CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 30Smart Cities and TechnologiesE-Government and Public ServicesInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Building Participative E-Governance in Smart Cities: Moderating Role of Institutional and Technological Innovation

Open access
Myeong, Seunghwan, Bokhari, Syed Asad Abbas·2023·Sustainability
DOI 10.3390/su152015075
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The successful implementation of institutional and technological innovation is critical for the effective execution of e-governance in smart cities. This study examines the inherent complexity associated with institutional and technological innovation in the context of smart cities. The capability of a municipality to cultivate innovation is significantly dependent on the implementation of its technological infrastructure and institutional competence. This study aims to contribute to the existing literature on the relationship between e-governance in smart cities and stakeholder satisfaction. It highlights that institutional and technological innovation could mediate these interactions. Data were collected by administering a questionnaire to a sample of 589 individuals from the Republic of Korea and Pakistan to develop multiple regression models. This study employs stakeholder and innovation theories to investigate the relationship between e-governance and stakeholder satisfaction, emphasizing the moderating effects of institutional and technological innovation. The linear multiple regression analysis findings indicate that e-governance, institutional innovation, and technological factors statistically influence stakeholder satisfaction. It was also discovered that the presence of institutional and technological innovation moderates the association between e-governance and stakeholder satisfaction.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3390/su152015075

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The success of smart city governance largely depends on the capacity for technological and institutional innovation, which mediates the interaction between governance practices and stakeholder outcomes, thereby enhancing overall effectiveness.

    “Under this paradigm, the success of smart city governance largely depends on the capacity for technological and institutional innovation, which mediates the interaction between governance practices and stakeholder outcomes, thereby enhancing overall effectiveness (Bokhari and Seunghwan, 2024; Myeong and Bokhari, 2023).”

    From Smart city governance and interoperability: enhancing human security in Yogyakarta and Makassar, Indonesia (2025) · cites this paper as Myeong and Bokhari, 2023

