Sustainable Cities and Society 80 (2022) 103794

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Sustainable Cities and Society

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scs

Acceptance of IoT-based and sustainability-oriented smart city services: A

mixed methods study
Fırat Beştepe *, Sevgi Özkan Yildirim
Graduate School of Informatics, Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Smart cities (SC) have emerged as a hope for urbans that face challenges and sustainability issues due to rapid
Smart city urbanization. SC services can make the daily routines more efficient, create more public value, and improve the
Internet of things urban sustainability and life quality (QoL). However, before any technology enters the market, the factors
Sustainability
making adoption easier for the end-users should be examined. Here, we aim to examine the acceptance of IoT-
Quality of life
Mixed methods
based and sustainability-oriented SC services. This study proposes a SC services acceptance model (SCSAM), built
Technology acceptance over the human, technology and institution dimensions of SC. We tested SCSAM by using structural equation
modeling via 640 survey-respondents. The quantitative findings were supported by qualitative analysis of 10
semi-structured interviews. Findings revealed that personal innovativeness, social influence, quality of service
(QoS) and perceived trust are the significant determinants of use intention. Interestingly cost has no significant
effect and demographics do not contribute much on the acceptance of smart services. This is the only study in the
literature adopting both quantitative and qualitative analysis to examine SC services adoption via an acceptance
model based on the SC’s multidimensional structure. Our findings would help city administrators and service
providers to improve urban sustainability and QoL.

