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: PU

Start date of project: 01.01.2006

Duration: 27 months

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

Project co-funded by the European Commission within the Sixth Framework Programme Dissemination Level Public PU X Restricted to other programme participants (including the PP Commission Services) Restricted to a group specified by the consortium (including RE the Commission Services) Confidential, only for members of the consortium (including CO the Commission Services)

WP6 Deliverable D6.2. Version 3 Date: 2 March 2008 Pages: Authors: Niv Ahituv NIIS Yoel Raban ICTAF Tal Soffer ICTAF Aharon Hauptman ICTAF Yair Sharan - ICTAF e-Government for LOw Socio-economic sTatus groups With contributions from all partners 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 The ELOST Consortium: Company Tel Aviv University. Interdisciplinary Center for Technological Analysis & Forecasting (ICTAF) and Netvision Institute for Internet Studies (NIIS) The Interdisciplinary Center for Comparative Research in the Social Sciences. Centre Interdisciplinaire de Recherche Comparative en Sciences Sociales Institute of Mathematics and Informatics - Bulgarian Academy of Sciences TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITAET BERLIN - Zentrum Technik und Gesellschaft University of Tampere - Department of Social Policy and Social Work Status: [ [ [ [ ] ] ] X ] Draft To be reviewed Proposal Final / Released to CEC Country Israel Web-Site http://www.tau.ac.il http://www.ictaf.tau.ac.il http://www.niis.tau.ac.il http://www.iccr-international http://www.iccrinternational.org/cir/index.html http://www.math.bas.bg http://www.ztg.tu-berlin.de http://www.tay.fi/english/index.html

Austria France Bulgaria Germany Finland Confidentiality: [ X ] [ ] [ ] [ ] Public IST Restricted

for public use for IST programme participants for ELOST consortium and Project Officer only Internal

Contents: Deliverable D6.2

Table of content
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. EU e-Inclusion policy and the Riga Declaration 1.2. The components of e-Inclusion policy 1.3. Benefits: to the public; to the individual 1.4 Performance and success measurements 1.5 ELOST project

5 7
7 7 8 10 11

2. METHODOLOGY
2.1 Field surveys 2.2 Focus Groups 2.3 Foresight study 2.4 Interactive policy toolbox 2.5 Data triangulation 2.6 Policy analysis

13
13 15 15 16 17 18

3. INTEGRATION OF RESULTS FROM PREVIOUS WORK

3.1 Digital Divide and e-Government 3.2 Policy programs for LSGs and e-Government 3.3 LSGs' attitudes towards Internet and e-Government 3.4 Usage patterns of LSGs who are familiar with the Internet 3.5 Findings from focus groups with LSGs 3.6 Cross-cultural comparison of the ELOST survey 3.7 Future outlook results from the ELOST Foresight study 3.8 Conclusions

20
20 27 29 30 32 32 36 40

4. INCLUSIVE E-GOVERNMENT POLICY DESIGN

4.1 Barriers to e-Government use by LSGs 4.2. Policy issues 4.3. Possible routes to inclusive e-Government policy

44
44 46 47

4.4. Brainstorming and workshops results 4.5. Policy dynamics

50 53

5. POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction 5.2 Policy measures and solutions 5.3 Policy recommendations 5.4 Integrated policy and guidlines

54
54 56 59 66

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 the six countries participating in the consortium, and some additional information collected from other countries. Government decision makers and LSGs representatives were involved during all phases of the project. e-Inclusion policy is already under way across Europe, but results are still far from targets set in Riga Declaration. e-Government policy does not address specific needs of LSGs in most countries, and as a result their use of eGovernment is still very low. With proper policy, e-Government usage can increase significantly. In ELOST we classified barriers to e-inclusion into 4 groups access, awareness, skills, and attitudes. For each 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 characteristics, 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 directed 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 high 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 government initiatives in general and e-Government in particular. 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. There is a need to study the possible impact of opinion leaders and change agents on adoption rate of Internet and e-Government in different groups,. 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 the deployment of access options 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 should be widely encouraged in the decade 2008-2018. In the near term (2008-2013) widespread use is foreseen for: smart cards, advanced mobile networks, advanced security technologies, high-speed broadband communications, future web technologies and Interactive TV. In 2013-2018 Advanced speech recognition, automatic translation and wearable computers will become 5

common, followed by widespread use of Ambient Intelligence and Virtual Reality. Most of these technologies could be beneficial in particular for persons lacking technology skills. One of the major conclusions of ELOST is that the future user of eGovernment will have an access to a variety of means, depending on his/her skills and whereabouts at a certain moment. Therefore, 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 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 (e.g., PIAP). 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 observations with respect to barriers on ICTs use is the difference 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. The plan and its specific activities should be preceded by an exact definition of key success factor and quantitative measurements to assess them, in terms of timetable, proportion of coverage of populations in need, and the like.

