elost policy ictaf

8/6/2019 Elost Policy Ictaf

1/69

1

Project no: 027287Project acronym: ELOSTe-Government for LOw Socio-economic sTatus groups

Instrument: SSAThematic Priority: 2

WP6 Recommendations for Future Policy and Research Priorities

for the EU

D6.1 & D6.2 Policy Recommendations for e-Inclusion of Low SocioeconomicStatus Groups (LSG) in e-Government Services

Dissemination Level: PU

Start date of project: 01.01.2006 Duration: 27 months

Author: Tel Aviv University. Interdisciplinary Center for Technological Analysis &Forecasting (ICTAF) and Netvision Institute for Internet Studies (NIIS)

Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Sixth Framework

Programme

Dissemination LevelPU Public X

PP Restricted to other programme participants (including theCommission Services)

RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (includingthe Commission Services)

CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (includingthe Commission Services)


2/69

2

e-Government for LOw Socio-economic sTatus groups

Project ID: 027287

WORK PACKAGE 6:

Recommendations for Future Policy and Research

Priorities for the EUD6.1 & D6.2: Policy Recommendations for e-Inclusion of

Low Socioeconomic Groups (LSG) in e-Government

Services

WP6 Deliverable D6.2. Version 3

Date: 2 March 2008Pages:

Authors:

Niv Ahituv NIIS

Yoel Raban ICTAFTal Soffer ICTAFAharon Hauptman ICTAFYair Sharan - ICTAF

With contributions from all partners

The ELOST Consortium:

Company Country Web-Site

Tel Aviv University. InterdisciplinaryCenter for Technological Analysis &Forecasting (ICTAF) and NetvisionInstitute for Internet Studies (NIIS)

Israel http://www.tau.ac.il

http://www.ictaf.tau.ac.il

http://www.niis.tau.ac.il

The Interdisciplinary Center forComparative Research in the SocialSciences.

Austria http://www.iccr-international

Centre Interdisciplinaire de RechercheComparative en Sciences Sociales

France http://www.iccr-international.org/cir/index.html

Institute of Mathematics and Informatics- Bulgarian Academy of Sciences

Bulgaria http://www.math.bas.bg

TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITAETBERLIN - Zentrum Technik und

Gesellschaft

Germany http://www.ztg.tu-berlin.de

University of Tampere - Department ofSocial Policy and Social Work

Finland http://www.tay.fi/english/index.html

Status: Confidentiality:

[[[[ X

]]]]

DraftTo be reviewedProposalFinal / Released to CEC

[[[[

X ]]]

]

PublicIST

Restricted

- for public use- for IST programme participants- for ELOST consortium and

Project Officer only- Internal

Contents: Deliverable D6.2


3/69

3

Table of content

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

1. INTRODUCTION 7

1.1. EU e-Inclusion policy and the Riga Declaration 7

1.2. The components of e-Inclusion policy 7

1.3. Benefits: to the public; to the individual 8

1.4 Performance and success measurements 10

1.5 ELOST project 11

2. METHODOLOGY 13

2.1 Field surveys 13

2.2 Focus Groups 15

2.3 Foresight study 15

2.4 Interactive policy toolbox 16

2.5 Data triangulation 17

2.6 Policy analysis 18

3. INTEGRATION OF RESULTS FROM PREVIOUS WORK 20

3.1 Digital Divide and e-Government 20

3.2 Policy programs for LSGs and e-Government 27

3.3 LSGs' attitudes towards Internet and e-Government 29

3.4 Usage patterns of LSGs who are familiar with the Internet 30

3.5 Findings from focus groups with LSGs 32

3.6 Cross-cultural comparison of the ELOST survey 32

3.7 Future outlook results from the ELOST Foresight study 36

3.8 Conclusions 40

4. INCLUSIVE E-GOVERNMENT POLICY DESIGN 44

4.1 Barriers to e-Government use by LSGs 44

4.2. Policy issues 46

4.3. Possible routes to inclusive e-Government policy 47


4/69

4

4.4. Brainstorming and workshops results 50

4.5. Policy dynamics 53

5. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 54

5.1 Introduction 54

5.2 Policy measures and solutions 56

5.3 Policy recommendations 59

5.4 Integrated policy and guidlines 66


5/69

5

Executive summary The overall goal of the ELOST project is to develop policy recommendations

for increasing awareness and usage of e-Government services among lowsocioeconomic status groups (LSGs). The project included a comparativecross cultural study of barriers on e-Government use by LSGs in the six

countries participating in the consortium, and some additional informationcollected from other countries. Government decision makers and LSGsrepresentatives were involved during all phases of the project.

e-Inclusion policy is already under way across Europe, but results are still farfrom targets set in Riga Declaration. e-Government policy does not addressspecific needs of LSGs in most countries, and as a result their use of e-Government is still very low. With proper policy, e-Government usage canincrease significantly.

In ELOST we classified barriers to e-inclusion into 4 groups access,awareness, skills, andattitudes. For each type of barrier that inhibits the useof Internet and e-Government by LSGs there may be several solutions to

choose from. However, the choice of specific solutions should match LSGscharacteristics, barriers and needs.

LSGs are clearly among the last groups of citizens to embrace informationtechnologies, long after the Internet became a crucial part of every day life.Diffusion of innovation theory and practice shows that the last segments toadopt an innovation need directed effort in order to change their minds andhearts and switch from non-users to users. Such an effort should include anextensive use of change agents and opinion leaders. Since processes ofchanging attitudes can take a long time, they should be given high priority ininclusive e-Government policy planning.

One of the major barriers to e-Government use by LSGs concerns attitudesand beliefs. Most non-users of Internet among LSGs have negative attitudestowards the use of computers and Internet, and also towards governmentinitiatives in general and e-Government in particular. Further studies on

processes of attitude change among LSGs are needed, with emphasis onhuman intermediation. They will reveal the forces that drive adoption inspecific groups. There is a need to study the possible impact of opinion leadersand change agents on adoption rate of Internet and e-Government in differentgroups,. Governments are advised to identify a cadre of human intermediariesthat may be recruited to educate and assist LSGs in their communities.

Governments should engage in developing a long-range strategy, work plan

and roadmap for the deployment of access options for LSGs. This shouldinclude setting future goals for access levels among LSGs, measuring andtracking deployment of access infrastructure for LSGs. In the near future,access options for LSGs may include multimedia stations, PIAPs, interactiveTV (ITV), PCs and laptops, mobile phones and, if needed, humanintermediaries. Creative thinking is needed in order to increase access options

by making access available in places frequented by LSGs, in particular wherehuman assistance could be relatively easily available.

Emerging technology trends and families of technologies considered in theELOST expert survey as having potential impact on e-Government should bewidely encouraged in the decade 2008-2018. In the near term (2008-2013)

widespread use is foreseen for: smart cards, advanced mobile networks,advanced security technologies, high-speed broadband communications, futureweb technologies and Interactive TV. In 2013-2018 Advanced speechrecognition, automatic translation and wearable computers will become


6/69

6

common, followed by widespread use of Ambient Intelligence and VirtualReality. Most of these technologies could be beneficial in particular for

persons lacking technology skills.

One of the major conclusions of ELOST is that the future user of e-Government will have an access to a variety of means, depending on his/herskills and whereabouts at a certain moment. Therefore, e-Government

applications should be adapted to multiple access means (including new andtraditional means). Such a multi-channel multi-technological environmentrequires R&D of technologies for coherence and synchronisation of thedifferent information flows.

TV is already very popular, and digital technology enables the use of limitedinteractivity. It is likely that in the forthcoming years DTV will be installed innearly every household. Therefore, policy decision makers should allocateresources and focus on the use of DTV for e-Government. More research isneeded in order to understand the advantages and limitations of Interactive TVfor e-Government use by LSGs, learning from lessons from recent relevantexperimental projects in Italy and elsewhere.

Since it is believed that by 2020 most of the interaction between the citizensand the government will be performed through electronic communications, itis imperative to make sure that each citizen will have access to an electronicchannel, regardless of his or her economic or physical status. Otherwise, ageneration of citizens deprived of e-Government services will develop, thusincreasing the digital divide rather than reducing it. Those that cannot affordhaving their own electronic access will have to be provided with public access(e.g., PIAP). We recommend that governments will plan and make sure thatallocating different electronic means to most LSGs will be possible in thefuture.

