Introduction

Diversity in focusing on citizens and the level of power they have is perceptible in smart city definitions. For instance, while definitions offered by IBM (Dameri 2016) and Batty et al. (2012) emphasized only on technological aspects, informed citizen was a fundamental feature in definitions used by Bakici et al. (2012) and Partridge (2004). In addition, Caragliu et al. (2009) and Benouaret et al. (2013) represented definitions stressing the involvement of citizens in smart city governance.

Such differences are detectable in official documents of cities dubbed smart. Berlin Strategy (Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment 2013) and Denver Vision Narrative (U.S. Department of Transportation 2016) underline public collaboration, while researchers like Andalib (2009) firmly critiques Comprehensive Plan of Tehran City (Tarh-e-Jame) because of the lack of clear evidence for citizen engagement. Undoubtedly, it is of great value to have the ability scaling citizen power in documents projecting future smart cities. Particularly, where people encounter poor political power or social freedoms a classifying model can show how much an envisioned smart city has potentials to change the game and empower citizens.

Smart city definitions make the basis from which this article attempts to formulate the required model. After a literature review and the description of methods in the second and third sections, the forth one compares different public engagement forms and explores indications of citizen power. Afterwards, through a search among smart city definitions for the explored indicators, this article makes a categorization of definitions, resulting in the suggestion of a model classifying smart cities based on their potentials for citizen empowerment. Next, the model is used for the evaluation of citizen power in 2025 Tehran, titled a smart city in Comprehensive Plan of Tehran City. The final section of this article contains discussion and conclusion.

Literature review

Smart City is not a concept with a unanimous definition. Diversity of perspectives, ranging from “purely ecological to technological and from economic to organizational and societal views” (Prado Lara et al. 2016), is why various components and features have been suggested for smart cities. For instance, Infrastructure, Buildings, Transportation, Energy, Health Care, Technology, Governance, Education and Citizens were cited as smart city components by Mohanty et al. (2016), while Al Nuaimi et al. (2015) enumerated mobility, governance, environment, people, applications and services, and Dameri (2013) mentioned land, citizens, technology, and governance. Whereas Cassandras (2016) claimed that smart cities are sensible, connectable, accessible, ubiquitous, sociable, sharable and visible, Giffinger et al. (2007) presumed six characteristics, including smart economy, smart people, smart governance, smart mobility, smart environment and smart living as fundamental characteristics of smart cities.

Through comparing and classifying smart city definitions, researchers obtained different goals. Nam and Pardo (2011a, b) categorized the labels highlighted in definitions and clarified innovation areas. Chourabi et al. (2012) established an integrative framework for smart cities. Others searched useful information about the roots (Cassandras 2016), trends (Neirotti et al. 2014), focus areas, similarities and differences (Al Nuaimi et al. 2015; Yin et al. 2015; Prado Lara et al. 2016), stakeholders’ points of view (Fernandez-Anez 2016) and highlighted the blurry line separating smart city concept from any similar notions (Letaifa 2015; Dameri 2016). Centre for Study of Science, Technology and Policy (CSTEP) analyzed a large number of definitions to find a combination of various aspects and keywords toward smart city concept (Bhattacharya et al. 2015). Working with smart city definitions continues until recent years. It seems that definitions have remarkable capacity to be considered as a reliable resource for scientific works in many axes.

Public engagement, the term used interchangeably with public participation and consultation (Shipley and Utz 2012), is rooted in democratic principles, especially the theory of deliberative democracy (Chambers 2003) and the idea of right to the city (Purcell 2002). It is a prevalent theme well fitted into the public administration discourse (Divay and Micheau 2016) and it forms a main part of New Public Management paradigm (Kakumba 2010). In addition to democratic reasoning, several arguments are developed in favor of this booming trend, such as green, behavioral, science and society, risk-related, and Habermas’ theory arguments (Kiss 2014). It gives an explanation of why many researchers did not suggest an explicit definition for the term. They defined public engagement in a broad way (Rowe and Frewer 2005) or represented a range of activities instead of a direct definition (Putnam 2001). However, there are also clear-cut definitions stressing citizens’ voluntary duties, collective action to improve civic conditions, and collaboration in political activities (Adler and Goggin 2005; Ekman and Amna 2012).

