The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0959-3845.htm

Effects of smart city service Tendencies of

technologies in
channel- and user-characteristics SCS

on user satisfaction and

continuance intention 147
Taghreed Abu Salim Received 23 June 2019
Revised 1 December 2019
Faculty of Business, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia Accepted 17 January 2020
May El Barachi
Faculty of Engineering and Information Sciences, University of Wollongong in Dubai,
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Okey Peter Onyia
University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia, and
Sujith Samuel Mathew
Zayed University, Dubai, United Arab Emirates

Abstract
Purpose – Smart city services (SCS) in contrast with other technology-based services, demand significant
interaction and collaboration between the users and the service providers. This study examines the SCS
delivery-channel characteristics and the users’ personal (behavioral and demographic) characteristics that
influence their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the services, as well as their intention to adopt (i.e. continue
using) the SCS-delivery channels.
Design/methodology/approach – A quantitative study using a structured questionnaire was conducted for
this paper. The data-collection method was administered by emailing the survey to a list of 2,350 city/urban
residents who are members of the two largest universities in the greater Dubai metropolis. A total of 600
completed responses (26 percent) were received back, while 580 useable responses (25 percent) were analyzed
for this paper.
Findings – Our initial findings suggest that contrary to popular belief, it is not only SCS channel factors that
influence user satisfaction and continuance intention. SCS users’ personal characteristics (such as their user
innovativeness and control-seeking behavior) are also pivotal in determining their satisfaction and intention to
continue or not continue using the SCS-delivery channels.
Research limitations/implications – The paper argues that both SCS channel factors and SCS users’
personal characteristics jointly influence the users’ experience of the services and therefore jointly determine their
satisfaction with the service as well as their SCS usage continuance intention. The result of our research gives
important insights into users’ behaviors toward the emerging SCS channels in general, and it will be of great value
to architects and designers of Smart City technologies around the world.
Practical implications – The paper argues that both SCS channel factors and SCS users’ personal (behavioral
and demographic) characteristics jointly influence the users’ trials of the services, and therefore jointly
determine their satisfaction with the service as well as their SCS usage continuance intention. The result of our
research gives important insights into users’ behavioral intentions toward the emerging SCS channels
in general; and it will be of great value to architects and designers of Smart City technologies around the world.
Originality/value – This paper is one of the first few studies focused on investigating the antecedents of SCS
usage behaviors in the Middle Eastern region.
Keywords Smart city services, Service channel factors, User characteristics, Satisfaction, Technology
adoption, Innovation diffusion, Service usage continuance
Paper type Research paper

Information Technology & People

1. Introduction Vol. 34 No. 1, 2021
pp. 147-177
Nearly three decades ago, Mark Weiser, the father of ubiquitous computing, envisioned our © Emerald Publishing Limited
0959-3845
cities to become large-scale colonies of devices embedded into every-day environments DOI 10.1108/ITP-06-2019-0300
ITP (Weiser, 1991). This prescient prediction is undeniable today, because advanced computing
34,1 and communication activities, enabled by ubiquitous networks and related applications, have
invaded our everyday experiences and physical spaces, including our homes, cars, offices,
transport systems, and hospitals. This technological ubiquity includes the creation of new
“smart” services and devices to cater to our information, communication, transportation, and
healthcare needs (Sassen, 2016). Smart devices were first defined by Baz (1996) as those that
have the ability to sense and control actions and activities. This definition was later extended
148 to include processes of networking and connectivity with other devices and systems (Haque
et al., 2013). Through the tremendous growth of embedded technology, our everyday
activities are now faster, cheaper, and easier to accomplish (D
ıaz-D
ıaz et al., 2017), and our
physical spaces are fast transforming into smart homes, smart offices, smart traffic systems,
smart governments, smart transportation systems, and smart hospitals. Our future complete
Smart Cities are just around the corner (Miller, 2015).
Recently, there has been an increasing trend in the use of the term Smart City, but the
study of urban science and the use of scientific methods to manage cities have been studied
for many years (Schultz and McShaneand, 1978). Despite that, there is still no clear and
consistent understanding among academics and practitioners of what universally defines
this new concept of Smart City (Chourabi et al., 2012). The nebulous idea of Smart Cities seeks
to apply large data streams (Big Data) elicited from the society as a means to rationalize the
need for smart services within our cities (Townsend, 2013; Harrison et al., 2010). This data-
driven approach has been criticized in the literature as a dystopian (big-brother) perception of
a technocratic government policy that seeks to “monitor, measure, and manage” (Greenfield,
2013; Halpern et al., 2013). However, H€ojer and Wangel (2015) emphasis that “the novelty is
thus not so much the individual technologies, products or services but the interconnection
and the synchronization of these and the systems they include, so that they work in concerted
action (p. 4).”
While there is a considerable body of work focusing on the technological aspects of Smart
City Service (SCS) delivery channels, very little attention is devoted to the socio-cultural
aspects of the concept, such as the influence of users’ demographics, technology efficacy,
prior-experience, expectations, motivation, change willingness, and other related antecedents
of consumer adoption behaviors toward new technologies and innovative service delivery
processes (James, 2009; Ghaffarian et al., 2011; Onyia and Tagg, 2011; Ferrara, 2015; Susanto
et al., 2015). Therefore, in this paper, we aim to fill the above gap by examining not only the
effect of the characteristics of the SCS delivery technologies, but also the effects of the
personal characteristics of potential and existing service users on their adoption behaviors
toward the services delivered via the SCS technologies. As a result, we argue that the
characteristics and behaviors of the users of SCS channels, who are the main stakeholders,
should also be examined, alongside the service delivery channels, as major antecedents of
SCS adoption and diffusion.
In this paper, we also delineate the term “adoption” to mean not the initial one or two
times of service channel usage but the willingness of a customer to continue using that
service channel in most (if not all) subsequent transactions after the initial attempts. This
is because the initial one or two times of usage-attempt constitutes a “trial,” aimed at
testing the workability and acceptability of the channel before deciding on its “usage
continuance,” which is the real “adoption” (Cronin et al., 2000; Zeithaml, 2002; Zeithaml
et al., 2013; Abu-Salim et al., 2017). We are confident that the findings in our study offer
significant contribution to the literature on technology-mediated service delivery systems
because the study provides the empirically investigated effects of the SCS channel and user
personal factors that can enhance or mitigate users’ readiness for (i.e. attitude to) SCS
adoption, their satisfaction, and their usage continuance intention. In summary, the results
of our study not only have the potential to further the theoretical understanding and
knowledge of the SCS concept, but will also be of great value to urban designers, Tendencies of
technology companies, and public policy makers by giving them an important insight into technologies in
SCS users’ general behaviors toward SCS adoption.
SCS

2. Theoretical background
2.1 Defining the smart city concept
The “Smart City” concept revolves around the ability to use technology in continuously
149
monitoring and tracking a city’s assets, people, social amenities, and infrastructure; and to
use the acquired data as intelligence for streamlining the city’s operations and improving its
service delivery performance (Lombardi et al., 2012). Smart City Services are specifically
based on the idea of the co-creating of social values by relying on machine-intelligence in
connected systems to offer a seamless social service experience to the public (Gavrilova and
Kokoulina, 2015).
Giffinger and Gudrun (2010) note that the idea of Smart City originated from the concept of
“information city,” and incrementally evolved to an idea of an ICT-centered city. They
propose that the concept of the Smart City has six main dimensions: smart economy, smart
mobility, smart environment, smart people, smart living, and smart government. They argue
that the Smart City concept is distinct from other similar ideas such as the digital city or
intelligent city in that it focuses on social factors such as human capital development, public
service delivery, education, healthcare, and urban mobility as the drivers of urban growth,
rather than a single technological infrastructure.
A new dimension to the Smart City discourse emerged in the wake of environmental
concerns as the majority of the world’s population is steadily migrating to the urban areas,
and these areas have become sites for social experimentation in the 21st century (W€ underlich
et al., 2013; Lee and Lee, 2014). Previous approaches to define the smartness of real-world
entities and related services as classification frameworks and ontologies have also been
proposed by Dirks and Keeling (2009) and Mathew et al., (2011) indicating that smart services
rely on machine-intelligence in connected systems. This artificial intelligence is achieved by
aggregating semantic knowledge and context recognition in the data obtained from machine
sensors and social media platforms (H€oller et al., 2014).

2.2 SCS delivery-channel characteristics and user-perception

In this study, we delineate the term “channel” (in line with Kernaghan, 2005; Sousa and Voss,
2006; and Kleijnen et al., 2007) as the means, modes, or systems through which any commercial
or public service is delivered to customers by the service provider. In today’s technology-driven
global economy, both public- and private-sector services are now delivered through offline
channels (traditional face-to-face service) or online channels (internet- or mobile app- or smart
kiosks-mediated services), or both ways simultaneously. Since the turn of this 21st century,
maximum attention is now focused on service delivery through electronic channels (Zeithaml,
2002). Many scholars have argued that Smart City Service initiatives have a great potential to
change societies. However, their success requires a detailed understanding of the service
customers’ needs and perceptions about the electronic delivery channels (W€ underlich et al., 2015).
For example, two existing studies conducted in Hong Kong and the UK show that city
inhabitants have a positive disposition toward smart electricity grids and efficient energy-
saving systems, but also prefer to have a say in the decision-making about their energy
consumption rates. As a result, they have concerns regarding privacy and loss of control, and
therefore display mistrust towards the energy suppliers’ delivery channels (Mah et al., 2012;
Buchanan et al., 2016). Trust in SCS provider was also strongly correlated with user satisfaction
in a study by Weerakkody et al. (2016).
ITP Elsewhere, the perception of the added value of smart services was found to be linked to
34,1 the mobility, connectivity, and interoperability of the SCS delivery channels or systems, which
are key priorities for city/urban dwellers (Lytras and Visvizi, 2018). The development of
Smart Cities is aimed at meeting the city/urban dwellers’ current and future public service
needs by creating a closer interrelation between the customers and the public services.
However, this new initiative, which often requires huge investments in technological
infrastructure, will not be successful unless large numbers of regular users adopt the SCS
150 delivery channels (Belanche et al., 2016).
It is on record that most technology-mediated services (self-delivered or other-delivered)
have often faced initial reluctance by users due to various reasons, some of which are channel
complexity, technophobia, and inability of the potential adopter to use the system (Onyia and
Tagg, 2011). A study by Lytras and Visvizi (2018) that assessed customers’ ability to use
smart service applications also confirms that even the most highly educated and tech-savvy
people still have concerns regarding different characteristics of the smart services, such as
accessibility, usefulness, and safety. The authors recommend more studies on the service
channel characteristics as a way to improve customers’ ability to use smart services. This is
because no public service (interactive or non-interactive) can claim to be satisfactory to its
users unless the users affirm their satisfaction by expressing their perception and acceptance
of the service characteristics after an experiential interaction with the service.

2.3 SCS user personal (behavioral and demographic) factors

Not very much has been investigated on how SCS users’ personal characteristics can also
affect their ability to use the services. However, a study by Van den Bergh and Viaene (2015) in
the City of Ghent, Belgium, found that factors such as social awareness, control-seeking
behavior, trust, and partnership also influence service customer’ perception and adoption of
smart services. In addition, a multi-national study by W€ underlich et al. (2013) asserts that
privacy is a main concern that affects the perception of users of smart interactive services in
Germany, the US, and China because the users want transparency in the systems’ actions as
well as the ability to override or change any undesired outcome.
Furthermore, a study conducted in the city of Zaragoza, Spain, which has implemented the
smart city initiative, investigated urban service users’ attachment to the city as a factor that
affects their usage of SCS. The results indicate that while emotional attachment to a city is not
enough to affect a resident’s behavior towards SCS, demographic characteristics such as level
of education and age do influence their decision to use or not use the SCS channel (Belanche
et al., 2016). These results imply that communities with lower levels of education would
require more user-enlightenment (education) to motivate the residents to use SCS.
In a study on customers’ experience and satisfaction with smartphone services in South
Korea, Shin (2015) found that perceived usefulness (“need or relative advantage” – Rogers, 1995)
was the main influencing factor for the older and the male groups; whereas integration with
other systems (“compatibility” – Rogers, 1995) was more important for both the highly educated
and the female groups. Older people with higher income and a significant number of large
appliances tend to have a lower purchase time using smart phones. Furthermore, results of a
study on the personal factors affecting the acceptance of smart services by Chinese users
indicate that younger and non-widowed Chinese with higher education and better economic
conditions were more likely to use smartphones (Ma et al., 2016). The importance of studying
user personal (behavioral and demographic) factors that can enhance or diminish smart services
adoption cannot therefore be overemphasized.

