Building Participative E-Governance in Smart Cities: Moderating Role of Institutional and Technological Innovation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The author of this paper made a substantial effort to contribute to the field of study. However, to improve the quality of the manuscript, I came up with the following suggestions.

1.      Please make sure that the Abstract follows the MDPI template (e.g., structure the abstract again).

2.      Why these 2 countries are selected? Are there any specific reasons for this? Besides, I can assume that these countries are preferably been selected regarding the origin of the authors, but for some readers, this may still not be clear. For example, maybe I do not fully understand the topic, but at least there should be some reason why these countries were selected for the study area and what their problem is, do they have common issues regarding the research topic, etc.

In addition, the title suggests that it is no case study (but it actually is).

3.      Technological Innovation: I could not find the exact definition used in this study as one sentence similar to the definition of “Institutional Innovation” beginning at line 234.

4.      Hypothesis 1: Higher e-governance in smart cities will enhance the stakeholders’, make sure that ‘will’ (future tense) should be used here instead of the present form.

5.      For Hypothesis 3 and 5, I really do not grasp why it is/should be considered. Can you give me reasons for them (it is hard to understand from the text)?

6.      There is no mention in the text before the “Figure 1. Conceptual Framework” first appears. But on the page 12. Make sure to add mentions where appropriate.  

7.      Regarding the analysis one thing came into my mind is that what if a group comparison study between Korea and Pakistan were done as these two countries would be different in terms of the national (economic) development level (e.g., developing and developed country) and this could possibly differ in technological development and use, therefore understanding of those people can be different regarding the research questions as well as a questionnaire.

One thing that could be only assumed is that there were not enough participants (n) for the questionnaire and the total/integrated number of participants was used from both countries.

8.      There are some improvements needed in Table 1. Use lines to separate rows for better visibility. If possible, add variable clarification such as independent, dependent, and control where appropriate (table or text). For the definition column try to reduce the words and make it to one sentence (e.g. what is what) and finally it would look better if you give some numberings to the Measurement column (e.g. (1)… (2)…).

9.      For research methods, can you give clarification to “… they were utilized to analyze data statistically to satisfy the minimum sample size requirement for multiple regression modeling.” Is it possible to add some text regarding it to the paper?

10.   For Table 3, Try to use lines to separate rows for better visibility and give numberings for Items column values. In addition, a point looks missing for the figure 0918 -> 0.918 in Table 3.

11.   I suggest “5. Discussion, Limitations, and Conclusion” -> “5. Discussion and Conclusion” as these sections could include study limitations.

12.    Generally overall text uses substantial references (citations), check again if all those references are necessary, i.e., try to be focused on the core content of the topic.

13.   There is no Appendix 1 (mentioned in line 471) in the text. Make sure you are having it with the manuscript.

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Please ensure the Abstract follows the MDPI template (e.g., structure the Abstract again).

Answer 1: Thank you to the honorable reviewer for highlighting this important issue. We have improved the manuscript by rewriting and restructuring the Abstract following the MDPI template.

2. Why these two countries are selected? Are there any specific reasons for this? Besides, I can assume that these countries are preferably chosen regarding the authors' origin, but for some readers, this may still not be clear. For example, maybe I do not fully understand the topic, but at least there should be some reason why these countries were selected for the study area and their problem, do they have common issues regarding the research topic, etc.

In addition, the title suggests that it is no case study (but it is).

Answer 2: Thank you very much for your kind comment. For specific reasons, we have selected two countries, e.g., South Korea and Pakistan. Firstly, South Korea is a developed country, Pakistan is a developing economy, and both countries have different E-governance levels. South Korea has a highly digital economy, while Pakistan is partially digital, and electronic services are inadequate. However, the main reason to use these countries for data collection and analysis was to determine if users' perception of E-governance is similar, considering their level of usage of provided electronic services. Previously, a similar study has been conducted using these two countries (South Korea and Pakistan) to examine the use of AI in decision-making by Bokhari and Myeong (2022). More specifically, the justifications for using these two countries are included as a paragraph in subsection 3.1 between Lines 505 and 523.

