International Journal of Information Management 52 (2020) 102072

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Information Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijinfomgt

China’s prefectural digital divide: Spatial analysis and multivariate T

determinants of ICT diffusion
Zhouying Songa,b,*, Chen Wangc, Luke Bergmannd
a
Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
b
Key Laboratory of Regional Sustainable Development Modeling, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
c
Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 31000, China
d
The University of British Columbia, Vancouver V6T1Z4, Canada

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Much research has made efforts to elaborate upon different dimensions to the digital divide, including in-
Digital divide formational and communications technology (ICT) access, ICT usage, and ICT outcomes. We assess the utility of
Prefectural cities such perspectives for studying digital inequality across prefectural cities in China. China is the world's largest ICT
Spatial difference market in terms of the number of mobile devices in use, internet users, and broadband subscriptions, yet it has
Cluster
notable digital inequality within and between provinces, prefectural cities, and counties. In this study, we built a
Impact factor
conceptual framework of digital divides for prefectural cities in China, examined spatial agglomeration using
cluster analysis, and explored the leading correlates using a geographically-weighted regression (GWR) model. A
large digital divide among the prefectural cities in China was revealed, with cities with a high administrative
level having a relatively high digital development index(DDI) score. Prefectural cities with high DDI levels are
mainly agglomerated in large metropolitan areas, such as Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei, the Yangtze River Delta, the
Pearl River Delta, and the West Coast Economic Zone of the Taiwan Straits. Prefectural cities with low DDI levels
are concentrated in the rural-mountainous regions in southwest China and poverty-stricken areas in central and
western China. This study also found that the leading determinants of the digital divide are urban residential
income, the secondary education gross enrollment ratio, rural residential income, and the working age popu-
lation ratio, which indicates that socio-economic problems, rather than institution and innovation aspects, have
to be solved for improving ICT use and outcomes.

1. Introduction Indeed, digital divides are today understood to be complex, multi-

Since the 1990s, information and communications technology (ICT)
has completely changed the fabric of social and economic life, by
changing business models and consumption patterns, reducing trans-
action costs and space–time barriers, and facilitating the rapid and
extensive diffusion of information and knowledge (Pick, Sarkar, &
Johnson, 2015; Riemenschneider, Harrison, & Mykytyn, 2003; Song &
Liu, 2013). Arguably, no technological progress in the last several
decades can match the profound and extensive influence of ICT (Song,
Liu, Ma, & Mick, 2014). However, there is a huge inequality in ICT
access and use, which are named as first-order and second-order digital
divides, respectively (Hargittai, 2002, Büchi, Just, & Latzer, 2016; Cruz,
Oliveira, Bacao, & Irani, 2017; Dewan & Riggins, 2005; Hargittai &
Hsieh, 2013; Hsieh, Rai, & Keil, 2008; Scheerder, van Deursen, & van
Dijk, 2017; Van Dijk, 2006).
dimensional phenomenon (Cruz et al., 2017). Several scholars have
even argued that the digital divide should be approached most com-
prehensively by adding a further third-order digital divide, also con-
sidering differences in beneficial outcomes of ICT use (Dewan &
Riggins, 2005; Scheerder et al., 2017; Stern, Adams, & Elsasser, 2009;
Van Deursen, Helsper, & Eynon, 2016; Wei, Teo, Chan, & Tan, 2011).
Conceptually, if so, there are then three orders of digital inequality:
first-order digital divide (ICT access), second-order digital divide (ICT
use), and third-order digital divide (ICT outcomes). Over the past 20
years, a plethora of studies have been produced concerning the digital
divide, most of which are about the digital access divide and digital
usage divide (Martin, 2003; Dewan & Riggins, 2005; Hsieh et al., 2008;
Mossberger, Tolbert, Bowen, & Jimenez, 2012; Song et al., 2014; Pick
et al., 2015; Hilbert, 2016). However, to date, there has been little re-
search on the digital outcome divide.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: songzy@igsnrr.ac.cn (Z. Song).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102072
Received 24 January 2019; Received in revised form 8 November 2019; Accepted 6 January 2020
Available online 23 January 2020
0268-4012/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Z. Song, et al.
In this study, we focus on these three orders of the digital divide in
China. With approximately 53.3 million internet hosts (second only to
the United States) and almost 772 million internet users (largest in the
world) in 2017, China is among the top two nations worldwide in terms
of the total number of internet users and mobile phone subscriptions
(CNNIC, 2018). According to the International Telecommunication
Union (ITU), China is the world's largest telecommunication market in
terms of the number of mobile devices, and fixed-telephone and fixed-
broadband subscriptions, as well as being as the leading exporter of ICT
products (ITU, 2017). Given that China is a large and increasingly di-
verse nation in terms of its social, political, economic, and demographic
attributes, significant spatial differences in ICT access, use, and out-
comes among China’s provinces and prefectural cities are to be ex-
pected. There are 31 provinces and 344 prefectural cities in mainland
China (excepting the cities in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Macao). A
prefecture-level city is an administrative division, ranking below a
province and above a county in China's administrative structure.
The aims of this study were to develop a conceptual framework of
digital divide for the 344 prefectural cities in China; to examine the
spatial distribution and spatial agglomeration of ICT in China; to de-
termine the strongest correlations of prefectural digital divide with
differences among social, political, and economic variables; and based
on the findings to provide policy, management, planning, and decision-
making recommendations for China’s government and business man-
agers. The main research questions were: What are the spatial char-
acteristics of ICT access, use and outcomes at the prefecture-level in
China and which factors determine digital divides at the prefectural
level?
This study has some novel features and makes three contributions to
the digital divide scholarship. First, it builds a conceptual framework of
China’s digital divide at the prefectural level. In the literature, there is
relatively little research on the third-order digital divide, with most
studies measure the ICT outcome at individual level (Dewan & Riggins,
2005; Helsper & Van Deursen, 2017; Scheerder et al., 2017; Stern et al.,
2009; Van Deursen & Helsper, 2015). This article attempts to construct
a multidimensional conceptual framework of digital divide at pre-
fectural level in which the first, second, and third-order digital divides
are analyzed. Second, it answers calls for multiple-level studies and
thereby substantially extends comparative empirical examinations of
the digital divide (Cruz, Oliveira, & Bacao, 2018; Dewan & Riggins,
2005; Scheerder et al., 2017). For this, it uses recent primary data on
302 prefectural cities, a scale of analysis which is rare. The existing
research on the digital divide has mainly been conducted at the macro-
region and provincial levels. For example, there are models of the di-
gital divide at the provincial level for China, Japan, and United States
(Fong, 2009; Nishida, Pick, & Sarkar, 2014; Pick, Nishida, & Zhang,
2013, 2015; Xue & Wang, 2011; Zhu & Chen, 2016), and at the county
and city levels for the United States (Florida, 2012; Kvasny & Keil,
2006). However, at the prefecture level in China, there is still no sys-
tematic nationwide study of the digital divide and its determinants.
Third, it enhances the quality and rigor of the comparative analysis by
applying spatial analysis and mapping methods, which are significant
supplements for traditional multivariate analysis (Pick et al., 2015). We
employed the visualization capabilities of ArcGIS to develop a de-
scriptive understanding of the geographic patterns of digital divide, and
further used a spatial autocorrelation model to analyze the spatial ag-
glomeration, identifying hot spots and cold spots in cities. Besides, we
evaluated the regression residuals by spatial autocorrelation, to ex-
amine if the regression model accounted for geographic associations,
which enabled us to overcome geographically biased regression find-
ings.
2. Theoretical background
Many studies have attempted to measure the digital inequality and
capture its multidimensionality employing composite indicators or
2
International Journal of Information Management 52 (2020) 102072
indices (Cruz et al., 2018; Dewan & Riggins, 2005; Song et al., 2014;
ITU, 2009; Van Dijk, 2005). Early research mainly focused on the in-
ternet and the diffusion of new technologies (e.g. DSL, cable, or wire-
less), especially the overall ability of individuals to access the internet,
which is now referred to as the first-order digital divide (Beilock &
Dimitrova, 2003; Billon, Ezcurra, & Lera-López, 2008; Moss &
Townsend, 2000; Norris, 2001). The approach to the first-order digital
divide was a simplistic study of the uneven distribution of Internet
access (Loo & Ngan, 2012; Blank, Graham, & Calvino, 2017; Harwit,
2004; Norris, 2001; Scheerder et al., 2017), observed by the number of
computer, mobile phone, internet service providers(ISPs), and internet
users(Beilock & Dimitrova, 2003; Dewan & Riggins, 2005). Some stu-
dies have also focused on the cost of internet access and internet skills
(Hargittai, 2002; Van Deursen & Van Dijk, 2015) For example, Van Dijk
(2006) measure the ICT usage access by computer use, internet use,
broadband use, usage time and cost of internet usage.
Since 2003, studies dealing with the digital divide have been ex-
tended to examine ICT use, which is now known as the second-order
digital divide (Bruno, Esposito, Genovese, & Gwebu, 2011; Büchi et al.,
2016; Hargittai, 2002; Mossberger, Kaplan, & Gilbert, 2008; Pick et al.,
2015). For example, the digital inequality index proposed by the ITU
(2009) considers such factors as internet users per 100 inhabitants,
computer per 100 inhabitants, mobile cellular subscribers per 100 in-
habitants, internet bandwidth per capita, and broadband internet sub-
scribers per 100 inhabitants, which measured both first and second-
order digital divide. Lenhart et al. (2003) measured the digital divide in
America in terms of internet use frequency, time-on-line, and internet
access price. And internet browsing, internet communication, email,
blogs, multimedia online streaming, and social networking are new
factors that are used to measure the second-order digital divide (Fuchs,
2009; Hargittai, 2002; Krishnan, Teo, & Lymm, 2017; Van Deursen &
Helsper, 2018; Vicente & Lopez, 2011).
However, a comprehensive study of the relevant literature reveals
several additional factors that should be considered in the appraisal of
ICT, especially the consequences of ICT use. In 2011, Wei et al. (2011)
understood the third-level digital divide as the shift from a two-fold ICT
access and use to a focus on the outcomes of ICT use. Although ICT
outcomes are far less studied than Internet access and use (Scheerder
et al., 2017), some scholars have measured this third-level digital divide
(Fuchs, 2009; Helsper, 2012; Stern et al., 2009; Van Deursen & Van
Dijk, 2015; Van Deursen, Helsper, Eynon, & Van Dijk, 2017; Witte &
Mannon, 2010), most of which measure it at individual level but not
regional level. For example, Selwyn (2004) addressed ICT outcomes in
terms of production activity, political activity, social activity, con-
sumption activity, and saving activity. Van Deursen and Helsper (2015)
suggested the consideration of economic outcomes, learning outcomes,
social outcomes, and institutional outcomes. Scheerder et al. (2017)
measured ICT benefits by economic property, education opportunity,
cultural identify, political networks, e-government, and self-actualiza-
tion.
Table 1 shows the typical variables that have been widely used for
measuring the digital divide, most of which are available of the data
(and their quality) for prefectural-city in China.
3. Methods and procedures
3.1. Measures of digital divide
We turn now to construct a synthetic composite index to measure
the digital divide in China, as so far there is no available digital de-
velopment index that could measure the three orders of digital divide.
Constructing a composite measure for digital divide poses sub-
stantive challenges, including several methodological issues (Martin,
2003).There is usually a trade-off between the number of indicators and
territories that can be included in research, which could affect the ac-
curacy of any measures for a prefectural-scale digital divide (Cruz,
Z. Song, et al. International Journal of Information Management 52 (2020) 102072