2.4 SCS user satisfaction

The nascent body of research on Smart Cities has tended to focus on the mediatory
technologies of Smart City Service channels, somewhat ignoring the characteristics, feelings,
and opinions of the users (W€ underlich et al., 2013). However, some studies have been Tendencies of
conducted to better understand the antecedents of user satisfaction with smart service technologies in
systems. For example, Shin (2015) used a Customer Satisfaction Index (CSI) to assess the
satisfaction of Korean citizens with services delivered via smartphones. The author’s results
SCS
also show that “customer satisfaction has a direct effect on the behavioral intentions of
customers.” Another study conducted on services delivered via smartphones also found that
the main determinants of customer satisfaction were adaptability and multi-functionality (Lee
and Shin, 2018). 151
In addition, Macke et al. (2018) confirm that citizens’ satisfaction with SCS channels can be
achieved when the service providers deliver on four dimensions: socio-structural relationships
between providers and users and between users and other users; environmental well-being of
the city in terms of sustainability; material well-being of the users; and community integration.
Other non-channel factors such as the users’ knowledge, skills, and experience have also been
found to contribute to users’ satisfaction with SCS (Polese et al., 2018). In summary, while
providing smart, interactive service delivery channels does not necessarily guarantee
customer satisfaction with the services; it has been found lead to improved user-confidence,
especially in city residents’ perception of the performance of governments’ public-service
providers (Morgeson et al., 2011; Al Mansoori et al., 2018).

2.5 Customers’ intention toward SCS channel usage continuance

SCS users’ intention to continue using SCS, being public services delivered via various
technological channels such as mobile phone applications, Internet websites, interactive
electronic kiosks, ATM machines, Drive-thru systems, and point-of-sale (POS) systems, is
linked to their perception of the desired benefits in the services after initial trials of the systems.
As a result, we differentiate between a user’s “trial” of the delivery channels (the initial one or
two times of usage-attempt to test the workability and acceptability of the technological service
channel before deciding to continue or not) and his/her “adoption” of the channel, which is the
user’s actual intention (or action) to continue or not continue using the channel (Cronin, Brady
and Hult, 2000; Zeithaml, 2002; Abu-Salim et al., 2017).
In a study of early users of smartphone banking services, Susanto et al. (2015) found that
after the initial use (trial) of the banking services, the critical antecedents of usage continuance
were user satisfaction and self-efficacy. A survey that assessed Taiwanese residents’
willingness to continue using SCS confirmed that they were willing to continue only if they
perceived the services to be “designed with innovative concepts that secure their privacy and
offer a high quality of services” (Yeh, 2017; Chatterjee et al., 2018).
According to Abu-Salim et al. (2017), “customers’ service-usage continuance intentions are
associated with a service provider’s ability to attain and retain customer loyalty by ensuring
customer satisfaction.” One of the challenges faced in the implementation SCS is the sustenance
of continuous usage by customers. Successful implementation of a smart service does not
guarantee that usage will be high because the drivers of usage continuation vary according to
the SCS channels (Belanche-Gracia et al., 2015). Governments must therefore explore ways to
motivate to SCS usage continuance through research (Mulley and Moutou, 2015).

2.6 Background of study location – the smart city of Dubai

Dubai is the second largest city in the UAE, after Abu Dhabi, and also the technological hub of
not just the country but the entire Middle East. The UAE has a population of 9.7 million
people. A total of 90.6 percent of this population (5,370,299) have access to, and consistently
use, the internet, thus placing the UAE at the 72nd position among the 200 countries of the
world in terms of Internet technology diffusion (CIA World FactBook, 2017). According to the
Business webpage of the National Newspaper (Online - November 21, 2019), “Dubai has
ITP established itself as the business hub of the Middle East and Africa (MEA) region. A Fortune
34,1 Magazine analysis of the 500 largest companies in the world (by revenue) shows that about
200 of them have offices in the region. Out of these 200 companies, 130 of them have their
regional headquarters in Dubai – far outnumbering the runner-up, Johannesburg, which has
58 companies.”
Moreover, most high-tech multinational companies around the world have their regional
head offices or branch offices in Dubai, some of which are British Telecom (BT), Siemens,
152 Apple, Samsung, Microsoft, HP, Dell, Oracle, General Electric (GE), IBM, Huawei, Cisco
Systems, and Sage Software Middle east, amongst other. Many global FMCG multinational
companies and franchises are also operating in Dubai, including Nestle, Cadbury, Reckitt
Benckiser, Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, McDonald’s, Starbucks, KFC, and many others. In addition to
providing the best technological environment for these and other organizations in the
country, Dubai also has “the audacious goal of becoming a global hub for technology and
innovation as well” (Santosdiaz, 2018).
As if affirming this claim, Harris (2018) opines that Dubai is leveraging technology to
create an entirely new type of city destination in tourism, with huge investments in
technology initiatives targeted at reducing road traffic congestion and transforming
healthcare and smart metering to maximize resources, as well as fostering digital start-ups
and innovation. In this manner, “Dubai is driving towards a technology-powered future”
aimed at making the city a global digital hub (Harris, 2018). Also, in the words of the Dubai
Department of Tourism’s “Visit Dubai” website, “Dubai has its sights set firmly on
technology and innovation, and is working towards transforming the emirate into a leading
global Smart City. The emirate also aims to become a benchmark for innovation for smart
cities looking towards global sustainability and competitiveness” (visitdubai.com).
Based on the foregoing, there is no gainsaying the fact that Dubai is one of the fastest
growing tech-cities in the world, and the Government is actively motivating both the public
and private sectors toward its Smart City initiative, with most public, business, and consumer
service organizations now unveiling smart/interactive online service-delivery channels. This
ambitious technological drive has been aptly captured in a study by Michelle Acuto (2010) in
which she declares that “a centralized and hyper-entrepreneurial approach has characterized
Dubai’s attempt to ascend in the ‘world urban hierarchy’ and establish itself as the image of
the 21st century metropolis.” We strongly feel that a study of the behavioral intentions of the
Dubai City dwellers toward smart city service adoption at this stage in the rapid technological
development of the city is not only pertinent but also very timely.

3. Conceptual model and hypotheses development

3.1 Model development
Consequent upon the foregoing literature, the recurrent factors we deemed most likely to
influence SCS users’ behavioral intentions in a universal context were extracted and modelled
in this study for further investigation in this local context (see Figure 1) in line with the work
of Onyia (2009). Our avowed position in this study is that it is not only the characteristics of
the SCS delivery-channels or the quality of the smart services delivered that might affect
users’ satisfaction and usage-continuance intention. Rather, the personal (behavioral and
demographic) characteristics of the users (such as their control-seeking behaviour, technology
innovativeness, age, level of education, occupation, income, and prior knowledge and skills of
computer/Internet usage) are also likely to affect their interaction, experience, and satisfaction
with the Internet-mediated SCS services; and this will in turn influence their intention to
continue or not continue using SCS service-delivery channels. Our study model is therefore a
combination Rogers’ (1995) Theory of Innovation Diffusion (TID) and Ajzen (1991) Theory of
Planned Behavior (TPB).
 Tendencies of
technologies in
SCS

