CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 0Smart Cities and TechnologiesE-Government and Public ServicesPrivacy, Security, and Data Protection

The DOI matches its Crossref record; none of the 4 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Citizen Trust, Perceived Surveillance, and Polycentric Governance Participation in Indonesian Smart City Programs

Open access
Arya Ganendra, Jasmila Tanjung·2026·Open Access Indonesia Journal of Social Sciences
DOI 10.37275/oaijss.v9i1.317
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Smart city programs in Indonesia expand digital governance infrastructure while raising concerns about citizen surveillance and data privacy. Understanding how perceived surveillance affects citizen trust and participation in polycentric governance structures is critical for sustainable smart city development. This study examined 352 citizens across nine Indonesian cities representing three administrative tiers (Tier-1: Jakarta, Bandung, Surabaya; Tier-2: Semarang, Makassar, Medan; Tier-3: Palembang, Balikpapan, Manado) to investigate the relationships among perceived surveillance intensity, citizen trust in governance institutions, and participation in polycentric governance mechanisms. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis revealed a statistically significant model explaining 42.1% of variance in citizen trust (R² = 0.421, adjusted R² = 0.399, f² = 0.727). Facial recognition perceived intensity demonstrated the strongest negative predictor (β = -0.378, 95% CI [-0.498, -0.258]), while multi-stakeholder governance participation showed the strongest positive predictor (β = 0.334, 95% CI [0.218, 0.450]). Additional significant predictors included closed-circuit television surveillance intensity (β = -0.312), citizen feedback mechanisms (β = 0.298), data transparency (β = 0.287), decentralized decision-making participation (β = 0.256), governance literacy (β = 0.213), e-government service use (β = 0.189), and educational attainment (β = 0.145). These findings indicate that while surveillance technologies undermine institutional trust, inclusive governance processes and transparency mechanisms strengthen citizen confidence. Indonesian smart city programs should prioritize polycentric governance structures, data transparency, and digital literacy initiatives to mitigate surveillance-related trust erosion. Results support policy recommendations emphasizing stakeholder participation, technological accountability, and institutional transparency as essential components of citizen-centric smart city governance.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This cross-sectional survey of 352 adults across nine Indonesian cities finds that perceived surveillance, especially facial recognition, is negatively associated with citizen trust, while polycentric governance participation and transparency are positively associated with trust. The full hierarchical model explained 42.1% of variance in citizen trust.

Key findings

Facial recognition intensity was the strongest negative predictor of citizen trust (β = -0.378, 95% CI [-0.498, -0.258], p < 0.001), followed by CCTV surveillance intensity (β = -0.312, 95% CI [-0.428, -0.196], p < 0.001). Multi-stakeholder participation was the strongest positive predictor (β = 0.334, 95% CI [0.218, 0.450], p < 0.001), followed by citizen feedback mechanisms (β = 0.298), data transparency perception (β = 0.287), decentralized participation (β = 0.256), governance literacy (β = 0.213), e-government service use (β = 0.189), and educational attainment (β = 0.145). The hierarchical regression model explained 42.1% of variance in citizen trust (R² = 0.421, adjusted R² = 0.399, Cohen’s f² = 0.727). Tier-1 respondents showed significantly higher citizen trust than Tier-3 respondents (mean difference = 0.25, 95% CI [0.04, 0.46], p = 0.018), and Tier-1 respondents showed significantly higher governance participation than both Tier-2 and Tier-3 respondents.

Methods

Cross-sectional survey of 352 adult citizens (18+) across nine Indonesian cities representing three administrative tiers: Tier-1 (Jakarta, Bandung, Surabaya), Tier-2 (Semarang, Makassar, Medan), and Tier-3 (Palembang, Balikpapan, Manado). Stratified random sampling within each city; face-to-face structured interviews conducted January–December 2023, averaging 35–45 minutes per respondent. Measures included perceived surveillance dimensions, citizen trust, governance participation, governance literacy, e-government service use, and demographics; analysis used descriptive statistics, ANOVA, bivariate correlations, and hierarchical multiple regression in R version 4.3.1.