Table 1
Summary of typical variables found to be widely used for measuring digital divide.
Categories Variables Code Support

Access Computer penetration PC Norris, 2001; ITU, 2009；Loo & Ngan, 2012; Yang et al., 2013
Mobile phone penetration Mob ITU, 2009; Harwit, 2004; Nishida et al., 2014; Pick et al., 2015
Internet service providers (ISPs) per capita ISP Graham & Marvin, 2001; Warschauer, 2002; Harwit, 2004
Internet access price IntP Bridges.org., 2003; Lenhart et al., 2003; Martin, 2003; Wang et al., 2016
Use Internet users per capita IntU Liu, 2002; Warschauer, 2002; Martin, 2003; Seddon & Currie, 2017
Broadband subscribers per capita BroB Martin, 2003; Lenhart et al., 2003; Loo & Ngan, 2012;Yang et al., 2013
Time-on-line TiO Hargittai, 2002; Warschauer, 2002; Lenhart et al., 2003
Internet bandwidth per capita IntB ITU, 2009; Taylor & Zhang, 2007; Loo & Ngan, 2012; Nishida et al., 2014
Outcomes E-commerce economy EC Park, 2013; Hsu, Chang, & Chuang, 2015; Zhu & Chen, 2016
Online shopping benefits OnS Nishida et al., 2014; Van Deursen & Helsper, 2015; Scheerder et al., 2017
Online learning outcome OnL Selwyn, 2004; Van Deursen & Van Dijk, 2015
E-Government EG Scheerder et al., 2017

Oliveira, & Bacao, 2012; Cuervo & Menéndez, 2006; Vicente & Lopez, Table 3
2011). Given this constraint, the indicators used in measurements Principal component extraction for Digital development index (DDI) indicators.
should be carefully examined initially (Hoffman, Novak, & Schlosser, Principal The eigenvalue % explained % cumulative
2000). First, based on a literature review, we preliminarily summarized component variance explained variance
12 indicators from the existing literature (Table 1). Because the index
should be as national as possible, the availability of the data (and their 1 3.266 51.651 51.651
2 1.504 21.492 73.143
quality) for every prefectural-city in China was examined. As ICT data
3 0.941 10.436 83.579
availability in the majority of cities is poor, this was the main restrictive 4 0.521 7.447 91.026
factor in data selection. Three indicators were deleted from our con- 5 0.361 4.155 95.181
sideration here, namely ISPs, TiO, and OnL. 6 0.268 2.829 98.010
7 0.139 1.990 100.000
Second, factor analysis methods were employed (in SPSS) to analyze
the underlying nature of the indicators, to reveal how different in-
dicators associate and change in relation to each other, and to select the
that many people have access/use/good outcomes with digital tech-
most significant indicators and minimize redundancies. The first step
nologies.The DDI for a given prefecture I (DDIi) is computed as follows:
was to assess the correlation between the indicators, in order to eval-
uate the appropriateness of this method. The correlation matrix DDIi = 0.316* DDI-Ai +0.3397* DDI-Ui+0.3443* DDI-Oi (1)
(Table 2) shows that there is a significant correlation among the in-
dicators. For example, the indicator EC has a correlation coefficient
greater than 0.60 with the other four indicators. The second step was to 3.2. Conceptual framework of digital divide
confirm the suitability of the data, by using both the Bartlett test of
sphericity and the Kaiser–Mayer–Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling Based on the literature review, we identified several theoretical
adequacy (Sharma, 1996; Vicente & Lopez, 2011; Cruz et al., 2017). models and frameworks that explore the socio-economic influences on
The results show that the Bartlett statistic gets a value of 766 with an ICT use and the digital divide. For example, Beilock and Dimitrova
associated probability of less than 1 percent, and the KMO measure is (2003) considered institutional factors in technology use, such as the
0.739, which suggests the application of the method is appropriate. The supply and demand of institutional influences and institutional reg-
third step was to extract the new factor and performed a reliability ulations. Agarwal, Animesh, and Prasad, (2009)) suggested that social
analysis of the original indicators (Bruno et al., 2011; Cruz et al., 2017). factors and geographic proximity impact the digital divide in me-
Table 3 shows the extracted principal components for the digital de- tropolitan areas of the United States, such as education, income,
velopment indicators sorted in decreasing order of the percentage of gender, and ethnicity. Pick et al. (2015) considered government sup-
explained variance for digital development indicators. port, the legal framework, and social openness as intermediate factors
In this context, as a fourth step, we choose the first three compo- of socioeconomic level, which in turn influenced technology use. Con-
nents to measure the weight of each DDI indicator, which could help sequently, geographic factors, institutional factors, social factors, and
explain a significant portion of the indicators. Table 4 shows the weight economic factors were all included in previous models.
of each DDI indicator, with a minimal loss of information. Finally, we Studies have consistently found different influences in the digital
obtained the digital development index (DDI) score for the 302 pre- divide at the global level (Baliamoune, 2003; Pick & Azari, 2011), na-
fectures in China, utilizing a weighted sum method. A high DDI means tional level (Igari, 2014; Vicente & Lopez, 2011), provincial/state level

