1}};n._A.addEventListener("test",null,e),n._A.removeEventListener("test",null,e)}catch(e){}function a(e,t){return i||o?{capture:!!e,passive:i,signal:t}:!!e}function s(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;window.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}function c(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2],n=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;document.addEventListener(e,t,a(r,n))}},4402:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Ht:()=>u,M:()=>c,Rl:()=>a,ky:()=>s});var n=r(385);const i="xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx";function o(e,t){return e?15&e[t]:16*Math.random()|0}function a(){const e=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let t,r=0;return e&&e.getRandomValues&&(t=e.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31))),i.split("").map((e=>"x"===e?o(t,++r).toString(16):"y"===e?(3&o()|8).toString(16):e)).join("")}function s(e){const t=n._A?.crypto||n._A?.msCrypto;let r,i=0;t&&t.getRandomValues&&(r=t.getRandomValues(new Uint8Array(31)));const a=[];for(var s=0;s {r.d(t,{Bq:()=>n,Hb:()=>o,oD:()=>i});const n="NRBA",i=144e5,o=18e5},7894:(e,t,r)=>{function n(){return Math.round(performance.now())}r.d(t,{z:()=>n})},7243:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{e:()=>o});var n=r(385),i={};function o(e){if(e in i)return i[e];if(0===(e||"").indexOf("data:"))return{protocol:"data"};let t;var r=n._A?.location,o={};if(n.il)t=document.createElement("a"),t.href=e;else try{t=new URL(e,r.href)}catch(e){return o}o.port=t.port;var a=t.href.split("://");!o.port&&a[1]&&(o.port=a[1].split("/")[0].split("@").pop().split(":")[1]),o.port&&"0"!==o.port||(o.port="https"===a[0]?"443":"80"),o.hostname=t.hostname||r.hostname,o.pathname=t.pathname,o.protocol=a[0],"/"!==o.pathname.charAt(0)&&(o.pathname="/"+o.pathname);var s=!t.protocol||":"===t.protocol||t.protocol===r.protocol,c=t.hostname===r.hostname&&t.port===r.port;return o.sameOrigin=s&&(!t.hostname||c),"/"===o.pathname&&(i[e]=o),o}},50:(e,t,r)=>{function n(e,t){"function"==typeof console.warn&&(console.warn("New Relic: ".concat(e)),t&&console.warn(t))}r.d(t,{Z:()=>n})},2587:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>c,T:()=>u});var n=r(2177),i=r(5546),o=r(8e3),a=r(3325);const s={stn:[a.D.sessionTrace],err:[a.D.jserrors,a.D.metrics],ins:[a.D.pageAction],spa:[a.D.spa],sr:[a.D.sessionReplay,a.D.sessionTrace]};function c(e,t){const r=n.ee.get(t);e&&"object"==typeof e&&(Object.entries(e).forEach((e=>{let[t,n]=e;void 0===u[t]&&(s[t]?s[t].forEach((e=>{n?(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,e,r):(0,i.p)("block-"+t,[],void 0,e,r),(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+t,[Boolean(n)],void 0,e,r)})):n&&(0,i.p)("feat-"+t,[],void 0,void 0,r),u[t]=Boolean(n))})),Object.keys(s).forEach((e=>{void 0===u[e]&&(s[e]?.forEach((t=>(0,i.p)("rumresp-"+e,[!1],void 0,t,r))),u[e]=!1)})),(0,o.L)(t,a.D.pageViewEvent))}const u={}},2210:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{X:()=>i});var n=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty;function i(e,t,r){if(n.call(e,t))return e[t];var i=r();if(Object.defineProperty&&Object.keys)try{return Object.defineProperty(e,t,{value:i,writable:!0,enumerable:!1}),i}catch(e){}return e[t]=i,i}},1284:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n});const n=(e,t)=>Object.entries(e||{}).map((e=>{let[r,n]=e;return t(r,n)}))},4351:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{P:()=>o});var n=r(2177);const i=()=>{const e=new WeakSet;return(t,r)=>{if("object"==typeof r&&null!==r){if(e.has(r))return;e.add(r)}return r}};function o(e){try{return JSON.stringify(e,i())}catch(e){try{n.ee.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}}},3960:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{K:()=>a,b:()=>o});var n=r(3239);function i(){return"undefined"==typeof document||"complete"===document.readyState}function o(e,t){if(i())return e();(0,n.bP)("load",e,t)}function a(e){if(i())return e();(0,n.iz)("DOMContentLoaded",e)}},8632:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{EZ:()=>u,Qy:()=>c,ce:()=>o,fP:()=>a,gG:()=>d,mF:()=>s});var n=r(7894),i=r(385);const o={beacon:"bam.nr-data.net",errorBeacon:"bam.nr-data.net"};function a(){return i._A.NREUM||(i._A.NREUM={}),void 0===i._A.newrelic&&(i._A.newrelic=i._A.NREUM),i._A.NREUM}function s(){let e=a();return e.o||(e.o={ST:i._A.setTimeout,SI:i._A.setImmediate,CT:i._A.clearTimeout,XHR:i._A.XMLHttpRequest,REQ:i._A.Request,EV:i._A.Event,PR:i._A.Promise,MO:i._A.MutationObserver,FETCH:i._A.fetch}),e}function c(e,t,r){let i=a();const o=i.initializedAgents||{},s=o[e]||{};return Object.keys(s).length||(s.initializedAt={ms:(0,n.z)(),date:new Date}),i.initializedAgents={...o,[e]:{...s,[r]:t}},i}function u(e,t){a()[e]=t}function d(){return function(){let e=a();const t=e.info||{};e.info={beacon:o.beacon,errorBeacon:o.errorBeacon,...t}}(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.init||{};e.init={...t}}(),s(),function(){let e=a();const t=e.loader_config||{};e.loader_config={...t}}(),a()}},7956:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{N:()=>i});var n=r(3239);function i(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]&&arguments[1],r=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,i=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0;return void(0,n.iz)("visibilitychange",(function(){if(t)return void("hidden"==document.visibilityState&&e());e(document.visibilityState)}),r,i)}},1214:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{em:()=>v,u5:()=>N,QU:()=>S,_L:()=>I,Gm:()=>L,Lg:()=>M,gy:()=>U,BV:()=>Q,Kf:()=>ee});var n=r(2177);const i="nr@original";var o=Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty,a=!1;function s(e,t){return e||(e=n.ee),r.inPlace=function(e,t,n,i,o){n||(n="");var a,s,c,u="-"===n.charAt(0);for(c=0;c 2?n-2:0),o=2;o {r(A[T],e,w),r(E[T],e,w)})),r(l._A,"fetch",y),t.on(y+"end",(function(e,r){var n=this;if(r){var i=r.headers.get("content-length");null!==i&&(n.rxSize=i),t.emit(y+"done",[null,r],n)}else t.emit(y+"done",[e],n)})),t}const O={},j=["pushState","replaceState"];function S(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("history")}(e);return!l.il||O[t.debugId]++||(O[t.debugId]=1,s(t).inPlace(window.history,j,"-")),t}var P=r(3239);const C={},R=["appendChild","insertBefore","replaceChild"];function I(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("jsonp")}(e);if(!l.il||C[t.debugId])return t;C[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=/[?&](?:callback|cb)=([^&#]+)/,o=/(.*)\.([^.]+)/,a=/^(\w+)(\.|$)(.*)$/;function c(e,t){var r=e.match(a),n=r[1],i=r[3];return i?c(i,t[n]):t[n]}return r.inPlace(Node.prototype,R,"dom-"),t.on("dom-start",(function(e){!function(e){if(!e||"string"!=typeof e.nodeName||"script"!==e.nodeName.toLowerCase())return;if("function"!=typeof e.addEventListener)return;var n=(a=e.src,s=a.match(i),s?s[1]:null);var a,s;if(!n)return;var u=function(e){var t=e.match(o);if(t&&t.length>=3)return{key:t[2],parent:c(t[1],window)};return{key:e,parent:window}}(n);if("function"!=typeof u.parent[u.key])return;var d={};function f(){t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}function l(){t.emit("jsonp-error",[],d),t.emit("jsonp-end",[],d),e.removeEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.removeEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1))}r.inPlace(u.parent,[u.key],"cb-",d),e.addEventListener("load",f,(0,P.m$)(!1)),e.addEventListener("error",l,(0,P.m$)(!1)),t.emit("new-jsonp",[e.src],d)}(e[0])})),t}var k=r(5763);const H={};function L(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("mutation")}(e);if(!l.il||H[t.debugId])return t;H[t.debugId]=!0;var r=s(t),i=k.Yu.MO;return i&&(window.MutationObserver=function(e){return this instanceof i?new i(r(e,"fn-")):i.apply(this,arguments)},MutationObserver.prototype=i.prototype),t}const z={};function M(e){const t=function(e){return(e||n.ee).get("promise")}(e);if(z[t.debugId])return t;z[t.debugId]=!0;var r=n.c,o=s(t),a=k.Yu.PR;return a&&function(){function e(r){var n=t.context(),i=o(r,"executor-",n,null,!1);const s=Reflect.construct(a,[i],e);return t.context(s).getCtx=function(){return n},s}l._A.Promise=e,Object.defineProperty(e,"name",{value:"Promise"}),e.toString=function(){return a.toString()},Object.setPrototypeOf(e,a),["all","race"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){let i=!1;[...e||[]].forEach((e=>{this.resolve(e).then(a("all"===r),a(!1))}));const o=n.apply(this,arguments);return o;function a(e){return function(){t.emit("propagate",[null,!i],o,!1,!1),i=i||!e}}}})),["resolve","reject"].forEach((function(r){const n=a[r];e[r]=function(e){const r=n.apply(this,arguments);return e!==r&&t.emit("propagate",[e,!0],r,!1,!1),r}})),e.prototype=a.prototype;const n=a.prototype.then;a.prototype.then=function(){var e=this,i=r(e);i.promise=e;for(var a=arguments.length,s=new Array(a),c=0;c e())),t};function m(e,t){i.inPlace(t,["onreadystatechange"],"fn-",E)}function b(){var e=this,t=r.context(e);e.readyState>3&&!t.resolved&&(t.resolved=!0,r.emit("xhr-resolved",[],e)),i.inPlace(e,f,"fn-",E)}if(function(e,t){for(var r in e)t[r]=e[r]}(o,p),p.prototype=o.prototype,i.inPlace(p.prototype,J,"-xhr-",E),r.on("send-xhr-start",(function(e,t){m(e,t),function(e){h.push(e),a&&(y?y.then(A):u?u(A):(w=-w,x.data=w))}(t)})),r.on("open-xhr-start",m),a){var y=c&&c.resolve();if(!u&&!c){var w=1,x=document.createTextNode(w);new a(A).observe(x,{characterData:!0})}}else t.on("fn-end",(function(e){e[0]&&e[0].type===d||A()}));function A(){for(var e=0;e {r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.ajax},6660:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{A:()=>i,t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.jserrors,i="nr@seenError"},3081:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{gF:()=>o,mY:()=>i,t9:()=>n,vz:()=>s,xS:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.metrics,i="sm",o="cm",a="storeSupportabilityMetrics",s="storeEventMetrics"},4649:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageAction},7633:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{Dz:()=>i,OJ:()=>a,qw:()=>o,t9:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewEvent,i="firstbyte",o="domcontent",a="windowload"},9251:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{t:()=>n});const n=r(3325).D.pageViewTiming},3614:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BST_RESOURCE:()=>i,END:()=>s,FEATURE_NAME:()=>n,FN_END:()=>u,FN_START:()=>c,PUSH_STATE:()=>d,RESOURCE:()=>o,START:()=>a});const n=r(3325).D.sessionTrace,i="bstResource",o="resource",a="-start",s="-end",c="fn"+a,u="fn"+s,d="pushState"},7836:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{BODY:()=>A,CB_END:()=>E,CB_START:()=>u,END:()=>x,FEATURE_NAME:()=>i,FETCH:()=>_,FETCH_BODY:()=>v,FETCH_DONE:()=>m,FETCH_START:()=>p,FN_END:()=>c,FN_START:()=>s,INTERACTION:()=>l,INTERACTION_API:()=>d,INTERACTION_EVENTS:()=>o,JSONP_END:()=>b,JSONP_NODE:()=>g,JS_TIME:()=>T,MAX_TIMER_BUDGET:()=>a,REMAINING:()=>f,SPA_NODE:()=>h,START:()=>w,originalSetTimeout:()=>y});var n=r(5763);const i=r(3325).D.spa,o=["click","submit","keypress","keydown","keyup","change"],a=999,s="fn-start",c="fn-end",u="cb-start",d="api-ixn-",f="remaining",l="interaction",h="spaNode",g="jsonpNode",p="fetch-start",m="fetch-done",v="fetch-body-",b="jsonp-end",y=n.Yu.ST,w="-start",x="-end",A="-body",E="cb"+x,T="jsTime",_="fetch"},5938:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{W:()=>o});var n=r(5763),i=r(2177);class o{constructor(e,t,r){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.aggregator=t,this.ee=i.ee.get(e,(0,n.OP)(this.agentIdentifier).isolatedBacklog),this.featureName=r,this.blocked=!1}}},9144:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{j:()=>m});var n=r(3325),i=r(5763),o=r(5546),a=r(2177),s=r(7894),c=r(8e3),u=r(3960),d=r(385),f=r(50),l=r(3081),h=r(8632);function g(){const e=(0,h.gG)();["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease","addPageAction","setCurrentRouteName","setPageViewName","setCustomAttribute","interaction","noticeError","setUserId"].forEach((t=>{e[t]=function(){for(var r=arguments.length,n=new Array(r),i=0;i 1?r-1:0),i=1;i {e.exposed&&e.api[t]&&o.push(e.api[t](...n))})),o.length>1?o:o[0]}(t,...n)}}))}var p=r(2587);function m(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:{},m=arguments.length>2?arguments[2]:void 0,v=arguments.length>3?arguments[3]:void 0,{init:b,info:y,loader_config:w,runtime:x={loaderType:m},exposed:A=!0}=t;const E=(0,h.gG)();y||(b=E.init,y=E.info,w=E.loader_config),(0,i.Dg)(e,b||{}),(0,i.GE)(e,w||{}),(0,i.sU)(e,x),y.jsAttributes??={},d.v6&&(y.jsAttributes.isWorker=!0),(0,i.CX)(e,y),g();const T=function(e,t){t||(0,c.R)(e,"api");const h={};var g=a.ee.get(e),p=g.get("tracer"),m="api-",v=m+"ixn-";function b(t,r,n,o){const a=(0,i.C5)(e);return null===r?delete a.jsAttributes[t]:(0,i.CX)(e,{...a,jsAttributes:{...a.jsAttributes,[t]:r}}),x(m,n,!0,o||null===r?"session":void 0)(t,r)}function y(){}["setErrorHandler","finished","addToTrace","inlineHit","addRelease"].forEach((e=>h[e]=x(m,e,!0,"api"))),h.addPageAction=x(m,"addPageAction",!0,n.D.pageAction),h.setCurrentRouteName=x(m,"routeName",!0,n.D.spa),h.setPageViewName=function(t,r){if("string"==typeof t)return"/"!==t.charAt(0)&&(t="/"+t),(0,i.OP)(e).customTransaction=(r||"http://custom.transaction")+t,x(m,"setPageViewName",!0)()},h.setCustomAttribute=function(e,t){let r=arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2]&&arguments[2];if("string"==typeof e){if(["string","number"].includes(typeof t)||null===t)return b(e,t,"setCustomAttribute",r);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nNon-null value must be a string or number type, but a type of was provided."))}else(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setCustomAttribute.\nName must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.setUserId=function(e){if("string"==typeof e||null===e)return b("enduser.id",e,"setUserId",!0);(0,f.Z)("Failed to execute setUserId.\nNon-null value must be a string type, but a type of was provided."))},h.interaction=function(){return(new y).get()};var w=y.prototype={createTracer:function(e,t){var r={},i=this,a="function"==typeof t;return(0,o.p)(v+"tracer",[(0,s.z)(),e,r],i,n.D.spa,g),function(){if(p.emit((a?"":"no-")+"fn-start",[(0,s.z)(),i,a],r),a)try{return t.apply(this,arguments)}catch(e){throw p.emit("fn-err",[arguments,this,"string"==typeof e?new Error(e):e],r),e}finally{p.emit("fn-end",[(0,s.z)()],r)}}}};function x(e,t,r,i){return function(){return(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/"+t+"/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),i&&(0,o.p)(e+t,[(0,s.z)(),...arguments],r?null:this,i,g),r?void 0:this}}function A(){r.e(439).then(r.bind(r,7438)).then((t=>{let{setAPI:r}=t;r(e),(0,c.L)(e,"api")})).catch((()=>(0,f.Z)("Downloading runtime APIs failed...")))}return["actionText","setName","setAttribute","save","ignore","onEnd","getContext","end","get"].forEach((e=>{w[e]=x(v,e,void 0,n.D.spa)})),h.noticeError=function(e,t){"string"==typeof e&&(e=new Error(e)),(0,o.p)(l.xS,["API/noticeError/called"],void 0,n.D.metrics,g),(0,o.p)("err",[e,(0,s.z)(),!1,t],void 0,n.D.jserrors,g)},d.il?(0,u.b)((()=>A()),!0):A(),h}(e,v);return(0,h.Qy)(e,T,"api"),(0,h.Qy)(e,A,"exposed"),(0,h.EZ)("activatedFeatures",p.T),T}},3325:(e,t,r)=>{r.d(t,{D:()=>n,p:()=>i});const n={ajax:"ajax",jserrors:"jserrors",metrics:"metrics",pageAction:"page_action",pageViewEvent:"page_view_event",pageViewTiming:"page_view_timing",sessionReplay:"session_replay",sessionTrace:"session_trace",spa:"spa"},i={[n.pageViewEvent]:1,[n.pageViewTiming]:2,[n.metrics]:3,[n.jserrors]:4,[n.ajax]:5,[n.sessionTrace]:6,[n.pageAction]:7,[n.spa]:8,[n.sessionReplay]:9}}},n={};function i(e){var t=n[e];if(void 0!==t)return t.exports;var o=n[e]={exports:{}};return r[e](o,o.exports,i),o.exports}i.m=r,i.d=(e,t)=>{for(var r in t)i.o(t,r)&&!i.o(e,r)&&Object.defineProperty(e,r,{enumerable:!0,get:t[r]})},i.f={},i.e=e=>Promise.all(Object.keys(i.f).reduce(((t,r)=>(i.f[r](e,t),t)),[])),i.u=e=>(({78:"page_action-aggregate",147:"metrics-aggregate",242:"session-manager",317:"jserrors-aggregate",348:"page_view_timing-aggregate",412:"lazy-feature-loader",439:"async-api",538:"recorder",590:"session_replay-aggregate",675:"compressor",733:"session_trace-aggregate",786:"page_view_event-aggregate",873:"spa-aggregate",898:"ajax-aggregate"}[e]||e)+"."+{78:"ac76d497",147:"3dc53903",148:"1a20d5fe",242:"2a64278a",317:"49e41428",348:"bd6de33a",412:"2f55ce66",439:"30bd804e",538:"1b18459f",590:"cf0efb30",675:"ae9f91a8",733:"83105561",786:"06482edd",860:"03a8b7a5",873:"e6b09d52",898:"998ef92b"}[e]+"-1.236.0.min.js"),i.o=(e,t)=>Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(e,t),e={},t="NRBA:",i.l=(r,n,o,a)=>{if(e[r])e[r].push(n);else{var s,c;if(void 0!==o)for(var u=document.getElementsByTagName("script"),d=0;d {s.onerror=s.onload=null,clearTimeout(h);var i=e[r];if(delete e[r],s.parentNode&&s.parentNode.removeChild(s),i&&i.forEach((e=>e(n))),t)return t(n)},h=setTimeout(l.bind(null,void 0,{type:"timeout",target:s}),12e4);s.onerror=l.bind(null,s.onerror),s.onload=l.bind(null,s.onload),c&&document.head.appendChild(s)}},i.r=e=>{"undefined"!=typeof Symbol&&Symbol.toStringTag&&Object.defineProperty(e,Symbol.toStringTag,{value:"Module"}),Object.defineProperty(e,"__esModule",{value:!0})},i.j=364,i.p="https://js-agent.newrelic.com/",(()=>{var e={364:0,953:0};i.f.j=(t,r)=>{var n=i.o(e,t)?e[t]:void 0;if(0!==n)if(n)r.push(n[2]);else{var o=new Promise(((r,i)=>n=e[t]=[r,i]));r.push(n[2]=o);var a=i.p+i.u(t),s=new Error;i.l(a,(r=>{if(i.o(e,t)&&(0!==(n=e[t])&&(e[t]=void 0),n)){var o=r&&("load"===r.type?"missing":r.type),a=r&&r.target&&r.target.src;s.message="Loading chunk "+t+" failed.\n("+o+": "+a+")",s.name="ChunkLoadError",s.type=o,s.request=a,n[1](s)}}),"chunk-"+t,t)}};var t=(t,r)=>{var n,o,[a,s,c]=r,u=0;if(a.some((t=>0!==e[t]))){for(n in s)i.o(s,n)&&(i.m[n]=s[n]);if(c)c(i)}for(t&&t(r);u {i.r(o);var e=i(3325),t=i(5763);const r=Object.values(e.D);function n(e){const n={};return r.forEach((r=>{n[r]=function(e,r){return!1!==(0,t.Mt)(r,"".concat(e,".enabled"))}(r,e)})),n}var a=i(9144);var s=i(5546),c=i(385),u=i(8e3),d=i(5938),f=i(3960),l=i(50);class h extends d.W{constructor(e,t,r){let n=!(arguments.length>3&&void 0!==arguments[3])||arguments[3];super(e,t,r),this.auto=n,this.abortHandler,this.featAggregate,this.onAggregateImported,n&&(0,u.R)(e,r)}importAggregator(){let e=arguments.length>0&&void 0!==arguments[0]?arguments[0]:{};if(this.featAggregate||!this.auto)return;const r=c.il&&!0===(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"privacy.cookies_enabled");let n;this.onAggregateImported=new Promise((e=>{n=e}));const o=async()=>{let t;try{if(r){const{setupAgentSession:e}=await Promise.all([i.e(860),i.e(242)]).then(i.bind(i,3228));t=e(this.agentIdentifier)}}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("A problem occurred when starting up session manager. This page will not start or extend any session.",e)}try{if(!this.shouldImportAgg(this.featureName,t))return void(0,u.L)(this.agentIdentifier,this.featureName);const{lazyFeatureLoader:r}=await i.e(412).then(i.bind(i,8582)),{Aggregate:o}=await r(this.featureName,"aggregate");this.featAggregate=new o(this.agentIdentifier,this.aggregator,e),n(!0)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Downloading and initializing ".concat(this.featureName," failed..."),e),this.abortHandler?.(),n(!1)}};c.il?(0,f.b)((()=>o()),!0):o()}shouldImportAgg(r,n){return r!==e.D.sessionReplay||!1!==(0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"session_trace.enabled")&&(!!n?.isNew||!!n?.state.sessionReplay)}}var g=i(7633),p=i(7894);class m extends h{static featureName=g.t9;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];if(super(r,n,g.t9,i),("undefined"==typeof PerformanceNavigationTiming||c.Tt)&&"undefined"!=typeof PerformanceTiming){const n=(0,t.OP)(r);n[g.Dz]=Math.max(Date.now()-n.offset,0),(0,f.K)((()=>n[g.qw]=Math.max((0,p.z)()-n[g.Dz],0))),(0,f.b)((()=>{const t=(0,p.z)();n[g.OJ]=Math.max(t-n[g.Dz],0),(0,s.p)("timing",["load",t],void 0,e.D.pageViewTiming,this.ee)}))}this.importAggregator()}}var v=i(1117),b=i(1284);class y extends v.w{constructor(e){super(e),this.aggregatedData={}}store(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,r,i);return o.metrics=function(e,t){t||(t={count:0});return t.count+=1,(0,b.D)(e,(function(e,r){t[e]=w(r,t[e])})),t}(n,o.metrics),o}merge(e,t,r,n,i){var o=this.getBucket(e,t,n,i);if(o.metrics){var a=o.metrics;a.count+=r.count,(0,b.D)(r,(function(e,t){if("count"!==e){var n=a[e],i=r[e];i&&!i.c?a[e]=w(i.t,n):a[e]=function(e,t){if(!t)return e;t.c||(t=x(t.t));return t.min=Math.min(e.min,t.min),t.max=Math.max(e.max,t.max),t.t+=e.t,t.sos+=e.sos,t.c+=e.c,t}(i,a[e])}}))}else o.metrics=r}storeMetric(e,t,r,n){var i=this.getBucket(e,t,r);return i.stats=w(n,i.stats),i}getBucket(e,t,r,n){this.aggregatedData[e]||(this.aggregatedData[e]={});var i=this.aggregatedData[e][t];return i||(i=this.aggregatedData[e][t]={params:r||{}},n&&(i.custom=n)),i}get(e,t){return t?this.aggregatedData[e]&&this.aggregatedData[e][t]:this.aggregatedData[e]}take(e){for(var t={},r="",n=!1,i=0;i t.max&&(t.max=e),e 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,r,j.t,n),c.il&&((0,t.OP)(e).initHidden=Boolean("hidden"===document.visibilityState),(0,N.N)((()=>(0,s.p)("docHidden",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee)),!0),(0,O.bP)("pagehide",(()=>(0,s.p)("winPagehide",[(0,p.z)()],void 0,j.t,this.ee))),this.importAggregator())}}var P=i(3081);class C extends h{static featureName=P.t9;constructor(e,t){let r=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,P.t9,r),this.importAggregator()}}var R,I=i(2210),k=i(1214),H=i(2177),L={};try{R=localStorage.getItem("__nr_flags").split(","),console&&"function"==typeof console.log&&(L.console=!0,-1!==R.indexOf("dev")&&(L.dev=!0),-1!==R.indexOf("nr_dev")&&(L.nrDev=!0))}catch(e){}function z(e){try{L.console&&z(e)}catch(e){}}L.nrDev&&H.ee.on("internal-error",(function(e){z(e.stack)})),L.dev&&H.ee.on("fn-err",(function(e,t,r){z(r.stack)})),L.dev&&(z("NR AGENT IN DEVELOPMENT MODE"),z("flags: "+(0,b.D)(L,(function(e,t){return e})).join(", ")));var M=i(6660);class B extends h{static featureName=M.t;constructor(r,n){let i=!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,M.t,i),this.skipNext=0;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}const o=this;o.ee.on("fn-start",(function(e,t,r){o.abortHandler&&(o.skipNext+=1)})),o.ee.on("fn-err",(function(t,r,n){o.abortHandler&&!n[M.A]&&((0,I.X)(n,M.A,(function(){return!0})),this.thrown=!0,(0,s.p)("err",[n,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee))})),o.ee.on("fn-end",(function(){o.abortHandler&&!this.thrown&&o.skipNext>0&&(o.skipNext-=1)})),o.ee.on("internal-error",(function(t){(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,o.ee)})),this.origOnerror=c._A.onerror,c._A.onerror=this.onerrorHandler.bind(this),c._A.addEventListener("unhandledrejection",(t=>{const r=function(e){let t="Unhandled Promise Rejection: ";if(e instanceof Error)try{return e.message=t+e.message,e}catch(t){return e}if(void 0===e)return new Error(t);try{return new Error(t+(0,D.P)(e))}catch(e){return new Error(t)}}(t.reason);(0,s.p)("err",[r,(0,p.z)(),!1,{unhandledPromiseRejection:1}],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}),(0,O.m$)(!1,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),(0,k.gy)(this.ee),(0,k.BV)(this.ee),(0,k.em)(this.ee),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}onerrorHandler(t,r,n,i,o){"function"==typeof this.origOnerror&&this.origOnerror(...arguments);try{this.skipNext?this.skipNext-=1:(0,s.p)("err",[o||new F(t,r,n),(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(t){try{(0,s.p)("ierr",[t,(0,p.z)(),!0],void 0,e.D.jserrors,this.ee)}catch(e){}}return!1}}function F(e,t,r){this.message=e||"Uncaught error with no additional information",this.sourceURL=t,this.line=r}let U=1;const q="nr@id";function G(e){const t=typeof e;return!e||"object"!==t&&"function"!==t?-1:e===c._A?0:(0,I.X)(e,q,(function(){return U++}))}function V(e){if("string"==typeof e&&e.length)return e.length;if("object"==typeof e){if("undefined"!=typeof ArrayBuffer&&e instanceof ArrayBuffer&&e.byteLength)return e.byteLength;if("undefined"!=typeof Blob&&e instanceof Blob&&e.size)return e.size;if(!("undefined"!=typeof FormData&&e instanceof FormData))try{return(0,D.P)(e).length}catch(e){return}}}var X=i(7243);class W{constructor(e){this.agentIdentifier=e,this.generateTracePayload=this.generateTracePayload.bind(this),this.shouldGenerateTrace=this.shouldGenerateTrace.bind(this)}generateTracePayload(e){if(!this.shouldGenerateTrace(e))return null;var r=(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier);if(!r)return null;var n=(r.accountID||"").toString()||null,i=(r.agentID||"").toString()||null,o=(r.trustKey||"").toString()||null;if(!n||!i)return null;var a=(0,_.M)(),s=(0,_.Ht)(),c=Date.now(),u={spanId:a,traceId:s,timestamp:c};return(e.sameOrigin||this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useTraceContextHeadersForCors())&&(u.traceContextParentHeader=this.generateTraceContextParentHeader(a,s),u.traceContextStateHeader=this.generateTraceContextStateHeader(a,c,n,i,o)),(e.sameOrigin&&!this.excludeNewrelicHeader()||!e.sameOrigin&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)&&this.useNewrelicHeaderForCors())&&(u.newrelicHeader=this.generateTraceHeader(a,s,c,n,i,o)),u}generateTraceContextParentHeader(e,t){return"00-"+t+"-"+e+"-01"}generateTraceContextStateHeader(e,t,r,n,i){return i+"@nr=0-1-"+r+"-"+n+"-"+e+"----"+t}generateTraceHeader(e,t,r,n,i,o){if(!("function"==typeof c._A?.btoa))return null;var a={v:[0,1],d:{ty:"Browser",ac:n,ap:i,id:e,tr:t,ti:r}};return o&&n!==o&&(a.d.tk=o),btoa((0,D.P)(a))}shouldGenerateTrace(e){return this.isDtEnabled()&&this.isAllowedOrigin(e)}isAllowedOrigin(e){var r=!1,n={};if((0,t.Mt)(this.agentIdentifier,"distributed_tracing")&&(n=(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier).distributed_tracing),e.sameOrigin)r=!0;else if(n.allowed_origins instanceof Array)for(var i=0;i 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(r,n,Z.t,i),(0,t.OP)(r).xhrWrappable&&(this.dt=new W(r),this.handler=(e,t,r,n)=>(0,s.p)(e,t,r,n,this.ee),(0,k.u5)(this.ee),(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),function(r,n,i,o){function a(e){var t=this;t.totalCbs=0,t.called=0,t.cbTime=0,t.end=E,t.ended=!1,t.xhrGuids={},t.lastSize=null,t.loadCaptureCalled=!1,t.params=this.params||{},t.metrics=this.metrics||{},e.addEventListener("load",(function(r){_(t,e)}),(0,O.m$)(!1)),c.IF||e.addEventListener("progress",(function(e){t.lastSize=e.loaded}),(0,O.m$)(!1))}function s(e){this.params={method:e[0]},T(this,e[1]),this.metrics={}}function u(e,n){var i=(0,t.DL)(r);i.xpid&&this.sameOrigin&&n.setRequestHeader("X-NewRelic-ID",i.xpid);var a=o.generateTracePayload(this.parsedOrigin);if(a){var s=!1;a.newrelicHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("newrelic",a.newrelicHeader),s=!0),a.traceContextParentHeader&&(n.setRequestHeader("traceparent",a.traceContextParentHeader),a.traceContextStateHeader&&n.setRequestHeader("tracestate",a.traceContextStateHeader),s=!0),s&&(this.dt=a)}}function d(e,t){var r=this.metrics,i=e[0],o=this;if(r&&i){var a=V(i);a&&(r.txSize=a)}this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.listener=function(e){try{"abort"!==e.type||o.loadCaptureCalled||(o.params.aborted=!0),("load"!==e.type||o.called===o.totalCbs&&(o.onloadCalled||"function"!=typeof t.onload)&&"function"==typeof o.end)&&o.end(t)}catch(e){try{n.emit("internal-error",[e])}catch(e){}}};for(var s=0;s 1?e[1]=i:e.push(i)}else e[0]&&e[0].headers&&s(e[0].headers,n)&&(this.dt=n);function s(e,t){var r=!1;return t.newrelicHeader&&(e.set("newrelic",t.newrelicHeader),r=!0),t.traceContextParentHeader&&(e.set("traceparent",t.traceContextParentHeader),t.traceContextStateHeader&&e.set("tracestate",t.traceContextStateHeader),r=!0),r}}function x(e,t){this.params={},this.metrics={},this.startTime=(0,p.z)(),this.dt=t,e.length>=1&&(this.target=e[0]),e.length>=2&&(this.opts=e[1]);var r,n=this.opts||{},i=this.target;"string"==typeof i?r=i:"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof Y?r=i.url:c._A?.URL&&"object"==typeof i&&i instanceof URL&&(r=i.href),T(this,r);var o=(""+(i&&i instanceof Y&&i.method||n.method||"GET")).toUpperCase();this.params.method=o,this.txSize=V(n.body)||0}function A(t,r){var n;this.endTime=(0,p.z)(),this.params||(this.params={}),this.params.status=r?r.status:0,"string"==typeof this.rxSize&&this.rxSize.length>0&&(n=+this.rxSize);var o={txSize:this.txSize,rxSize:n,duration:(0,p.z)()-this.startTime};i("xhr",[this.params,o,this.startTime,this.endTime,"fetch"],this,e.D.ajax)}function E(t){var r=this.params,n=this.metrics;if(!this.ended){this.ended=!0;for(var o=0;o 2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2];super(e,t,we.t,r),this.importAggregator()}}new class{constructor(e){let t=arguments.length>1&&void 0!==arguments[1]?arguments[1]:(0,_.ky)(16);c._A?(this.agentIdentifier=t,this.sharedAggregator=new y({agentIdentifier:this.agentIdentifier}),this.features={},this.desiredFeatures=new Set(e.features||[]),this.desiredFeatures.add(m),Object.assign(this,(0,a.j)(this.agentIdentifier,e,e.loaderType||"agent")),this.start()):(0,l.Z)("Failed to initial the agent. Could not determine the runtime environment.")}get config(){return{info:(0,t.C5)(this.agentIdentifier),init:(0,t.P_)(this.agentIdentifier),loader_config:(0,t.DL)(this.agentIdentifier),runtime:(0,t.OP)(this.agentIdentifier)}}start(){const t="features";try{const r=n(this.agentIdentifier),i=[...this.desiredFeatures];i.sort(((t,r)=>e.p[t.featureName]-e.p[r.featureName])),i.forEach((t=>{if(r[t.featureName]||t.featureName===e.D.pageViewEvent){const n=function(t){switch(t){case e.D.ajax:return[e.D.jserrors];case e.D.sessionTrace:return[e.D.ajax,e.D.pageViewEvent];case e.D.sessionReplay:return[e.D.sessionTrace];case e.D.pageViewTiming:return[e.D.pageViewEvent];default:return[]}}(t.featureName);n.every((e=>r[e]))||(0,l.Z)("".concat(t.featureName," is enabled but one or more dependent features has been disabled (").concat((0,D.P)(n),"). This may cause unintended consequences or missing data...")),this.features[t.featureName]=new t(this.agentIdentifier,this.sharedAggregator)}})),(0,T.Qy)(this.agentIdentifier,this.features,t)}catch(e){(0,l.Z)("Failed to initialize all enabled instrument classes (agent aborted) -",e);for(const e in this.features)this.features[e].abortHandler?.();const r=(0,T.fP)();return delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.api,delete r.initializedAgents[this.agentIdentifier]?.[t],delete this.sharedAggregator,r.ee?.abort(),delete r.ee?.get(this.agentIdentifier),!1}}}({features:[J,m,S,class extends h{static featureName=oe;constructor(t,r){if(super(t,r,oe,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;const n=this.ee;let i;(0,k.QU)(n),this.eventsEE=(0,k.em)(n),this.eventsEE.on(se,(function(e,t){this.bstStart=(0,p.z)()})),this.eventsEE.on(ae,(function(t,r){(0,s.p)("bst",[t[0],r,this.bstStart,(0,p.z)()],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),n.on(ce+ne,(function(e){this.time=(0,p.z)(),this.startPath=location.pathname+location.hash})),n.on(ce+ie,(function(t){(0,s.p)("bstHist",[location.pathname+location.hash,this.startPath,this.time],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)}));try{i=new PerformanceObserver((t=>{const r=t.getEntries();(0,s.p)(te,[r],void 0,e.D.sessionTrace,n)})),i.observe({type:re,buffered:!0})}catch(e){}this.importAggregator({resourceObserver:i})}},C,xe,B,class extends h{static featureName=de;constructor(e,r){if(super(e,r,de,!(arguments.length>2&&void 0!==arguments[2])||arguments[2]),!c.il)return;if(!(0,t.OP)(e).xhrWrappable)return;try{this.removeOnAbort=new AbortController}catch(e){}let n,i=0;const o=this.ee.get("tracer"),a=(0,k._L)(this.ee),s=(0,k.Lg)(this.ee),u=(0,k.BV)(this.ee),d=(0,k.Kf)(this.ee),f=this.ee.get("events"),l=(0,k.u5)(this.ee),h=(0,k.QU)(this.ee),g=(0,k.Gm)(this.ee);function m(e,t){h.emit("newURL",[""+window.location,t])}function v(){i++,n=window.location.hash,this[ve]=(0,p.z)()}function b(){i--,window.location.hash!==n&&m(0,!0);var e=(0,p.z)();this[pe]=~~this[pe]+e-this[ve],this[ye]=e}function y(e,t){e.on(t,(function(){this[t]=(0,p.z)()}))}this.ee.on(ve,v),s.on(be,v),a.on(be,v),this.ee.on(ye,b),s.on(ge,b),a.on(ge,b),this.ee.buffer([ve,ye,"xhr-resolved"],this.featureName),f.buffer([ve],this.featureName),u.buffer(["setTimeout"+le,"clearTimeout"+fe,ve],this.featureName),d.buffer([ve,"new-xhr","send-xhr"+fe],this.featureName),l.buffer([me+fe,me+"-done",me+he+fe,me+he+le],this.featureName),h.buffer(["newURL"],this.featureName),g.buffer([ve],this.featureName),s.buffer(["propagate",be,ge,"executor-err","resolve"+fe],this.featureName),o.buffer([ve,"no-"+ve],this.featureName),a.buffer(["new-jsonp","cb-start","jsonp-error","jsonp-end"],this.featureName),y(l,me+fe),y(l,me+"-done"),y(a,"new-jsonp"),y(a,"jsonp-end"),y(a,"cb-start"),h.on("pushState-end",m),h.on("replaceState-end",m),window.addEventListener("hashchange",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("load",m,(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),window.addEventListener("popstate",(function(){m(0,i>1)}),(0,O.m$)(!0,this.removeOnAbort?.signal)),this.abortHandler=this.#e,this.importAggregator()}#e(){this.removeOnAbort?.abort(),this.abortHandler=void 0}}],loaderType:"spa"})})(),window.NRBA=o})(); window.jQuery || document.write(' ') CKEDITOR_BASEPATH='https://f1000research.com/js/vendor/ckeditor/' window.reactTheme = 'research'; window.MathJax = { CommonHTML: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, 'HTML-CSS': { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, SVG: { linebreaks: { automatic: true } }, AuthorInit: function() { MathJax.Hub.Register.MessageHook('End Process', function () { let timeout = false; // holder for timeout id const delay = 250; // delay after event is "complete" to run callback const reflowMath = function() { const dispFormulas = document.querySelectorAll('.disp-formula.panel'); if (!dispFormulas) { return; } for (const dispFormula of dispFormulas) { const child = dispFormula.querySelector('.MathJax_Preview').nextSibling.firstChild; const isMultiline = MathJax.Hub.getAllJax(dispFormula)[0].root.isMultiline; if (dispFormula.offsetWidth < child.offsetWidth || isMultiline) { MathJax.Hub.Queue(['Rerender', MathJax.Hub, dispFormula]); } } }; window.addEventListener('resize', function() { clearTimeout(timeout); // clear the timeout timeout = setTimeout(reflowMath, delay); // start timing for event "completion" }); }); }, }; if (window.location.hash == '#_=_'){ window.location = window.location.href.split('#')[0] } !function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s){if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function() {n.callMethod? n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)} ;if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n; n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version='2.0';n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0; t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,'script','https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js'); fbq('init', '1641728616063202'); fbq('track', "PixelInitialized", {}); (function(h,o,t,j,a,r){ h.hj=h.hj||function(){(h.hj.q=h.hj.q||[]).push(arguments)}; h._hjSettings={hjid:2318163,hjsv:6}; a=o.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; r=o.createElement('script');r.async=1; r.src=t+h._hjSettings.hjid+j+h._hjSettings.hjsv; a.appendChild(r); })(window,document,'https://static.hotjar.com/c/hotjar-','.js?sv='); search file_upload Submit your research search menu close search Browse Gateways & Collections How to Publish Submit your Research My Submissions Article Guidelines Article Guidelines (New Versions) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines Open Data and Accessible Source Materials Guidelines (HSS) Open Data, Software and Code Guidelines (PSE) Prepublication Checks Production Process Posters and Slides Guidelines Document Guidelines Article Processing Charges Peer Review Finding Article Reviewers About How it Works For Reviewers Our Advisors Policies Glossary FAQs For Developers Newsroom Contact My Research Submissions Content and Tracking Alerts My Details Sign In file_upload Submit your research { "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "ScholarlyArticle", "mainEntityOfPage": { "@type": "WebPage", "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1484" }, "headline": "Are Smart Cities ‘Sustainable?’ Revisiting the ‘Helix Model’ of the ASEAN Smart Cities...", "datePublished": "2025-12-31T11:01:17", "dateModified": "2026-04-24T06:47:18", "author": [ { "@type": "Person", "name": "Bama Andika Putra" } ], "publisher": { "@type": "Organization", "name": "F1000Research", "logo": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 480, "width": 60 } }, "image": { "@type": "ImageObject", "url": "https://f1000research.com/img/AMP/F1000Research_image.png", "height": 1200, "width": 150 }, "description": "Recent urban planning in Southeast Asia has incorporated the theme of transforming cities to ‘smart city’ status. However, the central question raised in this study is whether the ASEAN’s conception of smart cities is genuinely sustainable. Based on the backdrop of Southeast Asia’s disparity in economic performances and diversity in its political, social, economic, and environmental dimensions, this study updates Crumpton’s 2021 study on the ‘quintuple helix model’ and argues that new observations but old patterns are found in the ASEAN Smart Cities Network’s way of developing cities in Southeast Asia. Through a qualitative document analysis, utilizing published secondary data on the ten ASEAN member states between 2020 and 2024, this study revisits and updates the current state of Southeast Asia and how this corresponds to the challenges of constructing smart cities in democratic, semi-authoritarian, and authoritarian settings." } { "@context": "http://schema.org", "@type": "BreadcrumbList", "itemListElement": [ { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "1", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/", "name": "Home" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "2", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/browse/articles", "name": "Browse" } }, { "@type": "ListItem", "position": "3", "item": { "@id": "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1484/v2", "name": "Are Smart Cities ‘Sustainable?’ Revisiting the ‘Helix Model’ of the..." } } ] } Home Browse Are Smart Cities ‘Sustainable?’ Revisiting the ‘Helix Model’ of the... ALL Metrics - Views Downloads Get PDF Get XML Cite How to cite this article Putra BA. Are Smart Cities ‘Sustainable?’ Revisiting the ‘Helix Model’ of the ASEAN Smart Cities Network [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1484 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.174616.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. Close Copy Citation Details Export Export Citation Sciwheel EndNote Ref. Manager Bibtex ProCite Sente EXPORT Select a format first Track Share ▬ ✚ Research Article Revised Are Smart Cities ‘Sustainable?’ Revisiting the ‘Helix Model’ of the ASEAN Smart Cities Network [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] Bama Andika Putra https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5952-136X 1,2 Bama Andika Putra https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5952-136X 1,2 PUBLISHED 24 Apr 2026 Author details Author details 1 International Relations, Hasanuddin University Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Makassar, South Sulawesi, Indonesia 2 University of Bristol School of Sociology Politics and International Studies, Bristol, England, UK Bama Andika Putra Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing OPEN PEER REVIEW DETAILS REVIEWER STATUS Abstract Recent urban planning in Southeast Asia has incorporated the theme of transforming cities to ‘smart city’ status. However, the central question raised in this study is whether the ASEAN’s conception of smart cities is genuinely sustainable. Based on the backdrop of Southeast Asia’s disparity in economic performances and diversity in its political, social, economic, and environmental dimensions, this study updates Crumpton’s 2021 study on the ‘quintuple helix model’ and argues that new observations but old patterns are found in the ASEAN Smart Cities Network’s way of developing cities in Southeast Asia. Through a qualitative document analysis, utilizing published secondary data on the ten ASEAN member states between 2020 and 2024, this study revisits and updates the current state of Southeast Asia and how this corresponds to the challenges of constructing smart cities in democratic, semi-authoritarian, and authoritarian settings. READ ALL READ LESS Keywords Smart Cities, ASEAN, Helix Model, Sustainability, Southeast Asia Corresponding Author(s) Bama Andika Putra ( [email protected] ) Close Corresponding author: Bama Andika Putra Competing interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information: The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Copyright: © 2026 Putra BA. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. How to cite: Putra BA. Are Smart Cities ‘Sustainable?’ Revisiting the ‘Helix Model’ of the ASEAN Smart Cities Network [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1484 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.174616.2 ) First published: 31 Dec 2025, 14 :1484 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.174616.1 ) Latest published: 24 Apr 2026, 14 :1484 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.174616.2 ) Revised Amendments from Version 1 The revisions clarify ASCN, the unique context of sustainability in Southeast Asia, and how the Helix Model is used in the study. The major revisions can be found in the presented data, which outlines the differences among Southeast Asian states in human rights, social conditions, economics, business, and press freedom. It also adds several empirical case studies that allow for a deeper understanding of how the smart city-based model leads state and local actors within a nation to neglect the provision of basic services and needs, for the provision of smart city-based needs that relate to information, technology, and transportation advancements. The revisions clarify ASCN, the unique context of sustainability in Southeast Asia, and how the Helix Model is used in the study. The major revisions can be found in the presented data, which outlines the differences among Southeast Asian states in human rights, social conditions, economics, business, and press freedom. It also adds several empirical case studies that allow for a deeper understanding of how the smart city-based model leads state and local actors within a nation to neglect the provision of basic services and needs, for the provision of smart city-based needs that relate to information, technology, and transportation advancements. See the author's detailed response to the review by Eva Kassens-Noor and Hiba Karam See the author's detailed response to the review by Yuni Intarti READ REVIEWER RESPONSES 1. Introduction Are smart cities sustainable? Past studies have questioned whether smart city approaches adopted by local governments lead to urban sustainability. 1 – 5 In recent years, we have seen cities adopt smart-city grand-strategy schemes to accelerate growth. Nevertheless, how many compromises are made to meet current and future needs? Among the regions that have actively adopted this smart city concept is Southeast Asia. Under the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), particularly during Singapore’s ASEAN chairmanship in 2018, member states agreed with a list of 26 pilot projects under the ASEAN Smart Cities Network (ASCN). 6 The growth of cities in ASEAN is unique, as they will “continue to be driven by urban centers, with more people expected to urbanize by 2030 and ‘middleweight’ cities of between 200,000 and 2 million residents forecast to drive 40% of the region’s growth”. 7 The role of ASCN is thus to act as a normative guideline for ASEAN member states on smart city development, sharing best practices, and linking partnerships to accelerate growth. 6 , 8 The expectation is that the ASCN will act as a facilitator, linking city government officials and business entities to “catalyze bankable projects to solve urban problems by utilizing technology and innovation opportunities provided by the private sector”. 9 For ASEAN, the strategic outcomes of smart cities consist of a high quality of life, a competitive economy, and a sustainable environment. 6 To achieve them, several development focus areas have been determined: civic and social, health and well-being, safety and security, quality environment, built infrastructure, and industry and innovations. The identified development areas are enabled by ASEAN’s encouragement of digital infrastructure and applications, as well as by partnership and funding schemes under the ASCN. 10 Scholars have interpreted the ASCN in different ways. The most common discourse introduced is that of local governments’ active participation in offering and seeking partnerships as a representation of ‘paradiplomacy’, as non-central government actors engage in international relations. 7 , 9 , 11 , 12 The interlinkages between cities and business entities have also led some studies to conclude that the ASCN exhibits ‘transboundary learning’. 13 , 14 Nevertheless, the more recent discourse aims to connect sustainability with the smart city conceptions of the ASCN, with studies focusing on the impacts on tourism, human rights, and governance. 12 , 15 , 16 This article seeks to update Charles David Crumpton’s ‘quintuple helix model’ to assess the nexus between the ASCN and sustainability. The approach is grounded in the ‘helix models’ that symbolize the interactions among different sectors. 17 , 18 The interactions considered include actors in the education, entrepreneurial, public, media, and ecological contexts, 19 – 23 which collectively can boost regional innovation systems. The Crumpton-led 2021 study concluded that the diversity found in Southeast Asian states, some of which have authoritarian systems, has severely impeded the “socio-ecologically sustainable urban planning and governance” of the ASCN’s smart cities. 20 In the ASCN’s development focus area of civic and social, for example, some countries, such as Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Brunei Darussalam, still lack the basic features of democracy. 