3. Technological Innovation: I could not find the exact definition used in this study as one sentence similar to the definition of “Institutional Innovation” beginning at line 234.

Answer 3: Thank you very much for this specific comment regarding the definition of technological innovation. A subsection under section 2.2, “Innovations in smart cities,” explains several authors' different definitions of technological innovation from Line 254 to Line 292. We have updated the manuscript by including a specific definition of technological innovation by Mario Caccio (2021), which explains technological innovation as “a complex system composed of more than one entity or subsystem of technologies and a relationship that holds between each entity and at least one other entity in the system for achieving specific goals.”

4. Hypothesis 1: Higher e-governance in smart cities will enhance the stakeholders’; make sure that ‘will’ (future tense) should be used here instead of the present form.

Answer 4: Thank you very much for your kind comment. We have upgraded the manuscript by using future sentences instead of the present form, as recommended,

5. ForHypothesis 3 and 5, I do not grasp why it is/should be considered. Can you give me reasons for them (it is hard to understand from the text)?

Answer 5: Thank you very much for raising this important point. The main objective of this paper is to investigate the moderating impact of contextual factors (innovation) on the relationship between E-governance (independent variable) and stakeholders’ satisfaction (dependent variable). Furthermore, two kinds of innovations, e.g., institutional innovation and technological innovation, are examined in the context of smart cities. So, to get the statistical findings regarding institutional and technological innovations, Hypothesis 3 and Hypothesis 5 were developed. Since these are contextual factors, the text may be found in subsections 2.4 and 2.5 between Lines 357 and 443,

6. There is no mention in the text before the “Figure 1. Conceptual Framework” first appears. But on the page 12. Make sure to add mentions where appropriate.  

Answer 6: Thank you very much for highlighting this critical issue. We have updated the manuscript by including Figure 1. “Conceptual Framework,” at the appropriate place and by incorporating the statistical equations of linear multiple regression and their explanations; these inclusions are placed between Lines 448 and 468, highlighted in yellow.

7. Regarding the analysis, one thing came to my mind is that what if a group comparison study between Korea and Pakistan were done as these two countries would be different in terms of the national (economic) development level (e.g., developing and developed country) and this could differ in technological development and use, therefore understanding of those people can be different regarding the research questions as well as a questionnaire. One thing that could be only assumed is that there were not enough participants (n) for the questionnaire, and the total/integrated number of participants was used from both countries.

Answer 7: Thank you very much for this important comment. Regarding the analysis of data collected from two countries, e.g., South Korea and Pakistan, the justification is given in the paragraph, and it is included in the revised manuscript between Lines 500 and 518. A similar analysis has been conducted previously by Bokhari & Myeong (2022) on using AI in decision-making with the mediating role of social innovations and was published in Sustainability Please. The paragraph included in the manuscript for justification is given below:

“Several academics have focused on conducting comparative analyses between developed and developing countries on various issues. For instance, Wunder et al. [107] conducted a study comparing payments for environmental services, while Pandya [108] explored the role of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in economic development. Also, Pandya [108] performed a comparative analysis to assess the influence of capital flows and the stock market on the economic progress of various nations. Subsequently, Joblin and Jamasb [109] executed a comparative analysis to investigate the effects of price volatility on the demand for oil in both developed and developing nations. Most prior research on the comparative analysis between advanced and emerging nations relied on available real-time data [110]. The rationale for selecting South Korea and Pakistan as the focus of our study stems from a scarcity of prior studies that have simultaneously examined the public's perception of the effect of artificial intelligence (AI) on decision-making in both developed and developing nations [62]. The main justification for selecting two countries as the topic of our study originates from the opposing contexts they furnish. As a developed country, South Korea exhibits a significant presence of public managers who successfully implemented AI-based public service delivery. Conversely, Pakistan, a developing country, demonstrates an insufficient or inadequate implementation of online services. Therefore, the present study aimed to examine the general public's perception in the aforementioned countries.”

