1

Project no: 027287

Project acronym: ELOST

e-Government for LOw Socio-economic sTatus groups

Instrument: SSA

Thematic Priority: 2

WP6 ‘Recommendations for Future Policy and Research Priorities

for the EU’

D6.1 & D6.2 Policy Recommendations for e-Inclusion of Low Socioeconomic

Status Groups (LSG) in e-Government Services

Dissemination Level: RE

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 Level

PU Public

PP Restricted to other programme participants (including the

Commission Services)

RE Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including

the Commission Services) x

CO Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including

the Commission Services)

2

e-Government for LOw Socio-economic sTatus groups

Project ID: 027287

WORK PACKAGE 6:

Recommendations for Future Policy and Research

Priorities for the EU

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

Low Socioeconomic Groups (LSG) in e-Government

Services

WP6 – Deliverable D6.2. Version 1

Date: 24 February 2008

Pages:

Authors:

Niv Ahituv – NIIS

Yoel Raban – ICTAF

Tal Soffer – ICTAF

Aharon Hauptman - ICTAF

With contributions from all partners

The ELOST Consortium:

Company Country Web-Site

Tel Aviv University. Interdisciplinary

Center for Technological Analysis &

Forecasting (ICTAF) and Netvision

Institute for Internet Studies (NIIS)

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

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

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

ICCR Austria http://www.iccr-foundation.org/

Centre Interdisciplinaire de Recherche

Comparative en Sciences Sociales

France http://www.iccr-foundation.org/

Institute of Mathematics and Informatics

- Bulgarian Academy of Sciences

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

TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITAET

BERLIN - Zentrum Technik und

Gesellschaft

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

University of Tampere - Department of

Social Policy and Social Work

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

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 18

2.6 Policy analysis 19

3. INTEGRATION OF RESULTS FROM PREVIOUS WORK 21

3.1 Digital Divide and e-Government 21

3.2 Policy programs for LSGs and e-Government 28

3.3 LSGs' attitudes towards Internet and e-Government 30

3.4 Usage patterns of LSGs who are familiar with the Internet 31

3.5 Findings from focus groups with LSGs 33

3.6 Cross-cultural comparison of the ELOST survey 33

3.7 Future outlook – results from the ELOST Foresight study 37

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

4.4. Brainstorming and workshops results 50

4.5. Policy dynamics 52

5. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS 53

5.1 Background and Goals 53

5.2 Policy measures and solutions 54

5.3 A Framework for a Policy 57

5.4 Policy recommendations 58

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 low

socioeconomic status groups (LSGs). The project included a comparative

cross cultural study of barriers on e-Government use by LSGs in six countries.

In ELOST we classified barriers into 4 groups – access, awareness,

skills, and attitudes. For every type of barrier that inhibits the use of

Internet and e-Government by LSGs there may be several solutions to

choose from. However, the choice of specific solutions should match

LSGs barriers and needs.

LSGs are clearly among the last groups of citizens to embrace information

technologies, long after the Internet became a crucial part of every day life.

Diffusion of innovation theory and practice shows that the last segments to

adopt an innovation need specialized effort in order to change their minds and

hearts and switch from non-users to users. Such an effort should include an

extensive use of change agents and opinion leaders. Since processes of

changing attitudes can take a long time, they should be given a priority in

inclusive e-Government policy planning.

One of the major barriers to e-Government use by LSGs concerns attitudes

and beliefs. Most non-users of Internet among LSGs have negative attitudes

towards the use of computers and Internet, and also towards e-Government.

Further studies on processes of attitude change among LSGs are needed, with

emphasis on human intermediation. They will reveal the forces that drive

adoption in specific groups. For different groups, there is a need to study the

possible impact of opinion leaders and change agents on adoption rate of

Internet and e-Government. Governments are advised to identify a cadre of

human intermediaries that 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 deployment of access infrastructure for LSGs. This should

include setting future goals for access levels among LSGs, measuring and

tracking deployment of access infrastructure for LSGs. In the near future,

access options for LSGs may include multimedia stations, PIAPs, interactive

TV (ITV), PCs and laptops, mobile phones and, if needed, human

intermediaries. Creative thinking is needed in order to increase access options

by making access available in places frequented by LSGs, in particular where

human assistance could be relatively easily available.

Emerging technology trends and families of technologies considered in the

ELOST expert survey as having potential impact on e-Government will be

widely used 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, future

web technologies and Interactive TV. In 2013-2018 Advanced speech

recognition, automatic translation and wearable computers will become

common, followed by widespread use of Ambient Intelligence and Virtual

Reality.

e-Government applications should be adapted to multiple access means

(including new and traditional means). Such a multi-channel multi-

technological environment requires R&D of technologies for coherence and

synchronisation of the different information flows.

TV is already very popular, and digital technology enables the use of limited

interactivity. It is likely that in the forthcoming years DTV will be installed in

6

nearly every household. Therefore, policy decision makers should allocate

resources and focus on the use of DTV for e-Government. More research is

needed in order to understand the advantages and limitations of Interactive TV

for e-Government use by LSGs, learning from lessons from recent relevant

experimental projects in Italy and elsewhere.

Since it is believed that by 2020 most of the interaction between the citizens

and the government will be performed through electronic communications, it

is imperative to make sure that each citizen will have access to an electronic

channel, regardless of his or her economic or physical status. Otherwise, a

generation of citizens deprived of e-Government services will develop, thus

increasing the digital divide rather than reducing it. Those that cannot afford

having their own electronic access will have to be provided with public

access. We recommend that governments will plan and make sure that

allocating different electronic means to most LSGs will be possible in the

future.

It is important to integrate all the various solutions into a coherent and

synchronized inclusive policy. ELOST shows that LSGs are not included as a

distinct group of e-Government policy in many countries. Inclusive policy

should be planned so that it will address usage barriers of different groups

simultaneously.

One of the most notable differences with respect to barriers on ICTs use is

between younger and older people. The mix of policy measures for young

people at risk and for elderly people can be quite different. Access solutions

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 a mix 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 require

some planning activities. Access infrastructures are already deployed in most

countries, so steps must be taken to provide LSG-friendly interfaces at

reasonable price. Digital skills education has some time constants that are

quite rigid. However, user-friendly interfaces can shorten digital skills learning

cycles.

7

1. Introduction The concept of e-Inclusion is very broad and includes particular topics such as e-

Government and geographical e-Inclusion. Such a general policy may be broken

down into specific elements or building blocks. These building blocks could provide

the basis for more specific policy design and may be used for designing e-

Government policy. Other important topics are the potential benefits (or the expected

results) of e-Inclusion policy, which relates to performance and success measures for

future policy evaluation.

1.1. EU e-Inclusion policy and the Riga Declaration

The Riga Declaration is the foundation of EU e-Inclusion policy. According to the

Riga Declaration1 “e-Inclusion means both inclusive ICT and the use of ICT to

achieve wider inclusion objectives. It focuses on participation of all individuals and

communities in all aspects of the information society. e-Inclusion policy, therefore,

aims at reducing gaps in ICT usage and promoting the use of ICT to overcome

exclusion, and improve economic performance, employment opportunities, quality of

life, social participation and cohesion".

The Riga Declaration has identified six themes, which the European Commission uses

as vehicles to foster e-Inclusion. These themes and the overall objectives of the

thematic areas are2:

e-Accessibility - make ICT accessible to all, meeting a wide spectrum

of people's needs, in particular any special needs.

e-Ageing - empower older people to fully participate in the economy

and society, continue independent lifestyles and enhance their quality

of life.

e-Competences - equip citizens with the knowledge, skills and lifelong

learning approach needed to increase social inclusion, employability

and enrich their lives.

Socio-Cultural e-Inclusion - enables minorities, migrants and

marginalised young people to fully integrate into communities and

participate in society by using ICT.

Geographical e-Inclusion - increase the social and economic well

being of people in rural, remote and economically disadvantaged areas

with the help of ICT.

Inclusive e-Government - deliver better, more diverse public services

for all using ICT while encouraging increased public participation in

democracy.

1.2. The components of e-Inclusion policy

What are the building blocks of e-Inclusion policy? A research prepared in

eInclusion@EU3 suggests a policy model with 3 layers – key themes, target groups,

and benefits. The key themes include:

Combating e-Exclusion: enabling people to utilise tools, applications

and services, independently of functional and mental abilities, health

status, age, gender, income, etc (also termed e-Accessibility).

1 e-Inclusion Ministerial Declaration 2006, Riga, Latvia

(http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/events/ict_riga_2006/doc/declaration_riga.pdf) 2 http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/einclusion/policy/index_en.htm

3Towards a Coherent European Policy Response –and Kubitschke, J., eInclusion Meyer, I., Muller, S.,

to Social Inequalities in the Information Society, Empirica, Germany 2006.

8

Inclusive services: e-Government, e-Health, e-Learning, and other

services must take into account people without access.

Independent living: arrangement of the individual living environment

so that it will enable self-determined way of life.

e-Services for social inclusion: services that can help people from

groups 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 ethnic

minorities. The main benefits for the target segments gained from e-Inclusion policy

are higher accessibility of ICTs, higher accessibility of eServices, increased social

participation, increased independence and quality of life, activation of personal

resources, and increased social inclusion.

There are some policy components that seem to emerge from the declaration and the

research 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 in

future.

Competence: People at risk of being excluded must be provided with

the competence and skills required using information society services

for their benefits.

Cultural diversity: e-Inclusion policy should address the specific

needs of groups that differ from the rest of the population in their

social and cultural backgrounds (migrants, minorities, and others).

Age: Older people potential for social exclusion must be recognised

and addressed by policy makers.

Inclusiveness: Electronic services must be planned so that people

without (or with limited) access may also be able to use them. This is

important since some people are unlikely to use ICTs at present and

in 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 by

England’s 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 from

efficiency savings by dealing with more people using technology either

directly or indirectly.

Benefits for disadvantaged people: Increased choice in the services

they 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 societal

engagement, and an enhanced quality of life. Being able to possess the

essential skills needed to work in a modern economy. Being able to

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

capital as people extend their support networks beyond geographical

boundaries.

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

9

Benefits to Deprived Communities: ICT can support more cohesive

communities. ICT can support crime reduction by improving the speed

and quality of crime reporting, and by helping to gather local

intelligence more effectively. ICT can support improved educational

outcomes and engagement of the young. Digital inclusion can promote

equality of opportunity for all sectors of the community. Electronic

communication is environmentally more sustainable than traditional

communications channels.

The Digital Inclusion Team also uses Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs Theory to show

how disadvantaged people can use ICTs for capacity building.

Figure 2.3.1: ICTs applications and Maslow’s needs

At the lower level of physiological needs, online shopping co-operative for the elderly

may be an example for such an application. Needs for belonging to a community can

also be met with ICTs applications, such as communities of interest via DTV (book

reading 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 awareness

and online access to health services; increased quality of life; strengthened community

cohesion 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

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

services.

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

10

1.4 Performance and success measurements

The Riga Declaration6 includes some quantifiable goals for the future of e-Inclusion

in Europe. “To convincingly address e-Inclusion, the differences in Internet usage

between current average use by the EU population and use by older people, people

with disabilities, women, lower education groups, unemployed and “less-developed”

regions 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 instruments

The list is followed by a general action plan describing how ICTs could be used in

order to help accomplish these priorities.

The European initiative on an all-inclusive digital society also specifies general lines

of 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 the

need to address specific categories. “The initiative encourages ICT industry to rapidly

establish, during 2008-2010, privacy-friendly accessible solutions for persons with

sensory, physical, motor and/or cognitive restrictions to make use of digital TV and of

electronic 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 a

monitoring approach called “Riga Dashboard”.

Figure 1.4.1: Groups that are most at risk of exclusion

6 2006 e-Inclusion Ministerial Declaration, Riga, Latvia

(http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/events/ict_riga_2006/doc/declaration_riga.pdf) accessed on

the 10th of February 2008. 7See reference # 5.