24 – 26 Thus, the intention of its cities to transform into smart cities is seen as a potential policy to further impinge upon participatory and socio-ecological sustainable urban planning and governance. 20 Therefore, as seen in the case of the ASCN in recent years, Crumpton highlights the emergence of the state under-prioritizing the environment and the lack of initiatives in improving basic services. This inadequate consideration of inter-contextual differences among ASEAN member states means that members would struggle to achieve smart city status, due to the underlying issue of unmet urban service requirements. Through a qualitative document analysis, this study intends to provide an update on the ASCN under the ‘helix models.’ It considers several unique trends between 2020 and 2024 that contribute to the diversity of Southeast Asian states. These include the Myanmar military coup in 2021, Laos’ foreign debt surges, and Cambodia’s change of leadership after more than three decades, to name a few. 27 – 33 Recent developments since 2021 have revealed a more complex Southeast Asia, making it difficult to introduce sustainability measures. In its current form, most Southeast Asian states are sensitive to the notion of imposed regulations and systems, as the region is founded on the norm of non-interference. 34 , 35 Consequently, through ASEAN, Southeast Asian states agree that introducing new norms into the region will be undertaken at a slow pace, one that accommodates the region’s unique differences. In addition, ASEAN’s consensus-based decision-making system allows the organization to adopt mechanisms and regulations only if no member state objects. Some unique trends further exacerbate such a unique context in Southeast Asia’s politics. In many parts of Southeast Asia, there is a more apparent dependence on China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which, unfortunately, has led to an increase in foreign debt for smaller Southeast Asian states. 36 – 39 Democracy is another prominent problem in the region. With Myanmar’s undemocratic rule and questions over Cambodia’s stability following leadership changes, there is doubt about whether Southeast Asia can put aside differences to pursue sustainability measures. In the past, pressing domestic challenges and a lack of democracy also contributed to the region’s failure to take decisive measures to protect human rights at the ASEAN level. 40 – 42 Consequently, these changes within the political landscape of Southeast Asian states make the inquiry of sustainability in smart cities particularly interesting to re-explore. Inspired by Crumpton’s 2021 analysis, this study will provide the ‘helix model’s’ interpretation of the ASCN, with the following differences. First, the inclusion of more recent data (2020–2024) accounts for differences in the political, social, environmental, and economic landscapes of Southeast Asian states. Second is the exclusion of one of the proposed models of interactions among educational stakeholders, due to the inconclusive relationship between information and communication technology projects and high-ranked universities. 20 Third is the inclusion of the Ease of Doing Business (EoDB) rankings to complement past data on the differences in the Southeast Asian economic landscape. The intention of this study is thus similar to that of past studies, which aim to reveal the profoundly diverse region of Southeast Asia and the challenges it poses to implementing sustainability measures within the ASCN’s conception of smart cities. 2. The ASEAN, ASCN, Smart Cities, and Sustainability: A Literature Review Against the backdrop of unique norms and differences among states, adopting sustainability measures in Southeast Asia poses challenges. The existing literature highlights these challenges well, focusing on the trajectory of sustainability among ASEAN member states over the past years. Nevertheless, not enough attention has been paid to ASEAN’s development pathway, especially given its recent emphasis on advancing it through the construction of smart cities across the region. This section provides a brief literature review of how Southeast Asia engages with sustainability demands. First, it examines the challenges of adopting sustainability across different regional sectors and the tendency in the literature to call for modified governance and policies to address these concerns. Second, this section examines how the ASCN has been one of ASEAN’s solutions to address urbanization issues in Southeast Asia’s larger cities, focusing on smart city initiatives as the basis for these solutions. Lastly, it will revisit recent studies on smart cities and sustainability in Southeast Asia and the novelty this study offers. These three discourses allow for a more nuanced understanding of the dominant discussions on smart cities and sustainability in Southeast Asia, and of the importance of revisiting more recent empirical case studies to strengthen or challenge past interpretations. 2.1 Sustainability in Southeast Asia: Conflicting Norms? Perhaps the primary discourse relevant to this study is studies exploring the sustainability element of Southeast Asian states’ practices across time. Within this discourse, studies have been particularly critical in questioning whether Southeast Asian states have ensured sustainable measures are in place concerning the vast development projects. Based on evaluations across sectors, scholars agree that Southeast Asia still faces challenges in integrating sustainability measures into its development practices. Ruland, for example, argued that path dependencies and development practices are the reason Southeast Asia’s hydropower dams lack elements of environmental sustainability. 43 Also, in the energy sector, scholars have looked into how carbon emissions in Southeast Asian states have faced an increase in volume due to the region’s focus on economic development and the encountered challenges of inadequate infrastructure and limitations of technologies. 44 Linked to the field of tourism, other studies have pointed to Southeast Asia’s tourism policies as lacking consideration of potential environmental elements, which consequently leads to unsustainable practices. 45 As Putra rightfully concludes when assessing the politics of countering climate change in the region, Southeast Asia’s unique norms of non-interference and persistence in undertaking development practices to advance their respective nations have equally contributed to the lack of sustainability practices in the region. 46 Although the highlight of challenges has been the dominant discourse, some studies have examined what the ideal solution could be. Studies have argued that policymakers should re-evaluate their good governance to ensure environmental sustainability. 47 Others have argued for the nexus between corporate governance and corporate sustainability disclosures, asserting that it serves as a baseline for ensuring that development in the region is balanced with careful consideration of the environment. 48 However, other studies have also pointed out that the issue is multidimensional and needs simultaneous approaches. Dai, for example, in a recently published article, called for the following measures: tax incentives, financial institution collaborations, ESG investing, and transparency. 49 Another discourse worth mentioning is the development gap between ASEAN member states. The challenges and potential solutions outlined in past studies are common problems all states face. Nevertheless, finding a balanced solution for ASEAN has been challenging for its member states due to disparities in capacity among Southeast Asian states. Past studies have highlighted the problem well. 50 – 52 Most have looked into the newer ASEAN states, often referred to as the CMLV (Cambodia, Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam), as these states still lack resources and supporting systems to pursue a balanced development approach. 53 Consequently, sustainability is enhanced when discussing such states. Nevertheless, no direct connections are made to how, for example, the lack of democratic practices in those states (or any Southeast Asian state) would impact their sustainability practices. As part of this solution, ASEAN established the ASCN, focusing on city actors as the basis of its solution. How has this been interpreted in existing studies? 2.2 Is the ASCN the Solution to the Slow Performing Sustainability Measures in the Region? Given the challenges of development and sustainability across much of Southeast Asia, the ASCN has been one of ASEAN’s solutions. One reason this has surfaced is urbanization-related challenges, with cities as the primary stakeholders who can make direct changes. Arfanuzzaman and Dahiya, for example, argue that urbanization in the region is uncontrollable due to its haphazard nature. 54 A study in 2020 and 2021 found that the urbanization challenges faced in Asia mimic those of Western cities, with the larger cities of Southeast Asia, such as Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta, and Manila, encountering the challenge of population densities. 55 , 56 These more recent studies are consistent with the earlier findings of Giok Ling Ooi in 2008 and 2009. Her studies predicted that Southeast Asian cities would experience in-migration and urban sprawl, leading to long-term environmental degradation. 57 In her 2009 study, she argued that such states fail to “[…] identify and implement an urban development policy framework that will link the effort at more sustainable development in a variety of sectors”. 58 Nevertheless, the city-oriented solution is not solely due to urbanization. Studies have examined decentralization as a primary factor influencing urban resilience. Marks and Pulliat looked into how fragmented governance structures and “misaligned incentive structures” are causing uneven commitment among cities to tackle climate change. 59 Amid the rise of such challenges, scholars have looked into different conceptions to alleviate the impact of the lack of sustainability measures adopted within Southeast Asian states. These include an inquiry into the potential for smart cities to be adopted in the region and into the development of smart cities as a foundation for sustainable cities. 15 , 60 Established in 2018, the ASCN has quickly attracted scholarly attention, prompting questions about whether it would contribute to the development of more sustainable cities. Most studies have concluded in favor of the initiative, arguing that the ASCN would catalyze partnerships and support the region’s digitization efforts. 9 , 61 Others have looked at the advantages of the ASCN due to its potential to establish transboundary learning 14 and “[…] fostering autonomy-enhancing initiatives between developing countries that have the capacity to learn from and scale-up locally-informed, adaptive problem solving”. 16 Nevertheless, some studies have been critical in addressing the ASCN. Two concerns have been prominent: First is the impact of ‘technocratic regionalism,’ defined as the technologically-driven regional integration resulting from the ASCN, 62 and second, how achieving the ‘smart city’ status would not be able to be balanced with human rights concerns that have already become a significant challenge for many Southeast Asian states. 12 Based on that backdrop, it is clear that the smart city destination the ASCN aims to achieve for its participating cities can yield both positive and negative outcomes. The following subsection will examine how past studies have interpreted this dilemma and elaborate on the novelty of this updated study. 2.3 Revisiting Discussions on Smart Cities and Sustainability in Southeast Asia Studies in the past have raised doubts about whether smart cities are indeed sustainable means of developing cities. As past studies have shown, there is unclear evidence that shows that the smart city approach indeed leads to urban sustainability. 1 , 3 , 5 , 63 , 64 In building up such an assumption, Charles David Crumpton, Supawatanarkorn Wongthanavasau, Peerasit Kamnuansilpa, John Draper, and Eva Bialobrzeski specifically analyzed this in the context of the ASCN. Adopting the ‘helix models,’ the study looks into specific city plans in Southeast Asia, the ASCN, and experiences with the smart city initiative. 20 The study highlights the disparities in social, economic, and political rights among Southeast Asian states and argues that the presence of states with authoritarian settings generates a more significant challenge for the ASCN. It is then proposed that the smart city conceptualization be within a ‘system of systems’ framework. 20 In this, “the complex socio-ecological interaction between society and nature and the multi-layered character of governance are acknowledged”. 20 Consequently, the disparity in economic capacity, social and human rights, and political systems between the Southeast Asian states is perceived as a barrier to achieving the ideal smart city status for ASCN participating cities. With the technologies proposed as the basis for a smart city, ASEAN is raising the potential for abuse and heightened cyber surveillance, which could be the case in many authoritarian nations in the region. As Crumpton’s-led study mentioned, “[…] authoritarian regimes and regimes with authoritarian tendencies seek new and better means for surveilling and controlling their populations”. 20 And that such state systems would impact “[…] participatory and therefore socio-ecologically sustainable urban planning and governance”. 20 This study builds on the previous concerns on the nexus between smart cities and sustainability in Southeast Asia. Between 2020 and 2024, many developments have contributed to capacity disparities, political tensions, and infringements on social and human rights. Unfortunately, to balance development and sustainability, ASEAN has focused on the ASCN as one of the primary means of achieving balanced development for the region’s larger cities. The novelty of this study thus offers the opportunity to reveal the profound problems associated with the ASCN, which distances itself from actual sustainability measures as its primary aim and further impacts participatory and socio-ecological sustainable urban planning and governance. In doing so, it follows the 2019 framework and highlights how the region’s socio-political developments have contributed to the disparities. 3. The ‘Helix Model’ of the ASCN: New Observations, Old Patterns 3.1 Recent Developments of the ASCN The original plan of the ASCN is threefold: First, it will facilitate cooperation on smart city development, catalyze bankable projects, and secure funding from ASEAN’s external partners. 65 Established during Singapore’s ASEAN chairmanship in 2018, ASEAN envisioned that, despite differences in political systems and economic landscapes among the member states, the vision to develop smart cities within Southeast Asia would be perceived as a priority for local governments. As of September 2024, the total number of ASCN’s smart city projects accumulates to 108. 6 Divided into the development areas of the ASCN, 27% of projects are civic and social, 18% on quality environment, 6% on health and well-being, 26% on built infrastructure, 12% on safety and security, and 11% on industry and innovation. 6 At the core of facilitating smart city development, the ASCN Smart Cities Framework continues to articulate the essential features that ASEAN cities aim to achieve. Cities incorporated into the ASCN have expanded. The pilot ASCN cities initially incorporated 26 cities from the ten ASEAN members. Since June 2024, the list has grown to include five new cities, including Chiang Mai (Thailand), Khon Kaen (Thailand), Rayong (Thailand), Sumedang (Indonesia), and Sihanoukville (Cambodia). 10 Already in this list of ASCN are notable Southeast Asian capital cities such as Jakarta, Bangkok, Manila, Kuala Lumpur, and Singapore. These cities have seen rapid urbanization, with common issues in their public services. 66 – 69 The challenges of urbanization, employment opportunities, environmental degradation, people’s welfare, and inadequate transportation facilities are common problems across the pilot ASCN cities. 9 , 12 , 16 , 70 In recent years, Southeast Asian cities have actively engaged in paradiplomacy to secure funding from ASEAN’s external partners. Since 2018, members of the East Asia Summit (EAS) have expressed their support for ASEAN’s intentions to construct smart urbanization in the region. 71 Interested actors include Australia, China, India, Japan, and the US, which have already used the EAS platform to exert their influence on the smaller states of Southeast Asia. 9 Australia pledged funding for digital solutions related to ASCN, with additional financing from the Asian Development Bank. 72 Through its Japan International Cooperation Agency, Japan’s know-how has made it a strong destination for cities seeking cooperation from business entities. 73 China’s Belt and Road Initiative and a large amount of financial capital have also attracted considerable attention from the ASCN members, who have previously received investments for their country’s strategic development plans. 37 , 74 , 75 Nevertheless, the expansion of ASCN membership and the involvement of business entities have not addressed the core sustainability concerns of smart cities. The following section will argue that the diverse economic, social, political, and environmental indicators across Southeast Asian states raise questions and concerns about sustainability within ASEAN’s conceptions of smart cities. 3.2 Revisiting the ‘Helix Model’ When the Charles David Crumpton-led ‘quintuple helix model’ article was published, the study made interesting observations. Smart city conceptualizations under the ASCN did not correspond directly to sustainability measures. Therefore, the ideal state is that “urban planning, management, and policy processes must be designed and operated with sustainability objectives in mind and supported by globally recognized dimensions of good governance, including responsiveness, accountability, transparency, and inclusiveness”. 20 In alignment with the article’s helix model, the study recommended the situating of smart city conceptualization under a ‘system of systems,’ recognizing “the complex socio-ecological interaction between society and nature and the multi-layered character of governance”. 20 The basis of the ASCN’s problem is diversity across systems. The smart city approach becomes complex when applied to governments with authoritarian or semi-authoritarian settings, which could lead to further control over populations. 76 For the more democratic nations of Southeast Asia, the problem then becomes to what extent state policymakers consider environmental costs as exceeding development targets. This section argues that old patterns are emerging, with a lack of relationship between citizens and the smart city developments taking place in Southeast Asia. In doing so, the following explains several indicators that show the diversity between states and cities in Southeast Asia, highlighting different starting points among the ASCN members, which risks exacerbating disparities in the delivery of basic urban services. Similar to Crumpton’s 2021 point, the updated empirical data presented in the two tables below from 2020 to 2024 show that concern over non-democratic practices can negatively affect urban planning and governance, underplay environmental concerns, and neglect improvements in the quality of life of the city’s population. Table 1 below shows how diverse Southeast Asian countries are, with a more significant disparity in recent years. Although the presented data pertain to state actors, there is a strong likelihood that the patterns of democracy, GDP growth, human development, press freedom, ease of doing business, and environmental performance at the state level are also of concern to local and regional governments. This suggests that half of Southeast Asian states are non-democratic, indicating that a hierarchical system will govern the concerns government officials focus on. The indicators consider several dimensions pivotal to the construction of smart cities. First is the 2024 GDP growth, published by the International Monetary Fund, which considers the total value of goods and services produced within the country. 77 Second is the 2022 UN Human Development Index (HDI), which considers education, health, and standard of living. 78 Third is the 2024 Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index (EIU), which considers civil liberties, the electoral process, political participation & culture, and the functioning of the government. 79 Fourth is the 2024 Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index (WPFI), which ranks states based on assessments by non-governmental organizations of journalists’ and media freedom. 80 Fifth is the 2024 Yale University’s Environmental Performance Index (EPI), which considers the state of sustainability (climate change performance, environmental health, ecosystem vitality). 81 Last, which differs from the datasets used in the 2021 study helix model assessment on ASCN, is the 2020 World Bank’s EoDB ranks, which rate the difficulty of starting a business, obtaining construction permits, accessing electricity, registering property, and obtaining credit. 82 What has changed in the past four years regarding the diversities of the political, social, environmental, and economic landscape of Southeast Asian states? As shown in Table 1 below, the differences are deepened. Discussing the quality of human development would place a country like Singapore in the 9 th rank globally, but at the same time, Cambodia (which includes Phnom Penh on the ASCN pilot city list) is ranked among the worst in the world at 148 th . Table 1. Diversities in the political, social, environmental, and economic landscape of Southeast Asian states. Country GDP Growth % HDI/1 HDI global rank EIU/10 EIU global rank WPFI/100 WPFI global rank EPI/100 EPI global rank EoDB global rank Brunei 2.4 0,823 55 NA NA 50.09 117 48.3 69 66 Cambodia 5.5 0,600 148 3.05 121 34.28 151 31.2 169 144 Indonesia 5 0,713 112 6.53 56 51.15 111 33.6 162 73 Lao PDR 4.1 0,620 139 1.71 159 33.76 153 26.3 177 154 Malaysia 4.8 0,807 63 7.29 40 52.07 107 41 118 12 Myanmar 1 0,608 144 0.85 166 24.41 171 27.1 176 165 Philippines 5.8 0,710 113 6.66 53 43.46 134 32.1 168 95 Singapore 2.6 0,949 9 6.18 69 47.19 126 53 47 2 Thailand 2.8 0,803 66 6.35 63 58.12 87 45.7 90 21 Vietnam 6.1 0,726 107 2.62 136 22.31 174 24.6 179 70 The EIU and WPFI figures show that it is equally difficult to establish a smart city in Southeast Asia. As seen in Table 1 , democracy and state protection of press freedom are not easy to implement in the democratic-deficient region of Southeast Asia. On those indicators, Myanmar and Vietnam rank among the worst globally. Observers have often highlighted the problems of human rights, democracy, and the media press as among the weaknesses of ASEAN’s institutions. 40 – 42 , 83 – 85 With the two low-ranked states in the EIU and WPFI indicators, the fear is that continued repression would take place as the ASCN’s members of Ho Chi Minh City (Vietnam), Hanoi (Vietnam), and Yangon (Myanmar) would be geared to establish the cities as becoming ‘smart’ without the foundational civic and people relations being fixed before that development. As a consequence, consistent with the 2021 finding, there is a greater likelihood that the ASCN will be used in less democratic settings to accelerate surveillance and state control. Meanwhile, the global rankings on EPI and EoDB reveal unique developments in Southeast Asian states’ environmental and business landscapes. Again, the disparities can be seen in countries like Singapore, ranked 47 th in the EPI, and Vietnam, ranked 179 th , showing that ASEAN member states have different environmental priorities. Furthermore, the EoDB figures shown in Table 1 indicate the role of political and government systems in the ease of doing business in ASEAN countries. Singapore is the second-best country in the world to do business, but its ASEAN counterpart, Cambodia, is ranked 144 th , among the lowest. How about the diversity of the cities of ASCN? Table 2 below provides an update of the recent ranks of cities based on the 2024 Globalization and World Cities figures, ranking cities based on the assessment of 175 leading firms producing transnational services. 86 The problem with recent findings is that half of the members of the ASCN are not even considered cities that strongly impact global services. However, several countries are ranked among the most significant cities in the world, including Singapore, Jakarta, and Kuala Lumpur. Several completed and ongoing ASCN projects have been implemented in those cities, with programs geared to solidifying the importance of those cities through technological advancement in the public services sector. Table 2. Rank of the importance of cities, based on the assessment of the Globalization and World Cities. GaWC 2024 categorization ASCN City Completed and Ongoing ASCN Smart City Projects (as of September 2024) Alpha+ Singapore E-Payments (completed), National Digital Identity (completed), Smart Nation 1.0 Initiatives (completed), Punggol Digital District (ongoing), Woodlands North Coast (ongoing) Alpha Jakarta, Indonesia JakPreneur (ongoing), JakLingko (ongoing), JAKI (ongoing), Jakarta Smart City Goes to School (ongoing) Alpha Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Kuala Lumpur Urban Observatory (ongoing), OSC 3.0 Plus Online (ongoing), GoKL Journey Planner (ongoing), Smart Bin (ongoing), Bicycle Friendly City (ongoing) Alpha Bangkok, Thailand Bang Sue Smart City (ongoing), Bang Sue Grand Station (ongoing) Beta+ Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam Intelligent Operation Centre (ongoing), Integrated and Unified Emergency Response Centre (ongoing) Beta Hanoi, Vietnam Intelligent Operation Centre (ongoing), Transport Operation and Surveillance Centre (ongoing) Beta Manila, Philippines Command Center Upgrade (ongoing), E-Government Services (ongoing) Gamma Phnom Penh, Cambodia Smart City Strategic Planning (completed), Phnom Penh Walk Way (ongoing), Phnom Penh Public Bus Service (ongoing), Phnom Penh Smart City Hub (ongoing), Build4People (ongoing) Sufficiency Cebu City, Philippines Cebu City Bus Rapid Transit (ongoing), Automated Citywide Traffic Control System (ongoing) Sufficiency Johor Bahru, Malaysia Iskandar Malaysia Integrated Urban Services Program (completed), Iskandar Malaysia Analytics Centre (ongoing), Management of Water Resources and Distribution (ongoing), Integrated Smart Mobility Programs (ongoing) Sufficiency Vientiane, Laos Smart Environment Development (ongoing), Vientiane Sustainable Urban Transport (ongoing) Sufficiency Yangon, Myanmar Conservation of Downtown Yangon (ongoing), Transit Oriented Development in Hlaing Thar Yar Township (ongoing), One Map Yangon (ongoing) However, what is puzzling is the rising significance of cities in less democratic settings such as Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, Phnom Penh, Vientiane, and Myanmar. In the past four years, these four cities have struggled to ensure greater civic rights are maintained. As the ASCN is focused on accelerating the efforts to make these cities ‘smart,’ there seems to be a profound neglect of the political issues in those cities due to this dominant discourse of ‘smart’ development. This raises a substantial concern, as these cities would focus solely on consistency with the ASCN smart city framework, thereby further neglecting fundamental urban services. In Vientiane and other large cities in Laos, the concern remains the restriction of civil and political rights, including cases of unfair criminal trials and judicial corruption. Meanwhile, in Jakarta, opponents of democratic rule have been met with harsh measures to suppress negative sentiment toward the president. These cases go to show that accelerating development that leans towards being ‘smart’ does not automatically translate into the provision of basic political and human rights services. It also shows a strong linkage between state-level political concerns and local-level appreciation towards human rights. The ASCN does not consider these capacity disparities. The focus has been on accelerating the ‘smart city’ development of the ASCN’s pilot city projects and on leveraging AI and technology to deliver better public services to the city’s population. However, the complexity is that cities in countries without democratic systems show less appreciation for the environment and lack proper prospects for human development. The updated data from the 2020 study show that the same conclusions have been reached. The disparities will only lead to greater differences among ASCN members, given the absence of sustainability measures in ASCN projects. Perhaps two case studies of concern are in Yangon and Phnom Penh. In Yangon, prosecutions continue amid the military junta’s crackdown on democratic voices. Meanwhile, despite the acceleration of development in Phnom Penh, this has been met with an increase in money laundering, concerns over foreign debt, and rising unemployment, indicating that smart cities’ focus on transportation services remains unbalanced with other essential services. Therefore, the ‘smart city’ of ASCN may not be the best development course for Southeast Asian states. Past studies have noted that the characteristics of smart cities are often referenced in contemporary urban planning. 87 – 89 The ‘smart city’ discourse severely underestimates the long process it takes for cities to develop and views cities as if they could be ‘updated’ just like programs and technologies. 90 , 91 The ASCN does not discriminate among the diversities of ASEAN member states and therefore does not differentiate based on the needs of more extensive, smaller, democratic, or authoritarian settings. The problem with diverse landscapes such as ASEAN is that everything ‘smart’ can easily deepen authoritarian tendencies and undermine sustainability objectives. 20 Another issue is the lack of acknowledgment that the starting points of these cities are different, with some already building the foundations of smart cities since the 1960s. 90 As a consequence, it is expected that, after observing recent data in the past four years, poor cities would most likely see a more substantial deterioration of sustainability norms, as anticipated in past studies. 92 – 94 The case of Hanoi, Vietnam, is interesting given the numerous criticisms citizens have expressed about the increase in surveillance cameras in the city. Although intended to protect and maintain order on public roads, there have been concerns that images are being misused to monitor private lives and steal private data. Combined, the presented case studies from different ASEAN cities align with Crumpton’s concerns about the lack of consideration for inter-contextual differences. By imposing the ASCN provisions and focusing on targeted smart city elements, this risks the region falling further from sustainability practices that ensure basic services are provided to people. 4. Conclusion The ‘quintuple helix model’ provided the basis for assessing the nexus between the ASCN and sustainability. Interactions among actors within the state are what establish and strengthen innovation systems, which are essential for generating balanced development approaches. The 2021 study concluded that the vast disparities among Southeast Asian states had severely impeded efforts in sustainable urban planning and governance, affecting the ASCN’s ability to balance development interests with sustainable measures. This study aims to build on past narratives by updating data on the political, social, environmental, and economic landscape of Southeast Asian states between 2020 and 2024, which has severely affected how the region’s ASCN participating cities can incorporate sustainable measures. In terms of the emphasis on economic disparity, additional data on the EoDB among ASEAN member states is also considered. As predicted, smart city approaches are challenging to adopt in regions with authoritarian or semi-authoritarian settings. Consistent with the conclusions of the previous study, this updated research finds a lack of good governance, accountability, inclusiveness, and transparency among many participating ASCN members. Consequently, no direct correlation is seen between achieving the smart city status and sustainability. As shown by the EIU and WPFI figures presented in this study, democracy and state protection of press freedom remain lacking in many Southeast Asian states. The concern, therefore, is that cities such as Ho Chi Minh City, Hanoi, and Yangon are geared toward achieving smart city status despite lacking the foundational civic and people-to-people relations, raising concerns about the trajectory of their development. The disparity among ASEAN member states is also evident in the global rankings of the EPI and EoDB, with some countries, such as Singapore, ranked among the highest globally. In contrast, others, such as Cambodia, ranked among the lowest in terms of environmental and business landscapes. Unfortunately, the issue found at the state level among ASEAN member states also applies to the participating ASCN cities. The case is clear: Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, Phnom Penh, Vientiane, and Myanmar, based on the Globalization and World Cities ranking, have struggled to show greater care for civic rights. Therefore, rather than focusing on addressing such profound neglect of political rights, the focus, as instructed in the ASCN, has been on adopting smart city measures. The fear is that cities will neglect fundamental urban services. The findings of this study extend the existing discourse on the lack of connection between smart city development programs and sustainability. The term “smart city” is commonly used in contemporary urban planning. However, this severely undermines the long process a city needs to develop. It is as if cities can simply be updated with state-of-the-art technologies. In the case of the ASCN participating cities, the concerns include disparities in capacity, a lack of fundamental civic and human rights, and different problems within the cities. These disparities lead to differences in participation, governance, and socio-ecological sustainable planning, which are not precisely captured by the ASCN’s smart city concept. In the case of ASCN cities in authoritarian and semi-authoritarian settings, there is a tendency for authoritarian systems to deepen amid calls from the central government for greater surveillance and movement control. Amid recent progress in Southeast Asia, a deterioration in sustainability norms is observed, and this trend is likely to continue if the primary narrative driving city-based development is smart city conceptions. Declaration of the use of AI No Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies were used in the writing of this manuscript. Data availability statement The data that support the findings of this study can be accessed below: 1. World Economic Outlook 2024 (IMF): https://www.imf.org/en/publications/weo/issues/2024/10/22/world-economic-outlook-october-2024 2. Human Development Index 2022 (UNDP): https://hdr.undp.org/data-center/human-development-index#/indicies/HDI 3. Democracy Index 2024 (Economist Intelligence): https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2024/ 4. World Press Freedom 2024 (Reporters Without Borders): https://rsf.org/en/2024-world-press-freedom-index-journalism-under-political-pressure 5. Environmental Performance Index 2024 (Yale University): https://epi.yale.edu/measure/2024/epi 6. Ease of Doing Business 2020 (World Bank): https://archive.doingbusiness.org/en/rankings 7. World Cities 2024 (Globalization and World Cities): https://gawc.lboro.ac.uk/gawc-worlds/the-world-according-to-gawc/world-cities-2024/ References 1. Colding J, Barthel S: An urban ecology critique on the “Smart City” model. J. Clean. Prod. 2017; 164 : 95–101. Elsevier. Publisher Full Text 2. Husár M, Ondrejička V, Variş SC: Smart Cities and the Idea of Smartness in Urban Development – A Critical Review. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017 [cited 2024 Dec 19]; 245 : 082008. IOP Publishing. Publisher Full Text 3. Bibri SE, Krogstie J: Smart sustainable cities of the future: An extensive interdisciplinary literature review. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2017; 31 : 183–212. Elsevier. Publisher Full Text 4. Yigitcanlar T, Kamruzzaman M: Does smart city policy lead to sustainability of cities? Land Use Pol. 2018; 73 : 49–58. Pergamon. Publisher Full Text 5. Krivý M: Towards a critique of cybernetic urbanism: The smart city and the society of control. Planning Theory. Vol. 17 . . London, England: SAGE Publications Sage UK; 2016 [cited 2024 Dec 19]; pp. 8–30. Publisher Full Text 6. ASCN: ASEAN Smart Cities Network MONITORING & EVALUATION REPORT 2024. Jakarta: 2024. 7. Ludher E: ASEAN Smart Cities Network. Singapore: Centre for Liveable Cities Singapore; 2018 [cited 2024 Dec 18]. Accessed 18 Dec 2024. Reference Source 8. Yatim S: ASEAN Smart Cities: What About the Governance Issues? - Access Partnership. Access Partnership. 2018 [cited 2024 Dec 19]. Accessed 19 Dec 2024. Reference Source 9. Martinus M: ASEAN Smart Cities Network: A Catalyst for Partnerships. Singapore: ISEAS; 2020. /articles-commentaries/iseas-perspective/2020-32-asean-smart-cities-network-a-catalyst-for-partnerships-by-melinda-martinus/. Accessed 18 Dec 2024. 10. ASEAN: ASEAN Smart Cities Network. Association of Southeast Asian Nations.2024 [cited 2024 Dec 18]. Accessed 18 Dec 2024. Reference Source 11. Utomo AB: ASEAN Smart City Network: Thinking Beyond Ceremonial Paradiplomacy. The Diplomat. 2019 [cited 2024 Dec 19]. Accessed 19 Dec 2024. Reference Source 12. de Jonge A : Governance and human rights implications of ASEAN’s Smart Cities Network: a knowledge commons analysis. Int. J. Law Context. 2023 [cited 2024 Dec 19]; 19 : 13–31. Cambridge University Press. Publisher Full Text 13. Ow Yong LM, Cameron A: Learning from elsewhere: Integrated care development in Singapore. Health Policy (New York). 2019; 123 : 393–402. Elsevier. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text 14. Tan SY, Taeihagh A, Sha K: How Transboundary Learning Occurs: Case Study of the ASEAN Smart Cities Network (ASCN). Sustainability. 2021 [cited 2024 Dec 22]; 13 : 6502. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute. Publisher Full Text 15. Stephenson ML, Dobson GJ: Deciphering the development of smart and sustainable tourism cities in Southeast Asia: A call for research. Austrian J. South-East Asian Stud. 2020; 13 : 143–153. SEAS - Society for South-East Asian Studies. Publisher Full Text 16. Costoya MM: South–South Cooperation and the Promise of Experimentalist Governance: The ASEAN Smart Cities Network. Politics Gov. 2022 [cited 2024 Dec 21]; 10 : 116–127. Cogitatio Press. Publisher Full Text 17. Etzkowitz H, Leydesdorff L: The Triple Helix: University-Industry-Government Relations: A Laboratory for Knowledge Based Economic Development. EASST Review. 1995 [cited 2024 Dec 19]; pp. 1–14. Accessed 19 Dec 2024. Reference Source 18. Etzkowitz H: The triple helix: University-industry-government innovation in action. The Triple Helix: University-Industry-Government Innovation in Action. New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group; 2008. Publisher Full Text 19. Leydesdorff L, Deakin M: The Triple-Helix Model of Smart Cities: A Neo-Evolutionary Perspective. J. Urban Technol. 2011 [cited 2024 Dec 19]; 18 : 53–63. Routledge. Publisher Full Text 20. Crumpton CD, Wongthanavasu S, Kamnuansilpa P, et al. : Assessing the ASEAN Smart Cities Network (ASCN) via the Quintuple Helix Innovation Framework, with Special Regard to Smart City Discourse, Civil Participation, and Environmental Performance. Int. J. Urban Sustain. Dev. 2021 [cited 2024 Dec 19]; 13 : 97–116. Taylor & Francis. Publisher Full Text 21. Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ: ‘Mode 3’ and ‘Quadruple Helix’: Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 2009; 46 : 201–234. Inderscience Publishers. Publisher Full Text 22. Carayannis EG, Campbell DFJ: Les systèmes d’innovation de la quadruple et de la quintuple hélice. Innovations. 2017 [cited 2024 Dec 19]; n° 54 : 173–195. De Boeck Supérieur. Publisher Full Text 23. Hollands RG: Will the real smart city please stand up? City. Routledge; 2008 [cited 2024 Dec 19]; 12 . : 303–320. Publisher Full Text 24. Darwis, Putra BA, Cangara AR: Navigating Through Domestic Impediments: Suharto and Indonesia’s Leadership in ASEAN. Int. J. Innov. Creativity Chang. 2020 [cited 2020 Jul 16]; 13 : 808–824. Accessed 16 Jul 2020. Reference Source 25. Emmerson DK: Security, Community, and Democracy in Southeast Asia: Analyzing ASEAN. Jpn. J. Polit. Sci. 2005 [cited 2022 Apr 16]; 6 : 165–185. Cambridge University Press. Publisher Full Text 26. Jetin B, Petit P: Development gaps in the ASEAN process of regionalisation: mid-term prospects for their reduction. Paper presented at the SASE conference: Global Reordering: Prospects for Equality, Democracy and. SASE conference: Global Reordering: Prospects for Equality, Democracy. Kyoto: Doshiha University; 2018 [cited 2024 Dec 4]. Accessed 4 Dec 2024. Reference Source 27. Putra BA: Digital Activism in Southeast Asia: The #MilkTeaAlliance and Prospects for Social Resistance. Front. Sociol. 2024; 9 : 1–5. Publisher Full Text 28. Strangjo S: Protests, Anger Spreading Rapidly in the Wake of Myanmar Coup. The Diplomat. 2021 [cited 2024 Aug 2]. Accessed 2 Aug 2024. Reference Source 29. Chappell B, Diaz J: Myanmar Coup: With Aung San Suu Kyi Detained, Military Takes Over Government: NPR. NPR; 2021 [cited 2024 Aug 2]. Accessed 2 Aug 2024. Reference Source 30. Duangdee V: Asia’s #MilkTeaAlliance has a new target brewing – the generals behind the Myanmar coup. South China Morning Post. 2021 [cited 2024 Aug 9]. Accessed 9 Aug 2024. Reference Source 31. Walker T: Is Laos facing a China debt trap?. DW; 2024 [cited 2024 Nov 27]. Accessed 27 Nov 2024. Reference Source 32. Macan-Markar M: Laos’ debt pressure raises specter of a China vassal state. Nikkei Asia; 2022 [cited 2024 Nov 27]. Accessed 27 Nov 2024. Reference Source 33. Yalirozy T: New Techo Airport to Attract “Economic Life”: Hun Manet. Cambodianess. 2024 [cited 2024 Aug 22]. Accessed 22 Aug 2024. Reference Source 34. Arendshorst J: The Dilemma of Non-Interference: Myanmar, Human Rights, and the ASEAN Charter. Nw. U. J. Int. Hum. Rts. 2009 [cited 2020 Jan 23]; 8 . Accessed 23 Jan 2020. Reference Source 35. Suzuki S: Why is ASEAN not intrusive? Non-interference meets state strength. J. Contemp. East Asia Stud. 2019 [cited 2025 Jan 11]; 8 : 157–176. Routledge. Publisher Full Text 36. Mahtani S, Huiying O: China’s promise of prosperity brought Laos debt — and distress. Wash. Post. 2024 [cited 2024 Dec 10]. Accessed 10 Dec 2024. Reference Source 37. Yu H: Understanding China’s Belt and Road Initiative. London: Springer; 2024. Publisher Full Text 38. WB: Belt and Road Initiative. Belt and Road Initiative.2018 [cited 2023 Jan 9]. Accessed 9 Jan 2023. Reference Source 39. Hu B: Belt and Road Initiative: Five Years on Implementation and Reflection. Glob. J. Emerg. Mark. Econ. 2019; 11 : 1–10. Publisher Full Text 40. Davies M: The ASEAN Synthesis: Human rights, Non-intervention, and the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration. Georget. J. Int. Aff. 2013; 14 : 51–58. Georgetown University Press. Publisher Full Text 41. Ryu Y, Ortuoste M: Democratization, regional integration, and human rights: the case of the ASEAN intergovernmental commission on human rights. Pac. Rev. 2014 [cited 2018 Aug 24]; 27 : 357–382. Publisher Full Text 42. Pisanò A: Human Rights and Sovereignty in the ASEAN Path Towards a Human Rights Declaration. Hum. Rights Rev. 2014 [cited 2020 Jun 20]; 15 : 391–411. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Publisher Full Text 43. Rüland J: Covid-19 and ASEAN: Strengthening State-centrism, Eroding Inclusiveness, Testing Cohesion. Int. Spect. Routledge. 2021 [cited 2025 Jan 26]; 56 : 72–92. Publisher Full Text 44. Derouez F, Ifa A: Assessing the Sustainability of Southeast Asia’s Energy Transition: A Comparative Analysis. Energies. 2025 [cited 2025 Mar 11]; 18 : 1–10. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute. Publisher Full Text 45. Ha Van T, Lichang L, Quoc DT, et al. : Sustainable development in Southeast Asia: The nexus of tourism, finance, and environment. Heliyon. 2024; 10 : e40829–e40815. Elsevier. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text | Free Full Text 46. Putra BA: The politics of countering climate change in Southeast Asia. Front. Environ. Sci. 2024 [cited 2025 Mar 13]; 12 : 1–4. Publisher Full Text 47. Lei L, Ozturk I, Murshed M, et al. : Environmental innovations, energy innovations, governance, and environmental sustainability: Evidence from South and Southeast Asian countries. Res. Policy. 2023; 82 : 103556. Pergamon. Publisher Full Text 48. Tran M, Beddewela E, Ntim CG: Governance and sustainability in Southeast Asia. Account. Res. J. 2021 [cited 2025 Mar 11]; 34 : 516–545. Emerald Group Holdings Ltd. Publisher Full Text 49. Dai T: Delving into the green growth dilemma and ESG investing in Southeast Asia. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 2025 [cited 2025 Mar 11]; 12 : 1–8. Palgrave. Publisher Full Text 50. Chirathivat S: ASEAN–China Free Trade Area: background, implications and future development. J. Asian Econ. 2002; 13 : 671–686. North-Holland. Publisher Full Text 51. Narjoko DA, Amri PD: The Developmental Gap between the ASEAN Member Countries: The Perspective of Indonesia. ASEAN Econ. Bull. 2007 [cited 2024 Dec 4]; 24 : 45–71. Accessed 4 Dec 2024. Publisher Full Text Reference Source 52. Kyophilavong P, Souksavath S, Chanthasene S: Economic and social development towards the ASEAN Economic.To LL, Othman Z, editors. Regional Community Building in East Asia. London: Routledge; 2016; pp. 80–98. 53. Cuyvers L: The ‘ASEAN Way’ and ASEAN’s development gap with Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar and Vietnam: a critical view. Asia Pac. Bus. Rev. 2019 [cited 2024 Dec 4]; 25 : 683–704. Routledge. Publisher Full Text 54. Arfanuzzaman M, Dahiya B: Sustainable urbanization in Southeast Asia and beyond: Challenges of population growth, land use change, and environmental health. Growth Chang. 