8. There are some improvements needed in Table 1. Use lines to separate rows for better visibility. If possible, add variable clarification such as independent, dependent, and control where appropriate (table or text). For the definition column, try to reduce the words and make it to one sentence (e.g., what is what), and finally, it would look better if you give some numberings to the Measurement column (e.g. (1)… (2)…).

Answer 8: Thank you very much for your kind comment. We have upgraded the manuscript by making the following changes:

• Rows are separated using lines for better visibility
• Variable clarifications are included and highlighted (Independent, dependent, and moderating)
• Words of definitions are reduced
• Numbering is added with questions in the measurement column

9. For research methods, can you clarify “… they were utilized to analyze data statistically to satisfy the minimum sample size requirement for multiple regression modeling.” Is it possible to add some text regarding it to the paper?

Answer 9: Thank you very much for this concern. We have upgraded the manuscript by including a paragraph to justify our sample size based on the previous research. The section is highlighted in yellow and given between lines 488 and 493, please.

10. For Table 3, Try to use lines to separate rows for better visibility and give numberings for Items column values. In addition, a point looks missing for the figure 0918 -> 0.918 in Table 3.

Answer 10: Thank you very much for highlighting and your comment. We have separated the rows using lines, and 0918 is corrected as 0.918 in Table 3.

11. I suggest “5. Discussion, Limitations, and Conclusion” -> “5. Discussion and Conclusion” as these sections could include study limitations.

Answer 11: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have updated the manuscript by separating the Discussion, Implications, Limitations, Future Research Directions, and Conclusion sections.

12. Generally, the overall text uses substantial references (citations); check again if all those references are necessary, i.e., try to be focused on the core content of the topic.

Answer 12: All the citations/references were rechecked and revised. Some of the new references are also included to substantiate our justifications,

13. There is no Appendix 1 (mentioned in line 471) in the text. Make sure you are having it with the manuscript.

Answer 13: Thank you very much for highlighting this important issue. We have included Appendix 1 on page 17, at the end of the manuscript, before references.

Reviewer 2 Report

Implementing effective institutional and technological innovations are important to facilitate the effective execution of eGovernance in smart cities.  

To find the determinant factors for building participative E-Governance in smart cities is the aim of this study. But this study just examines the connections between eGovernance and stakeholder satisfaction, highlighting the influence of institutional and technological innovation as moderating factor,  the effect of e-Governance and the aim of developing e-Governance in the cities are limited to the stakeholders’ satisfaction, so directly examining the influence of e-governance in smart cities on stakeholders' satisfaction will not consider comprehensively and cause the result of the research not convincing. 

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer 2 Comments

To find the determinant factors for building participative E-Governance in smart cities is the aim of this study. But this study just examines the connections between eGovernance and stakeholder satisfaction, highlighting the influence of institutional and technological innovation as moderating factor,  the effect of e-Governance and the aim of developing e-Governance in the cities are limited to the stakeholders’ satisfaction, so directly examining the influence of e-governance in smart cities on stakeholders' satisfaction will not consider comprehensively and cause the result of the research not convincing. 

Answer 13: Thank you very much for highlighting this important point. We changed the study title to “Building Participative E-Governance in Smart Cities: Moderating Role of Institutional and Technological Innovation.”

E-government is a network-based cooperative partnership among government, private sector organizations, and citizens; thus, the satisfaction level of the citizen will be increased. We also found that the influence of institutional and technological innovation was significant because e-governance would be more efficient and effective if the institutional settings were changed before the smart city project was fully implemented. It matches the previous studies, which pointed out the importance of governance and organizational innovations, not just considering technology adoption.

Reviewer 3 Report

This research explores the inherent complexity of institutional and technological innovations in smart cities. There are some concerns regarding the clarity of the paper after careful evaluation of the manuscript:

1. The abstract is not attractive enough, so it is suggested to reorganize and rewrite it with highlights.

2. The discussion part should compare the results worthy of discussion with the existing research in depth and breadth.

3. To reflect the advancement of the research, references of the recent five years in English need to be added if possible. Meanwhile, the authors could highlight the research gaps with issues of concern in the world today, such as

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2022.101405

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.104482

4. Please modify the format of the references according to the journal requirements.

5. For the conclusion part, the author should process it as a separate part and prospect for follow-up research in more detail.