11

Any policy planning process should also address performance and success

measurements. The latest i2010 annual report acknowledges that progress towards

Riga targets is only happening at half the speed needed to reach them. The 2007 Riga

Dashboard report8 includes concrete performance measures, such as gaps in Internet

usage, broadband coverage in rural areas, accessibility of public websites, and digital

literacy gap. The report claims that based on current trends, gaps in Internet usage can

only 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% in

2006, compromising the Riga target of 100%. Accessibility here refers to conformity

with minimum web accessibility standards and guidelines9. With respect to digital

literacy gap, for groups at risk with low education, economically inactive, and the

older 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. The

readiness of citizens to participate in e-Government is crucial for the latter’s diffusion

and consolidation. The use of e-Government services depends on various factors such

as ease of use, proficiency, accessibility and civic engagement. Persons displaying

lower than average use of e-government include the elderly, disabled people,

immigrants or members of ethnic minorities and, more generally, low socio-economic

status groups (LSG). The pace at which countries deploy e-Government services,

including measures taken to increase their use by LSGs, vary considerably across

Europe

The ELOST project was set up with the support of the European Commission’s Sixth

Framework Programme to make recommendations on e-inclusion and e-Government.

The ELOST consortium comprises research centres from six different countries,

including, Israel, Austria, France, Germany, Bulgaria and Finland. In order to arrive at

policy proposals, the carried out the following activities:

A cross-national comparative assessment of e-Government services.

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

of internet and e-Government use, their attitudes toward new communication

technologies and the barriers they face in this new societal era.

A foresight study into emerging ICT technologies and their implications for

the future of e-Government.

A web-based interactive repertoire on e-Government tools (from opinion polls,

elections, citizen juries to web based services).

A policy design and formulation process resulting in policy recommendations

for inclusive e-Government policy for LSGs.

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

increasing awareness, and usage of e-Government services among low socioeconomic

status groups (LSGs). The project's policy recommendations are expected to help

European countries increase the number of people from LSGs that will be able to use

e-Government services as active citizens in knowledge based society.

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

Society and Media, 2007. 9 Web accessibility figure coming from the study for the 2005 UK Presidency “e-Accessibility of

public sector services in the EU, checking conformance with W3C Web Content Accessibility

Guidelines

12

The following chapter describes the methodological framework of the ELOST project.

It is followed by an integration of the findings of all previous activities and

deliverables10. 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

2. Methodology The challenge of increasing e-Government participation and usage among low socio-

economic groups (LSGs) requires awareness to the needs and attitudes of these groups

on 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 to

identify the needs, attitudes and future solutions for LSGs.

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

The main approach of this interdisciplinary research project was based on carrying out

cross-cultural overall analyses with complementary foresight analysis, focusing on the

current and future situation regarding participation and usage of e-Government among

LSGs. This analysis is 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 countries

under 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, in

turn, strongly correlated with low socio-economic position. Socio-economic position

is defined with reference to income and status. Status is a function of education and

occupation as well as of the degree of integration into the labour market. The four

characteristics are closely interrelated: persons of low educational background are

11 For a description and analysis of the field surveys and focus groups see reports D3.2 Report on

Findings (www.elost.org)

Top Down

Bottom Up

UpDown

Foresight Future Technologies

e-Gov.

LSGs

Decision

Makers

Future

Technologies

14

more likely to be found in low-skill occupations or be long-term unemployed and

hence to display earnings that are below average. Moreover, other ‘ascribed’

characteristics such as gender and ethnicity are associated with socio-economic

position in an inequitable manner and variably across countries. Thus women still

tend to earn less even in developed countries where educational achievements have

tended 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 of

stay in the host society. In accordance with the above, the reference population for the

ELOST survey was defined as comprising those persons living in low-income

households, 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 one

or 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 distribution

of the reference population. Interviews were carried out by phone or face-to-face. In

order to achieve high representativity, and taking into account the difficulties involved

in over-sampling lower strata populations, the sampling and fieldwork was in some

countries territorially concentrated on specific regions or cities or, in the absence of a

systematic sample base, organized with the help of specific social organizations. A

fully comparable sampling and fieldwork framework was not possible given the

population reference and available financial and human resources. The following

sections 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 fieldwork took place in November and December 2006 across Austria;

the raw data were delivered at the beginning of February 2007. The sampling base

was provided by the ‘Lifestyle Consumer Databank’ of the Schober Information

Group that includes information on income, thus making it possible to concentrate on

those individuals living in poor households, i.e. in households with earnings below €

1,000.

In France, the ELOST survey was incorporated in the omnibus survey Actuatel

carried out by the CSA on a regular basis. This enables access to a solid sampling

base of the full population distinguished by key socio-demographic and economic

criteria as required by ELOST. The CSA focused on income (below €1,000) and

education as discriminatory variables.

In Finland, the survey was implemented by Innolink Research, using telephone

interviews and concentrating on the Tampere region. The sampling was done using

register data.

In Germany, the survey was carried out in collaboration with several

nongovernmental organizations collaborating with NEXUS, the German consortium

partner in ELOST. The clientele of these NGOs comprises elderly persons of low

income; beneficiaries of social assistance or home care; recipients of assistance from

religious charitable organizations as well as migrants that are targeted by integration

programmes. A total of 150 interviews were thus obtained. An additional 100

interviews were carried out with recipients of unemployment assistance upon

15

permission granted by the German Labour Office. All interviews in Germany were

carried out face-to-face.

In Israel, the fieldwork was implemented by Smith Research & Consulting, interviews

were carried out by telephone. The sample was drawn from the Database of National

Surveys compiled by Smith Research & Consulting over the past three years with

information on household income. This is a national database organized by area

(telephone) code. The Israeli achieved sample comprised 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; the

interviews were carried out face-to-face. The Bulgarian survey was carried out mainly

in the cities of Sofia and Plovdid where there is also a large concentration of Roma

population. The achieved Bulgarian sample includes 68 % respondents of Bulgarian

origin, 31% respondents of Roma origin and 1 % of respondents of Turkish origin. In

contrast the control group is dominated (96%) by respondents of Bulgarian origin who

are, on average, somewhat better-off than those in the targeted low socio-economic

group.

2.2 Focus Groups

Combining quantitative and qualitative sources of information and analytical methods

contributes to the knowledge base from which to develop policy recommendations.

Moreover, qualitative in-depth interviews or discussion groups provide insights that

can assist to better interpret quantitative survey results. Starting from this realization,

the ELOST project team decided to organize focus groups to complement the ELOST

quantitative survey. Focus 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 was possible only in a few cases. The guidelines

provided to the research teams in the different countries concerning recruitment and

organization, 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 many

countries and organizations in order to support the process of shaping national or

regional policies, in light of future anticipated technological and/or societal

developments. The method is based on an anonymous interaction among a group of

12 Based on D4.3 Final report - findings from the foresight process and recommendations

(www.elost.org)

16

experts, through repeatedly circulated questionnaires. Usually such surveys are

performed in two rounds or more, especially when the first round reveals significant

disagreements among the experts. In each subsequent round the experts are informed

about the results of the previous round (feedback) and can re-assess their judgments

accordingly. In this way an iterative (anonymous) group interaction is achieved

among the experts. In many cases, two rounds of such a process are sufficient to

achieve a convergence of the responses to a reasonable consensus. Persisting

disagreement on certain topics can also provide important information to decision

makers. The Internet provides an opportunity to involve many experts all over the

world in online Delphi surveys, including the possibility of real-time feedback.

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 online (web-based) 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. Of course, as in every expert survey, an inevitable compromise

had to be made between the desire to cover as much diverse issues and technologies

as possible, and the necessity to refrain from a too complex and time-consuming

questionnaire. First draft of the survey questions was formulated in August 2006, and

a web-based questionnaire was designed, based on the “Surveylet” software tool

developed by Calibrum. The questionnaire was tested in September 2006 in a pilot

survey with 13 participants and some modifications were made. 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 into consideration the aggregative results of the first round.

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.egovernment-

exchange.eu.

The ELOST e-Government Expert Exchange System 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 Process

Monitoring)

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

17

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 the

respective population groups themselves.

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.egovernment-

exchange.eu or www.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 as

recommendations 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-Government

Expert 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 offer

detailed 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 the

e4 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

18

only relevant for high level managers and politicians, but also and especially to

medium level decision makers and civil servants.

2.5 Data triangulation

Despite its obvious advantages comparative case studies with a cross-cultural focus

also have some weak points. A common difficulty concerns assessing causal

complexity. The results can be due to several different combinations of conditions and

therefore it can be hard to identify the decisive explicators. Also, due to geographical

and numerical limitations for example, it is difficult to come up with generalisations.

This is a standard criticism of scientist who opposes case studies as research method.

The limitations that should be taken into account in the case of the ELOST Project are

similar to other comparative case studies. One obstacle is the comparability of the

data at hand. It has been gathered in different regions, which are characterised by

great differences with regard to their demographic, economic, historical or

administrative background. Furthermore, the way the data was gathered was different.

Some partners run the survey by face to face interviews, others by phone interviews.

Some used subcontractors; others carried out the survey themselves. Another

limitation is the representativity, which needs to be kept in mind when conclusions are

drawn. The ELOST survey sample is 250 answered questionnaires in each of the six

research regions. Hence, it is not possible to generalise the results but some trends can

certainly be identified. It should also be kept in mind that a sample of 250 people has

a different weight in Tampere, a town of 200,000 inhabitants, than in Paris, a city of

over two million inhabitants. However, there are ways to deal with these shortfalls, as

the following discussion will show.

The fundamental strategy of data triangulation is to attack a research problem with an

arsenal of methods that have non-overlapping weaknesses in addition to their

complementary strength. In practice the researcher uses two or more different

methods, theories, data sources, etc. to study a certain phenomenon. Data

triangulation can be approached and made advantage of in different ways: Firstly, the

validity of findings can be enhanced by comparing different types of studies.

Secondly, qualitative research can be used to facilitate quantitative research and vice

versa. Qualitative research provides background information and, for example,

quantitative research may help with the choice of subjects for qualitative research.

Thirdly, the two research options combined help providing a general picture. They

enlighten different aspects of the subject and often quantitative research provides

information on the structures whereas qualitative research is stronger in ‘processual‘

aspects. Combining these two approaches can also help combining two different

perspectives, the one of the researcher’s and the one of the subject’s. Fourthly,

bringing quantitative evidence to a qualitative research can mitigate the problem of

making generalizations while bringing qualitative evidence to a quantitative research

may facilitate the interpretation of relationships between variables. Fifthly, combining

qualitative and quantitative methods enables affiliating macro and micro levels.

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 can be identified:

Data from a survey among LSGs.

19

Summaries of focus group discussions with LSGs.

Summaries of interviews with local and national decision

makers, key actors and professional experts in the field of e-

Government.

General theories on e-Government and e-exclusion as well as

state of the art statistics.

The information provided by the different sources is used to paint a broad picture with

regard to the key research question. In addition it allows investigating if e-

Government is the magic bullet to social exclusion which it is claimed to be by many

policy makers. For the final analysis the first three levels (field study results) will be

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 relevant

for policy design.

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

researching for options to eliminate 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 can

we generalize the policy to the entire EU?”. Partners were asked to design inclusive e-

Government policy for their own countries (see next figure 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)

20

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

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.

21

3. Integration of results from previous work

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

participating 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 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 of 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 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 varius

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,

13 See for instance The e-Government handbook for developing countries, A project

of InfoDev and the Center for Democracy and Technology, November 2002.

22

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-poverty

rate after social transfers (2005)

Gini index (2006)

Share of population living under the

poverty line**

(2006)

EU 25 16* - -

Austria 12 29.1 7.7

Bulgaria 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 below

the median income, National Insurance Institute of Israel.

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

documents)

23

Unemployment:

According to EUROSTAT 200615, 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

Unemployment

rate (2006)

GDP per capita in PPS*

(2006)

GDP per inhabitant in

PPS (2005)

GDP growth

rate (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 life

expectancy 2004 (years)

Upper secondary education

completed 2005

(percent)

Public expenditure

on education

2002-2004 (percentage of

GDP)

Early school

leavers with at

most lower secondary

education17

EU 27 - 69.3 - 15.4

Austria 15 80.6 5.5 9.6

Bulgaria 13 72.5 4.2 18

Finland 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 2004 16 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 level

of education or training attained is ISCED 0, 1, 2 or 3c short and respondents declared not having

received any education or training in the four weeks preceding the survey (numerator). The

denominator consists of the total population of the same age group.

