evaluating eparticipation sophistication of regional authorities websites: the case of greece and...

University of Macedonia

© Information Systems Lab

Evaluating eParticipation sophistication of Regional Authorities websites: The case of Greece and Spain

Eleni Panopoulou, Efthimios Tambouris,

Maria Zotou, Konstantinos Tarabanis



© Information Systems Lab 2

Contents

Objective

Methodology

Results

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusion



Rationale

At 2007 the Information Systems Laboratory of the University of

Macedonia won a tender by the Greek Observatory for the Information

Society to, amongst others, undertake a study of online sophistication

of all Greek local and regional public authorities

For this purpose, a framework has been developed, which includes

four evaluation axes: general info, content, eGovernment and

eParticipation.

After the end of the study, we decided to continue performing the same

study every year to dictate progress

This year we decided it would be interested to compare the

eParticipation results of the evaluation for regions with that of another

country



Objective

Objective:

– to determine and compare the eParticipation capabilities of regional

authorities’ websites in Greece and Spain

Through:

– evaluating the eParticipation online sophistication of regional authorities’

websites

Using:

– a published evaluation framework1 for measuring online sophistication of

public authorities’ websites.

– 1 Available at: Eleni Panopoulou, Efthimios Tambouris and Konstantinos Tarabanis (2008) “A

framework for evaluating websites of public authorities” Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 60, Number 5,

pp. 517-546.



Contents

Objective

Methodology

Results

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusion



Background

The two countries have a number of similarities to enable comparisons

– Similar population density (~ 86 inhabitants per km2)

– Mediterranean countries similarities in mentality and culture



Greece: Regional Structure and Relevant Strategies

13 Peripheries (Regions)

– General Secretaries of Regions are not directly elected by citizens; rather

they are appointed by the Greek government

57 Prefectures

– Prefectural representatives are elected by citizens every four years

“Digital Strategy 2006-2013”

– does not include any concepts relevant to eParticipation or eDemocracy.

“Greece in the Information Society: Strategy and Actions” (2002)

– refers to strengthening of the democratic processes through ICT

– “encouraging greater participation of citizens in matters of common

interest”

– each regional authority is invited to prepare its own plan for the

Information Society aimed among others at “increasing public awareness

and active participation in public matters”.



Spain: Regional Structure and Relevant Strategies

17 Autonomous Communities (Regions)

– Each Region has its own president, government, and Supreme Court (holding thus more power than the corresponding regional authorities in Greece).

50 Provinces

– Provincial representatives in Spain are elected by the citizens every four years (as with Prefectures in Greece).

“Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio: Plan Avanza 2006-2010” & “Ministerio de Administraciones Públicas: Plan Moderniza 2006-2008”

– they focus more on issues such as provision of qualitative services to citizens and improvement of public administration processes than on promoting eParticipation.

– the latter also provides for measures aiming among others to the establishment of an online area dedicated to public eConsulting on normative projects or government decisions.

“Ministry of Public Administration: White Paper on the Improvement of Public Services” (2000)

– Mentions eParticipation concerns as challenges to be faced by the Spanish Public administration.



Methodology – Evaluation framework

The framework1 for evaluating the websites of public authorities has 4 axes.

eParticipation is one of the four axes and its evaluation includes:

– 3 factors

– 6 metrics

1. Panopoulou E., Tambouris E. and Tarabanis K.: A framework for evaluating web sites of public authorities. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, Vol. 60, No. 5, 517--546 (2008)

Factors Metrics evaluating Metrics

number

Information Online policy documents.

1

Consultation Electronic consultations.

1

Active participation Communication and decision-making

tools, issues proposed by citizens.

4

Metric

number Question and possible answers

Information factor

Metric 1 Are policy documents available online?

No / Yes, basic documents / Yes, medium level

documents / Yes, high level documents

Consultation factor

Metric 2 Are consultations on important local issues organised

online (e-consultations)?

No / Yes

Active Participation factor

Metric 3 Is it possible for citizens to communicate through:

Chats / Blogs / eForums

Metric 4 Are polls organised online that refer to issues of

local/regional interest and that are also incorporated

into the decision process?

No / Yes

Metric 5 In the case that a discussion forum is available, is it

possible for a citizen to initiate a new discussion

topic?

No / Yes

Metric 6 Is it possible for citizens to provide a new agenda

topic for discussion on the PA council meeting?

No / Yes



Methodology – Evaluation scheme

each question is awarded a score between 0 and 10 points

a weighting scheme for factors and metrics is used

evaluation of Greek Regions and Prefectures: in September – October 2008

evaluation of Spanish Regions and Provinces: in December 2008 – January 2009

Metric

number Question and possible answers

Metric weight

Information factor

Metric 1 Are policy documents available online? 100%

No / Yes, basic documents / Yes, medium level

documents / Yes, high level documents

Consultation factor

Metric 2 Are consultations on important local issues organised

online (e-consultations)?

100%

No / Yes

Active Participation factor

Metric 3 Is it possible for citizens to communicate through: 25%

Chats / Blogs / eForums

Metric 4 Are polls organised online that refer to issues of

local/regional interest and that are also incorporated

into the decision process?

