An Unsustainable Smart City: Lessons from Uneven Citizen Education and Engagement in Thailand

Abstract

The sustainability of a smart city development depends on the interpretations and prioritization driven by the key actors. Currently; the “top-down” smart city implementation in many countries is at risk of disengaging with local stakeholders and further widening the social disparities in the cities. This paper presents the socio-political contexts of a smart city, the citizens’ perspectives and awareness using Phuket, and Thailand as a case study. Desktop research was used to describe the context of the smart city policy; key driving organizations; budget allocation; and the guiding vision and mission statements at the local level. A survey of 409 residents was conducted to assess their awareness and willingness to participate in Phuket Smart City (PSC) activities as well as internet behavior and communication channels. The findings reveal uneven awareness of PSC across demographic groups. PSC was more familiar to the middle-aged; highly educated; high-income; and locals with leadership positions and living near the city center. A perceived lack of knowledge, time, information, and relevance affected the residents’ willingness to be involved in smart city development. Active communication and grass-root engagement are needed to improve public awareness and engagement in smart city implementation and achieve meaningful and equitable development.

1. Introduction

The ‘smart city’ concept has been posited in diverse publications covering urban planning, trade, energy, economics, sustainability, and environmental disciplines over the last two decades [1,2,3]. The concept attempts to promote sustainability and improved quality of life of citizens using emerging sensor and digital technologies [4,5,6]. Advanced information and communication technology are often assumed to improve the ‘smartness’ of the cities, they do not necessarily make cities sustainable. Sustainable urban development requires citizens and their socio-cultural contexts to be understood along with the technologies [7,8]. However, technological solutions alone cannot solve complex city problems that are influenced and shaped by diverse groups of stakeholders [9,10]. This highlights the need for research into the role of human and social capital in parallel with technological progress if smart city implementation is to be achieved.

Ideally, smart city implementation should facilitate sustainable urban development. The objective of a “smart city” have been highlighted as the future of urban development in many countries [11,12,13] with the emphasis on sustainable development [14]. It aims to promote sustainability, competitiveness, growth, and the mitigation of urban problems as well as improve the social and economic quality of life [1,15]. Yet, there remains a debate whether smartness implies sustainability. Kramers et al., (2014) [16] and Ahvenniemi et al., (2017) [17] suggested the term “smart sustainable city” to highlight the importance of both smartness and sustainability and stated that a city would not be smart if it was not sustainable. Both sustainability-oriented and non-sustainability-oriented definitions of a smart city are to be found in the literature with the role of soft capital, such as human and social capital, highlighted in the first group of definitions. The second group places emphasis on ICT utilization and the city’s ‘hard’ infrastructure directed at making cities livable and efficient [18].

The city indicators for smartness and sustainability often overlap. (Stratigea et al. (2017) embedded smart and sustainable cities into sustainability performance [19]. However, some studies argued that there was a different focus between smart and sustainable indicators, [17] suggesting the need to develop smart-sustainable indicators [20]. Smart indicators mostly concentrate on living and people [21] whereas sustainability indicators frequently focus on environmental and social aspects [17]. An imbalance exists in the prioritization of these indicators by both the scholars and policy makers. Economic performance usually receives more frequent mention than environmental conditions, people and governance indicators [17,22]. This has led to increasing calls for better alignment between smart city strategies and concrete sustainability goals to deliver sustainable development outcomes for smart city projects [23].

Sustainability evaluations of a smart city have been attempted through various indicators including sustainability indices, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and renewable energy production and consumption [17,23,24]. Models, frameworks, tools as well as indices for sustainable development of smart cities were summarized in (Trindade et al. (2017) [25]. In recent years, the role of social awareness in ensuring sustainability in a city development has been highlighted [26]. The stance taken by the city leaders, managers and citizens regarding the interpretation of a smart city naturally influences its operation. The connection between the ‘hard’ (technology and infrastructure) and ‘soft’ (human, governance and social values) must be emphasized and communicated to ensure a holistic understanding and implementation of a smart city framework.