It is important to integrate all the various solutions into a coherent andsynchronized inclusive policy. ELOST shows that LSGs are not included as adistinct group of e-Government policy in many countries. Inclusive policyshould be planned so that it will address usage barriers of different groupssimultaneously.

One of the most notable observations with respect to barriers on ICTs use isthe difference between younger and older people. The mix of policy measuresfor young people at risk and for elderly people can be quite different. Accesssolutions for younger people at risk may focus on the provision of low (or no)cost access to PCs or laptops, whereas for the elderly the focus may be on amix of access options such as ITV, Kiosks, and the help of family members.

A concrete schedule and time line should be set for every policy element.Processes of attitude change can start relatively early, although they requiresome planning activities. Access infrastructures are already deployed in mostcountries, so steps must be taken to provide LSG-friendly interfaces atreasonable price. Digital skills education has some time constants that arequite rigid. However, user-friendly interfaces can shorten digital skills learningcycles.

The plan and its specific activities should be preceded by an exact definition ofkey success factor and quantitative measurements to assess them, in terms oftimetable, proportion of coverage of populations in need, and the like.


7/69


8/69

8

Inclusive services: e-Government, e-Health, e-Learning, and otherservices must take into account people without access.

Independent living: arrangement of the individual living environmentso that it will enable self-determined way of life.

e-Services for social inclusion: services that can help people fromgroups at risks of being socially excluded to increasingly participate in

societal life.The main target groups for those key themes are people with disabilities, elderly

people, people with low income, people with low educational attainment, and ethnicminorities. The main benefits for the target segments gained from e-Inclusion policyare higher accessibility of ICTs, higher accessibility of eServices, increased social

participation, increased independence and quality of life, activation of personalresources, and increased social inclusion.

There are some policy components that seem to emerge from the declaration and theresearch described above:

Accessibility: It is vital to provide people at risk of exclusion access

to the variety of information society services that will be available infuture.

Competence: People at risk of being excluded must be provided withthe competence and skills required using information society servicesfor their benefits.

Cultural diversity: e-Inclusion policy should address the specificneeds of groups that differ from the rest of the population in theirsocial and cultural backgrounds (migrants, minorities, and others).

Age: Older people potential for social exclusion must be recognisedand addressed by policy makers.

Inclusiveness: Electronic services must be planned so that peoplewithout (or with limited) access may also be able to use them. This isimportant since some people are unlikely to use ICTs at present andin the near future by choice or due to lack of skills.

1.3. Benefits: to the public; to the individual

The benefits from e-Inclusion may be divided to several categories as described byEnglands digital inclusion team4.

Benefits to Government: Government may avoid certain costs when people are better able to help themselves using technology. Another benefit is improved productivity resulting from putting technology in

the hands of front line workers. Government can also benefit fromefficiency savings by dealing with more people using technology eitherdirectly or indirectly. The connection to e-Government services may bethe first step in an assimilation process of deprived sectors andminorities into society.

Benefits for disadvantaged people: Increased choice in the servicesthey use and the way they access them. The ability to obtain at better

prices goods and services such as shopping, holidays, insurance, and banking. The possibility to enjoy greater democratic and societalengagement, and an enhanced quality of life. Being able to possess theessential skills needed to work in a modern economy. Being able to

gain more self-sufficiency and independence. The ability to gain social

4 The Digital Inclusion Landscape in England, Digital Inclusion Team, 2007.


9/69

9

capital as people extend their support networks beyond geographicalboundaries.

Benefits to Deprived Communities: ICT can support more cohesivecommunities. ICT can support crime reduction by improving the speedand quality of crime reporting, and by helping to gather localintelligence more effectively. ICT can support improved educational

outcomes and engagement of the young. Digital inclusion can promoteequality of opportunity for all sectors of the community. Electroniccommunication is environmentally more sustainable than traditionalcommunications channels.

The Digital Inclusion Team also uses Maslows Hierarchy of Needs Theory to showhow disadvantaged people can use ICTs for capacity building.

Figure 2.3.1: ICTs applications and Maslows needs

At the lower level of physiological needs, online shopping co-operative for the elderlymay be an example for such an application. Needs for belonging to a community canalso be met with ICTs applications, such as communities of interest via DTV (bookreading club for example).

Similar views are expressed in a recent paper on the European Initiative on an all-inclusive digital society5:e-Inclusion can deliver tangible benefits to citizens such as improved skills,increased employability or new entrepreneurial opportunities; better health awarenessand online access to health services; increased quality of life; strengthened communitycohesion and trust; better access to information and engagement in public issues (e-Participation).The paper also estimates the economic impact of e-Inclusion at 35 to 85 billion

gained over 5 years. These gains will be the result of increased productivity, savings

5 European initiative on an all-inclusive digital society: Frequently Asked Questions, MEMO/07/527


10/69

10

of public administrations, and increased market opportunities for ICT tools andservices.

1.4 Performance and success measurements

The Riga Declaration6 includes some quantifiable goals for the future of e-Inclusionin Europe. To convincingly address e-Inclusion, the differences in Internet usage

between current average use by the EU population and use by older people, peoplewith disabilities, women, lower education groups, unemployed and less-developedregions should be reduced to a half, from 2005 to 2010.The Riga Declaration also includes a list of priorities:

Address the needs of older workers and elderly people

Reduce geographical digital divides

Enhance e-Accessibility and usability

Improve digital literacy and competences

Promote cultural diversity in relation to inclusion

Promote inclusive e-Government

Mobilise appropriate instrumentsThe list is followed by a general action plan describing how ICTs could be used inorder to help accomplish these priorities.The European initiative on an all-inclusive digital society also specifies general linesof actions for achieving e-Inclusion goals. Firstly, there is a reference to categories of

people who are most at risk of exclusion (see chart). The action lines recognise theneed to address specific categories. The initiative encourages ICT industry to rapidlyestablish, during 2008-2010, privacy-friendly accessible solutions for persons withsensory, physical, motor and/or cognitive restrictions to make use of digital TV and ofelectronic communications to safeguard access to emergency services (notably '112'accessible for all)7. The commission recommends promoting e-skills and basic

digital literacy for those that are more at risk of exclusion. The initiative is also planning to create a common monitoring and benchmarking approach, including amonitoring approach called Riga Dashboard.

6 2006 e-Inclusion Ministerial Declaration, Riga, Latvia(http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/events/ict_riga_2006/doc/declaration_riga.pdf) accessed onthe 10th of February 2008.7 See reference # 5.


11/69

11

Figure 1.4.1: Groups that are most at risk of exclusion

Any policy planning process should also address performance and successmeasurements. The latest i2010 annual report acknowledges that progress towardsRiga targets is only happening at half the speed needed to reach them. The 2007 RigaDashboard report8 includes concrete performance measures, such as gaps in Internetusage, broadband coverage in rural areas, accessibility of public websites, and digitalliteracy gap. The report claims that based on current trends, gaps in Internet usage canonly be reduced to a half by 2015. Broadband coverage, on the other hand, is likely to

be met at EU level. The accessibility rate of public websites in Europe was only 5% in2006, compromising the Riga target of 100%. Accessibility here refers to conformitywith minimum web accessibility standards and guidelines9. With respect to digitalliteracy gap, for groups at risk with low education, economically inactive, and theolder population, the Riga targets will not likely be met by 2010.

1.5 ELOST project

Information and communication technologies provide governments with new and powerful tools, which enable better and faster communication with citizens. Thereadiness of citizens to participate in e-Government is crucial for the latters diffusionand consolidation. The use of e-Government services depends on various factors such

as ease of use, proficiency, accessibility and civic engagement. Persons displayinglower than average use of e-government include the elderly, disabled people,immigrants or members of ethnic minorities and, more generally, low socio-economicstatus groups (LSG). The pace at which countries deploy e-Government services,including measures taken to increase their use by LSGs, vary considerably acrossEuropeThe ELOST project was set up with the support of the European Commissions SixthFramework Programme to make recommendations on e-inclusion and e-Government.