Limitations

The paper states that the cross-sectional design precludes causal inference regarding surveillance impacts or governance effects on trust over time. It also states that self-reported survey data relied on recall and perception rather than administrative or behavioral measures, introducing potential response bias and social desirability concerns, and that the study occurred within a specific historical moment in Indonesian smart city development, potentially limiting generalizability. Evident from the text: the sample had slight male overrepresentation (55.1% male), which the authors note likely reflected public space survey locations, and the provided text contains formatting/truncation issues that make some instrument and results passages incomplete.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.37275/oaijss.v9i1.317

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 4 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Smart city awareness was distributed as 44.3% high awareness, 37.5% moderate awareness, and 18.2% low awareness.

    “Smart city awareness distribution showed 44.3% with high awareness, 37.5% with moderate awareness, and 18.2% with low awareness, reflecting varied exposure to smart city concepts and programs across the sample.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    One-way ANOVA showed statistically significant differences in citizen trust across city tiers, F(2, 349) = 4.15, p = 0.016, η2 = 0.023.

    “One-way analysis of variance comparing citizen trust across city tiers yielded F(2, 349) = 4.15, p = 0.016, η² = 0.023, indicating statistically significant differences in citizen trust levels across administrative tiers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Governance literacy had a positive effect on citizen trust, β = 0.213, 95% CI [0.097, 0.329], p < 0.001.

    “| Governance Literacy | 0.213 | [0.097, 0.329] | <0.001 |”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Governance literacy was positively correlated with citizen trust, r = 0.412, p < 0.001.

    “| Governance Literacy ↔ Citizen Trust | 0.412 | <0.001 |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Tier-3 cities had a mean governance participation of 2.76 (SD = 0.89).

    “The composite governance participation scale demonstrated an overall mean of 2.93 (SD = 0.86), with Tier-1 cities showing a mean of 3.12 (SD = 0.81), Tier-2 cities showing a mean of 2.89 (SD = 0.88), and Tier-3 cities showing a mean of 2.76 (SD = 0.89).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 16
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 22
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 2

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingown data

    The mean age of respondents was 34.8 years (SD = 9.2).

    “Age distribution showed a mean of 34.8 years (SD = 9.2), indicating a sample concentrated in early-to-middle working-age cohorts with meaningful experience with digital governance platforms.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    Educational attainment was distributed as 124 respondents (35.2%) with secondary school, 56 (15.9%) with diploma programs, 138 (39.2%) with bachelor's degrees, and 34 (9.7%) with postgraduate education.

    “Secondary school completion represented the largest educational category (124 respondents, 35.2%), followed closely by bachelor's degree attainment (138 respondents, 39.2%).Smaller proportions completed diploma programs (56 respondents, 15.9%) or postgraduate education (34 respondents, 9.7%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    267 participants (75.9%) reported regular use of e-government platforms, while 85 participants (24.1%) reported minimal or no e-government service engagement.

    “Regarding e-government service use, 267 participants (75.9%) reported regular use of e-government platforms for services such as permit applications, payment processing, and information access, while 85 participants (24.1%) reported minimal or no e-government service engagement.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Findingown data

    Gender representation approached balance with 194 male respondents (55.1%) and 158 female respondents (44.9%).

    “Gender representation approached balance with 194 male respondents (55.1%) and 158 female respondents (44.9%), though slight male overrepresentation likely reflected patterns in public space survey locations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    The sample included representation from all three smart city tiers: Tier-1 cities had 142 respondents (40.3%), Tier-2 cities had 118 respondents (33.5%), and Tier-3 cities had 92 respondents (26.1%).

    “The sample included representation from all three smart city tiers: Tier-1 cities comprised 142 respondents (40.3%),Tier-2 cities included 118 respondents (33.5%), and Tier-3 cities contained 92 respondents (26.1%).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Multi-stakeholder governance participation was the strongest positive predictor of citizen trust, β = 0.334, 95% CI [0.218, 0.450], p < 0.001.

    “| Multi-Stakeholder Participation | 0.334 | [0.218, 0.450] | <0.001 |”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingcitation

    Data transparency, governance literacy, and e-government service use have positive predictive effects on citizen trust.

    “The positive predictive effects of data transparency, governance literacy, and e-government service use align with institutional trust theory, emphasizing citizen understanding and prior positive institutional experiences as determinants of confidence.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    Facial recognition intensity was the strongest negative predictor and multi-stakeholder participation was the strongest positive predictor of citizen trust.

