Channel Choice Determinants of (Digital) Government Communication
A Case Study of Spatial Planning in Flanders
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21225751 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Willemien Laenens (0000-0002-2139-4745, Vrije Universiteit Brussel), Wendy Van Den Broeck (0000-0002-4765-6125, Vrije Universiteit Brussel), Ilse Mariën (0000-0002-9644-7338, Vrije Universiteit Brussel) |
| Year | 2018 |
| Volume | 6 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 140-152 |
| Publication date | 2018-12-21 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Media and Communication (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2183-2439 • E-ISSN: 2183-2439 |
| Publisher | Cogitatio (PUBLISHER • PT) |
| DOI | 10.17645/mac.v6i4.1652 |
| OpenAlex | W2906671076 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 5 |
| References cited | 30 |
Governments at all levels believe the digitisation of their services and increased interaction with citizens will bring significant advantages in terms of transparency, creation of public value, and improvement of government performance (Al-Hujran, Al-Debei, Chatfield, & Migdadi, 2015). Nonetheless, this evolution towards more digital services and communication by governments raises questions in terms of inclusivity and accessibility. We conducted focus groups with a heterogeneous panel of over 80 citizens, ranging from non-users of digital technologies to high-level users, to study their choice of channel and their perception towards the evolving digitisation of communication and services, applied to the case of spatial planning in Flanders (Belgium). The results reveal that the most decisive channel choice determinants in spatial planning relate to the channel characteristics themselves, the information, the contextual aspect of the communication flow, and digital inequality mechanisms; meaning that (a) citizens opt for local communication channels when interacting with local, regional, and national governments, (b) citizens prefer to be personally informed when the communicated message has a direct impact on them, and (c) more vulnerable digital profiles consider the transition to digital communication by default as problematic
Business · Local government · Perception · Political science · Public relations · Sociology · Telecommunications · Computer Science · E-Government and Public Services · Law · Local Government Finance and Decentralization · Psychology · Public Administration · Smart Cities and Technologies
The Legacy of the Technology Acceptance Model and a Proposal for a Paradigm Shift.
Organizational Information Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design
The theory of planned behavior
User Acceptance of Information Technology
A Theoretical Extension of the Technology Acceptance Model
Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology
Urban planning, public participation and digital technology
Participatory Apps for Urban Planning—Space for Improvement
Planning and Social Media
Using Social Media and Mobile Technologies to Foster Engagement and Self-Organization in Participatory Urban Planning and Neighbourhood Governance
Web 2.0 and Social Media Growth in Planning Practice
The New Generation of Public Participation
The acceptance of mobile government from a citizens’ perspective
A Corresponding Fields Model for the Links Between Social and Digital Exclusion
Channel choice and public service delivery in Canada
User-centered E-Government in practice
Understanding the evolution of e-government
Government innovation through social media
Impact of the digital divide on e-government
User acceptance of mobile e-government services
Transparency, participation, and accountability practices in open government
Why e-government projects fail? An analysis of the Healthcare.gov website
Citizen interaction with e-government
Open government objectives and participation motivations
An analysis of open government portals
A Three‐Stage Adoption Process for Social Media Use in Government
The use of service channels by citizens in the Netherlands
Accessing e-government
| Citations per year | 0.63 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2018 - 2025 (8) |
| Highly cited | No |