ANALYSIS OF USER ATTITUDE TOWARD SMART CITY MOBILE APPLICATIONS THROUGH TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL

Abstract

As a result of cities' adverse effects on environmental sustainability, smart city applications have become a necessity. The integration of citizens into smart city applications through mobile applications depends on their adoption. This study aims to analyze the user attitude towards the Izmir Transportation Center application through the technology acceptance model. The user comments were analyzed via Maxqda software by using the content analysis method. The results indicate that user attitude towards the application is negative. Perceived usefulness has more effect on user attitude and the main problem of the application is system accessibility and running with incomplete data.

Keywords

• Smart Cities
• City Logistics
• Consumer Behavior
• Technology Acceptance Model
• Service Systems

AKILLI ŞEHİR MOBİL UYGULAMALARINA YÖNELİK KULLANICI TUTUMUNUN TEKNOLOJİ KABUL MODELİ ARACILIĞIYLA ANALİZİ

Abstract

Şehirlerin çevresel sürdürülebilirlik üzerindeki olumsuz etkilerinin bir sonucu olarak akıllı şehir uygulamaları bir zorunluluk haline gelmektedir. Kent sakinlerinin mobil uygulamalar aracılığıyla akıllı şehir uygulamalarına entegrasyonu ise bu uygulamaları benimsemesine bağlıdır. Bu çalışma, İzmir Ulaşım Merkezi (İZUM) uygulamasına yönelik kullanıcı tutumunu teknoloji kabul modeli aracılığıyla analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Çalışmada; İZUM kullanıcı yorumları Maxqda yazılımı aracılığıyla ve içerik analizi yöntemiyle değerlendirilmiştir. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre, uygulamaya dönük kullanıcı tutumu olumsuzdur. Algılanan yararlılık, kullanıcıların tutumu üzerinde daha fazla etkiye sahip olup, en temel sorun sisteme erişilebilirlik ve sistemin eksik verilerle çalışmasıdır.

Keywords

• Akıllı Şehirler
• Kentsel Lojistik
• Tüketici Davranışı
• Teknoloji Kabul Modeli
• Hizmet Sistemleri

References

1. AlAwadhi. S. ve Morris, A. (2008). The use of the UTAUT Model in the adoption of e-government services in Kuwait. Proceedings of the 41st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2008) içinde (219-219. ss.). Waikoloa, Hawaii: IEEE. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2008.357
2. Anthopoulos, L. G. (2017). The smart city in practice. Understanding Smart Cities: A Tool for Smart Government or an Industrial Trick? içinde (pp. 47-185). Cham: Springer.
3. Avrupa Komisyonu. (t.y.). Erişim adresi https://ec.europa.eu/info/eu-regional-and-urban-development/topics/cities-and-urban-development/city-initiatives/smart-cities_en
4. Birleşmiş Milletler. (2019). Revision of World urbanization prospects 2018. United Nations Department for Economic and Social Affairs. Erişim adresi https://population.un.org/wup/
5. Cohen, B. (2015, 8 Ekim). The 3 generations of smart cities. Erişim adresi https://www.fastcompany.com/3047795/the-3-generations-of-smart-cities
6. Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319-340.
7. Delone, W. H. ve McLean, E. R. (2003). The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: A ten-year update. Journal of Management Information Systems, 19(4), 9-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07421222.2003.11045748
8. de Oliveira Á., Campolargo M., ve Martins M. (2015). Constructing human smart cities. M. Helfert, K. H. Krempels, C. Klein, B. Donellan, ve O. Guiskhin (Ed.), Smart cities, green technologies, and intelligent transport systems. SMARTGREENS 2015, VEHITS 2015. Communications in Computer and Information Science içinde (32-49. ss.). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27753-0_3