2019; 50 : 725–744. Blackwell Publishing Inc. Publisher Full Text 55. Nor ANM, Aziz HA, Nawawi SA, et al. : Evolution of Green Space under Rapid Urban Expansion in Southeast Asian Cities. Sustainability. 2021 [cited 2025 Mar 11]; 13 : 1–10. Page 12024. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute. Publisher Full Text 56. Chen TL, Chiu HW, Lin YF: How do East and Southeast Asian Cities Differ from Western Cities? A Systematic Review of the Urban Form Characteristics. Sustainability. 2020 [cited 2025 Mar 11]; 12 : 2423. Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute. Publisher Full Text 57. Ooi GL: Cities and sustainability: Southeast Asian and European perspectives. Asia Eur. J. 2008; 6 : 193–204. Publisher Full Text 58. Ooi GL: Challenges of sustainability for Asian urbanisation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2009; 1 : 187–191. Elsevier. Publisher Full Text 59. Marks D, Pulliat G: Urban climate governance in Southeast Asian small and mid-sized cities: undermining resilience and distributing risks unevenly. J. Integr. Environ. Sci. 2022 [cited 2025 Mar 11]; 19 : 141–160. Taylor & Francis. Publisher Full Text 60. Hati SW, Kartikasari D: SMART CITY IN ASEAN: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW TOWARD THEORY, TRENDS, AND CHALLENGES. Revista de Gestão Social e Ambiental. 2025 [cited 2025 Mar 11]; 19 : 1–10. Publisher Full Text 61. Fathun LM: Prospects for Digitalization of ASEAN Smart Cities Network Securitization: Case Studies Indonesia. WIMAYA. 2023 [cited 2025 Mar 11]; 4 : 1–12. University of Pembangunan Nasional Veteran Jawa Timur. Publisher Full Text 62. Kong L, Woods O: Scaling smartness, (de) provincialising the city? The ASEAN Smart Cities Network and the translational politics of technocratic regionalism. Cities. 2021; 117 : 103326. Pergamon. Publisher Full Text 63. Praharaj S, Han JH, Hawken S: Urban innovation through policy integration: Critical perspectives from 100 smart cities mission in India. City Cult. Soc. 2018; 12 : 35–43. Elsevier. Publisher Full Text 64. Joss S, Sengers F, Schraven D, et al. : The Smart City as Global Discourse: Storylines and Critical Junctures across 27 Cities. J. Urban Technol. 2019 [cited 2025 Mar 11]; 26 : 3–34. Routledge. Publisher Full Text 65. ASCN: Concept Note of the ASEAN Smart Cities Network. Jakarta: 2018. Accessed 18 Dec 2024. Reference Source 66. ADB: Asia’s Public Services Failing Needy, New Approaches Required. Asian Development Bank; 2013 [cited 2024 Dec 22]. Accessed 22 Dec 2024. Reference Source 67. Carrasco B, Rahemtulla H: Southeast Asia Needs High-Performing Public Sector to Beat COVID-19. Asian Development Bank; 2020 [cited 2024 Dec 22]. Accessed 22 Dec 2024. Reference Source 68. Martinus M: How Do Southeast Asian Cities Cope with Crises? LSE Southeast Asia Blog. 2023 [cited 2024 Dec 22]. Accessed 22 Dec 2024. Reference Source 69. Sriyai SH: How Means for Digital Repression in Southeast Asia Have Unfolded in Recent Times. Singapore: 2024. 70. Thuzar M: ASEAN Smart Cities Network: Preparing For the Future. ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute; 2018 [cited 2024 Dec 18]. Accessed 18 Dec 2024. Reference Source 71. Grincheva N: The Soft Power of Smart Cities: The Giant Missing Bit. Australian Institute of International Affairs; 2019 [cited 2024 Dec 18]. Accessed 18 Dec 2024. Reference Source 72. ADB: ASEAN Australia Smart Cities Trust Fund. Asian Development Bank; 2024 [cited 2024 Dec 22]. Accessed 22 Dec 2024. Reference Source 73. Harris T: ‘Quality Infrastructure’: Japan’s Robust Challenge to China’s Belt and Road. War on the Rocks. 2019 [cited 2024 Dec 18]. Accessed 18 Dec 2024. Reference Source 74. CIMB: China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and Southeast Asia.2018. Accessed 24 Nov 2020. Reference Source 75. Zheng W: 2022/57 Assessing the Belt and Road Initiative in Southeast Asia amid the COVID-19 Pandemic (2021-2022). ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute; 2022 [cited 2024 Nov 4]. Accessed 4 Nov 2024. Reference Source 76. Cocq C: Development of Regional Legal Frameworks for Intelligence and Information Sharing in the eu and ASEAN. Tilb. Law Rev. 2015 [cited 2024 Dec 19]; 20 : 58–77. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Publisher Full Text 77. IMF: World Economic Outlook (October 2024) - Real GDP growth. International Monetary Fund; 2024 [cited 2024 Dec 19]. Accessed 19 Dec 2024. Reference Source 78. UNDP: Human Development Index. Human Development Reports. 2024. 79. EIU: Democracy Index 2023 download confirmation. Economist Intelligence Unit; 2024 [cited 2024 Dec 19]. Accessed 19 Dec 2024. Reference Source 80. RSF: World Press Freedom Index. Reporters Without Borders.2023 [cited 2024 Dec 19]. Accessed 19 Dec 2024. Reference Source 81. EPI: Environmental Performance Index. Environmental Performance Index.2024 [cited 2024 Dec 19]. Accessed 19 Dec 2024. Reference Source 82. WB: Ease of Doing Business rankings. World Bank; 2024 [cited 2024 Oct 15]. Accessed 15 Oct 2024. Reference Source 83. Wahyuningrum Y: The ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights: Origins, Evolution and the Way Forward.2014 [cited 2020 Jan 23]. Accessed 23 Jan 2020. Reference Source 84. Bangun BH: ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights and Effectiveness of Fulfilling Human Rights Obligations of ASEAN Members States. Jambe Law Journal. 2018 [cited 2020 Jan 21]; 1 : 231–249. Publisher Full Text 85. Bui H: The ASEAN Human Rights System: A Critical Analysis. Asian J. Comp. L. 2016 [cited 2020 Jan 22]; 11 : 111–140. Cambridge University Press. Publisher Full Text 86. GaWC: World Cities 2024. Globalization and World Cities; 2024 [cited 2024 Dec 19]. Accessed 19 Dec 2024. Reference Source 87. Menkhoff T, Kan SN, Evers H-D, et al. : Living in Smart Cities. Living in Smart Cities. Singapore: WORLD SCIENTIFIC; 2018. Publisher Full Text 88. Angelidou M: The Role of Smart City Characteristics in the Plans of Fifteen Cities. J. Urban Technol. 2017 [cited 2024 Dec 19]; 24 : 3–28. Routledge. Publisher Full Text 89. Grossi G, Pianezzi D: Smart cities: Utopia or neoliberal ideology? Cities. 2017; 69 : 79–85. Pergamon. Publisher Full Text 90. Valdez AM, Cook M, Potter S: Roadmaps to utopia: Tales of the smart city. Urban Stud. London, England: SAGE PublicationsSage UK; 2018 [cited 2024 Dec 19]; 55 . : 3385–3403. Publisher Full Text 91. Schuler D: Smart Cities + Smart Citizens = Civic Intelligence?Concilio G, Rizzo F, editors. Human Smart Cities. New York: Springer; 2016; pp. 41–60. Publisher Full Text 92. Anthopoulos L: Smart utopia VS smart reality: Learning by experience from 10 smart city cases. Cities. 2017; 63 : 128–148. Pergamon. Publisher Full Text 93. Sharma P, Rajput S: Sustainable Smart Cities in India: Challenges and Future Perspectives. Cham: Springer Link; 2017. 94. Caragliu A, Del Bo CF: Smart innovative cities: The impact of Smart City policies on urban innovation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change. 2019; 142 : 373–383. Elsevier Inc. Publisher Full Text Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 31 Dec 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment Author details Author details 1 International Relations, Hasanuddin University Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Makassar, South Sulawesi, Indonesia 2 University of Bristol School of Sociology Politics and International Studies, Bristol, England, UK Bama Andika Putra Roles: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft Preparation, Writing – Review & Editing Competing interests No competing interests were disclosed. Grant information The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work. Article Versions (2) version 2 Revised Published: 24 Apr 2026, 14:1484 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.174616.2 version 1 Published: 31 Dec 2025, 14:1484 https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.174616.1 Copyright © 2026 Putra BA. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Download Export To Sciwheel Bibtex EndNote ProCite Ref. Manager (RIS) Sente metrics Views Downloads F1000Research - - PubMed Central info_outline Data from PMC are received and updated monthly. - - Citations open_in_new 0 open_in_new 0 open_in_new SEE MORE DETAILS CITE how to cite this article Putra BA. Are Smart Cities ‘Sustainable?’ Revisiting the ‘Helix Model’ of the ASEAN Smart Cities Network [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1484 ( https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.174616.2 ) NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS track receive updates on this article Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article. TRACK THIS ARTICLE Share Open Peer Review Current Reviewer Status: ? Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 24 Apr 2026 Revised Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Rogers CDF and Cavada M. Reviewer Report For: Are Smart Cities ‘Sustainable?’ Revisiting the ‘Helix Model’ of the ASEAN Smart Cities Network [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1484 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197926.r479775 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1484/v2#referee-response-479775 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 12 May 2026 Christopher D F Rogers , University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK Marianna Cavada , Architecture, Manchester School of Architecture, Manchester, England, UK Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197926.r479775 We find several major problems with this paper. The authors state: “smart cities consist of a high quality of life, a competitive economy, and a sustainable environment”. Why are cities that exhibit these qualities smart, and not ... Continue reading READ ALL We find several major problems with this paper. The authors state: “smart cities consist of a high quality of life, a competitive economy, and a sustainable environment”. Why are cities that exhibit these qualities smart, and not simply advancing in terms of their sustainability? What is the definition of ‘smartness’ beyond ‘sustainability’? This high-level perspective is important before we get to the specifics and metrics. The ASEAN Smart Cities Network (ASCN) is introduced, but the authors have failed to articulate thoroughly what its purpose is (beyond sharing thinking), or what metrics define its success. A more thorough exploration of a common basis for assessment and evaluation of smart initiatives would improve understanding. The same applies to the helix model and its relationship to ASEAN goals. Diagrams may help here in synthesizing the ideas and goals. We don’t disagree with any of the quotations from the work on the Helix Model, but it is the attempt to apply it to the ASEAN context that is problematic. Indeed, the authors state: “The basis of the ASCN’s problem is diversity across systems. The smart city approach becomes complex when applied to governments with authoritarian or semi-authoritarian settings, which could lead to further control over populations”. Sustainability is determined locally – local conditions set local priorities – and yet here the authors present an amalgam of ten highly variable sets of local conditions and attempts to draw learning from across them. This is in itself highly problematic. Put another way, context is all important and is needed – for example, geographical context to understand the complexities and influences of location in relation to any one smart initiative. This information exists in fragments, but it's scattered and not systematic enough for a wider audience to understand. This extends to their governance systems - an essential aspect of the context. More generally, the methodology is not sufficiently clear to provide a robust comparison between smartness and sustainability. Overall, the paper needs a rigorous structure; as it is the paper approaches its task in too general a manner (perhaps because of the very severe challenges it faces) and does not explicitly explain how smartness contributes to the journey towards sustainability (and sustainability is a journey, not an absolute state) metrics for smartness, and why smartness is of value when the goal is sustainability (as discerned from the arguments advocated in the paper), should be crystal clear. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Sustainability, Liveability and Resilience of Cities We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to state that we do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Rogers CDF and Cavada M. Reviewer Report For: Are Smart Cities ‘Sustainable?’ Revisiting the ‘Helix Model’ of the ASEAN Smart Cities Network [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1484 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197926.r479775 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1484/v2#referee-response-479775 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Version 1 VERSION 1 PUBLISHED 31 Dec 2025 Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Kassens-Noor E and Karam H. Reviewer Report For: Are Smart Cities ‘Sustainable?’ Revisiting the ‘Helix Model’ of the ASEAN Smart Cities Network [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1484 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.192534.r458129 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1484/v1#referee-response-458129 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 12 Mar 2026 Eva Kassens-Noor , Technical University of Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany Hiba Karam , TU Darmstadt (Ringgold ID: 26536), Darmstadt, Hesse, Germany Not Approved VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.192534.r458129 The paper argues that smart city development under the ASEAN Smart Cities Network does not necessarily produce sustainability. Instead, regional inequalities and differences in political and governance systems often limit its ability to deliver inclusive and sustainable urban outcomes. ... Continue reading READ ALL The paper argues that smart city development under the ASEAN Smart Cities Network does not necessarily produce sustainability. Instead, regional inequalities and differences in political and governance systems often limit its ability to deliver inclusive and sustainable urban outcomes. Is the work clearly and accurately presented, and does it cite the current literature? partly Overall, the paper cites current literature, including several recent sources published after 2020, with some references from 2023–2025. This indicates that the manuscript is adequately engaged with recent scholarship. However, these points should be addressed by the author: Abstract: The abstract is too vague. The abstract identifies a clear research problem; it situates the study in a specific regional context (ASEAN) and signals a theoretical contribution by updating Crumpton’s 2021 quintuple helix model. However, the abstract did not state the main result explicitly. Moreover, “Utilizing qualitative and quantitative methods” is generic; the abstract should briefly indicate what kinds of data or analysis were used. Introduction: The framing would benefit from clearer structure and stronger connections between points. The manuscript currently assumes too much prior knowledge from the reader, particularly regarding the ASEAN Smart Cities Network (ASCN), Crumpton’s 2021 study, and the helix model. More clarity is needed on what ASCN is, what the earlier helix model argued, and why this framework is important for the present study. These concepts should be briefly introduced and linked more clearly to the paper’s overall argument. Literature Review: This literature review is more clearly structured than the earlier framing section, and the subsection organization helps guide the reader through the discussion. However, the overall argument still requires stronger logical connection between points. The section moves across ASEAN norms, sustainability debates, urbanization, ASCN, smart city critiques, and the helix-model framework without always making clear how these elements build on one another. In addition, the manuscript continues to assume prior familiarity with key concepts and prior studies. More clarity is needed on what the ASEAN Smart Cities Network (ASCN) is, how it functions, what the earlier helix-model approach argued, and why that framework is important for the present study. Similarly, Crumpton’s 2021 study should be introduced more fully so that readers can understand its main findings and how the current paper extends it. Overall, the section is relevant and well referenced, but it would benefit from clearer definitions, stronger transitions, and a more precise articulation of the study’s novelty. The ‘Helix Model’ of the ASCN: New Observations, Old Patterns: First, the section still relies too heavily on prior knowledge. Even though subsection 3.2 is called “Revisiting the ‘Helix Model’,” the explanation remains too brief. The reader still needs a clearer account of what the earlier model actually examined, what its dimensions were, what it found, and why it is being reused here. Second, the manuscript repeatedly returns to the same general point: Southeast Asia is diverse, authoritarian settings are problematic, and ASCN may not align with sustainability. Third, phrases such as “what is puzzling,” “profound neglect,” and “may not be the best development course” sound more general and argumentative than rigorously evidenced. Fourth, the interpretation of Table 1 is not yet fully convincing. While the table does demonstrate substantial disparities across ASEAN member states in terms of human development, democracy, press freedom, environmental performance, and ease of doing business, the discussion tends to move too quickly from descriptive rankings to broader causal conclusions. For example, low scores in the Democracy Index and World Press Freedom Index are used to suggest that ASCN-related smart city development may accelerate surveillance and state control, but this relationship is asserted rather than empirically demonstrated in the analysis presented here. Similarly, differences in EPI and Ease of Doing Business rankings show variation across national contexts, but the link between these indicators and the sustainability or governance outcomes of specific smart city projects requires clearer justification. Overall, the section would benefit from a more cautious interpretation of the table, a clearer explanation of why these particular indicators was selected, and a stronger analytical bridge between national-level disparities and claims about city-level smart development. The conclusion addresses an important issue and clearly restates the paper’s critical position. However, it is somewhat repetitive and at times more assertive than the analysis supports. In particular, claims about authoritarian deepening, surveillance, neglect of civic rights, and declining sustainability norms should be framed more cautiously unless supported by stronger evidence. The conclusion would be stronger with a more precise synthesis of the main findings, a clearer statement of the paper’s contribution, and a better distinction between findings, interpretation, and broader concerns. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: Transport and traffic engineering We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to state that we do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Kassens-Noor E and Karam H. Reviewer Report For: Are Smart Cities ‘Sustainable?’ Revisiting the ‘Helix Model’ of the ASEAN Smart Cities Network [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1484 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.192534.r458129 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1484/v1#referee-response-458129 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 24 Apr 2026 bama andika putra , International Relations, Hasanuddin University Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Makassar, Indonesia 24 Apr 2026 Author Response Comment 1: Abstract: The abstract is too vague. The abstract identifies a clear research problem; it situates the study in a specific regional context (ASEAN) and signals a theoretical contribution by ... Continue reading Comment 1: Abstract: The abstract is too vague. The abstract identifies a clear research problem; it situates the study in a specific regional context (ASEAN) and signals a theoretical contribution by updating Crumpton’s 2021 quintuple helix model. However, the abstract did not state the main result explicitly. Moreover, “Utilizing qualitative and quantitative methods” is generic; the abstract should briefly indicate what kinds of data or analysis were used. Response : I have revised the abstract section to explain that the article is a qualitative document analysis, which utilizes secondary data published on the ten ASEAN member states (between 2020 and 2024). This should serve as an update of Crumpton’s 2021 study, which mainly asserts that there are significant diversities found among ASEAN member states, and this contributes towards the diverse social, political, economics and environmental dimensions of the city’s developments (later on argued as affecting the local actor’s capacity in introducing sustainable measures, as smart city conception’s have limited capacity to enforce these measures). The revised abstract (page 1): Recent urban planning in Southeast Asia has incorporated the theme of transforming cities to ‘smart city’ status. However, the central question raised in this study is whether the ASEAN’s conception of smart cities is genuinely sustainable. Based on the backdrop of Southeast Asia’s disparity in economic performances and diversity in its political, social, economic, and environmental dimensions, this study updates Crumpton’s 2021 study on the ‘quintuple helix model’ and argues that new observations but old patterns are found in the ASEAN Smart Cities Network’s way of developing cities in Southeast Asia. Through a qualitative document analysis, utilizing published secondary data on the ten ASEAN member states between 2020 and 2024, this study revisits and updates the current state of Southeast Asia and how this corresponds to the challenges of constructing smart cities in democratic, semi-authoritarian, and authoritarian settings. Comment 2: Introduction: The framing would benefit from clearer structure and stronger connections between points. The manuscript currently assumes too much prior knowledge from the reader, particularly regarding the ASEAN Smart Cities Network (ASCN), Crumpton’s 2021 study, and the helix model. More clarity is needed on what ASCN is, what the earlier helix model argued, and why this framework is important for the present study. These concepts should be briefly introduced and linked more clearly to the paper’s overall argument. Response 1: The revisions to the introduction section can be traced to the first two pages, where the focus is on clarifying what ASCN and Crumpton’s 2021 study consisted of. On the first point on ASCN, the second, third, and fourth paragraphs of page 2 provide several basic pieces of information for readers as to what ASCN is, and the expectations once a city becomes a pilot project city. It traces the history (since 2018), the cities incorporated into the current status quo, and the ASCN's expectations for catalyzing bankable projects to solve urban problems through technology. The third paragraph, on the other hand, looks at the strategic outcomes of the ASCN, which focus on a high quality of life, a competitive economy, and a sustainable environment. The following are the complete paragraphs explaining this point: Among the regions that have actively adopted this smart city concept is Southeast Asia. Under the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), particularly during Singapore’s ASEAN chairmanship in 2018, member states agreed with a list of 26 pilot projects under the ASEAN Smart Cities Network (ASCN). 6 The growth of cities in ASEAN is unique, as they will “continue to be driven by urban centers, with more people expected to urbanize by 2030 and ‘middleweight’ cities of between 200,000 and 2 million residents forecast to drive 40% of the region’s growth”. 7 The role of ASCN is thus to act as a normative guideline for ASEAN member states on smart city development, sharing best practices, and linking partnerships to accelerate growth. 6, 8 The expectation is that the ASCN will act as a facilitator, linking city government officials and business entities to “catalyze bankable projects to solve urban problems by utilizing technology and innovation opportunities provided by the private sector”. 9 ; For ASEAN, the strategic outcomes of smart cities consist of a high quality of life, a competitive economy, and a sustainable environment. 6 To achieve them, several development focus areas have been determined: civic and social, health and well-being, safety and security, quality environment, built infrastructure, and industry and innovations. The determined development areas are enabled through ASEAN’s encouragement of digital infrastructure and applications, and partnership and funding schemes under the ASCN. 10 Response 2: I have revised the introduction towards Crumpton’s 2021 study by elaborating what were the main findings of this study. First, it looks at how the diversities found in the ASEAN member states increasingly impede the ASEAN member state’s capacity to balance between technological developments, and the provision of basic urban needs/facilities. In the last paragraph of page 2, the additional narratives highlights how inter-contextual differences leads states to struggle to provide the balanced sustainability measures in dimensions of governance, environment, and human rights. Therefore, the key take away of this is that this study enhances the previous finding to show that the disparities among ASEAN member states have continued to take place between 2020 and 2024, and looking at specific case studies of cities in the ASCN, would show how the disparity of the state’s capacities leads to heightened concerns and doubts that local governments prioritize sustainable measures. The revised paragraph (last paragraph page 2): “In the ASCN’s development focus area of civic and social, for example, some countries, such as Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Brunei Darussalam, still lack the basic features of democracy. 24– 26 Thus, the intention of its cities to transform into smart cities is seen as a potential policy to further impinge upon participatory and socio-ecological sustainable urban planning and governance. 20 Therefore, as seen in the case of the ASCN in recent years, Crumpton highlights the emergence of the state under-prioritizing the environment and the lack of initiatives in improving basic services. This lack of adequate consideration of the inter-contextual differences among ASEAN member states means that members would struggle to achieve this smart city status, due to the underlying issue of unmet urban service requirements.” Comment 3: Literature Review: This literature review is more clearly structured than the earlier framing section, and the subsection organization helps guide the reader through the discussion. However, the overall argument still requires stronger logical connection between points. The section moves across ASEAN norms, sustainability debates, urbanization, ASCN, smart city critiques, and the helix-model framework without always making clear how these elements build on one another. In addition, the manuscript continues to assume prior familiarity with key concepts and prior studies. More clarity is needed on what the ASEAN Smart Cities Network (ASCN) is, how it functions, what the earlier helix-model approach argued, and why that framework is important for the present study. Similarly, Crumpton’s 2021 study should be introduced more fully so that readers can understand its main findings and how the current paper extends it. Overall, the section is relevant and well referenced, but it would benefit from clearer definitions, stronger transitions, and a more precise articulation of the study’s novelty. Response: I make the revisions in the first paragraph of section 2, and the last paragraph of the same section. In the first paragraph (page 3), the focus of the revisions is to highlight why these three introduced themes in the literature review is important for this study, and in what way does the article contribute towards these vast discussions on matters of smart cities and sustainability in the context of Southeast Asia. Meanwhile, the last paragraph of section 2 (page 6) emphasizes the novelty offered, which includes the covering of more empirical case studies that occurred between 2020 and 2024, to showcase whether Crumpton’s assumpions in 2021 is still valid in Southeast Asia. 1. Revision 1 (paragraph 1 of page 3): Against the backdrop of unique norms and differences among states, adopting sustainability measures in Southeast Asia poses challenges. The existing literature highlights these challenges well, focusing on the trajectory of sustainability among ASEAN member states over the past years. Nevertheless, not enough attention has been paid to ASEAN’s development pathway, especially given its recent emphasis on advancing it through the construction of smart cities across the region. This section provides a brief literature review of how Southeast Asia engages with sustainability demands. First, it examines the challenges of adopting sustainability across different regional sectors and the tendency in the literature to call for modified governance and policies to address these concerns. Second, this section examines how the ASCN has been one of ASEAN’s solutions to address urbanization issues in Southeast Asia’s larger cities, focusing on smart city initiatives as the basis for these solutions. Lastly, it will revisit recent studies on smart cities and sustainability in Southeast Asia and the novelty this study offers. These three discourses allow for a more nuanced understanding of the dominant discussions on smart cities and sustainability in Southeast Asia, and of the importance of revisiting more recent empirical case studies to strengthen or challenge past interpretations. 2. Revision 2 (last paragraph of section 2, page 6): This study builds on the previous concerns on the nexus between smart cities and sustainability in Southeast Asia. Between 2020 and 2024, many developments have occurred that have contributed to capacity disparities, political tensions, and the infringement on social and human rights. Unfortunately, to balance development and sustainability, ASEAN has focused on the ASCN as one of the primary means of achieving balanced development for the region’s larger cities. The novelty of this study thus offers the opportunity to reveal the profound problems associated with the ASCN, which distances itself from actual sustainability measures as its primary aim and further impacts participatory and socio-ecological sustainable urban planning and governance. In doing so, it follows the 2019 framework and highlights how the region’s socio-political developments have contributed to the disparities. Comment 4: The ‘Helix Model’ of the ASCN: New Observations, Old Patterns: First, the section still relies too heavily on prior knowledge. Even though subsection 3.2 is called “Revisiting the ‘Helix Model’,” the explanation remains too brief. The reader still needs a clearer account of what the earlier model actually examined, what its dimensions were, what it found, and why it is being reused here. Second, the manuscript repeatedly returns to the same general point: Southeast Asia is diverse, authoritarian settings are problematic, and ASCN may not align with sustainability. Third, phrases such as “what is puzzling,” “profound neglect,” and “may not be the best development course” sound more general and argumentative than rigorously evidenced. Response: Revisions can be seen in paragraphs 2 and 3 in the section ‘3.2. Revisiting the ‘Helix Model’’. In the first paragraph, I clarify that one of the elements of Crumpton’s 2021 study is that the Helix Model adopted results based on the assumption of diversity across political, social, and economic dimensions among ASEAN member states. As a consequence, there are different capacities to comply with the ASCN provisions, and a deep concern that, because half of ASEAN members are non-democratic nations, the idea of establishing smart cities would exacerbate human rights conditions in those cities. The argument, therefore, is that the tables presented show this concern over human rights and politics, and argue why there is a lack of care towards sustainability measures in those particular cities. The revised paragraph: “The basis of the ASCN's problem is diversity across systems. The smart city approach becomes complex when applied to governments with authoritarian or semi-authoritarian settings, which could lead to further control over populations. 76 For the more democratic nations of Southeast Asia, the problem then becomes to what extent state policymakers consider environmental costs as exceeding development targets. This section argues that old patterns are emerging, with a lack of relationship between citizens and the smart city developments taking place in Southeast Asia. In doing so, the following will explain several indicators that show the diversity between states and cities in Southeast Asia, indicating different starting points among the ASCN members, which risks exacerbating disparities in the delivery of basic urban services. Similar to Crumpton’s 2021 point, the updated empirical data presented between 2020 and 2024 in the two tables below show that concern over non-democratic practices has the potential to negatively affect urban planning and governance, underplay environmental concerns, and neglect improvements in the quality of life of the city’s population. ” Comment 5: the interpretation of Table 1 is not yet fully convincing. While the table does demonstrate substantial disparities across ASEAN member states in terms of human development, democracy, press freedom, environmental performance, and ease of doing business, the discussion tends to move too quickly from descriptive rankings to broader causal conclusions. For example, low scores in the Democracy Index and World Press Freedom Index are used to suggest that ASCN-related smart city development may accelerate surveillance and state control, but this relationship is asserted rather than empirically demonstrated in the analysis presented here. Similarly, differences in EPI and Ease of Doing Business rankings show variation across national contexts, but the link between these indicators and the sustainability or governance outcomes of specific smart city projects requires clearer justification. Overall, the section would benefit from a more cautious interpretation of the table, a clearer explanation of why these particular indicators was selected, and a stronger analytical bridge between national-level disparities and claims about city-level smart development. 1. Response 1: I make the connection between variation across national contexts, with the issue of sustainability in the smart city projects. In doing this, explanations in pages 10 and 11 emphasizes how in several case studies, the focus on smart city status (mainly transportation and technological developments within the cities) have neglected the basic services and human rights issues that the cities and state actors are suppose to focus on in the first place. The revised paragraphs, and the insertion of case studies in section 3: (paragraph 1 page 10): However, what is puzzling is the rising significance of cities in less democratic settings such as Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, Phnom Penh, Vientiane, and Myanmar. In the past four years, these four cities have struggled to ensure greater civic rights are maintained. As the ASCN is focused on accelerating the efforts to make these cities ‘smart,’ there seems to be a profound neglect of the political issues in those cities due to this dominant discourse of ‘smart’ development. This raises a substantial concern, as these cities would focus solely on consistency with the ASCN smart city framework, thereby further neglecting fundamental urban services. In Vientiane and large cities in Laos, the concern still lies on the issue of restricted civil and political rights, which includes cases of unfair criminal trials, and judicial corruption in the cities (HRW, 2017; OHCHR, 2024). Meanwhile, in Jakarta, opponents of democratic rule have been met with harsh measures to suppress negative sentiment toward the president (Raditio and Yeremia, 2022; BBC, 2026). These cases go to show that accelerating development that leans to being ‘smart’ does not automatically translate into the provision of basic political and human rights services being delivered. It also shows a strong linkage between state-level political concerns and local-level appreciation towards human rights. (paragraph 1, page 11): The ASCN does not consider these capacity disparities. The focus has been on accelerating the ‘smart city’ development of the ASCN’s pilot city projects and on leveraging AI and technology to deliver better public services to the city’s population. However, the complexity is that cities in countries without democratic systems show less appreciation for the environment and lack proper prospects for human development. The updated data from the 2020 study show that the same conclusions have been reached. The disparities will only lead to greater differences among ASCN members, given the absence of sustainability measures in ASCN projects. Perhaps two case studies of concern is in Yangon and Phnom Penh. In Yangon, prosecutions continue amid the military junta’s crackdown on democratic voices (Oponio Juris, 2022; Reuters, 2022). Meanwhile, despite the acceleration of development in Phnom Penh, this has been met with an increase in money laundering, concerns over foreign debt, and rising unemployment, indicating that smart cities’ focus on transportation services remains unbalanced with other essential services. (paragraph 3, page 11): The problem with diverse landscapes such as ASEAN is that ‘smart’ solutions can easily deepen authoritarian tendencies and undermine sustainability objectives. 20 Another issue is the lack of acknowledgment that the starting points of these cities are different, with some already building the foundations of smart cities since the 1960s. 90 As a consequence, it is expected that, after observing recent data in the past four years, poor cities would most likely see a more substantial deterioration of sustainability norms, as anticipated in past studies. 92– 94 The case of Hanoi, Vietnam, is interesting, given the numerous criticisms citizens have expressed about the increased number of surveillance cameras in the city. Although intended to protect and maintain order on public roads, there have been concerns that images are being misused to monitor private lives and steal private data (Dan, 2026). (paragraph 4, page 11): Combined together, the presented case studies from different ASEAN cities shows an alignment with Crumpton’s concerns over the lack of consideration towards inter-contextual differences. By imposing the ASCN provisions and focusing on targeted smart city elements, this risks the region falling further from sustainability practices that ensure basic services are provided to people. 2. Response 2: On the point of national-level disparities and claims about city-level smart development, I have argued in paragraph 3 of section 3.2, that because of there is a strong linkage with the social issues faced in the national level, to the social realities in local and regional levels (especially in non-democratic states). The revised paragraph: “Table 1 below shows how diverse Southeast Asian countries are, showing more significant disparity in the past years. Although the presented data pertain to state actors, there is a strong likelihood that the patterns of democracy, GDP growth, human development, press freedom, ease of doing business, and environmental performance at the state level are also of concern to local and regional governments. This considers that half of Southeast Asian states are non-democratic, suggesting that a hierarchical system will apply to the concerns that government officials focus on. The indicators consider several dimensions pivotal to the construction of smart cities. First is the 2024 GDP growth, published by the International Monetary Fund, and considers the total value of goods and services produced within the country. 77 Second is the 2022 UN Human Development Index (HDI), which considers education, health, and standard of living. 78 Third is the 2024 Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index (EIU), which considers civil liberties, the electoral process, political participation & culture, and the functioning of the government. 79 Fourth is the 2024 Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index (WPFI), which ranks states based on assessments by non-governmental organizations of journalists' and media freedom. 80 Fifth is the 2024 Yale University’s Environmental Performance Index (EPI), which considers the state of sustainability (climate change performance, environmental health, ecosystem vitality). 81 Last, which differs from the datasets used in the 2021 study helix model assessment on ASCN, is the 2020 World Bank’s EoDB ranks, which rate the difficulty of starting a business, obtaining construction permits, accessing electricity, registering property, and obtaining credit. 82 ” Comment 1: Abstract: The abstract is too vague. The abstract identifies a clear research problem; it situates the study in a specific regional context (ASEAN) and signals a theoretical contribution by updating Crumpton’s 2021 quintuple helix model. However, the abstract did not state the main result explicitly. Moreover, “Utilizing qualitative and quantitative methods” is generic; the abstract should briefly indicate what kinds of data or analysis were used. Response : I have revised the abstract section to explain that the article is a qualitative document analysis, which utilizes secondary data published on the ten ASEAN member states (between 2020 and 2024). This should serve as an update of Crumpton’s 2021 study, which mainly asserts that there are significant diversities found among ASEAN member states, and this contributes towards the diverse social, political, economics and environmental dimensions of the city’s developments (later on argued as affecting the local actor’s capacity in introducing sustainable measures, as smart city conception’s have limited capacity to enforce these measures). The revised abstract (page 1): Recent urban planning in Southeast Asia has incorporated the theme of transforming cities to ‘smart city’ status. However, the central question raised in this study is whether the ASEAN’s conception of smart cities is genuinely sustainable. Based on the backdrop of Southeast Asia’s disparity in economic performances and diversity in its political, social, economic, and environmental dimensions, this study updates Crumpton’s 2021 study on the ‘quintuple helix model’ and argues that new observations but old patterns are found in the ASEAN Smart Cities Network’s way of developing cities in Southeast Asia. Through a qualitative document analysis, utilizing published secondary data on the ten ASEAN member states between 2020 and 2024, this study revisits and updates the current state of Southeast Asia and how this corresponds to the challenges of constructing smart cities in democratic, semi-authoritarian, and authoritarian settings. Comment 2: Introduction: The framing would benefit from clearer structure and stronger connections between points. The manuscript currently assumes too much prior knowledge from the reader, particularly regarding the ASEAN Smart Cities Network (ASCN), Crumpton’s 2021 study, and the helix model. More clarity is needed on what ASCN is, what the earlier helix model argued, and why this framework is important for the present study. These concepts should be briefly introduced and linked more clearly to the paper’s overall argument. Response 1: The revisions to the introduction section can be traced to the first two pages, where the focus is on clarifying what ASCN and Crumpton’s 2021 study consisted of. On the first point on ASCN, the second, third, and fourth paragraphs of page 2 provide several basic pieces of information for readers as to what ASCN is, and the expectations once a city becomes a pilot project city. It traces the history (since 2018), the cities incorporated into the current status quo, and the ASCN's expectations for catalyzing bankable projects to solve urban problems through technology. The third paragraph, on the other hand, looks at the strategic outcomes of the ASCN, which focus on a high quality of life, a competitive economy, and a sustainable environment. The following are the complete paragraphs explaining this point: Among the regions that have actively adopted this smart city concept is Southeast Asia. Under the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), particularly during Singapore’s ASEAN chairmanship in 2018, member states agreed with a list of 26 pilot projects under the ASEAN Smart Cities Network (ASCN). 6 The growth of cities in ASEAN is unique, as they will “continue to be driven by urban centers, with more people expected to urbanize by 2030 and ‘middleweight’ cities of between 200,000 and 2 million residents forecast to drive 40% of the region’s growth”. 7 The role of ASCN is thus to act as a normative guideline for ASEAN member states on smart city development, sharing best practices, and linking partnerships to accelerate growth. 6, 8 The expectation is that the ASCN will act as a facilitator, linking city government officials and business entities to “catalyze bankable projects to solve urban problems by utilizing technology and innovation opportunities provided by the private sector”. 9 ; For ASEAN, the strategic outcomes of smart cities consist of a high quality of life, a competitive economy, and a sustainable environment. 