A sustainable smart city requires balanced efforts in economic, environmental and social development. Sustainability cannot be achieved without a social value shift, digitalization, decentralization, decarbonization, democratization, and participation which focus not only on the economy but on the people, the place, energy and the environment, mobility, social inclusion, and governance [27]. This view is derived from many definitions of a smart city and smart city management but there is no unified definition [28]. Ramaprasad et al., (2017) have proposed that a smart city is a compound construct in which the city is defined over multiple dimensions by its stakeholders (citizens, professionals, communities, institutions, businesses, governments) and the outcomes (sustainability, quality of life, equity, livability, resilience) [28]. In this construct smartness is influenced by multiple foci (cultural, economic, demographic, environmental, political, social, technological, infrastructural), measured by semiotic dimensions (data, information, knowledge), structural dimensions (architecture, infrastructure, systems, services, policies, processes, personnel) and functional dimensions (sensors, monitoring, processing, translating, and communicating). Overall technology has been highlighted in smart city studies and much less research has focused on the smart city management process.

The smart city transformation requires effective and efficient management practices at many levels of smart cities with the focus not only on technologies but the city’s ability to apply them to support its resilience and sustainability [29]. To build a smart city, there are increasing calls for citizen-centric approaches [30] and socio-political contexts of the city including legislation, cross-border cooperation, digital ethics, good governance, public administration, and local leadership [31,32,33,34]. Public participation and civic engagement in urban planning have been recognized as enhancing urban decision making [35] and as a vital component of smart cities [36,37]. The relationship between the government and the citizen is key to an effective exchange of information between the local government, which provides support for the communication, and the citizens, who actively participate in city matters [38]. Simonofski et al., (2017) illustrated an evaluation framework of citizen participation designed as a governance tool for governmental administration to guide a human-oriented smart city strategy [39]. The social challenges in the implementation of smart city models, especially in the context of institutional development, highlights the importance of citizens, their points of view and social and cultural dynamics in the sustainable development outcomes [40]. Active citizen involvement is fundamental to smart city implementation [41]. Citizens are consumers, users, sources of data and feedback, and decision-makers [42] necessary for the designing and delivering an inclusive smart city vision that focuses on the integration of various groups of smart city services and citizens [43]. This highlights the need for studies on the complex perspective of citizens’ awareness of smart city services and their ability to use them [44]. In practice, analyzing citizens’ motivations for using smart city services is key to the acceptance of specific smart city initiatives [45]. Although citizen engagement in a smart city has been acknowledged [36], studies on how it has been implemented have been limited, especially in a non-western society. Understanding how the smart city concept is implemented in developing countries is important as many countries adopt this as the solution to urban problems [46]. There is also a lack of research on how citizens perceive and engage with smart city initiatives. This paper contributes to the people-oriented approach of the smart city discussion [17] by providing insights on smart city implementation and perceptions of the citizens in a Southeast Asian context. It investigates the awareness and engagement of the citizens in Phuket Smart City (PSC), Thailand.

Many previous studies in the field have focused on European cities; a smaller proportion of literature have discussed smart cities in Indonesia, Japan, China, and Australia [23,47,48,49]. This research into Thailand’s implementation of a smart city concept enriches the smart city discourse by providing an insight from different cultural and social contexts which underline the interpretations and operations of smart city projects.

Phuket is a tourism-dominated island with one of the highest levels of economic productivity and cost of living in Thailand. Although Phuket is a relatively small-scale city with less than 1 million inhabitants according to the national census, yet it received the highest budget from the Thai government for its pilot smart city implementation. This paper describes how the smart city concept was introduced at the national level, translated into specific projects by related organizations and implemented at the local level. It then analyzes the level of awareness and participation in PSC against the residents’ demographic characteristics. The study provides an analysis of residents’ expectations of PSC through the keywords frequently mentioned in resident interviews.

2. A Smart City and Its Citizens

Recently, Kusumastuti and Rouli (2021) proposed that a functional smart city is characterized by an interconnectivity among people and places in a way that is efficient, effective and appropriate in its context [50]. Lim et al., (2018) more generally proposed that smart city development should reflect the needs and priorities of its citizens [51]. These ideals have been exemplified by smart cities in western societies such as Amsterdam, London, and Paris, where workplace digitalization and public infrastructures such as mass transportation networks, cityscape, and business areas have been designed to improve people’s well-being and efficiency of production [52,53]. Studies of smart cities in Asia e.g., Hong Kong, Singapore, Japan, and China [54,55]. Ang-Tan and Ang (2021) have highlighted the role of public sector innovation in smart city development [54]. Su et al., (2022) provided a detailed comparison between the smart city measures of Shanghai in China and Japan’s Kitakyushu which emphasized the need for active communication platforms between city managers and citizens and balanced actions between economic developments and environmental protection [55].