6. Double-check the manuscript's typos, misprints, and grammatical errors to polish the language.

Double-check the manuscript's typos, misprints, and grammatical errors to polish the language.

Author Response

Reply to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. The abstract is not attractive enough, so it is suggested to reorganize and rewrite it with highlights.

Answer 1: Thank you very much for highlighting this important issue. We have reorganized and rewrote the abstract highlighted in yellow. We have structured the abstract as follows:

• Study Background
• The main objective of the study
• Study Methodology
• Study Findings
• Contributions

2. The discussion part should compare the results worthy of discussion with the existing research in depth and breadth.

Answer 2: Thank you very much for your valuable comments. As per your kind suggestions, we have updated the manuscript by comparing the study results with previous literature in the discussion between lines 641 and 652. Furthermore, a detailed discussion of results and comparison with existing research in depth and breadth is given between lines 678 and 726, highlighted in yellow.

3. To reflect the advancement of the research, references of the recent five years in English need to be added if possible. Meanwhile, the authors could highlight the research gaps with issues of concern in the world today, such as

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2022.101405

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2023.104482

Answer 3: Thank you very much for suggesting highly insightful research articles, which helped the authors to improve the study in revision. Furthermore, recent references within five years in English are included in this study as per your kind suggestion.

4. Please modify the format of the references according to the journal requirements.

Answer 4: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have formatted the references according to the journal requirements.

5. For the conclusion part, the author should process it as a separate part and prospect for follow-up research in more detail.

Answer 5: Thank you very much for highlighting this. Because of the comments and suggestions, we have updated our manuscript by separating the conclusion part. We also have included study practical and theoretical implications, limitations, and future research direction subsections under the discussions section.

6. Double-check the manuscript's typos, misprints, and grammatical errors to polish the language.

Answer 6: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have double-checked the manuscript's typos, misprints, and grammatical errors using the Grammarly website registered version.

Reviewer 4 Report

1.       Regarding the background of ICT implication, there are some more literature that might be important for your research especially considering the public decision-making.

ICT-mixed community participation model for development planning in a vulnerable sandbank community: Case study of the Eco Shezi Island Plan in Taipei City, Taiwan, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISASTER RISK REDUCTION, Ihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102218

Public Participation in Local Policy Decision-making: The Role of Web-based Mapping, The Cartographic Journal, https://doi.org/10.1179/000870407X213459

Does ICT change household decision-making power of the left-behind women? A Case from China, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120604

2.       Why you choose Republic of Korea and Pakistan as your research targets? You need to provide some clarifications and basic information about the policy background and citizen participation context about them.

3.       As you have developed a conceptual framework showing the relationships between 5 hypotheses, you should provide a comprehensive discussion regarding the verification about this framework in the conclusion section.

4.       I suppose KMO means Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin in your paper. When you are using any abbreviation, please provide the formal name when the word first appears. Please kindly check this point throughout the paper.

5.       Your discussion section is totally insufficient. You should discuss you results based on the existing findings of previous research and explore your argument considering the cultural contexts of the target countries.

6.       Furthermore, please divide discussion and conclusion into two independent sections.

Extensive editing of English language required for this paper.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4 Comments

1. Regarding the ICT implication background, more literature might be important for your research, especially considering public decision-making.

ICT-mixed community participation model for development planning in a vulnerable sandbank community: A case study of the Eco Shezi Island Plan in Taipei City, Taiwan, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISASTER RISK REDUCTION, Ihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2021.102218

Public Participation in Local Policy Decision-making: The Role of Web-based Mapping, The Cartographic Journal, https://doi.org/10.1179/000870407X213459

Does ICT change the household decision-making power of left-behind women? A Case from China, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.120604

Answer 2: Thank you very much for the recommendations of recent literature on ICT implications. We have updated the manuscript by including recent ICT and public decision-making research, considering the importance of stakeholders in smart cities.

