‘Trendy’ Cities: Exploring the Adoption of Different Types of Social Media by Portuguese Municipalities

  • Tiago Silva
  • António Tavares
  • Mariana LameirasEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11686)


What are the determinants of social media adoption by local government? This ongoing research provides a tentative answer to this question by analysing the 308 municipalities in Portugal. Extending previous analyses of Facebook and/or Twitter usage levels, we examine why local governments adopt a particular social media platform. More concretely, we explore, with statistical analyses, the determinants of the adoption of different types of social media. We investigate the adoption of three extremely popular social media (i.e. Facebook, Twitter and YouTube) as well as possible alternatives to those, more popular, applications. Since these platforms have distinct natures and can serve diverse purposes, we examine to what extent aspects such as local government’s commitment to transparency and participation, administrative capacity, media landscape, and socio-demographic and economic factors can explain the adoption of certain social media platforms. The results show that, indeed, demographic characteristics and administrative capacity are important factors for the adoption of less popular social media. Surprisingly, we also observe a geographical difference in municipalities’ social media adoption, with the south, in this regard, being ‘trendier’, or more innovative, than the north.


Local government Social media Transparency E-Participation 



This paper is a result of the project “SmartEGOV: Harnessing EGOV for Smart Governance (Foundations, methods, Tools)/NORTE-01-0145-FEDER-000037”, supported by Norte Portugal Regional Operational Programme (NORTE 2020), under the PORTUGAL 2020 Partnership Agreement, through the European Regional Development Fund (EFDR). António Tavares acknowledges the financial support of the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology and the Portuguese Ministry of Education and Science through national funds [Grant No. UID/CPO/0758/2019].


  1. 1.
    Gottfried, J., Shearer, E.: News Use Across social medial Platforms 2016. Pew Research Center (2018)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rybalko, S., Seltzer, T.: Dialogic communication in 140 characters or less: how fortune 500 companies engage stakeholders using Twitter. Public Relat. Rev. 36(4), 336–341 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dalton, R.J.: Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Chatham House Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Flickinger, R.S., Studlar, D.T.: The disappearing voters? Exploring declining turnout in Western European elections. West Eur. Polit. 15(2), 1–16 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bertot, J.C., Jaeger, P.T., Grimes, J.M.: Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: e-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Gov. Inf. Q. 27(3), 264–271 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bakker, T.P., De Vreese, C.H.: Good news for the future? Young people, Internet use, and political participation. Commun. Res. 38(4), 451–470 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kent, M.L.: Using social media dialogically: public relations role in reviving democracy. Public Relat. Rev. 39(4), 337–345 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bonsón, E., Torres, L., Royo, S., Flores, F.: Local e-government 2.0: social media and corporate transparency in municipalities. Gov. Inf. Q. 29(2), 123–132 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lameiras, M., Silva, T., Tavares, A.: An empirical analysis of social media usage by local governments in Portugal. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, pp. 257–268. ACM (2018)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Castells, M.: Communication Power. OUP, Oxford (2013)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kaplan, A.M., Haenlein, M.: Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Bus. Horiz. 53(1), 59–68 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Boyd, D.M., Ellison, N.B.: Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. J. Comput.-mediated Commun. 13(1), 210–230 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Morini, M.: Twitter for politics and Facebook for Leisure? The social media behaviour of Italian Politicians. Malaysian J. Media Stud. 17(1), 58–69 (2015)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Linders, D.: From e-government to we-government: defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Gov. Inf. Q. 29(4), 446–454 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    da Cruz, N.F., Tavares, A.F., Marques, R.C., Jorge, S., de Sousa, L.: Measuring local government transparency. Public Manag. Rev. 18(6), 866–893 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Omar, K., Stockdale, R., Scheepers, H.: Social media use in local government: an Australian perspective. Int. J. Public Adm. 37(10), 666–675 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Moon, M.J.: The evolution of e-government among municipalities: rhetoric or reality? Public Adm. Rev. 62(4), 424–433 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gil de Zúñiga, H., Jung, N., Valenzuela, S.: Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and political participation. J. Comput. Commun. 17(3), 319–336 (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tavares, A.F., da Cruz, N.F.: Explaining the transparency of local government websites through a political market framework. Gov. Inf. Q. Forthcom. 1–13 (2017)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gandía, J.L., Archidona, M.C.: Determinants of web site information by Spanish city councils. Online Inf. Rev. 32(1), 35–57 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    García, A.C., García-García, J.: Determinants of online reporting of accounting information by Spanish local government authorities. Local Gov. Stud. 36(5), 679–695 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Social Sciences, University of Lisbon (ICS-ULisboa)LisbonPortugal
  2. 2.United Nations University Operating Unit on Policy-Driven Electronic Governance (UNU-EGOV), Research Center in Political Science, University of MinhoBragaPortugal
  3. 3.United Nations University Operating Unit on Policy-Driven Electronic Governance (UNU-EGOV), Communication and Society Research Center (CSRC), University of MinhoBragaPortugal

Personalised recommendations