Have a personal or library account? Click to login
The Perceived Advantages of e-Participation and its Impact on Citizens’ Willingness to Engage: Findings From the Canton of Zurich Cover

The Perceived Advantages of e-Participation and its Impact on Citizens’ Willingness to Engage: Findings From the Canton of Zurich

Jahrbuch der Schweizerischen Verwaltungswissenschaften
Volume 13 (2022): Issue 1
By: Alexander Mertes,  Damaris Fischer,  Caroline Brüesch and  Kevin C. Andermatt  
Open Access
|Dec 2022

References

  1. 1Alawneh, A. A., Al-Refai, H., & Batiha, K. (2013). Measuring user satisfaction from e-Government services: Lessons from Jordan. Government Information Quarterly, 30, 277–288. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2013.03.001
    Back to article
  2. 2Alcántara, S., Bach, N., Böhm, B., Diener, H.-L., Kuhn, R., Renn, O., Schröder, C., Ulrich, P., & Watt, H. (2014). DELIKAT – Fachdialoge Deliberative Demokratie: Analyse Partizipativer Verfahren für den Transformationsprozess. Umweltbundesamt.
    Back to article
  3. 3Arnstein, S. (2015). “A Ladder of Citizen Participation”. In The City Reader. Routledge.
    Back to article
  4. 4Biedermann, H. (2006). Junge Menschen an der Schwelle politischer Mündigkeit. Partizipation: Patentrezept politischer Identitätsfindung? Waxmann.
    Back to article
  5. 5Bundesamt für Statistik. (2021). Bevölkerung. https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/de/home/statistiken/bevoelkerung/stand-entwicklung/bevoelkerung.html
    Back to article
  6. 6Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. DOI: 10.2307/249008
    Back to article
  7. 7Diffley, M., Black, C., White, D., & Murphy, T. (2015). Digital Participation in Dumfries and Kirkcaldy. Carnegie United Kingdom Trust Ipsos MORI. https://d1ssu070pg2v9i.cloudfront.net/pex/carnegie_uk_trust/2016/02/pub1455011425.pdf
    Back to article
  8. 8Edelmann, N., Parycek, P., Misuraca, G., Panagiotopoulos, P., Charalabidis, Y., & Virkar, S. (2021). Electronic Participation. Springer. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-82824-0
    Back to article
  9. 9European Commission. (2020). New Commission report shows the importance of digital resilience in times of crisis (IP/20/1025). https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_20_1025
    Back to article
  10. 10Fedotava, O., Teixeira, L., & Alvelos, H. (2014). Citizens’ engagement using communication technologies. In M. Khosrowpour (Eds.), Encyclopedia of information science and technology (S. 2709–2718). Information Science Reference. DOI: 10.4018/978-1-4666-5888-2.ch264
    Back to article
  11. 11Fischer, D., Brändle, F., Mertes, A., Pleger, L. E., Rhyner, A., & Wulf, B. (2020). Partizipation im digitalen Staat: Möglichkeiten und Bedeutung digitaler und analoger Partizipationsinstrumente im Vergleich. Swiss Yearbook of Administrative Sciences, 11(1), 129–144. DOI: 10.5334/ssas.141
    Back to article
  12. 12Fischer, D., Brändle, F., Pleger, L. E., Rhyner, A., Winzer, C., & Wulf, B. (2021a). Auswirkungen digitaler und analoger Partizipationsverfahren auf die Entscheidungsfindung: Ergebnisse einer quasi-experimentellen Fallstudie. Neues Wissen zur Digitalen Transformation: Forschungsbeiträge zu E-Government, zur Smart City und der digitalen Ökonomie: Davos Digital Forum Academic Track Sammelband 2020. 16.
    Back to article
  13. 13Fischer, D., Mertes, A., Brüesch, C., & Andermatt, K. (2021b). «Partizipation neu denken». Ergebnisse der Bevölkerungsbefragung im Kanton Zürich. ZHAW. ZHAW School of Management and Law. https://www.zh.ch/content/dam/zhweb/bilder-dokumente/themen/politik-staat/teilhabe/partizipation_neu_denken_bevoelkerungsbefragung_2021_zhaw.pdf
    Back to article
  14. 14Kakabadse, A., Kakabadse, N. K., & Kouzmin, A. (2003). Reinventing the Democratic Governance Project through Information Technology? A Growing Agenda for Debate. Public Administration Review, 63(1), 44–60. DOI: 10.1111/1540-6210.00263
    Back to article
  15. 15Kanton Zürich. (2021). Bestand & Struktur. https://www.zh.ch/de/soziales/bevoelkerungszahlen/bestand-struktur.zhweb-noredirect.zhweb-cache.html?keywords=bevoelkerungsbestand&filtered=false#-748284416
    Back to article
  16. 16Kronthaler, F. (2016). Statistik angewandt. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-662-47118-0
    Back to article