Table 2
: Correlation matrix of the 9 indicators used in the analysis.
PC Mob IntP IntU BroB IntB EC OnS EG

PC 1 0.342** −0.264 0.691** 0.637 −0.214* 0.693** 0.404** 0.309

Mob 1 0.376** 0.451** 0.366* 0.602** 0.625** 0.476* 0.287*
IntP 1 −0.615 −0.220 0.157** −0.432 −0.273* −0.187*
IntU 1 0.796* 0.784** 0.718** 0.507** 0.358
BroB 1 0.621 0.288 0.312 0.475**
IntB 1 0.677** 0.356* 0.383
EC 1 0.793 0.135
OnS 1 −0.175*
EG 1

Note: **; * indicate significance at the 0.01 and 0.05 levels, respectively. Based on a sample of 291 prefectural cities.

3
Z. Song, et al. International Journal of Information Management 52 (2020) 102072

Table 4
Digital development index (DDI) and the weights of indicators.
Index Sub-index Weight Indicator Code Weight

Digital development index (DDI) ICT Access (DDI-A) 31.60 % Computer penetration PC 10.32 %
Mobile cellular penetration Mob 12.43 %
Internet access price IntP 8.85 %
ICT Use (DDI-U) 33.97 % Internet users per capita IntU 12.23 %
Broadband subscribers per capita BroB 9.77 %
Internet bandwidth per capita IntB 11.96 %
ICT Outcome (DDI-O) 34.43 % E-commerce economy EC 12.47 %
Online shopping benefits OnS 12.59 %
E-Government EG 9.37 %

(Nishida et al., 2014; Pick et al., 2013), county/city level (Azari & Pick,
2005; Donnermeyer, 2003; Florida, 2012; Kvasny & Keil, 2006), and
individual level (Norris, 2001; NTIA, 2011; Stern et al., 2009). Theories
and models have been posited to explain the multivariate correlations
of technology use, but so far there is a lack of well-accepted conceptual
models at the prefecture level, especially for prefectural cities in China.
Based on the existing theories and models, a specific conceptual
framework was established to investigate and explain the prefectural
digital divide in China. Again, here, the digital divide is regarded as a
phenomenon with three dimensions (Bruno et al., 2011; Fuchs, 2009;
Scheerder et al., 2017; Van Deursen & Van Dijk, 2015). The in-
dependent variables were mostly researched in the digital divide lit-
erature and are grouped into categories. The conceptual model appears
in Fig. 1.
3.2.1. Demographic factors
Demographic factors, such as age and gender, are known to impact
the adoption and use of ICT (Cruz et al., 2017, Beilock & Dimitrova,
2003; Fuchs, 2009). Preliminary work showed that the relation be-
tween age and Internet use is piecewise linear, with older people less
likely to be Internet users (Blank et al., 2017, Fuchs, 2009; Hargittai,
2002). The working age population is the main proportion of internet
users (Blank et al., 2017). As one of the world’s largest countries and
economies, China's workforce relies on digital technologies. In recent
years, the use of ICT in production and consumption in China’s work-
force (between age 16 and 59) has been given a high priority. On the
other hand, there is growing recognition of a digital divide between
genders (Eynon, 2009; Wei et al., 2011), with societal gender roles
(Fuchs, 2009) and the cultures of ICT sectors seen as contributing
(Frankel, 1990, Stern et al., 2009, Selwyn, 2004). We, therefore, hy-
pothesized that the working age population ratio (WAP) and gender (GEN)
will be associated with DDI.
Worldwide, there are urban–rural differences in technology use. In
China, the poor infrastructure in rural areas and surrounding moun-
tainous terrain has reduced ICT use in most rural areas (Fong, 2009;
Xue & Wang, 2011). On the other hand, ICT use has increased in urban
areas of China. Hence, we hypothesized that the increase in the ratio of
urban population to total population (URB) over time will have enhanced
the DDI level.
3.2.2. Educational factors
The literature indicates, perhaps unsurprisingly, that education has
been very significant in technology use (Pick & Azari, 2011; Pick et al.,
2015; Vicente & Lopez, 2011). For Chinese individuals, a college edu-
cation was among the most important determinants of PC use in the
early 21 st century (Harwit, 2004; Liu, 2002). However, with the rapid
development of mobile phones and PC use an increasing number of
people with basic literacy has begun to utilize personal ICT in China
(Song & Wang, 2012; Yang, Hu, Qu, & Lai, 2013). The emphasis on
education in both the household and prefecture levels has fostered ICT
skills and stimulated people and organizations in the prefectures to
adopt and use ICT (Nishida et al., 2014). Consequently, three de-
terminants are hypothesized to increase DDI level: adult literacy rate
(ALR), secondary educational gross enrollment ratio (SER), and tertiary
educational gross enrollment ratio (TER).

Fig. 1. The conceptual framework of digital divide.