1. Introduction
The world needs more innovative ideas to deal with the challenges of
the ever-increasing urban population, and the concept of smart city (SC)
is a promising option emerging as a solution to the sustainability
problems arising from rapid urbanization (Toli & Murtagh, 2020;
Yigitcanlar et al., 2019). As cities become smarter, thanks to
technology-based solutions offered to citizens, the development of cities
and, therefore, the entire country’s economy are accelerating (Foster &
Rosenzweig, 2010). In fact, smart cities aim to improve the daily life
practices of citizens in urban areas. However, while sustainability is seen
as an important goal in most SC strategies, not all SC initiatives support
urban sustainability (Jong et al., 2015; Yigitcanlar et al., 2019). SC is a
broad concept and does not yet have a universally accepted definition.
Nevertheless, we may define it simply as the city that uses technology
and data to make daily life activities more efficient, sensitive and sus­
tainable (Faller, 2015). On the other hand, not to overlook the sus­
tainability dimension, the International Telecommunication Union
(ITU) revised the concept of "Smart City" as "Smart Sustainable City"
(Ibrahim et al., 2018) and defined it as follows:
“A Smart Sustainable City is an innovative city that uses Information and
Communication Technologies (ICTs) and other means to improve quality of
life, efficiency of urban operation and services, and competitiveness, while
ensuring that it meets the needs of present and future generations with respect
to economic, social, environmental as well as cultural aspects” (ITU-T
FG-SSC, 2014).
This definition perfectly aligns with the main perspective of our
study, as it emphasizes both sustainability-related issues and quality of
life (QoL). In fact, the ultimate goal of SC initiatives should be to create
more liveable cities in more sustainable conditions because cities cannot
be really smart without being sustainable (Yigitcanlar et al., 2019).
Urban sustainability has three main dimensions: environmental, eco­
nomic and social (Lehtonen, 2004). Although especially
sustainability-oriented SC definitions contain a strong social dimension,
technology usually comes first in SC initiatives, and the solution of social
problems remains in the background (Toli & Murtagh, 2020). However,
contrary to popular belief, equipping a city with technology is not
enough to make it smart (Yigitcanlar et al., 2019) because the concept of
SC also has human and institution dimensions apart from technology
(Nam & Pardo, 2011), and 6 main characteristics as people, life,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: bestepe.firat@metu.edu.tr (F. Beştepe), sevgiozk@metu.edu.tr (S.Ö. Yildirim).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.103794
Received 27 July 2021; Received in revised form 19 January 2022; Accepted 16 February 2022
Available online 18 February 2022
2210-6707/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
F. Beştepe and S.Ö. Yildirim
environment, governance, economy, and mobility (Giffinger et al.,
2007). Due to developing life quality expectations of different con­
sumers, diversity of application areas, large number of data sources and
stakeholders, and rapidly developing technology, smart sustainable city
solutions may have multiple versions, variants and upgrades (Hefnawy
et al., 2018). Sustainability is strongly associated with QoL, and there
are many studies in the literature defining smart sustainable cities from
the QoL perspective (Bibri, 2018). In their study, where they analyzed
the differences in urban and rural QoL, Ma et al. (2020) used a QoL index
based on economy, society and environment, explicitly the dimensions
of sustainability. Like SC, QoL is a complex and multi-dimensional
concept with no agreed definition (Steg & Gifford, 2005; Wey, 2019).
However, we can consider the QoL as an overall composition of people’s
main living standards (Toli & Murtagh, 2020). Likewise, urban QoL
mainly relates to assessing urban living conditions according to physical
and non-physical needs based on the consciousness, experiences, and
psychological feelings led by the interaction between people and envi­
ronment in urban areas (Wey, 2019). Therefore, the QoL expectation is
among the important factors discussed in this study, along with
sustainability.
The development of the SC concept has accelerated with the spread
of the Internet of Things (IoT) technology, which can simply be defined
as a network of smart and connected objects that communicate in real-
time over IP-based communication protocols. Smart sustainable cities
based on IoT and related technologies, that have the potential to
transform the urban areas (Ibrahim et al., 2018), are a concept that is
needed and likely to become widespread in the future (Bibri, 2018). IoT
and SC together are disruptive technologies, and before any new tech­
nology is presented, it is necessary to explore the factors that make it
easier for people to accept it. Since user attitude is important in the
diffusion of technology, the main acceptance factors should be under­
stood and considered at all phases of the technology life cycle. In this
way, more human-centric SC services can be developed according to the
needs of the citizens. However, despite the importance of this topic, little
work has been done on the factors facilitating the adoption of IoT-based
SC services (Bestepe & Ozkan, 2019). Therefore, in this study, we aim to
explore major motivations for the use of sustainability-oriented SC ser­
vices based on IoT technology.
Considering that well-known theories or pre-defined models in the
literature may not be sufficient to evaluate the adoption process of smart
services offered under the multidimensional context of SC, a completely
original model is proposed in this mixed methods study, in which
quantitative and qualitative analyses are used together based on the
sequential explanatory design. As our main contribution, we developed
a unique adoption model, Smart City Services Acceptance Model
(SCSAM), built on the SC’s human, technology, and institutional di­
mensions. Additionally, we did not find it appropriate to analyze the
broad concept of smart cities as a whole or to examine the acceptance of
a specific smart service. Because considering the concept of SC as a
whole would make it difficult for citizens to evaluate. On the other hand,
examining the adoption of a single smart service would not give an idea
for SC services in general. Therefore, this study specifically examined
the adoption of IoT-based and sustainability-oriented SC services. The
analysis results showed that all hypothesized relationships, except for
the impact of cost on use intention, are supported by the data. Our model
mainly introduces that the social environment, and trust perceived by
citizens significantly impact the successful adoption of SC services.
2. Theory and methodology
The quantitative approach evaluates the problem with numerical
data that can be statistically analyzed. If it is aimed to generalize the
results while measuring variables such as attitude, opinion and
behavior, the quantitative research method that requires a larger sample
size is preferred (Creswell, 2015). In quantitative research, much more
structured data collection methods are used than qualitative research
2
Sustainable Cities and Society 80 (2022) 103794
(Smith, 1983). For example, structured surveys can be applied to re­
spondents online, in paper form, via kiosk-like devices, even face-to-face
or phone calls. Beside, longitudinal studies and systematic observations
are some other data collection methods used in quantitative research.
On the other hand, qualitative study, a type of research whose pri­
mary purpose is to explore the underlying causes, ideas and motivations,
typically requires a smaller sample size than quantitative analysis
(Patton, 1990). The qualitative sample size is typically smaller than that
of quantitative research, but should be large enough to explain the
phenomenon under investigation. For phenomenological studies, the
sample size is suggested as 5–25 by Creswell (1998) and at least six by
Morse (1994). However the number of participants required should ul­
timately depend on when saturation is reached (Creswell, 1998; Morse,
1994). Qualitative analysis, especially in mixed design, is used to reveal
trends in behavior, thinking, and opinions and explain the problem in
more detail, providing insight into the problem and helping to develop
hypotheses for quantitative research (Creswell & Clark, 2017).
When the researchers aim to analyze the research problem in detail,
quantitative or qualitative methods alone may not be sufficient to cap­
ture various perspectives and provide a satisfactory explanation to the
research problem. In such cases, mixed methods could be preferred,
because using quantitative and qualitative approaches together could
provide complete and more powerful analysis thanks to the strengths of
both methods (Greene et al., 1989; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). Also,
using multiple data sources and methods makes it possible to gain more
evidence and a deeper understanding of a problem. In this way, it pro­
vides results that can be evaluated together and obtained from different
points of view regarding the underlying cause of the problem (Creswell
& Clark, 2017). For all these reasons, we decided to use a mixed methods
design in this study to explore in-depth the acceptance factors of
IoT-based and sustainability-oriented smart city services.
2.1. Study design
Many authors in the literature see pragmatism as the most appro­
priate stance for mixed methods design (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 2003).
As a theoretical perspective based on epistemology, pragmatism values
both objective and subjective knowledge (Howe, 1988) and provides an
epistemological reasoning for the use of both quantitative and qualita­
tive methods (Onwuegbuzie et al., 2009). Therefore, based on the
pragmatist stance and to utilize both quantitative and qualitative
methods, we decided to analyze our research problem with a mixed
methods design and adopted explanatory sequential design. Sequential
Explanatory Mixed Methods Design, adopted in this study, is a very
straightforward design, as illustrated in Fig. 1 below (Wu, 2012). Ac­
cording to this design, which is very popular among researchers, two
consecutive phases, quantitative and qualitative, are implemented
respectively. In the first phase, quantitative data is collected and
analyzed, and then the qualitative phase is built and applied based on
the quantitative results that need to be explained in more detail (Cres­
well et al., 2003; Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998). Therefore, in this type of
design, the qualitative stage mostly depends on quantitative results.
2.2. Quantitative phase
Quantitative research is the systematic examination of phenomena
by collecting and statistically analyzing quantifiable data. Quantitative
data, collected by using sampling methods via surveys, polls, question­
naires, etc., can be represented in numerical form. In the quantitative
phase of this study, the developed hypotheses were tested through the
proposed adoption model, SCSAM, and online survey data.
2.2.1. Hypotheses development
Understanding the needs of individuals and the acceptance process is
essential to any business. This understanding will help develop new
technologies and services that are more easily adopted by end-users. So,
F. Beştepe and S.Ö. Yildirim
Fig. 1. Adapted form of explanatory sequential mixed methods design Source: (Wu, 2012).
there are many theories to understand the factors influencing end-users’
decision to accept or reject new technologies. Theory of Reasoned Ac­
tion (TRA), based on social psychology, is one of the most fundamental
theories of human behavior. It states that behavioral intention to use
(ItoU) a technology is dependent upon potential users’ attitude towards
the behavior and the social influence (SI) related to the behavior
(Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Technology Acceptance Model (TAM), prob­
ably the most widely used model in the literature, is an adapted form of
TRA and primarily developed to predict information technology adop­
tion. TAM states that an individual’s behavioral ItoU a technology is
dependent on that technology’s usefulness and ease of use (Davis, 1989).
Ajzen developed the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) by adding
perceived behavioral control to TRA (Ajzen, 1991). Diffusion of Inno­
vation (DOI) Theory, developed by Rogers in 1962, is one of the oldest
social science theories. In DOI theory, there are five main factors
influencing the adoption of an innovation: relative advantage, compat­
ibility, complexity, trialability and observability (Rogers, 1983). Ven­
katesh et al. (2003) has developed the Unified Acceptance and Use of
Technology Theory (UTAUT), which identifies four key factors (per­
formance expectancy, effort expectancy, SI, and facilitating conditions)
and four moderators (age, gender, experience, and voluntariness to use)
by synthesizing important models in the literature (Venkatesh et al.,
2003, 2016).
Although many well-known and important theories exist in the
literature, SC’s broad and multi-dimensional structure requires an
original adoption model covering the technological, human-based and
institutional aspects. Innovation initially includes some uncertainties
and accordingly risky situations for the user. But individuals with high
personal innovativeness (PI) are more willing to try novelties including
unknowns (Rogers, 1983). Rogers and Shoemaker originally defined PI
as an observable factor in the adoption process (Rogers & Shoemaker,
1974). From an information systems perspective, one can define PI as
the willingness of end-users to try and use a new technology, and it can
shape individuals’ perceptions of innovation (Okumus et al., 2018).
Previous studies have discussed the influence of PI on the acceptance of
SC services (Chatterjee & Kar, 2017; Yeh, 2017). Yeh (2017) reported
that citizens with higher PI accept SC services relatively earlier than
those with lower PI. Similarly, Chatterjee and Kar (2017) showed that PI
level of citizens significantly affect the SC acceptance. Based on this
literature, the following hypothesis about PI, considered under the
human dimension, is developed:
Hypothesis 1: PI has a positive impact on ItoU SC services.
In the simplest sense, an innovation is expected to be cost-effective to
achieve broad utilization. Cost refers to concerns about the expenses of
purchasing, using, and repairing a particular product or service (Park
et al., 2017). Since TAM has some shortcomings with consumers who
have to make their self-assessments on the costs and benefits of using a
technology (Kim et al., 2017), the value-added modeling (VAM) has
emerged that examines technology acceptance through perceived ben­
efits (usefulness and enjoyment) and perceived sacrifices (technicality
and perceived fee). A survey study examining the factors that affect the
adoption of new technologies has shown that cost is one of the biggest
concerns, especially for older users (Peek et al., 2014). Another very
recent study reveals that users’ intentions to use smart wearables are
3
Sustainable Cities and Society 80 (2022) 103794
influenced by five factors: satisfaction, pleasure, usefulness, flow status
and cost (Park, 2020). Based on this literature, the following hypothesis
about perceived cost (COS), considered under the human dimension, is
developed:
Hypothesis 2: COS negatively affects users’ ItoU SC services.
When a technology is not yet widespread, society can play a critical
role in encouraging or hampering its usage. Important people in users’
social circle can play an effective role in individuals’ decisions (Hsu &
Lu, 2004). Therefore, the impact of SI should also be considered to un­
derstand the adoption process of a new technology. In its simplest form,
SI is an extent to which behavior is influenced by the beliefs and actions
of important people in the social environment of individuals (Alaiad &
Zhou, 2017; Venkatesh et al., 2003). TRA states that behavioral ItoU a
product or system depends on the attitude of potential users towards
behavior and the SI related to the behavior (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975).
Many previous studies in the literature have confirmed the positive and
strong relationship between SI and ItoU (Gao & Bai, 2014; Sener et al.,
2019). Based on the literature reviewed here, the following hypothesis
about SI, considered under the human dimension, is developed:
Hypothesis 3: SI positively affects the ItoU SC services.
Providing better quality of service (QoS) to customers is an impor­
tant strategy for the success of a business organization (Parasuraman
et al., 1985). Since QoS plays an important role in forming user
perception towards technology, it has been used as an influencing factor
of ItoU urban technologies in adoption studies (Chatterjee & Kar, 2017;
Yeh, 2017). Parasuraman et al. (1985) proposed the five-dimensional
SERVQUAL model (tangibles, assurance, responsiveness, reliability,
and empathy), frequently used in service marketing. However, many
researchers have criticized this model for not giving enough weight to
the customer perspective (Cronin & Taylor, 1992; Finn & Charles,
1991). On the other hand, QoS for software products, defined in ISO/IEC
9126 (2001), includes six elements: functionality, reliability, usability,
efficiency, maintainability, and portability. However, these factors
largely depend on the type of user. From end-users’ perspective, QoS is
an important determinant of user satisfaction and acceptance (Wang &
Liao, 2008), and it mainly depends on functionality, reliability, usability
and efficiency (Bevan, 1999). It is also important for government
e-services to create a trusted service perception among citizens and
establish a trusted system for QoS management (Belanche et al., 2012).
Hypothesis 4: QoS of SC services positively affects citizens’ ItoU.
Hypothesis 5: The quality of SC services positively affects citizens’
trust in responsible parties.
End-users’ awareness of information security threats and privacy
risks has increased recently. Therefore, collecting, managing, moni­
toring and analyzing personal data in smart systems may raise privacy
concern (PC) and negatively affect perceived trust (PT), one of the key
determinants in adopting a new technology (Yeh, 2017). IoT-based
services in smart cities perform many digitized operations that require
users’ private data. In this sense, including privacy in SC acceptance
models is quite reasonable. Therefore, citizens may be concerned about
the security of their personal data, and of course, such concerns can
negatively affect end-users’ intention to adopt SC services (Chatterjee &
Kar, 2017). Several prior studies in the literature showed that PC is a
determinant for users’ ItoU smart technologies and services (Kazancoglu
F. Beştepe and S.Ö. Yildirim
& Aydin, 2018; Yang et al., 2018). In many other studies, the impact of
PC on ItoU has been analyzed through trust (Chatterjee & Kar, 2017;
Yeh, 2017). The following hypothesis about PC, considered under
institution dimension, is developed based on relevant literature:
Hypothesis 6: PC negatively affects PT.
Smart services usually need personal data to perform their functions,
so users accept a certain level of risk, when using these services,
assuming that responsible institutions and service providers take the
necessary actions. If citizens frequently use a smart service or see that
others are using it safely, a sense of trust develops in their minds, and
such an increased trust level makes it easier for them to adopt these
services (Chatterjee & Kar, 2017). In many technology acceptance
studies, PT was found to be an important predictor for end-users’ ItoU
(Belanche et al., 2012; Dutot et al., 2019; Miltgen et al., 2013). Belanche
et al. (2012) stated that trust positively influences behavioral intentions
since it reduces uncertainty and increases the expectation of satisfaction.
Several prior studies also showed that an increased level of trust would
positively impact the usage of SC services (Chatterjee & Kar, 2017; Yeh,
2017). Based on the literature reviewed here, the following hypothesis
about PT, considered under institution dimension, is developed:
Hypothesis 7: PT has a positive impact on users’ ItoU SC services.
Behavioral ItoU is a measure of the probability that a person will
perform a certain use behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980). In the simplest
form, it is the desire to use. Motivations, such as achieving better living
conditions and improving QoL, can affect people’s ItoU a new technol­
ogy. SC services ultimately aim to improve citizens’ QoL. While there are
societies in the world that have difficulties in even accessing food,
drinking water and medicine, it is not easy to find a QoL definition valid
for everyone (Toli & Murtagh, 2020). Urban QoL, which is a multidi­
mensional composite indicator of people’s living standards and status, is
also a measure of the level of social civilization and economic devel­
opment as well as the vital benefits and welfare of city residents (Ma
et al., 2020). In the literature, it is possible to come across many models
and tools that define the QoL factors from different perspectives, such as
the Quality of Life Scale (QOLS) and World Health Organization Quality
of Life (WHOQOL). In the 1970s, an American psychologist John Fla­
nagan proposed QOLS model, a 15-item tool measuring five conceptual
QoL areas: material and physical well-being, relationships with other
people, social, community and civic activities, personal development
and fulfillment, and recreation (Flanagan, 1978). Another instrument
for assessing the QoL is the Quality-of-Life Indicators, a
multi-dimensional (8 + 1) model developed by the European Union (EU)
based on academic studies and practical applications. The first 8 di­
mensions of this model (i.e., material living conditions, productive or
main activity, health, education, leisure and social interactions, eco­
nomic security and physical safety, governance, and basic rights, natural
and living environment) relate to the ability of citizens to ensure QoL
according to their criteria. The final dimension of the model (i.e., +1),
“overall life experience”, expresses the person’s perception of QoL (i.e.,
life satisfaction, emotions, meaning of life). When technological ad­
vances and innovative services are used correctly and in place, they can
improve the overall QoL of end-users (Chatterjee & Kar, 2017; van der
Graaf & Veeckman, 2014; Yeh, 2017). In other words, making the world
more sustainable and smarter with information and technology is the
key to improving the QoL and social progress. In line with this notion,
the SC concept aims to create sustainable socioeconomic prosperity and
ultimately improve the living environment for citizens (Bestepe &
Ozkan, 2019; Yeh, 2017). Based on this literature, the following hy­
pothesis is developed:
Hypothesis 8: Intention to use SC services positively affects users’
expectancy on QoL and living standards.
According to DOI theory, demographics are critical factors that affect
users’ ItoU a new technology. In the literature, there are many tech­
nology acceptance studies examining the impact of demographics,
especially gender, age and education (Belanche et al., 2015, 2016;
Chatterjee & Kar, 2017; Karahoca et al., 2017; Shin, 2017; Yeh, 2017;
4
Sustainable Cities and Society 80 (2022) 103794
Ylipulli et al., 2014). Therefore, in SCSAM, we used demographic fea­
tures to better explain the acceptance of IoT-based and
sustainability-oriented SC services by end users: the level of education of
participants as the control variable and, gender, age, and frequency of
use as the grouping variables. In the current study, our research model,
SCSAM, developed based on the relevant literature, is depicted in Fig. 2.
All the model constructs, such as personal innovativeness, trust, privacy,
and quality of life, are based on intentions, perceptions, expectancy, or
concerns. As these intangibles are difficult to measure directly, we
constructed our model, SCSAM, with latent variables.
2.2.2. Quantitative analysis
We used an online questionnaire provided in Appendix A, based on a
five-point Likert scale between 1 ("strongly disagree") and 5 ("strongly
agree"), to test the hypotheses and verify the proposed model SCSAM.
Since our research was limited to only Turkish citizens in Turkey, a
professional translator, who is familiar with the field of informatics,
translated our questionnaire into Turkish. In the questionnaire, we also
gathered demographic features of the participants, such as age, gender,
education, and frequency of using SC services. Since it would be very
difficult for the participants to evaluate SC services as a whole, we only
examined the acceptance of IoT-based and sustainability-oriented SC
services in this study.
Whether the items in the questionnaire are compatible with the
model constructs was confirmed by focus group method. The opinions of
academicians and researchers working in the field of information sys­
tems and technology acceptance were consulted, and the construct
validity was tried to be ensured. After obtaining the approval of the
Human Research Ethics Committee of Middle East Technical University
(METU)1, a pilot study was carried out based on homogeneous conve­
nience sampling. We conveniently and homogeneously sampled 50
people with different demographics to represent the target population of
the main survey. Based on the feedback from the focus group and the
pilot study, we made some minor changes on items, mostly in wording,
and finalized model constructs.
We calculated the minimum sample size for structural equation
modeling (SEM) as 444 (Soper, 2020) and aimed to reach 500 partici­
pants with a response rate of at least 50%. To simplify the preparation
and analysis of the data, we preferred an online questionnaire on Google
Forms to conduct our survey. We randomly distributed the question­
naire to nearly 1000 Turkish citizens over eighteen, most of whom live
in Istanbul, Ankara and Izmir, Turkey’s largest and smartest cities. Since
these cities have been equipped with many IoT-based smart city services
for years, all respondents are users of these services or familiar with
them at least. To ensure the probability sampling, the people, who came
to several big shopping centers, supermarkets and hospitals or applied to
the information desks there, were asked to participate in the survey. We
obtained 643 responses to our online questionnaire conducted between
8 January and 8 February 2020. We had three variables with missing
values, all less than 5%, so we replaced missing values with the median
for ordinal scaled variables and the mean for continuous scaled vari­
ables. After removing three unengaged responses, we obtained the 640
valid responses, that satisfy the criteria in the literature for minimum
sample size and sufficient response rate for SEM analysis. The de­
mographic features of these 640 respondents are summarized in Table 1.
First, we calculated Cronbach’s α values and conducted exploratory
factor analysis (EFA) to examine the internal reliability of items and
constructs. Then, by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), we tested the
measurement model for reliability and validity (discriminant and
convergent validity). Finally, after obtaining satisfactory goodness of fit
for the measurement model, we analyzed the structural model to test
hypotheses and get the path coefficients. For all these analyses, the
SPSSTM Statistics 25 and AMOSTM 24 tools were used. AMOSTM is a very
1
http://ueam.metu.edu.tr/hsec-forms
F. Beştepe and S.Ö. Yildirim Sustainable Cities and Society 80 (2022) 103794

