The Evaluation and Significance of Smart City Projects in Korea: Targeting Enterprises within the Smart City Association Convergence Alliance
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Methodology
1.2. Scope of the Research
2. Theoretical Considerations
2.1. Smart City Overview
2.2. Smart City Policies by Country
2.3. Evaluation Indicators for Smart City Projects in South Korea
2.4. Literature Review
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Analytic Hierarchy Process
3.2. Efficiency and Productivity Measures
3.3. Premises and Process of AHP and DEA Analysis
4. AHP Analysis Results
4.1. Organisation of the Hierarchy Diagram
4.2. Analysis Results
5. Efficiency and Productivity Analysis Results
6. Discussion
6.1. Summary and Significance of the Study
6.2. Limitations and Future Research
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Myeong, S.; Jung, Y.; Lee, E. A study on determinant factors in smart city development: An analytic hierarchy process analysis. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Telecommunications Technology Association. Key Convergence Cases of the 4th Industrial Revolution Smart City Concept and Standardization Status, Standardization Issue 2018-1. 2018. Available online: https://committee.tta.or.kr/data/reportDown.jsp?news_num=6019 (accessed on 10 December 2023).
- Seoul City Council. A Study on Analyzing and Solving Social Problems in the Digital City of Seoul. 2018. Available online: https://www.seoulilbo.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=321344 (accessed on 7 November 2023).
- Peter Hansen, L. Repercussions of pandemics on markets and policy. Rev. Asset Pricing Stud. 2020, 10, 569–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Belanche, D.; Casaló, L.V.; Orús, C. City attachment and use of urban services: Benefits for smart cities. Cities 2016, 50, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hwang, J.; Jang, J. Prospects for smart city development and Korea’s competitiveness. In IT & Future Strategy; National Information Society: Daegu, Republic of Korea, 2016; No. 6. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, Y.; Koo, J. Study on the developing of evaluation indicators for smart city from the perspective of digital social innovation. J. Korea Contents Assoc. 2019, 19, 512–521. [Google Scholar]
- Han, S.; Shin, Y.; Yu, I.; Lee, J. A study on the Korea smart city certification index and demonstration authentication. J. Korea Acad.-Ind. Coop. Soc. 2018, 19, 688–698. [Google Scholar]
- Ahn, Y.; Lee, S.; Yu, M.; Jeong, G.; Yeom, I.; Ji, N.; Kim, A. Establishment of a Smart City Model Based on Citizen Participation; Daejeon Sejong Institute: Daejeon, Republic of Korea, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Jin, S. Life satisfaction depending on digital utilization divide within people with disabilities. Informatiz. Policy 2019, 26, 69–89. [Google Scholar]
- Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. Smart City Industry Promotion Strategy Research Final Report. 2022. Available online: https://koreascience.kr/article/JAKO201928463077955.page (accessed on 3 November 2023).
- Dutton, W.; Blumler, J.; Kraemer, K. Wired Cities: Shaping the Future of Communications; G.K. Hall: New York, NY, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Ishida, T. Understanding digital cities. In Digital Cities: Experiences, Technologies and Future Perspectives Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Ishida, T., Isbister, K., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Aurigi, A. Competing urban visions and the shaping of the digital city. Know. Techn. Pol. 2005, 18, 12–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mora, L.; Bolici, R.; Deakin, M. The first two decades of Smart-city research: A bibliometric analysis. J. Urban Technol. 2017, 24, 3–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yigitcanlar, T.; Kamruzzaman, M.; Foth, M.; Sabatini-Marques, J.; da Costa, E.; Ioppolo, G. Can cities become smart without being sustainable? A systematic review of the literature. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 45, 348–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- OECD. Smart Cities and Inclusive Growth; OECD: Paris, France, 2020; Available online: https://www.oecd.org/cfe/cities/OECD_Policy_Paper_Smart_Cities_and_Inclusive_Growth.pdf (accessed on 2 November 2023).
- ITU-T. Smart Sustainable Cities: An Analysis of Definitions [ITU-T Focus Group on Smart Sustainable Cities Technical Report]. 2014. Available online: https://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/focusgroups/ssc/Documents/Approved_Deliverables/TR-Definitions.docx (accessed on 2 November 2023).