4
Z. Song, et al. International Journal of Information Management 52 (2020) 102072

Table 5 et al., 2014), Europe (Cruz et al., 2012), and worldwide (Pick & Azari,
Dependent and independent variables. 2011). Worldwide, the most salient relationship is with scientific and
Category Variable Code Source * Year technical journal articles (Pick & Azari, 2011). In the United States, R&
D expenditure has catalyzed the use of computers and the internet,
Dependent Variables especially broadband (Pick et al., 2015), while in Japan, R&D activity
ICT access Computer penetration PC CCSY 2016
has also increased technology use and expenditure (Nishida et al.,
ICT access Mobile cellular penetration Mob CCSY 2016
ICT access Internet access price IntP PRSY 2016
2014). In China, the government has encouraged national and regional
ICT use Internet users per capita IntU SRID 2016 innovation by improving R&D inputs and encouraging patent applica-
ICT use Broadband subscribers per capita BroB ALIR 2016 tions, which can foster the direct use of ICT and indirectly lead to re-
ICT use Internet bandwidth per capita IntB CWEB 2017 gional economic growth. Thus, we hypothesize that R&D input per capita
ICT outcome E-commerce economy EC ALIR 2017
(RDI), and the number of patents issued (PAG) will increase the devel-
ICT outcome Online shopping benefits OnS ALIR 2017
ICT outcome E-Government EG PWEB 2017 opment of ICT.
Independent Variables
Demographic Proportion of working age population WAP CNPIR 2010 3.2.5. Institutional factors
Demographic Proportion of urban population URB CNPIR 2010
A number of studies have demonstrated the impacts of institutional
Demographic Gender (Female/male) GEN CNPIR 2010
Education Adult literacy rate ALR PRSY 2016
and commercial environment on digital divide at different spatial le-
Education Secondary gross enrollment ratio SER PRSY 2016 vels. Some literature has shown that newspaper, magazine, and book
Education Tertiary gross enrollment ratio TER PRSY 2016 publishing are significantly related to a variety of technology utilization
Economic Rural residential income RIN CCSY 2016 indicators (Nishida et al., 2014; Pick et al., 2015).In most regions of
Economic Urban residential income UIN CCSY 2016
China, newspapers are fundamental to knowledge dispersion. To some
Economic GDP per capita GDP CCSY 2016
Innovation R&D input per capita RDI PSYST 2016 extent, newspaper reading could be an indication of ideological ad-
Innovation Patent applications granted PAG PSYST 2016 herence, cultural capital and class, which could reflect the cultural
Institutional Newspapers subscription NES PSYP 2016 realm of local institution. On the other hand, foreign direct investment
Institutional Foreign direct investment per capita FDI CCSY 2016 is an important institutional indicator, which could reflect the opening
Institutional Size of government SGO PWEB 2016
realm of local institution. Thus, we hypothesize that newspaper sub-
*
CCSY = China City Statistical Yearbook, PRSY = Provincial Statistical scription (NES) and foreign direct investment (FDI) will improve DDI
Yearbooks; SRID = Statistical Report on Internet Development; ALIR = Ali level.
Research E-commerce development report of cities in China; CWEB = Data There is also research arguing that an effective government could
retrieved from the homepages of internet broadband service companies, such as foster the active participation of citizens and the free flow of knowl-
China Mobile, China Unicom and China Telecom; CNPIR = China’s national edge, which in turn would stimulate ICT development (Beilock &
population investigation Report; PSYST = Provincial Statistical Yearbooks on Dimitrova, 2003; Crenshaw & Robison, 2006; Fuchs, 2009; Krishnan
science and technology; PSYP = Provincial Statistical Yearbooks on post and et al., 2017). In China's administrative system, one conjecture could be
telecommunications; PWEB = Data retrieved from the homepage of each pre-
that effectiveness of government is measured by the size of government.
fectural city.
The size of government is another available institutional indicator, that
reflect the administrative realm of local institution. It is supposed that
3.2.3. Economic factors
the higher the proportion of administrative staff in the total labor force
Economic influences on ICT use stem from a favorable prefectural
for a prefecture, the more underdeveloped and ineffective this pre-
economy that has high-income levels, enabling the affordability of ICT
fecture is. Consequently, the size of government (SGO) is hypothesized to
(Cruz et al., 2018), and a developed economy that fosters the use of ICT
decrease ICT development.
(Loo & Ngan, 2012). The link between economic development, parti-
cularly GDP, with access and use of ICT is well supported in academic
3.3. Data
literature (Chinn & Fairlie, 2007; Nishida et al., 2014), perhaps un-
surprisingly, considering the positive correlations between GDP per
One of the main constraints to the analysis of the digital divide is
capita and the slope of diffusion curve (Billon et al., 2008; Cruz et al.,
associated with the availability of data (Vicente & Lopez, 2011). In
2017). In China, a high prefectural GDP stimulates more investment in
China, governments and organizations, such as the Ministry of Industry
ICT by government and organizations. As a result, it could be predicted
and Information Technology and China Internet Network Information
that the higher the level of the GDP per capita (GDP), the higher the
Center (CNNIC) are relevant to the issues under examination. There is
level of funding invested in ICT, and thus, the higher the diffusion rate
an increasing amount of comparable ICT data at the national and pro-
of the Internet (Cruz et al., 2017).
vincial level, which can help the authorities to track ICT adoption and
Large surveys of Chinese households have indicated that income
evaluate the effects of ICT planning/policies. However, it remains more
level is among the most important determinant of internet penetration
difficult for researchers to obtain ICT data, information, and materials
(Yang et al., 2013), while income per capita is related to PC ownership
relating to prefectural cities.
(Xue & Wang, 2011). Because there is an increasing number of people
Given these potential limitations, this study collected a variety of
shopping online (via platforms such as Taobao, Jingdong, Alibaba, and
data from different sources (Table 5). Data for the 344 prefectural cities
Dangdang), a home PC is positively correlated with personal income,
in mainland China (not including Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan) was
especially among part-time employed and unemployed people. In
collected from China City Statistical Yearbooks, Provincial Statistical
China, individuals and households with high levels of income are better
Yearbooks from 31 provinces, and a Statistical Report on Internet De-
able to afford the costs of ICT (Nishida et al., 2014; Zhang, 2013). In
velopment in China (CNNIC, 2018). Demographic and educational data
China, the income of rural and urban residents is recorded separately by
at the prefecture-level were obtained from China’s sixth national po-
statistical sources, and there is a gap between rural and urban re-
pulation investigation, economic data were collected from the China
sidential income. Accordingly, rural residential income (RIN), urban re-
City Statistical Yearbook, innovation data were obtained from Statis-
sidential income (UIN) are expected to increase ICT use and outcomes.
tical Yearbooks on Science and Technology for the 31 provinces, and
publication data were obtained from Provincial Statistical Yearbooks on
3.2.4. Innovation factors post and telecommunications. E-commerce economy and online shop-
Innovation factors are known correlates of ICT use in China (Song & ping benefits data were obtained from the Alibaba Group, which are
Wang, 2012), the United States (Azari & Pick, 2005), Japan (Nishida collected by the Ali Research Institute and are not publicly available.