8 Measuring progress in e-Inclusion: Riga Dashboard 2007, European Commission, DG Information

Society and Media, 2007.9Web accessibility figure coming from the study for the 2005 UK Presidency e-Accessibility ofpublic sector services in the EU, checking conformance with W3C Web Content AccessibilityGuidelines


12/69

12

The ELOST consortium comprises research centres from six different countries:Austria, Bulgaria, Finland, France, Germany and Israel. In order to arrive at policyrecommendations, the project team carried out the following activities:

A cross-national data collection and comparative assessment of e-Governmentservices.

A survey of citizens of lower socio-economic background about their patterns

of internet and e-Government use, their attitudes toward new communicationtechnologies and the barriers they face in this new societal era.

A foresight study on technology-related barriers to e-Government use, futureaccess means, ubiquity of e-Government services and the potential benefit ofselected emerging technologies for LSGs.

A web-based interactive toolbox of e-Government tools and policy measures.

A policy design and formulation process resulting in policy recommendationsfor inclusive e-Government policy for LSGs.

The overall goal of the ELOST project is to develop policy recommendations forincreasing awareness, and usage of e-Government services among low socioeconomic

status groups (LSGs). The project's policy recommendations are expected to helpEuropean countries to devise a plan to increase the number of people from LSGs thatwill be able to use e-Government services as active citizens in knowledge basedsociety.

Being the final and conclusive deliverable of ELOST, this report summarizes in briefthe highlights of the previous reports and concentrates on the policy recommendationsand conclusions.

The following chapter describes the methodological framework of the ELOST project.It is followed by an integration of the findings of all previous activities anddeliverables10. Chapter 4 describes the results of the policy design process carried out

by all participants, and chapter 5 includes the final policy recommendations.

10 All the deliverables can be found on the project's web site (www.elost.org)


13/69

13

2. MethodologyThe challenge of increasing e-Government participation and usage among low socio-economic groups (LSGs) requires awareness to the needs and attitudes of these groupson one hand and understanding the government policy towards e-Government in

general and LSGs in particular on the other hand.Therefore, the ELOST project adopted the bottom-up and top-down methodology toidentify the needs, attitudes and future solutions for LSGs.

Figure 2.1: ELOST bottom-up and top-down methodology

The general approach of this interdisciplinary research project was to carry out cross-cultural overall analyses with complementary foresight study, focusing on the currentand future situation regarding the usage of e-Government among LSGs. This analysisis essential for drawing a holistic policy strategy, which will empower these groups.

The main activities that were carried out in ELOST are described bellow.

2.1 Field surveys11

The ELOST survey is not representative of the general populations of the countriesunder investigation. We have rather over-sampled respondents among those

population strata that are more likely to display low or no internet use. Non-use is, inturn, strongly correlated with low socio-economic position. Socio-economic positionis defined with reference to income and status. Status is a function of education andoccupation as well as of the degree of integration into the labour market. The fourcharacteristics are closely interrelated: persons of low educational background aremore likely to be found in low-skill occupations or be long-term unemployed andhence to display earnings that are below average. Moreover, other ascribed

11 For a description and analysis of the field surveys and focus groups see reports D3.2 Report onFindings (www.elost.org)

To DownBottom Up

Foresight

e-Gov.

LSGs

Decision

Makers

Future

Technolo ies


14/69

14

characteristics such as gender and ethnicity are associated with socio-economic position in an inequitable manner and variably across countries. Thus women stilltend to earn less even in developed countries where educational achievements havetended to equalize.

Minorities are over-represented among the poor and are to be found in low-skill

professions in most countries, albeit to a variable degree depending on their length ofstay in the host society. In accordance with the above, the reference population for theELOST survey was defined as comprising those persons living in low-incomehouseholds, i.e. households below the poverty threshold (where household income is

below 50 per cent of the median household income in the country) and displaying oneor more of the following characteristics:

Low-skill occupations (following ISCO classification);

Unemployed for six months or more, and/or

Low educational level (i.e. without a completed high school diploma).

Our target sample of completed questionnaires was 250 for each country under

investigation. The sample was to be gender balanced and reflect the age distributionof the reference population. Interviews were carried out by phone or face-to-face. Inorder to achieve high representativity, and taking into account the difficulties involvedin over-sampling lower strata populations, the sampling and fieldwork was in somecountries territorially concentrated on specific regions or cities or, in the absence of asystematic sample base, organized with the help of specific social organizations. Afully comparable sampling and fieldwork framework was not possible given the

population reference and available financial and human resources. The followingsections describe the fieldwork and achieved samples in each participating country.

In Austria, the interviews were carried out by telephone and were computer-assisted

(CATI). The sampling base was provided by the Lifestyle Consumer Databank ofthe Schober Information Group that includes information on income, thus making it

possible to concentrate on those individuals living in poor households, i.e. inhouseholds with earnings below 1,000.In France, the ELOST survey was incorporated in the omnibus survey Actuatelcarried out by the CSA on a regular basis. The CSA focused on income (below

1,000) and education as discriminatory variables.In Finland, the survey was implemented by Innolink Research, using telephoneinterviews and concentrating on the Tampere region. The sampling was done usingregister data.

In Germany, the survey was carried out in collaboration with severalnongovernmental organizations dealing with deprived sectors. All the interviews inGermany were carried out face-to-face.In Israel, the fieldwork was implemented by Smith Research & Consulting, interviewswere carried out by telephone. The sample was drawn from the Database of NationalSurveys with information on household income. The Israeli achieved samplecomprised 261 respondents from low socioeconomic status groups and a further 68

persons living in households above the poverty threshold as a control group.In Bulgaria, the fieldwork was carried out by the International University of Sofia; theinterviews were carried out face-to-face. The Bulgarian survey was carried out mainlyin the cities of Sofia and Plovdid where there is also a large concentration of Roma

population.


15/69

15

2.2 Focus Groups

Combining quantitative and qualitative sources of information and analytical methodscontributes to the knowledge base from which to develop policy recommendations.The ELOST project team decided to organize focus groups to complement theELOST quantitative survey. Focus groups were organized both before and after thesurvey and, like the survey, targeted low-income / low-status citizens in the

participating countries. These were mainly recruited with the help of social agenciesor unemployment offices.The first focus group meetings were designed to take place prior to the survey, andhad as main goal to discuss with participants their experiences with the internet and e-government and find out the reasons for no or low levels of use. The participants ofthe first round of focus groups were also administered the questionnaire for thesurvey; their input was used to refine the questions.The second round of focus group meetings were conceptualized as a forum fordiscussing the survey results and, on this basis, developing recommendations. Ideallythe participants to these second round focus groups should have been the same asthose in the first; however, this was possible only in a few cases. The guidelines

provided to the research teams in the different countries concerning recruitment andorganization, as well as the agenda of the focus group meetings were sent in advance.These guidelines were flexible and teams were allowed to diverge from them to do

justice to national specificities or taking into account local constraints.

2.3 Foresight study12

The Delphi Survey is one of the common foresight methods employed by manycountries and organizations in order to support the process of shaping national orregional policies, in light of future anticipated technological and/or societaldevelopments. The method is based on an anonymous interaction among a group of

experts, through repeatedly circulated questionnaires. Usually such surveys areperformed in two rounds or more, especially when the first round reveals significantdisagreements among the experts. In each subsequent round the experts are informedabout the results of the previous round (feedback) and can re-assess their judgmentsaccordingly. In this way an iterative (anonymous) group interaction is achievedamong the experts. In many cases, two rounds of such a process are sufficient toachieve a convergence of the responses to a reasonable consensus. Persistingdisagreement on certain topics can also provide important information to decisionmakers. The Internet provides an opportunity to involve many experts all over theworld in online Delphi surveys, including the possibility of real-time feedback.

Figure 2.3.1: Scheme of the Delphi expert survey methodology

12Based on D4.3 Final report - findings from the foresight process and recommendations(www.elost.org)

PublicationsInterviews

Experts

Selected topicsQuestionnaire

Experts list

Expertsopinions

AnalysisFindings

Report

Feedback

Scanning Design Knowledge

elicitation Results


16/69

16

It is important to note that expert surveys such as the one presented here reflect

professional estimates and judgments of the participating experts, and not

expectations or wishes. Delphi expert surveys are an important and widely used tool

in foresight. Online Delphi surveys are a valuable tool for elicitation of knowledge

from a large number of experts and obtaining their collective opinion, as well as

important insights of specific experts who are stimulated by the survey mechanism to

submit their views. The expert judgments enable useful analyses and priority-setting,and stimulate further discussions on the future-oriented issues.