    “The hierarchical regression model explained 42.1% of variance in citizen trust, with facial recognition intensity demonstrating the strongest negative predictor and multi-stakeholder participation demonstrating the strongest positive predictor.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingreasoning

    Multi-stakeholder participation, citizen feedback mechanisms, and decentralized decision-making have substantial positive effects on citizen trust.

    “The substantial effects of multi-stakeholder participation, citizen feedback mechanisms, and decentralized decision-making indicate that Indonesian citizens rewarded inclusive governance processes with higher trust even while perceiving surveillance concerns.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    All nine predictors included in the final model had confidence intervals excluding zero, confirming statistical significance for all effects.

    “The plot demonstrates that all nine predictors included in the final model demonstrated confidence intervals excluding zero, confirming statistical significance for all effects.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    The overall composite perceived surveillance mean was 3.28 (SD = 0.83), with Tier-1 cities at 3.35 (SD = 0.79), Tier-2 cities at 3.26 (SD = 0.85), and Tier-3 cities at 3.19 (SD = 0.88).

    “The overall composite perceived surveillance mean was 3.28 (SD = 0.83), with Tier-1 cities showing 3.35 (SD = 0.79), Tier-2 cities showing 3.26 (SD = 0.85), and Tier-3 cities showing 3.19 (SD = 0.88).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Findingown data

    Most respondents clustered in the mid-ranges of both surveillance perception and trust, with relatively fewer individuals at extreme values.

    “The point cloud density suggests that most respondents clustered in the mid-ranges of both surveillance perception and trust, with relatively fewer individuals at extreme values.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Educational attainment was the weakest positive predictor of citizen trust, β = 0.145, 95% CI [0.029, 0.261], p = 0.014.

    “| Educational Attainment | 0.145 | [0.029, 0.261] | 0.014 |”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study sample included 352 adult citizens aged 18 years and older recruited across nine Indonesian cities through stratified random sampling within each city to ensure representativeness.

    “The study sample included 352 adult citizens (18 years and older) recruited across the nine cities through stratified random sampling within each city to ensure representativeness.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Self-reported survey data relied on respondent recall and perception rather than administrative records or behavioral measures, introducing potential response bias and social desirability concerns.

    “Self-reported survey data relied on respondent recall and perception rather than administrative records or behavioral measures, introducing potential response bias and social desirability concerns.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study received ethical approval from the CMHC Research Center, Indonesia.

    “The study received ethical approval from the CMHC Research Center, Indonesia.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Field researchers administered informed consent procedures and confirmed respondent eligibility criteria.

    “Field researchers administered informed consent procedures, confirmed respondent eligibility criteria, and completed structured surveys averaging 35-45 minutes per respondent.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Study design and conductnone given

    No individual-level data were shared with government agencies or other external parties.

    “No individual-level data were shared with government agencies or other external parties.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The smaller negative effect of camera surveillance may reflect historical familiarity with camera-based security systems and greater conceptual understanding of camera surveillance purposes compared to newer facial recognition technologies.

    “This pattern may reflect historical familiarity with camera-based security systems and greater conceptual understanding of camera surveillance purposes compared to newer facial recognition technologies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The observed associations between perceived surveillance, governance participation, and citizen trust are causal.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Secondary and smaller urban centers with emerging smart city initiatives showed more modest trust and participation levels, potentially reflecting less exposure to polycentric governance mechanisms and limited awareness of smart city initiatives.

    “Conversely, secondary and smaller urban centers with emerging smart city initiatives showed more modest trust and participation levels, potentially reflecting less exposure to polycentric governance mechanisms and limited awareness of smart city initiatives.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The observed associations between perceived surveillance, governance participation, and citizen trust are causal.
    • Rests on an assumption: City tier differences reflect differences in governance maturity and technological infrastructure development.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationown data

    Moderate surveillance perception and moderate trust levels characterized the typical respondent experience, with outlier groups including citizens with very high surveillance concerns or very high trust despite surveillance awareness.

    “This pattern indicates that moderate surveillance perception and moderate trust levels characterized the typical respondent experience, with outlier groups including citizens with very high surveillance concerns or very high trust despite surveillance awareness.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Research findings were reported in aggregate form, protecting participant anonymity and privacy.

