Implementing citizen centric technology in developing smart cities: A model for predicting the acceptance of urban technologies

Technological Forecasting and Social Change

Volumn 142, Issue , 2019, Pages 105-116

  Sepasgozar, Samad M E ^a   Hawken, Scott ^a   Sargolzaei, Sharifeh ^b   Foroozanfa, Mona ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^b ART UNIVERSITY OF ISFAHAN   (Iran)

^c TARBIAT MODARES UNIVERSITY   (Iran)

Author keywords

Developing cities; Innovation ecosystems; Smart cities; Social capital; Technology acceptance model; Technology transfer

Indexed keywords

ECOSYSTEMS; ITERATIVE METHODS; KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER;

APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGIES; CULTURAL DIFFERENCE; DEVELOPING CITIES; DEVELOPING ECONOMIES; SOCIAL CAPITALS; STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELLING; TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE; TECHNOLOGY ACCEPTANCE MODEL;

SMART CITY;

INNOVATION; MODELING; PREDICTION; SMART CITY; SOCIAL CAPITAL; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER; URBAN DEVELOPMENT;

IRAN;

EID: 85054086976     PISSN: 00401625     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.09.012     Document Type: Article

References (126)

1. Abu-Shanab, E.A., E-government familiarity influence on Jordanians’ perceptions. Telematics Inform. 34:1 (2017), 103–113.
2. Aggelidis, V.P., Chatzoglou, P.D., Using a Modified Technology Acceptance Model in Hospitals. Int. J. Med. Inform. 78:2 (2009), 115–126.
3. Ajzen, I., The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50:2 (1991), 179–211.
4. Ajzen, I., Fishbein, M., Attitude-behavior relations: a theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychol. Bull., 84(5), 1977, 888.
5. Al-Jabri, I.M., Sohail, M.S., Mobile banking adoption: application of diffusion of innovation theory. J. Electron. Commer. Res., 13(4), 2012.
6. Angelidou, M., Smart city policies: a spatial approach. Cities 41 (2014), S3–S11.
7. Atzori, L., Iera, A., Morabito, G., The internet of things: a survey. Comput. Netw. 54:15 (2010), 2787–2805.
8. Azar, A., Gholamzade, R., Structural Equation Modeling, Partial Least Squares. 2016, Negah Danesh, Tehran.
9. Bandura, A., Human agency in social cognitive theory. Am. Psychol., 44(9), 1989, 1175.
10. Bandura, A., Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 52:1 (2001), 1–26.
11. Banerjee, U., Hine, J., Interpreting the influence of urban form on household car travel using partial least squares structural equation modelling: some evidence from Northern Ireland. Transp. Plan. Technol. 39:1 (2016), 24–44.
12. Bathelt, Harald, Cohendet, Patrick, The creation of knowledge: local building, global accessing and economic development—toward an agenda. J. Econ. Geogr. 14:5 (2014), 869–882.
13. Belanche, D., Casaló L.V., Orús, C., City attachment and use of urban services: benefits for smart cities. Cities 50 (2016), 75–81.
14. Berntzen, L., Johannessen, M.R., The role of citizen participation in municipal Smart City projects: lessons learned from Norway. Smarter as the New Urban Agenda, 2016, Springer, 299–314.
15. Cairncross, Frances, The Death of Distance: How the Communications Revolution Will Change Our Lives. 1997, Harvard Business School Press.
16. Cairncross, Frances, The Death of Distance 2.0. 2001, Texere, London.
17. Capra, C.F., The Smart City and its citizens: governance and citizen participation in Amsterdam Smart City. Int. J. E-Planning Res. 5:1 (2016), 20–38.
18. Caragliu, A., Bo, C.D., Smartness and European urban performance: assessing the local impacts of smart urban attributes. Innov. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. Res. 25:2 (2012), 97–113, 10.1080/13511610.2012.660323.
19. Carter, L., Belanger, F., The utilization of E-government services: citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors. Inf. Syst. J. 15:1 (2005), 5–25.
20. Chau, P.Y., Hu, P.J.H., Information technology acceptance by individual professionals: a model comparison approach. Decis. Sci. 32:4 (2001), 699–719.
21. Chen, C.-f., Xu, X., Arpan, L., Between the Technology Acceptance Model and Sustainable Energy Technology Acceptance Model: Investigating Smart Meter Acceptance in the United States. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 25 (2017), 93–104.
22. Chiu, C.-M., Hsu, M.-H., Wang, E.T., Understanding knowledge sharing in virtual communities: an integration of social capital and social cognitive theories. Decis. Support. Syst. 42:3 (2006), 1872–1888.