5
Z. Song, et al.
We collected internet price data from the homepages of internet
broadband service companies, including China Mobile, China Unicom,
and China Telecom, and we obtained E-government data from the
homepage of each prefectural city.
3.4. Methods
This study attempts to uncover the spatial agglomeration of digital
divide and estimate the correlates of DDI. First, we construct a com-
posite measure for digital divide, which will help us conclude if the
spatial distribution of DDI form a significant geographic agglomeration.
Second, we map three dimensions of digital divide using geographical
information system (GIS) software, to provide useful visual cues for
spatial patterns of the digital divide. Third, we apply a k-means cluster
to identify groups of prefectural cities that are most similar based on
their DDI values. Finally, a geographically weighted regression (GWR)
model using SPSS software is used to determine the digital divide based
on fourteen independent variables.
3.4.1. K-means cluster analysis
K-means clustering is a method of vector quantization, which aims
to partition n observations into k clusters, in which each observation
belongs to the cluster with the nearest mean. K-means clustering ana-
lysis assumes point set X= {x1, x2, …, xi, …, xn} which has n different
datapoint vectors in D-dimensions, where xi ∈Rd. Let C = {Ck,
I = 1,2…, K}, with each class CK having a center μk. The Euclidean
distance method is used to calculate the sum of squares and J(CK) from
each data point to its center, and minimize the sum of squares J(C) of
the total distance. The calculation formula is as follows:
J (Ck ) = ||xi k ||
2 yn
xi CK (2)
k where ˆ is the estimated value of ; Wj (ui, vi) represents the weight matrix
J (C ) = J (Ck )
k=1 (3)
In this study, we apply iterative refinement approach to find clusters
of comparable spatial extent using SPSS software. In the iterative pro-
cess we select a value of k = 5 clusters, with the values based on DDI
values, which are composite measures of nine digital development
variables.
3.4.2. Moran’s I index
We apply Moran’s I to analyze the agglomeration features of the
prefectural digital development level. When the observation values are
similar within a certain distance (d), the Moran’s I is positive at a sig-
nificant level, otherwise it is negative (Wang, Liao, Lin, & Huang,
2016).This is important because before determining the correlates of
digital divide it is necessary to confirm if the ICT variables are already
clustered together; thereby, rendering the impact of socio-economic
and other independent correlates redundant (Pick et al., 2015).
GMI is used to judge the degree of spatial concentration of pre-
fectural DDI, which refers to:
n n
n i=1
w (x
j = 1 ij i
x )(x j x ) zj
I= n and Gannan in Gansu Provinces, Bazhong and Liangshan Autonomous
S0 i=1
(x i x )2 (4)
where n is the sample number, xi and xj are the value of ICT variables in
locations i and j, respectively, x is the average value of ICT variables, wij
is the spatial weight matrix (n × n), and S0 is the sum of all elements.
3.4.3. The GWR model
To better understand digital divide in China and the factors that
drive it, we use a GWR model to analyze the major factors affecting the
DDI value in each prefectural city.
The GWR model is the result of the improvement of the traditional
regression model to a partial regression model. It reflects the effects
6
International Journal of Information Management 52 (2020) 102072
that the characteristic values of adjacent points have on the char-
acteristic value of a certain point in space, with the effect gradually
decreasing as the distance increased (Wang et al., 2016). In the GWR
model, we use DDI as the dependent variable and fourteen independent
as input variables (Table 5). Samples of the distance weight of each
point are used for a local linear regression, and for determining the
spatial heterogeneity of the relationship with the local and global
trends through the distribution of output parameters. Using GWR, the
regression coefficient of each factor could be obtained, through which
the spatial differentiation of DDI factors could be analyzed.
Generally, the form of the global least-square regression model is:
n
yi = + j xij + i = 1, 2, m ; j = 1, 2, n i = 1, 2, m; j = 1, 2, n
0 i
j =1
(6)
where x ij represents the jth of the observation value at city Ci; yi re-
presents DDI for the explained variable; i is a random error term; and
0 is a constant.
On the basis of the First Law of Geography, the independent vari-
able data for the nearby cities have a greater effect on the estimation of
x ij than those at distant positions (Wang et al., 2016). Hence, in the
GWR model, the weights of the independent variables continually
changed during the regression process. The weight of the independent
variables is determined by the distance between the study city and the
position Ci,:
(uˆi , vi ) = (X T W (ui , vi ) X T W (ui , vi ) Y (7)
1 X11 … X1, n y1
1 X21 … X2, n y2
X= , Y=
… … … X3, n
1 Xm1 … Xm, n (8)
of independent variable j at city Ci. m is the number of independent
variables (12 influencing factors); and n is the sample number at a
particular location (302 prefectural cities).
4. Spatial characteristics of digital divide
4.1. Spatial pattern of digital divide
4.1.1. Different level of DDI
The spatial distribution of digital divide varied among the three
levels. For the first order of digital divide (Fig. 2a), the cities with the
highest ICT access value in 2016 were Guangzhou, Shenzhen, Hang-
zhou, Suzhou and Shanghai with more than 90, with the lowest value of
about 17 in Liangshan and Ganzi Autonomous Prefectures in Sichuan
Province, Wenshan Autonomous Prefecture in Yunnan Province, and
Neijiang in Guizhou Province, which compared to a mean of 37.93.
While the second order digital divide shows similar spatial patterns
(Fig. 2b), with the highest DDI values in prefectures with metropolises
metropolitan areas, including Shenzhen, Shanghai, Hangzhou, Beijing,
Guangzhou, Suzhou, and Ningbo. The lowest DDI values are in rural
prefectures in the northwest and southwest China, including Longnan
Prefectures in Sichuan Province, Guoluo Autonomous Prefectures in
Qinghai Province, and Wenshan Autonomous Prefectures in Yunnan
Province. As for the third order digital divide, Fig. 2(c) indicates that
there are significant differences in ICT outcome among cities, and we
can recognize spatial clustering in certain regions. For example, most
high level cities are concentrated in coastal areas, such as Shenzhen,
Guangzhou, Zhongshan, Zhuhai, and Dongguan in the Pearl River
Delta, and Hangzhou, Jinhua, Jiaxing, Shanghai and Ningbo in the
Yangtze River Delta.
The spatial autocorrelation results (Table 6) show that Moran's I
values of the three levels digital divide were all above 0.36 in 2016,
Z. Song, et al.
Fig. 2. Spatial patterns of the prefectural digital divide in China, 2016.
Table 6
Moran’s I values for digital divide in 2016.
ICT access ICT use ICT outcome
Standard Deviation 16.05 16.99 11.05
Mean 37.91 40.20 16.33
Moran’s I 0.37 0.36 0.53
which were relatively high. And this indicates that there are significant
positive spatial correlation and appreciable spatial disparity of pre-
fectural digital divide at first, second and third level. However, the
third-level digital divide has more significant positive spatial auto-
correlations, with Moran's I values of 0.53, which means the digital
outcome divide is more remarkable. On the one hand, due to the “Di-
gital China” project, there has been a consistent gradual convergence of
ICT infrastructure and internet access conditions in most prefectures in
China. And with the popularity of smartphones, network chat and e-
commerce in China, internet use has gradually become habitants' daily
common. At the end of 2018, there are 829 million internet users in
China, in which 717 million are mobile netizens. On the other hand,
there is a disconnect between ICT outcome and use. Because ICT out-
comes are primarily linked to local network building and strengthening,
local culture and social resources, and individual income, education
and motivation (Dewan & Riggins, 2005; Scheerder et al., 2017; Stern
et al., 2009; Van Deursen & Van Dijk, 2015; Wei et al., 2011).
4.1.2. Digital divide
As shown in Fig. 3, there was an enormous spatial gap in the DDI
values among the prefectural cities. The DDI values in Shenzhen,
Hangzhou, and Guangzhou in east China were all more than 86, nearly
triple as high as the national average. However, in Longnan in Gansu
Province, Bijie and Tongren in Guizhou Province, Ganzi in Sichuan
Province, and Hetian in Xinjiang Province, the DDI values were less
than 16, only a half of the national average. In terms of spatial dis-
tribution, the eastern coastal areas had a relatively high level of DDI,
while the densely populated areas in the southwest and geographically
vast but thinly populated areas in northwest China had relatively low
DDI values. More specifically, prefectural cities with high DDI values
were concentrated in the southeastern coastal areas, including the
Yangtze River Delta, Pearl River Delta, and Bohai Rim. Prefecture-level
cities with low DDI values were mainly concentrated in rural-moun-
tainous regions, including the Wuling, Wumeng, and Liupan mountai-
nous regions and the eastern Qinghai-Tibet Plateau.
4.2. Geographical cluster characteristics of DDI
The K-mean cluster analysis revealed a distinctive geographical
clustering of prefectural cities, based on DDI value. The results in-
dicated that there were five geographical clusters of prefectural cities,
as shown in Fig. 4. In terms of the digital divide, the ICT levels in China
spread from the core zone of the Yangtze River Delta, and Pearl River
Delta, Bohai Rim to the entire eastern coastal area, and then extend
from the eastern coastal area toward the north and west. The
7
International Journal of Information Management 52 (2020) 102072
metropolitan areas in eastern China had high levels of ICT outcomes,
while DDI values in provincial capital cities were significantly higher
than in the rest of the provinces.
4.2.1. Cluster 1-national hub cities
This cluster had the highest DDI value, with the ratio to the cluster
with the lowest value being 3.43:1. This cluster also had the highest
value for all dependent variables, except the internet access price, and
the highest level for all three levels of DDI. This cluster contained 9
cities, most of which were central cities in large metropolitan areas with
very dense populations, such as Shenzhen, Guangzhou, and Zhuhai in
the Pearl River Delta; Hangzhou, Suzhou, Shanghai, and Ningbo in the
Yangtze River Delta; Beijing in the Bohai Rim; and Xiamen in the West
Coast Economic Zone of the Taiwan Straits. Overall, the cities in this
cluster were analogous to ‘national digital core’ regions, most of which
are centers of provincial or national government and contain many
major companies, universities, and research institutes, resulting in high
demand for ICT and remarkable outcomes of ICT use. The DDI values in
the cities with a high administrative ranking, such as Beijing, Shanghai,
Guangzhou, Hangzhou, Xiamen, and Ningbo, were relatively high,
which concurred with the results of Nishida et al. (2014).
4.2.2. Cluster 2 and cluster 3 – regional hub cities
This cluster included 52 cities, with DDI values between 40.02 and
69.32, which were high compared to other prefectural cities. As shown
in Fig. 5, there were mainly three kinds of cities in this cluster. The first
kind was situated on the periphery of national hub cities, which are also
located in large metropolitan areas, such as the Yangtze River Delta, the
Pearl River Delta, the Bohai Rim, and the West Coast Economic Zone in
eastern coastal China. The second kind of cities in this cluster were
mainly provincial capitals, such as Chongqing, Fuzhou, Taiyuan, Jinan,
Urumchi, Wuhan, Xi’an, Chengdu, Zhengzhou, and Kunming, most of
which are located in central China, western China and north China. The
third kind was cities located between developed provincial capitals and
less prosperous areas, such as Dalian, Qingdao, Zhenjiang, Weihai,
Putian and Taizhou in eastern and northern China. In these cities, the
provincial government ICT policies provided particular emphasis on
policies that would enable provincial capital cities to become national
leaders in new technologies. As a result, the level of ICT access and use
in this cluster were almost as high as Cluster 1, while this cluster lagged
behind Cluster 1 in terms of ICT outcomes.
4.2.3. Cluster 4 - node cities
The 91 prefecture cities in cluster 3 were mainly distributed be-
tween regional hub cities and other rural and less prosperous areas all
over the country. There were also a few cities in this cluster with good
economic conditions and low population densities, mostly in Shaanxi,
Yunnan, and Sichuan provinces in west China. This cluster lagged be-
hind clusters 2 and 3 in terms of the three levels of DDI and most in-
dependent variables, excluding internet access prices. Since 2009, with
the “China 3 G Project”, internet access price of each prefecture has
been converged, which are controlled by three state-owned enterprises
(China Mobile, China Unicom, and China Telecom). And since the
Z. Song, et al. International Journal of Information Management 52 (2020) 102072