As cities are the melting pot of people from diverse socio-economic and cultural backgrounds, city services and infrastructure need to support multidimensional development and facilitate the involvement of citizens from diverse groups. There have been increasing calls in the smart city literature to emphasize the social processes and human capital development that support the technological applications in the city [4,41,56]. There is also an emerging need for smart cities to focus not only on the Internet of Things (IoT) but also IoP, the Internet of People, to empower a new social behavior to become smarter within cities [57,58]. This was driven by the notion that humans as well as their personal devices have become the central and active element of the internet system [58,59]. The view that citizens are merely end-users of technology is shifting to citizens as active co-creators of the solutions to city problems [47]. Citizens can have many roles in a smart city including being empowered by data, providing data, collaborating with city administrators, and acting for the common good [30]. Lytras and Visvizi (2018) presented the views of highly educated smart city service users and divided them into three groups, namely the advocates, the concerned users and the apathetic users [44]. The citizens’ perspectives of smart city services can affect their acceptance and usage [45]. As cities are multidimensional, the contexts in which each smart city is developed must be understood to identify the enablers and barriers to citizen engagement in the smart city implementation processes [50]. Governance structure, administrative institutions, budgeting mechanisms, key actors and their interpretations are all powerful determinants of smart city directions [60].

Acknowledging that notions of citizenship and resident participation in urban development are complex and often used interchangeably in the literature, the term ‘citizen’ in this paper nevertheless focuses on residents, businesses, and commuters who are regular inhabitants of a city [30]. This provides a clear distinction from public administrators and city management organizations.

3. Materials and Methods

The study used desktop research to provide the context of PSC and a door-to-door survey [61] to examine local awareness and perspectives about PSC of Phuket residents. The questionnaire was written in the Thai language with both closed and open-ended questions. Residents whose houses were on the main roads of municipalities were approached during the weekends between 9:00 am to 4:00 pm to ensure that people with regular jobs could also participate in the research. The researcher explained the study, provided information about PSC and asked respondents if they would agree to do the survey. The questionnaires asked for general information about the respondents, their awareness of and perceptions about PSC, and willingness to participate. The reliability analysis was examined using the Cronbach alpha coefficient to check internal consistency [62]. In total, 409 respondents in urban and suburban areas gave their consent to answering the survey from April to September 2018. Standard ethical requirements were observed.

Numerical data were calculated into percentages for demographic information. Word frequency was counted from open-ended questions and the number of participants mentioning each word was recorded. In total, 1663 words were used by 146 respondents in regard to PSC prioritization and 959 words were mentioned in additional suggestions by 98 respondents. To investigate the relationships between demographic attributes and awareness of PSC, Chi-square values are calculated to test if there is a significant difference between the answers from each group. The statistical significance was identified by a p-value that was less than 0.05 [63].

4. Results

4.1. Thailand’s Smart City

Phuket Smart City (PSC) has developed from decades of Thailand’s plan to drive a knowledge-based economy through the use of information technology and innovations. In 1996, the National Information Technology Committee (NITC) of Thailand emphasized three agendas in the “IT 2000” plan, namely (i) the investment in equitable information infrastructure by the National Information Infrastructure (NII), (ii) a well-educated populace and adequate IT manpower or the investment in people, and (iii) the investment for good governance [64]. In its subsequent plan, IT 2010 (2001–2010) created by the National Electronics and Computer Technology Center (NECTEC), the global trend of the economy and societal development toward a knowledge-based economy was highlighted [65].

The IT 2010 framework was aligned to the ninth national economic and social development plan to promote national ICT development with early projects focusing on software technology in the first Thailand ICT Master Plan (2002–2006). The ‘Smart Thailand 2020’ vision was introduced in the second Thailand ICT Master Plan (2009–2013) which aimed at three missions; (i) ‘Smart Business’ to enhance the knowledge of the ICT workforce, (ii) ‘Smart Network’ to speed up the ICT network, and (iii) ‘Smart Government’ to provide suitable ICT for better governance [66].