    “Research findings were reported in aggregate form, protecting participant anonymity and privacy.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Data protection protocols included secure, encrypted storage, restricted access limited to study personnel, anonymous data coding systems, and confidentiality assurances regarding identifiable information.

    “Data protection protocols included secure, encrypted storage, restricted access limited to study personnel, anonymous data coding systems, and confidentiality assurances regarding identifiable information.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    The rapid expansion of surveillance technologies embedded within smart city frameworks has raised critical questions about the balance between technological efficiency gains and fundamental citizen rights regarding privacy, data protection, and institutional oversight.

    “However, the rapid expansion of surveillance technologies embedded within smart city frameworks has raised critical questions about the balance between technological efficiency gains and fundamental citizen rights regarding privacy, data protection, and institutional oversight.2”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [2]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The study had a large diverse sample across multiple cities and administrative tiers, enabling generalization across varied Indonesian urban contexts.

    “notable strengths including a large diverse sample across multiple cities and administrative tiers, enabling generalization across varied Indonesian urban contexts.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The sample of 352 citizens in nine Indonesian cities is representative of the broader Indonesian smart city population.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Study design and conductnone given

    All participants provided written informed consent following standardized procedures.

    “All participants provided written informed consent following standardized procedures.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Premisecitation

    Zuboff's surveillance capitalism perspective and Kitchin's critical smart cities scholarship identified surveillance as inherently problematic for democratic governance regardless of implementation context or technological sophistication.

    “Zuboff's surveillance capitalism perspective and Kitchin's critical smart cities scholarship identified surveillance as inherently problematic for democratic governance regardless of implementation context or technological sophistication.17,18”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [17]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites [18]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The study occurred within a specific historical moment in Indonesian smart city development, potentially limiting generalizability to future contexts with substantially different technological or governance configurations.

    “The study occurred within a specific historical moment in Indonesian smart city development, potentially limiting generalizability to future contexts with substantially different technological or governance configurations.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationown data

    Facial recognition and closed-circuit television surveillance technologies undermined institutional and technological trust, while inclusive governance structures including multi-stakeholder participation, citizen feedback mechanisms, and transparent data practices substantially strengthened citizen confidence.

    “Findings indicated that while facial recognition and closed-circuit television surveillance technologies undermined institutional and technological trust, inclusive governance structures including multi-stakeholder participation, citizen feedback mechanisms, and transparent data practices substantially strengthened citizen confidence.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The observed associations between perceived surveillance, governance participation, and citizen trust are causal.

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Interpretationown data

    The high proportion of e-government service users indicated substantial prior engagement with digital government platforms, enabling informed assessments of surveillance and trust issues.

    “The high proportion of egovernment service users (75.9%) indicated substantial prior engagement with digital government platforms, enabling informed assessments of surveillance and trust issues.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Respondents were recruited through systematic random sampling at multiple urban locations.

    “Respondents were recruited through systematic random sampling at multiple urban locations including government service centers, public markets, shopping areas, residential”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Data quality protocols included researcher training, supervision of approximately 10% of interviews, and electronic data entry with range and logical consistency checks.

    “Data quality protocols included researcher training on standardized administration procedures, supervision of approximately 10% of interviews by senior field staff, and electronic data entry with range and logical consistency checks.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • It may state two separate claims as one.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Stratified sampling across city tiers and comprehensive demographic representation enhanced external validity.

    “The stratified sampling across city tiers and comprehensive demographic representation enhanced external validity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The sample of 352 citizens in nine Indonesian cities is representative of the broader Indonesian smart city population.

  • Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

    Premisecitation

    Indonesia emerged as a significant player in the global smart cities movement through the government's 100 Smart Cities Program, launched in 2016 as a comprehensive national initiative to modernize urban governance and service delivery across the archipelago.

    “Indonesia emerged as a significant player in the global smart cities movement through the government's 100 Smart Cities Program, launched in 2016 as a comprehensive national initiative to modernize urban governance and service delivery across the archipelago.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [3]

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

34 of 34

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Research examining how perceived surveillance intensity, institutional trust, and polycentric governance participation interact within Indonesian smart city contexts remained limited.