Fig. 3. Spatial patterns of prefectural DDI values in China, 2016.

“China 4 G Project” in 2013, the central government and local gov-
ernment have provided special preferential policies and subsidy policies
for rural areas and poverty-stricken areas.
4.2.4. Cluster 5 - Cities in rural-mountainous regions
This cluster includes 150 cities, with DDI values lower than 25.87,
which are low compared to other prefectural cities. The area includes
most of the rural prefectures in the middle deep southwest, northwest,
and northeast, especially the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau region. As shown in
Fig. 4, cities in this cluster are mainly dispersed in the concentrated
poverty-stricken areas in central and western China, such as the
Wuling, Wumeng, Hengduan, and Liupan mountainous regions;
southern Xinjiang regions; and the eastern Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. This
cluster is analogous to the ‘broadband periphery’ in the United States
that were identified by Grubesic (2010) and contains clusters of mostly
rural zip codes, with the lowest DDI values in all three types of digital
divide. However, the internet access price in this cluster compares fa-
vorably with cluster 3, due to the subsidy policies for rural areas and
poverty-stricken areas. Some areas also have relatively high level out-
comes of e-commerce economy, as the Chinese government has at-
tempted to accelerate the development of E-commerce in rural areas
since 2015 with more than 2000 ‘Taobao Villages’ (Qi et al., 2019) in an

Fig. 4. Spatial patterns in prefectural DDI levels in China, 2016.

(1 = highest DDI value cluster; 2 = high DDI value cluster; 3 = intermediate DDI value cluster; 4 = low DDI value cluster; 5 = lowest DDI value cluster).

8
Z. Song, et al. International Journal of Information Management 52 (2020) 102072

Table 7
Regression results for the dependent variables for 291 prefectural cities, China, 2016.
Category Independent variables Dependent variables

Code DDI DDI-A DDI-U DDI-O

Demographic Working age population WAP 0.503 0.338 0.473 0.515

Demographic Urban population URB 0.441* 0.465 0.203 0.424**
Demographic Gender GEN −0.133 −0.114* −0.19*** −0.088
Education Adult literacy rate ALR 0.330* 0.246 0.371* 0.135
Education Secondary gross enrollment ratio SER 0.564* 0.346 0.671* 0.316
Education Tertiary gross enrollment ratio TER 0.273 0.180** 0.150 0.458***
Economic Rural residential income RIN 0.548** 0.559 0.412 0.374
Economic Urban residential income UIN 0.625* 0.303 0.614 0.674
Economic GDP per capita GDP 0.437** 0.421*** 0.305** 0.613
Innovation R&D input per capita RDI 0.281 0.164 0.191* 0.292
Innovation Patent applications granted PAG 0.159 0.083 0.105 0.223
Institutional Newspapers subscription NES 0.272* 0.263* 0.324** 0.154
Institutional Foreign direct investment FDI 0.233 0.016*** 0.271 0.309
Institutional Size of Government SGO −0.427* −0.476 −0.279* −0.415**
Sample Size 291 291 291 291

*
Significant at 0.05.
**
Significant at 0.01.
***
Significant at 0.005.

