Predicting User Acceptance of Solar-Powered Vending Machines Based on Quality Dimensions
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
With the increasing demand for sustainable technologies in educational institutions, solar-powered vending machines have emerged as a promising solution to meet this need. This study assesses the perceived quality and user acceptance of solar-powered vending machines at North Eastern Mindanao State University (NEMSU) in Bislig City, Philippines. The research focuses on two key dimensions of perceived quality: attribute quality (performance, features, aesthetics) and reliability quality (reliability, serviceability, perceived quality), and evaluates how these factors influence user acceptance, based on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM). A structured questionnaire was used to gather data from 200 participants, including students, faculty, and staff. The findings indicate that users generally have a positive perception of the vending machines, with high ratings for features and aesthetics, and satisfactory ratings for performance and reliability. Performance and aesthetics were identified as significant predictors of user acceptance, while serviceability emerged as the most important factor in reliability quality. The study concludes that solar-powered vending machines have strong potential for acceptance in educational settings. However, improvements in Wi-Fi stability and maintenance features could further enhance user satisfaction and long-term adoption. The results offer valuable insights for universities and policymakers seeking to implement sustainable technologies on their campuses.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Almasri, R. A.; Abu-Hamdeh, N. H.; Al-Tamimi, N. A state-of-the-art review of energy-efficient and renewable energy systems in higher education facilities. Front. Energy Res. 2024, 11, 1344216. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2023.1344216
Anjana, M. S.; Devidas, A. R.; Ramesh, M. V. Empowering sustainability: The crucial role of IoT-enabled distributed learning systems in reducing carbon footprints. IEEE Access 2025. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2025.3539333
Granić, A.; Marangunić, N. Technology acceptance model in educational context: A systematic literature review. Br. J. Educ. Technol. 2019, 50 (5), 2572–2593. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12864
Jabeen, G.; Wang, D.; Ahmad, M.; Işık, C.; Pinzón, S. P.; Rehman, A.; Ongan, S. Transitioning to sustainable energy: Multidimensional factors guiding solar power technology adoption. Energy 2024, 305, 133468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2024.133468
Haque, M. S. S.; Sultana, K. A.; Morshed, M. S. IoT-integrated cashless sanitary pad vending machine for sustainable menstrual hygiene management in Bangladesh. In 2024 25th Int. Arab Conf. Inf. Technol. (ACIT); IEEE: 2024; pp 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACIT62805.2024.10877057
Jun, Y.; Rehman, M. U.; Zelin, T.; Hussain, T.; Hussain, S. The intention to adopt photovoltaic systems: Integrating behavioral theories with mediation-moderation analysis. Acta Psychol. 2025, 256, 105027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105027
Giroux, M.; Kim, J.; Lee, J. C.; Park, J. Artificial intelligence and declined guilt: Retailing morality comparison between human and AI. J. Bus. Ethics 2022, 178(4), 1027–1041. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-022-05056-7
Latif, I.; Saputro, R. E.; Barkah, A. S. Technology acceptance model (TAM) using partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). J. Inf. Syst. Inform. 2025, 7(2), 1104. https://doi.org/10.51519/journalisi.v7i2.1104
Zhou, L.; Hao, L.; Xiong, Y.; Qin, H.; Bao, A.; Chen, Z. Research progress of robotic technologies and applications in smart pig farms. Agriculture 2026, 16(3), 334. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture16030334
Kabbara, N.; Nait Belaid, M. O.; Gibescu, M.; Camargo, L. R.; Cantenot, J.; Coste, T.; et al. Towards software-defined protection, automation, and control in power systems: Concepts, state of the art, and future challenges. Energies 2022, 15 (24), 9362. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15249362
Agozie, D. Q.; Afful-Dadzie, A.; Gyamfi, B. A.; Bekun, F. V. Does psychological empowerment improve renewable energy technology acceptance and recommendation? Evidence from 17 rural communities. Renewable Energy 2023, 219, 119449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2023.119449
Rosli, M. S.; Saleh, N. S.; Ali, A. J.; Bakar, S. N. A.; Tahir, L. M. A systematic review of the technology acceptance model for the sustainability of higher education during the COVID-19 pandemic and identified research gaps. Sustainability 2022, 14(18), 11389. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811389
Kamkankaew, P. Navigating the digital landscape with a comprehensive review: Challenges and limitations of the technology acceptance model. J. Interdiscip. Soc. Dev. 2026, 4(1), 851–907.