Fig. 2. Proposed research model (SCSAM).

participants were determined by maximal variation sampling based on

Table 1
gender, education level and total income to differentiate participants at
Demographic features of main survey respondents.
the highest level. We fully informed purposefully sampled participants
Gender Education Level Age about the study, and were obtained their voluntary approvals for
n % n % participation. The interviews were conducted over the Zoom video­
Female 281 43.9 High school 122 19.1 Mean 38.0 conferencing platform (Zoom) due to the Covid-19 outbreak, except for
or below ±Std ± 9.6 one participant who stated that he/she could not use the Zoom. During
Male 359 56.1 Undergraduate - 363 56.7 Min 18 the interviews over the Zoom, audio and video were recorded with the
graduate consent of the participants, and the researcher informed the participants
Post Graduate 155 24.2 Max 70
that the recordings would be kept in secure folders and would remain
confidential.
user-friendly and widely used tool to carry out SEM analysis. As our data
set has no missing data and satisfies the normal distribution assumptions 2.3.1. Qualitative analysis
substantially based on skewness and kurtosis, AMOSTM is an appropriate We used MAXQDA-Plus™ software to evaluate and interpret semi-
tool for our study. Additionally, our highly large enough sample size structured interview recordings and coding methods such as first cod­
provides us the opportunity to use AMOSTM safely. ing, sentence coding and line by line coding (Charmaz, 2008). After the
first stage coding, a code book containing the important words, patterns,
and themes in the interview records was created using the inductive
2.3. Qualitative phase reasoning method (Creswell & Clark, 2017), and we interpreted their
meanings. Since a priori coding is not recommended because of the
People may have information in their minds that cannot be obtained restrictiveness of pre-defined codes (Creswell et al., 2007), open coding
through structured surveys or observations, and one of the ways to ac­ approach was adopted here. Since the reliability and validity of the
cess this information is through qualitative techniques (Patton, 2005). qualitative study is an issue that is always questioned with suspicion, it
Qualitative analysis, which is not the opposite of quantitative analysis, is possible to find studies that suggest solutions to this issue in the
but a different philosophy, involves collecting and analyzing literature (Burns, 2000; Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Recker, 2013). Interview
non-numerical data (e.g. audio, video or text) to explore the concepts, protocols could contribute to the validity of the qualitative study
ideas or experiences (Creswell & Clark, 2017). In this way, it may be (Creswell & Clark, 2017). In addition, using more than one technique
possible to gather in-depth information about the research topic or reach such as note taking, coding (Recker, 2013), and contextual analysis
new research ideas. (Mishler, 1991) methods also contribute to qualitative reliability since it
In this study, we decided to gather qualitative data via semi- allows cross checking of answers.
structured interviews with purposefully sampled online survey partici­ To enhance the trustworthiness of the qualitative data, four
pant to explore the quantitative results in-depth. The questions used in conditions-criteria were proposed: “credibility”, “transferability”,
the interviews are given in Appendix B. Purposeful sampling is the se­ “dependability”, and “conformability” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Recker,
lection of participants deliberately among the individuals who know the 2013). In this study, two independent researchers reviewed the codes
phenomenon or primary concept under research (Creswell & Clark, and themes, and their coding structures were sufficiently similar to that
2017). In qualitative research, it can be used to select individuals who of the author. In addition, we took notes regarding the interview envi­
can supply the needed data to explore the main topic (Palinkas et al., ronment, the interviewee’s state and attitude during the interview, and
2015). For the semi-structured interviews, an interview protocol was the context was analyzed by triangulation. In this way, the credibility of
prepared to help the researcher control the flow of dialog with the the qualitative data was tried to be achieved. Finally, to meet the
interviewee and conduct the interviews in harmony. After getting the confirmability, we shared the transcription and findings with a total of
approval of the Human Research Ethics Committee of METU for two interviewees, a female and a male, randomly selected from
one-on-one semi-structured interviews in November 2020, 10