attempt to improve rural incomes.
Overall, the prefectural-level digital divide in China displays a
spatial pattern that decreases progressively from the core zone of large
metropolitan areas to the surrounding areas, and from node cities to
rural-mountainous regions. The effect of urban agglomeration is ap-
parent. It is clear that DDI values are higher in the groups of cities with
higher administrative rankings.
5. Discussion of major influential factors
Due to the data limitation of the fourteen independent variables, we
can only analyze a sample of 291 prefectural cities for GWR. As shown
in Table 7, the conceptual model tested by the GWR indicates that
urban residential income (UIN), secondary gross enrollment ratio
(SER), rural residential income (RIN), and working age population
(WAP) are the factors most associated with the DDI and its three levels
of digital divide. For the full sample of 291 prefectural cities, urban
residential income (UIN) is significantly associated with DDI-O and
DDI-U, secondary gross enrollment ratio (SER) is significantly asso-
ciated with DDI-U, rural residential income (RIN) is significantly asso-
ciated with DDI-A, and working age population (WAP) is significantly
associated with DDI-O. Some of these findings correspond to previous
digital divide literature, but others are new insights.
policies for internet development and ICT hardware (computer and
smartphone) purchasing in rural areas. Under these policies, with a
notable fall in price of ICT hardware and internet bandwidth, there is an
increasing number of rural residents access and use the internet. And
there are also some remarkable ICT outcomes in rural areas, such as
those mentioned above more than 2000 ‘Taobao Villages’. On the other
hand, in terms of computer ownership and smartphone penetration,
urban residents with their higher income are better able than rural
residents to afford the costs involved. Further, urban residents get many
more benefits from online shopping and online learning (Fuchs, 2009,
Scheerder et al., 2017; Van Deursen & Helsper, 2015), with most of the
e-commerce economy centered in urban areas.
For the relationship with per capita GDP, the correlation coefficient
for DDI is 0.437, which indicates that regional economic development,
especially the scale and scope of the economy, can significantly pro-
mote digital development. For the three levels of digital divide, the
correlation coefficient for DDI-O is as high as 0.603, while for DDI-A
and DDI-U is 0.421 and 0.305 respectively. The higher prefectural GDP
stimulates more investment in ICT by government and organizations
(Nishida et al., 2014), which can improve ICT infrastructure and reduce
the cost of internet access. And high prefectural GDP would cause more
development of e-commerce and online shopping by providing better
industrial and logistic support.

5.1. Economic factors 5.2. Educational factors

The regression results show that all of the economic factors have
relatively significant positive effects on the spatial differences of DDI in
prefectural cities. As ICT infrastructure and availability depend mostly
on income and economic factors. Regional residential income is one of
the most important factors affecting DDI value (Agarwal et al., 2009;
Baliamoune, 2003; Lengsfeld, 2010; Nishida et al., 2014). Large surveys
of Chinese households have indicated that income level is among the
most important determinant of internet use (Yang et al., 2013), while
income per capita is related to PC ownership (Xue & Wang, 2011).
However, these studies ignored the gap between rural residential in-
come (RIN) and urban residential income (UIN) in China. In China, the
income of rural and urban residents is calculated separately, and there
is a gap between RIN and UIN. As shown in Table 7, both RIN and UIN
have a relatively large influence on prefectural digital divide, and the
effect of UIN is more important than that of RIN on DDI. However,
when it comes to DDI-A, the effect of RIN is larger than UIN. This result
may be partially explained by the fact that there are special subsidy
Educational factors have a significant positive effect on the spatial
differences of prefectural digital development. The findings of the GWR
analysis of DDI value in China, although partly supported by previous
studies in the literature, reveal new information. The existing literature
shows that, in China, tertiary gross enrollment ratio (TER) has been the
most important educational factor, while secondary gross enrollment
ratio (SER) and adult literacy rate (ALR) do not account for the geo-
graphic agglomeration of ICT use (Pick et al., 2013).However, our GWR
results show that, in 2016, SER is much more important than TER,
while the correlation coefficient for ALR is also higher than TER’s. In
China, in the early stage of ICT development, TER is a major driving
factor, i.e., the spatial discrepancy in ICT use was more sensitive to the
proportion of the population with a higher education qualification (Liu,
2002). In the 2010s, with the development and penetration of ICT, the
influence of TER on the development of ICT gradually declined and SER
gradually replaced TER and became an important factor in the pene-
tration of ICT. Table 7 indicates that in 2016, SER was the most