- Cohen, B. The 3 Generations of Smart Cities: Inside the Development of the Technology Driven City. 2015. Available online: https://www.fastcompany.com/3047795/the-3-generations-of-smart-cities (accessed on 1 November 2023).
- Nam, T.; Pardo, T.A. Conceptualizing smart city with dimensions of technology, people, and institutions. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference: Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times, College Park, MD, USA, 12–15 June 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Kang, D.; Choi, C.; Lee, J.; Lee, J.S.; Park, S. Employment Impact Assessment Study for the Global Smart City Demonstration Complex Project; Korea Labor Institute: Sejong, Republic of Korea, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Karvonen, A.; Cugurullo, F.; Caprotti, F. Inside Smart Cities: Place, Politics and Urban Innovation; Routledge: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- EIP-SCC. European Innovation Partnership on Smart Cities and Communities, General Assembly 2018 Summary Report, Sofia, Bulgaria. 2018. Available online: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/library/general-assembly-european-innovation-partnership-smart-cities-and-communities-27-28-june-2018 (accessed on 15 October 2023).
- Jung, S. Policy trends for smart city promotion in Europe. Technol. Trends Wkly 2019, 1921, 2–13. [Google Scholar]
- Kim, K.; Kim, G. Status and prospect of smart city in the fourth Industrial Revolution. J. Korean Converg. Soc. 2018, 9, 191–197. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, J.; Lee, M.; Lee, J.; Kim, I. Strategic Response Measures According to Smart City Types; Korea Research Institute for Human Settlement: Sejong, Republic of Korea, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Cho, J.; Lee, N.; Seo, W. Smart City Overseas Case Study in Singapore, Smart City Policy and Governance Research; Seoul Digital Foundation: Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Cho, M.; Lee, J. Contents and Implications of the Japanese Super City Initiative to Resolve Resident-Oriented Local Challenges, National Land Issue, Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements; Smart: Sejong, Republic of Korea, 2021; Volume 42, pp. 45–57. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, H.; Bang, S.; Kim; Oh, H.; Wang, F. China Smart City Promotion Status and Entry Strategies: Focusing on the Cases of Xiong’anjin-gu and Tianjin Eco-City; Korea Institute for International Economic Policy and Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements: Sejong, Republic of Korea, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements. Smart City Policy Forum; Smart City Association: Seoul, Republic of Korea, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport 2021. Announcement of the 2021 Smart CITY Challenge Project Competition. Available online: https://smartcity.go.kr/en/2021/01/12/%E3%80%8C2021-%EC%8A%A4%EB%A7%88%ED%8A%B8-%EC%B1%8C%EB%A6%B0%EC%A7%80-%EC%82%AC%EC%97%85%E3%80%8D-%EA%B3%B5%EB%AA%A8-%EA%B3%B5%EA%B3%A0/ (accessed on 12 October 2023).
- Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport 2021. Announcement of the 2021 Smart Town Challenge Project Contest. Available online: https://www.kriea.re.kr/eng_index.php/board/filedown.php?filepath (accessed on 12 October 2023).
- Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport 2022. Announcement of Competition for Smart City Innovative Technology Discovery Project in 2022. Available online: https://smartcity.go.kr/en/2023/12/13/%EA%B5%AD%EA%B0%80%EC%8B%9C%EB%B2%94%EB%8F%84%EC%8B%9C%EC%97%90-%ED%95%84%EC%9A%94%ED%95%9C-%EC%8A%A4%EB%A7%88%ED%8A%B8%EB%8F%84%EC%8B%9C-%ED%98%81%EC%8B%A0%EA%B8%B0%EC%88%A0-%EC%B0%BE%EB%8A%94/ (accessed on 12 October 2023).
- Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport 2022. Announcement of Competition for Regional Base and Small City Smart City Creation Project in 2022. Available online: https://smartcity.go.kr/en/2021/11/23/%E3%80%8C2022%EB%85%84-%EC%A7%80%EC%97%AD%EA%B1%B0%EC%A0%90%C2%B7%EC%A4%91%EC%86%8C%EB%8F%84%EC%8B%9C-%EC%8A%A4%EB%A7%88%ED%8A%B8%EC%8B%9C%ED%8B%B0-%EC%A1%B0%EC%84%B1%EC%82%AC%EC%97%85%E3%80%8D/ (accessed on 12 October 2023).
