Purpose: This study aims to explore the citizens' perceptions of the smart city distribution strategy and its impact on quality of life, classifying generations into two groups: Generation X with Baby Boomers, and Millennials with Generation Z. This study formulated research questionsto explore how ...
Purpose: This study aims to explore the citizens' perceptions of the smart city distribution strategy and its impact on quality of life, classifying generations into two groups: Generation X with Baby Boomers, and Millennials with Generation Z. This study formulated research questionsto explore how both generational groups perceive the impact of smart city experience, government's role, technology development, economic, social, and environmental factors, and institutional improvement on quality of life. Additionally, this study explored the influence of quality of life on city evaluation, life satisfaction, and the expected growth of the city. Research design, data and methodology: This study employed an online survey conducted by well-known research organization. This study utilized factor and regression analysis for data analysis. Results: This study revealed that the impact of smart city experience, technology development and social value on quality of life demonstrated significance in both generational groups. Additionally, the study identified significant results regarding the influence of quality of life on city evaluation, life satisfaction, and the expected growth of the city. Conclusions: The findings suggest that, for the development of smart cities, stakeholders should particularly consider economic value and environment aspects, as these factors ultimately impact on quality of life.
Purpose: This study aims to explore the citizens' perceptions of the smart city distribution strategy and its impact on quality of life, classifying generations into two groups: Generation X with Baby Boomers, and Millennials with Generation Z. This study formulated research questionsto explore how both generational groups perceive the impact of smart city experience, government's role, technology development, economic, social, and environmental factors, and institutional improvement on quality of life. Additionally, this study explored the influence of quality of life on city evaluation, life satisfaction, and the expected growth of the city. Research design, data and methodology: This study employed an online survey conducted by well-known research organization. This study utilized factor and regression analysis for data analysis. Results: This study revealed that the impact of smart city experience, technology development and social value on quality of life demonstrated significance in both generational groups. Additionally, the study identified significant results regarding the influence of quality of life on city evaluation, life satisfaction, and the expected growth of the city. Conclusions: The findings suggest that, for the development of smart cities, stakeholders should particularly consider economic value and environment aspects, as these factors ultimately impact on quality of life.
This study proposed evaluating the impact of governmental involvement in shaping the smart city landscape. Kozlowski and Suwar (2021) emphasized that the success of smart initiativesis heavily influenced by local factors.
가설 설정
H10a: The impact of quality of life on expected growth of the city in Generation X and Baby Boomers.
H10b: The impact of quality of life on expected growth of the city in Millennials and Generation Z.
H1a: The impact of perceived smart city experience on quality of life in Generation X and Baby Boomers.
H1b: The impact of perceived smart city experience on quality of life in Millennials and Generation Z.
H2a: The impact of role of government on quality of life in Generation X and Baby Boomers.
H2b: The impact of role of government on quality of life in Millennials and Generation Z.
H3a: The impact of technology development on quality of life in Generation X and Baby Boomers.
H3b: The impact of technology development on quality of life in Millennials and Generation Z.
H4a: The impact of economic factor on quality of life in Generation X and Baby Boomers.
H4b: The impact of economic factor on quality of life in Millennials and Generation Z.
H5a: The impact of social factor on quality of life in Generation X and Baby Boomers.
H5b: The impact of social factor on quality of life in Millennials and Generation Z.
H6a: The impact of environment factor on quality of life in Generation X and Baby Boomers.
H6b: The impact of environment factor on quality of life in Millennials and Generation Z.
H7a: The impact of institutional development on quality of life in Generation X and Baby Boomers.
H7b: The impact of institutional development on quality of life in Millennials and Generation Z.
H8a: The impact of quality of life on city evaluation in Generation X and Baby Boomers.
H8b: The impact of quality of life on city evaluation in Millennials and Generation Z.
H9a: The impact of quality of life on life satisfaction in Generation X and Baby Boomers.
H9b: The impact of quality of life on life satisfaction in Millennials and Generation Z.
The advancement of digital technology has consequently influenced multiple sectors within the city, and the substantial volume of data generated by ICT systems stands out as a major factor in the development of smart cities (Toporkoff, 2012). Therefore, this study hypothesized how to assess the influence of technological advancements on quality of life in both groups of Generation X with Baby Boomers and Millennials with Generation Z.
