Are Smart Cities ‘Sustainable?’ Revisiting the ‘Helix Model’ of the ASEAN Smart Cities Network [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]

Дата публикации: 08-09-2026 06:37:03

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.

Основное содержимое страницы с новостью.

ALL Metrics

Views

Putra BA. Are Smart Cities ‘Sustainable?’ Revisiting the ‘Helix Model’ of the ASEAN Smart Cities Network [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2026, 14:1484 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.174616.3)

▬

✚

Research Article

Revised

[version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 1 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 08 Sep 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

REVIEWER STATUS

Abstract

Keywords

Smart Cities, ASEAN, Helix Model, Sustainability, Southeast Asia

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 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research 2026, 14:1484 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.174616.3) First published: 31 Dec 2025, 14:1484 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.174616.1) Latest published: 08 Sep 2026, 14:1484 (https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.174616.3)

Revised Amendments from Version 2

The updated version of this article covers several of the concerns expressed by the reviewers related to the clarity of the methodology, the context of the ‘Helix Model’ (and its correlation to other studies adopting a similar method), clarity of the argument on the influence of national-level disparities on local/city-specific projects under the ASCN, and minor edits to the article’s English.

See the author's detailed response to the review by Eva Kassens-Noor
See the author's detailed response to the review by Yuni Intarti
See the author's detailed response to the review by Tomáš Peráček

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 Past literature has considered the unique insights generated from a quintuple helix model interpretation, with it being implemented across different European Cases in the past.²⁴^–²⁶

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.²⁷^–²⁹ 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 qualitative document analysis, this study aims to update 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.³⁰^–³⁶ Specifically, this study adopts recent methodological practice in the social sciences, such as that introduced in Peráček’s 2026 study,³⁷ which integrates interpretive and comparative analysis in line with literature synthesis by drawing upon the complementary methods of analysis, synthesis, induction, and deduction.

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.³⁸^,³⁹ 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.⁴⁰^–⁴³ 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.⁴⁴^–⁴⁶

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.

This study thus follows past studies that aim to reveal Southeast Asia’s profound diversity and the challenges it poses to implementing sustainability measures within the ASCN’s conception of smart cities. Two central questions guide this study. First, to what extent do disparities among the ASEAN member states between 2020 and 2024 affect the capacity to generate sustainability outcomes? Second, what would be the manifestation of that disparity if situated within the context of the ASCN smart city projects? The following sections first explore the novelty of this study, considering literature on ASEAN, ASCN, smart cities, and sustainability. Meanwhile, the discussions of this study focus on providing the ‘helix model’ analysis, which outlines the recent developments of the ASCN between 2020 and 2024, which goes along with an assessment of the state- and city-level indicators that indicate the diversity among ASEAN member states.

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.⁴⁷ 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.⁴⁸ 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.⁴⁹ 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.⁵⁰

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.⁵¹ 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.⁵² 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.⁵³

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.⁵⁴^–⁵⁶ 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.⁵⁷ 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.⁵⁸ 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.⁵⁹^,⁶⁰ 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.⁶¹ 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”.⁶²

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.⁶³ 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^,⁶⁴

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^,⁶⁵ Others have looked at the advantages of the ASCN due to its potential to establish transboundary learning¹⁴ 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,⁶⁶ 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^,⁶⁷^,⁶⁸ 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 As also argued in past inquiries,⁶⁹^,⁷⁰ this study also 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.⁷¹ 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.⁷²^–⁷⁵ 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^,⁷⁶

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.⁷⁷ 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.⁷⁸ Through its Japan International Cooperation Agency, Japan’s know-how has made it a strong destination for cities seeking cooperation from business entities.⁷⁹ 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.⁴¹^,⁸⁰^,⁸¹

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.⁸² 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 greater disparity in recent years. Although the data presented pertain to state actors, there is a strong likelihood that patterns of democracy, GDP growth, human development, press freedom, ease of doing business, and environmental performance at the state level also concern local and regional governments. ASCN projects face similar constraints as those encountered at the state level, where local government bodies are influenced by legal and political challenges. Furthermore, the level of press freedom within a state also says much about the context of local project implementation, including land acquisitions, data use, and procurement.