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 112

  1. Garau, C., and Annunziata, A. (2019). Smart City Governance and Children’s Agency: An Assessment of the Green Infrastructure Impact on Children’s Activities in Cagliari (Italy) with the Tool “Opportunities for Children in Urban Spaces (OCUS)”. Sustainability, 11. · DOI
  2. Almirall, 2013, A Smart City Initiative: The Case of Barcelona, J. Knowl. Econ., 4, 135, 10.1007/s13132-012-0084-9 · DOI · Paper page
  3. Nam, T., and Pardo, T.A. (2011, January 12–15). Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people, and institutions. Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference: Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times, College Park, MD, USA. · DOI
  4. Nam, T., and Pardo, T.A. (2011, January 26–28). Smart city as urban innovation: Focusing on management, policy, and context. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, Tallinn, Estonia. · DOI
  5. Ciasullo, 2020, Multi-level governance for sustainable innovation in smart communities: An ecosystems approach, Int. Entrep. Manag. J., 16, 1167, 10.1007/s11365-020-00641-6 · DOI
  6. Gracias, 2023, Smart Cities—A Structured Literature Review, Smart Cities, 6, 1719, 10.3390/smartcities6040080 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Javed, 2022, Future smart cities: Requirements, emerging technologies, applications, challenges, and future aspects, Cities, 129, 103794, 10.1016/j.cities.2022.103794 · DOI
  8. Majeed, 2021, Blockchain for IoT-based smart cities: Recent advances, requirements, and future challenges, J. Netw. Comput. Appl., 181, 103007, 10.1016/j.jnca.2021.103007 · DOI
  9. Paes, V.D.C., Pessoa, C.H.M., Pagliusi, R.P., Barbosa, C.E., Argôlo, M., de Lima, Y.O., and de Souza, J.M. (2023). Analyzing the Challenges for Future Smart and Sustainable Cities. Sustainability, 15. · DOI
  10. Young, 2021, The impact of technological innovation on service delivery: Social media and smartphone integration in a 311 system, Public Manag. Rev., 24, 926, 10.1080/14719037.2021.1877794 · DOI
  11. Weiss, 2000, Governance, good governance and global governance: Conceptual and actual challenges, Third World Q., 21, 795, 10.1080/713701075 · DOI
  12. Lim, 2022, Dynamics in the governance of smart cities: Insights from South Korean smart cities, Int. J. Urban Sci., 27, 183, 10.1080/12265934.2022.2063158 · DOI
  13. Meijer, A. (2016). Smart City Governance: A Local Emergent Perspective, in Smarter as the New Urban Agenda, Springer. · DOI
  14. Meijer, 2015, Governing the smart city: A review of the literature on smart urban governance, Int. Rev. Adm. Sci., 82, 392, 10.1177/0020852314564308 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Bisschops, 2018, A new role for citizens’ initiatives: The difficulties in co-creating institutional change in urban planning, J. Environ. Plan. Manag., 62, 72, 10.1080/09640568.2018.1436532 · DOI
  16. Joshi, 2016, Shreya Developing Smart Cities: An Integrated Framework, Procedia Comput. Sci., 93, 902, 10.1016/j.procs.2016.07.258 · DOI
  17. Lim, 2019, Identifying the results of smart city development: Findings from systematic literature review, Cities, 95, 102397, 10.1016/j.cities.2019.102397 · DOI
  18. Afzalan, 2017, Creating smarter cities: Considerations for selecting online participatory tools, Cities, 67, 21, 10.1016/j.cities.2017.04.002 · DOI
  19. Albino, 2015, Smart cities: Definitions, dimensions, performance, and initiatives, J. Urban Technol., 22, 3, 10.1080/10630732.2014.942092 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Robertson, 2010, Deliberation, consensus, and stakeholder satisfaction: A simulation of collaborative governance, Acad. Manag. Proc., 2010, 83, 10.5465/ambpp.2010.54501327 · DOI
  21. Giffinger, 2018, Smart City implementation and discourses: An integrated conceptual model. The case of Vienna, Cities, 78, 4, 10.1016/j.cities.2017.12.004 · DOI
  22. Heeks, R. (2023, August 26). Understanding e-Governance for Development. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334637903_Understanding_e-Governance_for_Development.
  23. Yarime, M. (2020). Facilitating Innovation for Smart Cities: The Role of Public Policies in the Case of Japan, in Smart Cities in Asia, Edward Elgar Publishing. · DOI