, 2017), and enhancing competitiveness in the global market (Dameri & D’Auria, 2014). Therefore, this study hypothesized the impact of economic factor on the quality of life in both groups of Generation X with Baby Boomers and Millennials with Generation Z.
In the establishment of a smart city, the imperative and expeditious revision of related laws, the enhancement of regulations, and the pace of technological advancement must be acknowledged as significantly crucial factors in achieving the stability of the city. Therefore, this study hypothesized the impact of institutional development factor on quality of life in both groups of Generation X with Baby Boomers and Millennials with Generation Z.
These aspects have been identified as significant shortcomings in smart city development (Tan & Taeihagh, 2020). Therefore, this study hypothesized the impact of role of government on quality of life in both groups of Generation X with Baby Boomers and Millennials with Generation Z.
(2020) emphasized the importance of gaining a deeper understanding of the diverse lived experiences of community members and local voices of the smart city, with the aim of facilitating both physical and social change. Therefore, this study hypothesized the impact of smart city experience on quality of life in both groups of Generation X with Baby Boomers and Millennials with Generation Z.
Ultimately, Sajhau (2017) asserts that social development through smart cities plays a crucial role in achieving an egalitarian and just society for all citizens. Therefore, this study hypothesized the impact of social factor on the quality of life in both groups of Generation X with Baby Boomers and Millennials with Generation Z.
제안 방법
In this study, factor analysis was employed and scale items were extracted by applying factor analysis. Principal component analysisserved asthe method for extraction, with maximum iterations for convergence, and factors’ eigenvalue was greater than 1 are extracted.
The survey employed stratified sampling, taking into accounts factors such as residential area, age, gender, etc. With a focus on citizens’ awareness of smart cities, the survey was distributed across major provinces in South Korea.
This study also conducted regression analyses to test the effect of quality of life on city evaluation, satisfaction, and expected growth of the city. For the effect of quality of life on city evaluation, the results of the ANOVA revealed that the overall model is significant with an F value of 76.
데이터처리
This study utilized factor analysis, ANOVA, and multiple regression analysis to examine the proposed hypotheses. This study assessed reliability by examining Cronbach alpha.
이론/모형
In this study, multiple regression analysis was employed to test hypotheses incorporating factor scores utilized as variables in the analysis. In this study, the dependent variablesincluded smart city experience, role of government, technology development, economic, social, and environmental value, and institutional improvement.
Principal component analysisserved asthe method for extraction, with maximum iterations for convergence, and factors’ eigenvalue was greater than 1 are extracted. VARIMAX with Kaiser Normalization was applied as the rotation method with maximum iterations for convergence. Table 2 presented a summarized component matrix, including factor loadings.
성능/효과
Among the significant factors, the study found that the effect size was highest for the smart city experience factor on quality of life followed by technology development, environment impact, institutional development, and social value for generations older than MZ including Generation X and Baby Boomers. Among the significant factors, the study found that the effect size was highest for the smart city experience factor on quality of life followed by technology development and social value for Millennials and Generation Z.
Therefore, H1a, 1b, 3a, 3b, 5a, 5b, 6a, and 7a were accepted. Among the significant factors, the study found that the effect size was highest for the smart city experience factor on quality of life followed by technology development, environment impact, institutional development, and social value for generations older than MZ including Generation X and Baby Boomers. Among the significant factors, the study found that the effect size was highest for the smart city experience factor on quality of life followed by technology development and social value for Millennials and Generation Z.
Considering the effect size, the influence of perceived smart city experience on the quality of life is most prominent for Millennials with Generation Z, followed by the impacts of technology development and social factors. Consequently, for both generation groups, the effect size was higher for perceived smart city experience on quality of life, followed by the impact of technology development on quality of life. Furthermore, the results also indicated a significant influence on quality of life on the evaluation of the smart city, city satisfaction, and the expected growth of the smart city.
745 for generations older than MZ including Generation X and Boomers. For Millennials and Generation Z, the model was also significant with an F value of 37.924 at the 0.01% significance level and an R-square of 0.667. Table 4 illustrated that in this study, the effects of smart city experience, technology development, environmental value, and institutional development on quality of life were found to be significant at a 1% significance level and the effect of the social value factor on quality of life showed significance at a 5% level for generations older than MZ including Generation X and Baby Boomers.