24

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 the

same 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

Population Percentage of

people under 15

Percentage of

people over 65

Percentage of

urban 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 Eastern

Europe. 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 of

Statistics (2006a: web document)

25

Table 3.1.5: Share of households with access to the Internet and computers in the 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 ELOST countries20

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

Percentage of individuals who accessed the Internet, on average, at least once a

week.

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 the

users 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 Bureau

of Statistics 20 Sources: Eurostat (2007i: web document), United Nations Millennium Development Goals Indicators

(2006: web document); International Telecommunication Union (2005: web document)

26

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 24

Austria 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 and

economically 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 DG

Information Society and Media

27

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 low

educated

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.

28

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 to

concentrate 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 access

points 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 approach

to 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

for planning 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).

29

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 knowledge

about 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 citizens

cannot 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 educated

and 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 have

a 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, programs

and tools in different European countries, a lot of effort is still needed to make it

attractive and useful for LSGs.

30

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 younger

respondents.

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

a high education level.

Unemployed and retired people are less likely to be familiar with the Internet than

people who work or study.

Surprisingly the financial situation was not as significant as it could have been

expected 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 lack

of 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 D5.2

Cross-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% to

28%. In Bulgaria and Germany Internet familiarity rates were higher due to over sampling of younger

people.

31

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, but

did 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 Internet

in 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 common

services 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 was

too 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 of

Internet usage among the LSGs.

Obtaining information and official forms from public authorities were the most

commonly used e-Government services among the respondents.

32

The most common reasons for not using e-Government services were unawareness

of 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 as

increased security and confidentiality would be the most effective measures /

incentives for increasing the use of e-services according to the LSGs (see Figure

3.4.1)

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-friendliness

Subsidized public access points

Free training

Cheaper internet cafés

Would make a big difference Would make somew hat of a difference Would make no difference

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 most

common e-Government services, such as obtaining online information or forms.

Conclusions

Internet users are on average younger, better educated, students or working whereas

the 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 as

well as e-Government services. Nevertheless, the awareness of e-Government

should be improved for all.

33

Internet users have more often, as expected, access to the Internet at home compared

to 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 the

Internet than the users.

3.5 Findings from focus groups with LSGs

Focus 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 was

possible 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-à-vis e-government were clearly

the result of hostility vis-à-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 that

were 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 respondents were partly visitors of a centre for unemployed people where internet courses were offered. In Bulgaria

the respondents were mainly people who participated in training activities of NGOs. In Finland,

34

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 by

themselves. 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).

0

20

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 services Most important reasons for not using e-

Government services

Percent of users to whom

statements apply

Austria Not aware of web site addresses

No human support available

Don’t know how to use these services

47%

47%

43%

France, Austria and Israel the data was collected by phone surveys and the respondents were randomly

chosen from registers of people who fulfilled one ore more of the criteria defined for the study.

35

Not aware of e-Government services 37%

France* Not aware of e-Government services

Afraid of viruses

Not aware of web site addresses

No human support available

57%

57%

48%

48%

Germany No human support available

Language used by the officials is difficult

Not aware of web site addresses

Not aware of e-Government services

45%

44%

41%

34%

Israel Not aware of e-Government services

Don’t know how to use these services

Worried about insecure connections

No human support available

60%

60%

60%

59%

Bulgaria Not aware of e-Government services

Don’t know how to use these services Not aware of web site addresses

No human support available

74%

65% 49%

41%

Finland Difficult to navigate

Language 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 were

fully 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 who 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.

36

0

20

40

60

80

100

Requires

advanced

computer skills

Not easy to get

access to

Too time

consuming

Too expensive Not useful or

interesting

Not secure Represents

problems of

privacy

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 together with the Finns considered it as

too expensive.

0

20

40

60

80

100

Opens new prospects for

communication

Opens new prospects for

info and learning

Opens new prospects for

politics and democracy

Austria Israel France (N=21) Finland Germany Bulgaria

Figure 3.6.3: Non-users' opinions on the internet, agreement with positive statements

3.6.5 Access

In all ELOST countries the majority of the LSGs who use Internet had access to the

Internet at home. The most common reason for not having access at home was 'access

elsewhere' followed by 'expensive equipment and access costs'.

Among the non-users, the Israelis (36%) and Austrian LSGs (30%) had most often

Internet access at home. Concerning access to e-Government services, only Finnish

LSGs are regularly aware of public access points and use them regularly. In Israel,

France, Austria and Germany the share of Internet users who had never used a public

37

access point were notably high. Financing a computer and access to the Internet is a

problem for the non-user respondents in many countries.

3.6.6 Groups with special needs

Survey respondents who were older than 55 years or retired stated more often than

others that they had difficulties with using a computer and are therefore not familiar

with the internet. On one hand they had more often than others someone else to use

the computer on their behalf. Elder respondents had also attitudinal barriers: they were

most frequent to state that they do not need the internet and they were less often

positively inclined towards the internet. However, respondents in the oldest age group

(55+) were in general better aware of e-Government services than respondents in the

youngest age group (under 35 years). Unemployed non-users stated even more often

than the older and retired non-users that they do not need the internet. They were also

less positively inclined towards the internet than other respondents: they stated more

often that internet contents are not useful and agreed less often with positive

statements like new prospects for communication and gathering information and

learning. It could have been expected that the unemployed would have had more often

financial barriers for using the internet but that was not the case among ELOST

survey respondents.

Financial barriers were most often faced by people with low level of incomes,

especially those living in households with monthly net incomes less than 500 euros.

They stated most often that they cannot afford a computer at home and for internet

connection both equipment and access costs are too high. Respondents living in

households with low incomes stated also more often than others that they are not

familiar with the internet because they have problems with reading and writing and

family members do not know how to use the internet. Poorer people were less often

aware of e-Government services than respondents who were better off. Also among

non-users the majority of the ethnic minorities, i.e. respondents who did not speak the

country’s national language as their mother tongue, were also living in households

with low incomes and the barriers they faced were the same. In Israel only 15% of

orthodox Jews, for example, are familiar with the Internet, and most non users have

low awareness to e-Government services and negative attitudes towards the Internet.

3.7 Future outlook – results from the ELOST Foresight study30

The ELOST Foresight Study provided a useful perspective on emerging technologies

relevant to e-Government and likely to be widely used in the next 15 years, including

assessment of their potential impact on the use of e-Government services by low

socio-economic status groups (LSGs).

The essence of Foresight is the interaction between technology and society. Although

the focus of the foresight activity in ELOST was on technological aspects of e-

Government as viewed by experts, the social dimension is particularly important, as

the project focuses on socially disadvantaged groups (LSGs). In this respect, parts of

the field survey and the LSG focus groups complement the future outlook in reflecting

the users’ (non-experts) views.

From a review of previous foresight studies and from interviews with experts one can

conclude that by the year 2020 the access to telecommunications networks including

the Internet is very likely to become seamless, ubiquitous and “transparent”, when

today’s problems with access, bandwidth, usability of interfaces and security are

30 Based on D4.3 Final report - findings from the foresight process and recommendations

(www.elost.org)

38

solved. E-Government services will be more easily available for everyone, anytime

and anywhere. Their use will be very simple and intuitive, and the level of automation

will be much higher. As one of our interviewees stated, “by 2020, we will not be

speaking of “e-Government” anymore but rather just of ‘government’, because it will

be obvious that we are referring to e-Government.” There is a wide agreement that the

services will function via multiple channels and multiple interfaces. These views are

also reflected in the ELOST expert survey as shown below.

Main results from the ELOST expert survey

154 experts from 34 countries participated in the survey, with a reasonable mix of

expertise/experience areas such as technology, business, policy and research.

The results can be summarised as follows.

The highest technological barriers (among those presented in the survey) to

widespread use of eGov services at present are unfriendly interfaces and

limited access channels for communications. Lower barriers are authentication

problems, insufficient broadband coverage and insufficient security & privacy

protection. Additional barriers mentioned by respondents are poor services

interoperability, non-usability/complexity of services, insufficient standards

and poor infrastructure.

The majority (70%) of experts believe that in the year 2020 ALL

governmental services will be electronically available anytime and anywhere.

Business experts are somewhat more optimistic than public policy experts.

The majority of experts foresee that high percentage (over 50%) of persons

from LSGs will routinely use eGovernment services in 2020. In this

assessment business experts are a little less optimistic than other experts.

In 2020 most citizens will access eGovernment services through a multitude

of available interfaces and channels. Main means will be desktop/laptop PCs,

mobile phones and PDAs (or similar devices), followed by InteractiveTV.

New devices will appear (e.g. convergence of computer/TV/mobile phone)

All the eleven emerging technologies considered in the survey will be widely

used 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, future web and

Interactive TV. Other technologies will become widespread later (2013-2018):

Advanced speech recognition31, automatic translation, wearable computers

and finally (around 2018) Ambient Intelligence and Virtual Reality.

Relatively high impact on all LSG segments is foreseen first and foremost for

Interactive TV, followed by advanced speech recognition, advanced mobile

networks, high-speed broadband communications and smart cards.

Most technologies under consideration will be beneficial (in terms of fostering

e-Government usage) mainly for persons who lack technology skills. The

potential benefits for other LSG segments (persons with low income, limited

access, or lack of motivation) are much lower. One noticeable exception is

Interactive TV, which may have high impact on all LSG segments. Advanced

mobile networks may also be beneficial in particular for persons with

(currently) limited access to the net.

Figure 3.7.1: summarises the main results by mapping the 11 technologies in terms of

their overall benefit for all LSG segments and their likely years of widespread use.

31 May even happen earlier, “In five years, Microsoft expects more Internet searches to be done

through speech than through typing on a keyboard”, Bill Gates at Carnegie Mellon University,

February 2008.,

39

Other technologies that in several experts’ opinion could have impact on e-

Government usage include e.g. intelligent agents, advanced knowledge-based / expert

systems, interactive kiosks, and some kind of a unified “media master” (possibly a

future generation of a smart mobile phone) which combines video, voice, TV and the

Internet. Nevertheless, technology alone cannot solve the problem of low participation

of LSGs in e-Government. If social, cultural, educational and organizational issues are

not adequately treated; new technologies can even aggravate the problem. Advanced

technologies, instead of providing intelligent help, could sometimes give

governmental organizations the pretext to reduce the needed personal help of

intelligent human beings. Many survey participants (being unaware of other parts of

ELOST) stressed the importance of non-technological barriers. Opinions such as

“advances in e-Government are more dependent on the human-side rather than on the

technological side of the equation”, and that much can and should be done with

present-day (not future) technologies were reflected in several comments.

Figure 3.7.1: Overall impact and times of widespread use of emerging technologies

The potential benefit of new technologies (and alternatives to PC) was also explored

in the field survey among LSGs in WP3. The experts opinion that in 2020 a majority

of LSGs will be using e-Government and that Interactive TV, advanced speech

recognition, and advanced mobile networks will be highly beneficial are in line with

the LSG survey respondents’ views. More than 50 percent of the LSG respondents

estimated that they likely or maybe use future technologies when they are available.

However, Interactive TV was seen as most unlikely by the LSGs themselves (see

Figures 3.7.2 and 3.7.3 below).

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2.2

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Smart Cards

Mobile Networks

Security Technologies

Broadband Communications

Future Web

Interactive TV

Speech Recognition

Automatic Translation

Wearable Computing

Ambient Intelligence

Virtual Reality

Hig

h

Likely time of widespread use

Me

diu

mL

ow

Imp

ac

t o

n L

SG

s

40

0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %

Interactive TV

Following recorded instructions on the

phone

Advanced speach recognitionVery likely

Maybe

Unlikely

Figure 3.7.2: Which means of communication could you think of using in the

future? Share of Internet users.

0 % 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 %

Interactive TV

Following recorded instructions on the

phone

Advanced speach recognition

Very likely

Maybe

Unlikely

Figure 3.7.2: Which means of communication could you think of using in the future?

Share of non-users.