The ‘Smart Thailand 2020’ framework continued as part of the third Thailand ICT Master Plan (2014–2018) which promoted the ‘Digital Hub’ as well as sustainable economic growth, strengthening social capital at the community level, and green environment [67]. Thailand’s smart city projects were funded by the Ministry of Digital Economy and Society (MDE). The provinces of Phuket, Chiang Mai, and Khon Kaen, were designated as pilot areas with an initial budget of 386 million Thai Baht for Phuket ($11.1 million), 36.5 million Thai Baht for Chiang Mai ($1.05 million), and 15 million Thai Baht for Khon Kaen ($430,000) [68,69]. Phuket and Chiang Mai were assigned as pilot smart cities by the Thai government in 2015 following the ‘Digital Economy’ policy [70,71]. Khon Kaen smart city projects were initiated by the local private sector, led by Khon Kaen City Development or KKTT [68].

4.2. Phuket Smart City

“The Tourism Island of Sustainable Growth by Enhancing Creative Economy to Provide Happiness for All” was the PSC vision declared in 2015 [69] by SIPA, the Software Industry Promotion Agency which has since changed its name to the Digital Economy Promotion Agency (DEPA). PSC early themes consisted of: (i) smart economy (the hub of creative entrepreneurs, innovation park, smart city collaboration); (ii) smart living community (smart tourism, safe city, green city, IoT environment sensors); and (iii) high-speed internet and free Wi-Fi [69]. The budget of 386 million Thai Baht was allocated to three organizations, namely MICT receiving 240 million THB (62%) for high-speed internet and free Wi-Fi projects, SIPA managing 79 million THB (21%) for smart economy projects, and National Science and Technology Development Agency (NSTDA) gaining 67 million THB (17%) for smart living community projects [69]. It was noteworthy that there were differences in the PSC initiatives between the PSC road map presented by SIPA, the peripheral unit of the MICT from the central government, and the “Phuket smart city 2020” developed by the Phuket Provincial Organization (PPO), the local administrative organization. SIPA’s PSC roadmap was classified into six activities including (i) smart city collaboration, (ii) investment center, (iii) international creative and innovation entrepreneur academy, (iv) smart living community, (v) startup ecosystem, and (vi) digital content branding to overseas market [72]. Meanwhile, PPO’s smart city vision was aimed at “Smile Smart and Sustainable Phuket” with seven themes (

Table 1. Phuket smart city themes and visions.

SIPA’s PSC Road Map	PPO’s PSC Themes	PPO’s PSC Vision
1. Smart city collaboration 2. Investment left 3. Startup ecosystem 4. Digital content branding to overseas market	1. Smart economy	Hub of creative entrepreneurs
5. International creative and innovation entrepreneur academy	2. Smart education	Smart learning community
6. Smart living community	3. Smart environment	Phuket green city
	4. Smart government	Smart and sustainable Phuket
	5. Smart healthcare	Smart hospital and patient single ID
	6. Smart safety	Phuket safe city (CCTV and Maritime)
	7. Smart tourism	Tourism digital economy model

); (i) smart economy, (ii) smart education, (iii) smart environment, (iv) smart governance, (v) smart healthy (vi) smart safety, and (vii) smart tourism [69]. The differences between SIPA’s roadmap and PPO’s vision highlighted the disconnection in the interpretation of a smart city between the central and local governments. In addition, it was unclear how the inputs of Phuket residents were incorporated in the planning of PSC projects.

4.3. Puket Citizen Perspectives

From the survey with 409 respondents, 249 (61%) people resided in Mueang Phuket district, 104 (25%) lived in Thalang district, and 56 (14%) were from Kathu district (Figure 1). Most of the respondents were female (64%, 261 people), and aged 21–40 years (60%, 246). Many elderly people refused to participate in the survey because they lacked confidence in topics related to technology. More than half of the respondents were born in other provinces and had moved to Phuket for work or family reasons; most had lived in Phuket for 1–5 years (36%, 77). Bachelor’s degree holders comprised the majority of the sample (53%, 215). The three most frequent respondents were business owners (28%, 116), company employees (19%, 78), and freelances (18%, 73). Almost all regarded themselves as community members (96%, 395). More than half of the respondents (55%, 225) had never heard about PSC. The demographic characteristics of the respondents and their awareness of PSC are summarized in

Table 2. Demographic data of the respondents and their awareness of PSC.