The ELOST online two-round Delphi survey consisted of several future-oriented

statements regarding e-Government, with special attention to the potential impact of

emerging technologies on the use of e-Government services by LSGs. The statements

were selected and formulated based on the previous deliverable (D4.1) and on

consultation with ELOST partners. The first round of the full-scale survey was

conducted in September-October 2006. The second round was run in November-

December 2006. In the second round, the respondents could see in each question (by

opening a window) a graphic presentation of the first round results (distribution of

answers). Thus they were given the opportunity to re-assess their judgment taking intoconsideration the aggregative results of the first round. 154 experts from 34 countries

and from various areas of expertise participated in the survey,

2.4 Interactive policy toolbox

The ELOST consortium has created an Interactive Policy Toolbox for active exchange

on issues related to e-Government, which is now available at www.e-Government-

exchange.eu.

The ELOST e-Government Expert Exchange System (called e4 for short) has a

number of objectives. It aims to be:

An interactive information system offering the core results of the ELOST

project; An open space for the international community of e-Government experts;

An assessment mechanism for e-Government tools (Qualitative ProcessMonitoring)

It targets experts in the fields of e-Government (Administration and IT development),

as well as NGOs promoting the needs of Low Socio-Economic Status Groups. e4

informs experts across Europe on relevant barriers to e-Government use and

respective solutions, good practice and success stories. The toolbox will provide

information on reasons why Low Socio-Economic Status Groups (LSGs) refrain from

using e-Government services, but also on their specific requirements or what could

enable or motivate them to use it (more frequently).

The idea of the ELOST e-Government Expert Exchange System e4 is to enable and

encourage exchange of information and experience concerning practical solutions in

e-Government across Europe and beyond. How do other countries try to overcome the

barriers that prevent LSGs from using e-Government services? Were these examples

successful or what were the reactions of targeted users? Which personal aspects have

the stronger impact on usage of e-Services or internet on the whole income,

education, age, or gender? Which new and emerging technologies can help overcome

digital divide issues, especially with relation to administrative services? The

information on these issues has been collected from research publications, through

specific interviews with e-Government experts, as well as with members of therespective population groups themselves.


17/69

17

The e4 system is based on the technology of the Wikipedia and participating is just as

easy: register, log in and start creating or editing articles at www.e-Government-

exchange.euorwww.e4-info.eu.

To facilitate the search and browsing beyond standard search features of the Media

Wiki, problem-oriented Knowledge Maps were integrated to guide the user through

the spectrum of issues regarding LSGs and e-Government. Innovative visualizations

provide an overview of the main issues, their relations and known solutions, as well asrecommendations from research institutions. Each graph shows the main questions

and possible answers in the form of concise headlines. These function as hyperlinks

that lead directly to the related Wiki articles where interested users will find further

information. Problem-oriented Knowledge Maps bear the unique possibility of

sketching an issue and presenting the major aspects at a glance, while at the same time

offering further information on any topic or aspect that lies behind such aspect links.

The system is ordered in accordance with various categories which facilitate the

search and contribution. The e4 Wiki can be browsed by:

Population Groups: this category features articles related to the statistical and

societal aspects in particular of Low Socio-Economic Status Groups (LSG); Issues and Barriers, such as internet and e-Government use and respective

attitudes of certain population groups. This category especially features

Interactive Knowledge Maps;

Content by Category: to facilitate browsing the e4 ELOST e-GovernmentExpert Exchange System all categories are listed here. A click on one of the

categories provides an overview list of the articles in the respective category;

Content by Country: this category lists all countries on which e4 articles offerdetailed information. A click on any of the country names will provide another

list with all articles related to this country;

E-Government Services: this category lists all e-Service types featured in thee4 system. A click on any of the service types will lead to a list of the services

described in the system.

Interactive participation of international experts is one special aspect of the ELOST e-

Government Expert Exchange System: all visitors are welcome and invited to become

active users and sharing their expertise by adding, updating and/or commenting on

articles in the system. The Interactive Toolbox should allow international exchange

between experts from as many European countries as possible. It must be the mutual

desire of experts to give the best possible information to as many relevant actors

across Europe as possible. However, as the information assembled in ELOST is not

only relevant for high level managers and politicians, but also and especially tomedium level decision makers and civil servants.

2.5 Data triangulation

The triangulation method appeared to be the most effective approach for ELOST. It

would allow overcoming the above mentioned limitations. In order to gather as much

data as possible about the social and cultural barriers and incentives for the usage of e-

Government services by LSGs in the case areas, a wide range of data sources, which

include qualitative and quantitative respectively objective and subjective information

will be combined.

Altogether four sources of data and information were identified:

Data from a survey among LSGs. Summaries of focus group discussions with LSGs.


18/69

18

Summaries of interviews with local and nationaldecision makers, key actors and professional experts in

the field of e-Government.

General theories on e-Government and e-exclusion aswell as state of the art statistics.

The information provided by the different sources was used to paint a broad picturewith regard to the key research question. For the final analysis the first three levels

(field study results) were brought together and embedded in a wider framework of

general theories concerning e-Government and e-exclusion as well as state of the art

statistics from the research regions.

2.6 Policy analysis

Policy analysis processes include 4 phases: data integration and problem definition,

policy design, policy formulation, and policy evaluation.

The first phase consists of integrating all relevant data and definition of the problem

including identification of the major barriers for participation in e-Government. Here

we used all the project deliverables to derive the essential findings that are relevantfor policy design.

In the second phase (policy design) we performed several activities, such as

researching for options to eliminate or at least to alleviate barriers, defining policy

attributes that may be desirable to LSGs, searching for policy alternatives, analyzing

and ranking alternatives. Policy design brainstorming sessions were performed by all

partners during January 2008. Partners were asked to address similar questions so that

the results could be compared. The main questions were: which LSG segments

should be the target of the policy?; what are the main barriers for LSGs e-Inclusion

or for eGov use; what are the main policy measures needed to reduce/overcome

barriers?; what is the proper matching of solutions to barriers to LSGs?; how canwe generalize the policy to the entire EU?. Partners were asked to design inclusive e-

Government policy for their own countries (see Figure 2.6.1 for illustration), and then

try to generalise it for the entire EU. For existing solutions, partners were asked to

refer to the interactive toolbox.

KIOSKs

Segment 2Immigrants

Segment 3ComputerIlliterates

ROMAPeople

Hot Line

SomethingNew

AwarenessCampaign

PIAPs

LSGs/BarriersSegments

SolutionsBank

Segment 1Older People

Figure 2.6.1: Policy design options (illustration)

In the next phase we prepared and formulated a draft of inclusive e-Government

policy, based on the previous phase. In the policy formulation phase efforts were

made to reach a reasonable consensus between the parties involved. This was done by


19/69

19

carrying out national policy workshops in each country. In these workshops ELOST

findings and suggested policy options were presented to policy makers and

researchers. Feedbacks from the national workshops were taken into consideration in

the preparation of the final policy recommendations document.


20/69

20

3. Integration of results from previous work

This chapter presents the main findings of all the previous work performed in the

ELOST project. The main goal is to shed light on policy applications that arose from

the results in each of the work packages and could assist to compose policy

recommendations. Thus the first section describes the unique LSGs background inparticipating countries, based on the adopted LSGs definition in the ELOST project in

order to understand the scope of the problem and the different segments within the

LSGs. The second section presents main results from the overview of current policy

programs and tools regarding e-Government and LSGs. The aim is to clarify the best

practice of some programs and to understand the reasons for failures in others. The

third and fourth sections present the main findings and conclusions from the field

surveys in order to shed light on the LSGs' needs, attitudes, barriers and incentives to

enhance their usage of e-Government. The fifth section explains the main reasons for

LSGs usage and non usage of e-Government services through cross-cultural analysis.

The last section provides alternatives for future solutions for e-Government and

LSGs, based on results from the ELOST foresight study.