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.⁸³ Second is the 2022 UN Human Development Index (HDI), which considers education, health, and standard of living.⁸⁴ 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.⁸⁵ 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.⁸⁶ Fifth is the 2024 Yale University’s Environmental Performance Index (EPI), which considers the state of sustainability (climate change performance, environmental health, ecosystem vitality).⁸⁷ 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.⁸⁸

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.⁴⁴^–⁴⁶^,⁸⁹^–⁹¹ 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.⁹² 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, cities in countries without democratic systems show less appreciation for the environment and offer fewer prospects for human development. Updated data from the 2020 study show the same conclusions. These disparities will only widen 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. The ‘One Map Yangon,’ for example, a geospatial data-mapping initiative, raises concerns because the junta actively prosecutes dissidents and because such a program increases surveillance and targeted risks. Meanwhile, in the case of Phnom Penh, several national-level concerns, such as foreign debt and money laundering issues, have raised red flags relating to the project’s accountability. Unfortunately, none of the programs listed in the ASCN address concerns over governance and transparency, with the Phnom Penh Walkway and Phnom Penh Public Bus Service programs leaning toward transportation-focused programs.

Two major concerns emerge in the Yangon and Phnom Penh cases. The first relates to the absence of sustainability measures. As the article defines sustainability as processes of urban planning, management, and policy formulation designed to establish sustainability objectives, both case studies still lack essential elements of transparency, responsiveness, and inclusiveness. Second, both case studies also reflect the wide disparities among the ASCN member states. Cities like Singapore and Jakarta operate under much firmer and more consistent institutional oversight, highlighting the larger gap in the capacities of ASCN members seeking to achieve smart city status.

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.⁹³^–⁹⁵ 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.⁹⁶^,⁹⁷ 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.⁹⁶ 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.⁹⁸^–¹⁰⁰ 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.

The findings also indicate a strong link between national-level problems and specific ASCN smart city projects in specific cities. Hanoi’s low scores within the context of EIU/WPFI correlate with the city’s engagement with the surveillance center project. Concerns over Phnom Penh’s low EoDB and HDI scores can also be associated with the city’s decision to establish the ‘Smart City Strategic Planning’ and ‘Build4People’ projects. Like Hanoi, Vientiane’s low EIU score has also led it to pursue projects focused on smart environmental development and sustainable urban transport.

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 previous study’s conclusions, this updated research finds a lack of good governance, accountability, inclusiveness, and transparency among many participating ASCN members. Consequently, the cases and indicators presented in this study do not provide clear evidence that smart city status aligns with outcomes that adhere to sustainability. As the EIU and WPFI figures in this study show, 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, rank among the lowest in 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 addressing this profound neglect of political rights, the focus, as instructed in the ASCN, has been on adopting smart city measures. The fear is that ASCN member cities such as Ho Chi Minh City, Hanoi, and Yangon risk having fundamental urban services neglected under the label of smart city branding.

This study yields several key insights. First, the political, environmental, economic, and social disparities among ASEAN member states have significantly constrained the ASCN’s capacity to deliver sustainability outcomes. Consequently, as a second insight generated, these disparities have led specific ASCN projects, such as those in Phnom Penh, Hanoi, and Yangon, to risk weak national-level accountability measures and lack of oversight on governance risks.

This study’s findings extend the existing discourse on the disconnect 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 cities need to develop. It suggests that cities can simply be updated with state-of-the-art technologies. In the ASCN participating cities, 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 that the ASCN’s smart city concept does not fully capture. In ASCN cities in authoritarian and semi-authoritarian settings, authoritarian systems tend to deepen amid central-government calls for greater surveillance and control of movement. Amid recent progress in Southeast Asia, there is then a true concern over the deterioration in sustainability norms in accordance to Crumpton’s 2021 framework, despite the task of tracing the deterioration remaining an inquiry for future studies.

Declaration of the use of AI

No Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies were used in the writing of this manuscript.