Heard about Phuket Smart City?	Yes (n = 184)		No (n = 225)		Total (n = 409)
	n	%	n	%	n	%
1. Districts						X2 (p < 0.001)
Mueang District	132	72	117	52	249	61
Thalang District	42	23	62	28	104	25
Kathu District	10	5	46	20	56	14
2. Gender						X2 (p < 0.001)
Male	84	46	64	28	148	36
Female	100	54	161	72	261	64
3. Age (years)						X2 (p = 0.013)
<21	10	5.4	33	15	43	11
	n	%	n	%	n	%
21–40	112	61	134	59	246	60
41–60	52	28.2	51	23	103	25
>60	10	5.4	7	3	17	4
4. Birth place						X2 (p < 0.001)
Phuket	110	60	91	40	201	49
Other provinces (Answer question 5)	75	41	133	59	208	51
5. Length of stay (years) For non-natives						X2 (p = 0.091)
<1	5	7	19	14	24	11
1–5	22	29	54	41	76	36
6–10	19	25	28	21	47	23
11–15	14	19	13	10	27	13
16–20	7	9	11	8	18	9
>20	8	11	8	6	16	8
6. Education						X2 (p < 0.001)
<Senior high school	6	3	37	16	43	10
Senior high school	21	11	61	27	82	20
Diploma	13	7	18	8	31	8
Bachelor degree	112	61	103	46	215	53
>Bachelor degree	32	18	6	3	38	9
7. Monthly income (THB)						X2 (p < 0.001)
<10,000	19	10	50	22	69	17
10,000–20,000	53	29	101	45	154	38
20,001–30,000	48	26	40	18	88	21
>30,000	64	35	35	15	99	24
8. Occupation						X2 (p < 0.001)
Government	15	8	5	2	20	5
Heard about Phuket Smart City?	Yes (n = 184)		No (n = 225)		Total (n = 409)
Private	40	22	38	17	78	19
Personal business	67	37	49	22	116	28
Merchants	19	10	49	22	68	17
Freelance	21	11	52	23	73	18
Student	15	8	30	13	45	11
Others	7	4	2	1	9	2
9. Community position						X2 (p < 0.001)
Leader/Local government	14	8	0	0	14	4
Community member	170	92	225	100	395	96
10. Will participate in Phuket Smart City?						X2 (p < 0.001)
Yes	140	76	88	39	228	56
No	44	24	137	61	181	44

.

The results show significant differences in PSC awareness among the respondents from different residential areas, gender, age, education, income, birthplace, community position, and willingness to participate in PSC. Respondents living in Mueang Phuket district showed higher awareness of PSC than those in Kathu or Thalang. Male respondents and people between the ages of 21 and 40 with higher education, higher income, and who were born in Phuket were more likely to be aware of PSC than other demographic groups. In addition, all respondents in leadership positions or working in local government were aware of PSC projects.

When asked about their willingness to participate in PSC, more than half of the respondents (56%) provided a positive answer. There were significant differences in the willingness to participate in PSC among the respondents from different residential areas; by gender, education, income, birthplace and community position (

Table 3. Demographic characteristics and participation willingness in PSC.

Will Participate in Phuket Smart City?	Yes (n = 228)		No (n = 181)		Total (n = 409)
	n	%	n	%	n	%
1. Districts						X2 (p < 0.001)
Mueang District	166	73	83	46	249	61
Thalang District	44	19	60	33	104	25
Kathu District	18	8	38	21	56	14
2. Gender						X2 (p < 0.001)
Male	100	44	48	27	148	36
Female	128	56	133	73	261	64
3. Age (Years)						X2 (p = 0.11)
<21	19	8	24	13	43	11
Will participate in Phuket smart city?	Yes (n = 228)		No (n = 181)		Total (n = 409)
21–40	143	63	103	57	246	60
41–60	60	26	43	24	103	25
>60	6	3	11	6	17	4
4. Birth place						X2 (p < 0.001)
Phuket	130	57	71	39	201	49
Other provinces (Answer question 5)	98	43	110	61	208	51
5. Length of stay (Years) For non-natives						X2 (p = 0.48)
<1	11	11	14	13	25	12
1–5	33	34	45	41	78	37
6–10	27	28	20	18	47	23
11–15	14	14	13	12	27	13
16–20	9	9	9	8	18	9
>20	4	4	9	8	13	6
	n	%	n	%	n	%
6. Education						X2 (p < 0.001)
<Senior high school	11	5	32	18	43	10
Senior high school	34	15	48	26	82	20
Diploma	17	7	14	8	31	8
Bachelor degree	138	61	77	42	215	53
>Bachelor degree	28	12	10	6	38	9
7. Monthly income (THB)						X2 (p < 0.001)
<10,000	28	12	40	22	68	17
10,000–20,000	76	33	78	43	154	38
20,001–30,000	52	23	36	20	88	21
>30,000	72	32	27	15	99	24
8. Occupation						X2 (p < 0.001)
Government	12	5	8	4	20	5
Private	58	25	20	11	78	19
Personal business	79	35	37	20	116	28
Merchants	23	10	45	25	68	17
Freelance	30	13	43	24	73	18
Student	22	10	23	13	45	11
Others	4	2	5	3	9	2
9. Community position						X2 (p = 0.004)
Leader/Local government	13	6	1	1	14	3
Community member	215	94	180	99	395	97
10. Heard about Phuket Smart City?						X2 (p < 0.001)
Yes	140	61	44	24	184	45
No	88	39	137	76	225	55