153

Figure 1.
Conceptual
research model

On one hand, the TID factors that make up our channel characteristics are perceived channel
compatibility, complexity, ease of use, and need (usefulness) which enable a technological
innovation to be adoptable. On the other hand, the TPB factors that make up our user personal
(behavioral and demographic) characteristics include the user’s attitude towards technologies
in general (i.e. his/her innovativeness), control-seeking behavior, and subjective norm, which is
the social pressure on him or her to perform the adoption behavior based on his or her
demographic profile (level of education, income, occupation, etc.). In the case of the adoption of
various technological innovations, such as smart-city services, research has shown that both
the TID (technological) and TPB (sociological) models lead to behavioral intention to adopt or
not adopt the innovations (Rogers’ 1995; Lassar et al., 2005; Ajzen, 1991; Kolodinsky et al.,
ITP 2004). Hence, we present our research model (Figure 1) as a depiction of the combined
34,1 influence of both models on SCS user adoption intention by proposing that both the SCS
delivery-channel factors and the SCS user’s personal (behavioral and demographic) factors are
necessary antecedents of SCS user satisfaction and usage-continuance intention. Conceptual
underpinnings of all the individual variables in our model are further discussed in the
hypotheses development section as also outlined in our analytical model (Figure 2).
154
3.2 Hypotheses development
3.2.1 Effects of perceived channel benefits on user satisfaction. Sustaining connectivity and
communication between SCS providers and the users is necessary to enhance SCS adoption
and continued usage. However, in our opinion, this is possible only if the SCS users can
perceive the benefits of accessing public services via the SCS channels. City residents and
visitors must be able to experience the benefits of SCS channels in accessing and
accomplishing city services as an improvement in their quality of life (Eggers and Skowron,
2018); which means that if accessing city services via SCS channels meets their need for a
better quality of life, it will provide them satisfaction.
The perceived benefits of SCS include the perceived comfort, usefulness, convenience, and
safety associated with the SCS delivery channel (Balta-Ozkan et al., 2013). In line with
Gavrilova and Kokoulina (2015) and Lytras and Visvizi (2018), we propose that city service
users must be aware of, and also perceive, the above benefits of SCS technologies in order to be
satisfied with SCS services. As a result, we hypothesize that:
H1. Perceived SCS channel benefits will positively affect users’ satisfaction with the
services.
3.2.2 Effects of perceived channel capabilities on user satisfaction. To gain user acceptance,
every smart-city service-delivery channel must offer a proactive and automatic method to
decision-making for its users as they access city services (Hammer et al., 2015). Likewise, the
effective connectivity and communication made possible by its technological infrastructure
must afford the service provider the capability to establish an affective relationship with the users
while helping to improve their service experience and quality of life (Klein et al., 2017; Eggers and
Skowron, 2018). The SCS channels must therefore exhibit these capabilities (connectivity,
communication, and networking relationships) in order to satisfy SCS users. The channels must
also enable city residents and visitors to enhance and improve their own skills and ability to
access the smart services in order to elicit their satisfaction (Agha, 2016; Lytras and Visvizi,
2018). Based on the above assertions, we also hypothesize that:
H2. Perceived SCS channel capabilities will positively affect users’ satisfaction with the
services.
3.2.3 Effects of perceived channel ease-of-use on user satisfaction. In general, perceived user-
friendliness or ease-of-use of technological innovations offers the strongest explanation of the
impacts of such technologies on users’ satisfaction and behavioral intention to continue using
such innovations (Davis, 1989). In the realm of service technologies, perceived ease-of-use is
defined as the service user’s belief that the service channel is a clear interface that can be used
with very little effort to effectively access and accomplish the service task (Lee and Shin, 2018;
Karahanna and Straub, 1999). In the case of SCS, using the channels requires a certain level of
technical skills; but evidence in the literature seems to suggest that SCS users are generally
reluctant to seek help from a third party to acquire the skills (Alnaqbi, 2017). It is therefore
pertinent that the SCS channel usage procedures must be self-explanatory and easy for self-
learning with uncomplicated tutorial slides or video clips.
The SCS channel is a 21-first-century technological innovation that helps city residents
and visitors to access public services, and also helps smart-city governments to deliver
 PERCEIVED SCS CHANNEL
CAPABILITIES (SERVCAP):
1. SCS system predicts my future
needs (SERVCAP1)
2. SCS system makes automatic
decisions for me (SERVCAP2))
3. Connects me to multiple
systems in the city (SERVCAP3)
4. Provides easy way to contact
providers (SERCAP4)
5. Effective means of accessing
services in the city (SERVCAP5)
PERCEIVED SCS CHANNEL
EASE OF USE (SERVEASE):
1. SCS systems are easy to learn
(SERVEASE1)
2. SCS systems are simple and
understandable (SERVEASE2)
3. SCS systems have easy self-
teaching usage-tutorials
(SERVEASE3)
4. SCS systems are easy to
operate (SEREASE4)
5. SCS system apps are easily
installed (SERVEASE5)
PERCEIVED SCS CHANNEL
COMPLEXITY (SERVCOMPLEX):
1. SCS systems make me
comfortable with service
providers (SERVCOMPLEX1)
2. SCS systems technical support
is helpful (SERVCOMPLEX2)
3. SCS systems are user-friendly
to lay people (SERVCOMPLEX3)
. 4. SCS systems provide simple-
language user-manuals
(SERVCOMPLEX4)
. 5. Latest SCS system updates
are not difficult to keep up with
(SERVCOMPLEX5)
. 6. SCS systems do not have
accessibility problems for the
visually/physically impaired
(SERVCOMPLEX6)
. 7. SCS systems are standardized
but also user-personalizable
(SERVCOMPLEX7)
. 8. SCS systems do not have
incessant changes/updates
(SERVCOMPLEX8)
. 9. SCS channels are not costly to
use (SERVCOMPLEX9)
. 10.SCS system interfaces are not
complex (SERVCOMPLEX10)
. 11. SCS system apps are not
difficult to download and install
(SERVCOMPLEX11)
. 12. SCS channels are not difficult
to integrate/synchronize
(SERVCOMPLEX12)
PERCEIVED SSC CHANNEL
DEPENDENCY (SERVDEPEND):
1. SCS channels lead to high
provider-dependency
(SERVDEPEND1)
2. SCS system can be harmfully
addictive (SERDEPEND2)
3. SCS system encourage low
human interaction
(SERVDEPEND3)
technology-mediated services that enhance innovative governance (Al Mansoori et al., 2018).
As a result, its ease-of-use is pivotal to user acceptance and satisfaction (Sharma and Baoku,
2013). In a study that investigated users’ satisfaction with E-service systems, Wirtz and Kurtz
(2016) found that user satisfaction increased due to the full integration and higher perceived
ease of use of the systems. As a result, our third hypothesis states that:
SMART CITY SERVICE-
CHANNEL FACTORS
PERCEIVED SCS CHANNEL
BENEFITS (SERVBEN):
1. SCS system contributes to
better quality of life (SERVBEN1)
2. SCS system promotes
freedom of mobility (SERVBEN2)
3. SCS system makes user
independent (SERVBEN3)
4. SCS system makes user more
productive (SERVBEN4)
5. SCS system enables fast task
accomplishment (SERVBEN5)
6. SCS system makes my job
easier to do (SERVBEN6)
H2 7. SCS system is useful in my job
(SERVBEN7)
H1
H10
H3
USER
SATISFACTION
H4 (USERSAT)
H11 H8
SERVICE-USAGE
CONTINUANCE
H7 INTENTION
(USERINTENT)
PERCEIVED SCS CHANNEL
TRUSTWORTHINESS
(SERVTRUST):
1. SCS provider trust is built
H5 gradually (SERVTRUST1)
2. SCS provider trust is image/
reputation-dependent
(SERVTRUST2)
3. SCS providers don’t
arbitrarily change terms/
conditions (SERVTRUST3)
4. SCS providers don’t hide
vital customer information
(SERVTRUST4)
5. SCS terms/conditions don’t
change incessantly
H6 (SERVTRUST5)
6. SCS payment methods are
trustworthy (SERVTRUST6)
PERCEIVED SCS CHANNEL SECURITY
(SERVSEC):
1. SCS feels secure as a machine-
mediated channel (SERVSEC1)
2. SCS system legal regulations are
assuring (SERVSEC2)
3. SCS systems are secure and not
prone to any breaches (SERVSEC3)
4. SCS systems ensure customers’
information confidentiality (SERVSEC4)
SMART CITY SERVICE-USER
Tendencies of
PERSONAL FACTORS technologies in
SERVICE USER CONTROL- SCS
SEEKING BEHAVIOUR
(CONTRLSEEK):
1. Users prefer to reserve choice
of SCS usage history storage
(CONTRLSEEK1).
2. Users prefer choice to give
personal information or not
(CONTRLSEEK2).
155
3. Users prefer to control how
their personal information is used
(CONTRLSEEK3).
4. Users prefer SCS to ask
before sending them to other
sites (CONTRLSEEK4)
5. Users would like to contribute
own ideas to SCS technology
development (CONTRLSEEK5)
SERVICE USER
INNOVATIVENESS (USERINNO):
1. Users are able to advise others
on SCS usage (USERINNO1).
2. Techno-savvy people adopt
SCS earlier than others
(USERINNO2).
3. Technology users can figure
H9 out new SCS services on their
own (USERINNO3).
4. Users usually keep up to date
with latest SCS technology
developments (USERINNO4).
5. Users can provide useful input
ideas for future SCS developments
(USERINNO5).
6. Users are generally able to
review and evaluate new SCS
channels (USERINNO6).
SERVICE USER
DEMOGRAPHICS (USERDEMO):
. 1. Users’ cultural sensitivity
affects their SCS usage
(USERDOM1)
. 2. Users’ gender affects their
SCS usage (USERDEMO2)
. 3. Users’ level of education
affects their SCS usage
(USERDEMO3)
. 4. Users’ age affects their SCS
usage (USERDEMO4)
2 Figure 2.
Analytical
research model
ITP H3. Perceived channel ease of use will positively affect users’ satisfaction with the
34,1 services.
3.2.4 Effects of perceived channel complexity on user satisfaction. The complexity of smart
services is related to users’ discomfort with SCS technologies. The users’ feeling of discomfort
is likely to have a negative impact on their ability to use the channels, and will also enhance
negative attitudes toward SCS in general (Lam et al., 2006; Godoe and Johansen, 2012;
156 Bullinger et al., 2017; Peng et al., 2017). As a result, the success of smart services should not
focus only on the quality of the actual service delivered to the users, but also on the
complexity or simplicity of the software that drives the SCS interface hardware. SCS
providers should involve and interact with users through the whole cycle of service
development to minimize user challenges.
In order to eliminate or, at least, minimize the complexity of SCS delivery channels, the
interface technologies should be efficient and personalizable in order to give the users
sufficient choices and information to make real-time decisions and accomplish their service
needs easily and timely without being confounded by the SCS technologies (King and Coterill,
2007; Xiong and Zuo, 2019). It is our fervent assertion that providing users with such a
favourable condition will guarantee user satisfaction. Hence, we propose our fourth
hypothesis that:
H4. Perceived SCS channel complexity will negatively affect users’ satisfaction with the
services.
3.2.5 Effects of perceived channel dependency on user satisfaction. Smart services have been
known to create social habits that might change users’ traditional behaviors and therefore
affect their SCS acceptance. These habits are often associated with user-dependency on
specific smart service channels, which leads to channel-addiction (Wu et al., 2017). The closest
SCS channel-addiction relates to smartphone and social media addictive usage, which is
considered to be a type of behavioral addiction characterized by problems of compulsive
usage or dependency. A study by Kim et al. (2014) reveals that smartphones could be
harmfully addictive, and could lead to low human-human interactions, thereby manifesting in
socio-psychological abnormalities that the scholars enumerated to include “withdrawal,
adaptive disturbance, compulsion, pathological immersion, abstinence, lack of control,
intolerance, and interference” (p. e97920). It is therefore on record in the literature that
unregulated, compulsive usage of smart service channels, such smartphones, electronic
tablets, and other devices similarly embedded with personal and social applications, may
likely lead to usage addiction or dependency. We argue that such a dependency is likely to
negatively affect the user’s satisfaction with social services delivered via the channel. Based
on the forgoing assertions, we also hypothesize that:
H5. Perceived SCS channel dependency will negatively affect users’ satisfaction with the
services.
3.2.6 Effects of perceived channel security on user satisfaction. Smart city service channels
and tools, such as ATMs, e-Kiosks, smartcards, and mobile applications have not always
enjoyed good acceptance in many markets due to users’ concerns about security and
privacy issues (Belanche-Gracia et al., 2015; Chatterjee et al., 2018). Also, the fact that smart
services are accessed remotely using machine-mediated channels makes it worrisome for
many users with regard to confidentiality issues, specifically in the healthcare sector, where
personal contact with service providers is preferred by patients (Wunderlich, 2013). Even in
the fast-food industry, a consumer poll conducted by Business Insider’s partner, MSN,
suggests that most Americans (78 percent of the customers polled) prefer dealing with the
cashiers instead of ordering through digital kiosks (Johnson, H. /Business Insider, 2018).
 In the case of hospitals, sensitive data are exchanged between private and public Tendencies of
hospitals. This requires data integration (joining multiple data sets in a way that alters the technologies in
existing data) or data mashup (joining two or more data sets together). Both data integration
and data mashup pose some security issues, such as exposure of personal data to multiple
SCS
parties, with the possible risk of misuse, abuse, or theft of confidential information (Braun
et al., 2018; Chatterjee et al., 2018). In addition, some city residents are also wary about having
smart gadgets in their homes, schools, or offices, such as Smart/digital-TV, face/eye
recognition security devices, speed cameras, and CCTV, because they consider those devices 157
to be intrusive to their privacy.
Insecurity, in this context, stems from the distrust of technology and the skepticism about its
ability to work properly and confidentially, which tends to discourage people from using smart
services (Lin and Hsieh, 2012). Existing studies have reported that some consumers with a high
feeling of insecurity usually display lower-level usage intentions, and are less likely to adopt
smart service channels (Walczuch et al., 2007). It is therefore our belief that if SCS users perceive
the digital channel to be secure, they will be satisfied with the smart service delivered through
the channel, and vice-versa. Accordingly, our sixth hypothesis states that:
H6. Perceived SCS channel security will positively affect users’ satisfaction with the
services.
3.2.7 Effects of perceived channel trustworthiness on user satisfaction. Trust is a key factor and
essential aspect for smart services acceptance, and it is a process that should be built between
the service provider and the user in order to facilitate smart service adoption (Hsiao, 2003;
Klein et al., 2017). Trust is the foundation of SCS adoption. Recent studies identified mistrust
as a principal barrier to the acceptance of smart services (Balta-Ozkan et al., 2013). Service
providers not only have to ensure they possess image and reputation but also ensure that
their service delivery channels are trustworthy (Lohse and Spiller, 1998). Additionally, their
payment modes, especially remote online payment systems (such as website, ATM, e-kiosk,
and POS payments) must not be susceptible to hacking or information misuse, and so must be
trusted by the customers; otherwise they will suffer customer-resistance to service adoption
(Chen and Chang, 2008).
Similarly, the service terms and conditions are also of concern to customers. There must
not be any hidden charges; and users must be notified promptly and clearly of any changes in
service conditions, so that they can decide whether to continue or discontinue with the service
(Ma et al., 2016). Any sign of untrustworthiness in the channel will lead to user dissatisfaction.
Consequently, we propose that:
H7. Perceived SCS channel trustworthiness will positively affect users’ satisfaction with
the services.
3.2.8 Effects of user demographics on user satisfaction. Attaining and retaining user
engagement has been a challenge in SCS diffusion, particularly bearing in mind individual
differences in terms of age, education, skills, income levels, and family composition (Peng et al.,
2017). This is because consumers’ needs always vary according to their demographics
(Hern
andez et al., 2007). A study conducted by Lytras and Visvizi (2018) to assess users’ ability to
engage with the smart service applications and solutions revealed that even the most highly
educated and tech-savvy people tend to be more critical in their service channel expectations
than the less educated and less tech-oriented ones. Elsewhere, research has also shown that
personal characteristics such as prior knowledge, skills, and experience with service technologies
contribute to users’ satisfaction with smart services (Harrison et al., 2014; Polese et al., 2018).
In addition, younger people with higher education have been found to be more likely to use
smart services than the older or less educated ones (Ma et al., 2016; Pinochet and Romani,
2018). Hence, demographics factors such as education, gender, age, and prior experience are
ITP likely to affect SCS adoption (Belanche et al., 2016). This has also been corroborated in a study
34,1 on smart home services adoption, in which perceived usefulness was found to be most
important for the male and the older groups; whereas compatibility was more important for
the female and the highly educated groups (Lee and Shin, 2018). Based on the above, we opine
that user demographics (age, gender, educational level, etc.,) are likely to influence SCS users’
satisfaction; and so we hypothesize that:
158 H8. SCS users’ demographics will significantly affect their satisfaction with the services.
3.2.9 Effects of user innovativeness on satisfaction. The early usage and adoption of smart
services were related to high volume of innovative initiatives, and the potential benefits in
adopting smart services (Lin and Hsieh, 2012; Lee and Lee, 2014). Gretzel et al. (2015: p. 179)
are of the opinion that “technologies supporting new forms of collaboration and value
creation that lead to innovation, entrepreneurship and competitiveness” and are essential to
social and economic sustainability.
However, it has also been noted that service innovative services are not exclusively
produced by the service provider, but also co-created with customers’ inputs and ideas
(Polese et al., 2018). Therefore the customer’s innovativeness as a contributor to service value
creation cannot be overlooked. In fact, Grubic and Peppard (2016) assert that it is the
customer’s collaboration that makes smart services successful. It is therefore important for
users to know that they play an important role in creating a successful smart service
experience for themselves; and if they are innovative in their input, their satisfaction level will
likely be higher than if they are not innovative. As a result, we propose in our ninth
hypothesis that:
H9. SCS users’ innovativeness will significantly affect their satisfaction with the services.
3.2.10 Effects of user control-seeking behaviour on satisfaction. Users of smart services
usually prefer to be asked whether or not they would allow their login protocols and usage
history to be stored and remembered by the system. These days, most software developers
want to synchronize their applications with others in the users’ devices for more efficient
processing; but customers often find this integration intrusive, and so want to reserve the
right to allow or deny such access to, or synchronization with, their private data (Eom et al.,
2013). Securing customer permission is very important if a service provider wants to access a
customer’s personal data because customers always prefer to retain control over their private
information to avoid it being misused.
As a result of the sensitive nature of handling customer’s private information and the legal
implications of misuse, there are network connections today with system settings that afford
customers the ability to select privacy preferences, being to allow or deny the system access to,
or synchronization with, their private data (Dietz et al., 2011). Based on the foregoing, and also in
line with the work of Schumann et al. (2012), we argue that allowing SCS users to retain such
control behaviour over their private information in the SCS channel will most likely enhance
their satisfaction with the service. Hence, our tenth hypothesis states that:
H10. SCS users’ control-seeking behaviour will significantly affect their satisfaction with
the services.
3.2.11 Effects of user satisfaction on usage-continuance intention. Satisfaction conceptually
represents an emotional state of pleasure or displeasure that product users feel after a
comparison between expectation and their actual perception of the product performance
(Kotler and Armstrong, 2014). SCS usage continuance refers to the service user’s plan to
continue accessing various government and other public services via SCS channels in future;
and this is determined by how satisfied the user is with the service-channel usage experience
after the initial couple of times of usage (Venkatesh et al., 2012; Al Mansoori et al., 2018). Low
user satisfaction and low usage-continuance intention are some of the biggest challenges Tendencies of
facing smart city service implementation in many countries today (Peng et al., 2017). In line technologies in
with Pan et al. (2013) and Al Mansoori et al. (2018), it is our opinion that no matter the
differences between cites, the mission of any city government should be to provide
SCS
appropriate SCS through efficient smart service channels that meet residents’ and visitors’
expectations so as to enhance their satisfaction, which will in turn lead to their full smart city
service usage continuance. As a result, our last hypothesis is that:
159
H11. SCS users’ satisfaction will significantly affect their continuance intention toward
the service usage.