9. Dünya Bankası (2016). World development report 2016: Digital dividends. Washington: World Bank Publications.
10. Elvan, L. (2017). Akıllı şehirler: Lüks değil ihtiyaç. İTÜ Vakfı Dergisi, 77, 6-9.
11. Erdoğan, G. (2019). Akıllı kent göstergeleri ve stratejileri. Yönetim Bilişim Sistemleri Dergisi, 4(2), 1-23.
12. Erkek, S. (2017). Akıllı şehircilik anlayışı ve belediyelerin inovatif uygulamaları. Medeniyet ve Toplum Dergisi, 1(1), 55-72.
13. Gao, S., Krogstie, J. ve Gransæther, P. A. (2008). Mobile services acceptance model: International Conference on Convergence and Hybrid Information Technology içinde (446-453. ss.). http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1109/ICHIT.99446.2008.252
14. Giffinger, R. (2015). Smart city concepts: Chances and risks of energy efficient urban development. B. Donnellan, C. Klein, M. Helfert ve O. Gusikhin, (Ed.), Smart Cities, Green Technologies, and Intelligent Transport Systems içinde (3-16. ss.). Cham: Springer.
15. Given, L. M. (Ed.). (2008). The Sage encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
16. Global Metro Monitor (2015). An uncertain recovery. Washington, D.C: Brookings Institute. Erişim adresi https://time.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/bmpp_gmm_final.pdf
17. Hur, H. J., Lee, H. K. ve Choo, H. J. (2017). Understanding usage intention in innovative mobile app service: Comparison between millennial and mature consumers. Computers in Human Behavior, 73, 353-361. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.051
18. Iványi, T., ve Bíró-Szigeti, S. (2019). Smart city: studying smartphone application functions with city marketing goals based on consumer behavior of generation Z in Hungary. Periodica Polytechnica Social and Management Sciences, 27(1), 48-58.
19. İzmir Büyükşehir Belediyesi (2018). Trafikte akıllı ulaşım dönemi ve İZUM. Erişim adresi https://www.izmir.bel.tr/tr/Projeler/trafikte-akilli-ulasim-donemi-ve-izum/1280/4
20. Kim, D-Y., Park, J. ve Morrison, A. V. (2008). A model of traveller acceptance of mobile technology. Int. J. Tourism Res. 10, 393–407. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/jtr.669
21. Kim, S. C., Yoon, D. ve Han, E. K. (2016). Antecedents of mobile app usage among smartphone users. Journal of Marketing Communications, 22(6), 653–670, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13527266.2014.951065
22. Lin, F., Fofanah, S. S. ve Liang, D. (2011). Assessing citizen adoption of e-government initiatives in Gambia: A validation of the technology acceptance model in information systems success. Government Information Quarterly, 28, 271–279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.09.004
23. Lim, Y., Edelenbos, J. ve Gianoli, A. (2019). Identifying the results of smart city development: Findings from systematic literature review. Cities, 95, 102397.
24. Lacy, S. ve Riffe, D. (1996). Sampling error and selecting intercoder reliability samples for nominal content categories. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 73(4), 963-973.
25. Malindretos, G., Mavrommati, S.ve Bakogianni, M. A. (2018). City logistics models in the framework of smart cities: Urban freight consolidation centers. 4th International Conference of Supply Chain içinde (14, 15. ss.). Katerini, Greece.
26. Manville, C., Cochrane, G., Cave, J., Millard, J., Pederson, J. K., Thaarup, R. K., ... ve Kotterink, B. (2014). Mapping smart cities in the EU.Brussels. Belgium: European Parliament.
27. Menzi, N. Önal, N. ve Çalışkan, E. (2012). Mobil teknolojilerin eğitim amaçlı kullanımına yönelik akademisyen görüşlerinin teknoloji kabul modeli çerçevesinde incelenmesi. Ege Eğitim Dergisi, 13(1), 40–55.
28. Mohanty, S. P., Choppali, U., ve Kougianos, E. (2016). Everything you wanted to know about smart cities: The internet of things is the backbone. IEEE Consumer Electronics Magazine, 5(3), 60-70.
