IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v9y2017i10p1921-d116212.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Attitudes in Korea toward Introducing Smart Policing Technologies: Differences between the General Public and Police Officers

Author

Listed:
  • HyungBin Moon

    (Technology Management, Economics, and Policy Program, College of Engineering, Seoul National University, 1 Gwanakro, Sillim-dong, Kwnank-gu, Seoul 08826, Korea)

  • Hyunhong Choi

    (Technology Management, Economics, and Policy Program, College of Engineering, Seoul National University, 1 Gwanakro, Sillim-dong, Kwnank-gu, Seoul 08826, Korea)

  • Jongsu Lee

    (Technology Management, Economics, and Policy Program, College of Engineering, Seoul National University, 1 Gwanakro, Sillim-dong, Kwnank-gu, Seoul 08826, Korea)

  • Ki Soo Lee

    (Department of Marine Police, Chonnam National University, 50 Daehak-ro, Yeosu, Jeonnam 59626, Korea)

Abstract

This study analyzes different attitudes toward introduction of smart policing technologies in cybercrime policing among the Korean public and police. Policing is essential for a sustainable community. Technological advances in policing have both positive and negative aspects, making it essential to investigate perceptions of both public and police when introducing smart policing technologies. A discrete choice experiment was undertaken to survey preferences of the public and police toward introduction of such technologies and conduct simulation analysis to compare changes in the acceptance of various scenarios. The study divides cybercrime policing into prevention and investigation. The sample included 500 members of the public and 161 police officers. The results show that the public thinks an increase in yearly taxes and invasion of privacy are the most important factors. Conversely, the police think factors enhancing the efficiency of policing are most important. Moreover, when smart policing technologies are introduced, the public and police perceive more utility in the prevention and investigation of cybercrime, respectively. Few studies in this field separate the prevention and investigation of crimes, or compare perceptions of the public and police toward the introduction of smart policing technologies. This study’s quantitative analysis provides insights lacking in previous literature.