- Shim, H.; Kim, J. Measures for the improvement of feasibility studies and investment review: Identification and verification of major project sectors considering balanced regional development. Sustainability 2020, 12, 9531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smart Cities Council. Smart Cities Index; Smart Cities Council: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- INTELI. Towards a Smart Cities Index: The Case of Portugal. 2012. Available online: https://journals.openedition.org/netcom/1105 (accessed on 3 October 2023).
- Vermesan, O.; Friess, P. (Eds.) Internet of Things: Converging Technologies for Smart Environments and Integrated Ecosystems; River Publishers: Aalborg, Denmark, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Song, J. IoT standards toward its next stage. IEEE Commun. Mag. 2016, 54, 14–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aronson, M.F.; Lepczyk, C.A.; Evans, K.L.; Goddard, M.A.; Lerman, S.B.; MacIvor, J.S.; Nilon, C.H.; Vargo, T. Biodiversity in the city: Key challenges for urban green space management. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2017, 15, 189–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Strokes, M.; Baeck, P.; Baker, T. What Next for Digital Social Innovation; Nesta: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Cavada, M.; Hunt, D.; Rogers, C. Smart Cities; Lancaster University: Lancaster, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Chang, H. Study on issues and perception changes in smart cities: Focusing on news, blogs, and twitter data, cadastral and territorial. Information 2019, 49, 67–82. [Google Scholar]
- Seong, J.; Park, I. ICT Living Lab case analysis and implications as a user-led innovation model. Sci. Technol. Res. 2015, 15, 245–278. [Google Scholar]
- Saaty, T.L. Rank generation, preservation, and reversal in the analytic hierarchy process. Decis. Sci. 1987, 18, 157–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saaty, T.L. Decision making with the analytic hierarchy process. Int. J. Serv. Sci. 2008, 1, 83–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saaty, T.L. Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process. Manage Sci 1986, 32, 841–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Woo, C.; Kim, G.; Kang, S. Comparative study of bankruptcy prediction models using LOGIT analysis and AHP analysis. Financ. Manag. Res. 1997, 14, 229–252. [Google Scholar]
- Vargas, L.G. An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1990, 48, 2–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Charnes, A.; Cooper, W.W.; Rhodes, E. Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1978, 2, 429–444. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, S. Structure analysis of production efficiency of local public service supply, Korean. J. Local Auton. 2000, 12, 47–65. [Google Scholar]
- Yoon, H. An Analysis on Changing Factors of Production Efficiency in Myanmar Sewing Industry. Korean J. Econ. Res. 2018, 36, 129–148. [Google Scholar]
Temporal Scope | This study spans the period from 2008 to 2023, encompassing the evolution and progression of smart city initiatives in South Korea. |
Spatial Scope | The research focuses on the developments within South Korea following the enactment of the U-City Law in 2008, extending through to 2023. However, for the members of the Smart City Association’s Smart City Convergence Alliance, the reference date is from 30 March 2022. |
Content Scope | The study covers the post-implementation period of South Korea’s U-City law (since 2008), including the following:
|
Div. | Item | Score | Sub-Items | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Written assessment (60%) | Necessity and feasibility of project | 20 |
| ||
Excellence and innovation of the preliminary project Demonstration plan of key solutions | 30 |
| |||
Promotion system adequacy | Collaboration of citizens and stakeholders | 10 |
| ||