Limna, P.; Kraiwanit, T.; Chumwatana, T. Assessing the integration of ChatGPT in business environments: An application of the technology acceptance model. J. Dhamma Life 2024, 30(1), 221–231.
Sagnier, C.; Loup-Escande, E.; Lourdeaux, D.; Thouvenin, I.; Valléry, G. User acceptance of virtual reality: An extended technology acceptance model. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 2020, 36(11), 993–1007. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2019.1708612
Bochmann, N.; Moryson, H. Evaluating user adoption of citizen development platform: A case study using the technology acceptance model. Int. Bus. Res. 2025, 18(4), 12. https://doi.org/10.5539/ibr.v18n4p12
Fearnley, M. R.; Amora, J. T. Learning management system adoption in higher education using the extended technology acceptance model. IAFOR J. Educ. 2020, 8(2), 89–106. https://doi.org/10.22492/ije.8.2.05
Song, Y.; Qiu, X.; Liu, J. The impact of artificial intelligence adoption on organizational decision-making: An empirical study based on the technology acceptance model in business management. Systems 2025, 13 (8), 683. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems13080683
Syah, D.; Dongoran, F.; Nugrahadi, E. W.; Aditia, R. Understanding the technology acceptance model in QRIS usage: Evidence from SMEs in Indonesia. Int. J. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci. 2022, 11(6), 337–346. https://doi.org/10.20525/ijrbs.v11i6.1917
Adnan, A.; Irvine, R.; Williams, A.; Harris, M.; Antonacci, G. Improving acceptability of mHealth apps: The use of the technology acceptance model to assess the acceptability of mHealth apps: Systematic review. J. Med. Internet Res. 2025, 27, e66432. https://doi.org/10.2196/66432
Harst, L.; Lantzsch, H.; Scheibe, M. Theories predicting end-user acceptance of telemedicine use: A systematic review. J. Med. Internet Res. 2019, 21(5), e13117. https://doi.org/10.2196/13117
Lee, C.-C. Acceptance of sales automation in supply chain operations: A perspective from the technology acceptance model framework. Supply Chain Sustainability Res. 2025, 4(2), 8–18.
Fadilah, N.; Andriani, N. Consumer preferences and decision-making in digital payments: A systematic review using the technology acceptance model (TAM). Asian J. Manag. Analytics 2025, 4(2), 14295. https://doi.org/10.55927/ajma.v4i2.14295
Kelly, S.; Kaye, S. A.; Oviedo-Trespalacios, O. What factors contribute to the acceptance of artificial intelligence? A systematic review. Telematics Inform. 2022, 77, 101925. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2022.101925
Kraus, J.; Miller, L.; Klumpp, M.; Babel, F.; Scholz, D.; Merger, J.; Baumann, M. On the role of beliefs and trust for the intention to use service robots: An integrated trustworthiness beliefs model for robot acceptance. Int. J. Soc. Robot. 2023, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-022-00952-4
D'Souza, C.; Wong, W. Y.; Haber, N.; Brouwer, A.; Niininen, O. Online impulse purchases versus planned purchases and the role of visual attributes. J. Global Fashion Mark. 2024, 15(4), 504–522. https://doi.org/10.1080/20932685.2024.2361884
Aakko, M.; Niinimäki, K. Quality matters: Reviewing the connections between perceived quality and clothing use time. J. Fashion Mark. Manage. 2022, 26(3), 475–492. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFMM-09-2020-0192