329 for generations older than MZ including Generation X and Baby Boomers. For the effect of quality of life on city evaluation, the results of the ANOVA revealed that the model was significant with an F value of 61.314 at the 0.01% significance level and an R-square of 0.220, for the effect of quality of life on satisfaction, the results of the ANOVA revealed that the model was significant with an F value of 88.722 at the 0.01% significance level and an R-square of 0.289, and for the effect of quality of life on expected growth of the city, the results of the ANOVA revealed that the model was significant with an F value of 84.987 at the 0.01% significance level and an R-square of 0.280 for Millennials and Generation Z. Therefore, H8a, 8b, 9a, 9b, 10a, and 10b were accepted in both cases of generations older than MZ including Generation X and Baby Boomers and millennials and Generation Z (Table 5).
This study also conducted regression analyses to test the effect of quality of life on city evaluation, satisfaction, and expected growth of the city. For the effect of quality of life on city evaluation, the results of the ANOVA revealed that the overall model is significant with an F value of 76.343 at the 0.01% significance level and an R-square of 0.300, for the effect of quality of life on satisfaction, the results of the ANOVA revealed that the model was significant with an F value of 22.960 at the 0.01% significance level and an R-square of 0.114, and for the effect of quality of life on expected growth of the city, the results of the ANOVA revealed that the model was significant with an F value of 87.256 at the 0.01% significance level and an R-square of 0.329 for generations older than MZ including Generation X and Baby Boomers. For the effect of quality of life on city evaluation, the results of the ANOVA revealed that the model was significant with an F value of 61.
Further, the Cronbach’s alpha results for Millennials and Generation Z are summarized as follows: 0.705 for smart city experience, 0.761 for role of government, 0.808 for technology development, 0.800 for economic factor, 0.772 for social factor, 0.776 for environment factor, 0.804 for institutional improvement, and 0.779 for quality of life.
Consequently, for both generation groups, the effect size was higher for perceived smart city experience on quality of life, followed by the impact of technology development on quality of life. Furthermore, the results also indicated a significant influence on quality of life on the evaluation of the smart city, city satisfaction, and the expected growth of the smart city.
Considering the application process of smart city development across regions, this study allocated a larger proportion of the sample size to leading cities including Seoul, Incheon, Busan, and Sejong. In terms of g gender distribution, an equal representation of 50% female and 50% male participants completed the survey in both groups of generations. Regarding educational backgrounds in the Generation X and Baby Boomers, 23.
, 2018). In the establishment of a smart city, the imperative and expeditious revision of related laws, the enhancement of regulations, and the pace of technological advancement must be acknowledged as significantly crucial factors in achieving the stability of the city. Therefore, this study hypothesized the impact of institutional development factor on quality of life in both groups of Generation X with Baby Boomers and Millennials with Generation Z.
In this study, multiple regression analysis was employed to test hypotheses incorporating factor scores utilized as variables in the analysis. In this study, the dependent variablesincluded smart city experience, role of government, technology development, economic, social, and environmental value, and institutional improvement. The dependent variable assessed was the quality of life.
In this study, the questionnaire items applied as follows: i) for smart city experience, questionnaire items applied in this study include how technology is utilized by smart cities to deliver public services, focusing on the citizens' firsthand experiences, How smart city can enhance their development through active citizen participation and feedback; ii) for the role of government, questionnaire items applied in this study include how the success of smart city depends on the responsibility of the government and the leading role of the government; iii) for technology development, questionnaire items applied in this study include how application of advanced technologies such as Internet of things, big data, information communication technology help enhance the development of smart city; iv) for economic value, questionnaire items applied in this study include how smart city impacts on the development of the local economy driven by the active participation of businesses and the city’s commitment to innovation; v) forsocial value, questionnaire items applied in thisstudy include how smart city contributes the formation of better community through local urban regeneration; vi) for environment factor, questionnaire items applied in this study include how smart city contribute to creating better environment; and vii) for institutional development, questionnaire items applied in this study include how smart city contributes the improvement of the overall system of society, such as deregulation related to cities and industries.
Hence, the results of both groups – Generation X with Baby Boomers and Millennials with Generation Z – consistently demonstrated significant impacts of smart city experience, technology development, and social factor on quality of life. Nevertheless, while the impacts of environmental factors and institutional development were found to be significant for Generation X with Baby Boomers, these effects were not observed in the case of Millennials with Generation Z. Taking into account the effect size, the influence of perceived smart city experience on quality of life is the most pronounced for Generation X with Baby Boomers, followed by the impacts of technology development, environment factor,institutional improvement, and social factor.