3.1 Digital Divide and e-Government

E-Government has become a generic term for the provision of governmental services

to the citizens through the Internet. Still, the use of e-Government by the citizens is

(so far) voluntary, and they can always choose the traditional ways of interacting with

governmental agencies. Thus, the readiness to and awareness of the citizens to e-

Government becomes a crucial factor in the process and depends on a number of

factors such as: ease of use (system friendliness), appropriate skills attitudes and

accessibility.

The usage of ICTs in general, and of e-Government services in particular, is affected

by both hard factors, such as the availability of infrastructure, and soft factors, such as

individuals personal attitudes, awareness and skills. The concept of the digital divide

relates to the issues of uneven access to and usage of IT and their socio-economic

repercussions. Mere access to new technologies, both in terms of technical

infrastructure and basic IT skills, should not be considered as sufficient to prevent the

widening of a digital knowledge gap. This insight has important implications for the

way in which governments should attempt to stimulate usage. It is not enough to

simply ensure that the infrastructure is available; individuals have to be convinced

about the benefits of ICTs services if they are to use them.

13

In that concern the term digital divide describes the differential access of various

groups or regions to new information / communication technologies and related tools,

like e-Government. The problem of the digital divide is the combined result of

different processes, and especially processes relating to access, competence and take-

up. In turn, these three processes can be mapped against geographical characteristics,

income and social status, education, age, disabilities and gender.

Differences in the use of ICT and e-Government according to gender, age, education,

income and other discriminatory variables are, however, changing at different pace.

Thus both gender and geographical differences in access tend to reduce over time,

13See for instance The e-Government handbook for developing countries, A projectof InfoDev and the Center for Democracy and Technology, November 2002.


21/69

21

except in isolated areas with no access to broadband or advanced mobile networks.

The age gap also tends to narrow spontaneously over time, except for the population

segment over 60. However, contrary to what can be observed with regard to gender,

geography and age gaps, socio-economic gaps related to education, occupation and

income show the least signs of reducing over time.

Income and education are, therefore, the two key dimensions for defining low socio-

economic status groups. With reference to these, further sub-groups can be specified.Among these, it is worth mentioning migrant / minority communities, persons

working in low-skill occupations as well as the unemployed.

Therefore, at the outset of our work, we used the following working definition of low

socio-economic status groups (LSGs):

Individuals or groups that have already been identified in the literature on the

digital divide as displaying specific or combined problems with regard to access,

competence or take-up, hence individuals / groups of lower income, lower

education, or unskilled / low skilled occupational backgrounds and who are, for this

reason, actually or potentially to be targeted by public policies (at local, national,international or European levels) for specific actions.

Based on the definition above we made an overview of the main socio-economic

characters concerning the social and economic situation as well as the Internet access

and usage in the ELOST countries. This is essential as the characteristics affect the

development of the information society.

3.1.1 Socio-economic background of ELOST countries

Low income:

Income distribution inequality and poverty within the ELOST countries are varied, as

shown in the next table. The at-risk-of-poverty rate (table 3.1.1) is at the comparative

high level of 16% in the EU-25, ranging from 12% in Finland and Austria to 15% in

Bulgaria

Table 3.1.1: Equality and inequality in the ELOST countries14

At-risk-of-povertyrate after socialtransfers (2005)

Gini index (2006)

Share of populationliving under the

poverty line**(2006)

EU 25 16* - -

Austria 12 29.1 7.7Bulgaria 15 (2004) 29.2 12.8

Finland 12 26.9 5.4

France 13 32.7 8.0

Germany 13 28.3 8.3

Israel - 39.2 24***

* Eurostat estimate, ** Relative poverty line refers to incomes 50 percent belowthe median income, National Insurance Institute of Israel.

14 Sources: Eurostat (2007d: web document); Human Development Report (2006h, 2006i: web

documents)


22/69

22

Unemployment:

According to EUROSTAT200615

, the unemployment rate for the EU-27 was about

8%, ranging from under 4.8 % (in Austria) to over 9 % (in France and Bulgaria).

Table 3.1.2: Unemployment and economic situation in the ELOST countries

Unemploymentrate (2006)

GDP percapita in PPS*(2006)

GDP perinhabitant inPPS (2005)

GDP growthrate (2004)

EU 27 7.9 95.1 : 3.0

Austria 4.8 122.7 28900 3.1

Germany 8.4 107.7 25700 2.8

France 9.4 107.5 25500 2.0

Finland 7.7 110.9 26200 5.5

Bulgaria 9.0 35.3 6500 6.1

Israel 8.4 : 19572** 4.8* GDP per capita in Purchasing Power Standards (Eu-25=100)** PPP figure converted from US Dollars ($23,789) at June 2005 rate (0.823)

Education:

Low educational attainment was for a long time, like the digital divide, considered as

a phenomenon that would be overcome with the further modernization of industrial

economies in conjunction with the achievements of the welfare states. Low

educational attainment was therefore thought to concern primarily adults or older

persons and expected to decrease with new generations. Table 3.1.3 shows that

Austria and Germany have the highs rate of upper secondary education completed

Table 3.1.3: Statistics on education in the ELOST countries16

School lifeexpectancy2004 (years)

Upper secondaryeducationcompleted 2005(percent)

Public expenditureon education2002-2004(percentage ofGDP)

Early schoolleavers with atmost lowersecondaryeducation17

EU 27 - 69.3 - 15.4

Austria 15 80.6 5.5 9.6

Bulgaria 13 72.5 4.2 18Finland 17 78.6 6.5 10.8

France 16 66.4 6.0 13.1

Germany 16(2001) 83.1 4.8 13.8

Israel 15 - 7.3 -

15 Source: EUROSTAT / LFS, Statistics in Focus 1/2006; For Israel: Central Bureau of Statistics,Occupation Surveys 200416 Sources: United Nations Statistics Division (2006: web document); Eurostat (2007e, 2007f: web

documents)17 Early school leavers refers to persons aged 18 to 24 in the following two conditions: the highest levelof education or training attained is ISCED 0, 1, 2 or 3c short and respondents declared not havingreceived any education or training in the four weeks preceding the survey (numerator). Thedenominator consists of the total population of the same age group.


23/69

23

Age:

In previous studies age was found as one of the major variables that affect ICT usage.

There is a positive correlation between age and ICT usage. Elderly people use

computer and Internet much less then younger people. This assumption is right also

for the LSGs. Young people from disadvantage groups are using ICT more then

elderly people in general and elderly LSGs in particular. In Table 3.1.4 we can see

that the share of young people under 15 and the elderly people over 65 is almost thesame in all participating countries (15% -18%) except of Israel with higher share of

young population (27.9%) and lower share of elderly people (10.1%).

Table 3.1.4: The population in the ELOST countries18

PopulationPercentage of

people under 15Percentage of

people over 65Percentage ofurban population

Austria 8.2 15.8 16.4 65.9

Germany 82.6 14.6 18.3 75.1

France 60.3 18.2 16.6 76.5

Finland 5.2 17.5 15.7 61.1

Bulgaria 7.8 14.1 16.8 69.8

Israel 6.6 27.9 10.1 91.6

Major minority / migrant groups:

Minorities as well as migrants are over-represented among persons / households of

low income, low educational attainment as well as the unemployed in most of the

countries. There are no comparative figures but only a national level data. In Austria

the immigrants are from the countries of former Yugoslavia (4 % of total population)

and those from Turkey (1.6%). A further 3.2% originate from other countries,

including from the New Member States. In Germany 26% per cent of the foreign

population of Germany comes from Turkey, the rest mainly from countries of EasternEurope. In France most important minority groups are those from the Maghreb

countries, i.e. Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia. In Bulgaria the minorities groups are the

Roma population, the group of ethnic Turks and that of Bulgarian Muslims. In Israel

the biggest minority group (1.3 million) is that of Israeli Muslim Arabs living

predominantly in the North of the country and in East Jerusalem. Other groups are

Christian Israeli Arabs or Druze who comprise around 9 per cent of the total Israeli

Arab population. The groups of Russian and Ethiopian Jews are over-represented

among lower income strata. Another significant minority group is Orthodox Jews.

3.1.2 ICT infrastructure and Internet usage

The average amount of households with Internet accesses in EU27 in 2006 was 49%.Internet access in households is most common in Germany whereas regular Internet

usage is most common in Finland. Households Internet access is least common in

Bulgaria where there are also least regular Internet users. In Finland and Germany the

share of households with access to the Internet was already rather high in 2006

whereas in Bulgaria only a small number of households had access to the Internet.