4. Research methodology
As aforementioned, the SCS channel factors and user factors modelled in this study have been
isolated from the extant literature. These factors are also in line with technology readiness
antecedents that have been used to assess technology adopters’ behavioral intentions (Lam
et al., 2006). All the factors in the study have been measured in a questionnaire that drew from
the Technology Readiness Index (TRI.02) developed by Parasuraman and Colby (2015) on a
5-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly agree (5) to strongly disagree (1). Furthermore,
three scale-items were adapted from Hui et al. (2004) on the same 5 points to measure SCS
user satisfaction. Finally, our questionnaire also included three scale-items adopted
from Abu-Salim et al. (2017) to measure citizens’ behavioral intention toward SCS usage-
continuance.

4.1 Data collection

To collect the data for the study, a structured questionnaire was developed and administered
by email to a finite list of 2,350 respondents, consisting of faculty, students, administrative,
healthcare, technical, as well as lower-level employees of the two largest universities in the
greater Dubai Metropolis. Recruiting university employees has been a normal universal
practice in research methodology (Onyia, 2009; Harrison et al., 2014) because, apart from
representing a convenient access to a large database of potential respondents, university
employees also consist of people of all walks of life and varying ranges of educational,
occupational and income levels. In addition, existing studies have justified using university
respondents as a ready and economical means of sample recruitment and survey distribution
for technology-based studies (Pikkarainen et al., 2004; Waite and Harrison, 2004; Onyia, 2009).
A trained survey administrator was used to send reminders and gather the data from willing
respondents during the four-month period from September to December 2018. At end of the
period, 600 responses were received (26 percent), out of which 580 (25 percent) were found to
be useful and valid for our data analysis.

5. Data analysis and discussion

5.1 Sample profile
The profile of our respondents consisted of more women (56 percent) than men (44 percent).
Most of the respondents (74 percent) were in the 18–34 age-bracket, and this principally
represents students and early – mid career educated professionals with average income range
below $5,000 per month. Most of the respondents also live in the two largest UAE cities of
Abu Dhabi and Dubai, commuting to and from Dubai. A total of 83 percent of the participants
were foreign nationals resident in the country, while the indigenes comprised 17 percent. This
reflects the country’s real population distribution, in which the bulk of the population (88
percent) is made up of expatriates from other parts of the world, while the local nationals
make up the remaining 12 percent (CIA World Factbook, 2017).
ITP 5.2 Model reliability tests
34,1 Before our data analysis, we tested our original research model for composite reliability
(internal consistency of the measurement variables) as well as for convergent validity
(soundness of the latent constructs measured by the variables) in relation to our dataset. The
item reliability was tested by Factor Analysis, while construct validity was tested by
Cronbach’s Alpha (α) in SPSS 23 Standard Multiple Regression (SMR). The SMR analytical
tool was employed in this study because all the independent and dependent variables in our
160 research model are continuous variables (Mueter et al., 2005; Pallant, 2007; Harrison et al.,
2014). Variables with factor-loading scores above 0.3 are considered reliable contributors to
the measurement of a construct; while “a standardized Cronbach’s alpha estimate (α) of 0.7 or
above, together with a total variance explained (TVE) percentage above 50 percent
(TVE > 0.5) indicates a good convergent validity Onyia (2009, p. 262; Hair et al., 2006). Table I
shows the results of our model tests. Very good composite reliability (internal consistency and
convergent validity) was established for the model although some items showed low
contribution to their construct measurement, including SERVBEN3, SERVTRUST6, and
USERDEMO1 (see Figure 2 for meanings). These items were subsequently removed from the
model to improve the model fit to the dataset.

5.3 Data analysis results and discussion of findings

Following the confirmation of our model fit, we used One-Way ANOVA (Table II) to test the
inter-correlations between our independent variables and to compare their means as they
affect Smart City Service User Satisfaction (USERSAT). The results on Table II indicate that
both our channel constructs (Service Benefits, Service Capabilities, Service Ease of Use,
Service Complexities, Service Security, and Service Trust) as well as our customer constructs
(User Control-seeking Behaviour, User Innovativeness, and User Demographics) were
significantly correlated with each other and also with user satisfaction (USERSAT). Their
mean values were fairly similar (μ ≈ 4.0) and the predictive effects (F-value) of all the
constructs on user satisfaction were also significant (Sig. 5 0.000). The result in the lower
section of Table II also indicates that SCS users’ satisfaction (USERSAT) was significantly
associated with their service-usage continuance intention (USERINTENT).

5.4 Hypotheses test results and discussion

To confirm or refute the assertions we made in our seven Smart City service-channel hypotheses
and four Smart City service-user hypotheses, we used standardized Pearson Correlation
Coefficients (β) computed in SPSS SMR. According to Pallant (2007), the standardized
regression weights in SMR produce a very good evaluation of the causal relationships among
latent variables, and therefore aptly support or refute research hypotheses. Moreover, the
standardized regression weights in SMR are exactly the same as the standardized inter-
construct path coefficients produced by AMOS in Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) (Onyia,
2009). So, we preferred to test our hypotheses with SMR in line with the recommendations of
Meuter et al. (2005), Pallant (2007), and Harrison et al. (2014) since all our dependent and
independent variables are continuous variables and none is a categorical variable. The
regression results (Table III) indicate the abilities of all the SCS channel and user constructs to
affect user satisfaction (USERSAT) respectively and, in turn, the ability of SCS user satisfaction
to predict usage-continuance intention (USERINTENT).
According to Pallant (2007), standardized multiple regression coefficients above 0.3 but
less than 0.7 indicate strong relationships among the independent variables in their ability to
collectively determine a dependent variable without multicollinearity, especially if the level of
significance of their effects is high (0.3 < β < 0.7; sig. 5 0.00). As can be seen from Table III,
not all our standardized correlation estimates were above 0.3, and as a result, some of our
 SCS channel factors
Tendencies of
Composite reliability technologies in
Convergent SCS
validity Total variance
Item reliability (Cronbach’s explained
Constructs Scale items* (factor loading) alpha – α) (TVE)

Recommended values > 0.30 ≥ 0.70 > 0.50 161

SCS channel benefits SERVBEN1 0.50 0.70 0.52
(SERVBEN) SERVBEN2 0.55
SERVBEN3 0.23
SERVBEN4 0.44
SERVBEN5 0.41
SERVBEN6 0.42
SERVBEN7 0.48
SCS channel capabilities SERVCAP1 0.45 0.76 0.68
(SERVCAP) SERVCAP2 0.37
SERVCAP3 0.37
SERVCAP4 0.40
SERVCAP5 0.50
SCS channel ease of use SERVEASE1 0.64 0.77 0.73
(SERVEASE) SERVEASE2 0.42
SERVEASE3 0.52
SERVEASE4 0.54
SERVEASE5 0.62
SCS channel complexity SERVCOMPLEX1 0.61 0.83 0.71
(SERVCOMPLEX) SERVCOMPLEX2 0.41
SERVCOMPLEX3 0.55
SERVCOMPLEX4 0.45
SERVCOMPLEX5 0.47
SERVCOMPLEX6 0.49
SERVCOMPLEX7 0.49
SERVCOMPLEX8 0.47
SERVCOMPLEX9 0.37
SERVCOMPLEX10 0.51
SERVCOMPLEX11 0.51
SERVCOMPLEX12 0.53
SCS channel dependency SERVDEPEND1 0.33 0.70 0.62
(SERVDEPEND) SERVDEPEND2 0.45
SERVDEPEND3 0.53
SCS channel security SERVSEC1 0.54 0.72 0.65
(SERVSEC) SERVSEC2 0.51
SERVSEC3 0.58
SERVSEC4 0.43
SCS channel trustworthiness SERVTRUST1 0.40 0.69 0.57 Table I.
(SERVTRUST) SERVTRUST2 0.31 Model reliability:
SERVTRUST3 0.38 results of composite
SERVTRUST4 0.35 reliability (convergent
SERVTRUST5 0.31 validity and internal
SERVTRUST6 0.27 consistency) tests of
the scales in the
(continued ) research model
ITP SCS channel factors
34,1 Composite reliability
Convergent
validity Total variance
Item reliability (Cronbach’s explained
Constructs Scale items* (factor loading) alpha – α) (TVE)
162
SCS user personal characteristics
SCS user control-seeking CONTRLSEEK1 0.41 0.72 0.64
behaviour (CONTRLSEEK) CONTRLSEEK2 0.47
CONTRLSEEK3 0.47
CONTRLSEEK4 0.52
CONTRLSEEK5 0.52
SCS user innovativeness USERINNO1 0.52 0.79 0.70
(USERINNO) USERINNO2 0.62
USERINNO3 0.40
USERINNO4 0.44
USERINNO5 0.68
USERINNO6 0.57
SCS user demographics USERDEMO1 0.08 0.65 0.51
(USERDEMO) USERDEMO2 0.42
USERDEMO3 0.34
USERDEMO4 0.39
SCS user satisfaction USERSAT1 0.34 0.70 0.69
(USERSAT) USERSAT2 0.47
USERSAT3 0.41
SCS user service-usage USERINTENT1 0.48 0.71 0.73
continuance intention USERINTENT2 0.51
(USERINTENT) USERINTENT3 0.39
*Note(s): (1) When SERVBEN3 was removed from the SERVBEN scale, Cronbach’s Alpha improved to 0.74,
(2) when SERVTRUST6 was removed from the SERVTRUST scale, Cronbach’s Alpha improved 0.73, (3) when
Table I. USERDEMO1 was removed from the USERDEMO scale, Cronbach’s Alpha improved to 0.70.