). Those who said they would participate in PSC tended to be female (56%), Phuket natives (57%), living in the Mueang district (73%), aged 21–40 (63%), with a bachelor’s degree (61%), earning 10,000–20,000 THB per month (33%), working in personal business (35%), who had heard of PSC (61%).

When asked about their participation interests in detail, 43% of people were willing to contribute by identifying city problems and solutions and nearly a third (32%) would like to take part in planning and implementing the projects. Some showed an interest in investing in city development (18%) but few respondents wanted to participate in project monitoring and evaluation (7%) (

Table 4. The respondents’ participation and interest in PSC stages, dimensions, including internet behaviors and preferred communication channels.

Questions	No. of People (n = 409)	Percentage (%)
Willingness to participate in PSC stages	228	56
1.1 Cause of problem and solution	99	43
1.2 Planning and action	73	32
1.3 Investment	40	18
1.4 Monitoring and evaluation	16	7
Unwillingness	181	44
Participation interest in PSC dimensions
Economy	119	29
Education	62	15
Security	61	15
Environment	58	14
Tourism	54	13
Governance	42	11
Public health	13	3
Questions	No. of people (n = 409)	Percentage (%)
Purpose of internet use in daily life
Reading news and socializing	276	68
Operating businesses	58	14
Searching for information	55	13
Others (Entrepreneurship, System Developer, ICT Producer)	12	3
N/A	8	2
Preferred communication channel for PSC information
Facebook	243	60
LINE application	50	12
Mobile application	41	10
Website	39	9
Meeting	29	7
N/A	7	2

). Respondents who did not want to participate in PSC projects (44%) attributed this to their lack of time and knowledge as the main reasons. This was reflected in the following statements:

“We don’t have time because we have to work/study” (84%).

“We don’t understand and have no knowledge about technology” (11%).

Other reasons cited were age-related and health problems in the elderly (2%), temporary residence in Phuket (2%), and the perception that PSC was the responsibility of the authorities or politicians (1%). This was represented through one respondent’s quote;

“We are users only, it is not our responsibility, it should be leaders who take action”.

The priority of PSC themes ranked by the respondents was economics (29%), followed by education (15%), security (15%), environment (14%), tourism (13%), governance (10%), and public health (3%) respectively. When asked about a preferred media channel for receiving PSC information, most respondents identified Facebook (60%), LINE (12%), and mobile applications (10%) as the main communication methods. The majority of respondents identified their main purpose for using the internet as getting news updates and socialization (68%), conducting business (14%), and searching for information (13%).

The results from an open-ended question on suggestions for PSC projects according to the seven dimensions of economics, education, security, environment, tourism, governance, and public health were answered by 146 respondents (36%). In total, the word count was 1663. In addition, an open-ended question on general comments for PSC development was answered by 98 respondents (24%) with a total word count of 959. The top ten most frequently mentioned words for both questions are shown in

Table 5. Word count frequency and the number of people who mentioned them in response to open-ended questions on the PSC project and open suggestions.