1. Introduction
The concept of e-Inclusion is very broad and includes particular topics such as eGovernment 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 eGovernment 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).
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 3 Meyer, I., Muller, S., and Kubitschke, J., eInclusion Towards a Coherent European Policy Response to Social Inequalities in the Information Society, Empirica, Germany 2006.
1

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 Englands 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. The connection to e-Government services may be the first step in an assimilation process of deprived sectors and minorities into society. 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
4

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

capital as people extend their support networks beyond geographical boundaries. 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 Maslows Hierarchy of Needs Theory to show how disadvantaged people can use ICTs for capacity building.

Figure 2.3.1: ICTs applications and Maslows needs At the lower level of physiological needs, online shopping co-operative for the 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 allinclusive 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 (eParticipation). 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

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

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

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. 7 See reference # 5.

10

Figure 1.4.1: Groups that are most at risk of exclusion 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 latters 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 Commissions Sixth Framework Programme to make recommendations on e-inclusion and e-Government.
Measuring progress in e-Inclusion: Riga Dashboard 2007, European Commission, DG Information 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
8

11

The ELOST consortium comprises research centres from six different countries: Austria, Bulgaria, Finland, France, Germany and Israel. In order to arrive at policy recommendations, the project team carried out the following activities: A cross-national data collection and 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 on technology-related barriers to e-Government use, future access means, ubiquity of e-Government services and the potential benefit of selected emerging technologies for LSGs. A web-based interactive toolbox of e-Government tools and policy measures. A policy design and formulation process resulting in policy 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 to devise a plan to increase the number of people from LSGs that will be able to use e-Government services as active citizens in knowledge based society. Being the final and conclusive deliverable of ELOST, this report summarizes in brief the highlights of the previous reports and concentrates on the policy recommendations and conclusions. The following chapter describes the methodological framework of the ELOST project. It is followed by an integration of the findings of all previous activities 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)

12

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

Bottom Up

Decision Makers

Top Down

e-Gov.

LSGs

Foresight

Future Technologies

Figure 2.1: ELOST bottom-up and top-down methodology The general approach of this interdisciplinary research project was to carry out crosscultural overall analyses with complementary foresight study, focusing on the current and future situation regarding the 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 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
For a description and analysis of the field surveys and focus groups see reports D3.2 Report on Findings (www.elost.org)
11

13

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 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. 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 dealing with deprived sectors. All the 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 with information on household income. 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.

14

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. 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 egovernment 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 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.
Scanning Publications Interviews Experts Design Selected topics Questionnaire Experts list Knowledge elicitation Experts opinions Analysis Findings Results Report

Feedback

Figure 2.3.1: Scheme of the Delphi expert survey methodology

12

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

15

It is important to note that expert surveys such as the one presented here reflect professional estimates and judgments of the participating experts, and not expectations or wishes. Delphi expert surveys are an important and widely used tool in foresight. Online Delphi surveys are a valuable tool for elicitation of knowledge from a large number of experts and obtaining their collective opinion, as well as important insights of specific experts who are stimulated by the survey mechanism to submit their views. The expert judgments enable useful analyses and priority-setting, and stimulate further discussions on the future-oriented issues. The ELOST online two-round Delphi survey consisted of several future-oriented statements regarding e-Government, with special attention to the potential impact of emerging technologies on the use of e-Government services by LSGs. The statements were selected and formulated based on the previous deliverable (D4.1) and on consultation with ELOST partners. The first round of the full-scale survey was conducted in September-October 2006. The second round was run in NovemberDecember 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. 154 experts from 34 countries and from various areas of expertise participated in the survey,

2.4 Interactive policy toolbox The ELOST consortium has created an Interactive Policy Toolbox for active exchange on issues related to e-Government, which is now available at www.e-Governmentexchange.eu. The ELOST e-Government Expert Exchange System (called e4 for short) has a number of objectives. It aims to be: An interactive information system offering the core results of the ELOST project; An open space for the international community of e-Government experts; An assessment mechanism for e-Government tools (Qualitative 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 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.