6 To achieve them, several development focus areas have been determined: civic and social, health and well-being, safety and security, quality environment, built infrastructure, and industry and innovations. The determined development areas are enabled through ASEAN’s encouragement of digital infrastructure and applications, and partnership and funding schemes under the ASCN. 10 Response 2: I have revised the introduction towards Crumpton’s 2021 study by elaborating what were the main findings of this study. First, it looks at how the diversities found in the ASEAN member states increasingly impede the ASEAN member state’s capacity to balance between technological developments, and the provision of basic urban needs/facilities. In the last paragraph of page 2, the additional narratives highlights how inter-contextual differences leads states to struggle to provide the balanced sustainability measures in dimensions of governance, environment, and human rights. Therefore, the key take away of this is that this study enhances the previous finding to show that the disparities among ASEAN member states have continued to take place between 2020 and 2024, and looking at specific case studies of cities in the ASCN, would show how the disparity of the state’s capacities leads to heightened concerns and doubts that local governments prioritize sustainable measures. The revised paragraph (last paragraph page 2): “In the ASCN’s development focus area of civic and social, for example, some countries, such as Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Brunei Darussalam, still lack the basic features of democracy. 24– 26 Thus, the intention of its cities to transform into smart cities is seen as a potential policy to further impinge upon participatory and socio-ecological sustainable urban planning and governance. 20 Therefore, as seen in the case of the ASCN in recent years, Crumpton highlights the emergence of the state under-prioritizing the environment and the lack of initiatives in improving basic services. This lack of adequate consideration of the inter-contextual differences among ASEAN member states means that members would struggle to achieve this smart city status, due to the underlying issue of unmet urban service requirements.” Comment 3: Literature Review: This literature review is more clearly structured than the earlier framing section, and the subsection organization helps guide the reader through the discussion. However, the overall argument still requires stronger logical connection between points. The section moves across ASEAN norms, sustainability debates, urbanization, ASCN, smart city critiques, and the helix-model framework without always making clear how these elements build on one another. In addition, the manuscript continues to assume prior familiarity with key concepts and prior studies. More clarity is needed on what the ASEAN Smart Cities Network (ASCN) is, how it functions, what the earlier helix-model approach argued, and why that framework is important for the present study. Similarly, Crumpton’s 2021 study should be introduced more fully so that readers can understand its main findings and how the current paper extends it. Overall, the section is relevant and well referenced, but it would benefit from clearer definitions, stronger transitions, and a more precise articulation of the study’s novelty. Response: I make the revisions in the first paragraph of section 2, and the last paragraph of the same section. In the first paragraph (page 3), the focus of the revisions is to highlight why these three introduced themes in the literature review is important for this study, and in what way does the article contribute towards these vast discussions on matters of smart cities and sustainability in the context of Southeast Asia. Meanwhile, the last paragraph of section 2 (page 6) emphasizes the novelty offered, which includes the covering of more empirical case studies that occurred between 2020 and 2024, to showcase whether Crumpton’s assumpions in 2021 is still valid in Southeast Asia. 1. Revision 1 (paragraph 1 of page 3): Against the backdrop of unique norms and differences among states, adopting sustainability measures in Southeast Asia poses challenges. The existing literature highlights these challenges well, focusing on the trajectory of sustainability among ASEAN member states over the past years. Nevertheless, not enough attention has been paid to ASEAN’s development pathway, especially given its recent emphasis on advancing it through the construction of smart cities across the region. This section provides a brief literature review of how Southeast Asia engages with sustainability demands. First, it examines the challenges of adopting sustainability across different regional sectors and the tendency in the literature to call for modified governance and policies to address these concerns. Second, this section examines how the ASCN has been one of ASEAN’s solutions to address urbanization issues in Southeast Asia’s larger cities, focusing on smart city initiatives as the basis for these solutions. Lastly, it will revisit recent studies on smart cities and sustainability in Southeast Asia and the novelty this study offers. These three discourses allow for a more nuanced understanding of the dominant discussions on smart cities and sustainability in Southeast Asia, and of the importance of revisiting more recent empirical case studies to strengthen or challenge past interpretations. 2. Revision 2 (last paragraph of section 2, page 6): This study builds on the previous concerns on the nexus between smart cities and sustainability in Southeast Asia. Between 2020 and 2024, many developments have occurred that have contributed to capacity disparities, political tensions, and the infringement on social and human rights. Unfortunately, to balance development and sustainability, ASEAN has focused on the ASCN as one of the primary means of achieving balanced development for the region’s larger cities. The novelty of this study thus offers the opportunity to reveal the profound problems associated with the ASCN, which distances itself from actual sustainability measures as its primary aim and further impacts participatory and socio-ecological sustainable urban planning and governance. In doing so, it follows the 2019 framework and highlights how the region’s socio-political developments have contributed to the disparities. Comment 4: The ‘Helix Model’ of the ASCN: New Observations, Old Patterns: First, the section still relies too heavily on prior knowledge. Even though subsection 3.2 is called “Revisiting the ‘Helix Model’,” the explanation remains too brief. The reader still needs a clearer account of what the earlier model actually examined, what its dimensions were, what it found, and why it is being reused here. Second, the manuscript repeatedly returns to the same general point: Southeast Asia is diverse, authoritarian settings are problematic, and ASCN may not align with sustainability. Third, phrases such as “what is puzzling,” “profound neglect,” and “may not be the best development course” sound more general and argumentative than rigorously evidenced. Response: Revisions can be seen in paragraphs 2 and 3 in the section ‘3.2. Revisiting the ‘Helix Model’’. In the first paragraph, I clarify that one of the elements of Crumpton’s 2021 study is that the Helix Model adopted results based on the assumption of diversity across political, social, and economic dimensions among ASEAN member states. As a consequence, there are different capacities to comply with the ASCN provisions, and a deep concern that, because half of ASEAN members are non-democratic nations, the idea of establishing smart cities would exacerbate human rights conditions in those cities. The argument, therefore, is that the tables presented show this concern over human rights and politics, and argue why there is a lack of care towards sustainability measures in those particular cities. The revised paragraph: “The basis of the ASCN's problem is diversity across systems. The smart city approach becomes complex when applied to governments with authoritarian or semi-authoritarian settings, which could lead to further control over populations. 76 For the more democratic nations of Southeast Asia, the problem then becomes to what extent state policymakers consider environmental costs as exceeding development targets. This section argues that old patterns are emerging, with a lack of relationship between citizens and the smart city developments taking place in Southeast Asia. In doing so, the following will explain several indicators that show the diversity between states and cities in Southeast Asia, indicating different starting points among the ASCN members, which risks exacerbating disparities in the delivery of basic urban services. Similar to Crumpton’s 2021 point, the updated empirical data presented between 2020 and 2024 in the two tables below show that concern over non-democratic practices has the potential to negatively affect urban planning and governance, underplay environmental concerns, and neglect improvements in the quality of life of the city’s population. ” Comment 5: the interpretation of Table 1 is not yet fully convincing. While the table does demonstrate substantial disparities across ASEAN member states in terms of human development, democracy, press freedom, environmental performance, and ease of doing business, the discussion tends to move too quickly from descriptive rankings to broader causal conclusions. For example, low scores in the Democracy Index and World Press Freedom Index are used to suggest that ASCN-related smart city development may accelerate surveillance and state control, but this relationship is asserted rather than empirically demonstrated in the analysis presented here. Similarly, differences in EPI and Ease of Doing Business rankings show variation across national contexts, but the link between these indicators and the sustainability or governance outcomes of specific smart city projects requires clearer justification. Overall, the section would benefit from a more cautious interpretation of the table, a clearer explanation of why these particular indicators was selected, and a stronger analytical bridge between national-level disparities and claims about city-level smart development. 1. Response 1: I make the connection between variation across national contexts, with the issue of sustainability in the smart city projects. In doing this, explanations in pages 10 and 11 emphasizes how in several case studies, the focus on smart city status (mainly transportation and technological developments within the cities) have neglected the basic services and human rights issues that the cities and state actors are suppose to focus on in the first place. The revised paragraphs, and the insertion of case studies in section 3: (paragraph 1 page 10): However, what is puzzling is the rising significance of cities in less democratic settings such as Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, Phnom Penh, Vientiane, and Myanmar. In the past four years, these four cities have struggled to ensure greater civic rights are maintained. As the ASCN is focused on accelerating the efforts to make these cities ‘smart,’ there seems to be a profound neglect of the political issues in those cities due to this dominant discourse of ‘smart’ development. This raises a substantial concern, as these cities would focus solely on consistency with the ASCN smart city framework, thereby further neglecting fundamental urban services. In Vientiane and large cities in Laos, the concern still lies on the issue of restricted civil and political rights, which includes cases of unfair criminal trials, and judicial corruption in the cities (HRW, 2017; OHCHR, 2024). Meanwhile, in Jakarta, opponents of democratic rule have been met with harsh measures to suppress negative sentiment toward the president (Raditio and Yeremia, 2022; BBC, 2026). These cases go to show that accelerating development that leans to being ‘smart’ does not automatically translate into the provision of basic political and human rights services being delivered. It also shows a strong linkage between state-level political concerns and local-level appreciation towards human rights. (paragraph 1, page 11): The ASCN does not consider these capacity disparities. The focus has been on accelerating the ‘smart city’ development of the ASCN’s pilot city projects and on leveraging AI and technology to deliver better public services to the city’s population. However, the complexity is that cities in countries without democratic systems show less appreciation for the environment and lack proper prospects for human development. The updated data from the 2020 study show that the same conclusions have been reached. The disparities will only lead to greater differences among ASCN members, given the absence of sustainability measures in ASCN projects. Perhaps two case studies of concern is in Yangon and Phnom Penh. In Yangon, prosecutions continue amid the military junta’s crackdown on democratic voices (Oponio Juris, 2022; Reuters, 2022). Meanwhile, despite the acceleration of development in Phnom Penh, this has been met with an increase in money laundering, concerns over foreign debt, and rising unemployment, indicating that smart cities’ focus on transportation services remains unbalanced with other essential services. (paragraph 3, page 11): The problem with diverse landscapes such as ASEAN is that ‘smart’ solutions can easily deepen authoritarian tendencies and undermine sustainability objectives. 20 Another issue is the lack of acknowledgment that the starting points of these cities are different, with some already building the foundations of smart cities since the 1960s. 90 As a consequence, it is expected that, after observing recent data in the past four years, poor cities would most likely see a more substantial deterioration of sustainability norms, as anticipated in past studies. 92– 94 The case of Hanoi, Vietnam, is interesting, given the numerous criticisms citizens have expressed about the increased number of surveillance cameras in the city. Although intended to protect and maintain order on public roads, there have been concerns that images are being misused to monitor private lives and steal private data (Dan, 2026). (paragraph 4, page 11): Combined together, the presented case studies from different ASEAN cities shows an alignment with Crumpton’s concerns over the lack of consideration towards inter-contextual differences. By imposing the ASCN provisions and focusing on targeted smart city elements, this risks the region falling further from sustainability practices that ensure basic services are provided to people. 2. Response 2: On the point of national-level disparities and claims about city-level smart development, I have argued in paragraph 3 of section 3.2, that because of there is a strong linkage with the social issues faced in the national level, to the social realities in local and regional levels (especially in non-democratic states). The revised paragraph: “Table 1 below shows how diverse Southeast Asian countries are, showing more significant disparity in the past years. Although the presented data pertain to state actors, there is a strong likelihood that the patterns of democracy, GDP growth, human development, press freedom, ease of doing business, and environmental performance at the state level are also of concern to local and regional governments. This considers that half of Southeast Asian states are non-democratic, suggesting that a hierarchical system will apply to the concerns that government officials focus on. The indicators consider several dimensions pivotal to the construction of smart cities. First is the 2024 GDP growth, published by the International Monetary Fund, and considers the total value of goods and services produced within the country. 77 Second is the 2022 UN Human Development Index (HDI), which considers education, health, and standard of living. 78 Third is the 2024 Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index (EIU), which considers civil liberties, the electoral process, political participation & culture, and the functioning of the government. 79 Fourth is the 2024 Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index (WPFI), which ranks states based on assessments by non-governmental organizations of journalists' and media freedom. 80 Fifth is the 2024 Yale University’s Environmental Performance Index (EPI), which considers the state of sustainability (climate change performance, environmental health, ecosystem vitality). 81 Last, which differs from the datasets used in the 2021 study helix model assessment on ASCN, is the 2020 World Bank’s EoDB ranks, which rate the difficulty of starting a business, obtaining construction permits, accessing electricity, registering property, and obtaining credit. 82 ” Competing Interests: No competing interests. Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 24 Apr 2026 bama andika putra , International Relations, Hasanuddin University Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Makassar, Indonesia 24 Apr 2026 Author Response Comment 1: Abstract: The abstract is too vague. The abstract identifies a clear research problem; it situates the study in a specific regional context (ASEAN) and signals a theoretical contribution by ... Continue reading Comment 1: Abstract: The abstract is too vague. The abstract identifies a clear research problem; it situates the study in a specific regional context (ASEAN) and signals a theoretical contribution by updating Crumpton’s 2021 quintuple helix model. However, the abstract did not state the main result explicitly. Moreover, “Utilizing qualitative and quantitative methods” is generic; the abstract should briefly indicate what kinds of data or analysis were used. Response : I have revised the abstract section to explain that the article is a qualitative document analysis, which utilizes secondary data published on the ten ASEAN member states (between 2020 and 2024). This should serve as an update of Crumpton’s 2021 study, which mainly asserts that there are significant diversities found among ASEAN member states, and this contributes towards the diverse social, political, economics and environmental dimensions of the city’s developments (later on argued as affecting the local actor’s capacity in introducing sustainable measures, as smart city conception’s have limited capacity to enforce these measures). The revised abstract (page 1): Recent urban planning in Southeast Asia has incorporated the theme of transforming cities to ‘smart city’ status. However, the central question raised in this study is whether the ASEAN’s conception of smart cities is genuinely sustainable. Based on the backdrop of Southeast Asia’s disparity in economic performances and diversity in its political, social, economic, and environmental dimensions, this study updates Crumpton’s 2021 study on the ‘quintuple helix model’ and argues that new observations but old patterns are found in the ASEAN Smart Cities Network’s way of developing cities in Southeast Asia. Through a qualitative document analysis, utilizing published secondary data on the ten ASEAN member states between 2020 and 2024, this study revisits and updates the current state of Southeast Asia and how this corresponds to the challenges of constructing smart cities in democratic, semi-authoritarian, and authoritarian settings. Comment 2: Introduction: The framing would benefit from clearer structure and stronger connections between points. The manuscript currently assumes too much prior knowledge from the reader, particularly regarding the ASEAN Smart Cities Network (ASCN), Crumpton’s 2021 study, and the helix model. More clarity is needed on what ASCN is, what the earlier helix model argued, and why this framework is important for the present study. These concepts should be briefly introduced and linked more clearly to the paper’s overall argument. Response 1: The revisions to the introduction section can be traced to the first two pages, where the focus is on clarifying what ASCN and Crumpton’s 2021 study consisted of. On the first point on ASCN, the second, third, and fourth paragraphs of page 2 provide several basic pieces of information for readers as to what ASCN is, and the expectations once a city becomes a pilot project city. It traces the history (since 2018), the cities incorporated into the current status quo, and the ASCN's expectations for catalyzing bankable projects to solve urban problems through technology. The third paragraph, on the other hand, looks at the strategic outcomes of the ASCN, which focus on a high quality of life, a competitive economy, and a sustainable environment. The following are the complete paragraphs explaining this point: Among the regions that have actively adopted this smart city concept is Southeast Asia. Under the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), particularly during Singapore’s ASEAN chairmanship in 2018, member states agreed with a list of 26 pilot projects under the ASEAN Smart Cities Network (ASCN). 6 The growth of cities in ASEAN is unique, as they will “continue to be driven by urban centers, with more people expected to urbanize by 2030 and ‘middleweight’ cities of between 200,000 and 2 million residents forecast to drive 40% of the region’s growth”. 7 The role of ASCN is thus to act as a normative guideline for ASEAN member states on smart city development, sharing best practices, and linking partnerships to accelerate growth. 6, 8 The expectation is that the ASCN will act as a facilitator, linking city government officials and business entities to “catalyze bankable projects to solve urban problems by utilizing technology and innovation opportunities provided by the private sector”. 9 ; For ASEAN, the strategic outcomes of smart cities consist of a high quality of life, a competitive economy, and a sustainable environment. 6 To achieve them, several development focus areas have been determined: civic and social, health and well-being, safety and security, quality environment, built infrastructure, and industry and innovations. The determined development areas are enabled through ASEAN’s encouragement of digital infrastructure and applications, and partnership and funding schemes under the ASCN. 10 Response 2: I have revised the introduction towards Crumpton’s 2021 study by elaborating what were the main findings of this study. First, it looks at how the diversities found in the ASEAN member states increasingly impede the ASEAN member state’s capacity to balance between technological developments, and the provision of basic urban needs/facilities. In the last paragraph of page 2, the additional narratives highlights how inter-contextual differences leads states to struggle to provide the balanced sustainability measures in dimensions of governance, environment, and human rights. Therefore, the key take away of this is that this study enhances the previous finding to show that the disparities among ASEAN member states have continued to take place between 2020 and 2024, and looking at specific case studies of cities in the ASCN, would show how the disparity of the state’s capacities leads to heightened concerns and doubts that local governments prioritize sustainable measures. The revised paragraph (last paragraph page 2): “In the ASCN’s development focus area of civic and social, for example, some countries, such as Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Brunei Darussalam, still lack the basic features of democracy. 24– 26 Thus, the intention of its cities to transform into smart cities is seen as a potential policy to further impinge upon participatory and socio-ecological sustainable urban planning and governance. 20 Therefore, as seen in the case of the ASCN in recent years, Crumpton highlights the emergence of the state under-prioritizing the environment and the lack of initiatives in improving basic services. This lack of adequate consideration of the inter-contextual differences among ASEAN member states means that members would struggle to achieve this smart city status, due to the underlying issue of unmet urban service requirements.” Comment 3: Literature Review: This literature review is more clearly structured than the earlier framing section, and the subsection organization helps guide the reader through the discussion. However, the overall argument still requires stronger logical connection between points. The section moves across ASEAN norms, sustainability debates, urbanization, ASCN, smart city critiques, and the helix-model framework without always making clear how these elements build on one another. In addition, the manuscript continues to assume prior familiarity with key concepts and prior studies. More clarity is needed on what the ASEAN Smart Cities Network (ASCN) is, how it functions, what the earlier helix-model approach argued, and why that framework is important for the present study. Similarly, Crumpton’s 2021 study should be introduced more fully so that readers can understand its main findings and how the current paper extends it. Overall, the section is relevant and well referenced, but it would benefit from clearer definitions, stronger transitions, and a more precise articulation of the study’s novelty. Response: I make the revisions in the first paragraph of section 2, and the last paragraph of the same section. In the first paragraph (page 3), the focus of the revisions is to highlight why these three introduced themes in the literature review is important for this study, and in what way does the article contribute towards these vast discussions on matters of smart cities and sustainability in the context of Southeast Asia. Meanwhile, the last paragraph of section 2 (page 6) emphasizes the novelty offered, which includes the covering of more empirical case studies that occurred between 2020 and 2024, to showcase whether Crumpton’s assumpions in 2021 is still valid in Southeast Asia. 1. Revision 1 (paragraph 1 of page 3): Against the backdrop of unique norms and differences among states, adopting sustainability measures in Southeast Asia poses challenges. The existing literature highlights these challenges well, focusing on the trajectory of sustainability among ASEAN member states over the past years. Nevertheless, not enough attention has been paid to ASEAN’s development pathway, especially given its recent emphasis on advancing it through the construction of smart cities across the region. This section provides a brief literature review of how Southeast Asia engages with sustainability demands. First, it examines the challenges of adopting sustainability across different regional sectors and the tendency in the literature to call for modified governance and policies to address these concerns. Second, this section examines how the ASCN has been one of ASEAN’s solutions to address urbanization issues in Southeast Asia’s larger cities, focusing on smart city initiatives as the basis for these solutions. Lastly, it will revisit recent studies on smart cities and sustainability in Southeast Asia and the novelty this study offers. These three discourses allow for a more nuanced understanding of the dominant discussions on smart cities and sustainability in Southeast Asia, and of the importance of revisiting more recent empirical case studies to strengthen or challenge past interpretations. 2. Revision 2 (last paragraph of section 2, page 6): This study builds on the previous concerns on the nexus between smart cities and sustainability in Southeast Asia. Between 2020 and 2024, many developments have occurred that have contributed to capacity disparities, political tensions, and the infringement on social and human rights. Unfortunately, to balance development and sustainability, ASEAN has focused on the ASCN as one of the primary means of achieving balanced development for the region’s larger cities. The novelty of this study thus offers the opportunity to reveal the profound problems associated with the ASCN, which distances itself from actual sustainability measures as its primary aim and further impacts participatory and socio-ecological sustainable urban planning and governance. In doing so, it follows the 2019 framework and highlights how the region’s socio-political developments have contributed to the disparities. Comment 4: The ‘Helix Model’ of the ASCN: New Observations, Old Patterns: First, the section still relies too heavily on prior knowledge. Even though subsection 3.2 is called “Revisiting the ‘Helix Model’,” the explanation remains too brief. The reader still needs a clearer account of what the earlier model actually examined, what its dimensions were, what it found, and why it is being reused here. Second, the manuscript repeatedly returns to the same general point: Southeast Asia is diverse, authoritarian settings are problematic, and ASCN may not align with sustainability. Third, phrases such as “what is puzzling,” “profound neglect,” and “may not be the best development course” sound more general and argumentative than rigorously evidenced. Response: Revisions can be seen in paragraphs 2 and 3 in the section ‘3.2. Revisiting the ‘Helix Model’’. In the first paragraph, I clarify that one of the elements of Crumpton’s 2021 study is that the Helix Model adopted results based on the assumption of diversity across political, social, and economic dimensions among ASEAN member states. As a consequence, there are different capacities to comply with the ASCN provisions, and a deep concern that, because half of ASEAN members are non-democratic nations, the idea of establishing smart cities would exacerbate human rights conditions in those cities. The argument, therefore, is that the tables presented show this concern over human rights and politics, and argue why there is a lack of care towards sustainability measures in those particular cities. The revised paragraph: “The basis of the ASCN's problem is diversity across systems. The smart city approach becomes complex when applied to governments with authoritarian or semi-authoritarian settings, which could lead to further control over populations. 76 For the more democratic nations of Southeast Asia, the problem then becomes to what extent state policymakers consider environmental costs as exceeding development targets. This section argues that old patterns are emerging, with a lack of relationship between citizens and the smart city developments taking place in Southeast Asia. In doing so, the following will explain several indicators that show the diversity between states and cities in Southeast Asia, indicating different starting points among the ASCN members, which risks exacerbating disparities in the delivery of basic urban services. Similar to Crumpton’s 2021 point, the updated empirical data presented between 2020 and 2024 in the two tables below show that concern over non-democratic practices has the potential to negatively affect urban planning and governance, underplay environmental concerns, and neglect improvements in the quality of life of the city’s population. ” Comment 5: the interpretation of Table 1 is not yet fully convincing. While the table does demonstrate substantial disparities across ASEAN member states in terms of human development, democracy, press freedom, environmental performance, and ease of doing business, the discussion tends to move too quickly from descriptive rankings to broader causal conclusions. For example, low scores in the Democracy Index and World Press Freedom Index are used to suggest that ASCN-related smart city development may accelerate surveillance and state control, but this relationship is asserted rather than empirically demonstrated in the analysis presented here. Similarly, differences in EPI and Ease of Doing Business rankings show variation across national contexts, but the link between these indicators and the sustainability or governance outcomes of specific smart city projects requires clearer justification. Overall, the section would benefit from a more cautious interpretation of the table, a clearer explanation of why these particular indicators was selected, and a stronger analytical bridge between national-level disparities and claims about city-level smart development. 1. Response 1: I make the connection between variation across national contexts, with the issue of sustainability in the smart city projects. In doing this, explanations in pages 10 and 11 emphasizes how in several case studies, the focus on smart city status (mainly transportation and technological developments within the cities) have neglected the basic services and human rights issues that the cities and state actors are suppose to focus on in the first place. The revised paragraphs, and the insertion of case studies in section 3: (paragraph 1 page 10): However, what is puzzling is the rising significance of cities in less democratic settings such as Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, Phnom Penh, Vientiane, and Myanmar. In the past four years, these four cities have struggled to ensure greater civic rights are maintained. As the ASCN is focused on accelerating the efforts to make these cities ‘smart,’ there seems to be a profound neglect of the political issues in those cities due to this dominant discourse of ‘smart’ development. This raises a substantial concern, as these cities would focus solely on consistency with the ASCN smart city framework, thereby further neglecting fundamental urban services. In Vientiane and large cities in Laos, the concern still lies on the issue of restricted civil and political rights, which includes cases of unfair criminal trials, and judicial corruption in the cities (HRW, 2017; OHCHR, 2024). Meanwhile, in Jakarta, opponents of democratic rule have been met with harsh measures to suppress negative sentiment toward the president (Raditio and Yeremia, 2022; BBC, 2026). These cases go to show that accelerating development that leans to being ‘smart’ does not automatically translate into the provision of basic political and human rights services being delivered. It also shows a strong linkage between state-level political concerns and local-level appreciation towards human rights. (paragraph 1, page 11): The ASCN does not consider these capacity disparities. The focus has been on accelerating the ‘smart city’ development of the ASCN’s pilot city projects and on leveraging AI and technology to deliver better public services to the city’s population. However, the complexity is that cities in countries without democratic systems show less appreciation for the environment and lack proper prospects for human development. The updated data from the 2020 study show that the same conclusions have been reached. The disparities will only lead to greater differences among ASCN members, given the absence of sustainability measures in ASCN projects. Perhaps two case studies of concern is in Yangon and Phnom Penh. In Yangon, prosecutions continue amid the military junta’s crackdown on democratic voices (Oponio Juris, 2022; Reuters, 2022). Meanwhile, despite the acceleration of development in Phnom Penh, this has been met with an increase in money laundering, concerns over foreign debt, and rising unemployment, indicating that smart cities’ focus on transportation services remains unbalanced with other essential services. (paragraph 3, page 11): The problem with diverse landscapes such as ASEAN is that ‘smart’ solutions can easily deepen authoritarian tendencies and undermine sustainability objectives. 20 Another issue is the lack of acknowledgment that the starting points of these cities are different, with some already building the foundations of smart cities since the 1960s. 90 As a consequence, it is expected that, after observing recent data in the past four years, poor cities would most likely see a more substantial deterioration of sustainability norms, as anticipated in past studies. 92– 94 The case of Hanoi, Vietnam, is interesting, given the numerous criticisms citizens have expressed about the increased number of surveillance cameras in the city. Although intended to protect and maintain order on public roads, there have been concerns that images are being misused to monitor private lives and steal private data (Dan, 2026). (paragraph 4, page 11): Combined together, the presented case studies from different ASEAN cities shows an alignment with Crumpton’s concerns over the lack of consideration towards inter-contextual differences. By imposing the ASCN provisions and focusing on targeted smart city elements, this risks the region falling further from sustainability practices that ensure basic services are provided to people. 2. Response 2: On the point of national-level disparities and claims about city-level smart development, I have argued in paragraph 3 of section 3.2, that because of there is a strong linkage with the social issues faced in the national level, to the social realities in local and regional levels (especially in non-democratic states). The revised paragraph: “Table 1 below shows how diverse Southeast Asian countries are, showing more significant disparity in the past years. Although the presented data pertain to state actors, there is a strong likelihood that the patterns of democracy, GDP growth, human development, press freedom, ease of doing business, and environmental performance at the state level are also of concern to local and regional governments. This considers that half of Southeast Asian states are non-democratic, suggesting that a hierarchical system will apply to the concerns that government officials focus on. The indicators consider several dimensions pivotal to the construction of smart cities. First is the 2024 GDP growth, published by the International Monetary Fund, and considers the total value of goods and services produced within the country. 77 Second is the 2022 UN Human Development Index (HDI), which considers education, health, and standard of living. 78 Third is the 2024 Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index (EIU), which considers civil liberties, the electoral process, political participation & culture, and the functioning of the government. 79 Fourth is the 2024 Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index (WPFI), which ranks states based on assessments by non-governmental organizations of journalists' and media freedom. 80 Fifth is the 2024 Yale University’s Environmental Performance Index (EPI), which considers the state of sustainability (climate change performance, environmental health, ecosystem vitality). 81 Last, which differs from the datasets used in the 2021 study helix model assessment on ASCN, is the 2020 World Bank’s EoDB ranks, which rate the difficulty of starting a business, obtaining construction permits, accessing electricity, registering property, and obtaining credit. 82 ” Comment 1: Abstract: The abstract is too vague. The abstract identifies a clear research problem; it situates the study in a specific regional context (ASEAN) and signals a theoretical contribution by updating Crumpton’s 2021 quintuple helix model. However, the abstract did not state the main result explicitly. Moreover, “Utilizing qualitative and quantitative methods” is generic; the abstract should briefly indicate what kinds of data or analysis were used. Response : I have revised the abstract section to explain that the article is a qualitative document analysis, which utilizes secondary data published on the ten ASEAN member states (between 2020 and 2024). This should serve as an update of Crumpton’s 2021 study, which mainly asserts that there are significant diversities found among ASEAN member states, and this contributes towards the diverse social, political, economics and environmental dimensions of the city’s developments (later on argued as affecting the local actor’s capacity in introducing sustainable measures, as smart city conception’s have limited capacity to enforce these measures). The revised abstract (page 1): Recent urban planning in Southeast Asia has incorporated the theme of transforming cities to ‘smart city’ status. However, the central question raised in this study is whether the ASEAN’s conception of smart cities is genuinely sustainable. Based on the backdrop of Southeast Asia’s disparity in economic performances and diversity in its political, social, economic, and environmental dimensions, this study updates Crumpton’s 2021 study on the ‘quintuple helix model’ and argues that new observations but old patterns are found in the ASEAN Smart Cities Network’s way of developing cities in Southeast Asia. Through a qualitative document analysis, utilizing published secondary data on the ten ASEAN member states between 2020 and 2024, this study revisits and updates the current state of Southeast Asia and how this corresponds to the challenges of constructing smart cities in democratic, semi-authoritarian, and authoritarian settings. Comment 2: Introduction: The framing would benefit from clearer structure and stronger connections between points. The manuscript currently assumes too much prior knowledge from the reader, particularly regarding the ASEAN Smart Cities Network (ASCN), Crumpton’s 2021 study, and the helix model. More clarity is needed on what ASCN is, what the earlier helix model argued, and why this framework is important for the present study. These concepts should be briefly introduced and linked more clearly to the paper’s overall argument. Response 1: The revisions to the introduction section can be traced to the first two pages, where the focus is on clarifying what ASCN and Crumpton’s 2021 study consisted of. On the first point on ASCN, the second, third, and fourth paragraphs of page 2 provide several basic pieces of information for readers as to what ASCN is, and the expectations once a city becomes a pilot project city. It traces the history (since 2018), the cities incorporated into the current status quo, and the ASCN's expectations for catalyzing bankable projects to solve urban problems through technology. The third paragraph, on the other hand, looks at the strategic outcomes of the ASCN, which focus on a high quality of life, a competitive economy, and a sustainable environment. The following are the complete paragraphs explaining this point: Among the regions that have actively adopted this smart city concept is Southeast Asia. Under the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), particularly during Singapore’s ASEAN chairmanship in 2018, member states agreed with a list of 26 pilot projects under the ASEAN Smart Cities Network (ASCN). 6 The growth of cities in ASEAN is unique, as they will “continue to be driven by urban centers, with more people expected to urbanize by 2030 and ‘middleweight’ cities of between 200,000 and 2 million residents forecast to drive 40% of the region’s growth”. 7 The role of ASCN is thus to act as a normative guideline for ASEAN member states on smart city development, sharing best practices, and linking partnerships to accelerate growth. 6, 8 The expectation is that the ASCN will act as a facilitator, linking city government officials and business entities to “catalyze bankable projects to solve urban problems by utilizing technology and innovation opportunities provided by the private sector”. 9 ; For ASEAN, the strategic outcomes of smart cities consist of a high quality of life, a competitive economy, and a sustainable environment. 6 To achieve them, several development focus areas have been determined: civic and social, health and well-being, safety and security, quality environment, built infrastructure, and industry and innovations. The determined development areas are enabled through ASEAN’s encouragement of digital infrastructure and applications, and partnership and funding schemes under the ASCN. 10 Response 2: I have revised the introduction towards Crumpton’s 2021 study by elaborating what were the main findings of this study. First, it looks at how the diversities found in the ASEAN member states increasingly impede the ASEAN member state’s capacity to balance between technological developments, and the provision of basic urban needs/facilities. In the last paragraph of page 2, the additional narratives highlights how inter-contextual differences leads states to struggle to provide the balanced sustainability measures in dimensions of governance, environment, and human rights. Therefore, the key take away of this is that this study enhances the previous finding to show that the disparities among ASEAN member states have continued to take place between 2020 and 2024, and looking at specific case studies of cities in the ASCN, would show how the disparity of the state’s capacities leads to heightened concerns and doubts that local governments prioritize sustainable measures. The revised paragraph (last paragraph page 2): “In the ASCN’s development focus area of civic and social, for example, some countries, such as Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Brunei Darussalam, still lack the basic features of democracy. 24– 26 Thus, the intention of its cities to transform into smart cities is seen as a potential policy to further impinge upon participatory and socio-ecological sustainable urban planning and governance. 