  24. Hartley, 2013, Collaborative Innovation: A Viable Alternative to Market Competition and Organizational Entrepreneurship, Public Adm. Rev., 73, 821, 10.1111/puar.12136 · DOI
  25. Zhu, 2019, The role of innovation for performance improvement through corporate social responsibility practices among small and medium-sized suppliers in China, Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag., 26, 341, 10.1002/csr.1686 · DOI
  26. Myeong, 2020, Smart City Strategies—Technology Push or Culture Pull? A Case Study Exploration of Gimpo and Namyangju, South Korea, Smart Cities, 4, 41, 10.3390/smartcities4010003 · DOI
  27. Yau, Y., and Lau, W.K. (2018). Big Data Approach as an Institutional Innovation to Tackle Hong Kong’s Illegal Subdivided Unit Problem. Sustainability, 10. · DOI
  28. Silva, L.M.D., Bitencourt, C.C., Faccin, K., and Iakovleva, T. (2019). The role of stakeholders in the context of responsible innovation: A meta-synthesis. Sustainability, 11. · DOI
  29. Hargrave, 2006, A collective action model of institutional innovation, Acad. Manag. Rev., 31, 864, 10.5465/amr.2006.22527458 · DOI
  30. Patterson, 2018, Institutional innovation in urban governance: The case of climate change adaptation, J. Environ. Plan. Manag., 62, 374, 10.1080/09640568.2018.1510767 · DOI
  31. Liu, 2023, Identification of factors affecting public willingness to pay for heat mitigation and adaptation: Evidence from Guangzhou, China, Urban Clim., 48, 101405, 10.1016/j.uclim.2022.101405 · DOI
  32. Tummers, 2017, A stakeholder perspective on public sector innovation: Why position matters, Int. Rev. Adm. Sci., 84, 269
  33. Wong, 2007, Understanding egovernment and egovernance: Stakeholders, partnerships and CSR, Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag., 24, 927, 10.1108/02656710710826199 · DOI
  34. Hooda, 2021, Core–competencies–a key to future–oriented and sustainable e-governance implementation: A mixed method research, Transform. Gov. People Process Policy, 15, 80
  35. Aggarwal, 2009, A training model for e-readiness in e-governance, Electron. Gov. Int. J., 6, 111
  36. Zafarullah, 2021, Cyberspace at the Grassroots: E-Governance and Citizen/Stakeholder Perceptions at the Local Level in Bangladesh, J. Dev. Policy Pract., 6, 168, 10.1177/24551333211034082 · DOI
  37. Bokhari, S.A.A., and Myeong, S. (2022). Artificial Intelligence-Based Technological-Oriented Knowledge Management, Innovation, and E-Service Delivery in Smart Cities: Moderating Role of E-Governance. Appl. Sci., 12. · DOI
  38. Bhuvana, 2020, Assessment of rural citizens satisfaction on the service quality of common service centers (CSCs) of e-governance, J. Crit. Rev., 7, 302
  39. Bokhari, 2023, The Influence of Artificial Intelligence on E-Governance and Cybersecurity in Smart Cities: A Stakeholder’s Perspective, IEEE Access, 11, 69783, 10.1109/ACCESS.2023.3293480 · DOI
  40. Sharma, 2021, Determinants of satisfaction among social entrepreneurs in e-Government services, Int. J. Inf. Manag., 60, 102386, 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102386 · DOI
  41. Adaletey, 2019, The relevance of monitoring, supervision and evaluation of stakeholder participation in electronic governance projects implemented in public sector institutions: A review of literature, J. Humanit. Soc. Sci., 24, 52
  42. Dawes, 2008, The Evolution and Continuing Challenges of E-Governance, Public Adm. Rev., 68, S86, 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00981.x · DOI
  43. Vinod Kumar, T. (2015). E-Governance for Smart Cities, Springer. · DOI
  44. Oliveira, T.A., Oliver, M., and Ramalhinho, H. (2020). Challenges for connecting citizens and smart cities: ICT, e-governance and blockchain. Sustainability, 12. · DOI
  45. Iqbal, 2008, E-governance as an anti corruption tool: Korean cases, J. Korean Soc. Reg. Inf. Chem., 11, 51
  46. Trinh, 2022, E-Governance as good governance? evidence from 15 West African countries, Inf. Technol. Dev., 29, 256
  47. Nagarajan, M., Kumar, B.P., Teja, N.K., Rohith, M.V., and Babu, N.M. (2023, January 17–19). Innovating Elections Smart Voting through Facial Recognition Technology. Proceedings of the 2023 7th International Conference on Intelligent Computing and Control Systems (ICICCS), Madurai, Tamil Nadu. · DOI