16

The e4 system is based on the technology of the Wikipedia and participating is just as easy: register, log in and start creating or editing articles at www.e-Governmentexchange.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 eGovernment Expert Exchange System: all visitors are welcome and invited to become active users and sharing their expertise by adding, updating and/or commenting on articles in the system. The Interactive Toolbox should allow international exchange between experts from as many European countries as possible. It must be the mutual desire of experts to give the best possible information to as many relevant actors across Europe as possible. However, as the information assembled in ELOST is not only relevant for high level managers and politicians, but also and especially to medium level decision makers and civil servants.

2.5 Data triangulation The triangulation method appeared to be the most effective approach for ELOST. It would allow overcoming the above mentioned limitations. In order to gather as much data as possible about the social and cultural barriers and incentives for the usage of eGovernment services by LSGs in the case areas, a wide range of data sources, which include qualitative and quantitative respectively objective and subjective information will be combined. Altogether four sources of data and information were identified: Data from a survey among LSGs.
Summaries of focus group discussions with LSGs. 17

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 was used to paint a broad picture with regard to the key research question. For the final analysis the first three levels (field study results) were brought together and embedded in a wider framework of general theories concerning e-Government and e-exclusion as well as state of the art statistics from the research regions.

2.6 Policy analysis Policy analysis processes include 4 phases: data integration and problem definition, policy design, policy formulation, and policy evaluation. The first phase consists of integrating all relevant data and definition of the problem including identification of the major barriers for participation in e-Government. Here we used all the project deliverables to derive the essential findings that are relevant for policy design. In the second phase (policy design) we performed several activities, such as researching for options to eliminate or at least to alleviate barriers, defining policy attributes that may be desirable to LSGs, searching for policy alternatives, analyzing and ranking alternatives. Policy design brainstorming sessions were performed by all partners during January 2008. Partners were asked to address similar questions so that the results could be compared. The main questions were: which LSG segments should be the target of the policy?; what are the main barriers for LSGs e-Inclusion or for eGov use; what are the main policy measures needed to reduce/overcome barriers?; what is the proper matching of solutions to barriers to LSGs?; how can we generalize the policy to the entire EU?. Partners were asked to design inclusive eGovernment policy for their own countries (see Figure 2.6.1 for illustration), and then try to generalise it for the entire EU. For existing solutions, partners were asked to refer to the interactive toolbox.
LSGs/Barriers Segments

Solutions Bank

Segment 1 Older People Segment 3 Computer Illiterates

KIOSKs PIAPs

Segment 2 Immigrants

Hot Line Awareness Campaign Something New

ROMA People

Figure 2.6.1: Policy design options (illustration) In the next phase we prepared and formulated a draft of inclusive e-Government policy, based on the previous phase. In the policy formulation phase efforts were made to reach a reasonable consensus between the parties involved. This was done by 18

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.

19

3. Integration of results from previous work

This chapter presents the main findings of all the previous work performed in the ELOST project. The main goal is to shed light on policy applications that arose from the results in each of the work packages and could assist to compose policy recommendations. Thus the first section describes the unique LSGs background 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 to understand the reasons for failures in others. The third and fourth sections present the main findings and conclusions from the field surveys in order to shed light on the LSGs' needs, attitudes, barriers and incentives to enhance their usage of e-Government. The fifth section explains the main reasons for LSGs usage and non usage of e-Government services through cross-cultural analysis. The last section provides alternatives for future solutions for e-Government and LSGs, based on results from the ELOST foresight study.

3.1 Digital Divide and e-Government E-Government has become a generic term for the provision of governmental services to the citizens through the Internet. Still, the use of e-Government by the citizens is (so far) voluntary, and they can always choose the traditional ways of interacting with governmental agencies. Thus, the readiness to and awareness of the citizens to eGovernment becomes a crucial factor in the process and depends on a number of factors such as: ease of use (system friendliness), appropriate skills attitudes and accessibility.
The usage of ICTs in general, and of e-Government services in particular, is affected by both hard factors, such as the availability of infrastructure, and soft factors, such as individuals personal attitudes, awareness and skills. The concept of the digital divide relates to the issues of uneven access to and usage of IT and their socio-economic repercussions. Mere access to new technologies, both in terms of technical infrastructure and basic IT skills, should not be considered as sufficient to prevent the widening of a digital knowledge gap. This insight has important implications for the way in which governments should attempt to stimulate usage. It is not enough to simply ensure that the infrastructure is available; individuals have to be convinced about the benefits of ICTs services if they are to use them.13 In that concern the term digital divide describes the differential access of various groups or regions to new information / communication technologies and related tools, like e-Government. The problem of the digital divide is the combined result of different processes, and especially processes relating to access, competence and takeup. 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.