Principal component analysisserved asthe method for extraction, with maximum iterations for convergence, and factors’ eigenvalue was greater than 1 are extracted
The survey started with warm up questions by asking awareness, major questions related to proposed variables, and demographic questions. Proposed variables in this study include smart city experience, role of government, technology development, economic, social, and environmental value, institutional improvement, and quality of life. Further, this study also proposed effects of quality of life on smart city evaluation, satisfaction, and expected growth of the city.
Regarding educational backgrounds in the Generation X and Baby Boomers, 23.9% held a high school degree, 10.6% attended college, 49.4% obtained a bachelor’s degree, and 14.4% held a graduate degree
The study revealed significant impacts on the quality of life for Generation X and Baby Boomers in areas such as perceived smart city experience, technology development, social factor, environment factor, and institutional development. Similarly, for Millennials with Generation Z, the study identified significant in the impact of perceived smart city experience, technology development, and social factor on quality of life. Hence, the results of both groups – Generation X with Baby Boomers and Millennials with Generation Z – consistently demonstrated significant impacts of smart city experience, technology development, and social factor on quality of life.
667. Table 4 illustrated that in this study, the effects of smart city experience, technology development, environmental value, and institutional development on quality of life were found to be significant at a 1% significance level and the effect of the social value factor on quality of life showed significance at a 5% level for generations older than MZ including Generation X and Baby Boomers. This study also revealed that the effects of smart city experience on quality of life were statistically significant at a 1% significance level and the impact of technology development and the social value factor on quality of life showed significance at a 5% level for Millennials and Generation Z.
Nevertheless, while the impacts of environmental factors and institutional development were found to be significant for Generation X with Baby Boomers, these effects were not observed in the case of Millennials with Generation Z. Taking into account the effect size, the influence of perceived smart city experience on quality of life is the most pronounced for Generation X with Baby Boomers, followed by the impacts of technology development, environment factor,institutional improvement, and social factor. Considering the effect size, the influence of perceived smart city experience on the quality of life is most prominent for Millennials with Generation Z, followed by the impacts of technology development and social factors.
The Cronbach’s alpha results for Generation X and Baby Boomers are summarized asfollows: 0.838 for smart city experience, 0.853 for role of government, 0.842 for technology development, 0.837 for economic factor, 0.833 for social factor, 0.832 for environment factor, 0.817 for institutional improvement, and 0.830 for quality of life
In this study, the dependent variablesincluded smart city experience, role of government, technology development, economic, social, and environmental value, and institutional improvement. The dependent variable assessed was the quality of life. The results of the ANOVA revealed that the overall model is significant with an F value of 44.
This study incorporated perceived smart city experience, government’s role, technology development, economic, social considerations, environmental factors, and institutional development as independent variables. The dependent variable under examining was the quality of life. The study revealed significant impacts on the quality of life for Generation X and Baby Boomers in areas such as perceived smart city experience, technology development, social factor, environment factor, and institutional development.
The dependent variable assessed was the quality of life. The results of the ANOVA revealed that the overall model is significant with an F value of 44.725 at the 0.01% significance level and an R-square of 0.745 for generations older than MZ including Generation X and Boomers. For Millennials and Generation Z, the model was also significant with an F value of 37.
The dependent variable under examining was the quality of life. The study revealed significant impacts on the quality of life for Generation X and Baby Boomers in areas such as perceived smart city experience, technology development, social factor, environment factor, and institutional development. Similarly, for Millennials with Generation Z, the study identified significant in the impact of perceived smart city experience, technology development, and social factor on quality of life.
280 for Millennials and Generation Z. Therefore, H8a, 8b, 9a, 9b, 10a, and 10b were accepted in both cases of generations older than MZ including Generation X and Baby Boomers and millennials and Generation Z (Table 5).
(2020) explored the role of quality of life as a predictor of both life satisfaction and happiness. Therefore, this study hypothesized the impact of the quality of life on city evaluation, life satisfaction, and expected growth of the city in both groups of Generation X with Baby Boomers and Millennials with Generation Z.