18 Sources: Human Development Report (2006a, 2006b and 2006c: web documents); Central Bureau ofStatistics (2006a: web document)


24/69

24

Table 3.1.5: Share of households with access to the Internet and computers inthe ELOST countries19

Internet Computer

2004 2006 2004 2006

EU 27 - 49 - -

Austria 45 52 59 -

Bulgaria 9.6 17 15 23

Finland 50 65 57 70

France 35 41 50 -

Germany 60 67 69 -

Israel 42 55 - 66

In France the share of individuals using the Internet are notably lower than in Finland,

Germany or Austria. Israel, on the other hand, is closer to the three leading ELOST

countries than France in this respect. This difference is surprising (see Table 3.1.6).

Table 3.1.6: Share of individuals regularly using the Internet in the ELOSTcountries20

2004 2005 2006

EU 27 - - 45

Austria 46 49 55

Bulgaria 13 - 22

Finland 63 62 71

France - - 39

Germany 50 54 59

Israel 37 47 52

e-Government services

What is the percentage of governmental services that are ready for electronic use? As

described in the next table, Austria is ranked first in the level of online availability of

the basic public service in Europe. France (7th place) and Finland (10th place) are also

among the top ten while Germany finds itself only on the 18th place. Even though the

share of online availability is highest in Austria, the usage of the services by

individuals is highest in Finland (table 3.1.8). This indicates that the development of

the services is not a sufficient measure for promoting e-Government services but theusers have to be taken into account as well. It is not self-evident that the potential

users know about the existence of the services, have access to them and are able to use

them.

19 Sources: OECD (2005b: web document); Eurostat (2007h: web document), Israel Central Bureauof Statistics20 Sources: Eurostat (2007i: web document), United Nations Millennium Development Goals Indicators(2006: web document); International Telecommunication Union (2005: web document)


25/69

25

Table 3.1.7: Share of governmental services available online in the ELOST

countries21

2002 2003 2004 2006

EU 25 - - 41 50

Austria 20 68 72 83

Bulgaria - - - -Finland 50 61 67 61

France 35 45 50 65

Germany 35 40 47 47

Israel - - - -

Table 3.1.8: Share of individual using e-Government services in the ELOST

countries22

2004 2005 2006

EU 20 - 23 24Austria 21 29 33

Bulgaria 5 - 8

Finland 45 47 47

France - - -

Germany 33 - 32

Israel - - -

The following Figure 3.1.1 and Table 3.1.923 show the relative penetration rates of

Internet use in disadvantaged groups (including age groups from 55 to 74, women,

people living in rural areas, persons with low education, unemployed andeconomically inactive) compared with total penetration rate in EU27 population in the

year 2006. The relative penetration rate is defined as the ratio between the penetration

in the disadvantaged groups and the total penetration rate. In the following figure the

total penetration rate is 47%, the ratio for women is 0.91, and for low education it is

0.56. According to these data the average penetration of Internet among

disadvantaged groups is 62% of the use among the total population (relative rate of

0.62). Thus, the gap is 38% between the "at risk groups" and the total population. The

bigger gaps appear among the elderly (65-74), among people with low education and

among economically inactive people.

21 Source: Eurostat (2006a: web document)22 Source: Eurostat (2006b, 2006c: web documents)23Taken from Measuring progress in e-Inclusion, Riga Dashboard, 2007, European Commission DGInformation Society and Media


26/69

26

Figure 3.1.1: Internet regular use disparity indicator

Table 3.1.9: Index of Internet use in at risk groups by country in 2006

aged

55-64

aged

65-74

woman rural loweducated

unemployed Inactive total at

risk

index

Bulgaria 0.29 0.03 0.96 0.46 0.45 0.27 0.13 0.37

Germany 0.68 0.30 0.91 0.87 0.85 0.90 0.50 0.72

France 0.61 : 0.93 0.78 0.60 1.01 0.26 :

Austria 0.60 0.23 0.89 0.89 0.61 0.91 0.42 0.65

Finland 0.72 0.24 0.99 0.91 0.78 0.82 0.49 0.71

EU27 0.60 0.22 0.91 0.87 0.56 0.79 0.36 0.62

The index value for total disadvantaged is calculated as an average of the other 7

disadvantaged index values in a country: aged 55-64, aged 65-74, woman, rural, low

educated, unemployed and economically inactive.

One can conclude that low income and low education are the two most important

factors to address when considering the digital divide as well as exclusion from e-

Government services. In turn, these factors are closely associated with a weak or

unstable integration into the labour market; therefore the status of work is important

as well.

Migrant or minority communities display special problems. First, they are over-represented within the population of low earners and those of low educational

attainment. Secondly, they often face the additional barrier of lack of proficiency in

the language of the host country. Insofar as the Internet and, especially, e-Government

is primarily about contents, this represents a major barrier towards e-integration and,

in turn, a possible aggravating factor with regard to societal integration in general.

Hence, LSGs include different target groups representing divergent profiles,

characteristics and needs, which have major consequences on the capacity to elaborate

policy design. In that respect, mapping the LSGs and understanding their cognitive

approaches and motivations, fears and behaviours remain fundamental prerequisite to

policy.


27/69

27

3.2 Policy programs for LSGs and e-Government

This is a summary of a comprehensive overview of e-Government policy programs

and tools for LSGs in selected European countries and in Israel24. The study was

based on state of the art review of existing literature and on interviews with experts.

The main findings show that the status of e-Government in Europe is very diverse,

especially when it comes to LSGs. Motivation and organization of the e-Government

initiatives seem to be rather diverse as well. While some countries seem toconcentrate on cutting red tape, improving public administrations infrastructure for

cheaper and more efficient communication between authorities, others spend more

effort on creating and reorganizing citizen services.

Remarkably, even countries with a relatively poor status quo in the field of e-

Government seem to have recognized the importance of e-Inclusion. On the other

hand, even the stronger examples in the field still do not seem to reach their people;

Austria, for instance, has been ranked second best in Europe in 2004 and best in 2005

in terms of availability and sophistication levels of e-Government services. However,

in e-Government usage they lag behind considerably (Ranked 10 in 2004/2005)25.

While much has been done to facilitate Internet and e-Government accessibility and

usability for the elderly and for people with disabilities (especially for the visually

impaired) apart from the unemployed (an important economic factor again) LSGs are

generally not a target group of e-Government planners. Whereas there are some

activities to support general computer literacy, especially usability (e.g. through

reduction of complexity both on the technical and the bureaucratic level) it does not

seem to be a considered strategy in the countries in the focus of this report.

There are, however, a number of good practice examples that may help to improve

accessibility of public e-Services, even if they have not been specifically designed for

these population groups:

Austria, Finland and France show remarkable availability of public accesspoints through a number of different measures

Italian and Spanish governments aim at facilitating access to eServices,e.g. via Interactive TV

According to the European Commission, the key to a successful and effective

improvement of the administration functioning is the combination of modern

information and communications technologies with organizational change and new

skills of public services staff. Therefore, e-Government is considered as an integrated

action aimed at creating a better and more effective administration. There are

expectations that the public sector will be transformed in order to change its approachto the services it delivers so that citizens and their needs are placed in the centre. In

this case nobody will be excluded or marginalized from these services.

Bearing in mind these general directives, the current survey on e-Government policy

tools for citizen from LSGs can be useful both for describing the current state and

forplanning the further policy and tool development.

3.2.1 Access and use of e-Government services by LSG

Internet adoption among LSGs remains low, although some efforts in this direction

have been made. National and local authorities have tried to provide opportunities for

access and use through public Internet access points, kiosks and digital television.

24 Based on report D2.1 Comparative study report on policies and tools (see www.elost.org)25 According to a survey on eGovernment barriers at Oxford Internet Institute (www.oii.ox.ac.uk).


28/69

28

Another approach is to ensure financial subsidies for home computer purchase and for

Internet connections. This can be accomplished in various ways and at various levels.

Evidence and the gained experience so far suggest that more focused efforts will be

needed to ensure that people who are most in need will be reached. All access

initiatives will be more effective, if they target LSG clearly promoting the benefits of

the Internet and supporting ICT literacy and skills development.

