Yang, W and Lam, P T I (2021) Evaluating non-market costs of ICT involving data transmission in smart cities. Building Research & Information, 49(7), pp. 715-728. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
Smart cities are spurred by rapid development of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs). Cost justification has been a challenging but essential decision-making aspect for smart city projects. Whilst market costs are measurable, non-market costs are often obscure and even intangible. The adverse effects on individuals arising from ICT services are usually underestimated due to the exclusion of intangible elements. This study is devoted to the non-market costs of ICT to users (i.e. Privacy leak, Cyber-attack, Non-availability, and Impediment) and non-users (due to Digital divide) in smart cities. Contingent Valuation is conducted on representative ICT services in Hong Kong which is an emerging smart city. Ordinal regression is adopted to calculate Willingness-to-Pay (WTP) for avoiding detriments as the proxy of non-market cost. The results indicate that the WTPs increase with data input needs. Information overload is remarkable in smart cities. Age is identified as a significant determinant through a discussion of influential factors of WTP. The impacts of Age on digital divide are studied with further insights through supplementary interviews. The estimated non-market costs should be incorporated into the Cost–Benefit Analysis of smart city projects for decision-making. Accordingly, policy recommendations on ICT use and security are provided for smart city managers.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | age; cost–benefit analysis; data exchange; digital technologies |
| Index terms: | data exchange, Hong Kong, smart city, determinant, information and communication technology, interview, manager, digital divide, privacy, influential factor, decision-making, digital technology |
| Subjects: | Geography, data exchange, professional ethics, decision analysis, urban sustainability, practitioner, computing systems, risk assessment, data collection methods, digital technology |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Urban Studies, Digital Applications, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Risk Management, Roles and Professions |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here