5
F. Beştepe and S.Ö. Yildirim Sustainable Cities and Society 80 (2022) 103794

interviewees, and they were requested to confirm that the codes and Table 3
themes that the researcher developed, were valid (Corbin & Strauss, Factor loadings and composite reliabilities.
2014). Both participants provided feedback to verify whether the codes Construct Item Factor Loading Composite Reliability
obtained from their interviews reflect their perspectives and are
Personal Innovativeness PI1 0.765 0.83
appropriate. PI2 0.884
PI3 0.835
3. Results PI4 0.776
Perceived Cost COS1 0.893 0.87
COS2 0.793
3.1. Quantitative results COS3 0.894
COS4 0.802
The Cronbach’s α value, an internal consistency measure and Social Influence SI1 0.892 0.93
considered "acceptable" of 0.70 or above, is higher than 0.80 for all the SI2 0.923
SI3 0.898
constructs, as listed in Table 2. These results suggest that the items in
Quality of Service QoS4 0.852 0.85
each construct are closely related and have relatively high internal QoS5 0.812
consistency. Only the items of SI produced too high Cronbach’s α value QoS6 0.901
(0.98), implying some redundancy, but we did not see it as a major Privacy Concerns PC1 0.867 0.93
problem at this stage. PC2 0.944
PC3 0.899
PC4 0.904
3.1.1. Measurement model Perceived Trust PT4 0.891 0.83
During the EFA, first, we tested the appropriateness and adequacy of PT5 0.953
our sampling data by KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin) test and obtained KMO PT6 0.742
Intention to Use ItoU2 0.847 0.94
measure of sampling adequacy as 0.882, which implies the sufficiency of
ItoU3 0.910
our sampling data. With the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) in ItoU4 0.898
EFA, we achieved 72.2% explained total variance with 8 components as Quality of Life QoL1 0.713 0.93
defined in the initial construction of our theoretical model. Additionally, QoL2 0.948
in EFA, we obtained a very good structured and clear Pattern Matrix by QoL3 0.910

using PCA as the extraction method and Promax with Kaiser Normali­
zation as a rotation method. This pattern matrix fully matched with the
theoretical design of our model with 8 components. The factor loadings
of all the items in our pattern matrix were above 0.70 for their con­
structs, as listed in Table 3. Also, there was no item in the pattern matrix
with a cross-loading greater than 0.4. These results imply that all items
load more highly on their construct than others. The composite reli­
ability, another indicator for the internal consistency, was also assessed
for each construct, and accordingly, all values were greater than the 0.70
cut-off point, as listed in Table 3.
Based on the results of CFA on the measurement model, some items
of QoS (items 1,2,3 and 7) and ItoU (item 1) were removed from the
dataset to meet the required convergent and discriminant validity and
overcome the high cross-loading problem. Therefore, QoS, consisting of
functionality, reliability, usability, and efficiency dimensions, has
essentially turned into QoS-usability. The average variance extracted
(AVE) values exceed the 0.5 threshold value, as shown in Table 4.
Together with the proper factor loadings, these results indicate that the
measurement model has adequate convergence reliability. Additionally,
all inter-construct correlations are smaller than the square root of the
corresponding AVE, the diagonal entries of the matrix in Table 4. This
means that each construct is more strongly related to its own than
others. In other words, constructs in the measurement model are
different, i.e., all constructs have sufficient discriminant validity. As
seen from Table 5, all fit indices indicate that the measurement model
fits the data perfectly. These results show that convergent validity and
discriminant validity are provided, no multi-collinearity problem exists,
and SEM analysis could be conducted safely.
Table 2
Construct reliabilities.
Construct Cronbach’s Alpha
Personal Innovativeness – PI 0.84
Perceived Cost – COS 0.87
Social Influence – SI 0.98
Quality of Service (Usability) – QoS 0.84
Privacy Concern – PC 0.93
Perceived Trust – PT 0,84
Intention to Use – ItoU 0.93
Quality of Life – QoL 0.93
3.1.2. Structural model
The structural model transformed from the measurement model was
tested with the same set of fit indices listed in Table 5. Model fit indices
and required thresholds indicate that the structural model also fits
perfectly with data as for the measurement model. According to the
results of SEM analysis, shown in Fig. 3, all hypothesized relationships in
the proposed research model SCSAM, except for the COS, are signifi­
cantly accepted. Additionally, standardized residuals could be evaluated
as another diagnostic tool of model-fit within the AMOSTM. Essentially,
residuals refer to individual differences between observed data and data
estimated by a model. That is, a better fit model produces smaller re­
siduals. Standardized residuals can be positive or negative and do not
depend on the measurement scale, as they are standardized. Typically,
standardized residuals with an absolute value of less than 2.5 do not
imply any problem. However, standardized residuals higher than 4
imply a potentially unacceptable level of error. In such a case, deleting
the relevant item from the model could be an appropriate response. In
the standardized residual covariance matrix of our model, there is no
value greater than 4, and almost all values are less than 2.5. When
considered with other model fit parameters, this result indicates that our
model perfectly fits our dataset.
As illustrated in Fig. 3, PI (β=0.13, p<0.01), SI (β=0.35, p<0.001),
QoS-usability (β=0.13, p<0.05) and PT (β=0.26, p<0.001) have a sig­
nificant positive impact on ItoU SC services. However, COS (β=-0.06,
p>0.05) has no significant effect on citizens’ ItoU. On the other side,
QoS-usability positively (β=0.38, p<0.001) but PC (β=-0.36, p<0.001)
negatively affect PT, as hypothesized initially. Finally, ItoU (β=0.95,
p<0.001) has a very significant positive impact on citizens’ expectancy
on QoL. R2 values show that the model explained 31%, 43% and 47% of
the variance in PT, ItoU and QoL, respectively. Based on these results,
we have seen that all hypotheses developed and tested in this study are
supported by the proposed SCSAM model, except for COS→ItoU.
3.1.3. Demographics
The effect of demographics such as age (old or young), gender (fe­
male or male) and frequency of use (high usage or low usage) on the
proposed model was tested with AMOSTM multi-group analysis. The cut-
off points are defined as “40′′ for age (≥40 and <40) and “at least once a

6
F. Beştepe and S.Ö. Yildirim Sustainable Cities and Society 80 (2022) 103794

Table 4
Correlation matrix and reliability analysis by AVE*.
PT PC COS PI ItoU SI QoL QoS AVE*

1-Perceived Trust 0.79 0.62

2-Privacy Concerns -0.39 0.88 0.77
3-Perceived Cost -0.22 0.39 0.80 0.64
4-Pers. Innov. 0.30 -0.06 0.03 0.74 0.55
5-Intention to Use 0.52 -0.08 -0.16 0.44 0.91 0.83
6-Social Influence 0.36 0.00 -0.06 0.40 0.54 0.91 0.82
7-Quality of Life 0.42 -0.04 -0.14 0.36 0.72 0.56 0.91 0.82
8-Quality of Service 0.39 -0.07 -0.12 0.55 0.48 0.58 0.54 0.81 0.65
*
The diagonals are the square roots of AVE.

on ItoU resulted that neither gender groups nor age groups differ at the
Table 5
model level. Although the groups of frequency of use appeared different
Fit indices of measurement and structural models.
at the model level, just the path PI→ItoU had significantly different
Fit Indices Estimates Recommended Criteria regression weights between the groups. Additionally, we observed that
Measurement Model Structural the education level of the participants, as a control variable, had a sig­
Model nificant effect only on PT. However, there is no difference between the
CMIN (χ2) 619.95 674.48 – groups of age, gender, and frequency of use regarding the effect of ed­
Df 288 297 – ucation level on PT.
χ2/df 2.15 2.27 Between 1 and 3
GFI 0.93 0.93 >0.90
AGFI 0.91 0.91 >0.80 3.2. Qualitative results
CFI 0.97 0.97 >0.95
RMSEA 0.043 0.045 <0.060
SRMR 0.037 0.046 <0.080 The code frequencies obtained from the qualitative analysis of the
semi-structured interviews are given in Table 7 below. This illustration
shows that QoL, sub-factors of QoS (i.e., efficiency, functionality, and
week” for frequency of use Table 6. shows the results of chi-square tests usability), security and privacy concerns, and ItoU are interviewees’
on these grouping variables and the results of the multi-group analysis. most popular and highlighted concepts. All these topics are the factors of
The analysis to estimate the effects of gender, age, and frequency of use SCSAM that proved effective in quantitative analysis and tried to be

Fig. 3. The path analysis for the proposed model SCSAM.