29. Muk, A. ve Chung, C. (2015). Applying the technology acceptance model in a two-country study of SMS advertising. Journal of Business Research, 68 (2015) 1–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.06.001
30. Nam, T. ve Pardo, T. A. (2011, Haziran). 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 içinde (282-291. ss.). https://doi.org/10.1145/2037556.2037602
31. Oliveira, T. A., Oliver, M. ve Ramalhinho, H. (2020). Challenges for connecting citizens and smart cities: ICT, e-governance and blockchain. Sustainability, 12(7), 2926.
32. Örselli, E., ve Dinçer, S. (2019). Akıllı kentleri anlamak: Konya ve Barcelona üzerinden bir değerlendirme. Uluslararası Yönetim Akademisi Dergisi, 2(1), 90-110.
33. Peris-Ortiz, M., Bennett, D. R. ve Yábar, D. P. B. (Ed.). (2017). Sustainable Smart Cities. Innovation, Technology, and Knowledge Management. Cham: Springer.
34. Ay, D. V. ve Antonakis, J. (Ed.). (2012). The nature of leadership (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
35. Shah, G.U.D., Bhatti, M.N. Iftikhar, M., Qureshi, M.I. ve Zaman, K. (2013). Implementation of technology acceptance model in e-learning environment in rural and urban areas of Pakistan. World Applied Sciences Journal, 27(11), 1495-1507. http://dx.doi.org/10.5829/idosi.wasj.2013.27.11.1787
36. Sepasgozar, S. M., Hawken, S., Sargolzaei, S. ve Foroozanfa, M. (2019). Implementing citizen centric technology in developing smart cities: A model for predicting the acceptance of urban technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 142, 105-116.
37. Silva, B. N., Khan, M., ve Han, K. (2018). Towards sustainable smart cities: A review of trends, architectures, components, and open challenges in smart cities. Sustainable Cities and Society, 38, 697-713.
38. Şahin, A. ve Yılmaz, F. H. (2019). Akıllı kent uygulamalari: Stockholm ve Bursa üzerinden bir değerlendirme. Journal of Social and Humanities Sciences Research, 6(43), 2897-2915. http://dx.doi.org/10.26450/jshsr.1420
39. Thompson, R. G. ve Taniguchi, E. (2001). City logistics and freight transport. A. M. Brewer, K. Button ve D. A. Hensher (Ed.), Handbook of Logistics and Supply Chain Management içinde (393-404. ss.). Oxford: Elsevier.
40. Taniguchi, E., Thompson, R.G., Yamada T. ve van Duin, R. (2001). City logistics: Network modelling and intelligent transport systems. Oxford: Pergamon.
41. Venkatesh.V ve Davis, F.D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204.
42. Walravens, N. (2015). Mobile city applications for Brussels citizens: Smart City trends, challenges and a reality check. Telematics and Informatics, 32(2), 282-299.
43. Yeh, H. (2017). The effects of successful ICT-based smart city services: From citizens' perspectives. Government Information Quarterly, 34(3), 556-565.
44. Yıldırır, S.C. ve Kaplan, B. (2018). Mobil uygulama kullanımının benimsenmesi: Teknoloji kabul modeli ile bir çalışma. Kafkas Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 10(19), 22-51.
45. Yücel, U.A. ve Gülbahar, Y. (2013).Technology acceptance model: A review of the prior predictors. Ankara University, Journal of Faculty of Educational Sciences, 46(1), 89-109.
46. T.C. Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı. (2019). Akıllı Şehirler Beyaz Bülteni. Ankara, Türkiye. Erişim Adresi; https://www.akillisehirler.gov.tr/2019/11/28/beyaz-bulten/
47. T.C. Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı. (2020, Mayıs 26). T. C. Çevre ve Şehircilik Bakanlığı. Erişim Adresi; https://cevreselgostergeler.csb.gov.tr/kentsel---kirsal-nufus-orani-i-85670
48. Zarmpou, T., Saprikis, V., Markos, A. ve Vlachopoulou, M. (2012). Modeling users’ acceptance of mobile services. Electron Commer Res., 12, 225–248, http://x.doi.org/10.1007/s10660-012-9092-x
49. Zhang, K., Ni, J., Yang, K., Liang, X., Ren, J., ve Shen, X. S. (2017). Security and privacy in smart city applications: Challenges and solutions. IEEE Communications Magazine, 55(1), 122-129.