Insights of Smart Community in Kemaman

  • Abstract
  • Keywords
  • References
  • PDF
  • Abstract

    A smart community is regarded as a community where various next-generation technologies and advance social systems are effectively integrated and utilized, including the efficient use of energy, utilization of resources, and improvement and transformation of the everyday lives of citizens. Since technology being a major element in smart community implementation, this research focused on the identification of those research streams which are adoption and continuance of usages. The investigation targets of this research are individuals from Kemaman in Terengganu, who are existing and potential adopters of the smart community facilities, ranging from different demographic background. Preliminary information has been gathered from the local authorities such as district officers, local agencies, community leaders and local institutions. Their responses are used together with the suggestions for the Smart Community process improvement which will also be part of this study. Survey is used as the research instrument and the units of analysis are households and stakeholders who are involved in these four districts in Malaysia. As this is a quantitative study using positive epistemology, data obtained from the survey are analyzed using Partial Least Square (PLS-SEM), to test the hypotheses that explain the relationship between the constructs in a wholesome perspective. This research will conclude by recommendations that hold some insights of the usage continuance of the smart community facilities in Kemaman household context.



  • Keywords

    smart community; Malaysian household; MCMC; UTAUT, quantitative

  • References

      [1] Agarwal, R., & Prasad, J. (1998). A conceptual and operational definition of personal innovativeness in the domain of information technology. Information Systems Research, 9(2), 204–215.

      [2] Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179–211.

      [3] Delone, W. H., & 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.

      [4] Ghazali, M., Okamura, T., Abdullah, T., Sunar, M. S., Mohamed, F., & Ismail, N. (2016). In the Quest of Defining Smart Digital City in Medini Iskandar Malaysia, Iskandar Puteri, Malaysia. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SEACHI 2016 on Smart Cities for Better Living with HCI and UX.

      [5] Giannakos, M. N., Pateli, A. G., & Chorianopoulos, K. (2013). Investigating Facebook’s acceptance and satisfaction: a study in the Greek university community. International Journal of Social and Humanistic Computing 14, 2(1-2), 104-117.

      [6] Gil, O., & Navarro, C. (2013). Innovations of Governance in Cities and Urban regions: Smart Cities in China, Iskandar (Malaysia), Japan, New York and Tarragona (Spain). Paper presented at the EURA Conference: Cities as Sheedbeds for Innovation.

      [7] Gurstein, M. (2014). Smart cities vs. smart communities: Empowering citizens not market economics. The Journal of Community Informatics, 10(3).

      [8] Harrison, C., Eckman, B., Hamilton, R., Hartswick, P., Kalagnanam, J., Paraszczak, J., & Williams, P. (2010). Foundations for smarter cities. IBM Journal of Research and Development, 54(4), 1-16.

      [9] Hollands, R. G. (2008). Will the real smart city please stand up? Intelligent, progressive or entrepreneurial? City, 12(3), 303-320.

      [10] IBM. Smart Cities Challenge. Retrieved April 8,2017 from

      [11] Iskandar Malaysia. About Smart City Iskandar Malaysia. Retrieved April 9,2017 from

      [12] Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusions of innovations (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press.

      [13] Smart Community @ Kemaman. Retrieved April 9,2017 from

      [14] Takenaka. (2012). Toshiba Smart Community. Retrieved from

      [15] Tanabe, M., van den Besselaar, P., & Ishida, T. (2003). Digital Cities II. Computational and Sociological Approaches: Second Kyoto Workshop on Digital Cities, Kyoto, Japan, October 18-20, 2001. Revised Papers (Vol. 2362): Springer.

      [16] Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model: Four Longitudinal Field Studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186–204.

      [17] Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 425–478.

      [18] Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., Chan, F. K., Hu, P. J. H., & Brown, S. A. (2011). Extending the two‐stage information systems continuance model: Incorporating UTAUT predictors and the role of context. Information Systems Journal, 21(6), 527-555.

      [19] Williams, M. D., Rana, N. P., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2015). The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): a literature review. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 28(3), 443-488.




Article ID: 25380
DOI: 10.14419/ijet.v7i4.36.25380

Copyright © 2012-2015 Science Publishing Corporation Inc. All rights reserved.