Table 6
The results of the multi-group analysis.
Multi-group Variable Δχ2 p Value Groups Significantly Different Path Standardized Path Coefficient p Value

Gender 15.16 0.175 Female (n = 281) QoS → ItoU 0.039 0.018

Male (n = 359) 0.225

Age 17.66 0.090 Senior (n = 271) PT → ItoU 0.205 0.049

Junior (n = 369) 0.299

Senior (n = 271) PC → PT -0.435 0.008

Junior (n = 369) -0.295

Frequency of Use 25.98 0.007 High Use (n = 472) PI → ItoU 0.202 0.029
Low Use (n = 168) 0.022

7
F. Beştepe and S.Ö. Yildirim Sustainable Cities and Society 80 (2022) 103794

Table 7 smart electric scooters (Alhamwi, 2020) and smart garbage containers
Code frequencies for the semi-structured interviews. (Oralhan et al., 2017) have been implemented by municipalities and
Code Coded Sections Documents private organizations in Turkey. Adoption of such SC services is crucial
to achieving sustainability and QoL goals, as these services, aimed at
QoL 30 10
Efficiency 25 9 creating a more sustainable urban environment and improving life
Functionality 24 10 quality, must be accepted and used by citizens to be successful. So, in
Usability 23 8 this sense, we aimed to analyze the main factors affecting the acceptance
Security / Privacy Concern 22 10 of such IoT-based and sustainability-oriented SC services in this study.
ItoU / Continuous Use 21 10
Social Influence 15 10
At the beginning of the survey, respondents were asked which of the
Cost 15 10 following SC services they have used:
Technophobia / Digital Divide 15 7
Trust Level 13 8 • Smart traffic routing
Reliability 13 8
• Smart electric scooters
Accessibility / Diffusion 11 8
Training / Publicity Need 11 6 • Smart parking applications
Personal Innovativeness 11 10 • Smart taxi
QoS 10 10 • Smart bus stations
Trialability 3 3 • Smart cards
Obligation 1 1

supported by the qualitative phase. However, there are some factors
such as the digital divide (or technophobia), the need for education or
advertising, and accessibility issues, that are not directly examined in
the interviews but are frequently mentioned by the interviewees.
As illustrated in Table 8, consistent with the results of the quanti­
tative analysis, except for one interviewee with the lowest income level,
all interviewees said that if the cost increase remains reasonable, the
cost would not affect their use intentions much, and they could pay some
extra fee for the use of IoT-based and sustainability-oriented SC services,
considering the efficiency and functionality of such systems. While three
participants (all males) thought that privacy concerns do not affect their
ItoU such systems, according to two participants (one male and one
female), personal innovativeness does not affect the usage decisions of
end-users. Consistent with the SCSAM results, all other factors were
evaluated by the interviewees as influential in ItoU smart services. In
addition, all the participants stated that using such services positively
affects the QoL, again supporting the model results.
The analysis of the interview data according to gender reveals some
remarkable findings. First, while male interviewees highlight mostly the
efficiency (16/25) and functionality (17/24) of smart services as QoS
indicators, female respondents clearly give weight to the usability (14/
23) of such services. Additionally, female interviewees seem to attach
more importance not only to social influence (9/15) but also to the
matters relevant to accessibility (7/11) and training needs (7/11) than
male interviewees.
4. Discussion
Adopting a new technology is a complex process that requires long-
term and in-depth multidisciplinary work, especially in urban areas
(Ylipulli et al., 2014). Similarly, making a city smart without ignoring
sustainability is a continuous and long-term process that requiresn
proper planning and changes at many different levels (Ibrahim et al.,
2018). The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)2, developed by the
UN in 2015, put forth a common agenda for the people and the world
today and in the future (Ismagilova et al., 2019). In this context,
responsible bodies in Turkey have prepared a sustainability-oriented SC
strategy and action plan to develop an SC vision and roadmap. The
concept of sustainability was somehow included in all 25 actions in this
plan prepared for the 2020–2023 period, and the word of sustainability
was directly used in 6 action titles (TR Ministry of Environment & Ur­
banisation, 2019). In line with this strategy and thanks to innovative
approaches, IoT-based and sustainability-oriented SC services such as
2
https://sdgs.un.org/goals
Just 47 out of 643 participants (7.3%) stated that they did not use
such services before, which are all based on IoT technology and
contribute to the urban sustainability and citizens’ QoL. All these ser­
vices surveyed here can be evaluated under the smart mobility (trans­
portation) and/or smart living characteristics of smart cities. Smart
transportation solutions might not fix all rapid urbanization-based
problems, but they could contribute significantly to the quality of
urban life and sustainability (Wey, 2019). 640 valid responses were
received from this online questionnaire, surveying the citizens’ attitudes
towards IoT-based and sustainability-oriented SC services.
According to the results of SEM analysis applied to this survey data,
all hypothesized relationships, except for COS→ItoU, are supported by
the data. The results reveal that PI, SI, QoS-usability, and PT are the
significant predictors of end-users’ ItoU smart city technologies. How­
ever, COS has no effect on ItoU. Comparing the antecedents of ItoU, SI
and PT emerge as the most powerful predictors with path coefficients
0.35 and 0.26, respectively. As the Turkish people mostly exhibit
collectivist society characteristics (Hofstede et al., 2010), it is expected
that the participants in this study will be more vulnerable to social ef­
fects and more sensitive to the triggers in their social networks. In
addition, many previous studies in different regions have revealed that
SI has a strong significant impact on end users’ ItoU new technologies
and services (Gao & Bai, 2014; Mital et al., 2017; Sener et al., 2019;
Venkatesh et al., 2003).
Similarly, in collectivist societies, a relationship of trust with one
person must be established before doing business with that person
(Hofstede et al., 2010). The fact that PT is the second strongest factor
supports this judgment and shows that Turkish citizens should trust the
parties before using a new technology. Several previous studies have
used trust in different ways in their models, as a mediator or a factor that
directly affects adoption (Belanche et al., 2012; Chatterjee & Kar, 2017;
Dutot et al., 2019; Miltgen et al., 2013; Yeh, 2017). The study of
Belanche et al. (2012) reveals that trust is a factor that reduces uncer­
tainty and increases the expectation of satisfaction and, therefore,
positively affects behavioral intentions. Gao and Bai (2014) have not
obtained sufficient evidence that trust plays an important role in pre­
dicting ItoU IoT technologies. However, in line with our results, Yeh
(2017) and Chatterjee and Kar (2017) showed how an increased level of
trust would positively impact the adoption of SC services from the
end-users’ perspective.
Our study also showed that personal innovativeness has a significant
positive effect on ItoU. In line with the results of Rogers (1983), Turkish
citizens with high PI are more inclined to adopt new technologies and
services in their daily lives. In the literature, PI is considered an
important factor shaping the individuals’ approach to innovation
(Okumus et al., 2018). Similar to our study, several previous studies
have discussed the influence of PI on the acceptance of innovative SC
services (Chatterjee & Kar, 2017; Yeh, 2017). Yeh (2017) reported that