The variety of 100 public engagement mechanisms, rooted in multidimensional nature of participation concept (Rowe and Frewer 2005), can complicate the evaluation of citizen engagement because any mechanisms or techniques are associated with different process and outcomes, two determinant items central to the assessment of public engagement (Shipley and Utz 2012). It is a justification for divergent methods devised to assess public engagement.

In a well-known case, Arnstein (1969) defined public engagement as a categorical term for power. She identified eight levels of power forming three participation conditions: citizen control, tokenism, and non-participation. Arnstein’s ladder is a source of inspiration for others, such as Choguill (1996) and International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) (2014). Glass (1979) mentioned two schools of thought, administrative and citizen perspective, to explain the purpose of citizen engagement. Wiedemann and Femers (1993) believed in a ladder including six rungs beginning from “public right to know” and culminating in “public participation in final decision”. Webler and his colleagues selected fairness, competence, and outcomes as central criteria for public participation assessment and proposed several indicators for a good participation (Webler 1995; Tuler and Webler 1999; Webler et al. 2001). Rowe and Frewer (2000) divided the evaluation criteria into two groups of acceptance and process. They suggested nine criteria to assess public engagement techniques. Michels (2011) theorized that citizen participation results in influence, inclusion, skills and virtues, deliberation, and legitimacy, however, her later work raised doubts about the consistency of these results (Michels 2017).

Public engagement has been an area of focus in many scientific works about smart cities. In some resources, it is a defining feature considered as a necessity for the formation of smart cities (Ghaffarianhoseini et al. 2018; Giffinger et al. 2007). Many publications give evidence of intercorrelation between smart city governance and public involvement. Public engagement is an influential factor, although not always in a same form, either affecting or assessing smart city governance (Ruhlandt 2018; Nesti 2018; Meijer and Rodrıguez Bolıvar 2016). There are also some works underlining smart city solutions for e-participation and e-democracy (Pereira et al. 2018; Kumar 2017).

Researchers, directly or indirectly, concentrated on the evaluation of public engagement in smart cities. Vácha et al. (2016) enumerated three types of citizen involvement in this regard: (a) to inform, (b) to listen to, and (c) to involve citizens actively. Vanolo (2016) pictured the place and role of citizens in four smart city types including smart cities with (a) invisible citizens, (b) subjugated citizens, or (c) inhabitants-as-sensors and (d) citizens of the future. To show the ways in which smart cities frame citizens, Cardullo and kitchin (2019) enhanced Consumerism to the participation conditions proposed by Arnstein and produced the scaffold of Smart Citizens Participation, adding the rung of choice to Arnstein’s ladder.

The first comprehensive master plan for Tehran (TCP), started in 1968, was designed to regulate the expansion of the city, overcrowded by increasing rural migrants. Inspired by post-war modernist idea of planning, TCP envisaged 1991 Tehran as an ‘ideal city’ for ‘modern living and modern transportation’ (Mashayekhi 2018). Although after 1979 revolution TCP was considered unable to cope with change, the following plan approved in 1993 by Urban Planning High Council made little change in the land-use approach taken up by TCP. Tehran Municipality rejected this new plan and produced its own strategic plan illustrating the future of Tehran with six characteristics: a clean city, ease of movement, green spaces, new cultural and sport facilities, reformed municipal organization, planning for improvemet of urban spaces (Madanipour 2006). The last Tehran comprehensive urban development plan, approved in 2006, is designed and aimed at transforming 2025 Tehran into a (1) knowledge-based, (2) global, and (3) smart city (Tehran Urban Planning and Research Center 2015).

In 2018, the roadmap drafted by Tehran Municipality highlighted smart Tehran as a viable city supporting happy and decent life for citizens (Tehran Municipality ICT Organization 2018c). In Tehran, smart economy, smart mobility, smart environment, smart infrastructures, smart government, and smart living are six dimensions of smartness. Moreover, five strategic axes, including sustainable urban development, directing urban innovations, citizen satisfaction, improvement of participation and transparency, management systems and efficient services, help Tehran to attain qualitative goals forming its smart dimensions (Tehran Municipality ICT Organization 2018b).

Since 1968, Tehran has experienced several development plans with different approaches. Although these plans mostly failed in achieving manifested visions (Madanipour 2006), they have been official documents illustrating future of the city and predicting its characteristics.