The Finnish Internet users were clearly more often positively inclined with

future/alternative technologies. Over 90 percent of them stated that they would likely

or maybe use advanced speech recognition and follow instructions on the phone and

73 percent could imagine using interactive TV. The French Internet users among the

LSGs also had very positive attitudes: about 75 percent stated that they would likely

or maybe use advanced speech recognition and follow instructions on the phone while

62 percent could imagine using interactive TV. The German and the Austrian users

were least positively inclined with these technologies: 40 to 60 percent of them said it

was unlikely that they would use these new/alternative technologies.

Among the non-users of the Internet, the Finnish LSGs were most likely to use

advanced speech recognition and follow instructions on the phone while the German

respondents were most likely to use interactive TV. Overall, the Bulgarian LSGs were

second most positively inclined towards new/alternative technologies after the Finns.

The Austrian and French non-users were most unlikely to use these technologies.

75 percent of the LSG respondents who don’t use the Internet thought that using it

requires advanced computer skills. This finding should be kept in mind with regard of

the wide agreement of the experts that most of the future/alternative technologies are

likely to have most impact on LSGs facing skill-related problems. As mentioned

above, however, according to the experts the impact of these technologies on LSGs

with, for example, motivation problems, will be low.

3.8 Conclusions

In the present chapter we integrated and highlighted the main findings that rose up in

all the previous work that has been done during the ELSOT project. It is important to

41

mention that these data have been collected in all six ELOST participating countries

through various channels and sources of information (e.g. desk research, field surveys,

focus groups, interviews, Delphi survey etc.).

3.8.1 The key findings of the study at hand are as follows:

1. The digital divide is especially wide for LSGs: they are less likely to use the

internet, have less often access to the internet at home and are less often aware

of and using e-Government services than average citizens;

2. Age, education, main activity status and level of income affect the likelihood

of being familiar with the internet: older LSGs, those with a low level of

education, retired, and poorer LSGs are less likely to use the internet than

young, educated, employed and well-off LSGs;

3. The barriers for the usage of the internet can be divided into four categories:

lacking motivation, lacking education, financial problems and lacking

awareness;

4. Among the LSGs the most common reasons for not using the internet were

motivational; ‘do not need the internet’ was the most frequent reason in

Austria, France and Finland;

5. Skill-related barriers were the second most common reason for not using the

internet: difficulties with using a computer was mentioned as a reason

especially in Bulgaria, France and Austria.

6. Financial barriers were not so important regarding the usage of the internet but

more significant with regard to having access to the internet at home;

7. Lacking awareness explains at least partly the barriers in the the LSGs are

facing: when people do not have a precise idea of what the internet is, what it

offers, what it costs, what kind of skills are required and what the related risks

are, they are not able to estimate the usefulness of the internet rationally;

8. The technology experts estimate that the future/alternative technologies will

ease the usage of the internet and e-Government services: new technologies

will be most advantageous for LSGs facing skill-related problems;

3.8.2 Social equality and e-inclusion

The significance of access to and control over information can be justified as a part of

social quality. A society where people are able to participate in the social, political,

cultural and economic developments and live under conditions that enhance their

well-being has a high social quality. Being able to use and take advantage of the

information and communication technologies is a part of that.

However, neither social quality nor the opportunities and abilities to use ICTs are

equally distributed. Age, level of education, main activity status and level of incomes

are relevant factors related to the likelihood of being familiar with the internet. These

findings of the ELOST survey are in line with other research on the topic. However,

the essential question is what should be done in order to change the situation and to

improve the social quality of LSGs in the information society.

3.8.3 Barries to e-inclusion

The research carried out in the framework of the ELOST project has identified four

kinds of barriers to e-inclusion: a) lacking motivation and interest, b) lacking skills

and training, c) lacking financial resources and d) lacking awareness of e-services and

possibilities of internet usage. Point b, c and d are relatively easy to handle because

they can be tackled with concrete measures such as training, subsidised internet usage

42

at home and information campaigns. The first point, however, lacking interest, is a

more difficult one as it influences point b and d.

The question of interest and motivation is discussed by Neil Selwyn32 (2006: 275,

288-9) in his article ‘Digital division or digital decision?’ where he suggests that the

reasons for not using ICT should be analysed from a bottom-up perspective. The

essential is individuals’ needs for information and their social environment which

defines information from their perspective. The core interest should be in the

information needs of the individual rather than needs defined on the societal level.

According to the ELOST survey results, the usage of e-Government services was

rather low among the respondents. One reason for that could be a general distrust

towards public administration and governance which was discussed in several focus

group meetings organised as a part of ELOST project. When people consider the

public administration to be inflexible, bureaucratic, unfriendly and even unreliable

they are unlikely to be interested in familiarizing themselves with e-Government

services and regard them more as something developed for the profit of the authorities

than for the benefit of the citizens.

In Finland, Austria and France e-exclusion among the LSGs was strongly related to

motivational and attitudinal factors. In Bulgaria and Israel the LSGs were facing

financial problems. The development status of e-government services also hand an

influence on the usage in both countries. In Bulgaria, Austria and France also

technical barriers could be found while in Israel security and privacy concerns were

significant. In Germany different kinds of barriers are rather equal.

When it comes to the effect of socio-economic factors for e-inclusion there were

differences between countries. Gender was least important in Finland; age was a very

significant factor in all countries except Germany; the importance of education level

was most significant in Austria; unemployed LSGs were more often e-excluded than

employed LSGs in Israel, Finland and Bulgaria; and the level of income had the

strongest significance in Israel.

As for the use of e-Government services, education was the most significant

background factor and gender and household type the least significant. There were

also differences between countries. Age affected the awareness most in Austria,

Finland and Germany, level of education in almost all countries, main activity status

in Austria, Israel and Bulgaria and level of incomes is Austria and Israel.

3.8.3 Technological aspects

Technology experts and ELOST Delphi survey respondents have similar views on

technology related barriers: unfriendly interfaces and limited access channels were

mentioned as the most important ones. The technology experts estimate that the

future/alternative technologies will ease the usage of the Internet and e-Government

services: new technologies will be most advantageous for LSGs facing skill-related

problems. This can help overcoming these barriers and enhance the usage of ICTs for

those who are facing digital skills problems. However, LSGs having attitudinal

barriers towards new technologies as such and e-Government in particular are less

likely to benefit from the technological progress.

Policy makers should take into account the potential advantages of adequately used

32 Selwyn, Neil (2006) ‘Digital division or digital decision? A study of non-users and low users of

computers’ Poetics 34, pp. 273-292.

43

new technologies and monitor emerging trends (e.g. the merging of PC, TV and

mobile phones or the concept of Ambient Intelligence) that might affect the use of e-

services in the future. At least for a certain segment of the LSG population that lacks

“digital skills”, technologies other than PC-based Internet access could be very useful.

Much more attention should be directed toward ease of use and friendly interfaces.

Since it is likely that citizens will use a variety of means for communications, e-

Government applications must be customised to multi-access multi-technological

environment, thus requires R&D of technologies for interoperability, coherence and

synchronisation of different information flows.

3.8.4 Policy issues

Decision makers and key actors in the field of e-Government were having similar

thoughts in different countries on the least advantaged groups with regard to the

development of the information society. People with a low level of education,

disabled people, immigrants and unemployed people were named most often in this

context. The most significant reasons for e-exclusion were seen to be a lack of skills

and a lack of awareness.

All ELOST countries are having policy programs on the governmental level to

promote e-Government. The countries are on different levels of e-development but are

all aiming to create a wide-ranging e-Government system. There have been projects

targeting the e-inclusion of LSGs at least in Israel and Finland but basically LSGs

have not been considered as groups with special needs when e-Government services

are developed.

44

4. Inclusive e-Government policy design

Here we describe the work done in WP6 - policy design, and its implications. We will

describe possible policy options for overcoming LSGs usage barriers. Usage barriers

are analyzed and possible solutions suggested, including examples from different

countries. We start with a description of barriers types, and then briefly evaluate

selected existing solutions for digital inclusion. After a discussion of several policy

issues we suggest possible solutions for e-Government inclusion of LSGs.

4.1 Barriers to e-Government use by LSGs

In general, barriers may by classified into 4 categories – awareness, access, skills, and

attitudes. Barriers of each category alone can prevent LSGs from using e-Government

services. Usage can also be hindered by a combination of barrier categories as

described in the next chart.

Figure 4.1.1: Barriers types

Awareness of e-Government services is quite low among LSGs in general although

there are obvious differences between Internet users and non users. The level of

awareness to e-Government services may also vary across countries and across LSGs

segments within countries. For example, in the ELOST survey we found that

awareness to e-Government services among Internet users was 26% in Bulgaria, 40%

in Israel, 63% in Austria, and over 80% in Finland33. Non users exhibit even lower

levels of awareness in all countries. Large variability in awareness rates across

countries and segments may require different policy measures intended to increase

awareness to e-Government services among LSGs.

Access to e-Government services is traditionally referred to Internet access via a PC.

It should be mentioned that e-Government services may also be delivered using other

infrastructures, such as mobile networks and DTV (not yet available in most

33 The question measured the most common reasons for not using e-Government services.

45

countries). Access to Internet (via PC) by LSGs is relatively limited due to lower

incomes, lower education levels and other demographics. It is also difficult for some

LSG segments (elderly people mainly) to master the complicated interface of PCs. In

the ELOST survey, the rate of Internet users among LSGs is about 20% to 30% in

Austria, Israel and Finland34. These figures can be compared to much higher figures

of Internet use in the entire population (over 50% in Austria and Israel and about 70%

in Finland).

Digital Skills are needed in order to master handling of digital contents and electronic

communications, on which e-Government services are based. Digital skills are taught

to some degree in the education system, and also in the workplace. People with higher

education level are more likely to own digital skills than people with lower education

level. It should be noted that Internet users may have different levels of digital skills.

In the ELOST survey about 30% of Internet users are not confident in using web sites

of government organizations. As for non Internet users, willingness to learn how to

use the Internet can be a measure of potential digital skills. From the ELOST survey

we find that the share of LSGs willing to learn how to use the Internet varies from as

high as 64% in Bulgaria to 17% in Austria, 26% in Finland and 24% in France. In

most countries one of the main reasons for not using the Internet is the difficulty of

using computers (70% of non users in Austria, 85% in Bulgaria, 64% in France). The

lack of “digital skills” coupled with access problems as mentioned above underscores

the importance of the obstacle posed by the PC in itself (at least in its current form).

Attitudes and beliefs are important determinants of human behaviour and affect

decision making processes in many aspects of life including e-Government use. In the

case of e-Government, this term encompasses several issues. Attitudes and beliefs can

be created with respect to the general use of computers and Internet. People can have

positive or negative attitudes towards computers and/or the Internet. A certain

proportion of the population may exhibit a certain amount of “technophobia” and

efforts to teach them how to use computers may be proven as ineffective. On the other

hand, people may have negative attitudes towards governments (central or local);

especially people who suffer from social exclusion or people at risk of being excluded

from the society. Attitudes towards Internet, as measured in the ELOST survey, vary

across countries. The survey used several measures of attitudes, such as sense of

security and privacy, perceived usefulness of the Internet, and difficulty of use.

Relatively large share of Internet non users in some countries claim that they don’t

need the Internet (Austria – 74%, France – 83%, Finland – 97%). However, they also

admit having difficulties using a computer. As many other goods and services, the

Internet is an “experience good”, and people may change their attitudes on the

Internet once they had a chance to experience it. The ELOST survey also shows that

there is a mix of negative and positive attitudes to e-Government among Internet

users. 40%-60% claim that it is difficult to use without human support, and that it is

not as safe and reliable as traditional means, but around 60% admit that it is more

convenient and faster than traditional means. Non users also exhibit a mix of positive

and negative attitudes. More than 50% say that the Internet opens up new prospects

for communication and learning35, but only a third is positive about Internet impact on

politics and democracy.

34 This rate is lower in France since the sample included only people with lower education, and is

higher in Bulgaria and Germany where samples included younger individuals. 35 There is a certain conflict where a person can agree with a general statement about the benefit of the

Internet but when it comes to personal use the answer is “I don’t need it”.

46

4.2. Policy issues

There are several policy issues to be considered before we can offer

recommendations.