hypotheses were not supported; some were partially supported; while others were fully
supported. Our findings are as follows:
Hypothesis 1: For our H1, which states that perceived SCS channel benefits (SERVBEN) will
positively affect SCS users’ satisfaction with the services, three of the seven variables in the
SERVBEN construct failed to reach the expected 0.3 minimum mark including SERVBEN3,
SERVBEN4, and SERVBEN7 (see Figure 2), meaning that SCS channel benefits only partially
affect SCS users’ satisfaction. As a result, our H1 was only partially supported.
Hypothesis 2: For our H2, which asserts that perceived SCS channel capabilities (SERVCAP)
will positively affect users’ satisfaction with the services, the estimates for two of the five
variables in the construct (SERVCAP2 and SERVCAP3) fell below the expected minimum
mark. This means that the SCS channel capabilities also only partially affect user satisfaction.
Our H2 therefore was only partially supported.
Hypothesis 3: This states that perceived SCS channel ease of use (SERVEASE) will positively
affect users’ satisfaction with the services. All the variables measuring this construct achieved
very good standardized coefficients, meaning that Smart City service channel ease of use is a
holistic affecter of the users’ satisfaction; and as such our H3 was fully supported.
Hypothesis 4: For this hypothesis, impact of perceived channel complexity
(SERVCOMPLEX), half of the 12 variable failed to meet the minimum requirement, while
the other half exceeded the minimum requirement. Again, this means that SCS channel
The association of the various SCS Channel and User factors with User Satisfaction (USERSAT)
Tendencies of
Construct Item Mean F-value Sig. SE technologies in
SCS
SCS Channel Benefits (SERVBEN) SERVBEN1 3.94 39.13 0.000 0.04
SERVBEN2 3.99 – – 0.05
SERVBEN3 3.53 – – 0.03
SERVBEN4 3.79 – – 0.04
SERVBEN5 3.79 – – 0.04 163
SERVBEN6 3.77 – – 0.04
SERVBEN7 3.87 – – 0.04
SCS channel capabilities (SERVCAP) SERVCAP1 3.78 46.03 0.000 0.04
SERVCAP2 3.82 – – 0.04
SERVCAP3 3.77 – – 0.04
SERVCAP4 3.80 – – 0.04
SERVCAP5 3.90 – – 0.04
SCS channel ease of use (SERVEASE) SERVEASE1 3.92 89.20 0.000 0.05
SERVEASE2 3.91 – – 0.04
SERVEASE3 3.94 – – 0.04
SERVEASE4 3.87 – – 0.04
SERVEASE5 3.93 – – 0.05
SCS channel complexity (SERVCOMPLEX) SERVCOMPLEX1 3.91 31.33 0.000 0.05
SERVCOMPLEX2 3.79 – – 0.04
SERVCOMPLEX3 3.91 – – 0.04
SERVCOMPLEX4 3.87 – – 0.04
SERVCOMPLEX5 3.84 - - 0.04
SERVCOMPLEX6 3.80 – – 0.04
SERVCOMPLEX7 3.76 – – 0.04
SERVCOMPLEX8 3.80 – – 0.04
SERVCOMPLEX9 3.78 – – 0.03
SERVCOMPLEX10 3.87 – – 0.04
SERVCOMPLEX11 3.77 – – 0.04
SERVCOMPLEX12 3.78 – – 0.04
SCS channel dependency (SERVDEPEND) SERVDEPEND1 3.81 32.56 0.000 0.04
SERVDEPEND2 3.91 – – 0.04
SERVDEPEND3 3.79 – – 0.04
SCS channel security (SERVSEC) SERVSEC1 3.80 26.45 0.000 0.04
SERVSEC2 3.81 – – 0.04
SERVSEC3 3.84 – – 0.04
SERVSEC4 3.90 – – 0.04
SCS channel trustworthiness (SERVTRUST) SERVTRUST1 3.66 20.03 0.000 0.04
SERVTRUST2 3.67 – – 0.04
SERVTRUST3 3.68 – – 0.04
SERVTRUST4 3.71 – – 0.04
SERVTRUST5 3.72 – – 0.04
SERVTRUST6 3.65 – – 0.04
SCS user control-seeking behaviour CONTRLSEEK1 3.77 69.11 0.000 0.04
(CONTRLSEEK) CONTRLSEEK2 3.93 – – 0.04
CONTRLSEEK3 3.87 – – 0.04
CONTRLSEEK4 3.97 – – 0.04
CONTRLSEEK5 3.90 – – 0.04
SCS user innovativeness (USERINNO) USERINNO1 3.76 33.32 0.000 0.04
USERINNO2 3.94 – – 0.05
USERINNO3 3.84 – – 0.04 Table II.
USERINNO4 3.89 – – 0.04 Results of one-way
USERINNO5 3.90 – – 0.05 ANOVA analyses
USERINNO6 3.89 – – 0.04 (mean comparisons) of
the causal associations
(continued ) in the study model
ITP The association of the various SCS Channel and User factors with User Satisfaction (USERSAT)
34,1 Construct Item Mean F-value Sig. SE

SCS user demographics (USERDEMO) USERDEMO1 3.92 33.13 0.000 0.04

USERDEMO2 3.91 – – 0.04
USERDEMO3 3.97 – – 0.04
USERDEMO4 3.84 – – 0.04
164
The association of SCS User Satisfaction (USERSAT) with SCS Usage-continuance Intention (USERINTENT)
Construct Item Mean F-Value Sig. SE
SCS user satisfaction (USERSAT) USERSAT1 3.86 118.72 0.000 0.04
USERSAT2 3.90 – – 0.04
Table II. USERSAT3 3.93 – – 0.04

complexity only partially affects the service users’ satisfaction; and as such our 4th
hypothesis was only partially supported.
Hypothesis 5: Our H5 avers that perceived SCS channel dependency (SERVDEPEND) will
negatively affect users’ satisfaction with the services. Two of the three variables defining this
construct met the required minimum coefficient while one did not.
Again, this means that SCS channel dependency largely affects the service user’s
satisfaction negatively. Our H5 was therefore supported.
Hypothesis 6: For our H6 that declares that perceived SCS channel security (SERVSEC) will
positively affect users’ satisfaction with the services, three of the four variables in the construct
achieved good coefficients while one did not. We can therefore infer that our H6 was
confirmed because 75 percent of the structural components of the construct support the fact
that SCS channel security does indeed affect the channel user’s satisfaction. We therefore
classify our sixth hypothesis as supported.
Hypothesis 7: Our H7 asserts that perceived SCS channel trustworthiness (SERVTRUST)
will positively affect users’ satisfaction with the services. This hypothesis was not supported
because four of the six components of the trustworthiness construct fell below the minimum
coefficient estimate that would have confirmed the veracity of the statement. Consequently,
the inference is that the trustworthiness of the SCS channel is not a key determinant of SCS
users’ satisfaction with the services. It might influence a user’s decision to use or not to use an
SCS service, but does not determine a user’s satisfaction.
Hypothesis 8: Our H8 was also not supported because three of the four items that define the
user demographics construct (USERDEMO) in the context of Smart City service usage did not
reach the expected minimum correlation coefficient. As a result, our eighth hypothesis, which
states that SCS users’ demographics will significantly affect the users’ satisfaction with the
services, was refuted. This is not unusual today because recent research has shown that
variables like age, gender and education are no more strong determinants of Internet
technology adoption in many parts of the world today as was the case 10–15 years ago
(White-Baker et al., 2007; Lee, 2010; Onyia and Tagg, 2011). Thus, SCS users’ age, gender, and
education were eliminated as not having any significant influence on the users’ satisfaction
with the service-delivery channels.
Hypothesis 9: The assertion of our H9 is that SCS users’ innovativeness (USERINNO) will
significantly affect the users’ satisfaction with the services. This hypothesis was largely supported
because four of the six variables that define user innovativeness surpassed the required minimum
standardized estimate, while two did not. We therefore confirm that, to a large extent (67 percent),
the innovativeness of an SCS user will affect his or her level of satisfaction with the SCS service.
Hypothesis 10: Our H10, which declares that SCS users’ control-seeking behaviour
(CONTRLSEEK) will significantly affect the users’ satisfaction with the services, was fully
Tests of the hypothesized effects of the SCS channel and User factors on SCS user satisfaction (USERSAT)
Tendencies of
respectively technologies in
Standardized SCS
correlation coefficient Sum of
Construct Item ( β) squares (SS) df Sig.

H1: SCS channel benefits SERVBEN1 0.314 197.227 7 0.000

(SERVBEN) SERVBEN2 0.496 – – – 165
SERVBEN3 0.150 – – –
SERVBEN4 0.176 – – –
SERVBEN5 0.333 – – –
SERVBEN6 0.428 – – –
SERVBEN7 0.227 – – –
H2: SCS channel capabilities SERVCAP1 0.377 174.253 5 0.000
(SERVCAP) SERVCAP2 0.207 – – –
SERVCAP3 0.222 – – –
SERVCAP4 0.355 – – –
SERVCAP5 0.465 – – –
H3: SCS channel ease of use SERVEASE1 0.523 266.347 5 0.000
(SERVEASE) SERVEASE2 0.327 – – –
SERVEASE3 0.426 – – –
SERVEASE4 0.443 – – –
SERVEASE5 0.599 – – –
H4: SCS channel complexity SERVCOMPLEX1 0.430 242.713 12 0.000
(SERVCOMPLEX) SERVCOMPLEX2 0.489 – – –
SERVCOMPLEX3 0.463 – – –
SERVCOMPLEX4 0.260 – – –
SERVCOMPLEX5 0.355 – – –
SERVCOMPLEX6 0.423 – – –
SERVCOMPLEX7 0.278 – – –
SERVCOMPLEX8 0.278 – – –
SERVCOMPLEX9 0.135 – – –
SERVCOMPLEX10 0.244 – – –
SERVCOMPLEX11 0.321 – – –
SERVCOMPLEX12 0.239 – – –
H5: SCS channel dependency SERVDEPEND1 0.300 88.307 3 0.000
(SERVDEPEND) SERVDEPEND2 0.300 – – –
SERVDEPEND3 0.145 – – –
H6: SCS channel security SERVSEC1 0.300 94.674 4 0.000
(SERVSEC) SERVSEC2 0.325 – – –
SERVSEC3 0.311 – – –
SERVSEC4 0.221 – – –
H7: SCS channel SERVTRUST1 0.119 105.588 6 0.000
trustworthiness SERVTRUST2 0.300 – – –
(SERVTRUST) SERVTRUST3 0.183 – – –
SERVTRUST4 0.340 – – –
SERVTRUST5 0.173 – – –
SERVTRUST6 0.146 – – –
H8: SCS user demographics USERDEMO1 0.422 114.075 4 0.000
(USERDEMO) USERDEMO2 0.060 – – – Table III.
USERDEMO3 0.045 – – – Results of our
USERDEMO4 0.005 – – – hypotheses tests by
standard multiple
(continued ) regression
ITP Tests of the hypothesized effects of the SCS channel and User factors on SCS user satisfaction (USERSAT)
34,1 respectively
Standardized
correlation coefficient Sum of
Construct Item ( β) squares (SS) df Sig.