20

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 socioeconomic 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 Share of population living under the Gini index (2006) 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. At-risk-of-poverty rate after social transfers (2005)

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

14

21

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 GDP per GDP per GDP growth capita in PPS* inhabitant in rate (2004) (2006) PPS (2005) 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 4.8 Israel 8.4 : 19572** * GDP per capita in Purchasing Power Standards (Eu-25=100) ** PPP figure converted from US Dollars ($23,789) at June 2005 rate (0.823) Unemployment rate (2006)

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 Public expenditure Upper secondary School life on education education expectancy 2002-2004 completed 2005 2004 (years) (percentage of (percent) GDP) 69.3 15 80.6 5.5 13 72.5 4.2 17 78.6 6.5 16 66.4 6.0 16 (2001) 83.1 4.8 15 7.3 Early school leavers with at most lower secondary education17 15.4 9.6 18 10.8 13.1 13.8 -

EU 27 Austria Bulgaria Finland France Germany Israel

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.

15

22

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 Austria Germany France Finland Bulgaria Israel 8.2 82.6 60.3 5.2 7.8 6.6 Percentage of Percentage of Percentage of people under 15 people over 65 urban population 15.8 16.4 65.9 14.6 18.3 75.1 18.2 16.6 76.5 17.5 15.7 61.1 14.1 16.8 69.8 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.

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

18

23

Table 3.1.5: Share of households with access to the Internet and computers in the ELOST countries19 Internet 2004 EU 27 Austria Bulgaria Finland France Germany Israel 45 9.6 50 35 60 42 2006 49 52 17 65 41 67 55 59 15 57 50 69 Computer 2004 2006 23 70 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 EU 27 Austria Bulgaria Finland France Germany Israel 46 13 63 50 37 2005 49 62 54 47 2006 45 55 22 71 39 59 52

e-Government services What is the percentage of governmental services that are ready for electronic use? As described in the next table, Austria is ranked first in the level of online availability of the basic public service in Europe. France (7th place) and Finland (10th place) are also among the top ten while Germany finds itself only on the 18th place. Even though the share of online availability is highest in Austria, the usage of the services by individuals is highest in Finland (table 3.1.8). This indicates that the development of the services is not a sufficient measure for promoting e-Government services but 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.

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)

19

24

Table 3.1.7: Share of governmental services available online in the ELOST countries21 2002 2003 2004 2006 EU 25 Austria Bulgaria Finland France Germany Israel 20 50 35 35 68 61 45 40 41 72 67 50 47 50 83 61 65 47 -

Table 3.1.8: Share of individual using e-Government services in the ELOST countries22
2004 EU 20 Austria Bulgaria Finland France Germany Israel 21 5 45 33 2005 23 29 47 2006 24 33 8 47 32 -

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.

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

21

25

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 Bulgaria Germany France Austria Finland EU27 0.29 0.68 0.61 0.60 0.72 0.60 aged 65-74 0.03 0.30 : 0.23 0.24 0.22 woman 0.96 0.91 0.93 0.89 0.99 0.91 rural 0.46 0.87 0.78 0.89 0.91 0.87 low educated 0.45 0.85 0.60 0.61 0.78 0.56 unemployed 0.27 0.90 1.01 0.91 0.82 0.79 Inactive 0.13 0.50 0.26 0.42 0.49 0.36 total at risk index 0.37 0.72 : 0.65 0.71 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 eGovernment 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 overrepresented 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.

26

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 eGovernment 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.
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).
24

27

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. 28

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.

29

Do not need the internet

65 %

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 20 %

53 %

39 %

37 %

33 %

28 %

18 %

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. 30

 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)
Would make a big difference Would make somew hat of a difference 51 % 50 % 48 % 43 % 41 % 37 % 33 % 33 % 29 % 29 % 29 % 29 % Would make no difference 30 % 27 % 31 % 34 % 31 % 38 % 38 % 38 % 42 % 19 % 23 % 21 % 23 % 28 % 25 %

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 cafs

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 userfriendliness 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.