20 Therefore, as seen in the case of the ASCN in recent years, Crumpton highlights the emergence of the state under-prioritizing the environment and the lack of initiatives in improving basic services. This lack of adequate consideration of the inter-contextual differences among ASEAN member states means that members would struggle to achieve this smart city status, due to the underlying issue of unmet urban service requirements.” Comment 3: Literature Review: This literature review is more clearly structured than the earlier framing section, and the subsection organization helps guide the reader through the discussion. However, the overall argument still requires stronger logical connection between points. The section moves across ASEAN norms, sustainability debates, urbanization, ASCN, smart city critiques, and the helix-model framework without always making clear how these elements build on one another. In addition, the manuscript continues to assume prior familiarity with key concepts and prior studies. More clarity is needed on what the ASEAN Smart Cities Network (ASCN) is, how it functions, what the earlier helix-model approach argued, and why that framework is important for the present study. Similarly, Crumpton’s 2021 study should be introduced more fully so that readers can understand its main findings and how the current paper extends it. Overall, the section is relevant and well referenced, but it would benefit from clearer definitions, stronger transitions, and a more precise articulation of the study’s novelty. Response: I make the revisions in the first paragraph of section 2, and the last paragraph of the same section. In the first paragraph (page 3), the focus of the revisions is to highlight why these three introduced themes in the literature review is important for this study, and in what way does the article contribute towards these vast discussions on matters of smart cities and sustainability in the context of Southeast Asia. Meanwhile, the last paragraph of section 2 (page 6) emphasizes the novelty offered, which includes the covering of more empirical case studies that occurred between 2020 and 2024, to showcase whether Crumpton’s assumpions in 2021 is still valid in Southeast Asia. 1. Revision 1 (paragraph 1 of page 3): Against the backdrop of unique norms and differences among states, adopting sustainability measures in Southeast Asia poses challenges. The existing literature highlights these challenges well, focusing on the trajectory of sustainability among ASEAN member states over the past years. Nevertheless, not enough attention has been paid to ASEAN’s development pathway, especially given its recent emphasis on advancing it through the construction of smart cities across the region. This section provides a brief literature review of how Southeast Asia engages with sustainability demands. First, it examines the challenges of adopting sustainability across different regional sectors and the tendency in the literature to call for modified governance and policies to address these concerns. Second, this section examines how the ASCN has been one of ASEAN’s solutions to address urbanization issues in Southeast Asia’s larger cities, focusing on smart city initiatives as the basis for these solutions. Lastly, it will revisit recent studies on smart cities and sustainability in Southeast Asia and the novelty this study offers. These three discourses allow for a more nuanced understanding of the dominant discussions on smart cities and sustainability in Southeast Asia, and of the importance of revisiting more recent empirical case studies to strengthen or challenge past interpretations. 2. Revision 2 (last paragraph of section 2, page 6): This study builds on the previous concerns on the nexus between smart cities and sustainability in Southeast Asia. Between 2020 and 2024, many developments have occurred that have contributed to capacity disparities, political tensions, and the infringement on social and human rights. Unfortunately, to balance development and sustainability, ASEAN has focused on the ASCN as one of the primary means of achieving balanced development for the region’s larger cities. The novelty of this study thus offers the opportunity to reveal the profound problems associated with the ASCN, which distances itself from actual sustainability measures as its primary aim and further impacts participatory and socio-ecological sustainable urban planning and governance. In doing so, it follows the 2019 framework and highlights how the region’s socio-political developments have contributed to the disparities. Comment 4: The ‘Helix Model’ of the ASCN: New Observations, Old Patterns: First, the section still relies too heavily on prior knowledge. Even though subsection 3.2 is called “Revisiting the ‘Helix Model’,” the explanation remains too brief. The reader still needs a clearer account of what the earlier model actually examined, what its dimensions were, what it found, and why it is being reused here. Second, the manuscript repeatedly returns to the same general point: Southeast Asia is diverse, authoritarian settings are problematic, and ASCN may not align with sustainability. Third, phrases such as “what is puzzling,” “profound neglect,” and “may not be the best development course” sound more general and argumentative than rigorously evidenced. Response: Revisions can be seen in paragraphs 2 and 3 in the section ‘3.2. Revisiting the ‘Helix Model’’. In the first paragraph, I clarify that one of the elements of Crumpton’s 2021 study is that the Helix Model adopted results based on the assumption of diversity across political, social, and economic dimensions among ASEAN member states. As a consequence, there are different capacities to comply with the ASCN provisions, and a deep concern that, because half of ASEAN members are non-democratic nations, the idea of establishing smart cities would exacerbate human rights conditions in those cities. The argument, therefore, is that the tables presented show this concern over human rights and politics, and argue why there is a lack of care towards sustainability measures in those particular cities. The revised paragraph: “The basis of the ASCN's problem is diversity across systems. The smart city approach becomes complex when applied to governments with authoritarian or semi-authoritarian settings, which could lead to further control over populations. 76 For the more democratic nations of Southeast Asia, the problem then becomes to what extent state policymakers consider environmental costs as exceeding development targets. This section argues that old patterns are emerging, with a lack of relationship between citizens and the smart city developments taking place in Southeast Asia. In doing so, the following will explain several indicators that show the diversity between states and cities in Southeast Asia, indicating different starting points among the ASCN members, which risks exacerbating disparities in the delivery of basic urban services. Similar to Crumpton’s 2021 point, the updated empirical data presented between 2020 and 2024 in the two tables below show that concern over non-democratic practices has the potential to negatively affect urban planning and governance, underplay environmental concerns, and neglect improvements in the quality of life of the city’s population. ” Comment 5: the interpretation of Table 1 is not yet fully convincing. While the table does demonstrate substantial disparities across ASEAN member states in terms of human development, democracy, press freedom, environmental performance, and ease of doing business, the discussion tends to move too quickly from descriptive rankings to broader causal conclusions. For example, low scores in the Democracy Index and World Press Freedom Index are used to suggest that ASCN-related smart city development may accelerate surveillance and state control, but this relationship is asserted rather than empirically demonstrated in the analysis presented here. Similarly, differences in EPI and Ease of Doing Business rankings show variation across national contexts, but the link between these indicators and the sustainability or governance outcomes of specific smart city projects requires clearer justification. Overall, the section would benefit from a more cautious interpretation of the table, a clearer explanation of why these particular indicators was selected, and a stronger analytical bridge between national-level disparities and claims about city-level smart development. 1. Response 1: I make the connection between variation across national contexts, with the issue of sustainability in the smart city projects. In doing this, explanations in pages 10 and 11 emphasizes how in several case studies, the focus on smart city status (mainly transportation and technological developments within the cities) have neglected the basic services and human rights issues that the cities and state actors are suppose to focus on in the first place. The revised paragraphs, and the insertion of case studies in section 3: (paragraph 1 page 10): However, what is puzzling is the rising significance of cities in less democratic settings such as Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, Phnom Penh, Vientiane, and Myanmar. In the past four years, these four cities have struggled to ensure greater civic rights are maintained. As the ASCN is focused on accelerating the efforts to make these cities ‘smart,’ there seems to be a profound neglect of the political issues in those cities due to this dominant discourse of ‘smart’ development. This raises a substantial concern, as these cities would focus solely on consistency with the ASCN smart city framework, thereby further neglecting fundamental urban services. In Vientiane and large cities in Laos, the concern still lies on the issue of restricted civil and political rights, which includes cases of unfair criminal trials, and judicial corruption in the cities (HRW, 2017; OHCHR, 2024). Meanwhile, in Jakarta, opponents of democratic rule have been met with harsh measures to suppress negative sentiment toward the president (Raditio and Yeremia, 2022; BBC, 2026). These cases go to show that accelerating development that leans to being ‘smart’ does not automatically translate into the provision of basic political and human rights services being delivered. It also shows a strong linkage between state-level political concerns and local-level appreciation towards human rights. (paragraph 1, page 11): The ASCN does not consider these capacity disparities. The focus has been on accelerating the ‘smart city’ development of the ASCN’s pilot city projects and on leveraging AI and technology to deliver better public services to the city’s population. However, the complexity is that cities in countries without democratic systems show less appreciation for the environment and lack proper prospects for human development. The updated data from the 2020 study show that the same conclusions have been reached. The disparities will only lead to greater differences among ASCN members, given the absence of sustainability measures in ASCN projects. Perhaps two case studies of concern is in Yangon and Phnom Penh. In Yangon, prosecutions continue amid the military junta’s crackdown on democratic voices (Oponio Juris, 2022; Reuters, 2022). Meanwhile, despite the acceleration of development in Phnom Penh, this has been met with an increase in money laundering, concerns over foreign debt, and rising unemployment, indicating that smart cities’ focus on transportation services remains unbalanced with other essential services. (paragraph 3, page 11): The problem with diverse landscapes such as ASEAN is that ‘smart’ solutions can easily deepen authoritarian tendencies and undermine sustainability objectives. 20 Another issue is the lack of acknowledgment that the starting points of these cities are different, with some already building the foundations of smart cities since the 1960s. 90 As a consequence, it is expected that, after observing recent data in the past four years, poor cities would most likely see a more substantial deterioration of sustainability norms, as anticipated in past studies. 92– 94 The case of Hanoi, Vietnam, is interesting, given the numerous criticisms citizens have expressed about the increased number of surveillance cameras in the city. Although intended to protect and maintain order on public roads, there have been concerns that images are being misused to monitor private lives and steal private data (Dan, 2026). (paragraph 4, page 11): Combined together, the presented case studies from different ASEAN cities shows an alignment with Crumpton’s concerns over the lack of consideration towards inter-contextual differences. By imposing the ASCN provisions and focusing on targeted smart city elements, this risks the region falling further from sustainability practices that ensure basic services are provided to people. 2. Response 2: On the point of national-level disparities and claims about city-level smart development, I have argued in paragraph 3 of section 3.2, that because of there is a strong linkage with the social issues faced in the national level, to the social realities in local and regional levels (especially in non-democratic states). The revised paragraph: “Table 1 below shows how diverse Southeast Asian countries are, showing more significant disparity in the past years. Although the presented data pertain to state actors, there is a strong likelihood that the patterns of democracy, GDP growth, human development, press freedom, ease of doing business, and environmental performance at the state level are also of concern to local and regional governments. This considers that half of Southeast Asian states are non-democratic, suggesting that a hierarchical system will apply to the concerns that government officials focus on. The indicators consider several dimensions pivotal to the construction of smart cities. First is the 2024 GDP growth, published by the International Monetary Fund, and considers the total value of goods and services produced within the country. 77 Second is the 2022 UN Human Development Index (HDI), which considers education, health, and standard of living. 78 Third is the 2024 Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index (EIU), which considers civil liberties, the electoral process, political participation & culture, and the functioning of the government. 79 Fourth is the 2024 Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index (WPFI), which ranks states based on assessments by non-governmental organizations of journalists' and media freedom. 80 Fifth is the 2024 Yale University’s Environmental Performance Index (EPI), which considers the state of sustainability (climate change performance, environmental health, ecosystem vitality). 81 Last, which differs from the datasets used in the 2021 study helix model assessment on ASCN, is the 2020 World Bank’s EoDB ranks, which rate the difficulty of starting a business, obtaining construction permits, accessing electricity, registering property, and obtaining credit. 82 ” Competing Interests: No competing interests. Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Intarti Y. Reviewer Report For: Are Smart Cities ‘Sustainable?’ Revisiting the ‘Helix Model’ of the ASEAN Smart Cities Network [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1484 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.192534.r451036 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1484/v1#referee-response-451036 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. Close Copy Citation Details Reviewer Report 02 Feb 2026 Yuni Intarti , Universitas Indonesia, Depok, West Java, Indonesia Approved with Reservations VIEWS 0 https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.192534.r451036 Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly The manuscript’s narrative objective is clearly delineated in both the abstract and introduction: it seeks to "revisit and update" a prior ... Continue reading READ ALL Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly The manuscript’s narrative objective is clearly delineated in both the abstract and introduction: it seeks to "revisit and update" a prior critique of the helix model concerning ASCN sustainability by integrating recent regional developments. This study references a combination of foundational critiques of smart cities and discussions on region-specific governance and human rights, which is appropriate for the subject and indicates an effort to engage with both historical and contemporary scholarship. Major numeric and source inconsistencies are listed in Table 1 (critical The paper labels "Ease of Doing Business 2024 (World Bank)" and this reflects the current (2021–2024) context. However, the World Bank’s Doing Business "rankings" page indicates that the rankings are benchmarked to May 2019, with the archive explicitly containing "complete historical data up to Doing Business 2020." This discrepancy is not a minor naming issue: if an indicator is based on 2019/2020, it cannot validly support claims about "the past four years" without strong justification and careful wording. More importantly, at least two entries in Table 1 are demonstrably incorrect when compared to the official Doing Business 2020 ranking table: the manuscript reports an "EoDB global rank" of 187 for Cambodia and 187 for Vietnam. The Doing Business 2020 ranking table lists Cambodia at 144 and Vietnam at 70. This is a direct data error that undermines the subsequent interpretation of "ease of doing business" disparities and any argument built on those values. Please check the following source: https://archive.doingbusiness.org/en/rankings?region=east-asia-and-pacific Missing HDI value for Vietnam (critical) The manuscript lists Vietnam’s HDI as "NA." However, UNDP’s own country communication reporting the 2022 HDI states that Vietnam’s 2022 HDI value is 0.726 with a rank of 107/193. This indicates a data extraction, transcription, or table-construction error that should be corrected and documented transparently. Check this source: https://www.undp.org/vietnam/press-releases/viet-nam-high-human-development-category-undp-new-report#:~:text=Rich%20countries%20are%20experiencing%20record,of%20193%20countries%20and%20territories. Conceptual clarity gap: "qualitative and quantitative methods" without description. While the manuscript frequently describes itself as using mixed approaches, it does not provide a clear, explicit methods section that explains the qualitative component (e.g., document analysis, case material selection, coding approach) and how it is integrated with the quantitative component. This makes the "presentation" less transparent, even if the prose is readable. Adopting methodological and measurement standards is advisable to enhance the positioning of the literature. Given that the primary argument of the manuscript hinges on the sustainability of "smart city" initiatives, incorporating established indicator standards and measurement frameworks specific to urban contexts, rather than those applicable solely to countries, would be advantageous. Examples of such standards include the ISO standards for city services and quality of life, as well as smart cities (ISO 37120:2018 and ISO 37122:2019), and global KPI frameworks for SSCs, such as the ITU-U4SSC KPIs. Although their absence is not necessarily detrimental, it contributes to the uncertainty regarding the operational definition of "sustainability" within the paper. Refer to https://cdn.standards.iteh.ai/samples/68498/f4d5a199575f4f5782d4014dad38029e/ISO-37120-2018.pdf. https://cdn.standards.iteh.ai/samples/69050/2e8b58add7054523af3c08edd7ed571b/ISO-37122-2019.pdf https://u4ssc.itu.int/u4ssc-kpi/ Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Using a cross-national, indicator-based comparative methodology is technically appropriate for a scoping or diagnostic paper that aims to map differences across countries and highlight governance or sustainability issues within regional policy frameworks. In this context, comparing governance, development, environmental factors, and press freedom is a reasonable descriptive approach. However, several design choices compromise the technical robustness of the paper’s primary question—“Are smart cities sustainable?”—and the proposed helix-model framework: Construct-to-measurement mismatch (critical). The conclusions of this study on sustainability are primarily derived from country-level indices (HDI, democracy, press freedom, EPI, etc.) and lists of ASCN projects. This approach risks ecological inference problems, where relationships observed at the country level may not apply to city-level patterns or project-level sustainability outcomes. This risk of “ecological fallacy” is well-known in aggregate-level inference work and should be explicitly addressed through design, limitations, and ideally, multi-level data. Helix-model integrity problem: Excluding the education helix while retaining the “quintuple helix” language (critical). The article mentions excluding the education stakeholder helix due to an “inconclusive relationship” between ICT projects and top-ranked universities. However, foundational descriptions of the Quintuple Helix model consider the education system as one of the five helices; removing it alters the theoretical framework and necessitates re-specification and justification. If the paper employs a modified helix model, it should be renamed (e.g., “modified quadruple helix” or “adapted helix framework”) and explicitly linked to indicators (construct a diagram and a table that associate each helix with its respective indicator(s), data source, and projected relationship to sustainability). If the education helix is limited, the framework is renamed and the theoretical implications are elucidated, referencing the definitions of the Quintuple Helix). The unit of analysis is under-specified. The manuscript shifts between discussing: - ASEAN member states (country-level governance, environmental performance, and development), - ASCN cities (GaWC categorization and project lists), and - “smart city sustainability” as an outcome concept. This could be coherent, but only if the design clearly specifies: (a) the primary unit of analysis, (b) the linking logic between country indices and city/project outcomes, and (c) how alternative explanations are addressed. The interaction with the ASEAN Smart Cities Network normative framework is limited. The ASEAN Smart Cities Framework equates an ASEAN smart city with a smart sustainable city, emphasizing a balance among economic, environmental, and quality of life considerations while committing to an inclusive approach that respects human rights and fundamental freedoms. A robust critique of ASCN’s sustainability would benefit from a clear contrast between the framework’s stated commitments and evidence of implementation gaps, such as those found in project design features, governance mechanisms, and monitoring indicators. The current manuscript alludes to this gap but does not systematically address it. Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No Engagement with the normative framework of the ASEAN Smart Cities Network (ASCN) is limited. The ASEAN Smart Cities Framework equates an ASEAN smart city with a sustainable smart city. However, a clear data-processing pathway is absent. The methods by which raw data from each source were extracted (whether through a web interface or downloadable tables), cleaned, standardized across different year baselines, and converted into the reported values (scores and ranks) are not elucidated. The evident errors in Table 1 further underscore the need for a transparent verification pipeline. Additionally, no explicit strategy exists for addressing missing data. Values labeled as “NA” (such as Vietnam HDI and Brunei democracy in Table 1) lack accompanying rules regarding whether countries are excluded from certain analyses, whether the absence is due to unavailable metrics, or if it indicates a data-handling error. Furthermore, there is no description of the qualitative method (it is imperative to publish a "Table 1 & Table 2 dataset" file (in CSV/XLSX format) alongside a code script capable of regenerating the tables from raw data whenever feasible). This is particularly significant because the paper focuses on derived tabular results, addressing issues such as the reasons for missing data, its impact, and management strategies, including corrections for instances where "missing" data is actually an error (e.g., Vietnam HDI). If the manuscript employs qualitative evidence (as claimed), replicability necessitates at least the following: criteria for corpus selection (which documents/events and why), the analytic procedure (coding, thematic analysis, narrative synthesis), and how qualitative insights were utilized to interpret quantitative patterns. Reporting guidance for qualitative work (SRQR/COREQ, depending on the method) highlights the types of details required by readers to critically evaluate and replicate the analytic logic. (incorporating the study design label, units of analysis, inclusion and exclusion criteria, specific dataset editions or years, extraction dates, variable definitions, and a comprehensive step-by-step guide for constructing tables is essential. Reporting guideline structures, such as STROBE for observational quantitative studies, SRQR/COREQ for qualitative research, and GRAMMS for mixed methods, are employed as practical checklists. Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate, if applicable? No It is imperative to either eliminate the use of correlation terminology and clearly present the findings as descriptive or interpretive or to include a well-defined statistical analysis plan, such as Spearman correlations on ranks with appropriate caveats, discussion of uncertainty, and sensitivity analyses. The chosen approach should be consistent with the evidence presented in the manuscript. Provide an operational definition of "smart city status," which is critical. If this status is represented by GaWC categorization, ASCN project counts, project maturity, or another metric, it should be precisely specified and its use justified. Incorporate robustness checks to demonstrate how conclusions vary if (a) business environment data are substituted (e.g., Doing Business vs BREADY), (b) ranks versus scores are employed, and (c) alternative sustainability measures are used, such as city-level sustainability KPIs where applicable. Are all the underlying source data available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly The paper includes a data availability statement that details the public web sources employed for each index, which is a commendable step toward transparency. However, full reproducibility, particularly on an open research platform, is not entirely achieved. The primary issue is that the dataset compiled by the authors, which provides the specific values in Tables 1 and 2, is not stored in a repository with a persistent identifier, and the computational methods used to generate the tables are not disclosed. Even when the primary sources are from third parties, the dataset derived by the authors (which is cleaned, harmonized, and compiled from various sources) constitutes a research output that should be shared to facilitate verification, especially given the identified errors in the tables. Additionally, some sources may not be readily reusable (for example, accessing the Democracy Index might require submitting a request form), and some indices are updated annually. Therefore, ensuring reproducibility necessitates versioning, recording extraction dates, and archiving specific dataset editions. Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly The descriptive aspect of the argument—“ASEAN is diverse, and governance/environmental baselines differ substantially among member states”—is well aligned with the comparative indices presented in the paper. The claim that authoritarian or semi-authoritarian governance contexts can influence the adoption of “smart” technologies is credible and substantiated by the cited literature. However, there is a critical overreach beyond the evidence presented (the assertion that “no direct correlation is seen” between smart city status and sustainability implies an empirical examination of this relationship, yet the manuscript neither conducts such an examination nor defines the necessary variables). Similarly, the claim that a “deterioration of sustainability norms is observed” an empirical trend, but the paper lacks time-series evidence of changing norms. There is an insufficient linkage between ASCN projects and sustainability outcomes (although the manuscript lists projects and city classifications (GaWC), it does not evaluate project outcomes against sustainability criteria (e.g., emissions, service equity, resilience, governance safeguards). Without these outcome measures, the conclusion that ASCN “may not be the best development course” remains a reasoned hypothesis rather than a substantiated result. It is necessary to address ASCN’s stated principles. The ASEAN Smart Cities Framework explicitly advocates an inclusive approach that respects human rights and defines a “smart city” as a “smart sustainable city.” A conclusion that the ASCN’s concept is not sustainable would be more compelling if it explicitly demonstrated a divergence between these stated principles and observed implementation patterns (e.g., whether “city surveillance” projects include rights protections or whether “quality environment” projects measurably improve environmental outcomes). Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? No Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise: border areas (borderland), ASEAN, European Union-ASEAN relations, I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Intarti Y. Reviewer Report For: Are Smart Cities ‘Sustainable?’ Revisiting the ‘Helix Model’ of the ASEAN Smart Cities Network [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1484 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.192534.r451036 ) The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1484/v1#referee-response-451036 NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article. COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Author Response 24 Apr 2026 bama andika putra , International Relations, Hasanuddin University Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Makassar, Indonesia 24 Apr 2026 Author Response Comment 1: Major numeric and source inconsistencies are listed in Table 1 (critical The paper labels "Ease of Doing Business 2024 (World Bank)" and this reflects the current (2021–2024) context. ... Continue reading Comment 1: Major numeric and source inconsistencies are listed in Table 1 (critical The paper labels "Ease of Doing Business 2024 (World Bank)" and this reflects the current (2021–2024) context. However, the World Bank’s Doing Business "rankings" page indicates that the rankings are benchmarked to May 2019, with the archive explicitly containing "complete historical data up to Doing Business 2020." This discrepancy is not a minor naming issue: if an indicator is based on 2019/2020, it cannot validly support claims about "the past four years" without strong justification and careful wording. More importantly, at least two entries in Table 1 are demonstrably incorrect when compared to the official Doing Business 2020 ranking table: the manuscript reports an "EoDB global rank" of 187 for Cambodia and 187 for Vietnam. The Doing Business 2020 ranking table lists Cambodia at 144 and Vietnam at 70. This is a direct data error that undermines the subsequent interpretation of "ease of doing business" disparities and any argument built on those values. Response : I have corrected the numeric and source inconsistencies listed in Table 1, including revisions with the narratives: 1. Rather than stating that the sources are taken between 2021-2024, the beginning of the last paragraph of page 7 explains that the data displays disparity in recent years: “Table 1 below shows how diverse Southeast Asian countries are, showing more significant disparity in the past years.” 2. Correction of the EoDB’s year of publication becoming 2020 (last sentence of the last paragraph, page 7): “Last, which differs from the datasets used in the 2021 study helix model assessment on ASCN, is the 2020 World Bank’s EoDB ranks, which rate the difficulty of starting a business, obtaining construction permits, accessing electricity, registering property, and obtaining credit” 3. EoDB Global rank data: Cambodia ranked 144, and Vietnam ranked 70 4. Narrative in the first paragraph of page 9: “Furthermore, the EoDB figures shown in Table 1 indicate the role of political and government systems in the ease of doing business in ASEAN countries. Singapore is the second-best country in the world to do business, but its ASEAN counterpart, Cambodia, is ranked 144th, among the lowest” Comment 2: Missing HDI value for Vietnam (critical) The manuscript lists Vietnam’s HDI as "NA." However, UNDP’s own country communication reporting the 2022 HDI states that Vietnam’s 2022 HDI value is 0.726 with a rank of 107/193. This indicates a data extraction, transcription, or table-construction error that should be corrected and documented transparently. Response: I have corrected the data entry for Vietnam’s HDI value in 2022: HDI value 0,726, ranked 107/193. The revisions can be seen in table 1 Comment 3: Conceptual clarity gap: "qualitative and quantitative methods" without description. While the manuscript frequently describes itself as using mixed approaches, it does not provide a clear, explicit methods section that explains the qualitative component (e.g., document analysis, case material selection, coding approach) and how it is integrated with the quantitative component. This makes the "presentation" less transparent, even if the prose is readable. Response: Several sections of the study has been revised to make clear that the qualitative component of the study is through the use of document analysis: 1. Abstract: “Recent urban planning in Southeast Asia has incorporated the theme of transforming cities to ‘smart city’ status. However, the central question raised in this study is whether the ASEAN’s conception of smart cities is genuinely sustainable. Based on the backdrop of Southeast Asia’s disparity in economic performances and diversity in its political, social, economic, and environmental dimensions, this study updates Crumpton’s 2021 study on the ‘quintuple helix model’ and argues that new observations but old patterns are found in the ASEAN Smart Cities Network’s way of developing cities in Southeast Asia. Through a qualitative document analysis, utilizing published secondary data on the ten ASEAN member states between 2020 and 2024, this study revisits and updates the current state of Southeast Asia and how this corresponds to the challenges of constructing smart cities in democratic, semi-authoritarian, and authoritarian settings. 2. Pages 2-3: “Through quantitative and qualitative approaches (document analysis), this study intends to provide an update on the ASCN under the ‘helix models.’ It considers several unique trends between 2020 and 2024 that contribute to the diversity of Southeast Asian states. These include the Myanmar military coup in 2021, Laos’ foreign debt surges, and Cambodia’s change of leadership after more than three decades, to name a few. 27– 33 Comment 4: Adopting methodological and measurement standards is advisable to enhance the positioning of the literature. Given that the primary argument of the manuscript hinges on the sustainability of "smart city" initiatives, incorporating established indicator standards and measurement frameworks specific to urban contexts, rather than those applicable solely to countries, would be advantageous. Examples of such standards include the ISO standards for city services and quality of life, as well as smart cities (ISO 37120:2018 and ISO 37122:2019), and global KPI frameworks for SSCs, such as the ITU-U4SSC KPIs. Although their absence is not necessarily detrimental, it contributes to the uncertainty regarding the operational definition of "sustainability" within the paper. Response: I do agree that the term sustainability of smart city initiatives deserves closer examination regarding its operationalization. I, however, disagree that the article would benefit from a standardized definition, as proposed (ISO 37120:2018 and ISO 37122:2019). As clearly stated in the following two paragraphs (pages 5-6), the term sustainability in the context of Southeast Asian states is different. The highlight is on the character of governance introduced, as well as heightened concerns about surveillance and control. This follows up on earlier studies on the unique challenges of sustainability in Southeast Asia, and the plan of this study is to build on those findings: 1. Paragraph 1: “Studies in the past have captured the doubt that smart cities are indeed sustainable means of developing cities. As past studies have shown, there is unclear evidence that shows that the smart city approach indeed leads to urban sustainability. 1, 3, 5, 63, 64 In building up such an assumption, Charles David Crumpton, Supawatanarkorn Wongthanavasau, Peerasit Kamnuansilpa, John Draper, and Eva Bialobrzeski specifically analyzed this in the context of the ASCN. Adopting the ‘helix models,’ the study looks into specific city plans in Southeast Asia, the ASCN, and experiences with the smart city initiative. 20 The study highlights the disparities in social, economic, and political rights among Southeast Asian states and argues that the presence of states with authoritarian settings generates a more significant challenge for the ASCN. It is then proposed that the smart city conceptualization to be within a ‘system of systems’ framework. 20 In this, “the complex socio-ecological interaction between society and nature and the multi-layered character of governance are acknowledged”. 20 2. Paragraph 2: “Consequently, the disparity in economic capacity, social and human rights, and political systems between the Southeast Asian states is perceived as a barrier to achieving the ideal smart city status for ASCN participating cities. With the advancement of technologies proposed as the basis of a smart city, ASEAN is bridging the potential control abuses and heightened cyber surveillance that could be the case in many of the authoritarian nations in the region. As Crumpton’s-led study mentioned, “[…] authoritarian regimes and regimes with authoritarian tendencies seek new and better means for surveilling and controlling their populations”. 20 And that such state systems would impact “[…] participatory and therefore socio-ecologically sustainable urban planning and governance”. 20 Comment 5: Several design choices compromise the technical robustness of the paper’s primary question—“Are smart cities sustainable?”—and the proposed helix-model framework: Construct-to-measurement mismatch (critical). The conclusions of this study on sustainability are primarily derived from country-level indices (HDI, democracy, press freedom, EPI, etc.) and lists of ASCN projects. This approach risks ecological inference problems, where relationships observed at the country level may not apply to city-level patterns or project-level sustainability outcomes. This risk of “ecological fallacy” is well-known in aggregate-level inference work and should be explicitly addressed through design, limitations, and ideally, multi-level data. Helix-model integrity problem: Excluding the education helix while retaining the “quintuple helix” language (critical). The article mentions excluding the education stakeholder helix due to an “inconclusive relationship” between ICT projects and top-ranked universities. However, foundational descriptions of the Quintuple Helix model consider the education system as one of the five helices; removing it alters the theoretical framework and necessitates re-specification and justification. If the paper employs a modified helix model, it should be renamed (e.g., “modified quadruple helix” or “adapted helix framework”) and explicitly linked to indicators (construct a diagram and a table that associate each helix with its respective indicator(s), data source, and projected relationship to sustainability). If the education helix is limited, the framework is renamed and the theoretical implications are elucidated, referencing the definitions of the Quintuple Helix). The unit of analysis is under-specified. The manuscript shifts between discussing: - ASEAN member states (country-level governance, environmental performance, and development), - ASCN cities (GaWC categorization and project lists), and - “smart city sustainability” as an outcome concept. This could be coherent, but only if the design clearly specifies: (a) the primary unit of analysis, (b) the linking logic between country indices and city/project outcomes, and (c) how alternative explanations are addressed. Responses: 1. Response 1: I justify in page 7, last paragraph, how the state-level differences and comparisons are applicable in the context of the ASCN cities: “Table 1 below shows how diverse Southeast Asian countries are, showing more significant disparity in the past years. Although the presented data pertain to state actors, there is a strong likelihood that the patterns of democracy, GDP growth, human development, press freedom, ease of doing business, and environmental performance at the state level are also of concern to local and regional governments. This considers that half of Southeast Asian states are non-democratic, suggesting that a hierarchical system will apply to the concerns that government officials focus on. The indicators consider several dimensions pivotal to the construction of smart cities. First is the 2024 GDP growth, published by the International Monetary Fund, and considers the total value of goods and services produced within the country. 77 Second is the 2022 UN Human Development Index (HDI), which considers education, health, and standard of living. 78 Third is the 2024 Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index (EIU), which considers civil liberties, the electoral process, political participation & culture, and the functioning of the government. 79 Fourth is the 2024 Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index (WPFI), which ranks states based on assessments by non-governmental organizations of journalists' and media freedom. 80 Fifth is the 2024 Yale University’s Environmental Performance Index (EPI), which considers the state of sustainability (climate change performance, environmental health, ecosystem vitality). 81 Last, which differs from the datasets used in the 2021 study helix model assessment on ASCN, is the 2020 World Bank’s EoDB ranks, which rate the difficulty of starting a business, obtaining construction permits, accessing electricity, registering property, and obtaining credit. 82 2. Response 2: I introduce several empirical case studies to showcase how the concerns are located in the city level. The following revisions also responds to the comment on the unit of analysis: (paragraph 1 page 10): However, what is puzzling is the rising significance of cities in less democratic settings such as Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, Phnom Penh, Vientiane, and Myanmar. In the past four years, these four cities have struggled to ensure greater civic rights are maintained. As the ASCN is focused on accelerating the efforts to make these cities ‘smart,’ there seems to be a profound neglect of the political issues in those cities due to this dominant discourse of ‘smart’ development. This raises a substantial concern, as these cities would focus solely on consistency with the ASCN smart city framework and further neglect fundamental urban services. In Vientiane and large cities in Laos, the concern still lies on the issue of restricted civil and political rights, which includes cases of unfair criminal trials, and judicial corruption in the cities (HRW, 2017; OHCHR, 2024). Meanwhile, in Jakarta, those opposing democratic rule have been met with harsh measures to suppress negative sentiments directed at the president (Raditio and Yeremia, 2022; BBC, 2026). These cases go to show that accelerating development that leans to being ‘smart’ does not automatically translate into the provision of basic political and human rights services being delivered. It also shows a strong linkage between state-level political concerns and local-level appreciation towards human rights. (paragraph 1, page 11): The ASCN does not consider these capacity disparities. The focus has been on accelerating the ‘smart city’ development of the ASCN’s pilot city projects and on leveraging AI and technology to deliver better public services to the city’s population. However, the complexity is that cities in countries without democratic systems show less appreciation for the environment and lack proper prospects for human development. The updated data from the 2020 study show that the same conclusions have been reached. The disparities will only lead to greater differences among ASCN members, given the absence of sustainability measures in ASCN projects. Perhaps two case studies of concern is in Yangon and Phnom Penh. In Yangon, prosecutions continue amid the military junta’s crackdown on democratic voices (Oponio Juris, 2022; Reuters, 2022). Meanwhile, despite the acceleration of developments in Phnom Penh, this has been met with an increase in money laundering, concerns over foreign debt, and rising unemployment, which shows that smart cities’ focus on transportation services remains unbalanced with more essential services. (paragraph 3, page 11): The problem with diverse landscapes such as ASEAN is that everything ‘smart’ can easily deepen authoritarian tendencies and undermine sustainability objectives. 20 Another issue is the lack of acknowledgment that the starting points of these cities are different, with some already building the foundations of smart cities since the 1960s. 90 As a consequence, it is expected that, after observing recent data in the past four years, poor cities would most likely see a more substantial deterioration of sustainability norms, as anticipated in past studies. 92– 94 The case of Hanoi, Vietnam, is interesting, given the numerous criticisms citizens have expressed about the increased number of surveillance cameras in the city. Although intended to protect and maintain order on public roads, there have been concerns that images are being misused to monitor private lives and steal private data (Dan, 2026). (paragraph 4, page 11): Combined together, the presented case studies from different ASEAN cities shows an alignment with Crumpton’s concerns over the lack of consideration towards inter-contextual differences. By imposing the ASCN provisions and focusing on targeted smart city elements, this risks the region falling further from sustainability practices that ensure basic services are provided to people. 3. Response 3: I disagree that a name is required, as the article follows up using more recent empirical case studies and data on Crumpton’s helix model. To emphasize this point, I explain in section 3.2 that the focus of the argument taken from the 2021 study is the idea that disparities in capacities leads to insufficient efforts in promoting sustainability measures in cities. The revised paragraph in parapraph 2 of section 3.2: “The basis of the ASCN's problem is diversity across systems. The smart city approach becomes complex when applied to governments with authoritarian or semi-authoritarian settings, which could lead to further control over populations. 