H9: SCS user innovativeness USERINNO1 0.247 157.428 6 0.000

166 (USERINNO) USERINNO2 0.301 – – –
USERINNO3 0.398 – – –
USERINNO4 0.378 – – –
USERINNO5 0.347 – – –
USERINNO6 0.291 – – –
H10: SCS user control-seeking CONTRLSEEK1 0.330 228.891 5 0.000
behaviour (CONTRLSEEK) CONTRLSEEK2 0.426 – – –
CONTRLSEEK3 0.370 – – –
CONTRLSEEK4 0.315 – – –
CONTRLSEEK5 0.540 – – –
Tests of the hypothesized effects of SCS User Satisfaction (USERSAT) on SCS Usage-continuance Intention
(USERINTENT)
H10: SCS user satisfaction USERSAT1 0.287 244.359 3 0.000
(USERSAT) USERSAT2 0.490 – – –
Table III. USERSAT3 0.540 – – –

supported. All the five constituents of the construct surpassed the required minimum
standardized coefficient of correlation, thereby confirming our assertion that the SCS users’
desire to control how, where, and when they use the SCS delivery channel significantly affects
their satisfaction with the SCS service.
To summarize the results of our first ten hypotheses that focused on the effects of seven
SCS channel characteristics and three SCS user characteristics on SCS users’ satisfaction, we
can confirm that three channel-related hypotheses (H3, H5, H6) and two user-related
hypotheses (H9 and 10) were significantly supported; three channel-related hypotheses (H1,
H2, H4) were partially supported; whereas one channel-related and one user-related
hypotheses (H7 and H8) were significantly rejected. Our summation then is that the perceived
ease of use, perceived dependency, and perceived security of the SCS channel, as well as the SCS
user’s innovativeness and desire to control the service channel will significantly affect the
user’s satisfaction with the Smart City service delivered through the smart channel. In
addition, the SCS channel’s perceived benefits, perceived capabilities, and perceived complexity
will also moderately affect the SCS user’s satisfaction. However, our test results also showed
that the perceived trustworthiness of the SCS channel and SCS user’s demographics have no
significant effect on the user’s satisfaction.
Hypothesis 11: Having tested the effects of SCS channel- and user- characteristics on user
satisfaction as illustrated in our hypotheses 1–10, we also tested our last hypothesis, which
asserts that SCS users’ satisfaction (USERSAT) will also significantly affect the users’ service-
usage continuance intention (USERINTENT). The result shows that our H11 was fully supported
since two of the three variables measuring the satisfaction construct significantly exceeded the
required minimum coefficient, while the third one also meets the minimum requirement by
approximation. All in all, H11 was supported and our assertion confirmed that SCS user
satisfaction will significantly affect the user’s intention to continue using the SCS channel or not.

5.5 Results of further model refinement tests

To further refine our model of SCS usage continuance with the aim of validating our
conceptual model of SCS users’ readiness and willingness to fully adopt (continue to use)
the Smart City service technology, we eliminated those variables in our various channel- Tendencies of
related and user-related constructs that did not meet the required minimum coefficients technologies in
in our hypothesis tests; and then tested the ability of the remaining variables, clustered
as SCS channel-factors and user-factors, to influence the SCS users’ intention
SCS
(USERINTENT) to continue using Smart City service channels, which would indicate
full adoption of the SCS technology. Since out USERINTENT construct consists of
continuous dependent variables, rather than one categorical variable, we still employed
standardized correlation estimates in SMR (instead of Logistic Regression) to test the 167
ability of the factors to predict the users’ intention to fully adopt Smart City service
channels. Table IV presents the results of our further model refinement tests for the two-
prong factors.

Tests of the overall hypothesized effects of all significant SCS channel and user variables on SCS usage-
continuance intention (USERINTENT)
Standardized correlation Sum of
Construct Item coefficient ( β) squares (SS) df Sig.

Smart city service (SCS) SERVBEN1 0.209 284.827 38 0.000

Channel- factors SERVBEN2 0.292 – – –
SERVBEN5 0.435 – – –
SERVBEN6 0.181 – – –
SERVCAP1 0.163 – – –
SERVCAP4 0.188 – – –
SERVCAP5 0.225 – – –
SERVEASE1 0.305 – – –
SERVEASE2 0.435 – – –
SERVEASE3 0.487 – – –
SERVEASE4 0.295 – – –
SERVEASE5 0.264 – – –
SERVCOMPLEX1 0.340 – – –
SERVCOMPLEX2 0.268 – – –
SERVCOMPLEX3 0.298 – – –
SERVCOMPLEX5 0.451 – – –
SERVCOMPLEX6 0.284 – – –
SERVCOMPLEX11 0.183 – – –
SERVDEPEND1 0.176 – – –
SERVDEPEND2 0.444 – – –
SERVSEC1 0.183 – – –
SERVSEC2 0.221 – – –
SERVSEC3 0.219 – – –
SERVTRUST2 0.164 – – –
SERVTRUST4 0.169 – – –
Smart city service (SCS) USERINNO2 0.433 – – –
user-factors USERINNO3 0.155 – – –
USERINNO4 0.269 – – –
USERINNO5 0.461 – – –
Table IV.
CONTRLSEEK1 0.229 – – –
Results of the further
CONTRLSEEK2 0.327 – – – model refinement
CONTRLSEEK3 0.443 – – – tested by standard
CONTRLSEEK4 0.497 – – – multiple regression
CONTRLSEEK5 0.373 – – – (including only the
USERDEMO1 0.227 – – – variables with
Smart city service (SCS) USERSAT2 0.490 – – – significant coefficients
User Satisfaction USERSAT3 0.537 – – – from Table III above)
ITP As can be seen on Table IV, seven (7) SCS channel factors showed significant effects
34,1 (0.3 < β < 0.7; sig. 5 0.00) on the SCS user’s intention to continue using the SCS technology-
based channel, including the following:
SERVBEN5 – Smart City service systems enable fast accomplishment of tasks related
Smart City Services.
SERVEASE1 – Smart City service systems are easy to learn.
168
SERVEASE2 – Smart City service systems are simple and understandable.
SERVEASE3 – Smart City service systems have easy self-teaching usage-tutorials.
SERVCOMPLEX1 – Smart City service systems make me comfortable with the service
providers.
SERVCOMPLEX5 – Smart City service system updates are not difficult to keep up with.
SERVDEPEND2 – Smart City service systems can be addictive in terms of technology
dependency.
In the same light, our refinement test results also showed that eight SCS user factors,
including six behavioral characteristics and two satisfaction variables, were validated
with significant effects (0.3 < β < 0.7; sig. 5 0.00) on the SCS user’s intention to continue
using the SCS channel. Unfortunately, as can be seen from Table III, demographic
variables such as gender (USERDEMO2), education (USERDEMO3), and age
(USERDEMO4) did not contribute any significant coefficient in determining SCS users’
adoption behavior toward SCS delivery channels. Hence, our eighth hypothesis was not
supported. We therefore confirm that user innovativeness, which is the experiential
savviness in using a variety of technologies (Price and Ridgway, 1983) is the only
demographic factor that correlates significantly with SCS user’s behavioral intension
toward SCS delivery channels adoption. As a result, the eight factors listed below are
only user personal factors that significantly influence SCS customers’ intension to
continue using SCS delivery channels:
USERINNO2 – Techno-savvy people tend to adopt Smart City service channels earlier
than others.
USERINNO5 – Smart City service users can provide useful input ideas for future SCS
system developments.
CONTRLSEEK2 – SCS users prefer to reserve the choice to give their personal
information or not.
CONTRLSEEK3 – SCS users prefer to have control over how their personal information
is used.
CONTRLSEEK – SCS users prefer the SCS system to ask before sending them to
other sites.
CONTRLSEEK5 – SCS users are happy to contribute their own ideas to SCS technology
development.
USERSAT2 – SCS users are pleased with the constant availability of Smart City services
through the SCS technology-channels.
USERSAT3 – SCS users are happy that the SCS technology-channel helps them meet their
SCS needs.
The implication of our final results is that above seven channel-related factors and eight user- Tendencies of
related factors validated in our final refinement constitute a reliable model of the factors that technologies in
determine SCS users’ intention to fully adopt and continue using SCS through technology-
based service delivery channels. To reconfirm the efficacy and predictive strength of our final
SCS
refined model in determining SCS users’ intention to fully adopt the SCS technology-channel,
we isolated the above 15 validated factors from Table IV and ran the SMR again with only the
15 variables. All 15 variables yielded very strong and significant coefficients (0.3 < β < 0.7;
sig. 5 0.00), indicating that each of them very strong affects SCS user’s intention to continue 169
employing a SCS tech-based delivery channel for SCS service utilization. Table V shows the
results of our final validated model of factors that determine SCS users’ intention to fully
adopt technology-based SCS delivery channels.

6. Conclusion, implications, and recommendations

Consequent to all our forgoing analysis results and findings, we hereby conclude that our
final model of factors affecting SCS users’ intention to fully adopt and continue using the
technology-based SCS delivery channels (Table V) has performed very well in explaining the
underlying relationships among all our independent and dependent constructs - including the
capability of the validated SCS channel factors and validated SCS user characteristics to
determine SCS user satisfaction; and likewise the capability of the SCS user’s satisfaction to
predict his/her intention to continue using the service delivery channel.
6.1 Implications for theory advancement and managerial practice
Our findings have implications for both theoretical knowledge development and practical
managerial application. Based on the study results, we advocate that the four perceived SCS
channel factors validated in our final model (perceived channel benefits, perceived channel ease
of use, perceived channel complexity, and perceived channel dependency), as well as the two SCS
user characteristics also validated in our final model (user innovativeness and user control-
seeking behaviour) are the overarching determinants of SCS users’ satisfaction. Similarly, we
propose that SCS user satisfaction, a theoretical construct defined by its two measurement
variables (satisfaction with 24/7 SCS channel availability and satisfaction with the SCS needs
met on the channel), will always be significantly empowered by the above six channel and user

Tests of the overall hypothesized effect of all significant SCS channel and user variables on usage-continuance
intention (USERINTENT)
Standardized correlation Sum of
Construct Item coefficient ( β) squares (SS) df Sig.

Smart city service (SCS) SERVBEN1 0.435 271.601 15 0.000

channel factors SERVEASE1 0.305 – – –
SERVEASE2 0.435 – – –
SERVEASE3 0.487 – – –
SERVCOMPLEX1 0.340 – – –
SERVCOMPLEX5 0.451 – – –
SERVDEPEND2 0.444 – – –
Smart city service (SCS) USERINNO2 0.433 – – –
Table V.
user characteristics USERINNO5 0.461 – – – Result of the final
CONTRLSEEK2 0.327 – – – validated model tested
CONTRLSEEK3 0.443 – – – by standard multiple
CONTRLSEEK4 0.497 – – – regression (including
CONTRLSEEK5 0.373 – – – only the variables with
Smart city service (SCS) USERSAT2 0.490 – – – significant coefficients
user satisfaction USERSAT3 0.537 from Table IV above)
ITP factors to predict SCS users’ intention toward fully adopting the technology-based SCS
34,1 delivery channels.
We make the above universal theoretical generalization based on the statistical power of
our final test results (X2 5 271.6; df 5 15; sig. 5 0.000) from the 580 cases we successfully
analyzed in this study and in line with the work of Hair et al. (2006). It is our hope that our
findings will inspire subsequent research that will amplify the knowledge and importance of
the combined effects of perceived channels factors and user personal characteristics on the
170 adoption behaviors of SCS customers.
For managerial practice, we present the following practical marketing implications
summarized from the findings in our study:
(1) Perceived SCS channel factors – especially perceived channel benefits, perceived
channel ease of use, perceived channel complexity, and perceived channel dependency –
will always significantly influence the SCS users’ satisfaction with the SCS delivery
channel.
(2) SCS users’ personal characteristics – especially their innovativeness and channel
control-seeking behaviour – will always significantly influence the SCS users’
satisfaction with the SCS delivery channel.
(3) SCS users’ satisfaction (as defined by their satisfaction with the 24/7 availability of the
service through the technology-channels and their satisfaction with their SCS needs met
on the channels) will in turn determine their behavioral intension toward continuing or
discontinuing with using the SCS delivery channels.
Smart City technology developers, service marketers, and systems managers must, therefore,
become aware of the marketing implications of the above assertions. In order to ensure that
their customers fully and willingly adopt their technology-based SCS delivery channels, they
must proactively enhance the perceptible benefits of the technology systems and channels by
making sure that the channels are easy to use and uncomplicated (Sharma and Baoku, 2013;
Koo et al., 2015). In addition, they must not use the technology-channels to completely replace
human interactions in the service delivery process to the point of total technology-dependency
without any offline (face-to-face) option.