  48. Deng, 2018, Stakes, stakeholders and urban governance: A theoretical framework for the Chinese city, Eurasian Geogr. Econ., 59, 291, 10.1080/15387216.2019.1570298 · DOI
  49. 2012, Collaborative e-government, Transform. Gov. People Process Policy, 6, 5
  50. Tomor, 2019, Smart Governance for Sustainable Cities: Findings from a Systematic Literature Review, J. Urban Technol., 26, 3, 10.1080/10630732.2019.1651178 · DOI
  51. Lee, 2018, Engendering inclusive e-government use through citizen IT training programs, Gov. Inf. Q., 36, 69, 10.1016/j.giq.2018.11.007 · DOI · Paper page
  52. Eakin, 2017, Opinion: Urban resilience efforts must consider social and political forces, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 114, 186, 10.1073/pnas.1620081114 · DOI
  53. Hsiao, 2021, ICT-mixed community participation model for development planning in a vulnerable sandbank community: Case study of the Eco Shezi Island Plan in Taipei City, Taiwan, Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct., 58, 102218, 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102218 · DOI
  54. Breuer, 2014, Beyond Defining the Smart City. Meeting Top-Down and Bottom-Up Approaches in the Middle, Tema J. Land Use Mobil. Environ., 7, 153
  55. Zheng, 2021, Does ICT change household decision-making power of the left-behind women? A Case from China, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang., 166, 120604, 10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120604 · DOI
  56. Vivona, 2022, The costs of collaborative innovation, J. Technol. Transf., 48, 873, 10.1007/s10961-022-09933-1 · DOI
  57. Leite, 2021, Innovation networks for social impact: An empirical study on multi-actor collaboration in projects for smart cities, J. Bus. Res., 139, 325, 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.09.072 · DOI
  58. Paskaleva, 2018, Open innovation and the evaluation of internet-enabled public services in smart cities, Technovation, 78, 4, 10.1016/j.technovation.2018.07.003 · DOI
  59. Bokhari, S.A.A., and Myeong, S. (2022). Use of Artificial Intelligence in Smart Cities for Smart Decision-Making: A Social Innovation Perspective. Sustainability, 14. · DOI
  60. Kostova, 2019, The construct of institutional distance through the lens of different institutional perspectives: Review, analysis, and recommendations, J. Int. Bus. Stud., 51, 467, 10.1057/s41267-019-00294-w · DOI
  61. Aggarwal, V.K. (2019). Institutional Designs for a Complex World: Bargaining, Linkages, and Nesting, Cornell University Press.
  62. Hurwicz, L. (2007). The Socio-Economic Transformation: Getting Closer to What?, Springer.
  63. AlMalki, 2022, Systematic review of institutional innovation literature: Towards a multi-level management model, Manag. Rev. Q., 73, 731, 10.1007/s11301-022-00259-8 · DOI
  64. Miller, 2014, Social Innovation in the Public Sector: The Case of Seoul Metropolitan Government, J. Econ. Soc. Stud., 4, 51, 10.14706/JECOSS11414 · DOI
  65. Hollands, 2014, Critical interventions into the corporate smart city, Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc., 8, 61, 10.1093/cjres/rsu011 · DOI · Paper page
  66. Bellini, P., Nesi, P., and Pantaleo, G. (2022). IoT-enabled smart cities: A review of concepts, frameworks and key technologies. Appl. Sci., 12. · DOI
  67. Janowski, T. (2015). Digital Government Evolution: From Transformation to Contextualization, Elsevier. · DOI
  68. Coccia, 2021, Technological innovation, Innovations, 11, I12
  69. Meijer, 2016, Urban Technological Innovation: Developing and Testing a Sociotechnical Framework for Studying Smart City Projects, Urban Aff. Rev., 54, 363, 10.1177/1078087416670274 · DOI
  70. Costales, 2021, Identifying sources of innovation: Building a conceptual framework of the Smart City through a social innovation perspective, Cities, 120, 103459, 10.1016/j.cities.2021.103459 · DOI
  71. Winters, 2010, Why are smart cities growing? Who moves and who stays, J. Reg. Sci., 51, 253, 10.1111/j.1467-9787.2010.00693.x · DOI