76 For the more democratic nations of Southeast Asia, the problem then becomes to what extent state policymakers consider environmental costs as exceeding development targets. This section argues that old patterns are emerging, with a lack of relationship between citizens and the smart city developments taking place in Southeast Asia. In doing so, the following will explain several indicators that show the diversity between states and cities in Southeast Asia, indicating different starting points among the ASCN members, which risks exacerbating disparities in the delivery of basic urban services. Similar to Crumpton’s 2021 point, the updated empirical data presented between 2020 and 2024 in the two tables below show that concern over non-democratic practices has the potential to negatively affect urban planning and governance, underplay environmental concerns, and neglect improvements in the quality of life of the city’s population. ” Comment 6 : Concerns over methods and data availability Response 1: I have revised table 1, and no values are labelled as ‘NA.’ Response 2: Regarding the data, the values and information are publicly available, as stated in the data declaration. Therefore, there is no need to put the data in a separate file and upload the files, as the copyright is retained by the institutions. Comment 1: Major numeric and source inconsistencies are listed in Table 1 (critical The paper labels "Ease of Doing Business 2024 (World Bank)" and this reflects the current (2021–2024) context. However, the World Bank’s Doing Business "rankings" page indicates that the rankings are benchmarked to May 2019, with the archive explicitly containing "complete historical data up to Doing Business 2020." This discrepancy is not a minor naming issue: if an indicator is based on 2019/2020, it cannot validly support claims about "the past four years" without strong justification and careful wording. More importantly, at least two entries in Table 1 are demonstrably incorrect when compared to the official Doing Business 2020 ranking table: the manuscript reports an "EoDB global rank" of 187 for Cambodia and 187 for Vietnam. The Doing Business 2020 ranking table lists Cambodia at 144 and Vietnam at 70. This is a direct data error that undermines the subsequent interpretation of "ease of doing business" disparities and any argument built on those values. Response : I have corrected the numeric and source inconsistencies listed in Table 1, including revisions with the narratives: 1. Rather than stating that the sources are taken between 2021-2024, the beginning of the last paragraph of page 7 explains that the data displays disparity in recent years: “Table 1 below shows how diverse Southeast Asian countries are, showing more significant disparity in the past years.” 2. Correction of the EoDB’s year of publication becoming 2020 (last sentence of the last paragraph, page 7): “Last, which differs from the datasets used in the 2021 study helix model assessment on ASCN, is the 2020 World Bank’s EoDB ranks, which rate the difficulty of starting a business, obtaining construction permits, accessing electricity, registering property, and obtaining credit” 3. EoDB Global rank data: Cambodia ranked 144, and Vietnam ranked 70 4. Narrative in the first paragraph of page 9: “Furthermore, the EoDB figures shown in Table 1 indicate the role of political and government systems in the ease of doing business in ASEAN countries. Singapore is the second-best country in the world to do business, but its ASEAN counterpart, Cambodia, is ranked 144th, among the lowest” Comment 2: Missing HDI value for Vietnam (critical) The manuscript lists Vietnam’s HDI as "NA." However, UNDP’s own country communication reporting the 2022 HDI states that Vietnam’s 2022 HDI value is 0.726 with a rank of 107/193. This indicates a data extraction, transcription, or table-construction error that should be corrected and documented transparently. Response: I have corrected the data entry for Vietnam’s HDI value in 2022: HDI value 0,726, ranked 107/193. The revisions can be seen in table 1 Comment 3: Conceptual clarity gap: "qualitative and quantitative methods" without description. While the manuscript frequently describes itself as using mixed approaches, it does not provide a clear, explicit methods section that explains the qualitative component (e.g., document analysis, case material selection, coding approach) and how it is integrated with the quantitative component. This makes the "presentation" less transparent, even if the prose is readable. Response: Several sections of the study has been revised to make clear that the qualitative component of the study is through the use of document analysis: 1. Abstract: “Recent urban planning in Southeast Asia has incorporated the theme of transforming cities to ‘smart city’ status. However, the central question raised in this study is whether the ASEAN’s conception of smart cities is genuinely sustainable. Based on the backdrop of Southeast Asia’s disparity in economic performances and diversity in its political, social, economic, and environmental dimensions, this study updates Crumpton’s 2021 study on the ‘quintuple helix model’ and argues that new observations but old patterns are found in the ASEAN Smart Cities Network’s way of developing cities in Southeast Asia. Through a qualitative document analysis, utilizing published secondary data on the ten ASEAN member states between 2020 and 2024, this study revisits and updates the current state of Southeast Asia and how this corresponds to the challenges of constructing smart cities in democratic, semi-authoritarian, and authoritarian settings. 2. Pages 2-3: “Through quantitative and qualitative approaches (document analysis), this study intends to provide an update on the ASCN under the ‘helix models.’ It considers several unique trends between 2020 and 2024 that contribute to the diversity of Southeast Asian states. These include the Myanmar military coup in 2021, Laos’ foreign debt surges, and Cambodia’s change of leadership after more than three decades, to name a few. 27– 33 Comment 4: Adopting methodological and measurement standards is advisable to enhance the positioning of the literature. Given that the primary argument of the manuscript hinges on the sustainability of "smart city" initiatives, incorporating established indicator standards and measurement frameworks specific to urban contexts, rather than those applicable solely to countries, would be advantageous. Examples of such standards include the ISO standards for city services and quality of life, as well as smart cities (ISO 37120:2018 and ISO 37122:2019), and global KPI frameworks for SSCs, such as the ITU-U4SSC KPIs. Although their absence is not necessarily detrimental, it contributes to the uncertainty regarding the operational definition of "sustainability" within the paper. Response: I do agree that the term sustainability of smart city initiatives deserves closer examination regarding its operationalization. I, however, disagree that the article would benefit from a standardized definition, as proposed (ISO 37120:2018 and ISO 37122:2019). As clearly stated in the following two paragraphs (pages 5-6), the term sustainability in the context of Southeast Asian states is different. The highlight is on the character of governance introduced, as well as heightened concerns about surveillance and control. This follows up on earlier studies on the unique challenges of sustainability in Southeast Asia, and the plan of this study is to build on those findings: 1. Paragraph 1: “Studies in the past have captured the doubt that smart cities are indeed sustainable means of developing cities. As past studies have shown, there is unclear evidence that shows that the smart city approach indeed leads to urban sustainability. 1, 3, 5, 63, 64 In building up such an assumption, Charles David Crumpton, Supawatanarkorn Wongthanavasau, Peerasit Kamnuansilpa, John Draper, and Eva Bialobrzeski specifically analyzed this in the context of the ASCN. Adopting the ‘helix models,’ the study looks into specific city plans in Southeast Asia, the ASCN, and experiences with the smart city initiative. 20 The study highlights the disparities in social, economic, and political rights among Southeast Asian states and argues that the presence of states with authoritarian settings generates a more significant challenge for the ASCN. It is then proposed that the smart city conceptualization to be within a ‘system of systems’ framework. 20 In this, “the complex socio-ecological interaction between society and nature and the multi-layered character of governance are acknowledged”. 20 2. Paragraph 2: “Consequently, the disparity in economic capacity, social and human rights, and political systems between the Southeast Asian states is perceived as a barrier to achieving the ideal smart city status for ASCN participating cities. With the advancement of technologies proposed as the basis of a smart city, ASEAN is bridging the potential control abuses and heightened cyber surveillance that could be the case in many of the authoritarian nations in the region. As Crumpton’s-led study mentioned, “[…] authoritarian regimes and regimes with authoritarian tendencies seek new and better means for surveilling and controlling their populations”. 20 And that such state systems would impact “[…] participatory and therefore socio-ecologically sustainable urban planning and governance”. 20 Comment 5: Several design choices compromise the technical robustness of the paper’s primary question—“Are smart cities sustainable?”—and the proposed helix-model framework: Construct-to-measurement mismatch (critical). The conclusions of this study on sustainability are primarily derived from country-level indices (HDI, democracy, press freedom, EPI, etc.) and lists of ASCN projects. This approach risks ecological inference problems, where relationships observed at the country level may not apply to city-level patterns or project-level sustainability outcomes. This risk of “ecological fallacy” is well-known in aggregate-level inference work and should be explicitly addressed through design, limitations, and ideally, multi-level data. Helix-model integrity problem: Excluding the education helix while retaining the “quintuple helix” language (critical). The article mentions excluding the education stakeholder helix due to an “inconclusive relationship” between ICT projects and top-ranked universities. However, foundational descriptions of the Quintuple Helix model consider the education system as one of the five helices; removing it alters the theoretical framework and necessitates re-specification and justification. If the paper employs a modified helix model, it should be renamed (e.g., “modified quadruple helix” or “adapted helix framework”) and explicitly linked to indicators (construct a diagram and a table that associate each helix with its respective indicator(s), data source, and projected relationship to sustainability). If the education helix is limited, the framework is renamed and the theoretical implications are elucidated, referencing the definitions of the Quintuple Helix). The unit of analysis is under-specified. The manuscript shifts between discussing: - ASEAN member states (country-level governance, environmental performance, and development), - ASCN cities (GaWC categorization and project lists), and - “smart city sustainability” as an outcome concept. This could be coherent, but only if the design clearly specifies: (a) the primary unit of analysis, (b) the linking logic between country indices and city/project outcomes, and (c) how alternative explanations are addressed. Responses: 1. Response 1: I justify in page 7, last paragraph, how the state-level differences and comparisons are applicable in the context of the ASCN cities: “Table 1 below shows how diverse Southeast Asian countries are, showing more significant disparity in the past years. Although the presented data pertain to state actors, there is a strong likelihood that the patterns of democracy, GDP growth, human development, press freedom, ease of doing business, and environmental performance at the state level are also of concern to local and regional governments. This considers that half of Southeast Asian states are non-democratic, suggesting that a hierarchical system will apply to the concerns that government officials focus on. The indicators consider several dimensions pivotal to the construction of smart cities. First is the 2024 GDP growth, published by the International Monetary Fund, and considers the total value of goods and services produced within the country. 77 Second is the 2022 UN Human Development Index (HDI), which considers education, health, and standard of living. 78 Third is the 2024 Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index (EIU), which considers civil liberties, the electoral process, political participation & culture, and the functioning of the government. 79 Fourth is the 2024 Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index (WPFI), which ranks states based on assessments by non-governmental organizations of journalists' and media freedom. 80 Fifth is the 2024 Yale University’s Environmental Performance Index (EPI), which considers the state of sustainability (climate change performance, environmental health, ecosystem vitality). 81 Last, which differs from the datasets used in the 2021 study helix model assessment on ASCN, is the 2020 World Bank’s EoDB ranks, which rate the difficulty of starting a business, obtaining construction permits, accessing electricity, registering property, and obtaining credit. 82 2. Response 2: I introduce several empirical case studies to showcase how the concerns are located in the city level. The following revisions also responds to the comment on the unit of analysis: (paragraph 1 page 10): However, what is puzzling is the rising significance of cities in less democratic settings such as Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, Phnom Penh, Vientiane, and Myanmar. In the past four years, these four cities have struggled to ensure greater civic rights are maintained. As the ASCN is focused on accelerating the efforts to make these cities ‘smart,’ there seems to be a profound neglect of the political issues in those cities due to this dominant discourse of ‘smart’ development. This raises a substantial concern, as these cities would focus solely on consistency with the ASCN smart city framework and further neglect fundamental urban services. In Vientiane and large cities in Laos, the concern still lies on the issue of restricted civil and political rights, which includes cases of unfair criminal trials, and judicial corruption in the cities (HRW, 2017; OHCHR, 2024). Meanwhile, in Jakarta, those opposing democratic rule have been met with harsh measures to suppress negative sentiments directed at the president (Raditio and Yeremia, 2022; BBC, 2026). These cases go to show that accelerating development that leans to being ‘smart’ does not automatically translate into the provision of basic political and human rights services being delivered. It also shows a strong linkage between state-level political concerns and local-level appreciation towards human rights. (paragraph 1, page 11): The ASCN does not consider these capacity disparities. The focus has been on accelerating the ‘smart city’ development of the ASCN’s pilot city projects and on leveraging AI and technology to deliver better public services to the city’s population. However, the complexity is that cities in countries without democratic systems show less appreciation for the environment and lack proper prospects for human development. The updated data from the 2020 study show that the same conclusions have been reached. The disparities will only lead to greater differences among ASCN members, given the absence of sustainability measures in ASCN projects. Perhaps two case studies of concern is in Yangon and Phnom Penh. In Yangon, prosecutions continue amid the military junta’s crackdown on democratic voices (Oponio Juris, 2022; Reuters, 2022). Meanwhile, despite the acceleration of developments in Phnom Penh, this has been met with an increase in money laundering, concerns over foreign debt, and rising unemployment, which shows that smart cities’ focus on transportation services remains unbalanced with more essential services. (paragraph 3, page 11): The problem with diverse landscapes such as ASEAN is that everything ‘smart’ can easily deepen authoritarian tendencies and undermine sustainability objectives. 20 Another issue is the lack of acknowledgment that the starting points of these cities are different, with some already building the foundations of smart cities since the 1960s. 90 As a consequence, it is expected that, after observing recent data in the past four years, poor cities would most likely see a more substantial deterioration of sustainability norms, as anticipated in past studies. 92– 94 The case of Hanoi, Vietnam, is interesting, given the numerous criticisms citizens have expressed about the increased number of surveillance cameras in the city. Although intended to protect and maintain order on public roads, there have been concerns that images are being misused to monitor private lives and steal private data (Dan, 2026). (paragraph 4, page 11): Combined together, the presented case studies from different ASEAN cities shows an alignment with Crumpton’s concerns over the lack of consideration towards inter-contextual differences. By imposing the ASCN provisions and focusing on targeted smart city elements, this risks the region falling further from sustainability practices that ensure basic services are provided to people. 3. Response 3: I disagree that a name is required, as the article follows up using more recent empirical case studies and data on Crumpton’s helix model. To emphasize this point, I explain in section 3.2 that the focus of the argument taken from the 2021 study is the idea that disparities in capacities leads to insufficient efforts in promoting sustainability measures in cities. The revised paragraph in parapraph 2 of section 3.2: “The basis of the ASCN's problem is diversity across systems. The smart city approach becomes complex when applied to governments with authoritarian or semi-authoritarian settings, which could lead to further control over populations. 76 For the more democratic nations of Southeast Asia, the problem then becomes to what extent state policymakers consider environmental costs as exceeding development targets. This section argues that old patterns are emerging, with a lack of relationship between citizens and the smart city developments taking place in Southeast Asia. In doing so, the following will explain several indicators that show the diversity between states and cities in Southeast Asia, indicating different starting points among the ASCN members, which risks exacerbating disparities in the delivery of basic urban services. Similar to Crumpton’s 2021 point, the updated empirical data presented between 2020 and 2024 in the two tables below show that concern over non-democratic practices has the potential to negatively affect urban planning and governance, underplay environmental concerns, and neglect improvements in the quality of life of the city’s population. ” Comment 6 : Concerns over methods and data availability Response 1: I have revised table 1, and no values are labelled as ‘NA.’ Response 2: Regarding the data, the values and information are publicly available, as stated in the data declaration. Therefore, there is no need to put the data in a separate file and upload the files, as the copyright is retained by the institutions. Competing Interests: No competing interests Close Report a concern Respond or Comment COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT Author Response 24 Apr 2026 bama andika putra , International Relations, Hasanuddin University Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Makassar, Indonesia 24 Apr 2026 Author Response Comment 1: Major numeric and source inconsistencies are listed in Table 1 (critical The paper labels "Ease of Doing Business 2024 (World Bank)" and this reflects the current (2021–2024) context. ... Continue reading Comment 1: Major numeric and source inconsistencies are listed in Table 1 (critical The paper labels "Ease of Doing Business 2024 (World Bank)" and this reflects the current (2021–2024) context. However, the World Bank’s Doing Business "rankings" page indicates that the rankings are benchmarked to May 2019, with the archive explicitly containing "complete historical data up to Doing Business 2020." This discrepancy is not a minor naming issue: if an indicator is based on 2019/2020, it cannot validly support claims about "the past four years" without strong justification and careful wording. More importantly, at least two entries in Table 1 are demonstrably incorrect when compared to the official Doing Business 2020 ranking table: the manuscript reports an "EoDB global rank" of 187 for Cambodia and 187 for Vietnam. The Doing Business 2020 ranking table lists Cambodia at 144 and Vietnam at 70. This is a direct data error that undermines the subsequent interpretation of "ease of doing business" disparities and any argument built on those values. Response : I have corrected the numeric and source inconsistencies listed in Table 1, including revisions with the narratives: 1. Rather than stating that the sources are taken between 2021-2024, the beginning of the last paragraph of page 7 explains that the data displays disparity in recent years: “Table 1 below shows how diverse Southeast Asian countries are, showing more significant disparity in the past years.” 2. Correction of the EoDB’s year of publication becoming 2020 (last sentence of the last paragraph, page 7): “Last, which differs from the datasets used in the 2021 study helix model assessment on ASCN, is the 2020 World Bank’s EoDB ranks, which rate the difficulty of starting a business, obtaining construction permits, accessing electricity, registering property, and obtaining credit” 3. EoDB Global rank data: Cambodia ranked 144, and Vietnam ranked 70 4. Narrative in the first paragraph of page 9: “Furthermore, the EoDB figures shown in Table 1 indicate the role of political and government systems in the ease of doing business in ASEAN countries. Singapore is the second-best country in the world to do business, but its ASEAN counterpart, Cambodia, is ranked 144th, among the lowest” Comment 2: Missing HDI value for Vietnam (critical) The manuscript lists Vietnam’s HDI as "NA." However, UNDP’s own country communication reporting the 2022 HDI states that Vietnam’s 2022 HDI value is 0.726 with a rank of 107/193. This indicates a data extraction, transcription, or table-construction error that should be corrected and documented transparently. Response: I have corrected the data entry for Vietnam’s HDI value in 2022: HDI value 0,726, ranked 107/193. The revisions can be seen in table 1 Comment 3: Conceptual clarity gap: "qualitative and quantitative methods" without description. While the manuscript frequently describes itself as using mixed approaches, it does not provide a clear, explicit methods section that explains the qualitative component (e.g., document analysis, case material selection, coding approach) and how it is integrated with the quantitative component. This makes the "presentation" less transparent, even if the prose is readable. Response: Several sections of the study has been revised to make clear that the qualitative component of the study is through the use of document analysis: 1. Abstract: “Recent urban planning in Southeast Asia has incorporated the theme of transforming cities to ‘smart city’ status. However, the central question raised in this study is whether the ASEAN’s conception of smart cities is genuinely sustainable. Based on the backdrop of Southeast Asia’s disparity in economic performances and diversity in its political, social, economic, and environmental dimensions, this study updates Crumpton’s 2021 study on the ‘quintuple helix model’ and argues that new observations but old patterns are found in the ASEAN Smart Cities Network’s way of developing cities in Southeast Asia. Through a qualitative document analysis, utilizing published secondary data on the ten ASEAN member states between 2020 and 2024, this study revisits and updates the current state of Southeast Asia and how this corresponds to the challenges of constructing smart cities in democratic, semi-authoritarian, and authoritarian settings. 2. Pages 2-3: “Through quantitative and qualitative approaches (document analysis), this study intends to provide an update on the ASCN under the ‘helix models.’ It considers several unique trends between 2020 and 2024 that contribute to the diversity of Southeast Asian states. These include the Myanmar military coup in 2021, Laos’ foreign debt surges, and Cambodia’s change of leadership after more than three decades, to name a few. 27– 33 Comment 4: Adopting methodological and measurement standards is advisable to enhance the positioning of the literature. Given that the primary argument of the manuscript hinges on the sustainability of "smart city" initiatives, incorporating established indicator standards and measurement frameworks specific to urban contexts, rather than those applicable solely to countries, would be advantageous. Examples of such standards include the ISO standards for city services and quality of life, as well as smart cities (ISO 37120:2018 and ISO 37122:2019), and global KPI frameworks for SSCs, such as the ITU-U4SSC KPIs. Although their absence is not necessarily detrimental, it contributes to the uncertainty regarding the operational definition of "sustainability" within the paper. Response: I do agree that the term sustainability of smart city initiatives deserves closer examination regarding its operationalization. I, however, disagree that the article would benefit from a standardized definition, as proposed (ISO 37120:2018 and ISO 37122:2019). As clearly stated in the following two paragraphs (pages 5-6), the term sustainability in the context of Southeast Asian states is different. The highlight is on the character of governance introduced, as well as heightened concerns about surveillance and control. This follows up on earlier studies on the unique challenges of sustainability in Southeast Asia, and the plan of this study is to build on those findings: 1. Paragraph 1: “Studies in the past have captured the doubt that smart cities are indeed sustainable means of developing cities. As past studies have shown, there is unclear evidence that shows that the smart city approach indeed leads to urban sustainability. 1, 3, 5, 63, 64 In building up such an assumption, Charles David Crumpton, Supawatanarkorn Wongthanavasau, Peerasit Kamnuansilpa, John Draper, and Eva Bialobrzeski specifically analyzed this in the context of the ASCN. Adopting the ‘helix models,’ the study looks into specific city plans in Southeast Asia, the ASCN, and experiences with the smart city initiative. 20 The study highlights the disparities in social, economic, and political rights among Southeast Asian states and argues that the presence of states with authoritarian settings generates a more significant challenge for the ASCN. It is then proposed that the smart city conceptualization to be within a ‘system of systems’ framework. 20 In this, “the complex socio-ecological interaction between society and nature and the multi-layered character of governance are acknowledged”. 20 2. Paragraph 2: “Consequently, the disparity in economic capacity, social and human rights, and political systems between the Southeast Asian states is perceived as a barrier to achieving the ideal smart city status for ASCN participating cities. With the advancement of technologies proposed as the basis of a smart city, ASEAN is bridging the potential control abuses and heightened cyber surveillance that could be the case in many of the authoritarian nations in the region. As Crumpton’s-led study mentioned, “[…] authoritarian regimes and regimes with authoritarian tendencies seek new and better means for surveilling and controlling their populations”. 20 And that such state systems would impact “[…] participatory and therefore socio-ecologically sustainable urban planning and governance”. 20 Comment 5: Several design choices compromise the technical robustness of the paper’s primary question—“Are smart cities sustainable?”—and the proposed helix-model framework: Construct-to-measurement mismatch (critical). The conclusions of this study on sustainability are primarily derived from country-level indices (HDI, democracy, press freedom, EPI, etc.) and lists of ASCN projects. This approach risks ecological inference problems, where relationships observed at the country level may not apply to city-level patterns or project-level sustainability outcomes. This risk of “ecological fallacy” is well-known in aggregate-level inference work and should be explicitly addressed through design, limitations, and ideally, multi-level data. Helix-model integrity problem: Excluding the education helix while retaining the “quintuple helix” language (critical). The article mentions excluding the education stakeholder helix due to an “inconclusive relationship” between ICT projects and top-ranked universities. However, foundational descriptions of the Quintuple Helix model consider the education system as one of the five helices; removing it alters the theoretical framework and necessitates re-specification and justification. If the paper employs a modified helix model, it should be renamed (e.g., “modified quadruple helix” or “adapted helix framework”) and explicitly linked to indicators (construct a diagram and a table that associate each helix with its respective indicator(s), data source, and projected relationship to sustainability). If the education helix is limited, the framework is renamed and the theoretical implications are elucidated, referencing the definitions of the Quintuple Helix). The unit of analysis is under-specified. The manuscript shifts between discussing: - ASEAN member states (country-level governance, environmental performance, and development), - ASCN cities (GaWC categorization and project lists), and - “smart city sustainability” as an outcome concept. This could be coherent, but only if the design clearly specifies: (a) the primary unit of analysis, (b) the linking logic between country indices and city/project outcomes, and (c) how alternative explanations are addressed. Responses: 1. Response 1: I justify in page 7, last paragraph, how the state-level differences and comparisons are applicable in the context of the ASCN cities: “Table 1 below shows how diverse Southeast Asian countries are, showing more significant disparity in the past years. Although the presented data pertain to state actors, there is a strong likelihood that the patterns of democracy, GDP growth, human development, press freedom, ease of doing business, and environmental performance at the state level are also of concern to local and regional governments. This considers that half of Southeast Asian states are non-democratic, suggesting that a hierarchical system will apply to the concerns that government officials focus on. The indicators consider several dimensions pivotal to the construction of smart cities. First is the 2024 GDP growth, published by the International Monetary Fund, and considers the total value of goods and services produced within the country. 77 Second is the 2022 UN Human Development Index (HDI), which considers education, health, and standard of living. 78 Third is the 2024 Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index (EIU), which considers civil liberties, the electoral process, political participation & culture, and the functioning of the government. 79 Fourth is the 2024 Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index (WPFI), which ranks states based on assessments by non-governmental organizations of journalists' and media freedom. 80 Fifth is the 2024 Yale University’s Environmental Performance Index (EPI), which considers the state of sustainability (climate change performance, environmental health, ecosystem vitality). 81 Last, which differs from the datasets used in the 2021 study helix model assessment on ASCN, is the 2020 World Bank’s EoDB ranks, which rate the difficulty of starting a business, obtaining construction permits, accessing electricity, registering property, and obtaining credit. 82 2. Response 2: I introduce several empirical case studies to showcase how the concerns are located in the city level. The following revisions also responds to the comment on the unit of analysis: (paragraph 1 page 10): However, what is puzzling is the rising significance of cities in less democratic settings such as Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, Phnom Penh, Vientiane, and Myanmar. In the past four years, these four cities have struggled to ensure greater civic rights are maintained. As the ASCN is focused on accelerating the efforts to make these cities ‘smart,’ there seems to be a profound neglect of the political issues in those cities due to this dominant discourse of ‘smart’ development. This raises a substantial concern, as these cities would focus solely on consistency with the ASCN smart city framework and further neglect fundamental urban services. In Vientiane and large cities in Laos, the concern still lies on the issue of restricted civil and political rights, which includes cases of unfair criminal trials, and judicial corruption in the cities (HRW, 2017; OHCHR, 2024). Meanwhile, in Jakarta, those opposing democratic rule have been met with harsh measures to suppress negative sentiments directed at the president (Raditio and Yeremia, 2022; BBC, 2026). These cases go to show that accelerating development that leans to being ‘smart’ does not automatically translate into the provision of basic political and human rights services being delivered. It also shows a strong linkage between state-level political concerns and local-level appreciation towards human rights. (paragraph 1, page 11): The ASCN does not consider these capacity disparities. The focus has been on accelerating the ‘smart city’ development of the ASCN’s pilot city projects and on leveraging AI and technology to deliver better public services to the city’s population. However, the complexity is that cities in countries without democratic systems show less appreciation for the environment and lack proper prospects for human development. The updated data from the 2020 study show that the same conclusions have been reached. The disparities will only lead to greater differences among ASCN members, given the absence of sustainability measures in ASCN projects. Perhaps two case studies of concern is in Yangon and Phnom Penh. In Yangon, prosecutions continue amid the military junta’s crackdown on democratic voices (Oponio Juris, 2022; Reuters, 2022). Meanwhile, despite the acceleration of developments in Phnom Penh, this has been met with an increase in money laundering, concerns over foreign debt, and rising unemployment, which shows that smart cities’ focus on transportation services remains unbalanced with more essential services. (paragraph 3, page 11): The problem with diverse landscapes such as ASEAN is that everything ‘smart’ can easily deepen authoritarian tendencies and undermine sustainability objectives. 20 Another issue is the lack of acknowledgment that the starting points of these cities are different, with some already building the foundations of smart cities since the 1960s. 90 As a consequence, it is expected that, after observing recent data in the past four years, poor cities would most likely see a more substantial deterioration of sustainability norms, as anticipated in past studies. 92– 94 The case of Hanoi, Vietnam, is interesting, given the numerous criticisms citizens have expressed about the increased number of surveillance cameras in the city. Although intended to protect and maintain order on public roads, there have been concerns that images are being misused to monitor private lives and steal private data (Dan, 2026). (paragraph 4, page 11): Combined together, the presented case studies from different ASEAN cities shows an alignment with Crumpton’s concerns over the lack of consideration towards inter-contextual differences. By imposing the ASCN provisions and focusing on targeted smart city elements, this risks the region falling further from sustainability practices that ensure basic services are provided to people. 3. Response 3: I disagree that a name is required, as the article follows up using more recent empirical case studies and data on Crumpton’s helix model. To emphasize this point, I explain in section 3.2 that the focus of the argument taken from the 2021 study is the idea that disparities in capacities leads to insufficient efforts in promoting sustainability measures in cities. The revised paragraph in parapraph 2 of section 3.2: “The basis of the ASCN's problem is diversity across systems. The smart city approach becomes complex when applied to governments with authoritarian or semi-authoritarian settings, which could lead to further control over populations. 76 For the more democratic nations of Southeast Asia, the problem then becomes to what extent state policymakers consider environmental costs as exceeding development targets. This section argues that old patterns are emerging, with a lack of relationship between citizens and the smart city developments taking place in Southeast Asia. In doing so, the following will explain several indicators that show the diversity between states and cities in Southeast Asia, indicating different starting points among the ASCN members, which risks exacerbating disparities in the delivery of basic urban services. Similar to Crumpton’s 2021 point, the updated empirical data presented between 2020 and 2024 in the two tables below show that concern over non-democratic practices has the potential to negatively affect urban planning and governance, underplay environmental concerns, and neglect improvements in the quality of life of the city’s population. ” Comment 6 : Concerns over methods and data availability Response 1: I have revised table 1, and no values are labelled as ‘NA.’ Response 2: Regarding the data, the values and information are publicly available, as stated in the data declaration. Therefore, there is no need to put the data in a separate file and upload the files, as the copyright is retained by the institutions. Comment 1: Major numeric and source inconsistencies are listed in Table 1 (critical The paper labels "Ease of Doing Business 2024 (World Bank)" and this reflects the current (2021–2024) context. However, the World Bank’s Doing Business "rankings" page indicates that the rankings are benchmarked to May 2019, with the archive explicitly containing "complete historical data up to Doing Business 2020." This discrepancy is not a minor naming issue: if an indicator is based on 2019/2020, it cannot validly support claims about "the past four years" without strong justification and careful wording. More importantly, at least two entries in Table 1 are demonstrably incorrect when compared to the official Doing Business 2020 ranking table: the manuscript reports an "EoDB global rank" of 187 for Cambodia and 187 for Vietnam. The Doing Business 2020 ranking table lists Cambodia at 144 and Vietnam at 70. This is a direct data error that undermines the subsequent interpretation of "ease of doing business" disparities and any argument built on those values. Response : I have corrected the numeric and source inconsistencies listed in Table 1, including revisions with the narratives: 1. Rather than stating that the sources are taken between 2021-2024, the beginning of the last paragraph of page 7 explains that the data displays disparity in recent years: “Table 1 below shows how diverse Southeast Asian countries are, showing more significant disparity in the past years.” 2. Correction of the EoDB’s year of publication becoming 2020 (last sentence of the last paragraph, page 7): “Last, which differs from the datasets used in the 2021 study helix model assessment on ASCN, is the 2020 World Bank’s EoDB ranks, which rate the difficulty of starting a business, obtaining construction permits, accessing electricity, registering property, and obtaining credit” 3. EoDB Global rank data: Cambodia ranked 144, and Vietnam ranked 70 4. Narrative in the first paragraph of page 9: “Furthermore, the EoDB figures shown in Table 1 indicate the role of political and government systems in the ease of doing business in ASEAN countries. Singapore is the second-best country in the world to do business, but its ASEAN counterpart, Cambodia, is ranked 144th, among the lowest” Comment 2: Missing HDI value for Vietnam (critical) The manuscript lists Vietnam’s HDI as "NA." However, UNDP’s own country communication reporting the 2022 HDI states that Vietnam’s 2022 HDI value is 0.726 with a rank of 107/193. This indicates a data extraction, transcription, or table-construction error that should be corrected and documented transparently. Response: I have corrected the data entry for Vietnam’s HDI value in 2022: HDI value 0,726, ranked 107/193. The revisions can be seen in table 1 Comment 3: Conceptual clarity gap: "qualitative and quantitative methods" without description. While the manuscript frequently describes itself as using mixed approaches, it does not provide a clear, explicit methods section that explains the qualitative component (e.g., document analysis, case material selection, coding approach) and how it is integrated with the quantitative component. This makes the "presentation" less transparent, even if the prose is readable. Response: Several sections of the study has been revised to make clear that the qualitative component of the study is through the use of document analysis: 1. Abstract: “Recent urban planning in Southeast Asia has incorporated the theme of transforming cities to ‘smart city’ status. However, the central question raised in this study is whether the ASEAN’s conception of smart cities is genuinely sustainable. Based on the backdrop of Southeast Asia’s disparity in economic performances and diversity in its political, social, economic, and environmental dimensions, this study updates Crumpton’s 2021 study on the ‘quintuple helix model’ and argues that new observations but old patterns are found in the ASEAN Smart Cities Network’s way of developing cities in Southeast Asia. Through a qualitative document analysis, utilizing published secondary data on the ten ASEAN member states between 2020 and 2024, this study revisits and updates the current state of Southeast Asia and how this corresponds to the challenges of constructing smart cities in democratic, semi-authoritarian, and authoritarian settings. 2. Pages 2-3: “Through quantitative and qualitative approaches (document analysis), this study intends to provide an update on the ASCN under the ‘helix models.’ It considers several unique trends between 2020 and 2024 that contribute to the diversity of Southeast Asian states. These include the Myanmar military coup in 2021, Laos’ foreign debt surges, and Cambodia’s change of leadership after more than three decades, to name a few. 27– 33 Comment 4: Adopting methodological and measurement standards is advisable to enhance the positioning of the literature. Given that the primary argument of the manuscript hinges on the sustainability of "smart city" initiatives, incorporating established indicator standards and measurement frameworks specific to urban contexts, rather than those applicable solely to countries, would be advantageous. Examples of such standards include the ISO standards for city services and quality of life, as well as smart cities (ISO 37120:2018 and ISO 37122:2019), and global KPI frameworks for SSCs, such as the ITU-U4SSC KPIs. Although their absence is not necessarily detrimental, it contributes to the uncertainty regarding the operational definition of "sustainability" within the paper. Response: I do agree that the term sustainability of smart city initiatives deserves closer examination regarding its operationalization. I, however, disagree that the article would benefit from a standardized definition, as proposed (ISO 37120:2018 and ISO 37122:2019). As clearly stated in the following two paragraphs (pages 5-6), the term sustainability in the context of Southeast Asian states is different. The highlight is on the character of governance introduced, as well as heightened concerns about surveillance and control. This follows up on earlier studies on the unique challenges of sustainability in Southeast Asia, and the plan of this study is to build on those findings: 1. Paragraph 1: “Studies in the past have captured the doubt that smart cities are indeed sustainable means of developing cities. As past studies have shown, there is unclear evidence that shows that the smart city approach indeed leads to urban sustainability. 1, 3, 5, 63, 64 In building up such an assumption, Charles David Crumpton, Supawatanarkorn Wongthanavasau, Peerasit Kamnuansilpa, John Draper, and Eva Bialobrzeski specifically analyzed this in the context of the ASCN. Adopting the ‘helix models,’ the study looks into specific city plans in Southeast Asia, the ASCN, and experiences with the smart city initiative. 20 The study highlights the disparities in social, economic, and political rights among Southeast Asian states and argues that the presence of states with authoritarian settings generates a more significant challenge for the ASCN. It is then proposed that the smart city conceptualization to be within a ‘system of systems’ framework. 20 In this, “the complex socio-ecological interaction between society and nature and the multi-layered character of governance are acknowledged”. 