It seems that another major barrier for use of e-services is the lack of knowledgeabout e-Government. Most Internet users feel they do not know enough about the

possibilities of e-Government; some state that more information is needed and only a

small percentage (4-10%) considered themselves as well informed.

Citizens (especially those with low income) cannot be expected to purchase special

access devices as electronic identity cards and smartcard readers or to pay for a digital

signature, when they (as users) are unsure about the benefits of online transactions. As

an example, the demand for social benefits services seems to be especially high.

However, since services that involve the payment of social benefits in most cases

require secure identification and authentication, only a few such services are

available. The take-up of these services is very slow because the majority of citizenscannot use the services without a digital signature card for authentication. This shows

that the demand for certain electronic services is higher than the actual take-up.

So, while the level of what has been achieved already on the supply side appears

impressive, it is obvious that the focus of the further development of e-Government

has to be shifted from technical solutions towards more user-oriented services. Paying

more attention to user needs is considered as a means to strengthen trust in electronic

service delivery and to foster its take-up.

3.2.2 Computer literacy and vocational training for LSGs

Providing physical access to technology is not enough. LSGs also have to be educatedand trained so as to be able to use and benefit from e-Government services.

More efforts are needed to identify and promote the advantages of e-Government

services to Internet non users who see no reason or need to use the Internet.

Unfortunately, it seems that many of the LSG people belong to this category. The

majority of non-learners (people who currently are not engaged in adult education of

any type), however, do not show any interest in lifelong learning regardless whether

this takes place online or in traditional ways. According to the findings of an analysis

on digital divide, the key factors, explaining lack of interest, are low expectations

about measurable benefits to be gained from learning, and low confidence in own

learning skills. Especially for some of LSGs (unemployed, minorities), there are

strong expectations that e-Learning will increase participation among those who havea basic willingness to engage in learning activities, but rarely do so today because of

time and distance related constraints. In the absence of a widespread sense of need

and urgency adult education and vocational training continues to appeal mainly to

those who are already endowed with high levels of skills, but far less to those who are

really in need of skills upgrading. Education systems must direct their efforts in

developing services and tools (including offline training activities), especially targeted

at hard-to-reach groups. The needs of these groups should be answered through all

possible delivery channels and methods of learning and must receive strong financial

and legislation support.

It can be said that despite the impressive number of e-Government services, programsand tools in different European countries, a lot of effort is still needed to make it

attractive and useful for LSGs.


29/69

29

3.2.3 Findings from interviews with decision makers

Several personal interviews (39) were carried out with relevant key actors and

decision makers in governments and local authorities in participant countries.

As a whole the involvement of LSGs in e-Government is low. The unemployed have

the highest motivation to use these services while senior citizens do not seem to have

much interest in e-Government. Ther is no special emphasis on LSGs as a special

target priority group among the participating governments. However, high attention is

given to groups of unemployed persons and people with low income. All participating

countries have dedicated education tools for training the e-Government users as a

whole and LSGs are part of them. Only in Israel and Finland targeted training courses

and programs for LSGs were found.Looking into the future the highest rate of usage

is found among the unemployed, minorities and ethnic groups.

In general the conclusion is that in the present situation governments are not

successful in disseminating e-Government services among LSGs. This situation calls

for innovative policy tools in order to increase their participation in these services.

3.3 LSGs' attitudes towards Internet and e-Government

The ELOST field surveys were conducted in all six ELOST countries with

approximately 250 respondents from LSGs26. The familiarity with the Internet

divides the LSGs into 'Internet users' (or simply 'users') and 'non-users'. Altogether

36%27

of the responding persons from LSGs in the ELOST countries were quite

familiar with using the Internet whereas 64% were not able to use it independently or

were not familiar with it at all. The key findings regarding socio-economic

background of the LSGs and familiarity with the Internet are:

Age, education level and main activity status are significant socio-economic factors

with regard to the familiarity with the Internet of the responding LSGs.

Older respondents are less likely to be familiar with the Internet than youngerrespondents.

LSGs with a low level of education are less likely to use the Internet than those witha high education level.

Unemployed and retired people are less likely to be familiar with the Internet thanpeople who work or study.

Surprisingly the financial situation was not as significant as it could have beenexpected with regard to familiarity with the Internet. However, the samples include

persons with lower incomes and income variability was rather low as a result.

The analysis of barriers for LSGs who are not familiar with the Internet leads to the

following findings:

The most common reasons for not using the Internet were a lack of need and a lackof skills. Financial reasons were only mentioned in third place as they did not

concern the majority of the non-users (see Figure 3.3.1).

26

For a description and analysis of the field surveys see reports D3.2 Report on Findings, and D5.2Cross-cultural Analysis on Barriers and Incentives for LSGs use of e-Government (www.elost.org)27 In Austria, Israel, Finland and France Internet familiarity rates among LSGs ranges from 8% to28%. In Bulgaria and Germany Internet familiarity rates were higher due to over sampling of younger

people.


30/69

30

65 %

53 %

39 %

37 %

33 %

28 %

20 %

18 %

Do not need the internet

Difficulty using computer

Cannot afford computer at

home

Nobody ever showed how

Internet contents are not

useful

Someone else uses it for

me

Internet contents are

harmful

Problems with reading or

writing

Figure 3.3.1: Reasons for not being familiar with the Internet

One fourth of the non-users among LSGs had an Internet connection at home, butdid not use it. This is a good vantage point to enhance e-inclusion.

38 percent of the non-users would be interested in learning how to use the Internetin the future, but most of them only if it was free.

In general the awareness of different purposes of the Internet and of e-Government

services was rather low. Only half of the non-users were aware of the most commonservices and some services were known only by one fifth of the respondents.

The non-users had positive views on the Internet while they also thought that it wastoo expensive and problematic with regard to privacy and confidentiality.

The awareness of different purposes of the Internet usage and e-Government services

of non-users among the LSGs, was rather poor. Approximately only every second

non-user was aware of the most common communication possibilities and online

services. E-Government services were known even to a lesser degree. This could be

one explanation for the lack of interest and the frequent notion of do not need the

Internet. It is obvious that people do not see the advantages of the Internet when they

do not know about the different services offered there.For the non-users money was not such an important reason for not using the Internet

as it could have been expected. While only 36% of the LSGs stated that it is too

expensive to have a computer and access to the Internet at home, 60% of the

respondents had the feeling that the Internet is not necessary. Yet, the Internet was

seen to have advantages like new prospects for communication and gathering

information even if it was considered to be rather difficult to use.

3.4 Usage patterns of LSGs who are familiar with the Internet

The major findings regarding the LSGs who use the Internet are:

Communication and searching for information were the most common purposes ofInternet usage among the LSGs.

Obtaining information and official forms from public authorities were the mostcommonly used e-Government services among the respondents.


31/69

31

The most common reasons for not using e-Government services were unawarenessof services, unawareness of relevant websites, lacking human support and lacking

knowledge how to use e-services. However, the respondents related more often

positive than negative statements to e-Government.

Having more and better services, subsidized Internet access at home as well asincreased security and confidentiality would be the most effective measures /

incentives for increasing the use of e-services according to the LSGs (see Figure3.4.1)

51 %

50 %

48 %

43 %

41 %

37 %

33 %

33 %

29 %

30 %

27 %

31 %

34 %

31 %

38 %

29 %

29 %

29 %

19 %

23 %

21 %

23 %

28 %

25 %

38 %

38 %

42 %

More and better services

Subsidized access at home

Increased security

Online support

Human support

Improved user-f riendliness

Subsidized public access points

Free training

Cheaper internet cafs

Would make a big dif ference Would make somewhat of a dif ference Would make no dif ference

Figure 3.4.1 Incentives for using various online services, especially e-Government

The majority of the users had an Internet connection at home or access at work.

The usage of public access points was rare. Enhancing the availability and user-friendliness of public access points could make LSGs using them more frequently.

Hence, it can be stated that the different services, communication and information

possibilities and entertainment activities offered in the Internet were well-known by

the Internet users among the LSGs. They were also quite familiar with e-Government

services when it comes to obtaining information or official forms or job services. On

the other hand, authorities and policy makers still have some work to do in order to

make online services known to all citizens. If the figures are seen the another way

about 20-30% of the LSGs who used the Internet were not familiar even with the mostcommon e-Government services, such as obtaining online information or forms.