8
F. Beştepe and S.Ö. Yildirim
Table 8
Effectiveness of factors according to the interviewees.
Interviewee QoS Social Influence Personal Innovativeness
1 Effective Effective Effective
2 Effective Effective Effective
3 Effective Effective Effective
4 Effective Effective Effective
5 Effective Effective Effective
6 Effective Effective Effective
7 Effective Effective Ineffective
8 Effective Effective Effective
9 Effective Effective Ineffective
10 Effective Effective Effective
PI has a significant direct effect on ItoU, and consequently the citizens
with a higher level of PI adopt the SC services easier and faster. This
result and the findings of Chatterjee and Kar (2017) fully support what
we reported here.
Additionally, individuals with higher personal innovativeness could
be more prone to use and adopt sustainable products and services such
as full electric vehicles (Khazaei, 2019). Again in a very recent study
conducted in Copenhagen and Stockholm, researchers revealed that the
innovativeness level of consumers has a significantly positive impact on
the use of sustainability-oriented smart services such as shared e-bikes
and e-scooters (Flores & Jansson, 2021). In support of these findings,
qualitative analysis results also showed that interviewees generally
thought that PI could facilitate the use of such smart systems. The in­
terviewees also noted that technophobia is a factor that increases the
digital divide and slows the prevalence of SC services. Another
remarkable finding of the qualitative analysis is that encouraging people
to use such services through education and advertising is necessary for
the proliferation of smart services.
Perceptions about QoS are based on post-consumption assessments
of service performance, unlike other adoption factors such as PI and SI
based on pre-determined beliefs and attitudes. Parasuraman et al.
(1985) believe that providing high QoS to end-users is vital to a business
organization’s continued existence and success. Similarly, some studies
which find that QoS, which is important for the adoption and continuous
use of technology, significantly affects SC adoption (Chatterjee & Kar,
2017; Yeh, 2017). In line with their results, our model reveals that QoS
from the end-users’ perspective (QoS-usability) has a significant impact
not only on ItoU but also on PT. Trust can be associated with QoS and
should be considered as a factor to be considered in service requests. In
addition, for e-Gov services, creating a trusted service perception among
citizens and establishing a trusted QoS management system are also
quite critical (Belanche et al., 2012). The sub-components of QoS from
the end-user perspective, such as functionality, usability and efficiency,
are mostly mentioned factors by interviewees of semi-structured in­
terviews. Especially the deficiencies in QoS seem to be the main source
of complaints, together with accessibility issues and inadequate preva­
lence. The male interviewees highlighted mostly the efficiency and
functionality of smart services as QoS indicators in semi-structured in­
terviews. On the other hand, the female respondents give more weight to
the usability of such services clearly in their answers.
As an expected result, our study also confirmed the strong but
negative relation between the citizens’ PC and PT. Privacy is the ability
to control how individuals’ personal information is obtained and used
(Yeh, 2017), and using personal data in smart systems may raise PC and
negatively affect PT. Miltgen et al. (2013) stated that high perceived
risks, especially regarding privacy, may negatively affect the acceptance
of technologies even if they were adopted initially. Several prior studies
in the literature showed that privacy is a determinant for users’ ItoU
smart technologies and services (Kazancoglu & Aydin, 2018; Miltgen
et al., 2013; Yang et al., 2018). In qualitative analysis, even if three
interviewees (all males) thought that privacy concerns do not affect their
ItoU smart services, nobody mentioned perceived trust as ineffective on
9
Sustainable Cities and Society 80 (2022) 103794
Cost Privacy Concerns Perceived Trust
Ineffective Effective Effective
Effective Effective Effective
Ineffective Effective Effective
Ineffective Ineffective Effective
Ineffective Effective Effective
Ineffective Effective Effective
Ineffective Ineffective Effective
Ineffective Effective Effective
Ineffective Effective Effective
Ineffective Ineffective Effective
ItoU of such services. In addition, security and privacy-based concerns
and the low level of trust in these services are mostly mentioned issues
cited by the respondents as the drawbacks of smart services.
The cost has no significant effect on ItoU, and although this finding
seems unexpected, it is consistent with some other studies in the liter­
ature (Hsu & Lin, 2018; Karahoca et al., 2017; Roostika, 2012). Possible
explanations for the ineffectiveness of COS in estimating ItoU may be
that the SC services examined here are relatively new, so municipalities
and service providers have a competitive pricing policy, and citizens pay
very little or no extra fees to use these services. A study on ecotourism in
Sweden also revealed that people could be willing to pay more to
environment-friendly and sustainable offerings (Kazeminia et al., 2016).
Ciasullo et al. also showed that consumers could be willing to pay up to
20% extra to buy a sustainable clothing product (Ciasullo et al., 2017).
In support of this attitude, almost all interviewees in the semi-structured
interviews say that if the cost increase is not excessive, the cost will not
affect their use intentions much, and they can pay some extra fee for the
use of sustainability-oriented SC services, considering the efficiency and
functionality of such systems. Just one of the interviewees, who is in the
lowest income level, stated that the cost is important and he/she does
not want to pay any extra money for smart systems. However, after SC
services become more common, future studies may be needed to better
understand the impact of COS.
According to the results listed in Table 6, the demographics of the
citizens (i.e., age, gender, and frequency of use as the grouping vari­
ables, and the level of education as the control variable) do not
contribute significantly to the dependent variables of the model. Just the
frequency of use seems to make a difference at the model level, however,
there is no significant difference between high use and low use groups
for the path coefficients, except for the PI→ItoU relationship. In those
who use SC services more frequently, PI has a stronger positive effect on
ItoU. On the other hand, age and gender groups do not make any dif­
ference at the model level. Nevertheless, multi-group analysis reveals
that QoS-usability is a stronger predictor of ItoU for males than females.
Similarly, PC has a stronger negative impact on PT for senior citizens.
Also, the positive impact of PT on ItoU is stronger for junior users than
for senior users. Finally, we see that the education level of citizens, as a
control variable, has a significant but relatively low impact on PT but no
significant impact on ItoU and QoL expectancy. These results may
contradict some studies in the literature (Belanche et al., 2016; Kar­
ahoca et al., 2017; Ylipulli et al., 2014) but are consistent with many
prior studies (Belanche et al., 2015; Chatterjee & Kar, 2017; Shin, 2017;
Yeh, 2017). The lack of significance of demographics on model variables
can be explained by the fact that developing technologies are becoming
easier to use for different groups of people (Shin, 2017). Another reason
for the insignificance of demographics may be that the initial design of
SC services examined here enables these services to be used by a wide
range of citizens, regardless of age, gender or education level (Belanche
et al., 2015). The qualitative analyses did not indicate remarkable re­
sults based on demographics as well. In semi-structured interviews,
some differences between males and females in approaches to smart
services were significant. While male interviewees mostly focus on the
F. Beştepe and S.Ö. Yildirim
efficiency and functionality of smart services as QoS indicators, female
respondents clearly highlight such services’ usability of. Additionally,
female interviewees seem to attach more importance to social influence
and the matters relevant to accessibility and training needs than male
interviewees.
5. Conclusions
This sequential explanatory mixed methods study aims to analyze
the main factors affecting the acceptance of IoT-based and
sustainability-oriented SC services with a proposed model SCSAM.
Initially, a comprehensive literature review was conducted, and in the
quantitative phase, hypotheses were developed according to the results
of this review and based on the multidimensional nature of the SC
concept. The SCSAM, built over human, technology, and institutions
dimensions of SC concept, consists of 27 measured variables and 8 latent
variables. After the focus group review and pilot study, the main survey,
questioning ItoU sustainability-oriented and IoT-based SC services, was
applied to Turkish citizens with different demographics and 640 valid
responses were received. In the qualitative phase, we conducted semi-
structured interviews with 10 participants determined by maximal
variation sampling based on gender, education level and total income to
differentiate participants at the highest level.
In this study, we tried to understand the factors affecting the adop­
tion of SC services based on IoT technology that will contribute to urban
sustainability, and the effect of the ItoU these services on the expectation
of QoL. Due to the wide scope of the SC concept, the adoption of some
IoT-based and sustainability-oriented smart services in Turkey has been
examined. According to the results of SEM analysis, all hypothesized
relationships, except for COS→ItoU, are supported by the data. Practi­
cally, our model introduces that SI and PT are the major factors affecting
the successful adoption of SC services considered under smart mobility
(transportation) and smart living characteristics. In collectivist societies
like in Turkey (Hofstede et al., 2010), the effect of SI on the behavior of
end-users is expected to be so significant. On the other hand, the
increased risks and awareness of information security and privacy in
recent years have also increased concerns about the protection of per­
sonal data. Therefore, PT, to which the participants attach great
importance, became the second strongest determinant of ItoU.
In addition, both PI and QoS-usability have some positive effects on
Turkish citizens’ use intentions toward such SC services. The results also
show that the COS has no significant effect on ItoU. Another expected
result is that PC and QoS-usability strongly impact citizens’ PT. Our
findings also revealed that the use of IoT-based and sustainability-
oriented SC services by Turkish citizens has an important and positive
effect on their living standards and QoL expectations. Additionally, it is
found that Turkish citizens could more easily accept the SC services
perceived as easy to use (QoS-usability) and reliable. Moreover, end-
users in Turkey, who are positively affected by their social environ­
ment and who have more PI, are more likely to use such services.
Interestingly, our findings revealed that demographics do not contribute
much except for a few relationships. And finally, all the results of
quantitative analysis are fully consistent with the qualitative findings.
Appendix A – survey constructs and items
Construct Adjusted Item
Quality
of Service QoS1: The functions of the Smart City Services meet my expectations.
QoS2: Smart City Services are better than the services they replaced.
QoS3: Smart City Services can provide the right service without interruption as per the requirements.
QoS4: Using Smart City Services does not require much effort.
QoS5: Learning Smart City Services is easy for me.
QoS6: Smart City Services are easy to use.
10
Sustainable Cities and Society 80 (2022) 103794
In fact, it would not be wrong to think of the concept of smart
transportation as sustainable transportation (Haque et al., 2013; Steg &
Gifford, 2005) because an unsustainable smart city application cannot
be smart either (Yigitcanlar et al., 2019). Of course, it is not possible to
comprehensively increase the QoL or solve all the problems of the city
with sustainable transportation practices. Still, it is also very clear that
well-planned smart transportation solutions will contribute significantly
to the quality of urban life and sustainability (Wey, 2019). For the
success of initiatives during the lifecycle of smart sustainable cities,
human and institution (management and organization) dimensions are
as important as the technology, and need to attract more attention of
stakeholders (Hefnawy et al., 2018). In this context, our findings will
help local governments and service providers develop better strategies
to achieve the objective of smart and sustainable cities and prompt them
to focus on the social, technological, and institutional aspects of SC
initiatives holistically.
To the best of our knowledge, this study is the only research that
adopted a mixed methods design in the literature that comprehensively
investigates IoT-based and sustainability-oriented SC services from end-
user’s perspective. Therefore, it will also make a significant contribution
to the academic literature. In addition, SCSAM is the only acceptance
model in the literature built over the human, technology, and institu­
tional dimensions of SC context. We think that this original feature
improves the model’s success in explaining the adoption process of SC
services.
6. Limitations
In this study, we selected survey participants randomly as much as
possible. However only Turkish citizens older than eighteen are included
in the research. Therefore, caution should be exercised applying the
same questionnaire to participants from different cultures and living
standards.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are accessible from
below DOI. 10.6084/m9.figshare.13349369.v1. Additionally, the ques­
tionnaire used this study will be shared by the corresponding author, [F.
B.], when requested.
Code availability
Not applicable.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Funding
Not applicable.
Refs.
Chatterjee and Kar (2017)
Yeh (2017)
Chatterjee and Kar (2017)
Yeh (2017)
Gao and Bai (2014)
Park et al. (2017)
(continued on next page)
F. Beştepe and S.Ö. Yildirim Sustainable Cities and Society 80 (2022) 103794