Table 4 illustrated that in this study, the effects of smart city experience, technology development, environmental value, and institutional development on quality of life were found to be significant at a 1% significance level and the effect of the social value factor on quality of life showed significance at a 5% level for generations older than MZ including Generation X and Baby Boomers. This study also revealed that the effects of smart city experience on quality of life were statistically significant at a 1% significance level and the impact of technology development and the social value factor on quality of life showed significance at a 5% level for Millennials and Generation Z. Therefore, H1a, 1b, 3a, 3b, 5a, 5b, 6a, and 7a were accepted.
The study will apply 5-point Likert scales for major proposed items (1 – strongly disagree, 5 – strongly agree). This study collected 400 responses including 180 responses from generations older than MZ including Generation X and Baby Boomers and 220 responses from millennials and Generation Z. This study applied a study by Nicolas (2015) who defined the Millennials are individuals born between 1980 and 2000, while there slightly different definitions on generations based on previous studies.
This study incorporated perceived smart city experience, government’s role, technology development, economic, social considerations, environmental factors, and institutional development as independent variables
후속연구
Future research may explore citizens’ perceptions in other smart cities around the world
Future research may explore citizens’ perceptions in other smart cities around the world. Moreover, a comprehensive understanding could be attained by comparing the perceptions of each generation cohort.
This study contends that a smart city aims to examine societal advantages and the impact on community well-being arising from its innovative approach. Alizadeh and Sharifi (2023) introduced the concept of societal smart city, seamlessly integrating social rights and democratic values with technological innovations.
This study has limitations and suggests avenues for future research. Subsequent studies could strengthen robustness by expanding the sample size.
참고문헌 (55)
Ahvenniemi, H., Huovila, A., Pinto-Seppa, I., & Airaksinen, M.？(2017). What are the Differences between Sustainable and？Smart Cities? Cities, 60, 234-245.
Albino, V., Berardi, U., & Dangelico, R. M. (2015). Smart Cities:？Definitions, Dimensions, Performance, and Initiatives. Journal？of Urban Technology, 22(1), 3-21.
Aleta, N. B., Alonso, C. M., & Ruiz, R. M. A. (2016). Smart？Mobility and Smart Environment in the Spanish Cities.？Transportation Research Procedia, 24C, 3rd Conference on？Sustainable Urban Mobility (pp.163-170). May 26-27, Volos,？Greece.
Alizadeh, H., & Sharifi, A. (2023). Toward a Societal Smart City:？Clarifying the Social Justice Dimension of Smart Cities.？Sustainable Cities and Society, 95, 1-12.
Attaran, H., Kheibari, N., & Bahrepour, D. (2022). Toward？Integrated Smart City: A New Model for Implementation and？Design Challenges. GeoJournal, 87(4), 511-526.
Bakici, T., Almirall, E., & Wareham, J. (2013). A Smart City？Initiative: The Case of Barcelona. Journal of the Knowledge？Economy, 4, 135-148.
Batty, M. (2013). The New Science of Cities. MIT press.
Belissent, J. (2010). Getting Clever about Smart Cities: New？Opportunities require New Business Models. Forrester？Research, 3, 1-31.
Berkup, S. B. (2014). Working with Generations X and Y in？Generation Z Period: Management of Different Generations in？Business Life. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences,？5(19), 218-229.
Capdevila, I., & Zarlenga, M. I. (2015). Smart City or Smart？Citizens? The Barcelona Case. Journal of Strategy and？Management, 8(3), 266-282.
Capra, C. F. (2016). The Smart City and Its Citizens: Governance？and Citizen Participation in Amsterdam Smart City.？International Journal of E-Planning Research, 5(1), 20-38
Chourabi, H., Nam, T., Walker, S., Gil-Garcia, J. R., Mellouli, S.,？Nahon, K., Pardo, T. A., & Scholl, H. J. (2012). Understanding？Smart Cities: An Integrative Framework. Proceedings of the？45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp.？2289-2297). January 4-7, Hawaii, IEEE Computer Society.
Dameri, R. P., Ricciardi, F., & D'Auria, B. (2014). Knowledge and？intellectual capital in smart city. In the 15th European？Conference on Knowledge Management (pp.250-257).？September 4-5, Santarem, Portugal. Curran Associates, Inc.
Deakin, M. (2014). Smart Cities: The State-of-the-Art and？Governance Challenge. Triple Helix Journal, 1(7), 1-16.