Interagency collaboration | 20 |
| |||
Specificity and excellence of the main plan | 20 |
| |||
Presentation (40%) | Commitment to the project implementation | Local government commitment and feasibility | 35 |
| |
Private actors’ willingness to commercialise | 35 |
| |||
Expected effects and sustainability of the project | 30 |
|
Div. | Item | Score | Sub-Items |
---|---|---|---|
Written assessment (60%) | Necessity and feasibility of the project | 20 |
|
Excellence of the project plan | 30 |
| |
Adequacy of the project plan | 30 |
| |
Sustainability of the project | 20 |
| |
Presentation (40%) | Commitment to the project | 50 |
|
Expected effects and sustainability of the project | 50 |
|
Div. | Item | Score | Sub-Items | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Written assessment (60%) | Necessity and feasibility of the project | 20 |
| |
Excellence and innovation of the technology | 30 |
| ||
Appropriateness of project direction | 30 |
| ||
Appropriateness of the budget use plan | 20 |
| ||
Presentation (40%) | Commitment to the project implementation | Private actors’ willingness to commercialise | 40 |
|
Local government commitment and feasibility | 30 |
| ||
Expected effects and sustainability | 30 |
|
Div. | Item | Score | Sub-Items |
---|---|---|---|
Written assessment (60%) | Necessity and feasibility of the project | 20 |
|
Excellence and innovativeness of the project | 20 |
| |
Living lab operation plan | 35 |
| |
Budget investment and utilisation | 15 |
| |
Sustainability | 10 |
| |
Presentation (40%) | Commitment to the project implementation | 50 |
|
Expected effects and sustainability of the project | 50 |
|
Div. | Item | Score | Sub-Items |
---|---|---|---|
Prejudging (100) | Completeness of ideas | 30 |
|
Creativity and challenge | 25 |
| |
Differentiation | 25 |
| |
Motive of suggestion | 20 |
| |
Additional points | +4 |
| |
Total | 104 |
Importance | Definition | Description |
---|---|---|
1 | Equal importance | Both elements serve the purpose equally |
3 | Moderate importance | Moderate preference for one element over another |
5 | Essential or strong importance | One element is strongly preferred over another |
7 | Very strong importance | One element is strongly preferred over another and its dominance is strong |
9 | Extreme importance | One element is extremely preferred over another |
2, 4, 6, 8 | Intermediate values between the two adjacent judgments | Used when compromise is necessary |
Identification of priority items |
|
Efficiency and productivity analytics |
|
Analysis results and conclusions |
|
Smart Challenge Project | Evaluation Items | Score | Reclassification (Tier 1) | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
City | Town | Company-Led | Citizen-Led Living Lab | |||
● | ● | ● | ● |
| 20 | Technical expertise |
● |
| 30 | ||||
● |
| 20 | ||||
● |
| 35 | ||||
● |
| 30 | Specificity of planning | |||
● |
| 30 | ||||
● |
| 30 | ||||
● |
| 20 | ||||
● |
| 15 | ||||
● |
| 20 | Sustainability | |||
● |
| 10 | ||||
● |
| 20 | ||||
● |
| 20 | ||||
● | ● | ● | ● |
| 30–50 | |
● | ● | ● | ● |
| 35–50 | Scalability |
● | ● | ● | ● |
| 35–50 |
Goal | Comparison of Importance (Tier 1) | Comparison of Importance (Tier 2) | Comparison of Importance (Tier 3) |
---|---|---|---|
Smart city evaluation indicators | Technical expertise | Technology acceptability | Possession of specialised ICT technicians, establishment of a dedicated smart city department, existence of interconnected services between departments, and use of big data in policy proposals by field. |
Administrative accessibility | Organise smart city living labs and governance, facilitate citizen policy input, and computerise administrative services | ||
Plan specificity | Economic infrastructure | Build a virtuous employment ecosystem, open consumption behaviour, local productivity, and industry spillovers | |