(continued )
QoS7: Smart City Services are more efficient for users. Chatterjee and Kar (2017)
Social
Influence SI1: People who are important to me would recommend using Smart City Services. Gao and Bai (2014)
SI2: People who are important to me find it useful to use Smart City Services.
SI3: People who are important to me think it is a good idea to use Smart City Services.
SI4: Most people I know use Smart City Services. Hsu and Lin (2016)
Personal PI1: When I hear of a new technology-based device, I look for ways to try it. Martínez-Caro et al. (2018)
Innovativeness
PI2: In general, I am among the first in my circle of friends to acquire new technology when it appears. Karahoca et al. (2017)
PI3: I enjoy the challenge of figuring out high-tech devices.
PI4: I keep up with the latest technological developments in my areas of interest.
Cost COS1: The fee that I have to pay to use Smart City Services is very high. Hsu and Lin (2018)
COS2: The fee that I have to pay to use Smart City Services is not reasonable.
COS3: I am not pleased with the fee I have to pay to use Smart City Services.
COS4: Using Smart City Services is expensive overall. Park et al. (2017)
Privacy
Concerns PC1: There is a considerable privacy risk involved in using Smart City Services. Hsu and Lin (2018)
PC2: My personal information can be stolen when I use Smart City Services. Dong et al. (2017)
PC3: Using Smart City Services will enable others to use my personal information.
PC4: Someone can use Smart City Services to steal my personal information.
Trust
Level PT1: Users of Smart City Services are well protected from cyber security threats. Chatterjee and Kar (2017)
PT2: I feel safe when using in Smart City Services. Belanche et al. (2015)
PT3: Smart City Services are generally trustworthy. Gao and Bai (2014)
PT4: Service providers (public institutions, municipalities, private companies, etc.) keep my best interests in mind in
Smart City Services.
PT5: Service providers (public institutions, municipalities, private companies, etc.) keep their promises and commitments
in Smart City Services.
PT6: The information provided in Smart City Services is reliable.
Intention
to Use ItoU1: I will recommend others to use the Smart City Services. Dong et al. (2017)
ItoU2: I will frequently use the Smart City Services.
ItoU3: I am willing to use the Smart City Services in the near future. Gao and Bai (2014)
ItoU4: Given the chance, I plan to use the Smart City Services in the near future. Alaiad and Zhou (2017)
Quality
of Life QoL1: Overall, I think the overall quality of my life would be improved by using Smart City Services. Alaiad and Zhou (2017)
QoL2: Using Smart City Services helps me save time. Samsudeen and Mohamed
(2019)
QoL3: Using Smart City Services helps me to save my expense and effort. Tarhini, Hone, & Liu, 2013

Appendix B – semi-structured interview questions

What are the most important factors that facilitate your use of Smart City Services and encourage you to use these services?
Well, what are the factors that make it difficult for you to use these services or that push you not to use them?
How important do you think it is to be interested in technological products and to be prone to technology in order to benefit from these services?
How would you evaluate the impact of the quality, usefulness and ease of the service offered on your decision to use Smart City Services?
How does the fact that people around you, relatives and friends have positive opinions about Smart City Services and use them affect your approach
to such services?
How does paying extra for a Smart City Service that will make your job easier and save your time affect your decision to use it? (At this point, how
much extra cost would be reasonable for you?)
How important is the privacy of your personal data to you? How would you assess the impact of personal data privacy risks on your trust in Smart
City Service providers and your intention to use these services?
When you think about city life, what would you like to say about the effect of Smart City Services and similar solutions on your overall QoL?
Finally, is there anything you would like to add regarding the use of Smart City Services by citizens?

References Belanche, D., Casalo-Arino, L. V., & Perez-Rueda, A. (2015). “Determinants of multi-
service smartcard success for smart cities. development: A study based on citizens’
privacy and security perceptions”. Government Information Quarterly, 32(2),
Ajzen, I. (1991). “The theory of planned behavior”. Organizational Behavior and Human
154–163.
Decision Processes, 50, 179–211.
Bestepe, F., & Ozkan, S. (2019). “A systematic review on smart city services and IoT-
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
based technologies”. In Proceedings of the 12th IADIS international conference
London: Prentice-Hall.
information systems (pp. 255–259).
Alaiad, A., & Zhou, L. (2017). “Patients’ adoption of WSN-based smart home healthcare
Bevan, N. (1999). “Quality in use: Meeting user needs for quality”. Journal of Systems and
systems: An integrated model of facilitators and barriers”. IEEE Transactions on
Software, 49(1), 89–96.
Professional Communication, 60(1), 4–23.
Bibri, S. E. (2018). “The IoT for smart sustainable cities of the future: An analytical
Alhamwi, A. (2020), “Smart scooter (MARTI) in Istanbul - All you need to know”, Move 2
framework for sensor-based big data applications for environmental sustainability”.
Turkey, 14 September, available at: https://move2turkey.com/smart-scooter-marti-
Sustainable Cities and Society, 38, 230–253.
in-istanbul-all-you-need-to-know/(accessed 25 July 2021).
Burns, R. B. (2000). Introduction to research methods (4th Edition). London ; Thousand
Belanche, D., Casaló, L. V., & Flavián, C. (2012). “Integrating trust and personal values
Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications Ltd.
into the technology acceptance model: The case of e-government services adoption”.
Charmaz, K., Holstein, J. A., & Gubrium, J. F. (2008). “Constructionism and the
Cuadernos de Economía y Dirección de La Empresa, 15(4), 192–204.
grounded theory method”. Handbook of constructionist research. New York: Guilford
Belanche, D., Casaló, L. V., & Orús, C. (2016). “City attachment and use of urban services:
Press.
Benefits for smart cities”. Cities, 50, 75–81 (London, England).