2. Why did you choose the Republic of Korea and Pakistan as your research targets? You must provide some clarifications and basic information about the policy background and citizen participation context.

Answer 2: Thank you very much for this important comment. Regarding the analysis of data collected from two countries, e.g., South Korea and Pakistan, the justification is given in the paragraph, and it is included in the revised manuscript between Lines 500 and 518. A similar analysis has been conducted previously by Bokhari & Myeong (2022) on using AI in decision-making with the mediating role of social innovations and was published in Sustainability Please. The paragraph included in the manuscript for justification is given below:

“Several academics have focused on conducting comparative analyses between developed and developing countries on various issues. For instance, Wunder et al. [107] conducted a study comparing payments for environmental services, while Pandya [108] explored the role of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in economic development. Also, Pandya [108] performed a comparative analysis to assess the influence of capital flows and the stock market on the economic progress of various nations. Subsequently, Joblin and Jamasb [109] executed a comparative analysis to investigate the effects of price volatility on the demand for oil in both developed and developing nations. Most prior research on the comparative analysis between advanced and emerging nations relied on available real-time data [110]. The rationale for selecting South Korea and Pakistan as the focus of our study stems from a scarcity of prior studies that have simultaneously examined the public's perception of the effect of artificial intelligence (AI) on decision-making in both developed and developing nations [62]. The main justification for selecting two countries as the topic of our study originates from the opposing contexts they furnish. As a developed country, South Korea exhibits a significant presence of public managers who successfully implemented AI-based public service delivery. Conversely, Pakistan, a developing country, demonstrates an insufficient or inadequate implementation of online services. Therefore, the present study aimed to examine the general public's perception in the aforementioned countries..”

3. As you have developed a conceptual framework showing the relationships between 5 hypotheses, you should provide a comprehensive discussion regarding verifying this framework in the conclusion section.

Answer 3: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. The framework verification is thoroughly addressed in the discussion and conclusion sections, providing a comprehensive analysis. Please refer to the lines between 678 and 726 and the lines between 770 and 791.

4. I suppose KMO means Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin in your paper. When using any abbreviation, please provide the formal name when the word first appears. Please kindly check this point throughout the paper.

Answer 4: Thank you very much for your kind comments and suggestions. We have updated the manuscript by using the full formal name first before using an abbreviation in the full manuscript.

5. Your discussion section is totally insufficient. You should discuss you results based on the existing findings of previous research and explore your argument considering the cultural contexts of the target countries.

Answer 5: Thank you very much for highlighting this important issue. We have included extensive results-based discussion and comparison of findings with previous research and explained contextual factors as suggested. Kindly refer to lines 678 to 726 for results-based arguments and lines between 641 and 653 for results consistent with existing literature.

6. Furthermore, please divide the discussion and conclusion into two independent sections.

Answer 6: Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. We have divided the discussion and conclusion sections individually, please.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The text has been improved a lot and appreciate the authors for their effort in improving it. The paper can be accepted after some minor revisions as follows for the manuscript improvement.

1.      In the Abstract, consider removing the word “Similarly” (line 22) and rather try to write the sentence like “It was also discovered...”.

2.      Regarding Hypothesis, I apologize for the confusing comment with “Hypothesis 1: Higher e-governance in smart cities will enhance the stakeholders’, make sure that ‘will’ (future tense) should be used here instead of the present form”.  Actually, the original hypothesis 1 was in the future tense only among the others and my intent was to change it to the present form as a hypothesis is usually written in the present tense. However, now all hypotheses have been changed to the future tense and please make sure that does not affect the rest regarding the comment.

Correction: “Hypothesis 1: Higher e-governance in smart cities will enhance the stakeholders’ satisfaction” the hypotheses would be better written in the present tense rather than the future tense. (Make sure that all hypotheses are stated in the present tense)

3.      Discussion, for this section It would be better to add a (topic) sentence in line 719 that for example, (In addition) practical, theoretical implications are as follows/below for better reading.

