<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<ArticleSet>
  <Article>
    <Journal>
      <PublisherName>KMAN Publication Inc.</PublisherName>
      <JournalTitle>AI and Tech in Behavioral and Social Sciences</JournalTitle>
      <Issn></Issn>
      <Volume></Volume>
      <Issue>In Press</Issue>
      <PubDate PubStatus="epublish">
        <Year>2026</Year>
        <Month>10</Month>
        <Day>22</Day>
      </PubDate>
    </Journal>
    <ArticleTitle>Spatial Analysis of Smart City Indicators and Their Impact on Urban Quality of Life (Case Study: Lenjan County, Isfahan Province)</ArticleTitle>
    <VernacularTitle>Spatial Analysis of Smart City Indicators and Their Impact on Urban Quality of Life (Case Study: Lenjan County, Isfahan Province)</VernacularTitle>
    <FirstPage></FirstPage>
    <LastPage></LastPage>
    <Language>EN</Language>
    <AuthorList>
      <Author>
        <FirstName></FirstName>
        <LastName></LastName>
        <Affiliation></Affiliation>
      </Author>
      <Author>
        <FirstName></FirstName>
        <LastName></LastName>
        <Affiliation></Affiliation>
      </Author>
      <Author>
        <FirstName></FirstName>
        <LastName></LastName>
        <Affiliation></Affiliation>
      </Author>
    </AuthorList>
    <PublicationType>Journal Article</PublicationType>
    <Abstract>&lt;p&gt;This observational study examined perceived smart city development and its association with urban quality of life among 400 residents of five cities in Lenjan County, Isfahan Province, Iran. The resident survey was supplemented by interviews with 20 experts and exploratory spatial analyses. Reported quantitative procedures included one-sample t tests, Pearson correlations, and stepwise multiple regression; spatial procedures included inverse distance weighting, local Moran’s I, and Euclidean distance analysis. The overall smart city index averaged 2.48 on a five-point scale. Smart governance had the lowest mean score (2.05), whereas smart people had the highest (2.83). The reported spatial classification assigned 72% of neighborhoods to low or very low development categories. Reported correlations with quality of life were strongest for smart living (r = .72) and smart people (r = .61), and the selected regression model had an in-sample R² of .67. However, inconsistencies between reported test statistics and descriptive summaries, incomplete documentation of measurement and weighting, and unavailable spatial outputs prevent definitive inferential conclusions. The findings identify provisional descriptive priorities for digital services, citizen capabilities, and equitable access to infrastructure. They do not establish causal effects or validated predictive performance.&lt;/p&gt;</Abstract>
    <ObjectList>
      <Object Type="keyword">
        <Param Name="value">Smart City, Urban Quality of Life, Spatial Analysis, Smart Governance, Lenjan County.</Param>
      </Object>
    </ObjectList>
    <ArchiveCopySource DocType="pdf"></ArchiveCopySource>
  </Article>
</ArticleSet>