23. Cohen, J., Statistical Power Analysis For The Behavioral Sciences. 2nd edition, 1988, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
24. Colquitt, J.A., On the dimensionality of organizational justice: a construct validation of a measure. J. Appl. Psychol., 86(3), 2001, 386.
25. Corsi, Simone, Di Minin, Alberto, Disruptive innovation … in reverse: adding a geographical dimension to disruptive innovation theory. Creat. Innov. Manag. 23:1 (2014), 76–90, 10.1111/caim.12043.
26. Cronbach, L.J., Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:3 (1951), 297–334.
27. Damanpour, F., Schneider, M., Characteristics of innovation and innovation adoption in public organizations: assessing the role of managers. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 19:3 (2009), 495–522, 10.1093/jopart/mun021.
28. Dameri, R.P., Ricciardi, F., Leveraging smart city projects for benefitting citizens: the role of ICTs. Smart City Networks, 2017, Springer, Cham, 111–128.
29. Danquah, Michael, Amankwah-Amoah, Joseph, Assessing the relationships between human capital, innovation and technology adoption: evidence from sub-Saharan Africa. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 122:Supplement C (2017), 24–33, 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.04.021.
30. Davari, A., Rezazade, A., Structural Equation Modeling by PLS Software Jahad Daneshgahi. 2014.
31. Davis, Fred D., A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-user Information Systems: Theory and Results. 1985, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
32. Davis, F.D., User acceptance of information technology; system characteristics, user perceptions and behavioral impacts. Int. J. Manag. Mach. Stud. 38 (1993), 475–487.
33. Davis, F.D., Bagozzi, R.P., Warshaw, P.R., User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Manag. Sci. 35:8 (1989), 982–1003.
34. Enright, Michael J., Regional clusters: what we know and what we should know. Innovation Clusters and Interregional Competition, 2003, Advances in Spatial Science. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 99–129, 10.1007/978-3-540-24760-9_6.
35. Eshtehardi, Samandar Ali, Mojgan, Seyed Kamran Bagheri, Di Minin, Alberto, Regional innovative behavior: evidence from Iran. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 122:Supplement C (2017), 128–138, 10.1016/j.techfore.2016.02.011.
36. Fan, Q., A longitudinal evaluation of e-government at the local level in Greater Western Sydney (Gws) Australia. Int. J. Public Admin. 41:1 (2018), 13–21.
37. Fishbein, M., Ajzen, I., Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. 1975.
38. Fitjar, Rune Dahl, Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés, The geographical dimension of innovation collaboration: networking and innovation in Norway. Urban Stud. 51:12 (2014), 2572–2595.
39. Fornell, C., Larcker, D.F., Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res., 1981, 39–50.
40. Funk, Russell J., Making the most of where you are: geography, networks, and innovation in organizations. Acad. Manag. J. 57:1 (2014), 193–222, 10.5465/amj.2012.0585.
41. Gardner, Nicole, Hespanhol, Luke, SMLXL: scaling the smart city, from Metropolis to individual. City Cult. Soc., 2018, 10.1016/j.ccs.2017.06.006.
42. Gkypali, A., Arvanitis, S., Tsekouras, K., Absorptive Capacity, Exporting Activities, Innovation Openness and Innovation Performance: A Sem Approach Towards a Unifying Framework. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 132 (2018), 143–155.
43. Ghazinoory, S., Dastranj, N., Saghafi, F., Kulshreshtha, A., Hasanzadeh, A., Technology roadmapping architecture based on technological learning: case study of social banking in Iran. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 122 (2017), 231–242.
44. Giancola, P.R., Zeichner, A., Construct validity of a competitive reaction-time aggression paradigm. Aggress. Behav. 21:3 (1995), 199–204.
45. Goggin, G., McLelland, M., The Routledge Companion to Global Internet Histories. 2017, Routledge, Florence, UNITED KINGDOM.
46. Greenfield, A., Radical Technologies: The Design of Everyday Life. 2017, Verso Books, London; New York.
47. Hair, J.F. Jr., Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C., Sarstedt, M., A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). 2016, Sage Publications.
48. Hair, J.F., Black, W.C., Babin, B.J., Anderson, R.E., Multivariate Data Analysis. 7 ed., 2013, Pearson Education Limited, London, United Kingdom.