Kapoor, K. K.; Dwivedi, Y. K. Sustainable consumption from the consumer's perspective: Antecedents of solar innovation adoption. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 152, 104501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104501
Li, Z.; Li, B.; Lyu, R.; Xu, H. Competing with brands: The impact of product reliability and compensation mechanisms on non-brand suppliers in smart technology. Asia Pac. J. Mark. Logist. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-10-2024-1492
Rosillo-Díaz, E.; Muñoz-Rosas, J.; Blanco-Encomienda, F. J. Impact of heuristic-systematic cues on electronic commerce consumers' purchase intention through the perception of product quality. J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2024, 79, 103980. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2024.103980
Madhavedi, S.; Y, R.; Hoo, W. C.; Suhud, U.; Mamoon, A. Assessing the role of perceived quality and brand elements in shaping Indian consumers' purchase intentions for cosmetic skincare products. Int. J. Innov. Res. Sci. Stud. 2025, 8 (1), 5037. https://doi.org/10.53894/ijirss.v8i1.5037
Wang, J.; Tao, J.; Chu, M. Behind the label: Chinese consumers' trust in food certification and the effect of perceived quality on purchase intention. Food Control 2020, 108, 106825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2019.106825
Religia, Y.; Ramawati, Y.; Syahwildan, M. S. Analysis of the effect of perceived product quality on retail purchase intention: The mediating role of consumer trust and the moderating effect of price sensitivity. Appl. Inf. Syst. Manage. 2024, 7(1), 33914. https://doi.org/10.15408/aism.v7i1.33914
Haedar, S.; Marsasi, E. G. How perceived usefulness, ease of use, and quality affect e-wallet intention in Gen Y and Z: A TAM perspective. Sentralisasi 2025, 14(2), 4233. https://doi.org/10.33506/sl.v14i2.4233
Mlekus, L.; Bentler, D.; Paruzel, A.; Kato-Beiderwieden, A. L.; Maier, G. W. How to raise technology acceptance: User experience characteristics as technology-inherent determinants. Gruppe Interaktion Organisation 2020, 51, 273–283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11612-020-00529-7
Yook, H. J. Structural relationship between perceived quality, technology acceptance, and consumption behavioral intention of service robots in the food service industry. Culin. Sci. Hosp. Res. 2023, 29(4), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.20878/cshr.2023.29.4.011
Sun, W.; Yuan, M.; Zhang, Z. Promoting consumer adoption of electric vehicles from a standard-information-behavior perspective. Information 2022, 13(6), 291. https://doi.org/10.3390/info13060291
Li, M.; Bai, X.; Xing, S.; Wang, X. How smart product attributes influence consumer adoption intention. Front. Psychol. 2023, 14, 1090200. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1090200
Vatanapitukpong, V. Determinants of outsourced ERP implementation success: Effects of the task-technology fit theory and partnership quality perspective. AJMI 2020, 7(1), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.14456/ajmi.2020.3
Liu, C.; Jiang, J. The impact of AI-embedded education systems on teachers' work performance: An extension of the D&M information system success model. J. Interdiscip. Soc. Dev. 2025, 3(4), 738–776.