  17. 17Le Blanc, D. (2020). E-participation: A Quick Overview of Recent Qualitative Trends (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) Working Papers Nr. 163; UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (DESA) Working Papers, 163). DOI: 10.18356/0f898163-en
    Back to article
  18. 18Lee, J., & Kim, S. (2018). Citizens’ e-participation on agenda setting in local governance: Do individual social capital and e-participation management matter? Public Management Review, 20(6), 873–895. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2017.1340507
    Back to article
  19. 19Lourenço, R. P., & Costa, J. P. (2007). Incorporating citizens’ views in local policy decision making processes. Decision Support Systems, 43(4), 1499–1511. DOI: 10.1016/j.dss.2006.06.004
    Back to article
  20. 20Lupia, A. (2009). Can Online Deliberation Improve Politics? Scientific Foundations for Success. In T. Davis & S. Gangadharan (Eds.), Online Deliberation: Design, Research and Practice (S. 59–69.). Center for the Study of Language and Information. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1154649
    Back to article
  21. 21Macintosh, A., & Whyte, A. (2006, September 11). Evaluating how eParticipation changes local democracy. eGovernment Workshop ’06 (eGOV06), Brunel University, West London.
    Back to article
  22. 22Mellouli, S., Luna-Reyes, L. F., & Zhang, J. (2014). Smart government, citizen participation and open data. Information Polity, 19(1–2), 1–4. DOI: 10.3233/IP-140334
    Back to article
  23. 23Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & McNeal, R. S. (2008). Digital citizenship: The internet, society, and participation. MIT Press. DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/7428.001.0001
    Back to article
  24. 24Nabatchi, T. (2012). Putting the “Public” Back in Public Values Research: Designing Participation to Identify and Respond to Values. Public Administration Review, 72(5), 699–708. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02544.x
    Back to article
  25. 25Naranjo Zolotov, M., Oliveira, T., & Casteleyn, S. (2018a). E-participation adoption models research in the last 17 years: A weight and meta-analytical review. Computers in Human Behavior, 81, 350–365. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.12.031
    Back to article
  26. 26Naranjo-Zolotov, M., Oliveira, T., & Casteleyn, S. (2018b). Citizens’ intention to use and recommend e-participation: Drawing upon UTAUT and citizen empowerment. Information Technology & People, 32(2), 364–386. DOI: 10.1108/ITP-08-2017-0257
    Back to article
  27. 27Naranjo-Zolotov, M., Oliveira, T., Casteleyn, S., & Irani, Z. (2019). Continuous usage of e-participation: The role of the sense of virtual community. Government Information Quarterly, 36(3), 536–545. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2019.05.009
    Back to article
  28. 28OECD. (2020). Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions. DOI: 10.1787/339306da-en
    Back to article
  29. 29Omar, K., Stockdale, R., & Scheepers, H. (2014). Social Media Use in Local Government: An Australian Perspective. International Journal of Public Administration, 37(10), 666–675. DOI: 10.1080/01900692.2014.903270
    Back to article
  30. 30Panopoulou, E., Tambouris, E., & Tarabanis, K. (2014). Success factors in designing eParticipation initiatives. Information and Organization, 24(4), 195–213. DOI: 10.1016/j.infoandorg.2014.08.001
    Back to article
  31. 31Pina, V., & Torres, L. (2016). The Managers’ View of Participation Processes with Citizen Panels. In G. Aichholzer, H. Kubicek, & L. Torres (Eds.), Evaluating Public Participation in Policy Making—OECD (S. 289–306). Springer International Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/gov/evaluatingpublicparticipationinpolicymaking.htm#B3. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-25403-6_14
    Back to article
  32. 32Quintero-Angulo, R. A. D., Sánchez-Torres, J. M., & Cardona-Román, D. M. (2020). Problem Areas in E-Participation: A Systematic Review. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, 544–550. DOI: 10.1145/3428502.3428584
    Back to article
  33. 33Rottinghaus, B., & Escher, T. (2020). Mechanisms for inclusion and exclusion through digital political participation: Evidence from a comparative study of online consultations in three German cities. Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, 30(2), 261–298. DOI: 10.1007/s41358-020-00222-7