Suggested Citation

  • HyungBin Moon & Hyunhong Choi & Jongsu Lee & Ki Soo Lee, 2017. "Attitudes in Korea toward Introducing Smart Policing Technologies: Differences between the General Public and Police Officers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-17, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:10:p:1921-:d:116212
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/10/1921/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/10/1921/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dowler, Kenneth & Zawilski, Valerie, 2007. "Public perceptions of police misconduct and discrimination: Examining the impact of media consumption," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 193-203.
    2. Lee, Misuk & Choi, Hyunhong & Koo, Yoonmo, 2017. "Inconvenience cost of waste disposal behavior in South Korea," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 58-65.
    3. Paul Jen‐Hwa Hu & Chienting Lin & Hsinchun Chen, 2005. "User acceptance of Intelligence and Security Informatics technology: A study of COPLINK," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 56(3), pages 235-244, February.
    4. Correia, Mark E. & Reisig, Michael D. & Lovrich, Nicholas P., 1996. "Public perceptions of state police: An analysis of individual-level and contextual variables," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 24(1), pages 17-28.
    5. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    6. Lee S. Strickland & Laura E. Hunt, 2005. "Technology, security, and individual privacy: New tools, new threats, and new public perceptions," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 56(3), pages 221-234, February.
    7. Louviere,Jordan J. & Hensher,David A. & Swait,Joffre D. With contributions by-Name:Adamowicz,Wiktor, 2000. "Stated Choice Methods," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521788304, November.
    8. Koo, Yoonmo & Kim, Chang Seob & Hong, Junhee & Choi, Ie-Jung & Lee, Jongsu, 2012. "Consumer preferences for automobile energy-efficiency grades," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 446-451.
    9. Hong, Junhee & Koo, Yoonmo & Jeong, Gicheol & Lee, Jongsu, 2012. "Ex-ante evaluation of profitability and government's subsidy policy on vehicle-to-grid system," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 95-104.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Choi, Siwon & Kwak, Kyuil & Yang, Soyoung & Lim, Sesil & Woo, JongRoul, 2022. "Effects of policy instruments on electric scooter adoption in Jakarta, Indonesia: A discrete choice experiment approach," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 373-384.
    2. Kwan Byum Maeng & Jiyeon Jung & Yoonmo Koo, 2019. "Quantitative Analysis of Consumer Preferences of Windows Set in South Korea: The Role of Energy Efficiency Levels," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-12, May.
    3. Choi, Hyunhong & Koo, Yoonmo, 2023. "New technology product introduction strategy with considerations for consumer-targeted policy intervention and new market entrant," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 186(PA).
    4. Woo, JongRoul & Moon, Sungho & Choi, Hyunhong, 2022. "Economic value and acceptability of advanced solar power systems for multi-unit residential buildings: The case of South Korea," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    5. Choi, Hyunhong & Shin, Jungwoo & Woo, JongRoul, 2018. "Effect of electricity generation mix on battery electric vehicle adoption and its environmental impact," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 13-24.
    6. Moon, Sungho & Kim, Youngwoo & Kim, Minsang & Lee, Jongsu, 2023. "Policy designs to increase public and local acceptance for energy transition in South Korea," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Woo, JongRoul & Moon, Sungho & Choi, Hyunhong, 2022. "Economic value and acceptability of advanced solar power systems for multi-unit residential buildings: The case of South Korea," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 324(C).
    2. Choi, Hyunhong & Shin, Jungwoo & Woo, JongRoul, 2018. "Effect of electricity generation mix on battery electric vehicle adoption and its environmental impact," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 13-24.
    3. Kim, Kyungah & Lee, Jongsu & Kim, Junghun, 2021. "Can liquefied petroleum gas vehicles join the fleet of alternative fuel vehicles? Implications of transportation policy based on market forecast and environmental impact," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    4. Park, Yuri & Koo, Yoonmo, 2016. "An empirical analysis of switching cost in the smartphone market in South Korea," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 307-318.
    5. Zhifeng Gao & Ted C. Schroeder, 2009. "Consumer responses to new food quality information: are some consumers more sensitive than others?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 339-346, May.
    6. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    7. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    8. Potoglou, Dimitris & Palacios, Juan & Feijoo, Claudio & Gómez Barroso, Jose-Luis, 2015. "The supply of personal information: A study on the determinants of information provision in e-commerce scenarios," 26th European Regional ITS Conference, Madrid 2015 127174, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    9. Sant'Anna, Ana Claudia & Bergtold, Jason & Shanoyan, Aleksan & Caldas, Marcellus & Granco, Gabriel, 2021. "Deal or No Deal? Analysis of Bioenergy Feedstock Contract Choice with Multiple Opt-out Options and Contract Attribute Substitutability," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315289, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    11. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    12. Kesternich, Iris & Heiss, Florian & McFadden, Daniel & Winter, Joachim, 2013. "Suit the action to the word, the word to the action: Hypothetical choices and real decisions in Medicare Part D," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 1313-1324.
    13. David Hensher & John Rose & Zheng Li, 2012. "Does the choice model method and/or the data matter?," Transportation, Springer, vol. 39(2), pages 351-385, March.
    14. Qin, Pin & Carlsson, Fredrik & Xu, Jintao, 2009. "Forestland Reform in China: What do the Farmers Want? A Choice Experiment on Farmers’ Property Rights Preferences," Working Papers in Economics 370, University of Gothenburg, Department of Economics.
    15. Clark, Andrew E. & Senik, Claudia & Yamada, Katsunori, 2017. "When experienced and decision utility concur: The case of income comparisons," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 1-9.
    16. Michelsen, Carl Christian & Madlener, Reinhard, 2016. "Switching from fossil fuel to renewables in residential heating systems: An empirical study of homeowners' decisions in Germany," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 95-105.
    17. Ping Qin & Fredrik Carlsson & Jintao Xu, 2011. "Forest Tenure Reform in China: A Choice Experiment on Farmers’ Property Rights Preferences," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 87(3), pages 473-487.
    18. Joachim Marti, 2012. "Assessing preferences for improved smoking cessation medications: a discrete choice experiment," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 13(5), pages 533-548, October.
    19. Lorenzo Masiero & Juan L. Nicolau, 2012. "Price Sensitivity to Tourism Activities: Looking for Determinant Factors," Tourism Economics, , vol. 18(4), pages 675-689, August.
    20. Dugstad, Anders & Grimsrud, Kristine & Kipperberg, Gorm & Lindhjem, Henrik & Navrud, Ståle, 2020. "Acceptance of wind power development and exposure – Not-in-anybody's-backyard," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:10:p:1921-:d:116212. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.