20 2. Paragraph 2: “Consequently, the disparity in economic capacity, social and human rights, and political systems between the Southeast Asian states is perceived as a barrier to achieving the ideal smart city status for ASCN participating cities. With the advancement of technologies proposed as the basis of a smart city, ASEAN is bridging the potential control abuses and heightened cyber surveillance that could be the case in many of the authoritarian nations in the region. As Crumpton’s-led study mentioned, “[…] authoritarian regimes and regimes with authoritarian tendencies seek new and better means for surveilling and controlling their populations”. 20 And that such state systems would impact “[…] participatory and therefore socio-ecologically sustainable urban planning and governance”. 20 Comment 5: Several design choices compromise the technical robustness of the paper’s primary question—“Are smart cities sustainable?”—and the proposed helix-model framework: Construct-to-measurement mismatch (critical). The conclusions of this study on sustainability are primarily derived from country-level indices (HDI, democracy, press freedom, EPI, etc.) and lists of ASCN projects. This approach risks ecological inference problems, where relationships observed at the country level may not apply to city-level patterns or project-level sustainability outcomes. This risk of “ecological fallacy” is well-known in aggregate-level inference work and should be explicitly addressed through design, limitations, and ideally, multi-level data. Helix-model integrity problem: Excluding the education helix while retaining the “quintuple helix” language (critical). The article mentions excluding the education stakeholder helix due to an “inconclusive relationship” between ICT projects and top-ranked universities. However, foundational descriptions of the Quintuple Helix model consider the education system as one of the five helices; removing it alters the theoretical framework and necessitates re-specification and justification. If the paper employs a modified helix model, it should be renamed (e.g., “modified quadruple helix” or “adapted helix framework”) and explicitly linked to indicators (construct a diagram and a table that associate each helix with its respective indicator(s), data source, and projected relationship to sustainability). If the education helix is limited, the framework is renamed and the theoretical implications are elucidated, referencing the definitions of the Quintuple Helix). The unit of analysis is under-specified. The manuscript shifts between discussing: - ASEAN member states (country-level governance, environmental performance, and development), - ASCN cities (GaWC categorization and project lists), and - “smart city sustainability” as an outcome concept. This could be coherent, but only if the design clearly specifies: (a) the primary unit of analysis, (b) the linking logic between country indices and city/project outcomes, and (c) how alternative explanations are addressed. Responses: 1. Response 1: I justify in page 7, last paragraph, how the state-level differences and comparisons are applicable in the context of the ASCN cities: “Table 1 below shows how diverse Southeast Asian countries are, showing more significant disparity in the past years. Although the presented data pertain to state actors, there is a strong likelihood that the patterns of democracy, GDP growth, human development, press freedom, ease of doing business, and environmental performance at the state level are also of concern to local and regional governments. This considers that half of Southeast Asian states are non-democratic, suggesting that a hierarchical system will apply to the concerns that government officials focus on. The indicators consider several dimensions pivotal to the construction of smart cities. First is the 2024 GDP growth, published by the International Monetary Fund, and considers the total value of goods and services produced within the country. 77 Second is the 2022 UN Human Development Index (HDI), which considers education, health, and standard of living. 78 Third is the 2024 Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index (EIU), which considers civil liberties, the electoral process, political participation & culture, and the functioning of the government. 79 Fourth is the 2024 Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index (WPFI), which ranks states based on assessments by non-governmental organizations of journalists' and media freedom. 80 Fifth is the 2024 Yale University’s Environmental Performance Index (EPI), which considers the state of sustainability (climate change performance, environmental health, ecosystem vitality). 81 Last, which differs from the datasets used in the 2021 study helix model assessment on ASCN, is the 2020 World Bank’s EoDB ranks, which rate the difficulty of starting a business, obtaining construction permits, accessing electricity, registering property, and obtaining credit. 82 2. Response 2: I introduce several empirical case studies to showcase how the concerns are located in the city level. The following revisions also responds to the comment on the unit of analysis: (paragraph 1 page 10): However, what is puzzling is the rising significance of cities in less democratic settings such as Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, Phnom Penh, Vientiane, and Myanmar. In the past four years, these four cities have struggled to ensure greater civic rights are maintained. As the ASCN is focused on accelerating the efforts to make these cities ‘smart,’ there seems to be a profound neglect of the political issues in those cities due to this dominant discourse of ‘smart’ development. This raises a substantial concern, as these cities would focus solely on consistency with the ASCN smart city framework and further neglect fundamental urban services. In Vientiane and large cities in Laos, the concern still lies on the issue of restricted civil and political rights, which includes cases of unfair criminal trials, and judicial corruption in the cities (HRW, 2017; OHCHR, 2024). Meanwhile, in Jakarta, those opposing democratic rule have been met with harsh measures to suppress negative sentiments directed at the president (Raditio and Yeremia, 2022; BBC, 2026). These cases go to show that accelerating development that leans to being ‘smart’ does not automatically translate into the provision of basic political and human rights services being delivered. It also shows a strong linkage between state-level political concerns and local-level appreciation towards human rights. (paragraph 1, page 11): The ASCN does not consider these capacity disparities. The focus has been on accelerating the ‘smart city’ development of the ASCN’s pilot city projects and on leveraging AI and technology to deliver better public services to the city’s population. However, the complexity is that cities in countries without democratic systems show less appreciation for the environment and lack proper prospects for human development. The updated data from the 2020 study show that the same conclusions have been reached. The disparities will only lead to greater differences among ASCN members, given the absence of sustainability measures in ASCN projects. Perhaps two case studies of concern is in Yangon and Phnom Penh. In Yangon, prosecutions continue amid the military junta’s crackdown on democratic voices (Oponio Juris, 2022; Reuters, 2022). Meanwhile, despite the acceleration of developments in Phnom Penh, this has been met with an increase in money laundering, concerns over foreign debt, and rising unemployment, which shows that smart cities’ focus on transportation services remains unbalanced with more essential services. (paragraph 3, page 11): The problem with diverse landscapes such as ASEAN is that everything ‘smart’ can easily deepen authoritarian tendencies and undermine sustainability objectives. 20 Another issue is the lack of acknowledgment that the starting points of these cities are different, with some already building the foundations of smart cities since the 1960s. 90 As a consequence, it is expected that, after observing recent data in the past four years, poor cities would most likely see a more substantial deterioration of sustainability norms, as anticipated in past studies. 92– 94 The case of Hanoi, Vietnam, is interesting, given the numerous criticisms citizens have expressed about the increased number of surveillance cameras in the city. Although intended to protect and maintain order on public roads, there have been concerns that images are being misused to monitor private lives and steal private data (Dan, 2026). (paragraph 4, page 11): Combined together, the presented case studies from different ASEAN cities shows an alignment with Crumpton’s concerns over the lack of consideration towards inter-contextual differences. By imposing the ASCN provisions and focusing on targeted smart city elements, this risks the region falling further from sustainability practices that ensure basic services are provided to people. 3. Response 3: I disagree that a name is required, as the article follows up using more recent empirical case studies and data on Crumpton’s helix model. To emphasize this point, I explain in section 3.2 that the focus of the argument taken from the 2021 study is the idea that disparities in capacities leads to insufficient efforts in promoting sustainability measures in cities. The revised paragraph in parapraph 2 of section 3.2: “The basis of the ASCN's problem is diversity across systems. The smart city approach becomes complex when applied to governments with authoritarian or semi-authoritarian settings, which could lead to further control over populations. 76 For the more democratic nations of Southeast Asia, the problem then becomes to what extent state policymakers consider environmental costs as exceeding development targets. This section argues that old patterns are emerging, with a lack of relationship between citizens and the smart city developments taking place in Southeast Asia. In doing so, the following will explain several indicators that show the diversity between states and cities in Southeast Asia, indicating different starting points among the ASCN members, which risks exacerbating disparities in the delivery of basic urban services. Similar to Crumpton’s 2021 point, the updated empirical data presented between 2020 and 2024 in the two tables below show that concern over non-democratic practices has the potential to negatively affect urban planning and governance, underplay environmental concerns, and neglect improvements in the quality of life of the city’s population. ” Comment 6 : Concerns over methods and data availability Response 1: I have revised table 1, and no values are labelled as ‘NA.’ Response 2: Regarding the data, the values and information are publicly available, as stated in the data declaration. Therefore, there is no need to put the data in a separate file and upload the files, as the copyright is retained by the institutions. Competing Interests: No competing interests Close Report a concern COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Comments on this article Comments (0) Version 2 VERSION 2 PUBLISHED 31 Dec 2025 ADD YOUR COMMENT Comment keyboard_arrow_left keyboard_arrow_right Open Peer Review Reviewer Status info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Reviewer Reports Invited Reviewers 1 2 3 Version 2 (revision) 24 Apr 26 read Version 1 31 Dec 25 read read Yuni Intarti , Universitas Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia Eva Kassens-Noor , Technical University of Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany Hiba Karam , TU Darmstadt (Ringgold ID: 26536), Darmstadt, Germany Christopher D F Rogers , University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK Marianna Cavada , Manchester School of Architecture, Manchester, UK Comments on this article All Comments (0) Add a comment Sign up for content alerts Sign Up You are now signed up to receive this alert Browse by related subjects keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Rogers C et al. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 12 May 2026 | for Version 2 Christopher D F Rogers , University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK Marianna Cavada , Architecture, Manchester School of Architecture, Manchester, England, UK 0 Views copyright © 2026 Rogers C et al. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (0) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions We find several major problems with this paper. The authors state: “smart cities consist of a high quality of life, a competitive economy, and a sustainable environment”. Why are cities that exhibit these qualities smart, and not simply advancing in terms of their sustainability? What is the definition of ‘smartness’ beyond ‘sustainability’? This high-level perspective is important before we get to the specifics and metrics. The ASEAN Smart Cities Network (ASCN) is introduced, but the authors have failed to articulate thoroughly what its purpose is (beyond sharing thinking), or what metrics define its success. A more thorough exploration of a common basis for assessment and evaluation of smart initiatives would improve understanding. The same applies to the helix model and its relationship to ASEAN goals. Diagrams may help here in synthesizing the ideas and goals. We don’t disagree with any of the quotations from the work on the Helix Model, but it is the attempt to apply it to the ASEAN context that is problematic. Indeed, the authors state: “The basis of the ASCN’s problem is diversity across systems. The smart city approach becomes complex when applied to governments with authoritarian or semi-authoritarian settings, which could lead to further control over populations”. Sustainability is determined locally – local conditions set local priorities – and yet here the authors present an amalgam of ten highly variable sets of local conditions and attempts to draw learning from across them. This is in itself highly problematic. Put another way, context is all important and is needed – for example, geographical context to understand the complexities and influences of location in relation to any one smart initiative. This information exists in fragments, but it's scattered and not systematic enough for a wider audience to understand. This extends to their governance systems - an essential aspect of the context. More generally, the methodology is not sufficiently clear to provide a robust comparison between smartness and sustainability. Overall, the paper needs a rigorous structure; as it is the paper approaches its task in too general a manner (perhaps because of the very severe challenges it faces) and does not explicitly explain how smartness contributes to the journey towards sustainability (and sustainability is a journey, not an absolute state) metrics for smartness, and why smartness is of value when the goal is sustainability (as discerned from the arguments advocated in the paper), should be crystal clear. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? No Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Sustainability, Liveability and Resilience of Cities We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to state that we do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (0) Rogers CDF and Cavada M. Peer Review Report For: Are Smart Cities ‘Sustainable?’ Revisiting the ‘Helix Model’ of the ASEAN Smart Cities Network [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1484 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.197926.r479775) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1484/v2#referee-response-479775 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Kassens-Noor E et al. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 12 Mar 2026 | for Version 1 Eva Kassens-Noor , Technical University of Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany Hiba Karam , TU Darmstadt (Ringgold ID: 26536), Darmstadt, Hesse, Germany 0 Views copyright © 2026 Kassens-Noor E et al. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Not Approved info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions The paper argues that smart city development under the ASEAN Smart Cities Network does not necessarily produce sustainability. Instead, regional inequalities and differences in political and governance systems often limit its ability to deliver inclusive and sustainable urban outcomes. Is the work clearly and accurately presented, and does it cite the current literature? partly Overall, the paper cites current literature, including several recent sources published after 2020, with some references from 2023–2025. This indicates that the manuscript is adequately engaged with recent scholarship. However, these points should be addressed by the author: Abstract: The abstract is too vague. The abstract identifies a clear research problem; it situates the study in a specific regional context (ASEAN) and signals a theoretical contribution by updating Crumpton’s 2021 quintuple helix model. However, the abstract did not state the main result explicitly. Moreover, “Utilizing qualitative and quantitative methods” is generic; the abstract should briefly indicate what kinds of data or analysis were used. Introduction: The framing would benefit from clearer structure and stronger connections between points. The manuscript currently assumes too much prior knowledge from the reader, particularly regarding the ASEAN Smart Cities Network (ASCN), Crumpton’s 2021 study, and the helix model. More clarity is needed on what ASCN is, what the earlier helix model argued, and why this framework is important for the present study. These concepts should be briefly introduced and linked more clearly to the paper’s overall argument. Literature Review: This literature review is more clearly structured than the earlier framing section, and the subsection organization helps guide the reader through the discussion. However, the overall argument still requires stronger logical connection between points. The section moves across ASEAN norms, sustainability debates, urbanization, ASCN, smart city critiques, and the helix-model framework without always making clear how these elements build on one another. In addition, the manuscript continues to assume prior familiarity with key concepts and prior studies. More clarity is needed on what the ASEAN Smart Cities Network (ASCN) is, how it functions, what the earlier helix-model approach argued, and why that framework is important for the present study. Similarly, Crumpton’s 2021 study should be introduced more fully so that readers can understand its main findings and how the current paper extends it. Overall, the section is relevant and well referenced, but it would benefit from clearer definitions, stronger transitions, and a more precise articulation of the study’s novelty. The ‘Helix Model’ of the ASCN: New Observations, Old Patterns: First, the section still relies too heavily on prior knowledge. Even though subsection 3.2 is called “Revisiting the ‘Helix Model’,” the explanation remains too brief. The reader still needs a clearer account of what the earlier model actually examined, what its dimensions were, what it found, and why it is being reused here. Second, the manuscript repeatedly returns to the same general point: Southeast Asia is diverse, authoritarian settings are problematic, and ASCN may not align with sustainability. Third, phrases such as “what is puzzling,” “profound neglect,” and “may not be the best development course” sound more general and argumentative than rigorously evidenced. Fourth, the interpretation of Table 1 is not yet fully convincing. While the table does demonstrate substantial disparities across ASEAN member states in terms of human development, democracy, press freedom, environmental performance, and ease of doing business, the discussion tends to move too quickly from descriptive rankings to broader causal conclusions. For example, low scores in the Democracy Index and World Press Freedom Index are used to suggest that ASCN-related smart city development may accelerate surveillance and state control, but this relationship is asserted rather than empirically demonstrated in the analysis presented here. Similarly, differences in EPI and Ease of Doing Business rankings show variation across national contexts, but the link between these indicators and the sustainability or governance outcomes of specific smart city projects requires clearer justification. Overall, the section would benefit from a more cautious interpretation of the table, a clearer explanation of why these particular indicators was selected, and a stronger analytical bridge between national-level disparities and claims about city-level smart development. The conclusion addresses an important issue and clearly restates the paper’s critical position. However, it is somewhat repetitive and at times more assertive than the analysis supports. In particular, claims about authoritarian deepening, surveillance, neglect of civic rights, and declining sustainability norms should be framed more cautiously unless supported by stronger evidence. The conclusion would be stronger with a more precise synthesis of the main findings, a clearer statement of the paper’s contribution, and a better distinction between findings, interpretation, and broader concerns. Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Yes Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? Partly If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Not applicable Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Yes Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise Transport and traffic engineering We confirm that we have read this submission and believe that we have an appropriate level of expertise to state that we do not consider it to be of an acceptable scientific standard, for reasons outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 24 Apr 2026 bama andika putra, International Relations, Hasanuddin University Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Makassar, Indonesia Comment 1: Abstract: The abstract is too vague. The abstract identifies a clear research problem; it situates the study in a specific regional context (ASEAN) and signals a theoretical contribution by updating Crumpton’s 2021 quintuple helix model. However, the abstract did not state the main result explicitly. Moreover, “Utilizing qualitative and quantitative methods” is generic; the abstract should briefly indicate what kinds of data or analysis were used. Response : I have revised the abstract section to explain that the article is a qualitative document analysis, which utilizes secondary data published on the ten ASEAN member states (between 2020 and 2024). This should serve as an update of Crumpton’s 2021 study, which mainly asserts that there are significant diversities found among ASEAN member states, and this contributes towards the diverse social, political, economics and environmental dimensions of the city’s developments (later on argued as affecting the local actor’s capacity in introducing sustainable measures, as smart city conception’s have limited capacity to enforce these measures). The revised abstract (page 1): Recent urban planning in Southeast Asia has incorporated the theme of transforming cities to ‘smart city’ status. However, the central question raised in this study is whether the ASEAN’s conception of smart cities is genuinely sustainable. Based on the backdrop of Southeast Asia’s disparity in economic performances and diversity in its political, social, economic, and environmental dimensions, this study updates Crumpton’s 2021 study on the ‘quintuple helix model’ and argues that new observations but old patterns are found in the ASEAN Smart Cities Network’s way of developing cities in Southeast Asia. Through a qualitative document analysis, utilizing published secondary data on the ten ASEAN member states between 2020 and 2024, this study revisits and updates the current state of Southeast Asia and how this corresponds to the challenges of constructing smart cities in democratic, semi-authoritarian, and authoritarian settings. Comment 2: Introduction: The framing would benefit from clearer structure and stronger connections between points. The manuscript currently assumes too much prior knowledge from the reader, particularly regarding the ASEAN Smart Cities Network (ASCN), Crumpton’s 2021 study, and the helix model. More clarity is needed on what ASCN is, what the earlier helix model argued, and why this framework is important for the present study. These concepts should be briefly introduced and linked more clearly to the paper’s overall argument. Response 1: The revisions to the introduction section can be traced to the first two pages, where the focus is on clarifying what ASCN and Crumpton’s 2021 study consisted of. On the first point on ASCN, the second, third, and fourth paragraphs of page 2 provide several basic pieces of information for readers as to what ASCN is, and the expectations once a city becomes a pilot project city. It traces the history (since 2018), the cities incorporated into the current status quo, and the ASCN's expectations for catalyzing bankable projects to solve urban problems through technology. The third paragraph, on the other hand, looks at the strategic outcomes of the ASCN, which focus on a high quality of life, a competitive economy, and a sustainable environment. The following are the complete paragraphs explaining this point: Among the regions that have actively adopted this smart city concept is Southeast Asia. Under the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), particularly during Singapore’s ASEAN chairmanship in 2018, member states agreed with a list of 26 pilot projects under the ASEAN Smart Cities Network (ASCN). 6 The growth of cities in ASEAN is unique, as they will “continue to be driven by urban centers, with more people expected to urbanize by 2030 and ‘middleweight’ cities of between 200,000 and 2 million residents forecast to drive 40% of the region’s growth”. 7 The role of ASCN is thus to act as a normative guideline for ASEAN member states on smart city development, sharing best practices, and linking partnerships to accelerate growth. 6, 8 The expectation is that the ASCN will act as a facilitator, linking city government officials and business entities to “catalyze bankable projects to solve urban problems by utilizing technology and innovation opportunities provided by the private sector”. 9 ; For ASEAN, the strategic outcomes of smart cities consist of a high quality of life, a competitive economy, and a sustainable environment. 6 To achieve them, several development focus areas have been determined: civic and social, health and well-being, safety and security, quality environment, built infrastructure, and industry and innovations. The determined development areas are enabled through ASEAN’s encouragement of digital infrastructure and applications, and partnership and funding schemes under the ASCN. 10 Response 2: I have revised the introduction towards Crumpton’s 2021 study by elaborating what were the main findings of this study. First, it looks at how the diversities found in the ASEAN member states increasingly impede the ASEAN member state’s capacity to balance between technological developments, and the provision of basic urban needs/facilities. In the last paragraph of page 2, the additional narratives highlights how inter-contextual differences leads states to struggle to provide the balanced sustainability measures in dimensions of governance, environment, and human rights. Therefore, the key take away of this is that this study enhances the previous finding to show that the disparities among ASEAN member states have continued to take place between 2020 and 2024, and looking at specific case studies of cities in the ASCN, would show how the disparity of the state’s capacities leads to heightened concerns and doubts that local governments prioritize sustainable measures. The revised paragraph (last paragraph page 2): “In the ASCN’s development focus area of civic and social, for example, some countries, such as Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, and Brunei Darussalam, still lack the basic features of democracy. 24– 26 Thus, the intention of its cities to transform into smart cities is seen as a potential policy to further impinge upon participatory and socio-ecological sustainable urban planning and governance. 20 Therefore, as seen in the case of the ASCN in recent years, Crumpton highlights the emergence of the state under-prioritizing the environment and the lack of initiatives in improving basic services. This lack of adequate consideration of the inter-contextual differences among ASEAN member states means that members would struggle to achieve this smart city status, due to the underlying issue of unmet urban service requirements.” Comment 3: Literature Review: This literature review is more clearly structured than the earlier framing section, and the subsection organization helps guide the reader through the discussion. However, the overall argument still requires stronger logical connection between points. The section moves across ASEAN norms, sustainability debates, urbanization, ASCN, smart city critiques, and the helix-model framework without always making clear how these elements build on one another. In addition, the manuscript continues to assume prior familiarity with key concepts and prior studies. More clarity is needed on what the ASEAN Smart Cities Network (ASCN) is, how it functions, what the earlier helix-model approach argued, and why that framework is important for the present study. Similarly, Crumpton’s 2021 study should be introduced more fully so that readers can understand its main findings and how the current paper extends it. Overall, the section is relevant and well referenced, but it would benefit from clearer definitions, stronger transitions, and a more precise articulation of the study’s novelty. Response: I make the revisions in the first paragraph of section 2, and the last paragraph of the same section. In the first paragraph (page 3), the focus of the revisions is to highlight why these three introduced themes in the literature review is important for this study, and in what way does the article contribute towards these vast discussions on matters of smart cities and sustainability in the context of Southeast Asia. Meanwhile, the last paragraph of section 2 (page 6) emphasizes the novelty offered, which includes the covering of more empirical case studies that occurred between 2020 and 2024, to showcase whether Crumpton’s assumpions in 2021 is still valid in Southeast Asia. 1. Revision 1 (paragraph 1 of page 3): Against the backdrop of unique norms and differences among states, adopting sustainability measures in Southeast Asia poses challenges. The existing literature highlights these challenges well, focusing on the trajectory of sustainability among ASEAN member states over the past years. Nevertheless, not enough attention has been paid to ASEAN’s development pathway, especially given its recent emphasis on advancing it through the construction of smart cities across the region. This section provides a brief literature review of how Southeast Asia engages with sustainability demands. First, it examines the challenges of adopting sustainability across different regional sectors and the tendency in the literature to call for modified governance and policies to address these concerns. Second, this section examines how the ASCN has been one of ASEAN’s solutions to address urbanization issues in Southeast Asia’s larger cities, focusing on smart city initiatives as the basis for these solutions. Lastly, it will revisit recent studies on smart cities and sustainability in Southeast Asia and the novelty this study offers. These three discourses allow for a more nuanced understanding of the dominant discussions on smart cities and sustainability in Southeast Asia, and of the importance of revisiting more recent empirical case studies to strengthen or challenge past interpretations. 2. Revision 2 (last paragraph of section 2, page 6): This study builds on the previous concerns on the nexus between smart cities and sustainability in Southeast Asia. Between 2020 and 2024, many developments have occurred that have contributed to capacity disparities, political tensions, and the infringement on social and human rights. Unfortunately, to balance development and sustainability, ASEAN has focused on the ASCN as one of the primary means of achieving balanced development for the region’s larger cities. The novelty of this study thus offers the opportunity to reveal the profound problems associated with the ASCN, which distances itself from actual sustainability measures as its primary aim and further impacts participatory and socio-ecological sustainable urban planning and governance. In doing so, it follows the 2019 framework and highlights how the region’s socio-political developments have contributed to the disparities. Comment 4: The ‘Helix Model’ of the ASCN: New Observations, Old Patterns: First, the section still relies too heavily on prior knowledge. Even though subsection 3.2 is called “Revisiting the ‘Helix Model’,” the explanation remains too brief. The reader still needs a clearer account of what the earlier model actually examined, what its dimensions were, what it found, and why it is being reused here. Second, the manuscript repeatedly returns to the same general point: Southeast Asia is diverse, authoritarian settings are problematic, and ASCN may not align with sustainability. Third, phrases such as “what is puzzling,” “profound neglect,” and “may not be the best development course” sound more general and argumentative than rigorously evidenced. Response: Revisions can be seen in paragraphs 2 and 3 in the section ‘3.2. Revisiting the ‘Helix Model’’. In the first paragraph, I clarify that one of the elements of Crumpton’s 2021 study is that the Helix Model adopted results based on the assumption of diversity across political, social, and economic dimensions among ASEAN member states. As a consequence, there are different capacities to comply with the ASCN provisions, and a deep concern that, because half of ASEAN members are non-democratic nations, the idea of establishing smart cities would exacerbate human rights conditions in those cities. The argument, therefore, is that the tables presented show this concern over human rights and politics, and argue why there is a lack of care towards sustainability measures in those particular cities. The revised paragraph: “The basis of the ASCN's problem is diversity across systems. The smart city approach becomes complex when applied to governments with authoritarian or semi-authoritarian settings, which could lead to further control over populations. 76 For the more democratic nations of Southeast Asia, the problem then becomes to what extent state policymakers consider environmental costs as exceeding development targets. This section argues that old patterns are emerging, with a lack of relationship between citizens and the smart city developments taking place in Southeast Asia. In doing so, the following will explain several indicators that show the diversity between states and cities in Southeast Asia, indicating different starting points among the ASCN members, which risks exacerbating disparities in the delivery of basic urban services. Similar to Crumpton’s 2021 point, the updated empirical data presented between 2020 and 2024 in the two tables below show that concern over non-democratic practices has the potential to negatively affect urban planning and governance, underplay environmental concerns, and neglect improvements in the quality of life of the city’s population. ” Comment 5: the interpretation of Table 1 is not yet fully convincing. While the table does demonstrate substantial disparities across ASEAN member states in terms of human development, democracy, press freedom, environmental performance, and ease of doing business, the discussion tends to move too quickly from descriptive rankings to broader causal conclusions. For example, low scores in the Democracy Index and World Press Freedom Index are used to suggest that ASCN-related smart city development may accelerate surveillance and state control, but this relationship is asserted rather than empirically demonstrated in the analysis presented here. Similarly, differences in EPI and Ease of Doing Business rankings show variation across national contexts, but the link between these indicators and the sustainability or governance outcomes of specific smart city projects requires clearer justification. Overall, the section would benefit from a more cautious interpretation of the table, a clearer explanation of why these particular indicators was selected, and a stronger analytical bridge between national-level disparities and claims about city-level smart development. 1. Response 1: I make the connection between variation across national contexts, with the issue of sustainability in the smart city projects. In doing this, explanations in pages 10 and 11 emphasizes how in several case studies, the focus on smart city status (mainly transportation and technological developments within the cities) have neglected the basic services and human rights issues that the cities and state actors are suppose to focus on in the first place. The revised paragraphs, and the insertion of case studies in section 3: (paragraph 1 page 10): However, what is puzzling is the rising significance of cities in less democratic settings such as Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, Phnom Penh, Vientiane, and Myanmar. In the past four years, these four cities have struggled to ensure greater civic rights are maintained. As the ASCN is focused on accelerating the efforts to make these cities ‘smart,’ there seems to be a profound neglect of the political issues in those cities due to this dominant discourse of ‘smart’ development. This raises a substantial concern, as these cities would focus solely on consistency with the ASCN smart city framework, thereby further neglecting fundamental urban services. In Vientiane and large cities in Laos, the concern still lies on the issue of restricted civil and political rights, which includes cases of unfair criminal trials, and judicial corruption in the cities (HRW, 2017; OHCHR, 2024). Meanwhile, in Jakarta, opponents of democratic rule have been met with harsh measures to suppress negative sentiment toward the president (Raditio and Yeremia, 2022; BBC, 2026). These cases go to show that accelerating development that leans to being ‘smart’ does not automatically translate into the provision of basic political and human rights services being delivered. It also shows a strong linkage between state-level political concerns and local-level appreciation towards human rights. (paragraph 1, page 11): The ASCN does not consider these capacity disparities. The focus has been on accelerating the ‘smart city’ development of the ASCN’s pilot city projects and on leveraging AI and technology to deliver better public services to the city’s population. However, the complexity is that cities in countries without democratic systems show less appreciation for the environment and lack proper prospects for human development. The updated data from the 2020 study show that the same conclusions have been reached. The disparities will only lead to greater differences among ASCN members, given the absence of sustainability measures in ASCN projects. Perhaps two case studies of concern is in Yangon and Phnom Penh. In Yangon, prosecutions continue amid the military junta’s crackdown on democratic voices (Oponio Juris, 2022; Reuters, 2022). Meanwhile, despite the acceleration of development in Phnom Penh, this has been met with an increase in money laundering, concerns over foreign debt, and rising unemployment, indicating that smart cities’ focus on transportation services remains unbalanced with other essential services. (paragraph 3, page 11): The problem with diverse landscapes such as ASEAN is that ‘smart’ solutions can easily deepen authoritarian tendencies and undermine sustainability objectives. 20 Another issue is the lack of acknowledgment that the starting points of these cities are different, with some already building the foundations of smart cities since the 1960s. 90 As a consequence, it is expected that, after observing recent data in the past four years, poor cities would most likely see a more substantial deterioration of sustainability norms, as anticipated in past studies. 92– 94 The case of Hanoi, Vietnam, is interesting, given the numerous criticisms citizens have expressed about the increased number of surveillance cameras in the city. Although intended to protect and maintain order on public roads, there have been concerns that images are being misused to monitor private lives and steal private data (Dan, 2026). (paragraph 4, page 11): Combined together, the presented case studies from different ASEAN cities shows an alignment with Crumpton’s concerns over the lack of consideration towards inter-contextual differences. By imposing the ASCN provisions and focusing on targeted smart city elements, this risks the region falling further from sustainability practices that ensure basic services are provided to people. 2. Response 2: On the point of national-level disparities and claims about city-level smart development, I have argued in paragraph 3 of section 3.2, that because of there is a strong linkage with the social issues faced in the national level, to the social realities in local and regional levels (especially in non-democratic states). The revised paragraph: “Table 1 below shows how diverse Southeast Asian countries are, showing more significant disparity in the past years. Although the presented data pertain to state actors, there is a strong likelihood that the patterns of democracy, GDP growth, human development, press freedom, ease of doing business, and environmental performance at the state level are also of concern to local and regional governments. This considers that half of Southeast Asian states are non-democratic, suggesting that a hierarchical system will apply to the concerns that government officials focus on. The indicators consider several dimensions pivotal to the construction of smart cities. First is the 2024 GDP growth, published by the International Monetary Fund, and considers the total value of goods and services produced within the country. 77 Second is the 2022 UN Human Development Index (HDI), which considers education, health, and standard of living. 78 Third is the 2024 Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index (EIU), which considers civil liberties, the electoral process, political participation & culture, and the functioning of the government. 79 Fourth is the 2024 Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index (WPFI), which ranks states based on assessments by non-governmental organizations of journalists' and media freedom. 80 Fifth is the 2024 Yale University’s Environmental Performance Index (EPI), which considers the state of sustainability (climate change performance, environmental health, ecosystem vitality). 81 Last, which differs from the datasets used in the 2021 study helix model assessment on ASCN, is the 2020 World Bank’s EoDB ranks, which rate the difficulty of starting a business, obtaining construction permits, accessing electricity, registering property, and obtaining credit. 82 ” View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests. reply Respond Report a concern Kassens-Noor E and Karam H. Peer Review Report For: Are Smart Cities ‘Sustainable?’ Revisiting the ‘Helix Model’ of the ASEAN Smart Cities Network [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1484 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.192534.r458129) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1484/v1#referee-response-458129 keyboard_arrow_left Back to all reports Reviewer Report 0 Views copyright © 2026 Intarti Y. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. 02 Feb 2026 | for Version 1 Yuni Intarti , Universitas Indonesia, Depok, West Java, Indonesia 0 Views copyright © 2026 Intarti Y. This is an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. format_quote Cite this report speaker_notes Responses (1) Approved With Reservations info_outline Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved The paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved Fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly The manuscript’s narrative objective is clearly delineated in both the abstract and introduction: it seeks to "revisit and update" a prior critique of the helix model concerning ASCN sustainability by integrating recent regional developments. This study references a combination of foundational critiques of smart cities and discussions on region-specific governance and human rights, which is appropriate for the subject and indicates an effort to engage with both historical and contemporary scholarship. Major numeric and source inconsistencies are listed in Table 1 (critical The paper labels "Ease of Doing Business 2024 (World Bank)" and this reflects the current (2021–2024) context. However, the World Bank’s Doing Business "rankings" page indicates that the rankings are benchmarked to May 2019, with the archive explicitly containing "complete historical data up to Doing Business 2020." This discrepancy is not a minor naming issue: if an indicator is based on 2019/2020, it cannot validly support claims about "the past four years" without strong justification and careful wording. More importantly, at least two entries in Table 1 are demonstrably incorrect when compared to the official Doing Business 2020 ranking table: the manuscript reports an "EoDB global rank" of 187 for Cambodia and 187 for Vietnam. The Doing Business 2020 ranking table lists Cambodia at 144 and Vietnam at 70. This is a direct data error that undermines the subsequent interpretation of "ease of doing business" disparities and any argument built on those values. Please check the following source: https://archive.doingbusiness.org/en/rankings?region=east-asia-and-pacific Missing HDI value for Vietnam (critical) The manuscript lists Vietnam’s HDI as "NA." However, UNDP’s own country communication reporting the 2022 HDI states that Vietnam’s 2022 HDI value is 0.726 with a rank of 107/193. This indicates a data extraction, transcription, or table-construction error that should be corrected and documented transparently. Check this source: https://www.undp.org/vietnam/press-releases/viet-nam-high-human-development-category-undp-new-report#:~:text=Rich%20countries%20are%20experiencing%20record,of%20193%20countries%20and%20territories. Conceptual clarity gap: "qualitative and quantitative methods" without description. While the manuscript frequently describes itself as using mixed approaches, it does not provide a clear, explicit methods section that explains the qualitative component (e.g., document analysis, case material selection, coding approach) and how it is integrated with the quantitative component. This makes the "presentation" less transparent, even if the prose is readable. Adopting methodological and measurement standards is advisable to enhance the positioning of the literature. Given that the primary argument of the manuscript hinges on the sustainability of "smart city" initiatives, incorporating established indicator standards and measurement frameworks specific to urban contexts, rather than those applicable solely to countries, would be advantageous. Examples of such standards include the ISO standards for city services and quality of life, as well as smart cities (ISO 37120:2018 and ISO 37122:2019), and global KPI frameworks for SSCs, such as the ITU-U4SSC KPIs. Although their absence is not necessarily detrimental, it contributes to the uncertainty regarding the operational definition of "sustainability" within the paper. Refer to https://cdn.standards.iteh.ai/samples/68498/f4d5a199575f4f5782d4014dad38029e/ISO-37120-2018.pdf. https://cdn.standards.iteh.ai/samples/69050/2e8b58add7054523af3c08edd7ed571b/ISO-37122-2019.pdf https://u4ssc.itu.int/u4ssc-kpi/ Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Using a cross-national, indicator-based comparative methodology is technically appropriate for a scoping or diagnostic paper that aims to map differences across countries and highlight governance or sustainability issues within regional policy frameworks. In this context, comparing governance, development, environmental factors, and press freedom is a reasonable descriptive approach. However, several design choices compromise the technical robustness of the paper’s primary question—“Are smart cities sustainable?”