Factors Driving the Acceptance of IoT Technology for Universal Design Purposes in the City of Płock

• Autorzy: Renata Walczak , Paweł Zakrzewski
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

Purpose: In Poland, it is necessary to take care of accessibility in urban infrastructure. The possibility of using Internet of Things (IoT) sensors is an opportunity for smart cities to help the public and design urban spaces according to universal design principles. Using the data generated by IoT sensors makes it possible to develop applications that use them for smartphones and wearables. IoT sensors will identify places and objects unsuitable for people with disabilities and provide personalized information based on analyzing the situation near the sensors. However, using IoT in towns raises many concerns and controversies. Investigating residents' attitudes toward IoT sensors is necessary before deploying them in the city. Design/methodology/approach: Survey data collected from 149 residents of Plock was used for the factor analysis. Additionally, descriptive statistics and reliability analysis were used. Findings: The paper identifies key dimensions regarding using IoT devices in Płock. The factors determining the acceptance of IoT technology are indicated. Most respondents support introducing facilities for the disabled, although trust in the city authorities and the belief that technology will be used for a good purpose is average. People trust new technologies when they are used for universal design and are anonymous. Residents of Płock support IoT sensors for ecology applications and universal design, and they support facial recognition. Research limitations/implications: The research was conducted through an online questionnaire in Plock. It is necessary to survey by a polling company to reach a representative sample of the public. Practical implications: The research results will be helpful for the authorities of Płock when implementing IoT in the city. Social implications: Using IoT sensors for universal design will adapt urban spaces for people with mobility problems. Originality/value: Typically, IoT sensor data is sent to the cloud and can be captured. The acceptance of IoT technology in Edge Computing mode has not been evaluated yet. Using IoT sensors in Edge Computing mode, where data is processed in the vicinity of the sensors and is anonymized, can affect social acceptance.(original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Internet of Things (IoT); Smart city

PL

Internet rzeczy; Inteligentne miasto

• Czasopismo: Zeszyty Naukowe. Organizacja i Zarządzanie / Politechnika Śląska
• Rocznik: 2022
• Numer: z. 163
• Strony: 655--679

Twórcy

autor

Renata Walczak

• Warsaw University of Technology

autor

Paweł Zakrzewski

• GE Company Polska Sp z o.o.