Targeting: The first issue is whether to target specific LSG segments or provide all

LSGs with a unified inclusive policy. Targeting may be preferable when LSG

segments have different barriers to e-Government use. Different barriers, or different

needs, may require different solutions. If we analyse existing e-Inclusion policy

measures, we find that some measures are specific to certain LSG segments, while

other measures are intended for all LSG segments. The EU has already accepted the

principle that inclusive e-Government should take into account the specific needs of

different target groups36. In the ELOST field survey among LSGs, some groups can

be differentiated as having different needs (older people for example). The expert’s

survey performed within the ELOST foresight study also showed that different

technologies may have different impacts on specific LSG segments. Another practical

reason for targeting is the need to use targeted marketing campaign in order to change

negative attitudes of certain groups towards e-Government. Such an approach may be

justified in cases where target LSG segments are culturally detached from the rest of

the population.

Prioritizing LSG segments: In case where targeting policy is justified, policy makers

in EU countries may have to prioritize LSG segments. There are several reasons for

that, such as limited budgets or linkages between groups. Existing government

budgets may limit the ability to carry out targeted policies in parallel. In such a case

policy makers will have to prioritize policy execution for different groups. There are

certain linkages between groups that merit synchronization of policy measures for

different groups. For example, subsidizing computers for school pupils may be

followed by an augmented policy for digital inclusion of older people (parents). In

such a case the younger generation may be persuaded or motivated to educate the

older generation.

Policy focus: Inclusive e-Government policy may focus on different barriers over

time (access, awareness, skills, attitudes). High access rates generally require

deploying expensive infrastructures, such as broadband communications. Such

deployment may take a long time. It would be inefficient to raise people’s awareness

or even upgrade skills when reasonable access targets are still far from accomplished.

At present, it seems that in most countries Internet infrastructure may provide high

access rates to PC users. Cellular infrastructure already provides Internet access to 3rd

generation mobile phones, but digital inclusion applications are still limited. Digital

TV infrastructure is already deployed in most European countries, but interactive

inclusion applications are also limited. For LSGs that can use PC (or can learn how to

use it) the focus of digital inclusion policy may shift from providing access to

building awareness, upgrading skills and changing negative attitudes.

The human factor: One of the main results expected from e-Government is

manpower savings. Electronic transactions and applications are supposed to replace

person-to-person transactions or even landline phone transactions. When we analyse

barriers to e-Government use by LSGs, we can conclude that one factor is essential

for digital inclusion – the human factor. In the ELOST field survey respondents

strongly claimed that human assistance is needed by them for more extensive e-

Government use. The result can be a certain shift towards using more human activities

36 Millard, J., Analysis of European target groups related to inclusive e-Government, e-Government

Action Plan, 2006.

47

for digital inclusion. Human activities may be needed in several phases of the digital

inclusion policy. Human intermediaries (social intermediaries37) may be required to

facilitate e-Government transactions in cases that individuals cannot perform such

transactions electronically. On the other hand, human activities will be needed to

persuade LSG segments to start using Internet and e-Government.

4.3. Possible routes to inclusive e-Government policy

Digital inclusion and inclusive e-Government will be achieved once all barriers are

removed. How can we remove barriers to e-Government inclusion? This can be done

by devising policy measures (solutions) that are targeted to specific barriers and LSG

segments. In the following paragraph we describe possible solutions (or routes) for

each specific barrier type and for different LSG segments.

Building awareness: Increasing awareness seems almost trivial and simple, but it is

not so. Today, when so many brands and signals are competing for the attention of

individuals, it is not easy to burn the e-Government “brand” in LSG’s minds. Raising

the awareness to e-Government should take into account the different habits of media

use practiced by LSG segments. Building one campaign for all LSG segments will

probably not be successful. A good example of an awareness raising campaign is the

digital switchover Help Scheme in the UK38. This scheme is intended to assist people

in switching to digital TV before analogue transmitters are shut down. One of the

main targets of the scheme are people over 75, that are major consumers of public

services, and are least likely to be persuaded to use a PC. Providing these people with

broadband capable set top box and a browser will enable public and private sector

service providers to offer them paid or free services. Creative motivating means and

incentives should be explored taking into account specific characteristics of various

LSG types, as exemplified in the Siena experiment (within the EU “Intelligent Cities”

project)39.

Mitigating skills barriers: Digital skills courses should be adapted to the needs of

LSG segments under the concept of life long learning. Learning can take place in

different locations – at home, in the community, and at school or University. School is

the place where young children ought to get a comprehensive digital skills education.

Additional education for children can be provided through public access point in their

communities. The concept of PIAPs can be further developed to accommodate

different LSG segments at all ages. Here are some forms of digital skills education:

Finland may be a proper example for implementing life long learning

to digital skills education. Adult education centres are important

organizers of Internet training, and so is the University of the Third

Age40. Other examples include peer-to-peer training, intergenerational

training, mobile access to training, and home based training41.

The Australian Seniors Computer Clubs Association42 is providing

peer-to-peer training to seniors in a trusted environment in which

elderly people feel confident. Seniors have confidence in the training

37 Term used by J. Millard, Analysis of European target groups related to inclusive e-Government, e-

Government Action Plan 2006, paragraph 2.2.3. 38 The Digital Inclusion Landscape in England, Digital Inclusion Team, 2007, paragraph 8.1.2.6. 39 In this case the elderly persons were “lured” to use municipal e-services via interactive TV by

providing them free VOD access to videos of their loved “Palio di Siena” horse races (a trick called “a

Trojan Horse” by the project participants). 40 http://www.e4-info.eu/wiki/index.php/IT-Training 41 The Digital Inclusion Landscape in England, Digital Inclusion Team, 2007, paragraph 6.3.2. 42 http://www.ascca.org.au/

48

and support that they are given because tutors are fellow club members

who are often of a similar age with similar life experiences. Similar

training activities for seniors are provided by several associations in

Finland43.

Intergenerational training schemes are cases where children teach

their parents or grandparents computers and Internet skills at their

schools. Examples are Internet Rangers in the UK, Internet centres at

schools in the southern part of Israel, and Seniorkom in Austria44.

The idea of mobile access to training (Web on Wheels) is to reach

individuals that are isolated geographically or culturally and provide

them with preliminary IT training and Internet access. There are

several examples for mobile access and training, such as Netti-Nysse in

Finland, the Media-Bus in Germany, and Cibernibus in Belgium45.

Providing access: Policy should offer LSGs a wide variety of access options, so that

every individual may find and use the most appropriate solution. In the next 5-10

years there will be more technological options that will offer Internet connectivity.

This will enable the use of multi channelling that has been suggested by researchers as

a preferable platform for e-Government. Since there are several options for access

location, policy makers are able to tailor e-Government access options for the specific

needs of individuals.

Home access can be provided by Internet connectivity (wireline

or wireless) through PC or DTV.

At work individual may access e-Government through PCs and

Internet connectivity.

Access on the move can be provided by mobile phones with

Internet connectivity (3rd generation and 4th generation in the

future).

In the community individuals may use public access points in

various locations, such as community centres, public libraries,

etc.

In isolated places with no Internet infrastructure “web on

wheels” may be the proper solution.

In cases where individuals are unable or unwilling to use and

digital channel, human intermediaries can be used instead.

Additional creative solutions should be considered, for example

exposing persons from LSGs to e-Government access in places

where they are likely to frequent46.

Changing attitudes: Attitudes change is a necessary condition for altering people’s

behaviour. Persuading individuals to take action and start using e-Government

services will require efforts to change their beliefs and attitudes, and provide them

with motivation to do so. Attitudes change processes are complicated and sometimes

time consuming and especially difficult when individuals are entrenched in their older

beliefs.

As other new services, e-Government services adoptions follow an S-Curve like

diffusion process. According to Rogers, the innovation adoption cycle can proceed

43 http://www.e4-info.eu/wiki/index.php/IT-Training 44 http://www.e4-info.eu/wiki/index.php/IT-Training 45 http://www.e4-info.eu/wiki/index.php/Web_on_Wheels 46 For example, locations such as lottery booths, post offices, social security offices, and even grocery

stores

49

quite fast at the beginning when innovators and early adopters47 are eager to test and

use the new service. The process that moves forward on the basis of word-to-mouth

may tackle difficulties48 entering the early majority segment, and moving on to the

late majority and the laggards segments. The late majority and the laggards segments

together comprise 50% of the potential adopters’ population (Rogers 2003).

Figure 4.3.1: Adopters segments in diffusion of innovation theory (Rogers 2003)

In most EU countries it can be assumed that the adoption cycle is approaching these

segments. We may also safely assume that most LSGs are part of these 2 last

segments left before full e-Government adoption is achieved.

Rogers defines several aspects of the social system that can affect the diffusion

process:

Social structure: how individuals communicate within the social system. This

affects the way that information is communicated through the system.

Social norms: the behaviour patterns for systems members. Social norms

define the boundaries of acceptable behaviour within a social system. Rigid

norms may hinder innovation diffusion, as people may not feel able to

comment on the validity of an innovation.

Change agents and opinion leaders: a change agent is a proactive individual

who influences innovation decisions. An opinion leader is a respected,

innovative member of the social system who influences other people’s

opinions. Both have critical roles in diffusion as their attitudes can greatly

affect the adoption of an innovation

The change agent roles include (among others) developing the need to change,

establishing an information exchange relationship, diagnosing the problem, creating

an intent to change, translating intent into action. One of the important roles of change

agents is their use of opinion leaders in diffusion campaigns. Opinion leadership,

according to Rogers, is the degree to which an individual is able to influence other

individuals’ attitudes in a desired way with a relatively high frequency.

To find a path to the hearts of individuals in these 2 last segments, one must study the

processes that govern decision making in LSG segments. It is especially important to

find out who are the opinion leaders that these people look to when making decision

to adopt new services and products. These opinion leaders possess the necessary

social skills to persuade others to change their ways of life or to purchase new

services and products. In his book “The Tipping Point” Gladwell describes 3 types of

people that can cause a “social epidemic”. Connectors are the people who "link us up

with the world ... people with a special gift for bringing the world together”49. Mavens

47E.M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press 2003.

48Harper Business 1991. See for example “Crossing the Chasm” by G.A. Moore, 49M. Gladwell, The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference, Little, Brown and

Company 2000.

50

are "information specialists", and Salesmen are "persuaders," charismatic people with

powerful negotiation skills.

For different LSG segments there would probably be a need for using different

opinion leaders that are closer to the segment’s cultural background. The result is that

causing attitude change in LSG groups with regards to Internet and e-Government use

may have to be tackled on a segment by segment basis. Individuals who claim that

they have no interest in using the Internet or using e-Government services can be

clustered into groups according to several parameters (demographic, ethnic, cultural,

life styles). For some segments the means for changing attitudes may simply be some

sort of incentive that will be given to individuals willing to study how to use Internet

and e-Government. For other segments the solutions may be more complicated and

may take longer time to succeed. Such solutions may rely on theoretical models such

as social influence, balance theory, elaboration likelihood model and others. In the

marketing literature we find that the rate of adoption of new products and services is

influenced by costs, risk and uncertainty, scientific credibility, and social approval50.

Therefore, policy makers may promote e-Government use by reducing the costs

involved, by mitigating perceived risk and uncertainty, by providing proof of value

and credibility, and by catalysing social approval.

Diffusion of innovations theory was used to study the effectiveness of the

“Community Information Line initiative in the UK51. The Community Information

Line examines the potential for engagement with local e-Government at a grassroots

level in North Cornwall, through the use of community volunteers who act as local

interfaces to electronic service delivery methods. The authors conclude that “the first

year of Community Information Line, after a slow start, can be demonstrated to be a

success. It is now ongoing and will hopefully become a key aspect of e-Government

engagement within North Cornwall”.

4.4. Brainstorming and workshops results

Brainstorming sessions on Policy design were carried out in all ELOST partner

countries and selected results are presented here. Researchers were asked identical

questions referring to the situation in their own countries. The questions addressed

issues of policy targeting, impact of barriers, and the need for policy measures to

enhance e-Government use by LSGs. Researchers were not unanimous about the need

for policy targeting. There are advantages but also disadvantages to policy targeting,

and the issue should be decided after weighing both.