6.2 Limitations and suggestions for future research

The major limitation of this study is our panoramic conceptualization of SCS as the
contextual basis upon which we examined the impact of service delivery channel and service
user personal characteristics on service user satisfaction and behavioral intention. The concept
is rather loose in the sense that many different public services delivered via the internet,
telephone, mobile phone apps, electronic kiosks, ATMs, POS devices, and other self-service
technologies all qualify as SCS, no matter the nature of each service itself. For instance,
providing car-license renewal services online; enabling customers to pay their monthly
utilities with an app; selling postage stamps or fast-food products to the public via electronic
kiosks; and administering Police traffic fines payment through an ATM are some examples of
SCS; but their service-delivery technologies are somewhat different, and so users’ behaviors
toward them may also be differ, one from the other.
In this study, as in many existing studies, the various SCS technologies have been coalesced
as if they were one uniform service delivery technology, just because they are technology-based
means of remotely accessing public services without going to queue in the service provider’s
office or store. It would rather be interesting to find out whether there are differences in the
adoption behaviors of customers using different types of SCS channel technologies.
In concluding this study, therefore, we recommend that future studies in the area should
explore cross-city or cross-national (cross-cultural) comparative examinations of users’
behavioral intentions toward different specific types of SCS delivery technologies such as Tendencies of
mobile applications, ATMs, electronic kiosks, Internet websites, and other self-service technologies in
technologies. The rationale for this suggestion is that people’s behaviors toward going out of
their homes, offices, or schools to access public services on kiosks and ATM machines may be
SCS
totally different from their behaviors toward accessing the same services on their laptops,
mobile phones, or desktop computers in the comfort of their homes, offices, or schools; and
may also vary between cities, countries, and cultures.
171
References
Acuto, M. (2010), “High-rise Dubai urban entrepreneurialism and the technology of symbolic power”,
Cities, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 272-284.
Abu-Salim, T., Onyia, O.P., Harrison, T. and Lindsay, V. (2017), “Effects of perceived cost, service
quality, and customer satisfaction on health insurance service continuance”, Journal of
Financial Services Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 173-186.
Ajzen, I. (1991), “The theory of planned behavior”, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, Vol. 50 No. 2, pp. 179-211.
Al Mansoori, K.A.A., Sarabdeen, J. and Tchantchane, A.L. (2018), “Investigating Emirati citizens’
adoption of e-government services in Abu Dhabi using modified UTAUT model”, Information
Technology and People, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 455-481.
Alnaqbi, A. (2017), “Management and design of persuasive smart services: the case of United Arab
Emirates”, Doctoral Dissertation, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth, BU.
Agha, A. (2016), A Stakeholder Based Assessment of Developing Country Challenges and Solutions in
Smart Mobility within the Smart City Framework: A Case of Lahore, Working paper, University
of Cambridge, Cambridge, March 2016.
Balta-Ozkan, N., Davidson, R., Bicket, M. and Whitmarsh, L. (2013), “Social barriers to the adoption of
smart homes”, Energy Policy, Vol. 63, pp. 363-374.
Baz, A.M. (1996), “Method and device for active constrained layer damping for vibration and sound
control”, Acoustical Society of America Journal, Vol. 101, p. 2424.
Belanche, D., Casal
o, L.V. and Or
us, C. (2016), “City attachment and use of urban services: benefits for
smart cities”, Cities, Vol. 50 No. 1, pp. 75-81.
no, L.V. and P
erez-Rueda, A. (2015), “Determinants of multi- service
Belanche-Gracia, D., Casal
o-Ari~
smartcard success for smart cities development: a study based on citizens’ privacy and security
perceptions”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 32, pp. 154-163.
Braun, T., Fung, C., Iqbal, F. and Shah, B. (1969), “Security and privacy challenges in smart cities”,
Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 39, pp. 499-507.
Buchanan, K., Banks, N., Preston, I. and Russo, R. (2016), “The British public’s perception of the
UK smart metering initiative: threats and opportunities”, Energy Policy, Vol. 91 No. 1,
pp. 87-97.
Bullinger, H.J., Neuhuttler, J., Nagele, R. and Woyke, I. (2017), “Collaborative development of business
models in smart service ecosystems”, Paper Presented at the Portland International Conference
on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), IEEE, pp. 1-9, (accessed 17
April 2019).
Chatterjee, S., Kar, A.K., Dwivedi, Y.K. and Kizgin, H. (2018), “Prevention of cybercrimes in smart
cities of India: from a citizen’s perspective”, Information Technology and People, doi: 10.1108/
ITP-05-2018-0251https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-05-2018-0251 (accessed 28 May 2019).
Chen, W.S. and Chang, H.H. (2008), “The impact of online store environment cues on purchase
intention: trust and perceived risk as a mediator”, Online Information Review, Vol. 32 No. 6,
pp. 818-841.
ITP Chourabi, H., Nam, T., Walker, S., Gil-Garcia, J.R., Mellouli, S., Nahon, K., Pardo, T.A. and Scholl, H.J.
(2012), “Understanding smart cities: an integrative framework”, Paper Presented at the 45th
34,1 Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE, Hawaii, pp. 2289-2297.
CIA World Factbook (2017), “Global statistics – UAE”, available at: https://www.cia.gov/library/
publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ae.html (accessed 17 May 2019).
Cronin J., Jr, Brady, K. and Hult, M. (2000), “Assessing the effects of quality, value, and customer
satisfaction on consumer behavioral intentions in service environments”, Journal of Retailing,
172 Vol. 76 No. 2, pp. 193-218.
Davis, F. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 319-340.
D
ıaz-D
ıaz, R., Mu~
noz, L. and P
erez-Gonz
alez, D. (2017), “Business model analysis of public services
operating in the smart city ecosystem: the case of Smart Santander”, Future Generation
Computer Systems, Vol. 76, pp. 198-214.
Dietz, M., Shekhar, S., Pisetsky, Y., Shu, A. and Wallach, D.S. (2011), “Quire: lightweight provenance
for smart phone operating systems”, USENIX Security Symposium, Vol. 31, p. 3.
Dirks, S. and Keeling, M. (2009), “A Vision of Smarter Cities: How Cities Can Lead the Way into a
Prosperous and Sustainable Future”, IBM Institute for Business Value, Vol. 8, available at:
http://www-935.ibm.com/services/us/gbs/bus/pdf/ibm_podcast_smarter_cities.pdf (accessed 6
March 2019).
Eggers and Skowron (2018), Forces of change: smart cities, Deloitte Insights, (accessed 22 March 2018),
available at: https://www2.deloitte.com/insights/us/en/focus/smart-city/overview.html (accessed
11 May 2019).
Eom, T., Lee, H.C. and Yi, J.H. (2013), “Secure and lightweight authentication protocol for mobile rfid
privacy”, Applied Mathematics and Information Sciences, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 421-426.
Ferrara, R. (2015), “The smart city and the green economy in Europe: a critical approach”, Energies,
Vol. 8 No. 6, pp. 4724-4734.
Gavrilova, T. and Kokoulina, L. (2015), “Smart services classification framework”, FedCSIS Position
Papers, pp. 203-207.
Ghaffarian Hoseini, A., Ibrahim, R. and Baharuddin, M.N. (2011), “Creating green culturally responsive
intelligent buildings: socio-cultural and environmental influences”, Intelligent Buildings
International, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 5-23.
Giffinger, R. and Gudrun, H. (2010), “Smart cities ranking: an effective instrument for the positioning
of the cities?”, ACE: Architecture, City and Environment, Vol. 4 No. 12, pp. 7-26.
Godoe, P. and Johansen, T. (2012), “Understanding adoption of new technologies: technology readiness
and technology acceptance as an integrated concept”, Journal of European Psychology Students,
Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 38-52.
Greenfield, A. (2013), “Against the smart city (The city is here for you to use Book 1)”, available
at: https://ppfir6ubr09.storage.googleapis.com/EjOnbSOrW8ogyUQucA09.pdf (accessed 6
March 2019).
Gretzel, U., Sigala, M., Xiang, Z. and Koo, C. (2015), “Smart tourism: foundations and developments”,
Electronic Markets, Vol. 25 No. 3, pp. 179-188.
Grubic, T. and Peppard, J. (2016), “Servitized manufacturing firms competing through remote
monitoring technology: an exploratory study”, Journal of Manufacturing Technology
Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 154-184.
Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E. and Tatham, R.L. (2006), Multivariate Data Analysis,
6th ed., Pearson Education, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Halpern, O., LeCavalier, J., Calvillo, N. and Pietsch, W. (2013), “Test-bed urbanism”, Public Culture,
Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 272-306.
Hammer, S., Wißner, M. and Andr
e, E. (2015), “Trust-based decision-making for smart and Tendencies of
adaptive environments”, User Modeling and User - Adapted Interaction, Vol. 25 No. 3,
pp. 267-293. technologies in
Haque, M.M., Chin, H.C. and Debnath, A.K. (2013), “Sustainable, safe, smart - three key elements of
SCS
Singapore’s evolving transport policies”, Transport Policy, Vol. 27, pp. 20-31.
Harris, S. (2018), Technology in Dubai – Birth of a Technology Hub, Orange Business Service,
published online on May 30, 2018, available at: https://www.orange-business.com/en/blogs/
technology-dubai-birth-technology-hub (accessed 21 November 2019). 173
Harrison, C., Eckman, B., Hamilton, R., Hartswick, P., Kalagnanam, J., Paraszczak, J. and Williams, P.
(2010), “Foundations for smarter cities”, IBM Journal of Research and Development, Vol. 54
No. 4, pp. 1-16.
Harrison, T., Onyia, O.P. and Tagg, S.K. (2014), “Towards a universal model of internet banking
adoption: initial conceptualization”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 32 No. 7,
pp. 647-687.
Hern
andez, B., Hidalgo, M.C., Salazar-Laplace, M.E. and Hess, S. (2007), “Place attachment and place
identity in natives and non-natives”, Journal of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 27 No. 4,
pp. 310-319.
H€ojer, M. and Wangel, J. (2015), “Smart sustainable cities: definition and challenges”, ICT Innovations
for Sustainability in Cham, Switzerland, Springer, Cham, pp. 333-349.
H€oller, J., Barnaghi, P., T€onjes, R., Hauswirth, M., Sheth, A. and Anantharam, P. (2014), “Citypulse:
real-time iot stream processing and large-scale data analytics for smart city applications”, Paper
Presented at the European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC), 25 May 2014, Crete, Greece,
available at: http://www.ict-citypulse.eu/doc/CityPulse_ExtendedAbstract_ESWC_EU.pdf
(accessed 6 March 2019).
Hsiao, R.L. (2003), “Technology fears: distrust and cultural persistence in electronic marketplace
adoption”, The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 169-199.
Hui, M.K., Zhao, X., Fan, X. and Au, K. (2004), “When does the service process matter? A test of two
competing theories”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 465-475.
James, O. (2009), “Evaluating the expectations disconfirmation and expectations anchoring
approaches to citizen satisfaction with local public services”, Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 107-123.
Johnson, H. (2018), “McDonald’s is bringing ordering kiosks to more of its stores”, Business Insider, 26
July, 2018, available online at: https://amp-businessinsider-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.
businessinsider.com/mcdonalds-kiosk-vs-cashiers-photos-2018-3?_gsa51&usqp5mq331AQCCAE
%3D&amp_js_v50.1#referrer5https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&_tf5From%20%
251%24s (accessed 14 May 2019).
Karahanna, E., Straub, D.W. and Chervany, N.L. (1999), “Information technology adoption across time:
a cross-sectional comparison of pre-adoption and post-adoption beliefs”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 23
No. 2, pp. 183-213.
Kernaghan, K. (2005), “Moving towards the virtual state: integrating services and service channels for
citizen-centred delivery”, International Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 71 No. 1,
pp. 119-131.
Kim, D., Lee, Y., Lee, J., Nam, J.K. and Chung, Y. (2014), “Development of Korean smartphone addiction
proneness scale for youth”, PloS One, Vol. 9 No. 5, p. e97920.