11
F. Beştepe and S.Ö. Yildirim
Chatterjee, S., & Kar, A. K. (2017). “Effects of successful adoption of information
technology enabled services in proposed smart cities of India: From user experience
perspective”. Journal of Science and Technology Policy Management. https://doi.org/
10.1108/JSTPM-03-2017-0008. available at.
Ciasullo, M. V., Maione, G., Torre, C., & Troisi, O. (2017). “What about sustainability? An
empirical analysis of consumers’ purchasing behavior in fashion context”.
Sustainability, Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, 9(9), 1617.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2014). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures
for developing grounded theory. SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
traditions (p. 403). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc. pp. xv.
Creswell, J. W. (2015). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (5th Edition). Pearson.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research
(3rd Edition,, 1. USA: SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W., Clark, V. L. P., Gutmann, M., & Hanson, W. (2003). “Advanced mixed
methods research designs”. Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral
research (pp. 209–240). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.
Creswell, J. W., Hanson, W. E., Clark Plano, V. L., & Morales, A. (2007). “Qualitative
research designs: Selection and implementation”. In The counseling psychologist, 35
pp. 236–264). SAGE Publications Inc.
Cronin, J. J., & Taylor, S. A. (1992). “Measuring service quality: A reexamination and
extension”. Journal of Marketing, 56(3), 55–68. American Marketing Association.
Davis, F. D. (1989). “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of
information technology”. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340.
Dong, X., Chang, Y., Wang, Y., & Yan, J. (2017). “Understanding usage of internet of
things (IOT) systems in China Cognitive experience and affect experience as
moderator”. Information Technology & People, 30(1), 117–138.
Dutot, V., Bhatiasevi, V., & Bellallahom, N. (2019). “Applying the technology acceptance
model in a three-countries study of smartwatch adoption”. The Journal of High
Technology Management Research, 30(1), 1–14.
Faller, G. (2015), “Imagine a future where cities are healthy places to live”, The Irish
Times, 4 November, available at: https://www.irishtimes.com/sponsored/imagine-
a-future-where-cities-are-healthy-places-to-live-1.2403585 (accessed 24 September
2019).
Finn, D. W., & Charles, W. L. (1991). “An evaluation of the servqual scales in a retailing
setting”. NA - Advances in Consumer Research, 18, 483–490.
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention and behaviour: An introduction to
theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Flanagan, J. C. (1978). “A research approach to improving our quality of life”. American
Psychologist, 33(2), 138–147. American Psychological Association, US.
Flores, P. J., & Jansson, J. (2021). “The role of consumer innovativeness and green
perceptions on green innovation use: The case of shared e-bikes and e-scooters”.
Journal of Consumer Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1957. available at.
Foster, A., & Rosenzweig, M. (2010). Microeconomics of technology adoption, working
paper, economic growth center. Yale University. available at: https://econpapers.
repec.org/paper/egcwpaper/984.htm (accessed 2 May 2020).
Gao, L., & Bai, X. (2014). “A unified perspective on the factors influencing consumer
acceptance of internet of things technology”. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and
Logistics, 26(2), 211–231.
Giffinger, R., Fertner, C., Kramar, H., Kalasek, R., Pichler-Milanovic, N., & Meijers, E.
(2007). “Smart cities - Ranking of European medium-sized cities”. Vienna University of
Technology.
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). “Toward a conceptual framework
for mixed-method evaluation designs”, Educational evaluation and policy analysis.
American Educational Research Association, 11(3), 255–274. No.
Haque, M. M., Chin, H. C., & Debnath, A. K. (2013). “Sustainable, safe, smart—Three key
elements of Singapore’s evolving transport policies”. Transport Policy, 27, 20–31.
Hefnawy, A., Bouras, A., & Cherifi, C. (2018). “Relevance of lifecycle management to
smart city development”. International Journal of Product Development, 22(5), 351.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of
the mind ; intercultural cooperation and its importance for survival (3rd Edition). New
York: McGraw-Hill. rev. and expanded.
Howe, K. R. (1988). “Against the quantitative-qualitative incompatibility thesis or
dogmas die hard”. In Educational researcher, 17 pp. 10–16). American Educational
Research Association.
Hsu, C. L., & Lin, J. C. C. (2016). “An empirical examination of consumer adoption of
internet of things services: Network externalities and concern for information
privacy perspectives”. Computers in Human Behavior, 62, 516–527.
Hsu, C. L., & Lin, J. C. C. (2018). “Exploring factors affecting the adoption of internet of
things services”. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 58(1), 49–57.
Hsu, C. L., & Lu, H. P. (2004). “Why do people play on-line games? An extended TAM
with social influences and flow experience”. Information & Management, 41(7),
853–868.
Ibrahim, M., El-Zaart, A., & Adams, C. (2018). “Smart sustainable cities roadmap:
Readiness for transformation towards urban sustainability”. Sustainable Cities and
Society, 37, 530–540.
Ismagilova, E., Hughes, L., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Raman, K. R. (2019). “Smart cities:
Advances in research—An information systems perspective”. International Journal of
Information Management, 47, 88–100.
ITU-T FG-SSC. (2014), Technical report on smart sustainable cities: An analysis of
definitions., Technical, United Nations, International Telecommunication Union
(ITU-T), Focus Group on Smart Sustainable Cities (FG-SSC).
Jong, M., de Joss, S., Schraven, D., Zhan, C., & Weijnen, M. (2015).
“Sustainable–smart–resilient–low carbon–eco–knowledge cities; making sense of a
12
Sustainable Cities and Society 80 (2022) 103794
multitude of concepts promoting sustainable urbanization”. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 109, 25–38.
Karahoca, A., Karahoca, D., & Aksöz, M. (2017). “Examining intention to adopt to
internet of things in healthcare technology products”. Kybernetes, 47(4), 742–770.
Kazancoglu, I., & Aydin, H. (2018). “An investigation of consumers’ purchase intentions
towards Omni-channel shopping: A qualitative exploratory study”. International
Journal of Retail & Distribution Management, 46(10), 959–976.
Kazeminia, A., Hultman, M., & Mostaghel, R. (2016). “Why pay more for sustainable
services? The case of ecotourism”. Journal of Business Research, 69(11), 4992–4997.
Khazaei, H. (2019). “The influence of personal innovativeness and price value on
intention to use of electric vehicles in Malaysia”. European Online Journal of Natural
and Social Sciences, 8, 483–494.
Kim, Y., Park, Y., & Choi, J. (2017). “A study on the adoption of IoT smart home service:
Using value-based adoption model”. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence,
28(9–10), 1149–1165.
Lehtonen, M. (2004). “The environmental–social interface of sustainable development:
Capabilities, social capital, institutions”. Ecological Economics, 49(2), 199–214.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.
Ma, L., Liu, S., Fang, F., Che, X., & Chen, M. (2020). “Evaluation of urban-rural difference
and integration based on quality of life”. Sustainable Cities and Society, 54, Article
101877.
Martínez-Caro, E., Cegarra-Navarro, J. G., García-Pérez, A., & Fait, M. (2018).
“Healthcare service evolution towards the internet of things: An end-user
perspective”. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136, 268–276.
Miltgen, C. L., Popovič, A., & Oliveira, T. (2013). “Determinants of end-user acceptance
of biometrics: Integrating the ‘Big 3’ of technology acceptance with privacy context”.
Decision Support Systems, 56, 103–114.
Mishler, E. G. (1991). Research interviewing: Context and narrative. Cambridge, Mass
London: Harvard University Press.
Mital, M., Chang, V., Choudhary, P., Papa, A., & Pani, A. K. (2017). “Adoption of internet
of things in India: A test of competing models using a structured equation modeling
approach”. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 136. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.001. available at.
Morse, J. M. (1994). “Designing funded qualitative research”. Handbook of qualitative
research (pp. 220–235). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.
Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2011). “Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of
technology, people, and institutions”. In Proceedings of the 12th annual international
digital government research conference: Digital government innovation in challenging times
(pp. 282–291). Association for Computing Machinery, College Park.
Okumus, B., Ali, F., Bilgihan, A., & Ozturk, A. B. (2018). “Psychological factors
influencing customers’ acceptance of smartphone diet apps when ordering food at
restaurants”. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 72, 67–77.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Johnson, R. B., & Collins, K. M. (2009). “Call for mixed analysis: A
philosophical framework for combining qualitative and quantitative approaches”.
International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 3(2), 114–139. Routledge.
Oralhan, Z., Oralhan, B., & Yiğit, Y. (2017). “Smart city application: Internet of things
(IoT) technologies based smart waste collection using data mining approach and ant
colony optimization”. International Arab Journal of Information Technology, 14(4),
423–427.
Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K.
(2015). “Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed
method implementation research”. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 42(5),
533–544.
Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1985). “A conceptual model of service
quality and its implications for future research”. Journal of Marketing, 49(4), 41–50.
American Marketing Association.
Park, E. (2020). “User acceptance of smart wearable devices: An expectation-
confirmation model approach”. Telematics and Informatics, 47, Article 101318.
Park, E., Cho, Y., Han, J., & Kwon, S. J. (2017). “Comprehensive approaches to user
acceptance of internet of things in a smart home environment”. IEEE Internet of
Things Journal, 4(6), 2342–2350.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd Edition, p. 532).
Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc.
Patton, M. Q. (2005). “Qualitative research”. Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral
science. American Cancer Society. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470013192.bsa514.
available at.
Peek, S. T. M., Wouters, E. J. M., van Hoof, J., Luijkx, K. G., Boeije, H. R., &
Vrijhoef, H. J. M. (2014). “Factors influencing acceptance of technology for aging in
place: A systematic review”. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 83(4),
235–248.
Recker, J. (2013). Scientific research in information systems: A beginner’s guide. Berlin
Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30048-6.
available at.
Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of innovations (3rd Edition). New York : London: Free
Press ; Collier Macmillan.
Rogers, E. M., & Shoemaker, F. F. (1974). “Communication of innovations: A cross-
cultural approach”. Man, 9. https://doi.org/10.2307/2800105. available at.
Roostika, R. (2012). “Mobile internet acceptance among university students: A value-
based adoption model”. International Journal of Research in Management, 2(1), 21–28.
Samsudeen, S. N., & Mohamed, R. (2019). “University students’ intention to use e-
learning systems”. Interactive Technology and Smart Education, 16(3), 219–238.
Sener, I. N., Zmud, J., & Williams, T. (2019). “Measures of baseline intent to use
automated vehicles: A case study of Texas cities”. Transportation Research Part F:
Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 62, 66–77.
F. Beştepe and S.Ö. Yildirim
Shin, D. H. (2017). “Conceptualizing and measuring quality of experience of the internet
of things: Exploring how quality is perceived by users”. Information & Management,
54(8), 998–1011.
Smith, J. K. (1983). “Quantitative versus qualitative research: An attempt to clarify the
issue”. In Educational researcher, 12 pp. 6–13). American Educational Research
Association.
Soper, D.S. (.2020), “A-priori sample size calculator for structural equation models
[Software]”, available at: https://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc/calculator.aspx?
id=89 (accessed 29 November 2020).
Steg, L., & Gifford, R. (2005). “Sustainable transportation and quality of life”. Journal of
Transport Geography, 13(1), 59–69.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and
quantitative approaches (p. 185). Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc. pp.
xi.
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral
research. SAGE.
Toli, A. M., & Murtagh, N. (2020). “The concept of sustainability in smart city
definitions”. Frontiers in Built Environment, 6, 77. Frontiers.
Tarhini, A., Hone, K., & Liu, X. (2013). “Factors affecting students’ acceptance of e-
learning environments in developing countries: A structural equation modeling
approach”. International Journal of Information and Education Technology, 3(1): 54
- 59. doi:10.7763/ijiet.2013.v3.233.
TR Ministry of Environment and Urbanisation. (2019), Turkey 2020-2023 national smart
cities strategy and action plan, technical, p. 658.
van der Graaf, S., Veeckman, C., & Morganti, L. (2014). “Designing for participatory
governance: Assessing capabilities and toolkits in public service delivery”, 16 pp. 74–88).
Emerald Group Publishing Limited. A.Prof.N.H.Info.
13
Sustainable Cities and Society 80 (2022) 103794
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). “User acceptance of
information technology: Toward a unified view”. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425.
Venkatesh, V., Thong, J., & Xu, X. (2016). “Unified theory of acceptance and use of
technology: A synthesis and the road ahead”. Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, 17(5), 328–376.
Wang, Y. S., & Liao, Y. W. (2008). “Assessing eGovernment systems success: A validation
of the DeLone and McLean model of information systems success”. Government
Information Quarterly, 25(4), 717–733.
Wey, W. M. (2019). “Constructing urban dynamic transportation planning strategies for
improving quality of life and urban sustainability under emerging growth
management principles”. Sustainable Cities and Society, 44, 275–290.
Wu, P. (2012). “A mixed methods approach to technology acceptance research”. Journal
of the Association for Information Systems, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.17705/
1jais.00287. available at.
Yang, H., Lee, W., & Lee, H. (2018). “IoT smart home adoption: The importance of proper
level automation”. Journal of Sensors. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6464036.
available at.
Yeh, H. (2017). “The effects of successful ICT-based smart city services: From citizens’
perspectives”. Government Information Quarterly, 34(3), 556–565.
Yigitcanlar, T., Kamruzzaman, M. D., Foth, M., Sabatini-Marques, J., da Costa, E., &
Ioppolo, G. (2019). “Can cities become smart without being sustainable? A
systematic review of the literature”. Sustainable Cities and Society, 45, 348–365.
Ylipulli, J., Suopajarvi, T., Ojala, T., Kostakos, V., & Kukka, H. (2014). “Municipal WiFi
and interactive displays: Appropriation of new technologies in public urban spaces”.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 89, 145–160.