Ran, L.; Li, Z. An empirical study on takeout app customers' continuous use intention in China. AJMI 2020, 7(1), 90–107. https://doi.org/10.14456/ajmi.2020.7
Pattanayak, S. Investigating the impact of product quality on consumer satisfaction. Int. Sci. J. Eng. Manage. 2025, 4, 57. https://doi.org/10.55041/isjem04057
Fait, A. H. The mental image of a product and its influence on purchase and repeat purchase decisions by Saudi consumers. Edelweiss Appl. Sci. Technol. 2025, 9(2), 4750. https://doi.org/10.55214/25768484.v9i2.4750
Fürst, A.; Pecornik, N.; Hoyer, W. D. How product complexity affects consumer adoption of new products: The role of feature heterogeneity and interrelatedness. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 2023, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-023-00933-7
Dona, M. R.; Fernando, Y.; Ikhsan, R. B.; Wahyuni-Td, I. S.; Fernando, E.; Prabowo, H. Features, conformance and perceived product quality: A social security mobile app. In 2023 Int. Conf. Comput. Sci. Inf. Technol.; 2023; pp 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICOSNIKOM60230.2023.10364539
Baghirov, F.; Zhang, Y. Assessment of the association between aesthetic products and perceived product quality: An analysis of customer attitudes. J. Consum. Mark. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-01-2024-6521
Shi, A.; Huo, F.; Hou, G. Effects of design aesthetics on the perceived value of a product. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 670800. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.670800
Peng, C.; Eisend, M.; Chen, Z. EXPRESS: A meta-analysis of product visual aesthetics. J. Mark. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222429251356484
Nagel, C.; Schumann, J. H. Post-adoption buffering effects of innovative product aesthetics. Creat. Innov. Manag. 2020, 29 (4), 653–669. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12363
Vaghari, H.; Hosseinzadeh Aghdam, M.; Emami, H. Group attention for collaborative filtering with sequential feedback and context-aware attributes. Sci. Rep. 2025, 15(1), 10050. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-94256-y
Hassan, M. U.; Iqbal, M. W.; Habibah, U. Self-service technology service quality: Building loyalty and intention through technology trust in the Pakistani service sector. SAGE Open 2020, 10(2), 2158244020924412. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020924412
Song, C. G.; Sohn, Y. W. The influence of dependability in cloud computing adoption. J. Supercomput. 2022, 78(9), 12159–12201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11227-022-04346-1
Cordella, M.; Alfieri, F.; Clemm, C.; Berwald, A. Durability of smartphones: A technical analysis of reliability and repairability aspects. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 286, 125388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125388
Jetti, R.; Dhar, D. Product durability: A systematic literature review. Arch. Des. Res. 2024, 37(5), 93–119. https://doi.org/10.15187/adr.2024.11.37.5.93
Mesa, J. A.; González-Quiroga, A.; Aguiar, M. D. S.; Jugend, D. Linking product design and durability: A review and research agenda. Heliyon 2022, 8(9), e10734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10734
Suvittawat, A. Investigating farmers' perceptions of drone technology in Thailand: Exploring expectations, product quality, perceived value, and adoption in agriculture. Agriculture 2024, 14(12), 2183. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14122183
Okokpujie, I. P.; Tartibu, L. K.; Omietimi, B. H. Improving the maintainability and reliability in Nigerian Industry 4.0: Its challenges and the way forward from the manufacturing sector. Int. J. Sustainable Dev. Plann. 2023, 18(8). https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsdp.180820
Tanveer, A.; Zeng, S.; Irfan, M.; Peng, R. Do perceived risk, perception of self-efficacy, and openness to technology matter for solar PV adoption? An application of the extended theory of planned behavior. Energies 2021, 14(16), 5008. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14165008
Ali, S.; Poulova, P.; Akbar, A.; Javed, H. M. U.; Danish, M. Determining the influencing factors in the adoption of solar photovoltaic technology in Pakistan: A decomposed technology acceptance model approach. Economies 2020, 8(4), 108. https://doi.org/10.3390/economies8040108