49. Hair, J.F.J., Sarstedt, M., Hopkins, L., Kuppelwieser, V.G., Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): an emerging tool in business research. Eur. Bus. Rev. 26:2 (2014), 106–121.
50. Han, H., Hawken, S., Introduction: innovation and identity in next-generation smart cities. City Cult. Soc. 12 (2018), 1–4.
51. Hansmann, K., Ringle, C., SmartPLS Manual, Institute for Operations Management and Organizations. 2004, Universität Hamburg, Germany.
52. Hawken, S., Han, J.H., Innovation districts and urban heterogeneity: 3D mapping of industry mix in downtown Sydney. J. Urban Des. 22:5 (2017), 568–590.
53. Höjer, M., Wangel, J., Smart sustainable cities: definition and challenges. Hilty, L.M., Aebischer, B., (eds.) ICT Innovations for Sustainability, 2015, Springer International Publishing, 333–349.
54. Hsiao, C.H., Yang, C., The intellectual development of the technology acceptance model: A co-citation analysis. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 31:2 (2011), 128–136.
55. Ibrahim, M., Al-Nasrawi, S., El-Zaart, A., Adams, C., Challenges facing e-government and smart sustainable city: an Arab region perspective. 15th European Conference on e-Government, ECEG, 2015, 396–402.
56. Iran's Smartest Cities, August 26, from https://financialtribune.com/articles/sci-tech/48427/iran-s-smartest-cities, 2016. (Accessed 18 August 2018)
57. John, G., Reve, T., The reliability and validity of key informant data from dyadic relationships in marketing channels. J. Mark. Res., 1982, 517–524.
58. Kabbiri, R., Dora, M., Kumar, V., Elepu, G., Gellynck, X., Mobile Phone Adoption in Agri-Food Sector: Are Farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa Connected?. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 131 (2018), 253–261.
59. Karimi, M., Niknami, S., Self-efficacy and perceived benefits/barriers on the AIDs preventive behaviors. J. Kermanshah Univ. Med. Sci., 15(5), 2011.
60. Katz, B., Bradley, J., The Metropolitan Revolution How Cities and Metros Are Fixing our Broken Politics and Fragile Economy. 2013, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, D.C. (Retrieved from).
61. Kim, K.J., Shin, D.-H., An acceptance model for smart watches: implications for the adoption of future wearable technology. Internet Res. 25:4 (2015), 527–541.
62. Kitchin, Rob, Making sense of smart cities: addressing present shortcomings. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 8:1 (2015), 131–136, 10.1093/cjres/rsu027.
63. Kumar, V., Kumar, U., Shareef, M.A., Implementation of Quality Management Practice in EC. 27, 2006, 146–163.
64. Kumar, H., Singh, M.K., Gupta, M.P., Madaan, J., Moving towards smart cities: solutions that lead to the smart city transformation framework. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang., 2018, 1–16, 10.1016/j.techfore.2018.04.024.
65. Kurniati, A.C., Nitivattananon, V., Factors influencing urban heat island in Surabaya, Indonesia. Sustain. Cities Soc. 27 (2016), 99–105.
66. Lara, A.P., Da Costa, E.M., Furlani, T.Z., Yigitcanlar, T., Smartness that matters: towards a comprehensive and human-centred characterisation of smart cities. J. Open Innov. Technol. Market Complex., 2(1), 2016, 8.
67. Larsson, H., Grönlund, Å., Sustainable Egovernance? Practices, problems and beliefs about the future in Swedish Egov practice. Gov. Inf. Q. 33:1 (2016), 105–114.
68. Lee, J., Lee, H., Developing and validating a citizen-centric typology for smart city services. Gov. Inf. Q. 31 (2014), S93–S105.
69. Lee, Y.-H., Hsieh, Y.-C., Hsu, C.-N., Adding Innovation Diffusion Theory to the Technology Acceptance Model: Supporting Employees’ Intentions to Use E-Learning Systems. J. Educ. Technol. Soc., 14(4), 2011.
70. Lee, Sang-Gun, Trimi, Silvana, Kim, Changsoo, The impact of cultural differences on technology adoption. J. World Bus. 48:1 (2013), 20–29.
71. Legris, P., Ingham, J., Collerette, P., Why Do People Use Information Technology? A Critical Review of the Technology Acceptance Model. Inf. Manag. 40:3 (2003), 191–204.
72. Liu, P., Peng, Z., China's Smart City pilots: a Progress report. Computer 47:10 (2014), 72–81, 10.1109/MC.2013.149.
73. Marsal-Llacuna, M.-L., Building universal socio-cultural indicators for standardizing the safeguarding of citizens’ rights in smart cities. Soc. Indic. Res. 130:2 (2017), 563–579.
74. McFarlane, Colin, Söderström, Ola, On alternative smart cities. City 0:0 (2017), 1–17, 10.1080/13604813.2017.1327166.