Dimock, M. (2019). Defining Generations: Where Millennials End？and Generation Z begins. Pew Research Center, Washington,？DC, US.
Edge, S., Boluk, K., Groulx, M., & Quick, M. (2020). Exploring？Diverse Lived Experiences in the Smart City through Creative？Analytic Practice. Cities, 96, 1-11.
Eyada, B. (2023). Advertising in the Metaverse: Opportunities and？Challenges. International Journal of Marketing Studies, 15(1),？1-9.
Hara, M., Nagao, T., Hannoe, S., & Nakamura, J. (2016). New Key？Performance Indicators for a Smart able City. Sustainability,？8(206), 1-19.
Hoffman, M. C. (2020). Smart Cities: A Review of the Most？Recent Literature. Informatization Policy, 27(1), 3-35.
Javed, A. R., Shahzad, F., ur Rehman, S., Zikria, Y. B., Razzak, I.,？Jalil, Z., & Xu, G. (2022). Future Smart Cities: Requirements,？Emerging Technologies, Applications, Challenges, and Future？Aspects. Cities, 129, 1-49.
Khanderia, E., & Patel, V. (2023). Quality of Life Theory. In T.？Athanasiou, V. Patel, & A. Darzi (Eds.), Patient Reported？Outcomes and Quality of Life in Surgery, Cham, Switzerland:？Springer.
Kozlowski, W., & Suwar, K. (2021). Smart City: Definitions,？Dimensions, and Initiatives. European Research Studies？Journal, 24(3), 509-520.
Kraus, S., Richter, C., Papagiannidis, S., & Durst, S. (2015).？Innovating and Exploiting Entrepreneurial Opportunities in？Smart Cities: Evidence from Germany. Creativity and？Innovation Management, 24, 601-616.
Latkovikj, M. T., & Popovska, M. B. (2020). How Millennials,？Gen Z, and Technology are Changing the Workplace Design?？Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Socio-Technical Perspective in IS Development (pp.1-8). June 8-9,？Grenoble, France.
Li, Z., & Wu, J. (2023). A Review of the Theory and Practice of？Smart City Construction in China. Sustainability, 15(9), 1-22.
Manville, C., Cochrane, G., Cave, J., Millard, J., Pederson, J. K.,？Thaarup, R. K., Wik, A. L., Wik, M. W., Tno, R. M., & Tno,？B. K. (2014). Mapping Smart City in the EU. Directorate-general for International Policies, Policy Department,？Economic and Scientific Policy, January, 1-200. European？Parliament.
Margerum, R. D. (2002). Evaluating Collaborative Planning:？Implications from an Empirical Analysis of Growth？Management. Journal of the American Planning Association,？68(2), 179-193.
Meadow, H. L., Mentzer, J. T., Rahtz, D. R., & Sirgy, M. J. (1992).？A Life Satisfaction Measure Based on Judgment Theory.？Social Indicators Research, 26(1), 23-59.
Menasce, D., Vincent, C., & Moreau, M. M. (2017). Smart Cities？and New Forms of Employment. Fiend Actions Science？Reports, The Journal of Field Actions, 16, 16-21.
Mohanasundaram, S. V., Joyce, A., Naresh, K. S., Gokulkrishnan,？G., Kale, A., Dwarakanath, T., & Haribabu, P. (2018). Smart？Water Distribution Network Solution for Smart Vities: Indian？Scenario. Global Internet of Things Summit (GIoTS) (pp.1-6).？June 4-7, Bilbao, Spain, IEEE.
Mohanty, S. P., Choppali, U., & Kougianos, E. (2016). Everything？You Wanted to Know about Smart Cities. IEEE Consumer？Electronics Magazine, July, 1-16.
Mora, L., & Bolici, R. (2016). The Development Process of Smart？City Strategies: The Case of Barcelona. 1ST？International City？Regeneration Congress, September 3-4, Tampere, Finland.
Moura, F., & e Silva, J. de A. (2019). Smart Cities: Definitions,？Evolution of the Concept and Examples of Initiatives. In W. L.？Filho et al. (Eds.), Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure？(pp.2-10), Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development,？Switzerland AG: Springer Nature.
Myeong, S., Jung, Y., & Lee, E. (2018). A Study on Determinant？Factors in Smart City Development: An Analytic Hierarchy？Process Analysis. Sustainability, 10(8), 1-17.
Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2011). Conceptualizing Smart City with？Dimensions of Technology, People, and Institutions. The？Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Conference on？Digital Government Research (pp.282-291). June 12-15, New？York, NY, ACM.
Nath, N., Nitanai, R., Manabe, R., & Murayama, A. (2023). A？Global-scale Review of Smart City Practice and Research？Focusing on Residential Neighbourhoods. Habitat？International, 142, 1-17.
Navarro, J. L. A., Ruiz, V. R. L., & Pena, D. N. (2017). The Effect？of ICT Use and Capability on Knowledge-based Cities. Cities,？60, 272-280.
Nicolas, T. (2015). Understanding the Millennials Generation.？Journal of Business Diversity, 15(1), 39-47.
Novianti, L. E., Wungu, E., & Purba, F. D. (2020). Quality of Life？as a Predictor of Happiness and Life Satisfaction. Jurnal？Psikologi, 47(2), 93-103.
Pandya, R., Velani, K., & Karvat, D. (2018). Design of Smart？Power Distribution Network for Smart City-Dholera.？International Conference on Current Trends towards？Converging Technologies (ICCTCT) (pp.1-5). March 1-3,？Coimbatore, India, IEEE.
Pira, S. (2021). The Social Issues of Smart Home: A Review of？Four European Cities' Experiences. European Journal of？Future Research, 9(3), 1-15.
Ramaprasad, A., Sanchez-Ortiz, A., & Syn, T. (2017). A Unified？Definition of a Smart City. 16th？International Conference on？Electronic Government (pp. 13-24), September 4-7, St.？Petersburg, Russia, Springer International Publishing.
Sajhau, P. (2017). IBM-Building Sustainable Cities through？Partnerships and Integrated Approaches. Field Actions Science？Reports. The Journal of Field Actions, 16, 52-57.
Singh, D. K., Sobti, R., Jain, A., Malik, P. K., & Le, D. N. (2022).？LoRa based Intelligent Soil and Weather Condition Monitoring？with Internet of Things for Precision Agriculture in Smart？Cities. IET Communications, 16(5), 604-618.
Snow, C. C., Hakonsson, D. D., & Obel, B. (2016). A Smart City？is a Collaborative Community: Lessons from Smart Aarhus.？California Management Review, 59(1), 92-108.
Tan, S. Y., & Taeihagh, A. (2020). Smart City Governance in？Developing Countries: A Systematic Literature Review.？Sustainability, 12(3), 899.
Taylor Buck, N., & While, A. (2015). Competitive Urbanism and？the Limits to Smart City Innovation: The UK Future Cities？Initiative. Urban Studies, 54(2), 501-519.
Toporkoff, S. (2012). ICT Convergence and Europe's Digital？Agenda 2010-2020. In T. Andersson, & A. Djeflat (Eds.), The？Real Issues of the Middle East and the Arab Spring: Addressing？Research, Innovation, and Entrepreneurship (pp.315-330).？New York, NY: Springer.
Vishnivetskaya, A., & Alexandrova, E. (2019). "Smart City"？Concept. Implementation Practice. IOP Conference Series:？Material Science and Engineering, 497 (pp.1-7). IOP？Publishing.
Wahab, N. S. N., Seow, T. W., Radzuan, I. S. M., & Mohamed, S.？(2020). A Systematic Literature Review on the Dimensions of？Smart Cities. IOP Conference Series: Earth and？Environmental Science, 498 (pp.1-9). IOP Publishing.
Wang, H., Li, W., Zhao, Z., Wang, Z., Li, M., & Li, D. (2022).？Intelligent Distribution of Fresh Agricultural Productsin Smart？City. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Informatics, 18(2),？1220-1230.
Wang, M., & Zhou, T. (2023). Does Smart City Implementation？Improve the Subjective Quality of Life? Evidence from China.？Technology in Society, 72, 1-13.
Wang, Z. (2022). Research on Smart City Environment Design and？Planning based on Interne of Things. Journal of Sensors, 1-9.
Winkowska, J., Szpilko, D., & Pejic, S. (2019). Smart City Concept？in the Light of the Literature Review. Engineering？Management in Production and Services, 11(2), 70-86.
Zygiaris, S. (2013). Smart City Reference Model: Assisting？Planners to Conceptualize the Building of Smart City？Innovation Ecosystems. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 4,？217-231.
AI-Helper
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.