PSC Projects				Open Suggestions
Topic	Word of Frequency	No. of People (n = 146)	%	Topic	Word of Frequency	No. of People (n = 98)	%
Development	61	49	34	Development	32	30	31
Management	52	47	32	Management	28	22	22
Education	44	41	28	Public	25	23	23
Tourism	43	38	26	Transportation **	15	14	14
System *	31	20	14	Tourism	15	13	13
Tourist *	28	24	16	Traffic **	14	13	13
Economic *	26	26	18	Government	11	11	11
Waste *	22	19	13	City **	11	11	11
Public	20	20	14	Smart **	9	9	9
Government	19	21	14	Environment **	9	8	8
				Education	8	8	8

* Words that were in the top ten of the answers from PSC projects only; ** Words that were in the top ten of the answers from open suggestions only.

.

“Development” was the most frequently mentioned topic for PSC project prioritization by the highest number of respondents (61 times from 49 people, 34%). This was followed by the term “management” (32%), and “education” (28%) which were stated by more than 40 respondents. Other words that appeared frequently included “tourism” (26%), “system” (14%), “tourist” (16%), “economic” (18%), “public” (14%), “government” (14%), and “waste” (13%), respectively. The terms “tourism” and “tourist” were separated as they were mentioned with different contexts and focus. “Tourism” was to identify the attributes of the tourism sector, for example, ecotourism, community-based tourism, sustainable tourism development, tourism regulation and promotion, tourism business operator, conservative tourism, tourism management, tourism application, smart digital in the tourism sector, and tourism routes. Meanwhile, the word “tourist” was mentioned regarding the quality of tourists, the destination of tourists, overseas tourists, tourist numbers, data and tracking of the tourist system, tourist help applications, and tourism media suggestions for tourists.

Similar results were observed for the responses from an open suggestion for PSC with the terms “development” (31%) and “management” (22%) having the highest frequency of mentions. However, there were differences in the contexts in which these words were used in the answers to these two questions. The term ‘development’ in the PSC prioritization was mainly PSC dimensions e.g., tourism development, economic development, education system development, security development, local business development, and IT system development. The same word in an open suggestion for PSC tended to target the concepts that were missing from the PSC dimensions presented by the government e.g., moral development, public transportation development, socio-cultural development, public service development, community participation for sustainable development, landscape development, art and culture development, and human capital development. Other terms that were mentioned frequently included “public” (23%), “transportation” (14%), “tourism” (13%), “traffic” (13%), “government” (11%), “city” (11%), “smart” (9%), “environment” (8%) and “education” (8%). The common topics mentioned in response to both questions were “development”, “management”, “tourism”, “public”, “government” and “education”. The mention of transportation, traffic and the environment by many respondents in the open suggestions reflected the pressing problems of Phuket deemed important by the participants. The examples of comments show the expectations of the citizens towards PSC which may differ from the implementation plan from the policymakers.

5. Discussion

Our results are consistent with current criticisms of smart city research which has tended to focus on technologies utilized by urban elites. These do not always align with generalized sustainable development goals or the goals of the less fortunate [23]. We also confirm the social challenges of the smart city implementation and the need to adapt the concept to the needs of local sociocultural as well as institutional contexts [40]. The study provides empirical data that show the lack of citizen engagement and awareness in both planning and operation of the smart city concepts [39]. The evaluation of smart city sustainability needs requires a specific diagnosis of their context [40] which are influenced by their social, cultural, human, political and institutional characteristics [26].

The city administration, governance, demographic profile, public knowledge, attitudes, and willingness to participate in city management influence the way that citizens are engaged or disengaged in smart city initiatives. This supported the notions that smart city service users and their perspectives as well as abilities to utilize ‘smart’ solutions should inform smart city policy [44]. The social, political and institutional contexts of PSC help to identify the barriers and enablers of citizen engagement which affect the sustainability outcomes of the smart city projects. PSC reflects a “top-down” policy, implemented through the government structure with limited citizen engagement with pre-determined projects focusing on physical infrastructure, digital startups and the economy.

PSC projects were influenced by the scope, missions and capacity of responsible authorities and their key partners who tended to prioritize technological solutions and digital business promotion over basic human needs and social changes. This highlights the importance of understanding citizens’ usage and acceptance of smart city services as part of implementing people-centric smart city development [45]. Meanwhile, the bureaucratic protocols of the budget allocation and spending often led to the delay or suspension of the development projects. This confirms the crucial role of public sector innovations in smart city implementation [54] and the public-private-people partnerships in smart city development [73].