31

 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 egovernment 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--vis e-government were clearly the result of hostility vis--vis government and widespread dissatisfaction with the institutional practices of public authorities. 3.6 Cross-cultural comparison of the ELOST survey28 The cross-cultural comparisons is based on data triangulation of all the sources 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
Based on findings from D5.2 Cross-cultural Analysis on Barriers and Incentives for LSGs use of eGovernment (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,
28

32

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).
Austria Israel France (N=21) Finland Germany Bulgaria

100 80 60 40 20 0
Interacting with Payments to tax authorities authorities Submitting forms Searching books from libraries Using job services Obtaining information Obtaining official forms

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 eGovernment 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
Austria Most important reasons for not using eGovernment services Not aware of web site addresses No human support available Dont know how to use these services Percent of users to whom statements apply 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.

33

Not aware of e-Government services Not aware of e-Government services Afraid of viruses Not aware of web site addresses No human support available Germany No human support available Language used by the officials is difficult Not aware of web site addresses Not aware of e-Government services Israel Not aware of e-Government services Dont know how to use these services Worried about insecure connections No human support available Bulgaria Not aware of e-Government services Dont know how to use these services Not aware of web site addresses No human support available Finland Difficult to navigate Language used by officials is difficult Not aware of web site addresses No online support available Note: * France N=21 France*

37% 57% 57% 48% 48% 45% 44% 41% 34% 60% 60% 60% 59% 74% 65% 49% 41% 43% 31% 15% 10%

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. eServices are considered to be more convenient and faster than traditional services. Yet, there are still many who feel that e-Government is difficult to use, complicated, not as safe or reliable as traditional services, and requires special equipment or software. LSGs that were not familiar with the Internet had positive views on it. The Internet is may open new prospects for communications, learning and democracy. This is a vantage point for measures to enhance online participation. But, at the same time many believe that The Internet requires advanced skills, it is too expensive, it is not secure or private.

34

Austria
100 80 60 40 20 0

Israel

France (N=21)

Finland

Germany

Bulgaria

Requires Not easy to get advanced access to computer skills

Too time consuming

Too expensive

Not useful or interesting

Not secure

Represents problems of privacy

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.

Austria 100 80 60 40 20 0

Israel

France (N=21)

Finland

Germany

Bulgaria

Opens new prospects for communication

Opens new prospects for info and learning

Opens new prospects for politics and democracy

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
35

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 countrys 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 eGovernment 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 todays problems with access, bandwidth, usability of interfaces and security are
Based on D4.3 Final report - findings from the foresight process and recommendations (www.elost.org)
30

36

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 e-Government services in 2020. In this assessment business experts are a little less optimistic than other experts. In 2020 most citizens will access e-Government 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, as shown in Figure 3.7.1. Advanced mobile networks may also be beneficial in particular for persons with (currently) limited access to the net.

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.,

31

37

Impacts of Technologies on LSGs

Skills Income 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.6 1.5 2.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 2.0 2.1 6.0 Access 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.7 1.5 1.6 1.6 Motivation 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.5 1.2 1.5 1.7 7.0 8.0 9.0

Wearable computing Virtual reality Security Technologies Future web Automatic translation Broadband communications Ambient intelligence Smart cards Speech recognition Advanced mobile Interactive TV
0.0

1.4 1.6 1.5 1.8 1.7 1.6 2.0 1.8 2.3 1.7 2.3 1.0

Sum of averages

Figure 3.7.1:Impact of technologies on different LSG segments overall view (3=highly beneficial, 2=beneficial, 1=not beneficial, 0=irrelevant)
Figure 3.7.2: 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. Other technologies that in several experts opinion could have impact on eGovernment 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.

38

2.2 Interactive TV

High

Impact on LSGs

1.8

Mobile Networks Broadband Communications Future Web Security Technologies

Speech Recognition

Medium

1.6 Smart Cards

Ambient Intelligence

1.4

Automatic Translation Wearable Computing

Virtual Reality

Low

1.2

1 2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

Likely time of widespread use

Figure 3.7.2: 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 3.7.3 and 3.7.4 below).

Advanced speach recognition Very likely Following recorded instructions on the phone Interactive TV 0% 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 % Maybe Unlikely

Figure 3.7.3: Which means of communication could you think of using in the future? Share of Internet users.

39

Advanced speach recognition Very likely Following recorded instructions on the phone Interactive TV 0% 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 100 % Maybe Unlikely

Figure 3.7.4: 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 dont 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 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 LSGs with relatively higher incomes; 3. The barriers for the usage of the internet can be divided into four categories: lacking motivation, lacking education, financial problems and lacking 40

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 Barriers 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 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
32

Selwyn, Neil (2006) Digital division or digital decision? A study of non-users and low users of computers Poetics 34, pp. 273-292.