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. Loučanová E, Olšiaková M, Štofková Z, et al.: Evaluation of the Relationship Between the Individual Actors of the Quintuple Helix Model and Sustainability. Adm. Sci. 2025; 15(10): 382. Publisher Full Text
25. Loučanová E, Olšiaková M, Dumiter FC, et al.: Assessing the Impact of a Quintuple Helix Framework on Smart City Performance: A Country-Level Analysis of EU Capitals. Urban Sci. 2026; 10(5): 283. Publisher Full Text
26. Taratori R, Rodriguez-Fiscal P, Pacho MA, et al.: Unveiling the Evolution of Innovation Ecosystems: An Analysis of Triple, Quadruple, and Quintuple Helix Model Innovation Systems in European Case Studies. Sustainability. 2021; 13(14): 7582. Publisher Full Text
27. 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
28. 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
29. 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
30. Putra BA: Digital Activism in Southeast Asia: The #MilkTeaAlliance and Prospects for Social Resistance. Front. Sociol. 2024; 9: 1–5. Publisher Full Text
31. 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
32. 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
33. 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
34. Walker T: Is Laos facing a China debt trap?. DW; 2024 [cited 2024 Nov 27]. Accessed 27 Nov 2024. Reference Source
35. 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
36. Yalirozy T: New Techo Airport to Attract “Economic Life”: Hun Manet. Cambodianess. 2024 [cited 2024 Aug 22]. Accessed 22 Aug 2024. Reference Source
37. Peráček T, Gregušová D, Kaššaj M: Transforming European Competitiveness Under Conditions of Geoeconomic Fragmentation. Economies. 2026; 14(7): 248. Publisher Full Text
38. 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
39. 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
40. 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
41. Yu H: Understanding China’s Belt and Road Initiative. London: Springer; 2024. Publisher Full Text
42. WB: Belt and Road Initiative. Belt and Road Initiative.2018 [cited 2023 Jan 9]. Accessed 9 Jan 2023. Reference Source
43. Hu B: Belt and Road Initiative: Five Years on Implementation and Reflection. Glob. J. Emerg. Mark. Econ. 2019; 11: 1–10. Publisher Full Text
44. 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
45. 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
46. 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
47. 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
48. 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
49. 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
50. 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
51. 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
52. 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
53. 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
54. Chirathivat S: ASEAN–China Free Trade Area: background, implications and future development. J. Asian Econ. 2002; 13: 671–686. North-Holland. Publisher Full Text
55. 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
56. 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.
57. 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
58. 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
59. 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
60. 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
61. Ooi GL: Cities and sustainability: Southeast Asian and European perspectives. Asia Eur. J. 2008; 6: 193–204. Publisher Full Text
62. Ooi GL: Challenges of sustainability for Asian urbanisation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2009; 1: 187–191. Elsevier. Publisher Full Text
63. 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
64. 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
65. 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
66. 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
67. 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
68. 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
69. Almeida F, Deutsch N: Urban living labs as catalysts for innovation: Advancing urban ecosystems within the quintuple helix model. Urban Gov. 2025; 5(2): 133–141. Publisher Full Text
70. Almulhim AI, Yigitcanlar T: Understanding Smart Governance of Sustainable Cities: A Review and Multidimensional Framework. Smart Cities. 2025; 8(4): 113. Publisher Full Text
71. ASCN: Concept Note of the ASEAN Smart Cities Network. Jakarta: 2018. Accessed 18 Dec 2024. Reference Source
72. ADB: Asia’s Public Services Failing Needy, New Approaches Required. Asian Development Bank; 2013 [cited 2024 Dec 22]. Accessed 22 Dec 2024. Reference Source
73. 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
74. 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
75. Sriyai SH: How Means for Digital Repression in Southeast Asia Have Unfolded in Recent Times. Singapore: 2024.
76. 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
77. 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
78. ADB: ASEAN Australia Smart Cities Trust Fund. Asian Development Bank; 2024 [cited 2024 Dec 22]. Accessed 22 Dec 2024. Reference Source
79. 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
80. CIMB: China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and Southeast Asia.2018. Accessed 24 Nov 2020. Reference Source
81. 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
82. 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
83. IMF: World Economic Outlook (October 2024) - Real GDP growth. International Monetary Fund; 2024 [cited 2024 Dec 19]. Accessed 19 Dec 2024. Reference Source
84. UNDP: Human Development Index. Human Development Reports. 2024.
85. EIU: Democracy Index 2023 download confirmation. Economist Intelligence Unit; 2024 [cited 2024 Dec 19]. Accessed 19 Dec 2024. Reference Source
86. RSF: World Press Freedom Index. Reporters Without Borders.2023 [cited 2024 Dec 19]. Accessed 19 Dec 2024. Reference Source
87. EPI: Environmental Performance Index. Environmental Performance Index.2024 [cited 2024 Dec 19]. Accessed 19 Dec 2024. Reference Source
88. WB: Ease of Doing Business rankings. World Bank; 2024 [cited 2024 Oct 15]. Accessed 15 Oct 2024. Reference Source
89. 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
90. 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
91. 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
92. GaWC: World Cities 2024. Globalization and World Cities; 2024 [cited 2024 Dec 19]. Accessed 19 Dec 2024. Reference Source
93. Menkhoff T, Kan SN, Evers H-D, et al.: Living in Smart Cities. Living in Smart Cities. Singapore: WORLD SCIENTIFIC; 2018. Publisher Full Text
94. 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
95. Grossi G, Pianezzi D: Smart cities: Utopia or neoliberal ideology? Cities. 2017; 69: 79–85. Pergamon. Publisher Full Text
96. 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
97. 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
98. Anthopoulos L: Smart utopia VS smart reality: Learning by experience from 10 smart city cases. Cities. 2017; 63: 128–148. Pergamon. Publisher Full Text
99. Sharma P, Rajput S: Sustainable Smart Cities in India: Challenges and Future Perspectives. Cham: Springer Link; 2017.
100. 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 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 31 Dec 2025

Comment

Grant information

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

Article Versions (3)

Published: 08 Sep 2026, 14:1484

Published: 24 Apr 2026, 14:1484

Published: 31 Dec 2025, 14:1484

© 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

metrics

	Views	Downloads
F1000Research	-	-
PubMed Central Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.	-	-

Citations

CITE

how to cite this article

NOTE: If applicable, it is important to ensure the information in square brackets after the title is included in all citations of this article.

track

receive updates on this article

Track an article to receive email alerts on any updates to this article.