Bibliografia

• 1. Act on spatial planning and development (2003). Act on spatial planning and development. Dz.U. 2003, nr 80, poz. 717 of 27.03.2003.
• 2. Ahad, M.A., Paiva, S., Tripathi, G., Feroz, N. (2020). Enabling technologies and sustainable smart cities. Sustainable Cities and Society, 61(March), 102301. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.scs.2020.102301
• 3. Ahmad, M.I. (2014). Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT): A Decade of Validation and Development. Fourth International Conference on ICT in Our Lives, 1, 1-13.
• 4. Ajzen, I. (1985). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In: J. Kuhl, J. Beckmann (Ed.), Action-control: From cognition to behavior (pp. 11-39). Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer.
• 5. Alwahaishi, S., Snášel, V. (2013). Consumers' acceptance and use of information and communications technology: A UTAUT and flow based theoretical model. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation, 8(2), 61-73. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0718-27242013000200005.
• 6. Bernsdorf, C., Hasreiter, N., Kranz, D., Sommer, S., Rossmann, A. (2016). Technology acceptance in the case of iot appliances. Digital Enterprise Computing (DEC 2016), pp. 49-63.
• 7. Bestepe, F., Yildirim, S.O. (2019). A systematic review on smart city services and IoT-based technologies. Proceedings of the 12th IADIS International Conference Information Systems 2019, IS 2019, August, 255-259. https://doi.org/10.33965/is2019_201905c005.
• 8. Building Act. (1995). Building Act, Dz.U. z 2021 r. poz. 235 of 1.07.1995.
• 9. Calvo, P. (2020). The ethics of Smart City (EoSC): moral implications of hyperconnectivity, algorithmization and the datafication of urban digital society. Ethics and Information Technology, 22(2), 141-149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-019-09523-0.
• 10. Choo, K.K.R., Gai, K., Chiaraviglio, L., Yang, Q. (2021). A multidisciplinary approach to Internet of Things (IoT) cybersecurity and risk management. Computers and Security, 102, 2020-2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2020.102136.
• 11. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities of 13.12.2006 (2006) (testimony of Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities). https://isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/download.xsp/WDU20120001169/O/D20121169.pdf.
• 12. Davis, F.D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 13(3), 319-339. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008.
• 13. Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R. (1992). Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(14), 1111-1132. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00945.x.
• 14. Economides, A.A. (2017). User Perceptions of Internet of Things (IoT) Systems. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 764, 3-20. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-3-319-67876-4_1.
• 15. Erten, K., Turan, O. (2017). Internet of Things (Iot) and Its Effects on Life Standards of Disabled People. Aurum Journal of Engineering Systems and Architecture, 1(1), 121-132.
• 16. European Accessibility Act. (2019). Directive (EU) 2019/882 of the European Parliament and of the Council of April 17 2019 on the accessibility requirements for products and services. PE/81/2018/REV/1. https://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=1202.
• 17. Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. MA: Addison-Wesley. https://people.umass.edu/aizen/ f&a1975.html.
• 18. Gafner, M. (2019). Smart City for the ageing population and disabled people [Hämeenlinna University Centre]. http://www.theseus.fi/handle/10024/167437.
• 19. 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. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-06-2013-0061.
• 20. Gerdes, K.E., Lietz, C.A., Segal, E.A. (2011). Measuring empathy in the 21st century: Development of an empathy index rooted in social cognitive neuroscience and social justice. Social Work Research, 35(2), 83-93. https://doi.org/10.1093/swr/35.2.83.
• 21. Grandhi, L.S., Grandhi, S., Wibowo, S. (2021). A Security-UTAUT Framework for Evaluating Key Security Determinants in Smart City Adoption by the Australian City Councils. Proceedings - 2021 21st ACIS International Semi-Virtual Winter Conference on Software Engineering, Artificial Intelligence, Networking and Parallel/Distributed Computing, SNPD-Winter 2021, 17-22. https://doi.org/10.1109/SNPDWinter52325. 2021.00013.
• 22. Guillaume, D. (2020). Analysis of the Internet of Things in the smart home environment : Context , Challenges and Implications. Université catholique de Louvain.
• 23. Habib, A., Alsmadi, D., Prybutok, V.R. (2020). Factors that determine residents' acceptance of smart city technologies. Behaviour and Information Technology, 39(6), 610-623. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2019.1693629.
• 24. Hambleton, R. (2014). Leading the Inclusive City: Place-Based Innovation for a Bounded Planet. Policy Press.
• 25. Hartman, D. (2020). Factors Affecting the Adoption of Internet Of Things Devices: A Correlational Study. Doctoral Dissertation. Capella University, October.
• 26. Herrera-López, M., Gómez-Ortiz, O., Ortega-Ruiz, R., Jolliffe, D., Romera, E.M. (2017). Suitability of a three-dimensional model to measure empathy and its relationship with social and normative adjustment in Spanish adolescents: A cross-sectional study. BMJ Open, 7(9). https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015347.