The Austrian team questioned whether it makes sense to develop tailor-made

measures and policies for each separate group. A policymaker, for example, will not

want us to provide six different strategies for six different groups. Instead, he/she will

want a far-reaching solution that involves several groups. We must consequently

decide who exactly the policy measures will be addressing – will they address the

government in general (then we need “general guidelines”) or will they address a

department in the Ministry of Social Affairs dealing with migrant women (we will

then need “tailored guidelines”). The team discussed barriers categories - awareness,

access and affordability, technical and other Skills, and attitude and values. Access in

terms of infrastructure refers to rural areas. With regard to access in terms of

affordability, generally low income groups fall into this category. A lack of technical

skills affects mostly seniors and persons with a low level of education. Lack of other

skills including language affects migrants, persons with a very low education or who

are illiterate or even persons who may have problems concentrating. The barrier

50edition, Prentice Hall 2003, chapter 12. thP. Kotler, Marketing Management, 11

51 Community Information Line – An Evaluation of Citizen Engagement in Local e-Government,

Phippen, A., and A. Ward, 2006.

51

attitude/values are most often found among the elderly, as well as persons with low

education, or persons who generally are not interested in technology.

As can be seen above, some barriers involve the same groups (often to different

degrees). Many of the policies are not necessarily e-government policy, but social

policy.

In Bulgaria the two most important groups for inclusive e-Government policy are

unemployed people, and people from isolated or undeveloped regions. Second priority

should be given to people with low income and ethnic minorities (Turks and Roma

are the largest groups). Awareness barrier is believed to be a turning point for e-

Government use and dissemination efforts are directed to the entire population.

Access is provided by free public points but they are not specialized for LSGs.

Barriers mitigation can be accomplished by providing free access points in social

services offices, by forming groups of specialists to work with LSG targets, and by

using special websites for LSG targets. Solutions should be tailored to target groups –

disabled people can be an example for other targets.

In Finland several LSG were mentioned as important for policy targeting – people

with multiple problems, people with low education level, immigrants with poor

language skills, and ethnic minorities. The most severe barrier for e-Government use

is lack of motivation, followed by low awareness level and low skills. Several

solutions were mentioned as more effective for increasing e-Government use – laptop

for every child, free Internet access, tailored training, and advertising of e-

Government services.

The brainstorming in France produced a matrix of digital inclusion levels (access

skills and take up) and barriers that may prevent people from achieving inclusion

(money, culture, generation). Lack of income may prevent people from accessing the

Internet (and using e-Government), but also from acquiring skills and from usage

once skills are acquired. Similar reasoning may be applied to other barriers. The

matrix enables some form of segmentation, which is too broad. Several policy

measures (projects) to increase inclusive e-Government are discussed, such as

creating a Secure Digital Domicile, on-site training, and training new people for

public service.

In Germany policies to increase the acceptability and use of e-Government must focus

on the following areas: lack of skills, worries about harmful effects of the Internet,

attitude that the Internet is not useful, affordability, relevance of public eServices, and

general user preferences. Many people just don’t feel a need to use e-Government.

This is combined with lack of access and competence. The majority of Germans still

prefer the telephone as a communication medium, so one stop shop phone e-

Government service (service 115) is now being tested. Several policy measures for

inclusive e-Government were suggested, including improved navigation, awareness

raising, providing information about data security, more human and online support,

using migrant group’s languages, and improving security.

In Israel there are some distinct LSG segments, such as Israeli Arabs, orthodox Jews,

immigrants from former Soviet republics, and retired people. Some of these segments

have different barriers to e-Government use. Larger proportion of orthodox Jews, for

example, have negative attitudes towards Internet and e-Government compared to

other LSGs. Some of the existing digital inclusion policy measures address specific

target groups, such as "computer for every child", "computer for every age" (older

people), and "honourable living" (orthodox Jews). There are only 15 public Internet

access points (Lehava centres) in LSG neighbourhoods, not enough to make a real

difference. New policy measures to address usage barriers can include technological

solutions, such as mobile phone and DTV e-Government applications, one stop

hotline, and human (social) intermediaries that promote attitude change and facilitate

e-Government use.

52

4.5. Policy dynamics

Inclusive e-Government policy should address issues of time frames and schedules

needed to reach specific goals in a given time period.

Goals: As already mentioned, the Riga Declaration52 calls for reducing the digital

divide to a half until 2010. The declaration refers to older people, people with

disabilities, women, low education groups, unemployed and “less-developed” regions.

The general goal of the Riga Declaration may have to address the issue of the final

goals that need to be achieved after 2010. Additionally, the 2010 Internet use goal will

be only achieved around 2015, as the recent Riga Dashboard report shows53. Inclusive

e-Government policy can accelerate the speed of adoption, if properly planned and

executed. In order to make it happen, the population segments that are the targets of

the policy must be clearly defined. This will enable the measurement of the current

digital divide. It will also enable the provision of policy measures to address problems

and needs in these population segments. In the ELOST project we used a certain

definition that may be used as a basis for that. Definition could be based on measures

of groups that are at risk of poverty, or other measures.

The Riga Declaration refers to “average use”, as a benchmark to be reached by non

users by 2010. This term has to be defined in more detail. It is also necessary to define

average e-Government use, which may be one of the goals to be achieved in the

future. The definition may include a basket of basic e-Government services and their

usage frequency.

The speed at which the EU plans for reaching future e-Government use goals will

determine the budget and the strategy required for success. Moving faster to the goal

will require larger budgets and different mix of policy measures (see illustrative

chart). If PIAPs seem to be one of the preferred measures, a more ambitious goal will

require achieving higher density of PIAPs in a shorter period of time.

36%

31%

9%

18%

5%

mobile

DTV

Laptops/child

PIAPs

Intermediaries

Figure 4.5.1: Possible mix of policy measures (% of budget)

52 2006 e-Inclusion Ministerial Declaration, Riga, Latvia

(http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/events/ict_riga_2006/doc/declaration_riga.pdf) 53 Measuring progress in e-Inclusion: Riga Dashboard 2007, European Commission, DG Information

Society and Media, 2007.

53

5. Policy Recommendations

5.1 Background and Goals

The purpose of this chapter is to conclude the report by presenting an overall

framework for devising a policy of e-Inclusion for a country that wishes to alleviate

the digital divide problem affecting its e-Government services.

So far, the use of e-government by the citizens has been voluntary. They are not

compelled to do so since they can always opt to maintain the traditional ways of

interacting with governmental agencies. The readiness of the citizens to employ e-

government depends on a number of factors including ease of use (system

friendliness), literacy and skills, awareness of its existence and benefits, attitudes

towards governmental services at large, and access. Deep understanding of the

citizen’s needs and preferences is a mandatory condition for the success of an e-

government system.

The usage of ICTs and e-Government in particular is affected by both hard factors,

such as the availability of infrastructure, and soft factors, such as individuals’ personal

attitudes. This insight has important implications for the way in which governments

should attempt to stimulate usage. It is not enough simply to ensure that the

infrastructure is available; individuals have to be convinced of the benefits of ICT if

they are to use it. An old saying in apt in this regard “You can take a horse to water,

but you can’t make it drink”.

A major hurdle to an overall usage of e-government relates to the access of low

socioeconomic groups (LSGs) to ICT and the Internet. ELOST focused on LSGs,

which include diverse segments (such as unemployed people, people with low

income, low education level, ethnic minorities, and immigrants). Those sectors should

receive preferred treatment in the effort to disseminate e-government services in each

country. Otherwise, the digital divide will increase rather than diminish. We would

like to cite here a passage from a document published by the Australian Government

about this issue54:

“E-government is about social inclusiveness and using the virtual community to

strengthen the collaboration of all citizens in the making of their communities and

their nation. Information and communications technology can make significant

contributions to the strengthening of communities and social capital through

improvements in access to a wider range of government services, such as education,

health and social security, as well as commercial, social and cultural services.

However, those who suffer socioeconomic disadvantage, who are more likely to be

dependent on government services, are less likely to have the capacity and ability to

use online technologies. Policies and business cases for the expansion of online

delivery of government services must therefore take account of the capacity of

intended recipients and users to access those services.

The development of policies and schemes for expansion of e-government services

must necessarily take account of the limited opportunities of key groups in society to

access the services and the skills to use them. It is vital therefore, that expansion of e-

government be carried out hand-in-hand with proposals to enhance the capacity and

motivation of disadvantaged citizens for online interaction. Gains will be few without

the necessary focus on empowering citizens to use the services. Attention must be

54 Future Challenges for E-government Connecting the Dots: Accessing E-government, Discussion

Paper No.16, Anni Dugdale, Anne Daly, Franco Papandrea and Maria Maley.

http://www.agimo.gov.au/publications/2004/05/egovt_challenges/accessibility/connecting/skills)

54

given to increasing awareness and understanding of new technology, and providing

education in the use of that technology. Language and literacy skills must also be

developed so citizens may access online services without the aid of a mediator or

facilitator.”

During the recent years, the perception that every citizen, regardless of his or her

abilities, disabilities, education, command of language or economic status, is entitled

to get e-government services, is growing everywhere. The goal of each EU

government should be to avail e-Government services to every citizen, while paying

special attention to those who are less likely to use the services without extra

support.

The main purpose of ELOST was to learn the status of e-government services among

LSGs in various European countries, to survey the situation in some other countries,

to understand the evolving pertinent technologies and their impact, to learn the

barriers and the possible solutions to them, and to provide policy recommendations on

the way this issue should be dealt with in the near and medium range future. Policy

recommendations are the subject matter of this section.

5.2 Policy measures and solutions

Before recommending any policy measure, it should be stressed that the introduction

of each measure and solution should be accompanied by related performance

measurements, and by criteria that would determine the level of success of each

measure. The measurements should be quantifiable and measurable; they should be

assessed before the implementation of a certain program, during the implementation

and upon its completion. For example, if a certain measure is to install PIAPs (Public

Internet Access Points) among less privileged communities, then the number, the

timetable and locations of the PIAPs as well as the number of potential users should

be determined beforehand, measured during the implementation process, and

thereafter serves as a major factor for the post-evaluation of the project success.

With that in mind, we can discuss now policy measures. The major categories of

barriers that have been identified in ELOST project are the following:

Access

Literacy and skills

Awareness

Attitudes

The latter one, attitudes should be subdivided into two types: attitudes to the

government in general (e.g., antagonism against or fear from anything which is

connected to a government); attitudes toward e-Government and ICT specifically

(e.g., technophobia).

The measures can be divided into a number of categories, whereas each category may

alleviate more than one type of barrier. Here are the categories of measures and

solutions:

5.2.1 Technological tools and infrastructure: broadband networks,

satellite and cellular communications, low cost computers, PIAPs, cellular

phone Internet applications, interactive TV applications, friendly and non-

55

threatening software applications, easy to use interface, and the like.

5.2.2 Wide and varied distribution of means: installing technological

and human support resources that would cover large areas of needed users;

implement wireless tools where ground line communication is not

installed.

5.2.3 Education, training and support: provision of courses, workshops,

instructors to individuals and to small groups, help facilities (e.g., a Wizard

that will guide the user through an e-Government procedure, FAQ), call

centers and the like; tailoring the means to the users and to the available

technologies, e.g., allocate support personnel to elder people.

5.2.4 Attitude change measures: using TV and Radio broadcasting to

affect citizens' attitudes toward e-Government and ICT, identification of

the "change agents" in each community and convincing them to lead the

others, devising rewards and benefits for using e-Government.

As mention earlier, it is not a situation where there is a one to one relationship

between a barrier and a solution. Each barrier has to be tackled with a variety of

measures that will adhere to the specific problems and the particular characteristics of

the population involved. Table 5.2.1 exhibits the usefulness of various measure

categories to the various barrier categories.

Table 5.2.1: Barriers and solution types

Measures and

Solutions:

Barriers

Technological tools

and infrastructure

distribution of

means

Education,

training and

support

Attitude

change

Access

Wide variety of

access means (e.g., DTV, PC, cell

phone) and

appropriate

infrastructure to assure

interoperability and

coherence of information flows

from different

channels; broadband; wireless

communications;

friendly human-

computer-interface (HCI)

Wide

distribution of access

equipment;

PIAPs; use

community centres, school

and post offices

as communication

centres

Tailoring the

means to the users and to the

available

technologies,

e.g., allocate support

personnel to

elder people, use human (social)

intermediaries

where necessary.