41

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.

3.8.4 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 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 new technologies and monitor emerging trends (e.g. the merging of palmtop PC and mobile phones, or the concept of Ambient Intelligence) that might affect the use of eservices 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, eGovernment 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
42

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.

43

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 four categories awareness, access, skills, and attitudes. Barriers of each category alone can prevent LSGs from using eGovernment 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 vehicles, such as mobile networks and DTV (not yet available in most countries).
33

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

44

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 dont 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.

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 dont need it.

34

45

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 experts 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 peoples 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 eGovernment use. The result can be a certain shift towards using more human activities
Millard, J., Analysis of European target groups related to inclusive e-Government, e-Government Action Plan, 2006.
36

46

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

47

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 peoples 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
http://www.e4-info.eu/wiki/index.php/IT-Training 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
44 43

48

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 peoples 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 together49. Mavens

E.M. Rogers, Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press 2003. See for example Crossing the Chasm by G.A. Moore, Harper Business 1991. 49 M. Gladwell, The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference, Little, Brown and Company 2000.
48

47

49

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 segments 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
P. Kotler, Marketing Management, 11th edition, Prentice Hall 2003, chapter 12. Community Information Line An Evaluation of Citizen Engagement in Local e-Government, Phippen, A., and A. Ward, 2006.
51 50

50

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 eGovernment 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 eGovernment 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 dont 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 eGovernment 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 groups 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. 51

Workshops were carried out in all 6 countries following the policy design phase. In these workshops the suggested policy was presented by ELOST researchers to policy makers and other participants. The feedback from the workshop was used in the final policy development. In Bulgaria workshop participants reiterated several policy implementations issues and questions; definitions and prioritization of target LSGs and the significance of psychological characteristics of different groups. It was suggested to organise an expert group mediators, people with special background and training that will communicate with LSGs and introduce them to e-Government. The role of social workers as mediators could be significant. They have many contacts with people from LSGs and after proper training can advertise some e-Services and encourage their usage. In many local communities (particularly ethnic minorities) there are clear informal leaders with great power and influence. If we manage to persuade them to start to use a few e-Services, many other members of the community will follow them. In the German workshop participants discussed several topics that relates to ELOST findings, including technology. ITV that was highly rated by ELOST survey participants did not succeed in Germany because of local reasons (there are no public broadcasters in contrast to other countries). The roadmap of Germanys e-Government is focused on electronic ID card and electronic signature. The attendants saw considerable potential for LSGs in the installation of public terminals and kiosks, especially as soon as the electronic signature could be applied by means of smartcards. As for the human factor, there are many social NGOs that operate in this area but broad awareness to their potential is still lacking. Other activities that involve human support are call centres and service 115. In Finland participants stressed the need to target LSGs that face several problems of exclusion, such as immigrants with low education and incomes. As for social intermediaries, a train the trainer program for NGOs and associations was mentioned as a good example. A good idea is to gather the best practices of awareness building from different countries and using them as model for new campaigns. Different media are certainly needed for different segments of LSGs. However, it can be assumed that when various information channels are used, a large part of the LSGs can be reached. The Finnish experiences hint that offering training and education is not enough. Increasing and building motivation for learning is perhaps even more important. In Finland free courses are available very widely but the individuals have to choose to participate in them and be active in keeping up the skills. Peer to peer training is a good idea as it might lower the barrier to participate in a course. One of the attendants of the Israeli workshop addressed the issue of attitude change specifically. Around 80% of the population has no confidence in the government. The confidence in the municipal authority is a little higher. He stressed the importance of raising awareness and change of negative attitudes among the LSGs. Mass advertising will not be effective; it is essential to identify public opinion leaders among these groups and make use of them. People like to feel in. It is necessary to convince people that by using e-Government services they gain more control of their situation. Another attendant discussed e-Government services that are still evolving. The main problem of e-Government is bureaucracy barriers within the government itself. The crucial question is how to make the governmental service customer-oriented. It is necessary to improve and streamline procedures and processes so that they are much easier for the citizen. Local authority attendants said that authentication and identification issues still pose a significant barrier for many users. A prerequisite for introducing new services is attitude change of the officials who provide the service to citizens. There is a need to guide the staff and provide them with the necessary information. The vision is that each social worker will be computerised with all the
52

necessary information and online access that will enable to carry out all the necessary actions on site from the citizens home. The use of online services by disadvantaged groups is growing in the recent years, mainly thanks to word of mouth. A first good experience encourages the citizen to use it again and to try other services.