Materials and methods

The discovery of theory from data, called ‘grounded theory’ (Glaser and Strauss 1967), makes the bulk of methods in this article. As reflected in its name, grounded theory refers to a theory directly extracted from rigorous data, collected and analyzed during a regular basis (Fallah Haghighi et al. 2018; Charmaz and Belgrave 2007). Through certain steps, including define, search, select, analyze and present, it lets salient concepts arise from the literature (Wolfswinkel et al. 2013). Indeed, grounded theory has systematized the stage of analyzing and abstracting data into categories and theoretical constructs (Goldkuhl and Cronholm 2010).

Motivated by Grounded Theory, this article conducted a set of inductive methods and qualitative research for the development of the required model. To find available smart city definitions, this article ran a search on SAGE, Springer, Elsevier, Taylor & Francis, and ACM databases via key-works including smart/smarter city/cities. The result was a collection of 47 different smart city definitions created or used in 43 publications. The same process, covering public/citizen engagement/involvement/participation/collaboration/partnership, led to eight publications rating different public engagement forms.

This article organized available public engagement forms on the ground of the indications of citizen power detected in the involvement process and/or outcomes. These power indicators are targets of a qualitative search on smart city definitions, leading to the categorization of definitions and a series of intimations. By using open, axial and selective coding of the intimations, this article constructed the required model. Another qualitative search resulted in the detection of smart city intimations reflected in Comprehensive Plan of Tehran City.

Power indicators

Table 1 shows public engagement forms resulting in citizen control condition. Such engagement forms empower citizens for influencing on the process and outcomes of their involvement in smart city projects. Arnstein (1969) believed that it happens only by the genuine participation in which citizens or delegations of citizens are able to make or affect final decisions. Alternatively, they might be in a partnership with power-holders, enabling them to negotiate and engage in trade-offs. According to Glass (1979), such a condition stems from “citizen perspective”, providing citizens with opportunities to ensure their views are considered and play a real roll in decision-making or planning. Wiedemann and Femers (1993) considered such a situation as a citizen’s ability to choose decision-making criteria and make final decisions. According to Choguill (1996), this condition means either the empowerment of citizens to make formal decisions influencing the processes and outcomes or the partnership between the community, outside decision-makers and planners to share planning and decision-making responsibilities. Tuler and Webler (1999) came to the conclusion that the power to influence public participation process and outcomes can be implicitly defined as a reduction in prejudice, preferential treatment, or imbalance in resources. At this level, the involvement of citizens has a visible and genuine impact on policy-making (Rowe and Frewer 2000; Michels 2011). Citizen’s concerns are considered and they receive feedback about their decisions (IAP2 2014).

Table 1 Power indicators of citizen control condition
Full size table

As is demonstrated in Table 2, through some engagement forms, which lead to tokenism condition, citizens obtain a wide spectrum of options and satisfying achievements but not a genuine power. They are informed about their rights, responsibilities, and options (Arnstein 1969; Choguill 1996). They receive information about goals, details and all the issues related to an ongoing project (Glass 1979; Wiedemann and Femers 1993). Accessible data is analyzed in detail (Tuler and Webler 1999; Rowe and Frewer 2000). Information, enhancing citizens’ knowledge and skills, results in learning such civil virtues as trustworthiness, reciprocity, understanding problems, alternatives and solutions, and making citizens more responsible and competence (Michels 2011; IAP2 2014).

Table 2 Power indicators of tokenism condition
Full size table

At this level of engagement, citizens might be invited to consult about their concerns and ideas, however, they have “little opportunity to influence the programs designed for their benefit”; and in order to be placated, they are even allowed to recommend and plan (Arnstein 1969). Societal and political conflicts are decreased and Innovative and administrative services improve quality of life (Glass 1979). Citizens have the right to object, discuss, and develop arguments. They can involve in assessing consequences and proposing solutions, however, power-holders keep the right to make the final decision (Wiedemann and Femers 1993). In a top-down paternalistic approach, governments protect people and provide them with their needs but not unrestricted freedom of choice. Citizens can receive education, participate in advisory groups and NGOs, and engage in programs, however, their wills are not necessarily taken into account (Choguill 1996). According to Tuler and Webler (1999), as many people as possible have physical access to the process, creating equality and fairness. They have a constructive interaction and dialogue, generating respect, openness, honesty, understanding, listening and trust. There are social conditions resolving conflicts, promoting a sense of place, teaching and provoking sensitivity to cost. Disenfranchising groups are given a chance to have an independent voice and being involved in agenda-setting as soon as possible. All the tasks, duties, and procedures are clearly defined, leading to effectiveness, efficiency, creditability, and transparency. Social inclusion enables minorities to be heard. Citizens debate public issues and express their interests, demands, and feedbacks. Nevertheless, power-holders retain the right to give the final verdicts (Rowe and Frewer 2000; Michels 2011; IAP2 2014). At the tokenism level, all indicators are essential but not sufficient to make citizens genuinely empowered. Even worse, these indicators may be abused by power-holders for populist purposes.