Conclusions

Internet users are on average younger, better educated, students or working whereasthe non-users are more often older, have a lower level of education and are retired or

unemployed.

Internet users are logically more often aware of different purposes of Internet use aswell as e-Government services. Nevertheless, the awareness of e-Government

should be improved for all.


32/69

32

Internet users have more often, as expected, access to the Internet at home comparedto non-users but the reasons for those who do not have one are rather similar in both

groups: costs are a significant barrier.

Non-users are more worried about privacy issues with regard to the use of theInternet than the users.

3.5 Findings from focus groups with LSGsFocus groups were organized both before and after the survey and, like the survey,

targeted low-income / low-status citizens in the participating countries. These were

mainly recruited with the help of social agencies or unemployment offices.

The first focus group meetings were designed to take place prior to the survey, and

had as main goal to discuss with participants their experiences with the internet and e-

government and find out the reasons for no or low levels of use. The participants of

the first round of focus groups were also administered the questionnaire for the

survey; their input was used to refine the questions. The second round of focus group

meetings were conceptualized as a forum for discussing the survey results and, on this

basis, developing recommendations. Ideally the participants to these second round

focus groups should have been the same as those in the first; however, this waspossible only in a few cases.

The focus group findings confirm by and large the findings of the ELOST survey and

enlarge our understanding of the latter. Lack of access to the internet is explained,

first and foremost, by lack of funds and lack of technical skills. Negative attitudes

have also a role to play; however, they can be as much the result of lack of access as

the cause. On the subject of costs, the focus group discussions revealed that lack of

transparency compounded by the very many offers available albeit presented in

different ways is an inhibiting factor for people with little money that cannot afford

experimenting. A related concern is the life expectation of computers. The prospect

of having to engage in regular upgrades of either hardware or software de-motivates

people of low income to introduce modern communication technologies in their lives.Discussions on e-government produced a multitude of recommendations about

improving online interaction with public authorities; but also revealed how citizens

expect personal and citizen-friendly government services and are not willing to accept

e-government as a substitute for government. Indeed in some countries notably in

Israel and France negative attitudes expressed vis--vis e-government were clearly

the result of hostility vis--vis government and widespread dissatisfaction with the

institutional practices of public authorities.

3.6 Cross-cultural comparison of the ELOST survey28

The cross-cultural comparisons is based on data triangulation of all the sources thatwere available during the project the field surveys, the focus groups, interviews with

policy makers and professionals, national reports, and the online expert survey.

3.6.1 Familiarity with the Internet

Persons from LSGs who responded to the ELOST survey in Austria, France, Finland

and Israel are less likely to use the Internet and e-Government services than the

average citizens. In Germany and Bulgaria the familiarity with using the Internet was

highest due to different data collection29. It is important to mention that age, education

28

Based on findings from D5.2 Cross-cultural Analysis on Barriers and Incentives for LSGs use of e-Government (www.elost.org)29

In Bulgaria and Germany the data was collected by personal interviews. In Germany the respondentswere partly visitors of a centre for unemployed people where internet courses were offered. In Bulgariathe respondents were mainly people who participated in training activities of NGOs. In Finland,


33/69

33

level and activity status determine the probability of the LSGs to be familiar with the

Internet an e-Government services.

3.6.2 Usage and awareness

The majority of Internet users among the LSGs in ELOST countries had used the

Internet for the first time more than two years prior to the survey (end of 2006). In

Austria and Germany over 80% had more than two years of experience, in Israel

about 50%. The majority of the respondents had acquired their Internet skills bythemselves. In all ELOST countries the majority of the Internet users access the

Internet every day or at least once a week. The most common purposes of Internet

usage were communication and searching for information except in the case of the

Finnish respondents who used banking services most commonly. In more details, the

main purpose of Internet usage among the respondents is: banking in Finland

(promotion campaigns and lower prices); entertainment in Bulgaria (many young

LSGs) and Israel; job search in Germany (data collection partly in centers for

unemployed people): e-mail in Austria and finding information in France.

The awareness of e-Government services varied between the ELOST countries. One

reason could be the different levels of online services availability. Altogether, the

awareness of e-Government services was highest among the LSGs in Finland and

Austria and lowest in Israel and Bulgaria. With regard to the usage of e-Government

services in general, the German and Austrian respondents were in the lead (see Figure

3.6.1).

020

40

60

80

100

Interacting with

tax authorities

Payments to

authorities

Submitting

forms

Searching

books from

libraries

Using job

services

Obtaining

information

Obtaining

official forms

Austria Israel France (N=21) Finland Germany Bulgaria

Figure 3.6.1: Usage of most popular e-Government services

The awareness of different possibilities offered by the Internet varied considerably

between the non-users in the different ELOST countries. Surprisingly the awareness

was lowest in Austria. The awareness about e-Government services was much higher

among the Austrian non-users (due to information campaigns).3.6.3 Barriers and incentives

Among Internet users in the different ELOST countries the reasons for not using e-

Government services were rather similar, yet there were some variations (see Table

3.6.1). The most common barriers were not aware of services, do not know how to

use the services, not aware of relevant addresses and no human support available.

Table 3.6.1: The most common reasons for not using e-Government servicesMost important reasons for not using e-Government services

Percent of users to whomstatements apply

Austria Not aware of web site addressesNo human support availableDont know how to use these services

47%47%43%

France, Austria and Israel the data was collected by phone surveys and the respondents were randomlychosen from registers of people who fulfilled one ore more of the criteria defined for the study.


34/69

34

Not aware of e-Government services 37%

France* Not aware of e-Government servicesAfraid of viruses

Not aware of web site addressesNo human support available

57%57%48%48%

Germany No human support availableLanguage used by the officials is difficult

Not aware of web site addressesNot aware of e-Government services

45%44%41%34%

Israel Not aware of e-Government servicesDont know how to use these servicesWorried about insecure connections

No human support available

60%60%60%59%

Bulgaria Not aware of e-Government servicesDont know how to use these services

Not aware of web site addressesNo human support available

74%65%49%41%

Finland Difficult to navigateLanguage used by officials is difficult

Not aware of web site addresses

No online support available

43%31%15%

10%Note: * France N=21

In addition many non-users in Finland, France and Austria stated that they do not need

the Internet. Difficulties to use a computer were common barriers in Austria, France

and Bulgaria. In Germany, Austria and Bulgaria non-users often had someone else to

use the Internet for them.

Among Internet users, the most common barriers for not using e-Government services

were lacking awareness of services and web addresses, lacking knowledge on how to

use the services and lacking human support. The Finnish LSGs were an exception.

Only few agreed with these statements, but many had difficulties to navigate and to

understand the language used on the web sites.

Free training, subsidized access at home, more and better services and online support

were all supported by half of the Bulgarian Internet users. Subsidised Internet usage at

home was also supported by Internet users in other countries, as well as having more

and better services.

The Bulgarian and the German non-users were most willing to learn how to use the

Internet, followed by the Israeli. In general the majority of non-users among the

respondents would only participate in courses if they were free of charge.

3.6.4 Attitudes and readiness

As for the perceptions of e-Government services, LSGs that are Internet users werefully aware of the positive qualities of e-Government in all six ELOST countries. e-

Services are considered to be more convenient and faster than traditional services.

Yet, there are still many who feel that e-Government is difficult to use, complicated,

not as safe or reliable as traditional services, and requires special equipment or

software.

LSGs that were not familiar with the Internet had positive views on it. The Internet is

may open new prospects for communications, learning and democracy. This is a

vantage point for measures to enhance online participation. But, at the same time

many believe that The Internet requires advanced skills, it is too expensive, it is not

secure or private.


35/69

35

0

20

40

60

80

100

Requires

advancedcomputer skills

Not easy to get

access to

Too time

consuming

Too expensive Not useful or

interesting

Not secure Represents

problems ofprivacy

Austria Israel France (N=21) Finland Germany Bulgaria

Figure 3.6.2:Non-users opinions on the internet, agreement with negative statements

The Israeli, Finnish and German non-users had the most positive perceptions

concerning the Internet. The Germans were the most worried about security and

privacy issues together with the Israelis. The Bulgarian LSGs thought that Internet

usage requires advanced computer skills and to

elost policy ictaf

Documents