Asif, M.; Tan, Z.; Ahmad, B.; Irfan, M.; Razzaq, A.; Ameer, W. Influencing factors of consumers' buying intention of solar energy: A structural equation modeling approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30(11), 30017–30032. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-24286-w
Maalouf, N.; Sayegh, E.; Inati, D.; Sarkis, N. Consumer motivations for solar energy adoption in economically challenged regions. Sustainability 2024, 16(20), 8777. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16208777
Shakeel, S. R.; Yousaf, H. M. A. U.; Irfan, M.; Rajala, A. Solar PV adoption at the household level: Insights based on a systematic literature review. Energy Strategy Rev. 2023, 49, 101178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2023.101178
Alkawsi, G.; Ibrahim, N.; Al-Sharafi, M. A.; Mustafa, A.; Radzi, H. M.; Capretz, L. F. Determinants of uptake of the residential solar photovoltaic system and its impact on environmental sustainability: Evidence from PLS-SEM and fuzzy sets (fsQCA). Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 2024, 57, 101795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2024.101795
Pan, T. L.; Kumar, R.; Foropon, C. Examining barriers to solar energy adoption: A PESTEL and IVHF-DEMATEL analysis for advancing Sustainable Development Goal 7. J. Environ. Manage. 2025, 389, 125918. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.125918
Vu, T. H.; Nguyen, H. T. T.; Nguyen, T. T. M. Extending the theory of planned behavior to explain rooftop solar energy adoption in emerging markets: The moderating mechanism of personal innovativeness. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2023, 9(3), 100078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joitmc.2023.100078
Alsulami, A.; Fairbrass, J.; Botelho, T.; Assadinia, S. Renewable energy and innovation in Saudi Arabia: An exploration of factors affecting consumers' intention to adopt solar PV. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2024, 205, 123430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123430
Bhardwaj, C.; Singh, P.; Kaur, R. Residential solar energy adoption: An empirical study on consumer awareness, perception, and influencing factors. Int. J. Multidiscip. Res. 2025, 7(3), 47110. https://doi.org/10.36948/ijfmr.2025.v07i03.47110
Khan, A. W.; Nazir, N. Motives for and barriers to consumers' behavior toward the adoptability of solar energy: A case study of District Peshawar. Pak. J. Soc. Res. 2022, 4(4), 832. https://doi.org/10.52567/pjsr.v4i04.832
Yusof, M. Y. M.; Fauzi, N. S. M.; Jamaludin, A.; Seman, S. N. A. A.; Salleh, M. A. M.; Tasrip, N. A. Technological advancements in vending machines: Transforming consumer behavior, market trends, and the future of automated retail. J. Posthumanism 2025, 5(6), 1968. https://doi.org/10.63332/joph.v5i6.1968
Wang, P. C.; Chen, W. C. SWOT analysis to explore the development of smart retail vending machines in the countryside. Int. J. Soc. Sci. Public Adm. 2024, 4(1), 46. https://doi.org/10.62051/ijsspa.v4n1.46
Pillai, R.; Sivathanu, B.; Dwivedi, Y. K. Shopping intention at AI-powered automated retail stores (AIPARS). J. Retail. Consum. Serv. 2020, 57, 102207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2020.102207
Rabbani, A.; Musa, S. N. The relationship of trust, product attractiveness, and technology features toward the technology acceptance model in the case of vending machines. In Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Bus. Manage. Technol. (IConBMT); 2020; pp 218–225. https://doi.org/10.2991/aebmr.k.201222.032
Lin, C. Y. Understanding consumer perceptions and attitudes toward smart retail services. J. Serv. Mark. 2022, 36(6), 761–778. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-09-2020-0407
Baranovski, I.; Stankovski, S.; Ostojić, G.; Horvat, S.; Trifković, S. Augmented reality support for self-service automated systems. J. Graph. Eng. Des. 2020, 11(1), 63–68. https://doi.org/10.24867/JGED-2020-1-063
