Proceedings of the 2018 4th International Conference on Economics, Social Science, Arts, Education and Management Engineering ( 2018
DOI: 10.2991/essaeme-18.2018.34
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Factors and Growth Mechanism for Smart City: a Survey of Nine cities of The Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area

Abstract: The concept of Smart City is changing the methods by which the cities manage urbanization strategies and govern city. The article on hand uses the dataset of nine cities of Guangdong, Southern province of China, to examine what social powers influent cities towards their smartness, and how they affect. It shows the influential social powers can be classified as four groups, personnel, capital, material and intellectual resources. After factor analysis, unit root test, cointegration test, Granger causality test… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 7 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Finally, a modest body of survey- and interview-based research has been conducted at the conceptual periphery of smart cities, including a study about the perceptions of practitioners from the public and private sectors about the appropriateness of public–private partnerships in the provision of smart cities technologies (Lam and Yang 2020) and a survey of perceptions from public and private sector leaders about smart city preparedness in Vietnam (Vu and Hartley 2018). Numerous studies offer descriptive accounts and analyses of Hong Kong’s smart city exploits (Govada et al 2020; Govada et al 2020; Li, Nam, and Khoo 2020; Jiang, Luo, and Chen 2018), but there are few empirical or survey-based studies about political legitimacy concerning smart cities in Hong Kong (Chan 2019; Chan and Marafa 2018; Mah et al 2012). This study fills this empirical gap by presenting the results of a survey about trust and legitimacy in Hong Kong.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Finally, a modest body of survey- and interview-based research has been conducted at the conceptual periphery of smart cities, including a study about the perceptions of practitioners from the public and private sectors about the appropriateness of public–private partnerships in the provision of smart cities technologies (Lam and Yang 2020) and a survey of perceptions from public and private sector leaders about smart city preparedness in Vietnam (Vu and Hartley 2018). Numerous studies offer descriptive accounts and analyses of Hong Kong’s smart city exploits (Govada et al 2020; Govada et al 2020; Li, Nam, and Khoo 2020; Jiang, Luo, and Chen 2018), but there are few empirical or survey-based studies about political legitimacy concerning smart cities in Hong Kong (Chan 2019; Chan and Marafa 2018; Mah et al 2012). This study fills this empirical gap by presenting the results of a survey about trust and legitimacy in Hong Kong.…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%