    Back to article
  34. 34Royo, S., Pina, V., & Garcia-Rayado, J. (2020). Decide Madrid: A Critical Analysis of an Award-Winning e-Participation Initiative. Sustainability, 12(4). DOI: 10.3390/su12041674
    Back to article
  35. 35Schmidthuber, L., Hilgers, D., Gegenhuber, T., & Etzelstorfer, S. (2017). The emergence of local open government: Determinants of citizen participation in online service reporting. Government Information Quarterly, 34(3), 457–469. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2017.07.001
    Back to article
  36. 36Shihab, M. R., & Hidayanto, A. N. (2021). Citizen adoption of eparticipation: A study of Jakarta smart city eparticipation initiatives. Journal of Management Information and Decision Sciences, 24(4), 1–12. DOI: 10.3390/info12050189
    Back to article
  37. 37Shihab, M. R., Hidayanto, A. N., & Putra, P. H. (2021). Exploring the Effects of Normative Beliefs toward Citizen Engagement on eParticipation Technologies. Information, 12(5), 189. DOI: 10.3390/info12050189
    Back to article
  38. 38Smith, S., Macintosh, A., & Millard, J. (2011). A three-layered framework for evaluating e-participation. International Journal of Electronic Governance, 4(4), 304. DOI: 10.1504/IJEG.2011.046013
    Back to article
  39. 39Statistisches Amt Kanton Zürich. (2020). Wohnbevölkerung nach Geschlecht und Alter. https://www.zh.ch/de/soziales/bevoelkerungszahlen/bestand-struktur.html
    Back to article
  40. 40Steinbach, M., Sieweke, J., & Süß, S. (2019). The diffusion of e-participation in public administrations: A systematic literature review. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 29(2), 61–95. DOI: 10.1080/10919392.2019.1552749
    Back to article
  41. 41Susha, I., & Grönlund, Å. (2012). eParticipation research: Systematizing the field. Government Information Quarterly, 29(3), 373–382. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2011.11.005
    Back to article
  42. 42United Nations. (2014). E-Government Survey 2014: E-government for the future we want. https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/reports/un-e-government-survey-2014
    Back to article
  43. 43United Nations. (2022). E-Participation Index. https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/About/Overview/E-Participation-Index
    Back to article
  44. 44Viborg Andersen, K., Zinner Henriksen, H., Secher, C., & Medaglia, R. (2007). Costs of e-participation: The management challenges. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 1(1), 29–43. DOI: 10.1108/17506160710733689
    Back to article
  45. 45Vicente, M. R., & Novo, A. (2014). An empirical analysis of e-participation. The role of social networks and e-government over citizens’ online engagement. Government Information Quarterly, 31(3), 379–387. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2013.12.006
    Back to article
  46. 46Wijnhoven, F., Ehrenhard, M., & Kuhn, J. (2015). Open government objectives and participation motivations. Government Information Quarterly, 32(1), 30–42. DOI: 10.1016/j.giq.2014.10.002
    Back to article
  47. 47Wirtz, B. W., Daiser, P., & Binkowska, B. (2018). E-participation: A Strategic Framework. International Journal of Public Administration, 41(1), 1–12. DOI: 10.1080/01900692.2016.1242620
    Back to article
  48. 48Zheng, Y., & Schachter, H. L. (2017). Explaining Citizens’ E-Participation Use: The Role of Perceived Advantages. Public Organization Review, 17(3), 409–428. DOI: 10.1007/s11115-016-0346-2
    Back to article
  49. 49Zittel, T. (2007). Participatory Democracy and Political Participation. In T. Zittel & D. Fuchs (Eds.), Participatory Democracy and Political Participation: Can Participatory Engineering Bring Citizens Back in? (S. 9–28). Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9780203969311
    Back to article
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/ssas.166 | Journal eISSN: 2632-9255
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Submitted on: Aug 11, 2022
Accepted on: Nov 9, 2022
Published on: Dec 7, 2022
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:
e-participation,
non-digital participation,
e-government,
deliberation

© 2022 Alexander Mertes, Damaris Fischer, Caroline Brüesch, Kevin C. Andermatt, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Previous articleVolume 13 (2022): Issue 1Next article