    “Despite growing scholarly attention to surveillance technologies and citizen trust, research examining how perceived surveillance intensity, institutional trust, and polycentric governance participation interact within Indonesian smart city contexts remained limited.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Previous studies focused primarily on technologically advanced Western cities or examined surveillance impacts in isolation from governance structure considerations.

    “Previous studies focused primarily on technologically advanced Western cities or examined surveillance impacts in isolation from governance structure considerations.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The Indonesian context presents distinct opportunities to study smart city surveillance dynamics in emerging economies with developing digital infrastructure, diverse governance traditions blending centralized and decentralized decision-making, varied levels of institutional development across urban tiers, and populations with heterogeneous prior experience with digital governance platforms.

    “The Indonesian context presented distinct opportunities to study smart city surveillance dynamics in emerging economies with developing digital infrastructure, diverse governance traditions blending centralized and decentralized decision-making, varied levels of institutional development across urban tiers, and populations with heterogeneous prior experience with digital governance platforms.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The observed associations between perceived surveillance, governance participation, and citizen trust are causal.

    “Findings indicated that while facial recognition and closed-circuit television surveillance technologies undermined institutional and technological trust, inclusive governance structures including multi-stakeholder participation, citizen feedback mechanisms, and transparent data practices substantially strengthened citizen confidence.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    City tier differences reflect differences in governance maturity and technological infrastructure development.

    “These patterns suggested that smart city programs in larger metropolitan areas with more mature governance structures and greater technological infrastructure development fostered higher citizen trust and governance participation.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The sample of 352 citizens in nine Indonesian cities is representative of the broader Indonesian smart city population.

    “notable strengths including a large diverse sample across multiple cities and administrative tiers, enabling generalization across varied Indonesian urban contexts.”
6 of 6

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • ConsistentF(4, 347) = 9.34reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(4, 347) = 9.34, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(8, 343) = 17.63reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(8, 343) = 17.63, p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(10, 341) = 24.47reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “F(10, 341) = 24.47,p < .001”

  • ConsistentF(2, 349) = 4.15reported p = .016 · recomputed p = .017

    “F(2, 349) = 4.15, p = .016”

  • ConsistentF(2, 349) = 5.28reported p = .005 · recomputed p = .006

    “F(2, 349) = 5.28, p = .005”

5 of 5

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Final model is described as having nine predictors but has ten predictor degrees of freedom

    Minor

    The reported F(10, 341) for a regression with 352 observations indicates ten predictors, whereas the description says all nine predictors are included in the final model.

  • Participation confidence interval is narrower, not wider, than the facial-recognition interval

    Minor

    The multi-stakeholder participation interval spans 0.232, while the facial-recognition interval spans 0.240. Its interval therefore does not indicate greater uncertainty by width.

  • Secondary school is called the largest education category despite a larger bachelor's group

    Minor

    The text calls secondary school the largest category, but reports 124 respondents in that category and 138 with bachelor's degrees.

  • Overall participation mean conflicts with the tier means and sample sizes

    Minor

    Weighting the three tier means by their reported sample sizes gives approximately 2.95, not the reported overall mean of 2.93. Rounding the tier means to two decimals cannot account for the difference.

