Electronic Commerce Research

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 349–363 | Cite as

Factors influencing e-government use in non-urban areas

  • Marie-Christine Roy
  • Anne Chartier
  • Jean Crête
  • Diane Poulin
Article

Abstract

Evidence suggests that citizens outside larger urban centers are less prone to use the various functionalities of e-government, while they are the most likely to benefit from these services. Few studies have been performed to understand rural citizens’ attitudes. Our purpose was to identify factors that influence the use of e-government services in outlying regions in the Province of Quebec (Canada). Our study was based on a subset of attitude-related variables that were shown to be strong predictors in prior research. We performed a survey involving 1587 citizens living in four selected outlying regions of Quebec, and held two focus groups with users and non-users of e-government. Our results confirm that attitude is influenced by perceived usefulness; perceived ease of use, perceived risk and trust and that attitude is strongly related to the intention to use e-government services. These results may help to plan more effective strategies to increase use in non-urban areas.

Keywords

E-government Outlying regions Attitude Intention 

References

  1. 1.
    Moon, M. J. (2002). The evolution of e-government among municipalities: Rhetoric or reality? Public Administration Review, 62(4), 424–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Choudrie, J., Weerakkody, V., & Jones, S. (2005). Realising e-government in the UK: Rural and urban challenges. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 18(5), 568–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Netendances. (2011). CEFRIO. Retrieved from http://www.cefrio.qc.ca/projets-recherches-enquetes/numerique-territoires/netendances-2011/. Accessed 2 July 2015.
  4. 4.
    Hindman, B. (2000). The rural–urban digital divide. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(3), 549–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Malecki, E. (2003). Digital development in rural areas: potentials and pitfalls. Journal of Rural Studies, 19, 201–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rana, N. P., Dwivedi, Y. K., & Williams, M. D. (2013). A meta-analysis of existing research on citizen adoption of e-government. Information Systems Frontiers, 17(3), 547–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carter, L., & Bélanger, F. (2005). The utilization of e-government services: Citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors. Information Systems Journal, 15(1), 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yang, H. D., & Yoo, Y. (2003). It’s all about attitude: Revisiting the Technology Acceptance Model. Decision Support Systems, 38(1), 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Van Dijk, J., Peters, O., & Ebbers, W. (2008). Explaining the acceptance and use of government Internet services: A multivariate analysis of 2006 survey data in the Netherlands. Government Information Quarterly, 25(3), 379–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Carter, L., & Weerakkody, V. (2008). E-government adoption: A cultural comparison. Information Systems Frontiers, 10(4), 473–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hung, S.-Y., Chang, C.-M., & Yu, T. (2006). Determinants of user acceptance of the e-government services: The case of online tax filing and payment system. Government Information Quarterly, 23(1), 97–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hung, S.-Y., Tang, K.-Z., Chang, C.-M., & Ke, C.-D. (2009). User acceptance of intergovernmental services: An example of electronic document management system. Government Information Quarterly, 26(2), 387–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chuttur, M. Y. (2009). Overview of the technology acceptance model: Origins, developments, and future directions. Sorputs: Working Papers on Information Systems, 9(37), 1–21. (Indiana University, USA).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tassabehji, R., Elliman, T., & Mellor, J. (2007). Generating citizen trust in e-government security: Challenging perceptions. Complete Collection of IGP Information Technology Case Collection Depository, 3(3), 1–17.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bélanger, F., Hiller, J., & Smith, W. (2002). Trustworthiness in electronic commerce: The role of privacy, security, and sites attributes. Journal of strategic Information Systems, 11(3–4), 245–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Goldfinch, S., Gauld, R., & Herbison, P. (2009). The participation divide? Political participation, trust in government, and e-government in Australia and New Zealand. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 68(3), 333–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jick, T. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4), 602–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56(2), 81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bryman, A. (2006). Integrating quantitative and qualitative research: how is it done? Qualitative Research, 6(1), 97–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Porter, C. E., & Donthu, N. (2006). Using the technology acceptance model to explain how attitudes determine Internet usage: The role of perceived access barriers and demographics. Journal of Business Research, 59, 999–1007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    SAS Institute Inc. (2013). What’s new in SAS ® 9.4. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jones, E., Watson, B., Gardner, J., & Gallois, C. (2004). Organisational communication: Challenges for the new century. Journal of Communication, 54(4), 722–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Shah, M. H., Okeke, R., & Rizwan, A. (2013). Issues of privacy and trust in e-commerce: Exploring customers’ perspective. Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 3, 3571–3577.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pieterson W, van Dijk J (2007) Channel choice determinants; an exploration of the factors that determine the choice of a service channel in citizen initiated contacts. Proceedings of the 8th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Bridging Disciplines & Domains. Digital Government Society of North America.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ebbers, W. E., Pieterson, W. J., & Noordman, H. N. (2007). Electronic government: Rethinking channel management strategies. Government Information Quarterly, 25, 181–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Aerschot, L. V., & Rodousakis, N. (2008). The link between socio-economic background and Internet use: Barriers faced by low socio-economic status groups and possible solutions. Innovation: The. European Journal of Social Sciences, 21, 317–351.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dimitrova, D. V., & Yu-Che, C. (2006). Profiling the adopters of e-government information and services: The influence of psychological characteristics, civic mindedness, and information channels. Social Science Computer Review, 24, 172–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lean, O., Zailani, S., Ramayah, T., & Fernando, Y. (2009). Factors influencing intention to use e-government services among citizens in Malaysia. International Journal of Information Management, 29(6), 458–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Orgeron, C. (2008). Evaluating citizen adoption and satisfaction of e-government in Mississippi. Mississippi: Mississippi State University.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Carter, L. (2008). E-government diffusion: a comparison of adoption constructs. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 2, 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lopez-Sisniega, C. (2009). Barriers to electronic government use as perceived by citizens at the municipal level in Mexico (Dissertation) (p. 158). Arizona: University of Phoenix.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schaupp, L. C., & Carter, L. (2005). E-voting: From apathy to adoption. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 18(5/6), 586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hu, P. J. H., Brown, S. A., Thong, J., Chan, F., & Tam, K. Y. (2009). Determinants of service quality and continuance intention of online services: The case of eTax. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 60(2), 292–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Horst, M., Kuttschreuter, M., & Gutteling, J. (2007). Perceived usefulness, personal experiences, risk perception and trust as determinants of adoption of e-government services in The Netherlands. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(4), 1838–1852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zhang, N. N., Guo, X., Chen, G., & Chau, P. Y. K. (2009). Impact of perceived fit on e-government user evaluation: A study with a Chinese cultural context. Global Information Management, 17(1), 49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Lee, K. C., Kirlidog, M., Lee, S., & Lim, G. G. (2008). User evaluations of tax filing web sites: A comparative study of South Korea and Turkey. Online Information Review, 32(6), 842–859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ojha, A., Sahu, G. P., & Gupta, M. P. (2009). Antecedents of paperless income tax filing by young professionals in India: An exploratory study. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 3(1), 65–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Glaser, B. G. (2000). The discovery of grounded theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    McNeal, R., Hale, K., & Dotterweich, L. (2008). Citizen–government interaction and the internet: Expectations and accomplishments in contact, quality, and trust. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 5(2), 213–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Shapiro, S. P., Shepherd, B. H., & Cheraskin, L. (1992). Business on a handshake. The Negotiation Journal, 1(4), 365–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Park, R. (2007). Measuring factors that influence the success of e-government initiatives. Florida: Nova Southeastern University, p. 156.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Bélanger, F., & Carter, L. (2008). Trust and risk in e-government adoption. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 17, 165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marie-Christine Roy
    • 1
  • Anne Chartier
    • 1
  • Jean Crête
    • 2
  • Diane Poulin
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Information Systems, Faculty of Business AdministrationLaval UniversityQuebecCanada
  2. 2.Political Department of Science, Faculty of Social SciencesLaval UniversityQuebecCanada
  3. 3.Department of Management, Faculty of Business AdministrationLaval UniversityQuebecCanada

Personalised recommendations