Literacy and

skills

Friendly interfaces;

take a ride on prevailing means

such as TV and cell

phones; Enable a

variety of channels that fit individual

preferences and do

not require special

Provision of

courses, workshops,

instructors to

individuals and

to small groups, help facilities

(e.g., a Wizard

that will guide

Provide

small group workshops

and

motivation

sessions; build easy

learning

resources,

56

skills, such as phone

talks (possibly with

advanced speech-

recognition support) and face-to-face

meetings

the user through

an e-Government

procedure,

FAQ), call centres and the

like.

such as

lessons and

teaching

aids.

Awareness

Install equipment in

public places

with clear

operation manuals

TV and radio programs on the

benefits of e-

Government and

its easy availability

Attitudes

Friendly interface Subsidized

price of technology and

usage

Promotion on

TV and radio, training, guides

at site

Locate and

influence community

leaders;

emphasize

the benefits of e-

Government;

develop a reward

mechanism55

Using the aforementioned measures, a series of performance measurements and

quantitative success criteria should be developed and implemented. Table 5.2.2

displays some example of possible quantitative success criteria.

Table 5.2.2: Examples of quantitative success criteria56

Barriers

Criteria

Access

Number of PIAP per district; number of PIAPs per 1000 persons;

coverage of communication lines; coverage of wireless

communications; number of citizen who do have access to e-

Government services.

Literacy and

skills

Number of courses and workshops offered; number of participants;

number of instructors per communication centre.

Awareness

Increase in the number of e-Government users from LSGs; increase in

the number of people (belonging to LSGs) who know what e-Government is; increase in the number of different services exploited by

the users.

55Government -E.g.: In an experiment performed in the city of Siena, Italy, elderly citizens who use e

through interactive TV have been rewarded by free VOD service that allowed them to watch films of

the famous Palio horse races 56All the criteria in the table should be measured along a certain interval of time.

57

Attitudes

Change in attitudes measured through surveys over time; increase in the

number of e-Government users from specific groups.

The next step is to identify the types of population that belong to the category of LSG.

This, of course, differs among various countries; hence it is hard to point at specific

groups. However, we try here to specify some "generic" groups that can be found in

most of the countries. These groups include:

1. Ethnic minorities

2. New immigrants whose command of the local language and the

governance structure is weak.

3. People with low income

4. Unemployed people.

5. Homeless citizens.

6. People with low education.

7. Elderly people.

8. Young people at risk

These groups are certainly not mutually exclusive. Some people might be members of

more than one group (e.g., unemployed and low educated). There may be people who

belong to a group but cannot be defined as an LSG (e.g., a rich elderly person).

However, if we want to be more focused on resolving the digital divide in e-

Government, these groups should be the target of the attention.

5.3 A Framework for a Policy

Each member state of the EU has, of course, its unique characteristics and individual

priorities for challenging the digital divide problem in e-Government dissemination.

However, the framework for devising and implementing a policy can be similar in all

countries, based on the definitions and categories mentioned above. Each country

should follow the following sequence of steps57:

1) Identify the groups that belong to the LSG category in the country

(e.g., minorities, immigrants, etc.).

2) Determine the priority among the groups and select the groups to

be treated firstly.

3) Determine the priorities of needed services within each group that

have been selected.

4) Identify the barriers within each group that have been selected.

57During the entire process, it is advisable to exchange information among countries and to use the

ELSOT website for support and consultation.

58

5) Choose the technologies and solutions that best fit the group and

the services.

6) Prepare an implementation plan with timetable, budget and

resource allocation.

7) Prepare criteria of success and quantitative measurements to assess

them.

8) Form the organizational structure that will implement the plan and

from a steering committee that will oversee the progress of the

project.

9) Launch the project.

10) Maintain a continuous follow up of the project by the steering

committee, including quantitative measurement of the success

criteria.

11) Based on evaluation and conclusions of the previous and current

projects, go to the next one.

It is important to note that according to the above list of steps, an e-Inclusion project

begins only in step 9. It is preceded by a long sequence of preparatory activities.

These activities are imperative to secure the success of the project.

5.4 Policy recommendations

The following paragraph includes policy recommendations that are related to the

major findings in ELOST project.

The recommendations address the main barriers that prevent LSGs from using e-

Government services. Once these barriers are removed or mitigated, it is expected that

uptake and usage among LSGs will increase more rapidly.

5.4.1 Changing attitudes

One of the key findings of ELOST project concerns attitudes towards the Internet and

e-Government. Negative attitudes are one of the most potent barriers on e-

Government use by LSGs. Most LSGs that are not using the Internet claim that they

don’t need it. In the language of DOI (Diffusion Of Innovation) theory, LSGs are part

of the “late majority” and “laggards” adopters segments. Converting non users into

users of a certain innovation may be extremely difficult in some cases as it requires a

process of attitudes change. Processes of attitude change can be rather complicated

and time consuming. Such processes involve human intermediaries that may impact

the speed of e-Government adoption. According to ELOST findingd, human

assistance is one of the most important factors that will promote e-Government usage

by LSGs. Two distinct types of such intermediaries are opinion leaders and change

agents. Opinion leaders are key figures that are respected by certain populations,

whereas change agents are people that are in direct contact with LSGs in their

communities. There are several groups that may act as change agents, such as family

members (up to 14% of LSGs that don’t use Internet are assisted by family members

with e-Government services, according to the ELOST survey), social workers, public

officials, and volunteers (some examples follows).

In Portugal e-Government delivery channel includes human intermediaries. The main

reasons for that are a relatively high degree of illiteracy among older population,

relatively high school dropout rate, and a high percentage of immigrants. The services

that are provided in over 1,000 places around the country have dramatically increased

59

the use of e-Government. In 2006 more than 50% of the tax fillings were completed

on the Internet, and 54% of these were assisted by human intermediaries58.

In Israel a special rabbinical commission for media issues comes to agreement on

Internet use “or business purposes only” (Kosher Internet). The approval is

conditioned on connecting to a server especially for orthodox Jews that filters

undesirable content59. Only 15% of orthodox Jews are using the Internet, according to

ELOST findings, and this step was needed in order to accommodate the needs of

many in these communities who need the Internet for business purposes.

Community Information Line60: a project in North Cornwall, which made use of

community volunteers to promote e-Government services within rural communities.

Two specific kinds of support emerged from the project. Volunteers either walked

people with low ICT skills through service processes directly, or alternatively they

raised awareness among the IT literate that then went and used the services

themselves at home or work. Evaluation of the project indicated that awareness of

benefits raised by volunteers resulted in higher levels of engagement in e-

Government.

Governments must initiate and promote processes of attitudes change among LSGs.

The following recommendations may be helpful in this respect:

1. Performing studies on processes of attitude change among LSGs is needed,

with emphasis on human intermediation. They will reveal the forces that drive

adoption in specific groups. For different groups, there is a need to study the

possible impact of opinion leaders and change agents on adoption rate of

Internet and e-Government. Human intermediation may play a different role in

different groups.

2. Governments are advised to identify a cadre of human intermediaries

(change agents and opinion leaders) that may be recruited to educate and assist

LSGs in their communities. The main task of the intermediaries is to facilitate

e-Government use by LSGs. Developing an education program for human

intermediaries is essential (train the trainer).

3. Developing a strategy and work plan for using human intermediaries

(including an incentive system). The work plan should include the

development of attitude measures, setting of future goals for attitudes change

among LSGs, and involvement levels of NGOs.

4. Perceived lack of security and privacy aggravates negative attitudes of

LSGs towards the use of Internet and e-Government. Special consideration

should be employed by governments to use different schemes for educating

LSGs in issues of safety and privacy, and ensuring them that e-Government

transactions are safe.

“Get Safe Online” is helping home users and small business in the UK to protect

themselves against online threats. It was created by government and leading

businesses as a free, public service (UK)61.

5. Incentive systems: creative motivating means and incentives should be

explored taking into account specific characteristics of various LSG types.

58 Taken from the summary of “Inclusive e-Government ad-hoc sub group meeting”, June 2007 59 Taken from several Israeli press sources 60 The Digital Inclusion Landscape in England, Digital inclusion team, 2007 61 http://www.itsafe.gov.uk/

60

In some cases, incentives (monetary or other) can cause certain people to

change their behaviour, as the next example shows. There are different

types of incentives. In some cases motivational effects may be achieved by

using games.

The Siena experiment was conducted within the EU “Intelligent Cities” project. In

this case elderly persons were “lured” to use municipal e-services via interactive

TV by providing them free VOD access to videos of their loved “Palio di Siena”

horse races (a trick called “a Trojan Horse” by the project participants)62.

5.4.2 Increasing awareness levels

Results of ELOST surveys reveal relatively low levels of awareness of e-Government

services among LSGs. In some countries this was the prime reason for not using e-

Government services by LSGs who do use the Internet. High level of awareness to e-

Government services is of utmost importance to LSGs that are already familiar with

the Internet. Awareness is also important for non users since it may affect motivation,

and positively affect the work of intermediaries.

An interesting example of awareness raising campaign is the digital switchover Help

Scheme in the UK63. This scheme is intended to assist people in switching to digital

TV before analogue transmitters are shut down. One of the main targets of the scheme

are people over 75, that are major consumers of public services, and are least likely to

be persuaded to use a PC. Providing these people with broadband capable set top box

and a browser will enable public and private sector service providers to offer them

paid or free services.

Building and maintaining high level of awareness levels of e-Government services

among LSGs is recommended using the following steps:

1. The study of media habits and information channels of LSGs can provide

the basis for awareness building campaigns. This could include examples of

best practices in this area.

2. Development of awareness building campaigns intended for LSGs that

employ techniques that are efficient and appropriate for the target audiences.

According to ELOST focus groups analysis, e-Government sites / services

should be advertised more actively on television. Alternatively, booklets with

Web addresses and short information about most important sites should be

made available in public offices or distributed by mail to all households. It is

important that awareness campaigns focus not only on the products but on the

benefits for the user. E-government sites should be reorganized accordingly.

3. Long term planning is needed in this area, including setting future goals for

awareness levels among LSGs, measuring and tracking awareness levels

among LSGs over time, and deciding on the frequency of the campaigns.

5.4.3 Developing digital skills

In general, most LSGs lack digital skills that are essential for using e-Government

services. The ELOST study found this to be true also for LSGs that are already

Internet users. There are several techniques of digital skills education intended for

LSGs that are practiced in different countries, and can be used effectively in Europe

(see examples).

62See presentation in http://www.majorcities.org/pics/medien/1_1182261568/07_Berni.pdf 63 The Digital Inclusion Landscape in England, Digital Inclusion Team, 2007, paragraph 8.1.2.6.

61

The Australian Seniors Computer Clubs Association64 is providing peer-to-peer

training to seniors in a trusted environment in which elderly people feel confident.

Seniors have confidence in the training and support that they are given because tutors

are fellow club members who are often of a similar age with similar life experiences.

Similar training activities for seniors are provided by several associations in Finland65.

Intergenerational training schemes are based on the premise that children can

effectively teach their parents or grandparents computers and Internet skills at their

schools. Examples are Internet Rangers in the UK, Internet centres at schools in the

southern part of Israel, and Seniorkom in Austria66.

Developing digital skills education for LSGs could be carried out using the following

recommendations:

1. A study of existing techniques for digital skills education should precede

other activities in this area. There are several techniques for providing digital

skills education for LSGs that are practiced in different places and are adapted

for different groups.

2. Digital knowledge levels required from LSGs for e-Government use

purposes may be group-specific. Older people should not be required to have

the same knowledge levels as younger people. There is a need to develop

digital skills knowledge levels that are relevant for e-Government use by

different groups.

3. There is also a need to develop and adapt digital skills education programs

for LSGs, employing various techniques. If indeed peer-to-peer education is

more appropriate for the elderly, then such programms must be developed

according to best practices in this area.