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.

5% 18% 36% mobile DTV Laptops/child PIAPs Intermediaries

9%

31%

Figure 4.5.1: Possible mix of policy measures (% of budget) For illustration purposes

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.

52

53

5. Policy Recommendations
5.1 Introduction 5.1.1 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 egovernment 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 citizens needs and preferences is a mandatory condition for the success of an egovernment 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 cant 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
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

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 egovernment 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 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.

5.1.2 What constitute a Policy?

In order to devise a policy and a plan to achieve it an organisation or a government should determine a number of "components" that constitute a policy. Here is a list of various components that should constitute a policy: 1. Objectives and goals: what does the organisation wish to accomplish? What are the ideology and the values that guide the organisation and how the suggested policy is destined to serve that ideology and values? 2. Target population, sectors and areas: Who is the target population the policy is meant to serve or to introduce a change? Where is it located in terms of social strata, geographic location or other characteristics? 3. Analysis of the current situation, its strength and weaknesses: What is the current state of the target(s) and why there is a need for changes? 4. Constraints: What are the limits and constraints that may hamper or slow down the fulfilment of the policy? 5. Means and resources: What are the means that should be allocated in terms of human resources and their characteristics, availability and dedication? What are the budget limits? What are the other required resources (e.g., infrastructure, equipment, buildings, ec.)?

55

6. Time dimension: A rough estimate of the time needed to achieve the goals and the time required to implement the policy. In case there is a significant gap between the two time estimates, what can be done to shorten the implementation. 7. Key success factors: What are the factors that will prove a success? Are they measureable? How? Who will measure?

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 nonthreatening 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
56

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 Technological tools distribution of Education, Solutions: and infrastructure means training and support Barriers Tailoring the Wide Wide variety of means to the distribution of access means (e.g., Access users and to the access DTV, PC, cell available equipment; phone) and technologies, PIAPs; use appropriate e.g., allocate community infrastructure to support centres, school assure and post offices personnel to interoperability and elder people, use as coherence of communication human (social) information flows intermediaries centres from different where necessary. channels; broadband; wireless communications; friendly humancomputer-interface (HCI) Provision of Friendly interfaces; courses, Literacy and take a ride on workshops, prevailing means skills instructors to such as TV and cell individuals and phones; Enable a to small groups, variety of channels help facilities that fit individual (e.g., a Wizard preferences and do that will guide not require special the user through skills, such as phone an e-Government talks (possibly with procedure, advanced speechFAQ), call recognition support) centres and the and face-to-face like. meetings TV and radio Install programs on the equipment in Awareness benefits of epublic places Government and with clear its easy operation Attitude change

Provide small group workshops and motivation sessions; build easy learning resources, such as lessons and teaching aids.

57

manuals

availability

Friendly interface Attitudes

Subsidized price of technology and usage

Promotion on TV and radio, training, guides at site

Locate and influence community leaders; emphasize the benefits of eGovernment; 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
Criteria Barriers 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 eGovernment services. Number of courses and workshops offered; number of participants; and number of instructors per communication centre. Increase in the number of e-Government users from LSGs; increase in the number of people (belonging to LSGs) who know what eGovernment is; increase in the number of different services exploited by the users. Change in attitudes measured through surveys over time; increase in the number of e-Government users from specific groups.

Literacy skills

Awareness

Attitudes

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:
E.g.: In an experiment performed in the city of Siena, Italy, elderly citizens who use e-Government through interactive TV have been rewarded by free VOD service that allowed them to watch films of the famous Palio horse races 56 All the criteria in the table should be measured along a certain interval of time.
55

58

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 eGovernment, these groups should be the target of the attention.

5.3 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 eGovernment services. Once these barriers are removed or mitigated, it is expected that uptake and usage among LSGs will increase more rapidly.
5.3.1 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 eGovernment use by LSGs. Most LSGs that are not using the Internet claim that they dont 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 findings, 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 dont 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 intermediaries57. 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 content58. 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 Line59: 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 eGovernment. 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. Identifying 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)60. 5. Incentive systems: creative motivating means and incentives should be explored taking into account specific characteristics of various LSG types.
57 58

Taken from the summary of Inclusive e-Government ad-hoc sub group meeting, June 2007 Taken from several Israeli press sources 59 The Digital Inclusion Landscape in England, Digital inclusion team, 2007 60 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)61. 5.3.2 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 eGovernment services by LSGs who do use the Internet. High level of awareness to eGovernment 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 UK62. 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. 5.3.3 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).