At the lowest level (Table 3), public engagement is manipulated by power-holders engineering citizens’ involvement to regulate the development and behavior of society. Instead of improving life quality, involvement processes are set to justify shortcomings (Arnstein 1969). There is not any sign of governmental interest in the redistribution of power. On the pretext of the satisfaction of other groups or cost-effectiveness, power-holders reject any ideas that help poor citizens and advance their collaboration (Choguill 1996; Rowe and Frewer 2000). At this level, without a real influence posed by citizens, decisions seem legitimate (Michels 2011).

Table 3 Power indicators of non-participation condition
Full size table

Categorizing smart city definitions

Smart city definitions that pledge the highest level of citizen power (citizen control condition) are listed in Table 4. Such manifested smart cities take shape by activities of self-decisive, independent, aware citizens and through the creativity of population (Giffinger et al. 2007; Hollands 2008). Development and modification of smart cities are relied on the collaboration of all citizens (Paskaleva 2009; Cosgrave et al. 2013; Fernandez-Anez 2016). They have the opportunity being effectively connected to the government body (Benouaret et al. 2013). In this order, technology paves the way for collective decision-making and active engagement of citizens in participatory governance and problem-solving (Caragliu et al. 2009; Dameri 2013; Akin and Ongel 2017; Faraji et al. 2019).

Table 4 Intimations of citizen control condition in smart city definitions
Full size table

In Table 5, the promised level of public engagement in smart city definitions is comparable with the tokenism condition. Many smart cities manifested in this table are service-oriented. The Internet, ICTs, mobile applications and smart computing technologies optimize services and make administration, education, healthcare, public safety, real estate, transportation, and utilities more aware, intelligent, interconnected, interactive, and efficient (Harrison et al. 2010; Bélissent 2010; Washburn and Sindhu 2010; Alawadhi et al. 2011; David et al. 2013; Zanella et al. 2014; Abella et al. 2017; Silva et al. 2018; Ghaemi Rad et al. 2018). Smart city services and amenities promote prosperity and competitiveness, and improve the quality of life (Odendaal 2003; Chen 2010; Angelidou 2014; Anthopoulos and Fitsilis 2014; Mayangsari and Novani 2015; Dameri 2016; Silva et al. 2018). It is easier for citizens to collect, manage and share inclusive real-time information and have their say (Partridge 2004; Heo et al. 2014).

Table 5 Intimations of tokenism condition in smart city definitions
Full size table

Some definitions project a comprehensive commitment to citizen-driven innovation in areas such as technology, management, and policy (Nam and Pardo 2011b; Schaffers et al. 2011). Admittedly, innovation can empower citizens; however, power-holders can still take the power to make decisions on what innovations are acceptable.

At this level, sustainability is highlighted in many smart city definitions. Sustainable characteristics expand economy, education, well-being, but barely can result in the bottom-up distribution of power. Smart cities are safe, green, and habitable urban areas housing secure, happy, healthy and rich communities and preserving resources for future generations (Hall 2000; Barrionuevo et al. 2012; Lazaroiu and Roscia 2012; Albino et al. 2015; Silva et al. 2018). Many definitions explain how the development of sustainable urban centers, and the sustainable growth of economy are the outcomes relied on information exchange, population awareness, new technologies, services and amenities (Bakici et al. 2012; Banavar 2012; Liyanage and Marasinghe 2013; Rahmat et al. 2015; Albino et al. 2015; Picon 2015; Calvillo et al. 2016; Rosati and Conti 2016). However, these definitions give no room for participation in governance as a goal of sustainable development.

In Table 6, what is focused is the integration of new technologies into infrastructures, information, capital, behavior, and culture (Su et al. 2011; Alkandari et al. 2012; Batty et al. 2012; Dameri 2016). One can say it does not necessarily exclude citizens from engagement in smart cities; however, such definitions give evidence neither guaranteeing the bottom-up distribution of power nor facilitating citizens’ lives.