4 of 4

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. McGinnis MD, Ostrom E. Polycentric governance and development: Advances in comparative institutional analysis. J Glob Policy Gov. 2023; 8(2): 145-67.
  2. Béland D, Cox RH. Institutional change and policy feedback in comparative perspective. Polit Soc. 2024; 52(1): 89-115.
  3. Tolbert CJ, McNeal RS. Digital government and citizen trust: Evidence from municipal e- government adoption. Gov Inf Q. 2023; 40(1): 101-25.
  4. Liao SL, Chen CJ. Civic engagement through digital platforms: a mixed-methods analysis. Am Rev Public Adm. 2022; 52(3) :312-34.
  5. Braun V, Clarke V. Reflecting on thematic analysis and qualitative data interpretation. Qualitative Research in Digital Environments (QRDE). 2023; 9(4): 401-21.
  6. Grossmann M, Chen YC. Trust dynamics and institutional legitimacy in digital governance systems. Public Manag Rev. 2024; 26(1): 78- 102.
  7. Kitchin R, Lauriault TP, McArdle G. Smart cities ethics: Rights, responsibilities and governance. Urban Stud. 2024; 61(3): 501-20.
  8. Veiga L, Ferreira AC. Citizen participation in datapolis: New governance paradigms. Inf Commun Soc. 2023; 26(5): 890-910.
  9. Carlisle K, Gruby RL. Polycentric systems of governance: a review and research agenda. Ecol Soc. 2023; 28(2): 4-28.
  10. Bannister F, Connolly R. Trust, confidence and e-government adoption: a systematic review. Digital Gov. 2022; 3(1): 45-68.
  11. Livingstone S, Van Couvering E, Taddeo M. Data privacy and the right to be forgotten in digital societies. Nat Hum Behav. 2022; 6(8): 1077-088.
  12. Zuboff S, Edmond A. Surveillance capitalism and digital platforms: an emerging global issue. Int Aff. 2023; 99(4): 1401-25.
  13. Pettit J, Whelan J. Trust in digital governance transformation: Building confidence in technology-mediated services. Gov Inf Q. 2024; 41(2): 101-28.
  14. Bertot JC, Estevez E, Janowski T. Government social media communication effectiveness: a systematic literature review. Electronic Government. 2023; 19(2): 156-80.
  15. Eggers WD, Viechnicki P. Smart city policy innovation and implementation frameworks. McKinsey Center for Government (MCG). 2024; 12(1): 1-34.
  16. Grimmelikhuijsen S, Porumbescu GA, Hong B. The effect of transparency on trust in government: a comparative study across democracies. Public Adm Rev. 2023; 83(4): 812-31.
  17. Venkatesh V, Davis FD, Morris MG. User acceptance of information technology in organizational settings: a replication study. Inf Syst Res. 2023; 34(2): 278-302.
  18. Emerson K, Nabatchi T, Balogh S. An integrative framework for collaborative governance. J Public Adm Res Theory. 2022; 22(1): 1-29.
  19. Panagiotopoulos P, Al-Debei MM, Fitzgerald G. A service quality and satisfaction model for electronic government services. Int J Gov Tech. 2024; 10(2): 123-47.
  20. Williams P, Sæbø Ø, Thorseng AA. Service co- production, governance and citizen participation. Public Manag Rev. 2023; 25(4): 567-89.
  21. Šebok M, Sláma D, Bureš V. Digital inclusion and technology acceptance among vulnerable populations. Comp Soc. 2024; 13(1): 34-58.
  22. Kane GC, Palmer D, Phillips AN. Organizational digital transformation and innovation. J Manag Inf Syst. 2023; 40(4): 1015-45.
  23. Swianiewicz P. Between centralization and decentralization: Governance structures in the twenty-first century. Local Government Studies (LGS). 2023; 49(5): 699-724.
  24. Ansell C, Gash A. Collaborative platforms and governance networks: a longitudinal case analysis. Adm Soc. 2024; 56(2): 241-68.
  25. Agranoff R, McGuire M. Multi-sector governance and the coordination challenge. Am Rev Public Adm. 2023; 53(1): 45-71.
  26. Weill P, Ross JW. Digital governance and business value: Strategic IT alignment and execution. MIS Q Exec. 2024; 23(1): 1-24.
  27. Smith AH, Grönlund Å, Reddick CG. E- participation and citizen engagement in local governance: a global perspective. Gov Inf Q. 2024; 41(1): 1-18.

Cited by

Still being checked.

Related

Metadata

Authors
Ganendra, A., & Tanjung, J.
Venue
Open Access Indonesia Journal of Social Sciences
Publisher
Hanif Medisiana Publisher
Published
2026-05-12
Volume
9
Issue
1
Pages
39-52
ISSN
2722-4252 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.37275/oaijss.v9i1.317
OpenAlex
W7160900282
Semantic Scholar
21e88a6c720ab58f5c8bb09fb9064c314ba360d9
Cited by
0
References
0
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-sa
Locations
Open Access Indonesia Journal of Social Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Smart Cities and Technologies
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › E-Government and Public Services
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Privacy, Security, and Data Protection
Keywords
smart cities, public confidence, perceived surveillance, polycentric governance, citizen participation, CCTV surveillance, data privacy, data transparency, multi-stakeholder governance, decentralized decision-making, e-government, Indonesian cities

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review