Factors affecting smart community service adoption intention: affective community commitment and motivation theory

Residents’ Quality of Life in Smart Tourism Destinations: A Theoretical Approach

“…ICT plays a cross-cutting role in smart tourism destinations [88], which encourage the local community to have a more positive perception of their quality of life [12] and of tourism activities and urban infrastructure [77,78], and which promote the improvement of human and social capital, and above all, generate an ecosystem favorable to economic activity [106]. These technology-linked benefits are not always equitable and can lead to a social gap in access to and use of technology [74] or economic growth that only favors certain stakeholders.…”

“…The tangible assets of the smart city relate to natural resources, services, and urban infrastructure [73,[75][76][77][78][79][80], while intangible assets include human capital, intellectual capital (private sector), and organizational capital (public sector) [69].…”

“…Another theory that stands out in several research on the quality of life of residents in tourist destinations is the Social Exchange Theory [2][3][4]24,40,42,49], whereby the community assesses the costs and benefits of tourism development through the perception of the impacts of tourism on their quality of life. On the other hand, it was found that few studies in the field of smart cities, mention theories that analyze the use and acceptance of technologies by the local community, for example: Social Exchange Theory, Technology Acceptance Model and Theory of Self-Determination [78], Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology, Diffusion of Innovation Theory [68], and Motivation Theory and Commitment Theory [77].…”

“…Tokarchuk, Gabriele, and Maurer, 2017 [26]; Uysal and Sirgy, 2019 [37]; Yeh, 2017 [68] Health and Safety [31]; Chourabi et al, 2012 [74]; Edge, Boluk, Groulx, and Quick, 2020 [116]; Giffinger et al, 2007 [97]; Khan et al, 2017 [60]; Ko and Stewart, 2002 [7]; Jordan, Lesar, and Spencer, 2019 [32]; Li, Huang, Chen, Zheng, and Liu, 2019 [77]; Liang and Hui, 2016 [29]; Lin, Zhao, Yu, and Wu, 2019 [78]; Macke, Rubim Sarate, and de Atayde Moschen, 2019 [73]; Martín, Moreira, and Román, 2019 [33]; Matarrita-Cascante, 2010 [34]; Nam and Pardo, 2011 [111]; Neirotti et al, 2014 [69]; Nunkoo and Ramkissoon, 2011 [35]; Schaffers, Ratti, and Komninos, 2012 [79]; Wirtz, Müller, and Schmidt, 2019 [80]; Yeh, 2017 [68]; Yu, Cole, and Chancellor, 2016 [27] Well-Being of Social Inclusion We highlight that sociocultural well-being is a dimension that encompasses a greater number of factors and indicators that are closely related to the sense of quality of life (e.g., social interactions, public services, leisure and entertainment, personal development), and that has received greater attention from academic studies. We understand that political well-being [38] refers to the satisfaction with community participation factor.…”

Organizational commitment and work-related implementation of enterprise social networks (ESNs): the mediating roles of employees' organizational concern and prosocial values

“…Moreover, organizational commitment has always been recognized as an integral element linking the employees to their organization (Yahaya and Ebrahim, 2016). This may facilitate many processes like the success of IT implementation in the organization (Garrido-Moreno et al, 2014;Li et al, 2019). In fact, organizational commitment is one of the most effective factors through which the managers are able to get the employees to use the common IT instruments in the organization in a way that is adapted to their main technological missions (Rezvani et al, 2017).…”