61 62

See presentation in http://www.majorcities.org/pics/medien/1_1182261568/07_Berni.pdf The Digital Inclusion Landscape in England, Digital Inclusion Team, 2007, paragraph 8.1.2.6.

61

The Australian Seniors Computer Clubs Association63 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 Finland64. 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 Austria65. 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 programmes 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. 5.3.4 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
63 64

http://www.ascca.org.au/ http://www.e4-info.eu/wiki/index.php/IT-Training 65 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 Internet66. 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 messages67. 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 information 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 cafs 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. 5.3.5 Continue studying existing and new solutions

66 67

http://www.e4-info.eu/wiki/index.php/Public_Access 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 eGovernment 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. 5.3.6 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 its 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 2008-201868. 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, sensors69, sociallyaware avatars, simulation and gaming (serious games) and semantic technologies70. 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,
68

For more details see D4.3 Final report - findings from the foresight process and recommendations (www.elost.org) 69 Sensors are also a component in the Ambient Intelligence vision. 70 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 interface71. Therefore making eGovernment available without exclusive dependence on the PC is paramount. Nonetheless, the PC may evolve into a relatively low-cost and more usable gadget (merged with the mobile phone), thus becoming also a more attractive access device in particular for the younger LSG population. 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 interactivity72. 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 eGovernment 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 eGovernment 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 multiaccess 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 e71 72

ELOST experts workshop, Paris We also refer here to IPTV technology that also offer interactivity.

65

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. 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 Integrated policy and guidelines As stated earlier in chapter three, LSGs are generally not a target group of eGovernment 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 have differing needs. 5.4.1 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 steps73:
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. 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, including private sector and NGOs involvement. 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.

During the entire process, it is advisable to exchange information among countries and to use the ELSOT website for support and consultation.

73

66

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.

5.4.2 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 peer-to-peer training or life long learning may be more appropriate for the elderly. 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 5.4.1: Policy measures mix for younger and older people Group Young people at risk Elderly people Barrier type 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). 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. 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. 67

5.4.3 Policy guidelines In the next table we describe specific policy guidelines for implementing an integrated inclusive e-Government policy. The guidelines are directed to the European Commission, to governments and local authorities. Some guidelines (or actions) should be led by the European Commission, others by governments and local authorities.
Table 5.4.2: Specific policy guidelines Guidelines/actions 1. General Identification and study of groups needs and barriers Prioritization of groups for inclusion Inclusive e-Government implementation plan Form organizational structure to implement the plan 2. Attitude change: Study attitude change processes in LSGs Develop unified measures for attitude change Set goals for attitude change Identify intermediaries (opinion leaders, change agents) Develop education & incentive programmes for intermediaries Develop IT applications to assist change agents Prepare plans for attitude change campaigns 3. Awareness raising Study media habits of LSGs Develop awareness building campaigns 4. Digital skills Study current training techniques Determine skill levels required for e-Government use Develop digital skills training programmes 5. Access Gather Internet and e-Government usage data for LSGs Research access options for LSGs Develop plan and roadmap for access options for LSGs Make sure that every citizen will have access to electronic channel 6. Technologies Research future LSG-friendly affordable interfaces Develop inclusive e-Government applications (ITV, mobile..) Improved synchronisation of diverse types of information flows
* EC European Commission, Government G, Local authorities - LA

Leadership* EC, G G, LA EC, G EC, G, LA EC EC EC, G G, LA EC EC G, LA EC, G EC, G, LA EC, G EC, G EC, G EC, G EC, G EC, G EC, G EC, G EC, G EC, G

5.4.4 Priorities Inclusive e-Government policy actions have to be prioritized before implementation. Priorities should be assigned for different actions according to an agreed upon criteria. The sequence of policy actions implementation, that reflects the priorities, may be country-specific. Different countries may be in different stages of inclusion, so they will probably have different priorities for implementation. That being said, we believe that attitude change processes should be given a high priority in any case. The reason is that this seems to be a bottleneck in the process of e-Inclusion, which results in low or no e-Government use. Other actions may follow attitude change, depending on results. Digital skills should also be given a high priority, after attitude change. Highly motivated citizens will become better learners. In parallel, alternative access means must be introduced to LSGs, especially to those who cannot (or will not) learn how to
68

use PCs. Access means that are more user-friendly can shorten the time constants needed to develop digital skills. Since the impact of awareness raising campaigns may only last for a relatively short period, they should be exercised only when all other policy issues are already resolved.

69