Table 6 Intimations of non-participation condition in smart city definitions
Full size table

A new classifying model

Intimation represented in Table 4 refers to an extreme approach recognized as “bottom-up” (Walravens 2015). The primary goal of this approach is to enhance citizens’ power to make civil decisions, and control, govern and build smart cities (Neirotti et al. 2014; Angelidou 2017). In simple terms, citizens’ power and genuine participation is identifiable in bottom-up smart city definitions as a substantial factor in the process of smart city formation and governing.

According to Table 5, such intimations as civil services, life quality improvement, having a voice, citizen-driven innovations, and sustainability benefit citizens in one way or another but do not necessarily guarantee a bottom-up distribution of power by which have-nots enjoy a considerable influence on the smart city shape and governance.

In Table 6, smart city definitions are about technology but not people. Technology is an end in itself instead of an enabler. Indeed, citizens are neglected and invisible, at least in words.

From the above-mentioned results, this article formulates a new model classifying smart cities into three groups: (a) bottom-up, (b) beneficial, and (c) techno smart cities.

Public engagement conditions in 2025 Tehran

Intimations of bottom-up smart city are scarce in Comprehensive Plan of Tehran City. Regarding the projected vision, citizens do not enjoy any power, activity, and creativity to shape and modify 2025 Tehran as a smart city. Moreover, there is neither sign of collaborative decision-making nor participatory governance process. The only intimation of a bottom-up smart city is detectable in Development Strategy No. 2-4-6: “to create a local cooperative administration of the city in the level of neighborhoods, areas and urban regions.”

The scarcity of techno smart city intimations is also an easily visible fact. Development Vision of Tehran does not directly address technological issues, while the only evidence is in City Development Strategy No. 6-7 where 2025 Tehran is cited as an ‘electronic city’.

The prevalence of such intimations as being knowledge-based, green, safe, sustainable, proper welfare, and modern economy in Development Vision of Tehran increases the feasibility of a beneficial smart city. Moreover, there are similar intimations in different part of City Development Strategies (Table 7).

Table 7 Intimations of beneficial smart city in Tehran development strategies
Full size table

Discussion and conclusion

In this article, findings prove that smart cities are divisible into three groups regarding their potentials for public engagement reflected in definitions: bottom-up, beneficial and techno smart cities. Just over 20% of definitions enjoy intimations of bottom-up smart cities in which citizens have the power to engage at the highest level in the process of shaping and governing smart cities. About 70% definitions refer to beneficial smart cities providing the public with a variety of facilities and opportunities, expanding innovations, promoting sustainability and improving lives’ quality. Nevertheless, citizens are deprived of the power to play influential roles and make decisions changing their future. In less than 10% of definitions, citizens are overlooked and technology is what has only been considered.

Many definitions include intimations of two or three smart city types. For example, in the definition offered by Hollands (2008), the creativity of population is a fundamental element for the formation of smart city, demonstrating the highest level of engagement. Meanwhile, knowledge creation and digital infrastructure, intimations of beneficial smart cities and techno smart cities, are also cited. Zanella et al. (2014) mention the improvement of life quality and the cost-effectiveness, referring to beneficial and techno smart cities respectively. With a large number of instances, there can be little doubt that the higher level of engagement, the more comprehensive definition. In plain words, definitions that empower citizens are likely to bring benefits to them and cover technological aspects. The same way, many definitions representing beneficial smart cities have also indications of techno smart cities. For this reason, the analysis to recognize public engagement levels should be carried out from the top.

Existence of different types of intimations can complicate identifying the right level of public engagement. Therefore, seeking out some keywords is essential but not enough. In addition to containing such keywords as public collaboration or smart governance, intimations of bottom-up smart cities must guarantee the power by which citizens affect either the shape of smart city or its process of governance. The same way, services, innovation, sustainability, and all similar keywords help recognize the second type of smart cities if only indicators benefit citizens.

Over three quarters of definitions are inclined either in tokenism or non-participation conditions. However, researchers believe that smart cities have significant potentials for bottom-up power distribution and transition to new types of governance empowering citizens, a necessity for the formation of smart cities (Ghaffarianhoseini et al. 2018). By analyzing a corpus of 51 publications, Meijer and Rodriguez Bolivar (2016) came to the conclusion that smart cities can result in new public collaboration forms and more open governance processes. They outlined that the most transformative level of smart city governance is ‘smart urban collaboration’ involving all actors not only in developing such outcomes as economic growth, sustainability and the enhancement of life quality—the indicators of beneficial smart cities—but also in strengthening more democratic governance processes—that signifies bottom-up smart cities. According to Nesti (2018), although citizens do not usually participate in the governance process, there are clear potentials for a transformation on the ground of the principles of “New Public Governance” if smart city paradigm can produce public values for citizens.