4.      Conclusion, I suggest moving “Limitations”, “Future Research Directions” subsections to the conclusion section where appropriate, probably as by the current order.

5.      For Appendix 1, I suggest moving it to where it was first mentioned (3.2.) rather than keeping it in the Appendix section. Because it appears not long and does not have supplementary characteristics. Also, check again the instructions regarding it. 

Author Response

Reviewer 1 Comments

1. In the Abstract, consider removing the word “Similarly” (line 22) and rather try to write the sentence like “It was alsodiscovered...”.

Answer: Thank you very much for pointing out the error. We have updated the manuscript by editing the sentence in the abstract and highlighting it in yellow.

2. Regarding Hypothesis, I apologize for the confusing comment with “Hypothesis 1: Higher e-governance in smart cities will enhance the stakeholders', make sure that 'will' (future tense) should be used here instead of the present form". The original hypothesis 1 was in the future tense only among the others, and my intent was to change it to the present form as a hypothesis is usually written in the present tense. However, now all hypotheses have been changed to the future tense, and please make sure that does not affect the rest regarding the comment.

Correction: “Hypothesis 1: Higher e-governance in smart cities will enhance the stakeholders' satisfaction." The hypotheses would be better written in the present tense rather than the future tense. (Make sure that all hypotheses are stated in the present tense)

Answer: Thank you very much for your kind suggestions. All the Hypotheses have been revised to the present tense and are highlighted in yellow, please.

3. Discussion for this section: It would be better to add a (topic) sentence in line 719 that, for example, (In addition) practical, theoretical implications are as follows/below for better reading.

Answer: Thank you very much for your kind suggestions. Please include The following sentence in the manuscript at the end of the discussion section.

“Additionally, the practical and theoretical implications are summarized below for better understanding.”

4. Conclusion: I suggest moving the "Limitations" and "Future Research Directions" subsections to the conclusion section where appropriate, probably as in the current order.

Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and kind suggestions. We moved the "Future Research Directions" to subsection 6.1 under Section Conclusion. The heading is highlighted in yellow. 

5. For Appendix 1, I suggest moving it to where it was first mentioned (3.2.) rather than keeping it in the Appendix section. Because it appears not long and does not have supplementary characteristics, also check again the instructions regarding it.

Answer: Thank you very much for your valuable comments and kind suggestions. As per your suggestions, we have moved Appendix 1 to subsection 3.2 at the right place and changed it to Table 3 instead of Appendix 1. Table numbers of all subsequent Tables are also revised, including in the manuscript text,.

Reviewer 2 Report

the revised copy can be accept

Author Response

Reviewer 2 Comments

The revised copy can be accepted

Answer: Thank you very much for your kind suggestions for improving this manuscript. The authors are grateful for your contributions and for accepting our study.

Reviewer 3 Report

Please seek help from a professional to polish the English of the article.

Please seek help from a professional to polish the English of the article.

Author Response

Reviewer 3 Comments

Please seek help from a professional to polish the English of the article.

Answer: Thank you very much for your kind suggestions. The manuscript has been improved by getting proofread by professional native English speakers.

Reviewer 4 Report

Basically, all these revisions are acceptable.

However, I think it will be better to add some geographical information about two target countries.

Minor language editing may benefit this manuscript.

Author Response

Reviewer 4 Comments

Basically, all these revisions are acceptable.

Answer: Thank you very much for your kind suggestions for improving this manuscript. The authors are grateful for your contributions and for accepting our study.

However, I think it will be better to add some geographical information about the two target countries.

Answer: Thank you very much for your kind suggestions. A brief sentence regarding geographical information about the two target countries is included between lines 516 and 518  and highlighted with yellow.

Minor language editing may benefit this manuscript.

Answer: Thank you very much for your kind suggestions. The manuscript has been improved by getting proofread by professional native English speakers.