Bouaguel, W.; Alsulimani, T. Understanding the factors influencing consumers' intention toward shifting to solar energy technology for residential use in Saudi Arabia using the technology acceptance model. Sustainability 2022, 14(18), 11356. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141811356
Park, I.; Kim, D.; Moon, J.; Kim, S.; Kang, Y.; Bae, S. Searching for a new technology acceptance model under the social context: Analyzing the determinants of acceptance of intelligent information technology in digital transformation and implications for the requisites of digital sustainability. Sustainability 2022, 14(1), 579. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14010579
Venkatesh, V.; Bala, H. Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a research agenda on interventions. Decis. Sci. 2008, 39(2), 273–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.2008.00192.x
Yang, L.; Bashiru Danwana, S.; Yassaanah, I. F.-L. An empirical study of renewable energy technology acceptance in Ghana using an extended technology acceptance model. Sustainability 2021, 13(19), 10791. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910791
Solin, A.; Curry, A. Perceived quality: In search of a definition. TQM J. 2023, 35(6), 1433–1447. https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-09-2021-0280
Recuenco, A. G.; Reyes, W. S. Perceived quality: The best accepted good in the language of marketing. SCIÉNDO 2020, 23(2), 24. https://doi.org/10.17268/sciendo.2020.024
Kolawole, M. I.; Ayodele, B. L. Smart electronics in solar-powered grid systems for enhanced renewable energy efficiency and reliability. Int. J. Sci. Res. Arch. 2024, 13(2), 2910–2930. https://doi.org/10.30574/ijsra.2024.13.2.2512
Rituraj, G.; Mouli, G. R. C.; Bauer, P. A comprehensive review on off-grid and hybrid charging systems for electric vehicles. IEEE Open J. Ind. Electron. Soc. 2022, 3, 203–222. https://doi.org/10.1109/OJIES.2022.3167948
Sah, R.; Chowdhury, A. K. The influence of aesthetics and apparent usability on jewelry design preference. ASR Chiang Mai Univ. J. Soc. Sci. Humanit. 2024, 11(2), 9. https://doi.org/10.12982/cmujasr.2024.009
Helmy, H. A.; El-Rifaie, A. M.; Youssef, A. A.; Haggag, A.; Hamad, H.; Eltokhy, M. Improving solar energy-harvesting wireless sensor networks (SEH-WSNs) with hybrid Li-Fi/Wi-Fi, integrating Markov models, sleep scheduling, and smart switching algorithms. Technologies 2025, 13(10), 437. https://doi.org/10.3390/technologies13100437
Kim, E.; Nicolau, J. L.; Tang, L. R. The impact of restaurant innovativeness on consumer loyalty: The mediating role of perceived quality. J. Hosp. Tour. Res. 2021, 45(8), 1464–1488. https://doi.org/10.1177/1096348020985586
Risdayanti, R.; Titing, A.; Ismanto, I. The influence of brand image and perceived product quality on consumers' purchase intention for Axioo laptops. J. Manaj. Bisnis Kewirausahaan 2025, 5(1), 5469. https://doi.org/10.55606/jumbiku.v5i1.5469
Zheng, J.; Zeng, B. Unleashing the influencing factors of solar energy adoption to combat climate change: A roadmap toward sustainable energy technologies. Sustain. Energy Technol. Assess. 2023, 59, 103303. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seta.2023.103303
Nekmahmud, M.; Fekete-Farkas, M. Why not green marketing? Determinants of consumers' intention to green purchase decisions in a newly developing nation. Sustainability 2020, 12(19), 7880. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197880
Al-Ateeq, B.; Sawan, N.; Al-Hajaya, K.; Altarawneh, M.; Al-Makhadmeh, A. Big data analytics in auditing and the consequences for audit quality: A study using the technology acceptance model (TAM). Corp. Gov. Organ. Behav. Rev. 2022, 6(1), 63–76. https://doi.org/10.22495/cgobrv6i1p5
Su, D. N.; Nguyen, N. T.; Nguyen, L. H.; Luu, T. T.; Nguyen-Phuoc, D. Q. Modeling consumers' trust in mobile food delivery apps: Perspectives of the technology acceptance model, mobile service quality, and personalization-privacy theory. J. Hosp. Mark. Manage. 2022, 31(5), 535–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/19368623.2022.2020199
Ge, Y.; Yuan, Q.; Wang, Y.; Park, K. S. The structural relationship among perceived service quality, perceived value, and customer satisfaction: Focused on Starbucks Reserve coffee shops in Shanghai, China. Sustainability 2021, 13(15), 8633. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158633