Without encouraging public engagement in governing process and producing public values, it is not possible to move towards new participatory sorts of smart city governance. Official documents can facilitate such a transformation by promoting public values and fostering citizens’ right to shape and govern smart cities. The indications offered by this article help analyze official documents, such as vision statements, and generate more supportive visions. Existence of indications is a predictor of the level of power citizens obtain if visions completely materialize.

Most of the definitions classified as beneficial contain indications of sustainability. Despite a transition from sustainable cities to smart cities in twenty-first century (Ghaffarianhoseini et al. 2018), it is not to deny that smart cities emerged as solutions to address the challenges negating the sustainability of cities (Silva et al. 2018). Many experts subscribe to a view that sustainability is a major attribute of smart city (Mohanty et al. 2016) or even “a city that is not sustainable is not really smart” (Ahvenniemi et al. 2017). While governance is a sub attribute that comes under the social dimension of sustainability, smartness is a desire to boost social, environmental, and economic benchmarks (Silva et al. 2018). It seems it is fair to say that participatory governance can seek more support from sustainability than smartness; however, some large investigations give counter-evidence. According to Monfaredzadeh and Berardi (2015), citizen participation and easy access to governmental decision-making are not placed in the center of sustainable indicators. What is frequently underpinned as the sustainable output of smart city includes development in economy, education, and well-being (Ahvenniemi et al. 2017). In the area of governance, sustainability concerns the publication of government contracts and reports, and smart indicators are more likely about collaborative decision-making (Monfaredzadeh and Berardi 2015). While sustainability informs citizens, displaying the condition of tokenism, smartness empowers them. Moreover, no one can deny that power-holders can abuse sustainability to justify dismissing citizens’ wills and divesting them of influential power to genuinely engage in smart city shaping and governing processes.

This article confirms the assertion of Meijer and Rodriguez Bolivar (2016). They contend that in terms of smart city governance, whereas outcomes are more related to the improvement of life quality and social inclusion—indicators for beneficial smart cities—citizen power and democracy are reflected in processes. Therefore, the highest level of public engagement is set in the process but not outcomes. Citizens’ power should be considered as a continuous practice, and the public should engage in the process of smart city formation and governing as soon as possible, even at envisioning stage.

Researchers, planners, citizens and all those interested in public engagement in smart cities can use the model suggested in this article to anticipate the level of citizens’ power in smart cities manifested in official documents. By using this model, they can envision smart cities not only benefit citizens but also empower them. In this regard, delineated intimations are effectively helpful.

Regarding Comprehensive Plan of Tehran City, there are little potentials for the transformation of Tehran into a bottom-up smart city. In this document, public engagement conditions are more reminiscent of tokenism. 2025 Tehran seems a beneficial smart city providing people with services, amenities, and sustainability; however, the envisaged city has rare capacities to empower citizens.

Today, 10 smart projects are implemented by Tehran Municipality to form different dimensions of smart Tehran (Tehran Municipality ICT Organization 2018a). Among them, 7 projects are service-oriented, 2 projects are set to deliver different kinds of statistics and data about Tehran, and one project opens the way for citizens’ complaints, suggestions and innovative proposals. Although participation of citizens, NGOs and businesses, institutionalization of civil rights, and reduction of monopolized power are identified as qualitative goals of smart governance and smart living in Tehran (Tehran Municipality ICT Organization 2018b), it seems available smart projects cannot achieve these objectives and convert Tehran from a beneficial smart city to a bottom-up one. A probable reason can be the elimination of smart people of the dimensions of smartness in Tehran.

In the time of writing this article, Iran’s central government shut down the internet in Tehran—and across the entire country—for more than a week to break the connection of citizens and suppress their protest over a sudden increase in the price of gasoline (NetBlocks 2019; Kadivar 2019). This can show citizen power in beneficial smart cities like Tehran is vulnerable enough to drop substantially to the level of non-participation condition and, due to top-down distribution of power, power-holders can use smart infrastructures to violate citizens’ rights or even subjugate them.