25%

No / Yes

Metric 5 In the case that a discussion forum is available, is it

possible for a citizen to initiate a new discussion

topic?

25%

No / Yes

Metric 6 Is it possible for citizens to provide a new agenda

topic for discussion on the PA council meeting?

25%

No / Yes

Factors Factor weight

Information 30%

Consultation 30%

Active participation 40%



Contents

Objective

Methodology

Results

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusion



Results for Greece

Evaluated: 12/13 Regions and 46/57 Prefectures

Overall performance:

Prefectures score frequencies:

Overall Results Regions Prefectures Total

Information 0.00% 15.76% 12.50%

Consultation 25.00% 15.22% 17.24%

Active Participation 0.00% 8.26% 6.55%

Total 7.50% 12.60% 11.54%

69.57%

84.78%

69.57%

26.08%

4.35%

28.26%

2.17%

15.22%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0-10% 10-20% 20-30% 30-40% 40-50% 50-60% 60-70% 70-80% 80-90% 90-100%

Information

Consultation

Active Participation



Results for Spain

Evaluated: 17/17 Regions and 46/50 Provinces

Overall performance:

Score frequencies in total:

Contrary to Greece, most of Spain’s regional authorities have adopted a specific template for offering and organising content on their websites

Overall Results Regions Provinces Total

Information 73.53% 73.37% 73.41%

Consultation 17.65% 17.39% 17.46%

Active Participation 1.76% 1.41% 1.51%

Total 28.06% 27.79% 27.87%

1.09%

82.48%

98.92% 98.92%

17.53%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0-10% 10-20% 20-30% 30-40% 40-50% 50-60% 60-70% 70-80% 80-90% 90-100%

Information

Consultation

Active Participation



Contents

Objective

Methodology

Results

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusion



Discussion – Comparison

Information level: Spain has a very big advantage over Greece scoring

in average 61% more

Consultation level: similar results

Active participation level: although both countries display low scores,

Greece has a clear advantage over Spain (Greek Prefectures)

73.41%

12.50%17.46% 17.24%

1.51%6.55%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Information Consultation Active Participation

All websites (Spain)

All websites (Greece)

15.76%

15.22%

8.26%

25.00%

73.37%

17.39%

1.41%

73.53%

17.65%

1.76%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Informatio

nConsultati

onActive

Participati

on

Regions (Spain)

Provinces (Spain)

Regions (Greece)

Prefectures (Greece)



Discussion

In overall Greek Regions are performing worse than all other regional

authorities in the two countries.

– responsibilities of Greek Regions are relatively limited; they do not have

legislative power and are not elected directly by the citizens.

Websites of Spanish regional authorities follow a similar template

– although they are much more autonomous and hold many responsibilities

compared to Greek regional authorities.

No correlation between eP sophistication and demographic data of

Greek and Spanish Regions

– Regions’ average population in 2006 by Eurostat

– Regions’ gross domestic product (GDP) in 2006 by Eurostat

– any hypotheses that eP sophistication is higher in more populated

Regions or in Regions with higher GDP cannot be supported



Contents

Objective

Methodology

Results

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusion



Limitations

The approach measures eP in a normative fashion

The aim is not to suggest that Public Authorities with bigger scores are

more participatory or more democratic than other

It aims to provide an appreciation on the degree of eP capabilities of

regional websites

The methodology cares only for the “supply side” (provision of

documents, consultation etc), thus does not account the “demand

side” (e.g. take up by citizens)

The evaluation was performed from the perspective of the guest user

(not registered user) since it was not always possible to register (e.g.

in some cases one had to be an inhabitant to register)



Contents

Objective

Methodology

Results

Discussion

Limitations

Conclusion



Conclusion

Neither country’s regional authorities are adequately advanced in providing eParticipation offerings through their websites.

Spain performs very good as far as information provision, namely availability of policy documents, is concerned.

Only a few regional authorities in Greece and Spain offer engaging participatory features such as e-consultations, e-forums, e-polls, chats, etc.

At the active participation level results are discouraging; not only aren’t there many opportunities for the citizens to actively participate but also nearly no evidence have been found that such participation could be “heard” by the regional authorities.

Poor results could be partially attributed to the lack of governmental strategic planning for adopting such eParticipation opportunities

– both countries’ strategic and policy documents on the Information Society do not include specific goals or measures for eParticipation especially when it comes to its adoption at the regional or local level.



And an invitation…

Since 2007, each year the Information Systems Laboratory of the

University of Macedonia undertakes an evaluation study of online

sophistication of all Greek local and regional authorities

This is based on the published framework and includes evaluating the

websites of all regions and prefectures and a representative sample of

municipalities

We would like to invite other researchers to use the same framework

for evaluating the websites of the local and regional authorities in their

countries …

… and of course we welcome partnerships for comparative studies

such as the one presented here!!



Thank you for your attention!

For more information please contact:

Eleni Panopoulou [email protected]

Efthimios Tambouris [email protected]

evaluating eparticipation sophistication of regional authorities websites: the case of greece and...

Presentations & Public Speaking