75. McNeill, D., Global firms and smart technologies: IBM and the reduction of cities. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 40:4 (2015), 562–574.
76. Mital, M., Chang, V., Choudhary, P., Papa, A., Pani, A.K., Adoption of internet of things in India: a test of competing models using a structured equation modeling approach. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang., 2017, 10.1016/j.techfore.2017.03.001.
77. Mohsenin, S., Esfidani, M., Structural Equation-based Approach to Software Smart PLS Partial Least Squares. 2014, Mehraban Nashr Book Institute, Tehran.
78. Moore, G.C., Benbasat, I., Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inf. Syst. Res. 2:3 (1991), 192–222.
79. Mora, Luca, Bolici, Roberto, Deakin, Mark, The first two decades of smart-city research: a bibliometric analysis. J. Urban Technol. 24:1 (2017), 3–27, 10.1080/10630732.2017.1285123.
80. Mun, Y.Y., Hwang, Y., Predicting the use of web-based information systems: self-efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and the technology acceptance model. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 59:4 (2003), 431–449.
81. Nunnally, J., Psychometric Methods: New York: McGraw-Hill. 1978.
82. Ooi, K.-B., Tan, G.W.-H., Mobile technology acceptance model: an investigation using mobile users to explore smartphone credit card. Expert Syst. Appl. 59 (2016), 33–46.
83. Parasuraman, A., Berry, L.L., SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. J. Retail. 64:1 (1988), 12–40.
84. Park, E., Kim, K.J., An Integrated Adoption Model of Mobile Cloud Services: Exploration of Key Determinants and Extension of Technology Acceptance Model. Telematics Inform. 31:3 (2014), 376–385, 10.1016/j.tele.2013.11.008.
85. Praharaj, S., Han, J.H., Hawken, S., Urban innovation through policy integration: critical perspectives from 100 smart cities mission in India. City Cult. Soc. 12 (2018), 35–43.
86. Praharaj, S., Hoon Han, J., Hawken, S., Towards the right model of smart city governance in India. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 13 (2018), 171–186, 10.2495/SDP-V13-N2-171-186.
87. QueirozMiranda, M., SilvaFarias, J., Schwartz, C.A., Almeida, J.P.L., Technology adoption in diffusion of innovations perspective: introduction of an ERP system in a non-profit organization. Rev. Adm. Inovação 13:1 (2016), 48–57.
88. Rahman, S.A., Taghizadeh, S.K., Ramayah, T., Alam, M.M.D., Technology acceptance among micro-entrepreneurs in marginalized social strata: the case of social innovation in Bangladesh. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 118 (2017), 236–245.
89. Rana, N.P., Dwivedi, Y.K., Citizen's adoption of an E-government system: validating extended social cognitive theory (Sct). Gov. Inf. Q. 32:2 (2015), 172–181.
90. Rana, N., Williams, M., Dwivedi, Y., Examining Factors Affecting Adoption of Online Public Grievance Redressal System: A Case of India. 2013.
91. Ribbink, D., Van Riel, A.C., Liljander, V., Streukens, S., Comfort Your Online Customer: Quality, Trust and Loyalty on the Internet. Manag. Serv. Qual. 14:6 (2004), 446–456.
92. Ringle, Christian M., Wende, Sven, Becker, Jan-Michael, SmartPLS 3. 2015, SmartPLS, Bönningstedt Retrieved from http://www.smartpls.com.
93. Rogers, E., Diffusion of Innovations. 1995, The Free Press, New York.
94. Rogers, E.M., Diffusion of Innovations. 2010, Free press, New York.
95. Russell, S.E., Steele, T., Information and communication technologies and the digital divide in Africa: a review of the periodical literature, 2000–2012. Electron. J. Afr. Bibliogr., 14(1), 2013, 1.
96. Ryan, J., A History of the Internet and the Digital Future. 2010, Reaktion, London.
97. Saghafi, F., Moghaddam, E.N., Aslani, A., Examining Effective Factors in Initial Acceptance of High-tech localized TECHNOLOGIES: Xamin, Iranian Localized Operating System. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2016.
98. Saunders, T., Baeck, P., Rethinking Smart Cities From the Ground Up. 2015, Nesta, London.
99. Schepers, J., Wetzels, M., de Ruyter, K., Leadership styles in technology acceptance: do followers practice what leaders preach?. Manag. Serv. Qual. Int. J. 15:6 (2005), 496–508.
100. Schmidthuber, L., Maresch, D., Ginner, M., Disruptive technologies and abundance in the service sector - toward a refined technology acceptance model. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang., 2018, 1–11.