Urban infrastructure | Validity of building intelligent facilities, enterprise management system (EMS), and sustainability of transportation facilities | ||
Educational infrastructure | Introduce specialised ICT training and E-learning, provide intelligent educational facilities | ||
Sustainability | Social infrastructure | Operate integrated operational centre and sustainable social council | |
Living infrastructure | Smart city planning, smart healthcare and safety management | ||
Environmental infrastructure | Sustainability of environmental facilities, smart environmental management, energy management | ||
Scalability | Fostering specialised human resources | Technology convergence workforce education, regional networked innovative workforce | |
Creation of industrial ecosystem | Strengthen public–private and private–private partnership capabilities, support for overseas export of innovative products |
Evaluation Goal (Tier 1) | Evaluation Criteria (Main) (Tier 2) | Evaluation Criteria (Sub1) (Tier 3) | Evaluation Criteria [Sub2] (Tier 4) | Final Weight | Tier Ranking | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Improvement of smart city project planning evaluation system | Technical expertise (W: 0.16) | Technical acceptability (W: 0.66) | Possession of ICT specialised technical personnel | (W: 0.24) | 0.0253 | 15 |
Establishment of a dedicated smart city department | (W: 0.38) | 0.0401 | 8 | |||
Existence of interconnected services between departments | (W: 0.22) | 0.0232 | 18 | |||
Utilisation of big data for policy proposals by field | (W: 0.16) | 0.0169 | 25 | |||
Administrative accessibility (W: 0.34) | Smart city living lab and governance organisation | (W: 0.48) | 0.0261 | 12 | ||
Ease of reflecting citizen policy opinions | (W: 0.34) | 0.0185 | 24 | |||
Computerisation of administrative services | (W: 0.18) | 0.0098 | 27 | |||
Specificity of plan (W: 0.30) | Economic infrastructures (W: 0.29) | Building a virtuous employment ecosystem | (W: 0.30) | 0.0261 | 12 | |
Open consumption behaviour | (W: 0.18) | 0.0157 | 26 | |||
Local productivity | (W: 0.23) | 0.0200 | 23 | |||
Industrial spillovers | (W: 0.29) | 0.0252 | 16 | |||
Urban infrastructures (W: 0.57) | Feasibility of building intelligent facilities | (W: 0.40) | 0.0684 | 4 | ||
Enterprise management system (EMS) | (W: 0.40) | 0.0684 | 4 | |||
Sustainability of transportation facilities | (W: 0.20) | 0.0342 | 10 | |||
Educational infrastructures (W: 0.14) | Introduce ICT professional training and E-learning | (W: 0.51) | 0.0214 | 21 | ||
Provide intelligent educational facilities | (W: 0.49) | 0.0206 | 22 | |||
Sustainability (W: 0.33) | Social infrastructures (W: 0.41) | Operate an integrated operations centre | (W: 0.59) | 0.0798 | 3 | |
Operate sustainable social councils | (W: 0.41) | 0.0555 | 6 | |||
Living infrastructures (W: 0.38) | Establish smart city plans | (W: 0.79) | 0.0991 | 1 | ||
Smart medical and safety management | (W: 0.21) | 0.0263 | 11 | |||
Environmental infrastructures (W: 0.21) | Sustainability of environmental facilities | (W: 0.36) | 0.0249 | 17 | ||
Smart environmental management | (W: 0.33) | 0.0229 | 19 | |||
Energy management | (W: 0.31) | 0.0215 | 20 | |||
Scalability (W: 0.21) | Nurture professional workforce (W: 0.31) | Technology convergence workforce education | (W: 0.61) | 0.0397 | 9 | |
Regional networked innovative workforce | (W: 0.39) | 0.0254 | 14 | |||
Creation of industrial ecosystems (W: 0.69) | Strengthening public–private and private–private partnerships | (W: 0.68) | 0.0985 | 2 | ||
Support for overseas export of innovative products | (W: 0.32) | 0.0464 | 7 |
Year | Category | Minimum | Maximum | Mean | SD |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
2019 | Capital (KRW million) | 567 | 148,768 | 11,309.50 | 24,912.63 |
Number of employees (people) | 1 | 268 | 54.95 | 71.50 | |
Assets (KRW million) | 832 | 235,774 | 18,564.68 | 40,117.95 | |
Sales (KRW million) | 122 | 94,172 | 12,770.98 | 18,872.19 | |