• 27. Horton, S. (2021). Empathy cannot sustain action in technology accessibility. Frontiers of Computer Science, 3(1), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomp.2021.617044.
• 28. IoT Inspector (2022). The Firmware Security Analysis Platform. https://www.iot-inspector.com/blog/.
• 29. ITwiz (2022). IoT devices, even as trivial as an electronic nanny, increasingly under attack by hackers. https://itwiz.pl/urzadzenia-iot-nawet-tak-banalne-jak-elektroniczna-niania-coraz-czesciej-atakowane-przez-hakerow/.
• 30. Khan, W.Z., Aalsalem, M.Y., Khan, M.K., Arshad, Q. (2016). Enabling consumer trust upon acceptance of IoT technologies through security and privacy model. Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering, 393, 111-117. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-1536-6_15.
• 31. Kim, H.W., Chan, H.C., Gupta, S. (2007). Value-based Adoption of Mobile Internet: An empirical investigation. Decision Support Systems, 43(1), 111-126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2005.05.009.
• 32. La Torres, J.L. (2020). Internet Of Things : A Quantitative Study Of Forces Affecting Adoption Of Innovation In Colorado Springs. A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Computer Science By José Luis Rivera La Torres Colorad. March.
• 33. Leong, G.W., Ping, T.A., Muthuveloo, R. (2017). Antecedents of Behavioural Intention to Adopt Internet of Things in the Context of Smart City in Malaysia. Global Business and Management Research: An International Journal, 9(4s), 442-456. https://0-search-proquest-com.oasis.unisa.ac.za/abicomplete/docview/1988803312/fulltextPDF/ D4A02BEA5BD14CC9PQ/36?accountid=14648.
• 34. Lietz, C.A., Gerdes, K.E., Sun, F., Geiger, J.M., Wagaman, M.A., Segal, E.A. (2011). The Empathy Assessment Index (EAI): A Confirmatory Factor Analysis of a Multidimensional Model of Empathy. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, Vol. 2, Iss. 2, pp. 104-124). https://doi.org/10.5243/jsswr.2011.6.
• 35. Liu, D., Yan, Z., Ding, W., Atiquzzaman, M. (2019). A survey on secure data analytics in edge computing. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 6(3), 4946-4967. https://doi.org/10.1109 /JIOT.2019.2897619.
• 36. Lopes, N.V. (2020). Internet of Things feasibility for disabled people. Transactions on Emerging Telecommunications Technologies, 31(12), e3906. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/ 10.1002/ett.3906.
• 37. Ministry of Health (2022). Accessibility Plus program for health. https://www.gov.pl/ web/zdrowie/program-dostepnosc-plus.
• 38. Neupane, C., Wibowo, S., Grandhi, S., Deng, H. (2021). A trust-based model for the adoption of smart city technologies in australian regional cities. Sustainability (Switzerland), 13(16). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169316.
• 39. Official Journal of the European Union (2016). General Data Protection Regulation, EU 679. https://doi.org/http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2016/679/oj.
• 40. Ogonji, M.M., Okeyo, G., Wafula, J.M. (2020). A survey on privacy and security of Internet of Things. Computer Science Review, 38, 100312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosrev. 2020.100312.
• 41. Pal, D., Arpnikanondt, C., Funilkul, S., Chutimaskul, W. (2020). The Adoption Analysis of Voice-Based Smart IoT Products. IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 7(11), 10852-10867. https://doi.org/10.1109/JIOT.2020.2991791.
• 42. Rakshit, S., Islam, N., Mondal, S., Paul, T. (2021). Mobile apps for SME business sustainability during COVID-19 and onwards. Journal of Business Research, 135(June), 28-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.06.005.
• 43. Tarabasz, A. (2016). The Internet of Things. Digital Revolution in Offline Market. Opportunity or Threat? Handel Wewnętrzny, 4(363), 325-337.
• 44. Tsourela, M., Nerantzaki, D.M. (2020). An internet of things (Iot) acceptance model. assessing consumer's behavior toward iot products and applications. Future Internet, 12(11), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi12110191.
• 45. United Nations (2018). World Urbanization Prospects 2018. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. World Population Prospects 2018. https://population.un.org/wup/.
• 46. United Nations (2019). World Population Prospects - Population Division - United Nations. https://population.un.org/wpp/Graphs/DemographicProfiles/Line/900.
• 47. Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D. (2000). Theoretical extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926.
• 48. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 27(3), 425-478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540.
• 49. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y.L., Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly: Management Information Systems, 36(1), 157-178. https://doi.org/10.2307/ 41410412.
• 50. Verma, P., Singh, R., Singh, P., Raghubanshi, A.S. (2020). Urban ecology - current state of research and concepts. Urban Ecology, 3-16. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-820730-7.00001-x.
• 51. Wright, B.S. (2017). The use and acceptance of the Internet of Things (IoT) by American consumers. Northcentral University, Prescott Valley, Arizona, July, 1-126.

Identyfikatory

DOI

10.29119/1641-3466.2022.163.41