  72. Jabeen, 2017, Urbanization in Pakistan: A governance perspective, J. Res. Soc. Pak., 54, 127
  73. Koppenjan, J.F.M., Koppenjan, J., and Klijn, E.-H. (2004). Managing Uncertainties in Networks: A Network Approach to Problem Solving and Decision Making, Psychology Press. · DOI
  74. Kim, 2017, A Study of the Effectiveness of Information Literacy Education among the Elderly: A Focus on Digital Literacy and Quality of Life, Korean J. Public Adm., 55, 229, 10.24145/KJPA.55.1.8 · DOI
  75. Scholl, H.J., and Scholl, M.C. (2023, August 26). Smart Governance: A Roadmap for Research and Practice. In Conference 2014 Proceedings. Available online: https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/items/47419.
  76. Czakon, 2016, Managing coopetition: The missing link between strategy and performance, Ind. Mark. Manag., 53, 3, 10.1016/j.indmarman.2015.11.005 · DOI
  77. Freeman, R.E. (2010). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  78. Capra, 2016, The Smart City and its citizens: Governance and citizen participation in Amsterdam Smart City, Int. J. E-Plan. Res., 5, 20
  79. Hodgson, 2006, What Are Institutions?, J. Econ. Issues, 40, 1, 10.1080/00213624.2006.11506879 · DOI
  80. Rao, 2003, Institutional Change in Toque Ville: Nouvelle Cuisine as an Identity Movement in French Gastronomy, SSRN Electron. J., 108, 795
  81. Kettl, D.F. (2015). The Transformation of Governance: Public Administration for the Twenty-First Century, Jhu Press.
  82. Morgan, 2010, Governance, policy innovation, and local economic development in North Carolina, Policy Stud. J., 38, 679, 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00379.x · DOI
  83. Raven, 2017, Urban experimentation and institutional arrangements, Eur. Plan. Stud., 27, 258, 10.1080/09654313.2017.1393047 · DOI
  84. Vivo-Delgado, G., and Castro-Toledo, F.J. (2023, August 26). Urban Security and Crime Prevention in Smart Cities: A Systematic Review. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Francisco-Castro-Toledo/publication/340495831_Urban_security_and_crime_prevention_in_smart_cities_a_systematic_review/links/5eb1729145851592d6b9af7b/Urban-security-and-crime-prevention-in-smart-cities-a-systematic-review.pdf.
  85. Gaubatz, 2020, Learning from Taiyuan: Chinese cities as urban sustainability laboratories, Geogr. Sustain., 1, 118
  86. Pettit, 2010, Multiple faces of power and learning, IDS Bull., 41, 25, 10.1111/j.1759-5436.2010.00134.x · DOI
  87. Woodhill, 2010, Capacities for Institutional Innovation: A Complexity Perspective, IDS Bull., 41, 47, 10.1111/j.1759-5436.2010.00136.x · DOI
  88. Castelnovo, 2016, Smart cities governance: The need for a holistic approach to assessing urban participatory policy making, Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev., 34, 724, 10.1177/0894439315611103 · DOI
  89. Silva, 2018, Towards sustainable smart cities: A review of trends, architectures, components, and open challenges in smart cities, Sustain. Cities Soc., 38, 697, 10.1016/j.scs.2018.01.053 · DOI
  90. Yu, 2018, Towards a service-dominant platform for public value co-creation in a smart city: Evidence from two metropolitan cities in China, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang., 142, 168, 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.11.017 · DOI
  91. Peek, 2016, What it Takes to Successfully Implement Technology for Aging in Place: Focus Groups with Stakeholders, J. Med. Internet Res., 18, e98, 10.2196/jmir.5253 · DOI
  92. van Boekel, L.C., Wouters, E.J., Grimberg, B.M., van der Meer, N.J., and Luijkx, K.G. (2019). Perspectives of stakeholders on technology use in the care of community-living older adults with dementia: A systematic literature review. Healthcare, 7. · DOI
  93. Bhattacharyya, 2020, Humanistic orientation in firm–stakeholder technology-based interaction and its impact on stakeholder satisfaction, Emerg. Econ. Stud., 6, 86
  94. Meier, 2013, A role for data: An observation on empowering stakeholders, Am. J. Prev. Med., 44, S5, 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.09.018 · DOI
  95. Ristvej, 2017, Smart city, safety and security, Procedia Eng., 192, 522, 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.06.090 · DOI