Operating income (KRW million) | −6521 | 5985 | 78.50 | 1759.19 | |
Net income (KRW million) | −29,524 | 5758 | −1000.20 | 5231.20 | |
2020 | Capital (KRW million) | 637 | 173,417 | 11,933.95 | 28,302.18 |
Number of employees (people) | 1 | 285 | 62.60 | 75.56 | |
Assets (KRW million) | 951 | 251,398 | 20,486.45 | 41,861.79 | |
Sales (KRW million) | 77 | 91,237 | 15,187.32 | 21,907.16 | |
Operating income (KRW million) | −6499 | 6576 | 446.50 | 2150.39 | |
Net income (KRW million) | −17,139 | 7256 | 55.90 | 3405.35 | |
2021 | Capital (KRW million) | 699 | 200,921 | 15,099.75 | 33,297.94 |
Number of employees (people) | 6 | 375 | 76.50 | 86.58 | |
Assets (KRW million) | 1054 | 260,651 | 23,762.50 | 45,064.57 | |
Sales (KRW million) | 63 | 82,219 | 14,994.60 | 20,483.75 | |
Operating income (KRW million) | −7488 | 25,486 | 968.87 | 4582.89 | |
Net income (KRW million) | −9418 | 19,066 | 810.40 | 4029.82 |
DMU | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 0.4782 | 0.6321 | 0.6951 |
2 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
3 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
4 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
5 | 0.6852 | 1 | 0.9785 |
6 | 1 | 1 | 0.9213 |
7 | 1 | 1 | 0.9921 |
8 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
9 | 0.8212 | 0.8631 | 0.8323 |
10 | 0.5733 | 0.5752 | 0.6845 |
11 | 0.632 | 0.4302 | 1 |
12 | 0.7732 | 0.9561 | 0.9429 |
13 | 1 | 0.9212 | 0.9124 |
14 | 0.8633 | 0.6752 | 0.3829 |
15 | 0.4469 | 0.4932 | 0.2764 |
16 | 0.8424 | 1 | 1 |
17 | 0.8358 | 0.6621 | 0.6348 |
18 | 0.8902 | 0.9631 | 1 |
19 | 0.6128 | 1 | 1 |
20 | 0.6332 | 0.4921 | 0.9212 |
21 | 0.9562 | 0.9102 | 0.9212 |
22 | 0.7632 | 0.7921 | 1 |
23 | 0.8236 | 0.6982 | 0.7823 |
24 | 0.9563 | 0.6933 | 0.6952 |
25 | 0.921 | 0.9215 | 1 |
26 | 0.3452 | 0.5231 | 0.6218 |
27 | 0.6213 | 0.5212 | 0.1625 |
28 | 0.5852 | 0.9612 | 0.5289 |
29 | 0.5775 | 0.6907 | 0.6619 |
30 | 1 | 0.584 | 0.7113 |
31 | 1 | 1 | 0.9932 |
32 | 0.5992 | 0.5551 | 0.6212 |
33 | 0.6132 | 0.4822 | 0.4232 |
34 | 0.6333 | 0.5212 | 0.3921 |
35 | 1 | 0.9212 | 0.8218 |
36 | 0.5236 | 0.4921 | 0.4922 |
37 | 0.792 | 1 | 1 |
38 | 0.5632 | 0.6341 | 0.7521 |
Average | 0.7727 | 0.7780 | 0.7830 |
Category | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | Average |
---|---|---|---|---|
TE | 0.7843 | 0.7932 | 0.853 | 0.8102 |
PTE | 0.8671 | 0.8522 | 0.8732 | 0.8642 |
SE | 0.8782 | 0.9135 | 0.9301 | 0.9073 |
N | 38 | 38 | 38 | 38 |
Category | 2019 | 2020 | 2021 | Sum |
---|---|---|---|---|
CRS | 9 | 11 | 11 | 31 (27.19%) |
DRS | 11 | 10 | 12 | 33 (28.94%) |
IRS | 18 | 17 | 15 | 50 (43.87%) |
N | 38 | 38 | 38 | 114 (100%) |
Time Series | TECI | TCI | PECI | SECI | MPI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
T2 | 0.9893 | 1.0555 | 0.9526 | 1.0386 | 1.0442 |
T3 | 0.9538 | 0.9482 | 0.9339 | 1.0213 | 0.9044 |
Geometric mean | 0.9714 | 1.0004 | 0.9432 | 1.0299 | 0.9718 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kim, J. The Evaluation and Significance of Smart City Projects in Korea: Targeting Enterprises within the Smart City Association Convergence Alliance. Sustainability 2024, 16, 2697. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16072697
Kim J. The Evaluation and Significance of Smart City Projects in Korea: Targeting Enterprises within the Smart City Association Convergence Alliance. Sustainability. 2024; 16(7):2697. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16072697
Chicago/Turabian StyleKim, Jaehwan. 2024. "The Evaluation and Significance of Smart City Projects in Korea: Targeting Enterprises within the Smart City Association Convergence Alliance" Sustainability 16, no. 7: 2697. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16072697
APA StyleKim, J. (2024). The Evaluation and Significance of Smart City Projects in Korea: Targeting Enterprises within the Smart City Association Convergence Alliance. Sustainability, 16(7), 2697. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16072697