4. Finally long range planning of digital skills education for LSGs is needed,

including setting future goals for digital skills levels, measuring and tracking

skill levels of LSGs over time.

5.4.4 Deploying user-friendly access options

According to ELOST findings, the two major technology-related barriers to the

incorporation of LSGs in e-Government services are unfriendly interfaces and

limited access channels for communications. At present, personal computers are

not user friendly mainly to older people. However, PCs are essential for younger

people in education and work. The interface and the PC, that has remained

unchanged for many years, will change in the future. Mobile PCs are becoming

smaller and cheaper (UNPC, OLPC initiative), and are merging with mobile

phones technologies. Touch screens and speech recognition technologies will

make it easier even for older people to use PCs (or similar devices) in the future.

Many applications, including e-Government services, will be available through the

mobile phone. With touch screens and speech recognition, the mobile phone is

likely to become very popular for many uses for many people. In the shorter term

however, LSGs will require an assortment of access options suited to their specific

needs.

In France, to provide Internet access in rural areas, the State has encouraged the

development of PAPI (Internet Public Access Point). Around 3,500 Digital

64 http://www.ascca.org.au/ 65 http://www.e4-info.eu/wiki/index.php/IT-Training 66 http://www.e4-info.eu/wiki/index.php/IT-Training

62

Spaces have been created, the fees are usually very low and the access is often

free for job seekers. These public access points provide training and it is possible

to take the multimedia passport exam which certifies one's ability to use

computers and the Internet67.

Currently, 775 "MultimediaStations" (MMS - multi-media broadband internet

telephone booths set up in highly frequented public areas) are available across

Austria. 63.4% of all MultimediaStations are located in Vienna.

MultimediaStations can be used to make regular phone calls or video calls, to surf

the web, and send e-mails and instant text messages68.

The following are recommendations with regards to the deployment of varied types of

user-friendly access options suited for LSGs:

1. There is a lack of ICT and e-Government usage data pertaining specifically to

LSGs. Quantitative longitudinal measures of Internet and e–Government uptake

and usage among LSGs are necessary to monitor progress. Additionally, evidence

of using different interfaces should be gathered, analyzed and best practices

should be disseminated.

2. Research of current and future access interfaces and their suitability for

different sub-groups of LSGs. This should include the future evolution of several

interfaces and devices, such as laptops, mobile phones, and digital TV. Although

considerable work has been done in this area already, there is a need to keep it up

to date. E-Government applications should be tested using LSG-friendly interfaces

in selected locations.

3. Developing a long range strategy, work plan and roadmap for deployment of

access infrastructure for LSGs. This should include setting future goals for access

levels among LSGs, measuring and tracking deployment of access infrastructure

for LSGs.

4. In the near future, access options for LSGs may include multimedia stations,

PIAPs, interactive TV (ITV), PCs and laptops, mobile phones and, if needed,

human intermediaries. Creative thinking is needed in order to increase access

options by making access available in places frequented by LSGs, in particular

where human assistance could be relatively easily available.

5. With regards to PIAPs, focus groups discussions reveal that more of them are

needed. Not on the street but in community centres, libraries or other covered

public spaces and linked to printing facilities and training / learning opportunities.

The possibility of providing a few PIAPs in internet cafés should also be explored.

6. Based on focus groups of LSGs, quality improvements of e-Government

services delivery are called for in most countries include: the development of

learning modules in the form of games; better navigation and search facilities;

improve interfaces; simplify language; avoid overloading of pages.

7. It is equally important to recognize the need of users for support. It was

practically a demand coming from all citizens in all countries that it should be

possible when using e-government to have access to a telephone and/or e-mail

support line. Furthermore, it should become standard practice to provide

acknowledgment of receipt replies upon the submission of inquiries or forms with

a reference number for further tracing if necessary.

5.4.5 Continue studying existing and new solutions

67 http://www.e4-info.eu/wiki/index.php/Public_Access 68 http://www.e4-info.eu/wiki/index.php/MultimediaStation

63

Selected existing solutions for digital inclusion and e-Government were assembled

and presented in the e4 expert exchange system developed in ELOST. This effort can

be the basis for further studies and research on effective solutions to specific barriers.

The idea behind the Expert Exchange System e4 is to enable and encourage exchange

of information and experience concerning practical solutions in e-Government across

Europe. 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. It is important to continue the development of

the e4 Wiki and turn it into a hub of knowledge on inclusive e-Government policy.

We recommend continuing the development of the e4 Wiki in the following areas:

1. Study the effectiveness of different solutions to specific barriers on e-

Government use by LSGs. This can be achieved by encouraging the creation

of user generated content that will specifically address evaluations and

assessments of inclusive e-Government solutions.

2. Develop case studies of best practice solutions and policy measures for the

LSGs in general, and for specific groups in particular.

3. Develop new solutions in circumstances where existing solutions are

ineffective.

5.5.6 Utilising new technologies for inclusive services

e-Government is enabled by information and communications technologies. At the

same time there is a growing concern that the dependence on technology (requiring

“digital skills” and familiarity with technologies) widens the digital divide, in

particular in LSGs. Conversely, new technologies may have a profound contribution

to inclusive e-Government; if properly adapted and adopted they may help bridging

the digital divide. Nonetheless, more important that the technology in itself is it’s

actual utilization in easy to use services that people have an incitement to use because

they can see the actual advantage of doing so.

Emerging technology trends and families of technologies considered in the ELOST

expert survey as having potential impact on e-Government will be widely used (by

people in general) in the decade 2008-201869.

In the near term (2008-2013) widespread use is foreseen for: smart cards, advanced

mobile networks, advanced security technologies, high-speed broadband

communications, future web technologies and Interactive TV.

In 2013-2018 Advanced speech recognition, automatic translation and wearable

computers will become common, followed (around 2018) by widespread use of

Ambient Intelligence and Virtual Reality.

Other technologies frequently mentioned as having potential impact on e-Government

in its broad sense include intelligent agents, RFID, biometrics, sensors70, socially-

aware avatars, simulation and gaming (“serious games”) and semantic technologies71.

In the context of semantic technologies future “semantic ecosystems” are envisioned,

including “digital semantic person” (a virtual representation of each citizen in the

future) interacting with the e-Government.

Most of the technologies considered in the ELOST expert survey could be beneficial

(in terms of fostering e-Government usage by LSGs) mainly by addressing the skills

barrier. In particular the potential impact of Interactive TV is conspicuous in the

survey results. Attractive ITV-based services may address also the barriers of access,

69 For more details see D4.3 Final report - findings from the foresight process and recommendations

(www.elost.org) 70 Sensors are also a component in the Ambient Intelligence vision. 71 Semantic technologies are part of future web technologies

64

awareness and attitudes. Advanced mobile networks may of course be beneficial in

particular for persons with (currently) limited access to the net.

The high popularity of the mobile phone even in undeveloped countries and its

evolving capabilities (convergence with PC) including more usable interface (e.g.

touch-screen) indicate its high potential for providing easy access to e-Government

services, at least among the younger LSG population.

Although the PC is still perceived as a leading means of access to e-services by the

general population in the next decade (as reflected in the ELOST expert survey), it is

by itself a significant obstacle. Many people, even if not “technophobic”, have

cognitive difficulties to use the usual mouse / icon interface72. Therefore making e-

Government available without exclusive dependence on the PC is paramount.

The ELOST field survey shows that indeed a large share of LSGs are willing to use

non-PC means like Interactive TV or phone service supported by speech recognition.

We reiterate here a number of policy recommendations relating to the insights derived

from the ELOST technology foresight survey.

1. User-friendly interfaces: The two major barriers for the incorporation

of LSGs in e-Government services are unfriendly interfaces and

limited access channels for communications. It is likely that during the

coming decade the distribution of communication means (wire and

wireless) will resolve the access/accessibility barrier (at least in part).

Hence the main focus should be directed toward developing friendly

interfaces.

2. The role of Interactive TV: TV is already very popular, and digital

technology enables the use of limited interactivity. It is likely that in

the forthcoming years DTV will be installed in nearly every household.

Therefore, policy decision makers should allocate resources and focus

on the use of DTV for e-Government. More research is needed in order

to understand the advantages and limitations of Interactive TV for e-

Government use by LSGs, learning from lessons from recent relevant

experimental projects in Italy and elsewhere.

3. Multi-device Multi-channel access: It is likely that most citizens will

use a variety of means for communications (e.g., mobile phone, DTV,

desktop/laptop computer, interactive kiosk, and the like) It is also

likely that some will prefer traditional means like fixed phone and fax.

Therefore, it is recommended that future developments in e-

Government applications will not be confined to only one major means

of interaction, but will be customised to multiple means, emphasizing

friendliness and unified interface among all of them. Such a multi-

access multi-technological environment also requires research and

development of technologies for coherence and synchronisation of the

different information elements and information flows.

4. Since it is believed that by 2020 most of the interaction between the

citizens and the government will be performed through electronic

communications, it is imperative to make sure that each citizen will

have access to an electronic channel, regardless of his or her economic

or physical status. Otherwise, a generation of citizens deprived of e-

Government services will develop, thus increasing the digital divide

rather than reducing it. Those that cannot afford having their own

electronic access will have to be provided with public access. We

72 ELOST experts workshop, Paris

65

recommend that governments will plan and make sure that allocating

different electronic means to most LSGs will be possible in the future.

5. Ongoing search for inclusion-supporting technologies: All the above

conclusions require that an ongoing search of technologies and an

ongoing study should be undertaken in order to prepare for the era

where physical access to e-Government services will be limited or

even not be available anymore.

5.4.7 Integrated and synchronised inclusive policy

As stated earlier in chapter three, LSGs are generally not a target group of e-

Government planners. It is therefore necessary to develop specific policy measures for

these groups in order to increase the pace of e-Government use. Providing access

options when digital skills are limited will be of no use. Inclusive e-Government

policy has to address all the barriers in a synchronised way. It should also apply

several policy measures mixes for different groups when such groups has differing

needs,

Develop and employ policy measures mixes for inclusive e-Government that address

the differences between groups:

1. One of the most notable differences with respect to barriers on ICTs use is

between younger and older people. The mix of policy measures for young

people at risk and for elderly people can be quite different, as the next table

shows. Access solutions 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 a mix of access options such as ITV, Kiosks, and the help of family

members. Mitigating the digital skills barrier for younger people at risk may

focus on schools and PIAPs, while for the elderly peer-to-peer training or life

long learning may be more appropriate. Awareness raising campaign for

younger people may rely on word to mouth and viral marketing. In the case of

elderly people, a TV ad campaign may be more efficient. Attitude change in

younger people at risk may be facilitated by using relevant opinion leaders.

Elderly people may be more influenced by human intermediaries in their

communities.

Table 4.5.1: Policy measures mix for younger and older people

Group

Barrier type

Young people at risk Elderly people

Access PC/Laptop DTV, KIOSK, Family member

Skills Schools, PIAPs Peer-to-peer, Life long learning

Awareness Viral marketing TV ad campaign

Attitude change Opinion leaders Community change agents

2. Catering to the needs of other groups, such as ethnic minorities, will add

another dimension, since we still have to treat younger and older people

differently. The following groups deserve special emphasis:

Ethnic minorities and immigrants: emphasis should be put on attitude change

mechanisms, because LSGs in these communities may have negative feelings

towards government and e-Government. In cases where language is a barrier

to e-Government use, translation (automatic or other) may be of help.

Unemployed: upgrading digital skills seems to be the most urgent step

regarding the use of e-Government services (employment services).

66

Geographically isolated regions: LSGs in isolated regions may suffer from

lack of ICT infrastructure and lack of digital skills. One possible solution is to

mobilize free access points to these areas.

In Germany there is a Media-Bus available that tours the whole republic.

Usually it stays at one location for two subsequent week-ends offering IT-

Training courses on the use of Internet, Office software (Microsoft) and Linux.

The Media-Bus offers twelve workstations plus one for the trainer, a beamer, a

scanner and a printer for free use73.

Homeless people require human intermediaries help to assist them in solving

problems, such as finding food and shelter. Another possible solution may be a

portable Kiosk that can be placed in their vicinity.

73 http://www.e4-info.eu/wiki/index.php/Web_on_Wheels