Explaining Citizens’ E-Participation Use: the Role of Perceived Advantages
- 566 Downloads
This article analyzes some of the reasons people choose e-participation over traditional involvement forums as a way of having public policy input. The research aimed to see whether people perceived that e-participation has time, cost, quality, and transparency advantages over traditional participation channels which some researchers have suggested is the case. The study also wanted to investigate whether perceiving one or more of these advantages has an impact on whether a person uses e-participation. Using data from the 2012 EU eGovernment Benchmark-User survey we found that people who perceive these advantages are more likely to use e-participation but the various advantages have different impacts. Saving time has the strongest impact on use. Perceiving quality and transparency advantages also impacts use, but a perceived cost advantage does not. In addition, we found that people are more likely to use e-participation if they are satisfied with a jurisdiction’s website and application design. These findings have implications for how governments should design and market websites if they want to increase e-participation.
KeywordsE-participation E-government Citizen participation
- Campbell, A., Gurin, G., & Miller, W. E. (1954). The voter decides. Evanston: Row, Peterson.Google Scholar
- Coglianese, C. (2004). Internet and citizen participation in rulemaking. A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 1(1), 33–57.Google Scholar
- Colombo, C. (2010). E-participation experiences and local government in Catalonia: an explanatory analysis. In E. Tambouris, A. Macintosh, & O. Glassey (Eds.), IFIP (International Federation for Information Processing) 2nd International Conference on eParticipation (pp. 82–94). Lausanne: Springer.Google Scholar
- Comber, M. K. (2003). Civics curriculum and civic skills: recent evidence. The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE)[online]. Available: http://www.civicyouth.org/PopUps/FactSheets/FS_Civics_Curriculum_Skills.pdf.
- European Commission (2009). European eParticipation summary report. Retrieved April 5, 2015, from. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/european-eparticipation-summary-report.
- European Commission (2012). 2012 European Union (EU) eGovernment benchmark – user survey. Retrieved April 6, 2015, from. https://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/sites/digital-agenda/files/eGov%20Benchmark%202012%20insight%20report%20published%20version%200.1%20_0.pdf.
- George, J., & Jones, G. (2012). Understanding and managing organizational behavior (6th ed.). Boston: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Klesner, J. L. (2004). Social capital and political participation in Latin America. Paper prepared for delivery at the XXV International Congress of the Latin American Studies Association, Las Vegas. Retrieved April 5, 2015, from http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/PSci/Fac/klesner/Klesner_Social_Capital_lasa_2004.pdf.
- Lee, J., & Kim, S. (2014). Active citizen e-participation in local governance: do individual social capital and e-participation management MATTER?. In System Sciences (HICSS), 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 2044–2053). IEEE.Google Scholar
- Macintosh, A. (2004). Characterizing e-participation in policy-making. In System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. IEEE. Retrieved April 5, 2015, from. http://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings/hicss/2004/2056/05/205650117a.pdf
- Medaglia, R. (2007). Measuring the diffusion of eParticipation: a survey on Italian Local Government. Information Polity, 12(4), 265–280.Google Scholar
- Nie, N. H., Junn, J., & Stehlik-Barry, K. (1996). Education and democratic citizenship in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Peixoto, T. (2009). Beyond theory: e-participatory budgeting and its promises for eParticipation. European Journal of ePractice, 7(5), 1–9.Google Scholar