Our study found that the majority of people were willing to be involved in the smart city project but were unaware of its existence. It supports the notion that factors contributing to unsuccessful citizen engagement are beyond the poor proficiency in technology [74]. Those who declined to get involved identified a lack of time (younger age group) and absence of digital proficiency (aging group) as the main reasons. This result is consistent with the perception that current users of smart city services tend to be highly educated [44], but it also highlights the imbalanced representation of the citizens’ needs in a city. The uneven distribution of PSC, hence public awareness of the project, reflects the concentration of PSC events, governmental offices and business associations in Mueang Phuket district, making them more difficult for people in Kathu or Thalang district to participate. The traffic congestion and the lack of reliable public transport contributed to the difficulty in commuting for those who did not drive or own a private vehicle. Limited communication and information channels on PSC activities could contribute to the majority of the respondents not knowing about PSC. Meanwhile, those with leadership positions had heard about PSC mainly through government meetings and letters which mainly invited officials, local leaders and prominent businesses to the events. The absence of an official PSC website and the presence of an inactive social media page made it difficult for the public to access PSC information.

Implications of This Study in the Context of Local Smart City Management

Engagement of citizens across all groups requires a multi-sectoral effort to ensure an inclusive smart city implementation [43]. Our findings reveal that the benefits of a smart city are uneven and concentrated in the private spaces, especially in the home and workplaces of the wealthy but not so much in communities [75]. This is shown through PSC being known mainly to Phuket natives who were male with high education, high income and leadership positions in the community. Providing PSC information and activities as part of regular, local events, e.g., markets, exhibitions, and seminars in collaborations with civil society groups, community enterprises, charities, social welfare organizations, and women’s networks could help increase the relatedness of smart city projects [45] and engagement from the grassroot communities, low-income workers and marginalized groups. Creative applications of technology such as games, thought-provoking courses, and simulation modeling techniques can be used to heighten the interest in city management in the public, especially in students and youth [76] and allow them to co-create new initiatives. Applying a senior technology acceptance model (STAM) by taking into consideration age-related health conditions and cognitive and physical limitations in the smart city service design can increase technology adoption and effective usage in the older population [77,78]. People with disabilities should be better represented and catered for in urban design and management to raise the public as well as legislators’ awareness about human rights and digital ethics especially in the context of artificial intelligence [31]. The assumption that technology will drive a smarter citizen and better community reflects the normative bias in smart city research [44] which could lead to social disparities that leave behind those marginalized in populations. Smart city education initiatives must go beyond technological and academic skills and equip the public with critical thinking, digital empathy, ethics and global awareness necessary for combatting emerging issues including hate speech, fake news, cybercrime, bullying, internet addiction and online gambling. Education, both formal and informal delivery, is a key enabler for building an engaged and socially just, smart community.

Citizens want to be involved in smart city development, especially in the area that concern their needs and quality of life as shown in the findings of this research. Citizens should be empowered to identify, plan, co-create, and co-manage smart city initiatives. Citizens who are enabled to participate actively in city management could co-produce and manage projects with the state [30,79]. A shift in the mindset of policymakers and city managers is required to allow for more citizen-centric participatory processes in urban planning and management [30,33,34,39].

6. Conclusions

Sustainable smart cities require transparent, inclusive and collaborative governance enabled by active, educated, and engaged citizens. PSC highlights the reality of sustainability challenges in smart city implementation in a developing country that is heavily restricted by government structures and gives limited public access to development project information. Increasing and sustaining real citizen engagement in city development requires changes in public, business, and administrator mindsets and behaviors at multiple levels [33]. The awareness and perception of citizens towards their role in society can act as the enablers or inhibitors of active engagement in smart city activities. Collaborations among central and provincial government authorities, local administrators, businesses, and community leaders are necessary for achieving citizen awareness and the shift in behavior of the citizens toward smart city goals [30,80]. This, in itself, is a challenge as the understandings and expectations about a smart city among its stakeholders may be diverse and even conflicting [81]. Future smart city investments should focus on integrated urban planning, interactive communication, social justice, and collaborations among the stakeholders, especially those who are marginalized or disempowered by the current political-economic system. A genuine and enduring smart city development must benefit the community as a whole.

Future research is needed to evaluate the city sustainability performance, e.g., social integration and environmental condition in comparison to its smartness. The in-depth exploration into the relationships between specific sustainable development outcomes, at local, national, and international levels, and the outputs of smart city development would be helpful in identifying key policy change and practical guidelines.