  96. Ristvej, 2020, On Smart City and Safe City Concepts, Mob. Netw. Appl., 25, 836, 10.1007/s11036-020-01524-4 · DOI
  97. 2016, Crime prevention aspects of public space renewal in Budapest, J. Place Manag. Dev., 9, 191, 10.1108/JPMD-09-2015-0034 · DOI
  98. Fernandez-Anez, V. (2016). International Conference on Smart Cities, Springer.
  99. Santos, 2010, Translation to Portuguese and Validation of the Douleur Neuropathique 4 Questionnaire, J. Pain, 11, 484, 10.1016/j.jpain.2009.09.014 · DOI
  100. Bujang, 2022, Determination of Minimum Sample Size Requirement for Multiple Linear Regression and Analysis of Covariance Based on Experimental and Non-experimental Studies, Epidemiol. Biostat. Public Health, 14, e12117-1
  101. Wunder, 2008, Taking stock: A comparative analysis of payments for environmental services programs in developed and developing countries, Ecol. Econ., 65, 834, 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.03.010 · DOI
  102. Pandya, V.M. (2012, January 3–6). Comparative analysis of development of SMEs in developed and developing countries. Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Business and Management, Tallinn, Estonia.
  103. Jobling, 2017, Price volatility and demand for oil: A comparative analysis of developed and developing countries, Econ. Anal. Policy, 53, 96, 10.1016/j.eap.2017.01.001 · DOI
  104. Potnis, 2010, Measuring e-Governance as an innovation in the public sector, Gov. Inf. Q., 27, 41, 10.1016/j.giq.2009.08.002 · DOI
  105. Checa, 2018, Measurement invariance of the Satisfaction with Life Scale by gender, age, marital status and educational level, Qual. Life Res., 28, 963, 10.1007/s11136-018-2066-2 · DOI
  106. Untaru, 2021, Protective measures against COVID-19 and the business strategies of the retail enterprises: Differences in gender, age, education, and income among shoppers, J. Retail. Consum. Serv., 60, 102446, 10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102446 · DOI
  107. Rosopa, 2008, Problems with detecting assumed mediation using the hierarchical multiple regression strategy, Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev., 18, 294
  108. Landau, S., and Everitt, B.S. (2004). A Handbook of Statistical Analyses Using SPSS, Chapman and Hall/CRC Press. · DOI
  109. Gill, 2018, Factors effecting investment decision making behavior: The mediating role of information searches, Eur. Online J. Nat. Soc. Sci., 7, 758
  110. Hu, 1999, Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Struct. Equ. Model. Multidiscip. J., 6, 1, 10.1080/10705519909540118 · DOI · Paper page
  111. Muller, 2005, When moderation is mediated and mediation is moderated, J. Personal. Soc. Psychol., 89, 852, 10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.852 · DOI
  112. Rubera, 2017, You gotta serve somebody: The effects of firm innovation on customer satisfaction and firm value, J. Acad. Mark. Sci., 45, 741, 10.1007/s11747-016-0512-7 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Myeong, S., & Bokhari, S. A. A.
Affiliations
Inha University (KR)
Corresponding author
Bokhari, Syed Asad Abbas
ORCID
Venue
Sustainability
Publisher
MDPI AG
Published
2023-10-19
Volume
15
Issue
20
Pages
15075
ISSN
2071-1050 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.3390/su152015075
OpenAlex
W4387782351
Cited by
30
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 6
FWCI
6.48
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Sustainability (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Urban Studies › Smart Cities and Technologies
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › E-Government and Public Services
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Innovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
Keywords
digital governance, smart cities, institutional innovation, technological innovation, stakeholder satisfaction, participatory governance, moderating effect, institutional competence

About these checks

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

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

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

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

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