Open Peer Review

Current Reviewer Status: ?

Key to Reviewer Statuses VIEW HIDE

ApprovedThe 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 approvedFundamental flaws in the paper seriously undermine the findings and conclusions

Version 3

VERSION 3

PUBLISHED 08 Sep 2026

Revised

Reviewer Report 11 Sep 2026

Tomáš Peráček, Comenius University Bratislava, Odbojárov, Bratislava, Slovakia

Approved

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: smart cities, law, management, sustainability, wehicles, enviroment

Version 2

VERSION 2

PUBLISHED 24 Apr 2026

Revised

Reviewer Report 06 Jul 2026

Tomáš Peráček, Comenius University Bratislava, Odbojárov, Bratislava, Slovakia

Approved with Reservations

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?

Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Yes
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Yes
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Yes

References

1. Peráček T, Kaššaj M: Strategic Management of Urban Services Using Artificial Intelligence in the Development of Sustainable Smart Cities—Managerial and Legal Challenges. Sustainability. 2026; 18 (2). Publisher Full Text
2. Ivančík R, Dušek J: Transforming European Security: Industrial Resilience, Institutional Adaptation, and Strategic Autonomy for Sustainable Development. World. 2026; 7 (5). Publisher Full Text

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Report 02 Jun 2026

Eva Kassens-Noor, Technical University of Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany

Approved with Reservations

Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.

Reviewer Expertise: Transport and traffic engineering

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

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

Version 1

VERSION 1

PUBLISHED 31 Dec 2025

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

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

Reviewer Report 02 Feb 2026

Yuni Intarti, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, West Java, Indonesia

Approved with Reservations

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,

Comments on this article Comments (0)

Version 3

VERSION 3 PUBLISHED 31 Dec 2025

Comment

Open Peer Review

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	4
Version 3 (revision) 08 Sep 26				read
Version 2 (revision) 24 Apr 26		read	read	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
Tomáš Peráček, Comenius University Bratislava, Odbojárov, Slovakia

Comments on this article

Browse by related subjects

Схожие новости

#	Наименование новости	Информативность	Дата публикации
1	Drivers and Performance Outcomes of Social Responsibility Accounting: An Integrated Model for SMEs in the Mekong Delta [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]	10.22	25-06-2026
2	VIETNAMESE POLITICAL CULTURE: STRUCTURE, ROLE, AND DEVELOPMENT ORIENTATION IN THE NEW ERA [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]	6.34	25-08-2026
3	A Comparative Analysis of AI HRM Governance Approaches Across African Countries: Continental Patterns and Divergences [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]	12.7	31-08-2026
4	Inclusive Education without Paradigm Change: Explaining Thailand’s Misalignment with the Salamanca Vision [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]	10.19	18-09-2026
5	A Bibliometric Analysis of Digital Citizenship Education and Competences for Democratic Culture: Global Trends, Knowledge Structure, and Future Research Agenda [version 3; peer review: 2 approved]	6.14	21-09-2026
6	Market intelligence for exporting agricultural products to foreign markets: A PRISMA-based bibliometric and systematic review [version 2; peer review: 3 approved, 1 approved with reservations]	10.72	21-08-2026
7	Profiling Teacher Digital Literacy to Develop AI-Based Project-Based Learning in Under-Resourced Coastal Contexts [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]	12.14	26-05-2026
8	Enhancing Solar Power Forecasting Accuracy Using HMPCS and Machine Learning Techniques: An Applied Study [version 3; peer review: 2 approved]	7.7	03-09-2026
9	Combining Implementation and Data Sciences to Accelerate Evidence Integration into Healthcare – ImpleMATE [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]	10.61	10-09-2026
10	Empowerment Model for The Elderly and Community to Improve the Welfare of the Elderly [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]	10.3	05-06-2026

Классификация: Пресс-релизы. Схожих патентов: 0. Схожих новостей: 10. Тональность: 0. Информативность: 7.84. Источник: f1000research.com.

Вход на сайт

Просмотр новости

Найдите то, что Вас интересует

Are Smart Cities ‘Sustainable?’ Revisiting the ‘Helix Model’ of the ASEAN Smart Cities Network [version 3; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]

Дата публикации: 08-09-2026 06:37:03

Основное содержимое страницы с новостью.

Схожие новости