King, S. and Cotterill, S. (2007), “Transformational government? The role of information technology in
delivering citizen-centric local public services”, Local Government Studies, Vol. 33 No. 3,
pp. 333-354.
Kleijnen, M., De Ruyter, K. and Wetzels, M. (2007), “An assessment of value creation in mobile service
delivery and the moderating role of time consciousness”, Journal of Retailing, Vol. 83 No. 1,
pp. 33-46.
ITP Klein, B., Koenig, R. and Schmitt, G. (2017), “Managing urban resilience”, Informatik- Spektrum,
Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 35-45.
34,1
Kolodinsky, M., Hogarth, M. and Hilgert, A. (2004), “The adoption of electronic banking technologies
by US consumers”, International Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 238-259.
Koo, C., Chung, N. and Kim, H.W. (2015), “Examining explorative and exploitative uses of
smartphones: a user competence perspective”, Information Technology and People, Vol. 28 No. 1,
pp. 133-162.
174
Kotler, P. and Armstrong, G. (2014), Principles of Marketing, 15th ed., Pearson Education, Upper
Saddle River, NJ.
Lam, W.H., Li, Z.C., Huang, H.J. and Wong, S.C. (2006), “Modeling time-dependent travel choice
problems in road networks with multiple user classes and multiple parking facilities”,
Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Vol. 40 No. 5, pp. 368-395.
Lassar, M., Manolis, C. and Lassar, M. (2005), “The relationship between consumer innovativeness,
personal characteristics and online banking adoption”, International Journal of Bank Marketing,
Vol. 23 Nos 2-3, pp. 176-199.
Lee, J. and Lee, H. (2014), “Developing and validating a citizen-centric typology for smart city
services”, Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 31, pp. S93-S105.
Lee, J.W. (2010), “The roles of demographics on the perceptions of electronic commerce adoption”,
Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 71-89.
Lee, W. and Shin, S. (2018), “Effects of product smartness on satisfaction: focused on the perceived
characteristics of smartphones”, Journal of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce
Research, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 1-14.
Lin, J.S.C. and Hsieh, P.L. (2012), “Refinement of the technology readiness index scale: a replication
and cross-validation in the self-service technology context”, Journal of Service Management,
Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 34-53.
Lohse, G.L. and Spiller, P. (1998), “Electronic Shopping: designing online stores with effective
customer interfaces has a critical influence on traffic and sales”, Communications of the ACM,
Vol. 41 No. 7, pp. 81-89.
Lombardi, P., Giordano, S., Farouh, H. and Yousef, W. (2012), “Modelling the smart city performance”,
Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 137-149.
Lytras, M. and Visvizi, A. (2018), “Who uses smart city services and what to make of it: toward
interdisciplinary smart cities research”, Sustainability, Vol. 10 No. 6, p. 1998.
Ma, Q., Chan, A.H.S. and Chen, K. (2016), “Personal and other factors affecting acceptance of
smartphone technology by older Chinese adults”, Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 54 No. 1,
pp. 62-71.
Macke, J., Casagrande, R.M., Sarate, J.A.R. and Silva, K.A. (2018), “Smart city and quality of life:
citizens’ perception in a Brazilian case study”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 182 No. 1,
pp. 717-726.
Mah, D.N., Marinus van der Vleuten, J., Hills, P. and Tao, J. (2012), “Consumer perceptions of smart
grid development: results of a Hong Kong survey and policy implications”, Energy Policy,
Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 204-216.
Mathew, S.S., Atif, Y., Sheng, Q.Z. and Maamar, Z. (2011), “Web of things: description, discovery and
integration”, Proceedings - IEEE International Conferences on Internet of Things and Cyber,
Physical and Social Computing, iThings/CPSCom, Oct. 2011, Dalian, China, pp. 9-15.
Miller, M. (2015), The Internet of Things: How Smart TVs, Smart Cars, Smart Homes, and Smart
Cities Are Changing The World, Pearson Education, Indianapolis.
Morgeson, F.V. III., VanAmburg, D. and Mithas, S. (2011), “Misplaced trust? Exploring the structure of
the e-government-citizen trust relationship”, Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 257-283.
Mueter, M.L., Bitner, M.J., Ostrom, A.L. and Brown, S.W. (2005), “Choosing among alternative service Tendencies of
delivery modes: an investigation of customer trial of self-service technology”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 61-83. technologies in
Mulley, C. and Moutou, C.J. (2015), “Not too late to learn from the Sydney Olympics experience:
SCS
opportunities offered by multimodality in current transport policy”, Cities, Vol. 45, pp. 117-122.
Onyia, O.P. (2009), “Customer adoption of internet banking: a cross-national study in Scotland and
Nigeria of a proposed model of universal determinants”, PhD Thesis, University of Strathclyde,
Glasgow, available at: http://ethos.bl.uk/OrderDetails.do?uin5uk.bl.ethos.510806 (accessed 25 175
February 2019).
Onyia, O.P. and Tagg, S.K. (2011), “Effects of demographic factors on bank customers’ attitudes and
intention toward Internet banking adoption in a major developing African country”, Journal of
Financial Services Marketing, Vol. 16 Nos 3-4, pp. 294-315.
Pallant, J. (2007), SPSS Survival Manual: A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS for
Windows, 3rd ed., Open University Press McGraw-Hill Education, Berkshire.
Pan, G., Qi, G., Zhang, W., Li, S., Wu, Z and Yang, L.T. (2013), “Trace analysis and mining for smart
cities: issues, methods, and applications”, IEEE Communications Magazine, Vol. 51 No. 6,
pp. 120-126.
Parasuraman, A. and Colby, C.L. (2015), “An updated and streamlined technology readiness index:
TRI 2.0”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 59-74.
Peng, G.C.A., Nunes, M.B. and Zheng, L. (2017), “Impacts of low citizen awareness and usage in smart
city services: the case of London’s smart parking system”, Information System and e-Business
Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 845-876.
Pikkarainen, T., Pikkarainen, K., Karjaluoto, H. and Pahnila, S. (2004), “Consumer acceptance of online
Banking: an extension of the technology acceptance model”, Internet Research, Vol. 14 No. 3,
pp. 224-235.
Pinochet, L.H.S. and Romani, G.F. (2018), “Intention to live in a smart city based on its characteristics
in the perception by the young public”, Revista de Gest~ ao, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 73-92.
Polese, M., Dalla Cia, M., Mason, F., Peron, D., Chiariotti, F., Mahmoodi, T., Zorzi, M. and Zanella, A.
(2018), “Using smart city data in 5G self-organizing networks”, IEEE Internet of Things Journal,
Vol. 5 No. 2, pp. 645-654.
Price, L.L. and Ridgway, N.M. (1983), “Development of a scale to measure use innovativeness”, ACR
North American Advances.
Rogers, E.M. (1995), Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press, New York, NY.
Santosdiaz, R. (2018), “Five ways Dubai is becoming a global tech leader”, The National Newspaper, 3
October, 2018, available at: https://www.thenational.ae/business/technology/five-ways-dubai-is-
becoming-a-global-tech-leader-1.776515 (accessed 22, November 2019).
Sassen, S. (2016), “The global city: strategic site, new frontier”, Managing Urban Futures, Routledge,
Columbia University, New York, NY, pp. 89-104.
Schultz, S.K. and McShane, C. (1978), “To engineer the metropolis: sewers, sanitation, and city
planning in late-nineteenth-century America”, The Journal of American History, Vol. 65 No. 2,
pp. 389-411.
underlich, V. and Wangenheim, F. (2012), “Technology mediation in service delivery:
Schumann, H., W€
a new typology and an agenda for managers and academics”, Technovation, Vol. 32 No. 2,
pp. 133-143.
Sharma, G. and Baoku, L. (2013), “Customer satisfaction in Web 2.0 and information technology
development”, Information Technology and People, Vol. 26 No. 4, pp. 347-367.
Shin, D. (2015), “Effect of the customer experience on satisfaction with smartphones: assessing smart
satisfaction index with partial least squares”, Telecommunications Policy, Vol. 39 No. 8,
pp. 627-641.
ITP Sousa, R. and Voss, C.A. (2006), “Service quality in multichannel services employing virtual channels”,
Journal of Service Research, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 356-371.
34,1
Susanto, A., Chang, Y. and Ha, Y. (2015), “Determinants of continuance intention to use the smartphone
banking services”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 116 No. 3, pp. 508-525.
Townsend, A.M. (2013), Smart Cities: Big Data, Civic Hackers, and the Quest for a New Utopia, WW
Norton & Company, New York, NY.
176 Van den Bergh, J. and Viaene, S. (2015), “January. Key challenges for the smart city: turning ambition
into reality”, 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE, Hawaii,
pp. 2385-2394.
Venkatesh, V., Chan, F.K. and Thong, J.Y. (2012), “Designing e-government services: key service attributes
and citizens’ preference structures”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 30 Nos 1-2, pp. 116-133.
Waite, K. and Harrison, T. (2004), “Online Banking information: what we want and what we get”,
Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 67-79.
Walczuch, R., Lemmink, J. and Streukens, S. (2007), “The effect of service employees’ technology
readiness on technology acceptance”, Information and Management, Vol. 44, pp. 206-215.
Weerakkody, V., Irani, Z., Lee, H., Hindi, N. and Osman, I. (2016), “Are U.K. Citizens satisfied with
E-government services? Identifying and testing antecedents of satisfaction”, Information
Systems Management, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 331-343.
Weiser, M. (1991), “The computer for the 21st century”, Scientific American, Vol. 265 No. 3. pp. 94-104.
White-Baker, E., Al-Gahtani, S.S. and Hubona, G.S. (2007), “The effects of gender and age on new
technology implementation in a developing country: testing the theory of planned behavior
(TPB)”, Information Technology and People, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 352- 375.
Wirtz, B.W. and Kurtz, O.T. (2016), “Local e-government and user satisfaction with city portals–the
citizens’ service preference perspective”, International Review on Public and Nonprofit
Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 265-287.
Wu, F., Li, X., Sangaiah, A.K., Kumari, S., Shen, J. and Khan, M.K. (2017), “An efficient authentication
and key agreement scheme with user anonymity for roaming service in smart city”, Personal
and Ubiquitous Computing, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 791-805.
W€
underlich, N.V., Heinonen, K., Ostrom, A.L., Patricio, L., Sousa, R., Voss, C. and Lemmink, J.G. (2015),
““Futurizing” smart service: implications for service researchers and managers”, Journal of
Services Marketing, Vol. 29 No. 6-7, pp. 442-447.
underlich, N.V., Wangenheim, F.V. and Bitner, M.J. (2013), “High tech and high touch: a framework
W€
for understanding user attitudes and behaviors related to smart interactive services”, Journal of
Service Research, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 3-20.
Xiong, J. and Zuo, M. (2019), “How does family support work when older adults obtain information
from mobile internet?”, Information Technology and People, available at: doi: 10.1108/ITP-02-
2018-0060https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-02-2018-0060 (accessed 28 May 2019).
Yeh, H. (2017), “The effects of successful ICT-based smart city services: from citizens’ perspectives”,
Government Information Quarterly, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 556-565.
Zeithaml, V.A. (2002), “Service excellence in electronic channels”, Managing Service Quality: An
International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 135-139.
Zeithaml, V.A., Bitner, M.J. and Gremler, D. (2013), Service Marketing, 6th ed., Open University Press
McGraw-Hill Education, Berkshire.

Further reading
Dubai Department of Tourism (2019), “Dubai smart technologies”, business in Dubai webpage,
available at: https://www.visitdubai.com/en/business-in-dubai/why-dubai/dubai-smart-tech
nologies (accessed 22 November 2019).
Lin, C.C. and Hsu, C.L. (2016), “An empirical examination of consumer adoption of Internet of Things Tendencies of
services: network externalities and concern for information privacy perspectives”, Computers in
Human Behavior, Vol. 62, pp. 516-527. technologies in
Shandwik, W. (2015), “Innovation trends report: networked smart cities”, Unpublished Manuscript,
SCS
available at: http://www.webershandwick.com/uploads/news.files/WS-Networked-Smart-Cities-
Report.pdf (accessed 6 March 2019).

177
Corresponding author
Taghreed Abu Salim can be contacted at: TaghreedAbuSalim@uowdubai.ac.ae

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com