—and the proposed helix-model framework: Construct-to-measurement mismatch (critical). The conclusions of this study on sustainability are primarily derived from country-level indices (HDI, democracy, press freedom, EPI, etc.) and lists of ASCN projects. This approach risks ecological inference problems, where relationships observed at the country level may not apply to city-level patterns or project-level sustainability outcomes. This risk of “ecological fallacy” is well-known in aggregate-level inference work and should be explicitly addressed through design, limitations, and ideally, multi-level data. Helix-model integrity problem: Excluding the education helix while retaining the “quintuple helix” language (critical). The article mentions excluding the education stakeholder helix due to an “inconclusive relationship” between ICT projects and top-ranked universities. However, foundational descriptions of the Quintuple Helix model consider the education system as one of the five helices; removing it alters the theoretical framework and necessitates re-specification and justification. If the paper employs a modified helix model, it should be renamed (e.g., “modified quadruple helix” or “adapted helix framework”) and explicitly linked to indicators (construct a diagram and a table that associate each helix with its respective indicator(s), data source, and projected relationship to sustainability). If the education helix is limited, the framework is renamed and the theoretical implications are elucidated, referencing the definitions of the Quintuple Helix). The unit of analysis is under-specified. The manuscript shifts between discussing: - ASEAN member states (country-level governance, environmental performance, and development), - ASCN cities (GaWC categorization and project lists), and - “smart city sustainability” as an outcome concept. This could be coherent, but only if the design clearly specifies: (a) the primary unit of analysis, (b) the linking logic between country indices and city/project outcomes, and (c) how alternative explanations are addressed. The interaction with the ASEAN Smart Cities Network normative framework is limited. The ASEAN Smart Cities Framework equates an ASEAN smart city with a smart sustainable city, emphasizing a balance among economic, environmental, and quality of life considerations while committing to an inclusive approach that respects human rights and fundamental freedoms. A robust critique of ASCN’s sustainability would benefit from a clear contrast between the framework’s stated commitments and evidence of implementation gaps, such as those found in project design features, governance mechanisms, and monitoring indicators. The current manuscript alludes to this gap but does not systematically address it. Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No Engagement with the normative framework of the ASEAN Smart Cities Network (ASCN) is limited. The ASEAN Smart Cities Framework equates an ASEAN smart city with a sustainable smart city. However, a clear data-processing pathway is absent. The methods by which raw data from each source were extracted (whether through a web interface or downloadable tables), cleaned, standardized across different year baselines, and converted into the reported values (scores and ranks) are not elucidated. The evident errors in Table 1 further underscore the need for a transparent verification pipeline. Additionally, no explicit strategy exists for addressing missing data. Values labeled as “NA” (such as Vietnam HDI and Brunei democracy in Table 1) lack accompanying rules regarding whether countries are excluded from certain analyses, whether the absence is due to unavailable metrics, or if it indicates a data-handling error. Furthermore, there is no description of the qualitative method (it is imperative to publish a "Table 1 & Table 2 dataset" file (in CSV/XLSX format) alongside a code script capable of regenerating the tables from raw data whenever feasible). This is particularly significant because the paper focuses on derived tabular results, addressing issues such as the reasons for missing data, its impact, and management strategies, including corrections for instances where "missing" data is actually an error (e.g., Vietnam HDI). If the manuscript employs qualitative evidence (as claimed), replicability necessitates at least the following: criteria for corpus selection (which documents/events and why), the analytic procedure (coding, thematic analysis, narrative synthesis), and how qualitative insights were utilized to interpret quantitative patterns. Reporting guidance for qualitative work (SRQR/COREQ, depending on the method) highlights the types of details required by readers to critically evaluate and replicate the analytic logic. (incorporating the study design label, units of analysis, inclusion and exclusion criteria, specific dataset editions or years, extraction dates, variable definitions, and a comprehensive step-by-step guide for constructing tables is essential. Reporting guideline structures, such as STROBE for observational quantitative studies, SRQR/COREQ for qualitative research, and GRAMMS for mixed methods, are employed as practical checklists. Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate, if applicable? No It is imperative to either eliminate the use of correlation terminology and clearly present the findings as descriptive or interpretive or to include a well-defined statistical analysis plan, such as Spearman correlations on ranks with appropriate caveats, discussion of uncertainty, and sensitivity analyses. The chosen approach should be consistent with the evidence presented in the manuscript. Provide an operational definition of "smart city status," which is critical. If this status is represented by GaWC categorization, ASCN project counts, project maturity, or another metric, it should be precisely specified and its use justified. Incorporate robustness checks to demonstrate how conclusions vary if (a) business environment data are substituted (e.g., Doing Business vs BREADY), (b) ranks versus scores are employed, and (c) alternative sustainability measures are used, such as city-level sustainability KPIs where applicable. Are all the underlying source data available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly The paper includes a data availability statement that details the public web sources employed for each index, which is a commendable step toward transparency. However, full reproducibility, particularly on an open research platform, is not entirely achieved. The primary issue is that the dataset compiled by the authors, which provides the specific values in Tables 1 and 2, is not stored in a repository with a persistent identifier, and the computational methods used to generate the tables are not disclosed. Even when the primary sources are from third parties, the dataset derived by the authors (which is cleaned, harmonized, and compiled from various sources) constitutes a research output that should be shared to facilitate verification, especially given the identified errors in the tables. Additionally, some sources may not be readily reusable (for example, accessing the Democracy Index might require submitting a request form), and some indices are updated annually. Therefore, ensuring reproducibility necessitates versioning, recording extraction dates, and archiving specific dataset editions. Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly The descriptive aspect of the argument—“ASEAN is diverse, and governance/environmental baselines differ substantially among member states”—is well aligned with the comparative indices presented in the paper. The claim that authoritarian or semi-authoritarian governance contexts can influence the adoption of “smart” technologies is credible and substantiated by the cited literature. However, there is a critical overreach beyond the evidence presented (the assertion that “no direct correlation is seen” between smart city status and sustainability implies an empirical examination of this relationship, yet the manuscript neither conducts such an examination nor defines the necessary variables). Similarly, the claim that a “deterioration of sustainability norms is observed” an empirical trend, but the paper lacks time-series evidence of changing norms. There is an insufficient linkage between ASCN projects and sustainability outcomes (although the manuscript lists projects and city classifications (GaWC), it does not evaluate project outcomes against sustainability criteria (e.g., emissions, service equity, resilience, governance safeguards). Without these outcome measures, the conclusion that ASCN “may not be the best development course” remains a reasoned hypothesis rather than a substantiated result. It is necessary to address ASCN’s stated principles. The ASEAN Smart Cities Framework explicitly advocates an inclusive approach that respects human rights and defines a “smart city” as a “smart sustainable city.” A conclusion that the ASCN’s concept is not sustainable would be more compelling if it explicitly demonstrated a divergence between these stated principles and observed implementation patterns (e.g., whether “city surveillance” projects include rights protections or whether “quality environment” projects measurably improve environmental outcomes). Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature? Partly Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound? Partly Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others? No If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? No Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility? Partly Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results? Partly Competing Interests No competing interests were disclosed. Reviewer Expertise border areas (borderland), ASEAN, European Union-ASEAN relations, I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. reply Respond to this report Responses (1) Author Response 24 Apr 2026 bama andika putra, International Relations, Hasanuddin University Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Makassar, Indonesia Comment 1: Major numeric and source inconsistencies are listed in Table 1 (critical The paper labels "Ease of Doing Business 2024 (World Bank)" and this reflects the current (2021–2024) context. However, the World Bank’s Doing Business "rankings" page indicates that the rankings are benchmarked to May 2019, with the archive explicitly containing "complete historical data up to Doing Business 2020." This discrepancy is not a minor naming issue: if an indicator is based on 2019/2020, it cannot validly support claims about "the past four years" without strong justification and careful wording. More importantly, at least two entries in Table 1 are demonstrably incorrect when compared to the official Doing Business 2020 ranking table: the manuscript reports an "EoDB global rank" of 187 for Cambodia and 187 for Vietnam. The Doing Business 2020 ranking table lists Cambodia at 144 and Vietnam at 70. This is a direct data error that undermines the subsequent interpretation of "ease of doing business" disparities and any argument built on those values. Response : I have corrected the numeric and source inconsistencies listed in Table 1, including revisions with the narratives: 1. Rather than stating that the sources are taken between 2021-2024, the beginning of the last paragraph of page 7 explains that the data displays disparity in recent years: “Table 1 below shows how diverse Southeast Asian countries are, showing more significant disparity in the past years.” 2. Correction of the EoDB’s year of publication becoming 2020 (last sentence of the last paragraph, page 7): “Last, which differs from the datasets used in the 2021 study helix model assessment on ASCN, is the 2020 World Bank’s EoDB ranks, which rate the difficulty of starting a business, obtaining construction permits, accessing electricity, registering property, and obtaining credit” 3. EoDB Global rank data: Cambodia ranked 144, and Vietnam ranked 70 4. Narrative in the first paragraph of page 9: “Furthermore, the EoDB figures shown in Table 1 indicate the role of political and government systems in the ease of doing business in ASEAN countries. Singapore is the second-best country in the world to do business, but its ASEAN counterpart, Cambodia, is ranked 144th, among the lowest” Comment 2: Missing HDI value for Vietnam (critical) The manuscript lists Vietnam’s HDI as "NA." However, UNDP’s own country communication reporting the 2022 HDI states that Vietnam’s 2022 HDI value is 0.726 with a rank of 107/193. This indicates a data extraction, transcription, or table-construction error that should be corrected and documented transparently. Response: I have corrected the data entry for Vietnam’s HDI value in 2022: HDI value 0,726, ranked 107/193. The revisions can be seen in table 1 Comment 3: Conceptual clarity gap: "qualitative and quantitative methods" without description. While the manuscript frequently describes itself as using mixed approaches, it does not provide a clear, explicit methods section that explains the qualitative component (e.g., document analysis, case material selection, coding approach) and how it is integrated with the quantitative component. This makes the "presentation" less transparent, even if the prose is readable. Response: Several sections of the study has been revised to make clear that the qualitative component of the study is through the use of document analysis: 1. Abstract: “Recent urban planning in Southeast Asia has incorporated the theme of transforming cities to ‘smart city’ status. However, the central question raised in this study is whether the ASEAN’s conception of smart cities is genuinely sustainable. Based on the backdrop of Southeast Asia’s disparity in economic performances and diversity in its political, social, economic, and environmental dimensions, this study updates Crumpton’s 2021 study on the ‘quintuple helix model’ and argues that new observations but old patterns are found in the ASEAN Smart Cities Network’s way of developing cities in Southeast Asia. Through a qualitative document analysis, utilizing published secondary data on the ten ASEAN member states between 2020 and 2024, this study revisits and updates the current state of Southeast Asia and how this corresponds to the challenges of constructing smart cities in democratic, semi-authoritarian, and authoritarian settings. 2. Pages 2-3: “Through quantitative and qualitative approaches (document analysis), this study intends to provide an update on the ASCN under the ‘helix models.’ It considers several unique trends between 2020 and 2024 that contribute to the diversity of Southeast Asian states. These include the Myanmar military coup in 2021, Laos’ foreign debt surges, and Cambodia’s change of leadership after more than three decades, to name a few. 27– 33 Comment 4: Adopting methodological and measurement standards is advisable to enhance the positioning of the literature. Given that the primary argument of the manuscript hinges on the sustainability of "smart city" initiatives, incorporating established indicator standards and measurement frameworks specific to urban contexts, rather than those applicable solely to countries, would be advantageous. Examples of such standards include the ISO standards for city services and quality of life, as well as smart cities (ISO 37120:2018 and ISO 37122:2019), and global KPI frameworks for SSCs, such as the ITU-U4SSC KPIs. Although their absence is not necessarily detrimental, it contributes to the uncertainty regarding the operational definition of "sustainability" within the paper. Response: I do agree that the term sustainability of smart city initiatives deserves closer examination regarding its operationalization. I, however, disagree that the article would benefit from a standardized definition, as proposed (ISO 37120:2018 and ISO 37122:2019). As clearly stated in the following two paragraphs (pages 5-6), the term sustainability in the context of Southeast Asian states is different. The highlight is on the character of governance introduced, as well as heightened concerns about surveillance and control. This follows up on earlier studies on the unique challenges of sustainability in Southeast Asia, and the plan of this study is to build on those findings: 1. Paragraph 1: “Studies in the past have captured the doubt that smart cities are indeed sustainable means of developing cities. As past studies have shown, there is unclear evidence that shows that the smart city approach indeed leads to urban sustainability. 1, 3, 5, 63, 64 In building up such an assumption, Charles David Crumpton, Supawatanarkorn Wongthanavasau, Peerasit Kamnuansilpa, John Draper, and Eva Bialobrzeski specifically analyzed this in the context of the ASCN. Adopting the ‘helix models,’ the study looks into specific city plans in Southeast Asia, the ASCN, and experiences with the smart city initiative. 20 The study highlights the disparities in social, economic, and political rights among Southeast Asian states and argues that the presence of states with authoritarian settings generates a more significant challenge for the ASCN. It is then proposed that the smart city conceptualization to be within a ‘system of systems’ framework. 20 In this, “the complex socio-ecological interaction between society and nature and the multi-layered character of governance are acknowledged”. 20 2. Paragraph 2: “Consequently, the disparity in economic capacity, social and human rights, and political systems between the Southeast Asian states is perceived as a barrier to achieving the ideal smart city status for ASCN participating cities. With the advancement of technologies proposed as the basis of a smart city, ASEAN is bridging the potential control abuses and heightened cyber surveillance that could be the case in many of the authoritarian nations in the region. As Crumpton’s-led study mentioned, “[…] authoritarian regimes and regimes with authoritarian tendencies seek new and better means for surveilling and controlling their populations”. 20 And that such state systems would impact “[…] participatory and therefore socio-ecologically sustainable urban planning and governance”. 20 Comment 5: Several design choices compromise the technical robustness of the paper’s primary question—“Are smart cities sustainable?”—and the proposed helix-model framework: Construct-to-measurement mismatch (critical). The conclusions of this study on sustainability are primarily derived from country-level indices (HDI, democracy, press freedom, EPI, etc.) and lists of ASCN projects. This approach risks ecological inference problems, where relationships observed at the country level may not apply to city-level patterns or project-level sustainability outcomes. This risk of “ecological fallacy” is well-known in aggregate-level inference work and should be explicitly addressed through design, limitations, and ideally, multi-level data. Helix-model integrity problem: Excluding the education helix while retaining the “quintuple helix” language (critical). The article mentions excluding the education stakeholder helix due to an “inconclusive relationship” between ICT projects and top-ranked universities. However, foundational descriptions of the Quintuple Helix model consider the education system as one of the five helices; removing it alters the theoretical framework and necessitates re-specification and justification. If the paper employs a modified helix model, it should be renamed (e.g., “modified quadruple helix” or “adapted helix framework”) and explicitly linked to indicators (construct a diagram and a table that associate each helix with its respective indicator(s), data source, and projected relationship to sustainability). If the education helix is limited, the framework is renamed and the theoretical implications are elucidated, referencing the definitions of the Quintuple Helix). The unit of analysis is under-specified. The manuscript shifts between discussing: - ASEAN member states (country-level governance, environmental performance, and development), - ASCN cities (GaWC categorization and project lists), and - “smart city sustainability” as an outcome concept. This could be coherent, but only if the design clearly specifies: (a) the primary unit of analysis, (b) the linking logic between country indices and city/project outcomes, and (c) how alternative explanations are addressed. Responses: 1. Response 1: I justify in page 7, last paragraph, how the state-level differences and comparisons are applicable in the context of the ASCN cities: “Table 1 below shows how diverse Southeast Asian countries are, showing more significant disparity in the past years. Although the presented data pertain to state actors, there is a strong likelihood that the patterns of democracy, GDP growth, human development, press freedom, ease of doing business, and environmental performance at the state level are also of concern to local and regional governments. This considers that half of Southeast Asian states are non-democratic, suggesting that a hierarchical system will apply to the concerns that government officials focus on. The indicators consider several dimensions pivotal to the construction of smart cities. First is the 2024 GDP growth, published by the International Monetary Fund, and considers the total value of goods and services produced within the country. 77 Second is the 2022 UN Human Development Index (HDI), which considers education, health, and standard of living. 78 Third is the 2024 Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index (EIU), which considers civil liberties, the electoral process, political participation & culture, and the functioning of the government. 79 Fourth is the 2024 Reporters Without Borders’ World Press Freedom Index (WPFI), which ranks states based on assessments by non-governmental organizations of journalists' and media freedom. 80 Fifth is the 2024 Yale University’s Environmental Performance Index (EPI), which considers the state of sustainability (climate change performance, environmental health, ecosystem vitality). 81 Last, which differs from the datasets used in the 2021 study helix model assessment on ASCN, is the 2020 World Bank’s EoDB ranks, which rate the difficulty of starting a business, obtaining construction permits, accessing electricity, registering property, and obtaining credit. 82 2. Response 2: I introduce several empirical case studies to showcase how the concerns are located in the city level. The following revisions also responds to the comment on the unit of analysis: (paragraph 1 page 10): However, what is puzzling is the rising significance of cities in less democratic settings such as Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, Phnom Penh, Vientiane, and Myanmar. In the past four years, these four cities have struggled to ensure greater civic rights are maintained. As the ASCN is focused on accelerating the efforts to make these cities ‘smart,’ there seems to be a profound neglect of the political issues in those cities due to this dominant discourse of ‘smart’ development. This raises a substantial concern, as these cities would focus solely on consistency with the ASCN smart city framework and further neglect fundamental urban services. In Vientiane and large cities in Laos, the concern still lies on the issue of restricted civil and political rights, which includes cases of unfair criminal trials, and judicial corruption in the cities (HRW, 2017; OHCHR, 2024). Meanwhile, in Jakarta, those opposing democratic rule have been met with harsh measures to suppress negative sentiments directed at the president (Raditio and Yeremia, 2022; BBC, 2026). These cases go to show that accelerating development that leans to being ‘smart’ does not automatically translate into the provision of basic political and human rights services being delivered. It also shows a strong linkage between state-level political concerns and local-level appreciation towards human rights. (paragraph 1, page 11): The ASCN does not consider these capacity disparities. The focus has been on accelerating the ‘smart city’ development of the ASCN’s pilot city projects and on leveraging AI and technology to deliver better public services to the city’s population. However, the complexity is that cities in countries without democratic systems show less appreciation for the environment and lack proper prospects for human development. The updated data from the 2020 study show that the same conclusions have been reached. The disparities will only lead to greater differences among ASCN members, given the absence of sustainability measures in ASCN projects. Perhaps two case studies of concern is in Yangon and Phnom Penh. In Yangon, prosecutions continue amid the military junta’s crackdown on democratic voices (Oponio Juris, 2022; Reuters, 2022). Meanwhile, despite the acceleration of developments in Phnom Penh, this has been met with an increase in money laundering, concerns over foreign debt, and rising unemployment, which shows that smart cities’ focus on transportation services remains unbalanced with more essential services. (paragraph 3, page 11): The problem with diverse landscapes such as ASEAN is that everything ‘smart’ can easily deepen authoritarian tendencies and undermine sustainability objectives. 20 Another issue is the lack of acknowledgment that the starting points of these cities are different, with some already building the foundations of smart cities since the 1960s. 90 As a consequence, it is expected that, after observing recent data in the past four years, poor cities would most likely see a more substantial deterioration of sustainability norms, as anticipated in past studies. 92– 94 The case of Hanoi, Vietnam, is interesting, given the numerous criticisms citizens have expressed about the increased number of surveillance cameras in the city. Although intended to protect and maintain order on public roads, there have been concerns that images are being misused to monitor private lives and steal private data (Dan, 2026). (paragraph 4, page 11): Combined together, the presented case studies from different ASEAN cities shows an alignment with Crumpton’s concerns over the lack of consideration towards inter-contextual differences. By imposing the ASCN provisions and focusing on targeted smart city elements, this risks the region falling further from sustainability practices that ensure basic services are provided to people. 3. Response 3: I disagree that a name is required, as the article follows up using more recent empirical case studies and data on Crumpton’s helix model. To emphasize this point, I explain in section 3.2 that the focus of the argument taken from the 2021 study is the idea that disparities in capacities leads to insufficient efforts in promoting sustainability measures in cities. The revised paragraph in parapraph 2 of section 3.2: “The basis of the ASCN's problem is diversity across systems. The smart city approach becomes complex when applied to governments with authoritarian or semi-authoritarian settings, which could lead to further control over populations. 76 For the more democratic nations of Southeast Asia, the problem then becomes to what extent state policymakers consider environmental costs as exceeding development targets. This section argues that old patterns are emerging, with a lack of relationship between citizens and the smart city developments taking place in Southeast Asia. In doing so, the following will explain several indicators that show the diversity between states and cities in Southeast Asia, indicating different starting points among the ASCN members, which risks exacerbating disparities in the delivery of basic urban services. Similar to Crumpton’s 2021 point, the updated empirical data presented between 2020 and 2024 in the two tables below show that concern over non-democratic practices has the potential to negatively affect urban planning and governance, underplay environmental concerns, and neglect improvements in the quality of life of the city’s population. ” Comment 6 : Concerns over methods and data availability Response 1: I have revised table 1, and no values are labelled as ‘NA.’ Response 2: Regarding the data, the values and information are publicly available, as stated in the data declaration. Therefore, there is no need to put the data in a separate file and upload the files, as the copyright is retained by the institutions. View more View less Competing Interests No competing interests reply Respond Report a concern Intarti Y. Peer Review Report For: Are Smart Cities ‘Sustainable?’ Revisiting the ‘Helix Model’ of the ASEAN Smart Cities Network [version 2; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 2 not approved] . F1000Research 2026, 14 :1484 ( https://doi.org/10.5256/f1000research.192534.r451036) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in this citation. The direct URL for this report is: https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1484/v1#referee-response-451036 Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article: Approved - the paper is scientifically sound in its current form and only minor, if any, improvements are suggested Approved with reservations - A number of small changes, sometimes more significant revisions are required to address specific details and improve the papers academic merit. Not approved - fundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions Adjust parameters to alter display View on desktop for interactive features Includes Interactive Elements View on desktop for interactive features Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Stay Updated Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles Register with F1000Research Already registered? Sign in Not now, thanks close PLEASE NOTE If you are an AUTHOR of this article, please check that you signed in with the account associated with this article otherwise we cannot automatically identify your role as an author and your comment will be labelled as a “User Comment”. If you are a REVIEWER of this article, please check that you have signed in with the account associated with this article and then go to your account to submit your report, please do not post your review here. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us . All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies . The information that you give us will be displayed next to your comment. User comments must be in English, comprehensible and relevant to the article under discussion. We reserve the right to remove any comments that we consider to be inappropriate, offensive or otherwise in breach of the User Comment Terms and Conditions . Commenters must not use a comment for personal attacks. When criticisms of the article are based on unpublished data, the data should be made available. I accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions Please confirm that you accept the User Comment Terms and Conditions. Affiliation ✕ refresh Please enter your institution. Note: To add your institution or organisation, start typing the name and then select the correct name from the list. Where applicable, the name will appear in both the original language and in English. Do not paste in the name. If the name does not appear in the drop-down list, we will display the information you have entered. ✕ refresh Country/Region * USA UK Canada China France Germany Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria American Samoa Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory British Virgin Islands Brunei Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d'Ivoire Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Democratic Republic of the Congo Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands Faroe Islands Federated States of Micronesia Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guam Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and Mcdonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hong Kong Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Kosovo (Serbia and Montenegro) Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Minor Outlying Islands of the United States Moldova Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands Antilles New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island North Korea North Macedonia Northern Mariana Islands Norway Oman Pakistan Palau Palestinian Territory Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Puerto Rico Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Helena Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Is South Korea South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syria Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania Thailand The Gambia The Netherlands Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu UK USA Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United States Virgin Islands Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela Vietnam Wallis and Futuna West Bank and Gaza Strip Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Please select your country/region. You must enter a comment. Competing Interests Please disclose any competing interests that might be construed to influence your judgment of the article's or peer review report's validity or importance. Competing Interests Policy Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. You have a close personal relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. You are a close professional associate of any of the authors (e.g. scientific mentor, recent student). You work at the same institute as any of the authors. You hope/expect to benefit (e.g. favour or employment) as a result of your submission. You are an Editor for the journal in which the article is published. Examples of 'Financial Competing Interests' You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, any of the following from any commercial organisation that may gain financially from your submission: a salary, fees, funding, reimbursements. You expect to receive, or in the past 4 years have received, shared grant support or other funding with any of the authors. You hold, or are currently applying for, any patents or significant stocks/shares relating to the subject matter of the paper you are commenting on. Please state your competing interests The comment has been saved. An error has occurred. Please try again. Cancel Post var lTitle = "Are Smart Cities \‘Sustainable?\’...".replace("'", ''); var linkedInUrl = "http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1484/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle) + "&summary=" + encodeURIComponent('Read the article by '); var deliciousUrl = "https://del.icio.us/post?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1484/v2&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); var redditUrl = "http://reddit.com/submit?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1484/v2" + "&title=" + encodeURIComponent(lTitle); linkedInUrl += encodeURIComponent('Putra BA'); var offsetTop = /chrome/i.test( navigator.userAgent ) ? 4 : -10; var addthis_config = { ui_offset_top: offsetTop, services_compact : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_expanded : "facebook,twitter,www.linkedin.com,www.mendeley.com,reddit.com", services_custom : [ { name: "LinkedIn", url: linkedInUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_linkedin.svg" }, { name: "Mendeley", url: "http://www.mendeley.com/import/?url=https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1484/v2/mendeley", icon:"/img/icon/at_mendeley.svg" }, { name: "Reddit", url: redditUrl, icon:"/img/icon/at_reddit.svg" }, ] }; var addthis_share = { url: "https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1484", templates : { twitter : "Are Smart Cities \‘Sustainable?\’ Revisiting the \‘Helix.... Putra BA, published by " + "@F1000Research" + ", https://f1000research.com/articles/14-1484/v2" } }; if (typeof(addthis) != "undefined"){ addthis.addEventListener('addthis.ready', checkCount); addthis.addEventListener('addthis.menu.share', checkCount); } $(".f1r-shares-twitter").attr("href", "https://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=" + addthis_share.templates.twitter); $(".f1r-shares-facebook").attr("href", "https://www.facebook.com/sharer/sharer.php?u=" + addthis_share.url); $(".f1r-shares-linkedin").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[0].url); $(".f1r-shares-reddit").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[2].url); $(".f1r-shares-mendelay").attr("href", addthis_config.services_custom[1].url); function checkCount(){ setTimeout(function(){ $(".addthis_button_expanded").each(function(){ var count = $(this).text(); if (count !== "" && count != "0") $(this).removeClass("is-hidden"); else $(this).addClass("is-hidden"); }); }, 1000); } close How to cite this report {{reportCitation}} Cancel Copy Citation Details $(function(){R.ui.buttonDropdowns('.dropdown-for-downloads');}); $(function(){R.ui.toolbarDropdowns('.toolbar-dropdown-for-downloads');}); $.get("/articles/acj/174616/197926") new F1000.Clipboard(); new F1000.ThesaurusTermsDisplay("articles", "article", "197926"); $(document).ready(function() { $( "#frame1" ).on('load', function() { var mydiv = $(this).contents().find("div"); var h = mydiv.height(); console.log(h) }); var tooltipLivingFigure = jQuery(".interactive-living-figure-label .icon-more-info"), titleLivingFigure = tooltipLivingFigure.attr("title"); tooltipLivingFigure.simpletip({ fixed: true, position: ["-115", "30"], baseClass: 'small-tooltip', content:titleLivingFigure + " " }); tooltipLivingFigure.removeAttr("title"); $("body").on("click", ".cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); var ref = $(this).attr("data-ref"); $(this).closest(".living-figure-list-container").find("#" + ref).fadeIn(200); }); $("body").on("click", ".close-cite-living-figure", function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(this).closest(".popup-window-wrapper").fadeOut(200); }); $(document).on("mouseup", function(e) { var metricsContainer = $(".article-metrics-popover-wrapper"); if (!metricsContainer.is(e.target) && metricsContainer.has(e.target).length === 0) { $(".article-metrics-close-button").click(); } }); var articleId = $('#articleId').val(); if($("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics) { $("#main-article-count-box").attachArticleMetrics(articleId, { articleMetricsView: true }); } }); var figshareWidget = $(".new_figshare_widget"); if (figshareWidget.length > 0) { window.figshare.load("f1000", function(Widget) { // Select a tag/tags defined in your page. In this tag we will place the widget. _.map(figshareWidget, function(el){ var widget = new Widget({ articleId: $(el).attr("figshare_articleId") //height:300 // this is the height of the viewer part. [Default: 550] }); widget.initialize(); // initialize the widget widget.mount(el); // mount it in a tag that's on your page // this will save the widget on the global scope for later use from // your JS scripts. This line is optional. //window.widget = widget; }); }); } close Error Close Add Reset F1000.MICROSERVICES.AFFILIATION = ''; $(document).ready(function () { $('.js-affiliations-form').each((index, form) => { new AffiliationForm({ formId: form.id, institutionErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-institution', departmentErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-department', placeSelector: '.js-add-comment-place', stateSelector: '.js-add-comment-state', zipCodeSelector: '.js-add-comment-zipcode', countrySelector: '.js-add-comment-country', countryErrorSelector: '.comment-enter-country', }); }); }); $(document).ready(function () { var reportIds = { "478727": 0, "458126": 0, "458127": 0, "458125": 0, "478728": 0, "458134": 0, "458132": 0, "458133": 0, "458130": 0, "458131": 0, "458128": 0, "458129": 13, "479775": 2, "479774": 0, "479773": 0, "479772": 0, "479771": 0, "479780": 0, "479779": 0, "479778": 0, "479777": 0, "479776": 0, "447686": 0, "447687": 0, "447684": 0, "447685": 0, "447683": 0, "447692": 0, "447690": 0, "447691": 0, "447688": 0, "447689": 0, "456534": 0, "451030": 0, "456535": 0, "451031": 0, "456532": 0, "456533": 0, "456531": 0, "451038": 0, "451039": 0, "456540": 0, "451036": 11, "451037": 0, "456538": 0, "451034": 0, "456539": 0, "451035": 0, "456536": 0, "451032": 0, "456537": 0, "451033": 0, "484967": 0, "484975": 0, "484974": 0, "484973": 0, "484972": 0, "484971": 0, "484970": 0, "484969": 0, "484968": 0, "484976": 0, }; $(".referee-response-container,.js-referee-report").each(function(index, el) { var reportId = $(el).attr("data-reportid"), reportCount = reportIds[reportId] || 0; $(el).find(".comments-count-container,.js-referee-report-views").html(reportCount); }); var uuidInput = $("#article_uuid"), oldUUId = uuidInput.val(), newUUId = "04cd62e1-a72f-4ace-b501-34c6cc7d8ce8"; uuidInput.val(newUUId); $("a[href*='article_uuid=']").each(function(index, el) { var newHref = $(el).attr("href").replace(oldUUId, newUUId); $(el).attr("href", newHref); }); }); An innovative open access publishing platform offering rapid publication and open peer review, whilst supporting data deposition and sharing. Browse Gateways Collections How it Works Contact For Developers Cookie Notice Privacy Notice RSS Submit Your Research Follow us © 2012-2026 F1000 Research Ltd. ISSN 2046-1402 | Legal | Partner of Research4Life • CrossRef • ORCID • FAIRSharing R.templateTests.simpleTemplate = R.template(' $text $text $text $text $text '); R.templateTests.runTests(); var F1000platform = new F1000.Platform({ name: "f1000research", displayName: "F1000Research", hostName: "f1000research.com", id: "1", editorialEmail: "[email protected]", infoEmail: "[email protected]", usePmcStats: true }); $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-authors, .dropdown-for-about, .dropdown-for-myresearch');}); // $(function(){R.ui.dropdowns('.dropdown-for-referees');}); $(document).ready(function () { if ($(".cookie-warning").is(":visible")) { $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "35px"); $(".devices").addClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); } $(".cookie-warning .close-button").click(function (e) { $(".devices").removeClass("devices-and-cookie-warning"); $(".sticky").css("margin-bottom", "0"); }); $("#tweeter-feed .tweet-message").each(function (i, message) { var self = $(message); self.html(linkify(self.html())); }); $(".partner").on("mouseenter mouseleave", function() { $(this).find(".gray-scale, .colour").toggleClass("is-hidden"); }); }); Sign In Remember me Forgotten your password? Sign In Cancel Email or password not correct. Please try again Please wait... $(function(){ // Note: All the setup needs to run against a name attribute and *not* the id due the clonish // nature of facebox... $("a[id=googleSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("GOOGLE"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=facebookSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("FACEBOOK"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); $("a[id=orcidSignInButton]").click(function(event){ event.preventDefault(); $("input[id=oAuthSystem]").val("ORCID"); $("form[id=oAuthForm]").submit(); }); }); If you've forgotten your password, please enter your email address below and we'll send you instructions on how to reset your password. The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000. Email address not valid, please try again You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here . You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password. To sign in, please click here . If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here . Code not correct, please try again Reset password Cancel Email us for further assistance. Server error, please try again. If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password. If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance. Please wait... Register $(document).ready(function () { signIn.createSignInAsRow($("#sign-in-form-gfb-popup")); $(".target-field").each(function () { var uris = $(this).val().split("/"); if (uris.pop() === "login") { $(this).val(uris.toString().replace(",","/")); } }); });