101. Sepasgozar, S.M.E., Loosemore, M., Davis, S.R., Conceptualising information and equipment technology adoption in construction: a critical review of existing research. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 23:2 (2016), 158–176, 10.1108/ECAM-05-2015-0083.
102. Sepasgozar, S.M., Davis, S.R., Li, H., Luo, X., Modeling the Implementation Process for New Construction Technologies: Thematic Analysis Based on Australian and Us Practices. J. Manag. Eng., 34(3), 2018, 05018005.
103. Shareef, M.A., Kumar, U., Kumar, V., Dwivedi, Y.K., Identifying critical factors for adoption of E-government. Electron. Gov. Int. J. 6:1 (2009), 70–96.
104. Sleuwaegen, Leo, Boiardi, Priscilla, Creativity and regional innovation: evidence from EU regions. Res. Policy 43:9 (2014), 1508–1522, 10.1016/j.respol.2014.03.014.
105. Söderström, Ola, Paasche, Till, Klauser, Francisco, Smart cities as corporate storytelling. City 18:3 (2014), 307–320, 10.1080/13604813.2014.906716.
106. Townsend, Anthony M., Smart Cities: Big Data, Civic Hackers, and the Quest for a New Utopia. 2013, WW Norton & Company, New York and London.
107. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, UN E-Government Survey 2018. from https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/Reports/UN-E-Government-Survey-2018, 2018. (Accessed 26 August 2018)
108. Urbach, N., Ahlemann, F., Structural equation modeling in information systems research using partial least squares. J. Inf. Technol. TheoryV Appl., 11(2), 2010, 5.
109. Vallicelli, M., Smart cities and digital workplace culture in the global European context: Amsterdam, London and Paris. City Cult. Soc. 12 (2018), 25–34.
110. van Oorschot, J.A., Hofman, E., Halman, J.I., A Bibliometric Review of the Innovation Adoption Literature. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang., 2018.
111. Vanolo, A., Is there anybody out there? The place and role of citizens in tomorrow's smart cities. Futures 82:Supplement C (2016), 26–36.
112. Venkatesh, V., Davis, F.D., A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag. Sci. 46:2 (2000), 186–204.
113. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D., User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. Manag. Inf. Syst. 27:3 (2003), 425–478.
114. Verma, P., Sinha, N., Integrating Perceived Economic Wellbeing to Technology Acceptance Model: The Case of Mobile Based Agricultural Extension Service. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 126 (2018), 207–216.
115. Vinzi, V., Chin, W.W., Henseler, J., Wang, H., Handbook of Partial Least Squares. 2010, Springer.
116. Walczuch, R., Lemmink, J., Streukens, S., The effect of service employees’ technology readiness on technology acceptance. Inf. Manag. 44:2 (2007), 206–215.
117. Wan, C., Shen, G.Q., Encouraging the use of urban green space: the mediating role of attitude, perceived usefulness and perceived behavioural control. Habitat Int. 50 (2015), 130–139.
118. Wangpipatwong, S., Chutimaskul, W., Papasratorn, B., Understanding Citizen's Continuance Intention to Use E-Government Website: A Composite View of Technology Acceptance Model and Computer Self-Efficacy. Electron. J. e-Gov., 6(1), 2008.
119. Wetzels, M., Odekerken-Schröder, G., Van Oppen, C., Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS Q., 2009, 177–195.
120. Wiig, Alan, Wyly, Elvin, Introduction: thinking through the politics of the smart city. Urban Geogr. 37:4 (2016), 485–493, 10.1080/02723638.2016.1178479.
121. Williams, M.D., Rana, N.P., Dwivedi, Y.K., The unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): a literature review. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 28:3 (2015), 443–488.
122. Williamson, O.E., Transaction cost economics. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 8:4 (1987), 617–625.
123. Wolfinbarger, Mary, Gilly, Mary C., ETailQ: dimensionalizing, measuring and predicting Etail quality. J. Retail. 79 (2003), 183–198.
124. World Bank, World Development Report 2016: Digital Dividends. 2016, World Bank Group, Washington, D.C.
125. Yigitcanlar, T., Kamruzzaman, M., Buys, L., Ioppolo, G., Sabatini-Marques, J., da Costa, E.M., Yun, J.J., Understanding ‘smart cities’: intertwining development drivers with desired outcomes in a multidimensional framework. Cities, 2018, 10.1016/j.cities.2018.04.003.
126. Yoo, B., Donthu, N., Developing a scale to measure the perceived quality of an internet shopping site (PQISS). Proceedings of the 2000 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) Annual Conference, 2015, Springer, Cham, 471-471.