9
Z. Song, et al.
important educational factor for ICT access and use. In the last few
years, with ICT development, and especially with the popularity of
smartphones and associated increasing internet access, ALR has also
become a considerable factor, with its relationship with DDI-U having a
correlation coefficient of 0.371. However, considering the different le-
vels of digital divide, TER is still the major driving factor of DDI-O. Just
as studies have observed that well-educated people were more likely to
benefit from ICT use, ICT outcomes were primarily linked to TER.
5.3. Demographic factors
Two demographic factors have relatively positive effects on the DDI
scores among prefectural cities. Working age population (WAP) has a
positive effect on the spatial differences in DDI scores and it is strongly
linked to DDI-O and DDI-U. In the 2010s, China's workforce was tech-
nologically enabled, with most work conducted on computers and over
the internet. More working age population stimulates the use of PC,
internet, and broadband, with the need for work communication.
Moreover, e-commerce has been one of the most important sectors in
China, providing more than 3.3 million jobs, with transactions
amounting to 29.15 trillion RMB in 2017 (CNNIC, 2018). Accordingly,
WAP is expected to increase ICT use and outcomes.
It was found that urban population (URB) did not have a significant
influence on the spatial differences in ICT use, but it was a major driver
of ICT access and outcome. Previous studies show that in the early
development stages of ICT, URB had a significant driving role in ICT use
(Loo & Ngan, 2012; Song & Wang, 2012). In the 2010s, as ICT became
popularized, especially in rural areas, the influence of URB on the
spatial differences in ICT use tended to be very low. However, rural-
mountainous regions are still analogous to the ‘broadband periphery’
(Grubesic, 2010), with low levels of ICT access and poor logistical
systems. Given these limitations in rural areas, most e-commerce de-
velopments are concentrated in metropolitan areas with high urbani-
zation levels, such as the Pearl River Delta; and Hangzhou, Suzhou,
Shanghai, and Ningbo in the Yangtze River Delta.
For the relationship with gender, the correlation coefficient for DDI
is -0.133, which suggests that gender is no longer a notable driver of
digital divide now. Although ICT culture and offerings can still offer
barriers to women’s participation (Frankel, 1990, Selwyn, 2004, Stern
et al., 2009), women are increasingly involved.
5.4. Institutional factors
One institutional factor has relatively positive effects on prefectural
digital development index scores in China, while the other two do not
show a significant influence on the spatial differences of DDI. Among
these factors, the size of government (SGO) has a significant negative
influence on the DDI score, especially the digital access divide index
and digital outcome divide index. With a small and effective govern-
ment, the prefecture could reduce administrative personnel expenditure
and increase public service expenditure, including ICT infrastructure,
education and e-government, which would in turn foster ICT access and
successful outcomes.
Newspapers subscription (NES) has a positive influence on the
spatial differences of ICT use. In contrast to existing studies from the
United States, Japan, and India, the findings of this study regarding the
geographical distribution of technology use indicate that the impact of
societal knowledge factors is much lower (Nishida et al., 2014; Pick
et al., 2015). In China, NES is not one of the most significant impact
factors. Newspapers will improve internet penetration and online
learning benefits at the prefectural level.
Foreign direct investment (FDI) in of itself has a low impact on the
geographical differences of DDI value, but has a positive impact on DDI-
O. This may be partially explained by the fact that ‘digital China’ is
essentially a national-level project, and local institution of opening and
investment has relatively little impact in ICT access and use. On the
10
International Journal of Information Management 52 (2020) 102072
other hand, ICT outcomes are more related to regional business en-
vironment, which is relevant to local institution of opening and in-
vestment.
5.5. Innovation factors
We found that innovation factors are not prominent and have little
effect on the prefectural DDI scores. As shown in Table 7, the impact of
R&D input per capita (RDI) and patent applications granted (PAG) are
tiny, with a very low correlation coefficient. In the 2000s, innovation
factors had a relatively important role in ICT use (Liu, 2002). With the
popularization and development of information technology, smart-
phones, desktops, laptops, and internet have entered into millions of
households. This home informatization process generally requires basic
levels of information technology knowledge, which does not need R&D
input or patent applications.
6. Conclusions and discussion
6.1. Conclusion
With the acceleration of digital development, China has become one
of the most significant countries in the world in terms of internet
hosting, internet users, mobile phone subscriptions and e-commerce
economic developments. However, spatial differences in digital devel-
opment have emerged, with a huge digital divide between provinces,
prefectures, and counties. In this study, we developed and validated a
conceptual framework for prefectural digital divide in China, which
cover the first, second, and third-order digital divides, and explored the
major influential factors of the prefectural digital divide using a GWR
model.
The findings indicate a generational digital divide in China, which
has been documented in previous studies (Fong, 2009; Pick et al., 2013;
Song et al., 2014; Zhu & Chen, 2016). Moreover, we also found that the
spatial disparity of the third-order digital divide is much more obvious
than the first and second-order, which reveals that the magnitude of the
ICT outcome divide supersedes that of the access and use divide. Fur-
thermore, cities with a high administrative function have relatively
high DDI values, with the level of DDI spreading from the eastern
coastal areas to the central and western regions, and from the core cities
to the surrounding areas. Core regions of ICT development are identi-
fied, such as the Pearl River Delta, Yangtze River Delta, and Bohai Rim.
In other words, there are strong regional contagion effects, whereby the
diffusion of the technology in a prefecture is affected by the diffusion in
neighboring prefectures.
The GWR model results indicated that the key drivers of digital
divide are found to be urban residential income, secondary gross en-
rollment ratio, and rural residential income. Previous studies of China
indicated that income level was among the most important determi-
nants of internet penetration (Yang et al., 2013), but there was a gap
between urban and rural residential incomes, with the effect of urban
residential income being a bit more important. Higher education is a
well-known correlate of ICT use (Liu, 2002; Pick et al., 2013, 2015), but
this study indicates that basic education has a more positive impact on
ICT access and use, while higher education is a major driver for ICT
outcomes. As contrary to what others in ICT related fields do, the results
indicate that basic skills in the general population are more important
for ICT development than specialist R&D and innovation aspects. This
finding indicates that socio-economic problems, rather than institu-
tions, R&D and innovation aspects, have to be solved initially for digital
inequalities. And access provision and skills training are also needed to
improve digital equalities.
6.2. Limitations
Although we analyzed the differences in the digital divide in smaller
Z. Song, et al.
geographic units than previous studies, there are still some sample
limitations. There are 344 prefecture-level cities in China, but we could
only measure the digital divide for 302 of them and analyze a sample of
291 prefectural cities for its drivers. For the remaining 53 prefectures,
which are mostly autonomous prefectures, there was a lack of data.
Because most comprehensive national geographic or statistical cov-
erage in China is undertaken at the provincial level, it was extremely
difficult to collect data and materials for the prefecture-level cities.
Some provincial statistical yearbooks do not collect statistics for the
autonomous prefectures.
Another weakness of the study is that we could not comprehensively
measure institutional factors. Institutional factors are complex, in-
cluding societal institutions, commercial environment, government
regulation, and other factors. Government regulation is a complicated
factor, which includes the policy environment, government effective-
ness, government transparency, and other aspects. It is recognized that
there is government regulation of the internet in China, which may
reduce broadband diffusion. However, we could not find reliable and
exact indicators to measure government regulation, which is also a
sensitive topic in China.
We should also notice that when we measure the digital divide,
within-prefectural digital asymmetries are not covered, and some as-
pects of the information society were also not included, due to data
limitations. In future research, more work should be done with the
gender factor at individual level, the population factor with different
age groups, and the size of government factor with a new measure of
investment in ICTs. A study of the digital divide for a long time should
also be conducted, which could reveal the spatio-temporal evolution of
the digital divide and its driving factors.
6.3. Policy implications
At the national government levels in China, there have been many
policy measures undertaken to promote ICT development and reduce
the regional digital divide. Initially, socio-economic problems have to
be solved for ICT development in the region. The findings of the study
indicate the association of urban locations with ICT access and use,
affirming central government policies to improve urbanization rates
and urban resident incomes, to stimulate positive results from ICT use.
The central government should also improve rural resident incomes and
reduce internet access prices in rural mountainous regions.
Furthermore, we suggest the central government to further promote the
popularization of nine-year compulsory education (grade 1–9) to en-
sure citizens have basic knowledge and skills regarding ICT use.
For prefectural cities that are still lagging behind, especially the pre-
fectural cities in rural mountainous regions, efforts to promote digital
development level require effective policy measures to address the gap.
The results of the study indicate that the local government should pay
more attention to control the size of local government, such as limiting the
number of administrative staff and the amount of administrative ex-
penditure. Local government should also improve the employment rate,
which would encourage ICT use and the knowledge flow between working
populations. Strengthening long-standing initiatives and investments in
innovation (Shimizu et al., 2008) would be another positive policy, which
would foster newer technologies, such as 5 G and mobile phones.
For managers and planners, the results of this study demonstrate
that GIS and spatial analysis combined with statistics can provide useful
information for analysis and decision-making (Nishida et al., 2014). For
researchers, this study provides measurements for the third-order di-
gital divide, which could help to extend comparative empirical ex-
aminations of the digital divide. The results reveal that the magnitude
of the ICT outcome divide supersedes that of the access and use divide.
And it focuses on smaller geographic units than previous studies and
introduces new spatial analysis approaches and a regression model,
which provides the potential for the application of more multivariate
analysis across different IT research areas.
11
International Journal of Information Management 52 (2020) 102072
Acknowledgements
This study was primarily funded by Program of the Natural Science
Foundation of China, No. 41371006 and No. 41671127.
References
Agarwal, R., Animesh, A., & Prasad, K. (2009). Social interactions and the digital divide:
Explaining variations in internet use. Information Systems Research, 20(2), 277–294.
Azari, R., & Pick, J. (2005). Technology and society: Socio-economic influences on
technological sectors for United States counties. International Journal of Information
Management, 25(1), 25–37.
Baliamoune, L. (2003). An analysis of the determinants and effects of ICT diffusion in
developing countries. Information Technology for Development, 10(3), 151–169.
Beilock, R., & Dimitrova, D. V. (2003). An exploratory model of inter-country Internet
diffusion. Telecommunications Policy, 27(3–4), 237–252.
Loo, B. P. Y., & Ngan, Y. L. (2012). Developing mobile telecommunications to narrow
digital divide in developing countries? Some lessons from China. Telecommunications
Policy, 36(10-11), 888–900.
Billon, M., Ezcurra, R., & Lera-López, F. (2008). The spatial distribution of the internet in
the European Union: Does geographical proximity matter? European Planning Studies,
16(1), 119–142.
Bridges.org (2003). Spanning the digital divide: Understanding and tackling the issues.
Retrieval January 14th, 2019, fromhttp://www.bridges.org.
Blank, G., Graham, M., & Calvino, C. (2017). Local geographies of digital inequality.
Social Science Computer Review, 36(1), 82–102.
Bruno, G., Esposito, E., Genovese, A., & Gwebu, K. L. (2011). A critical analysis of current
indexes for digital divide measurement. The Information Society, 27(1), 16–28.
Büchi, M., Just, N., & Latzer, M. (2016). Modeling the second-level digital divide: A five-
country study of social differences in Internet use. New Media & Society, 18(11),
2703–2722.
Chinn, M., & Fairlie, R. (2007). The determinants of the global digital divide: A cross-
country analysis of computer and internet penetration. Oxford Economic Papers-New
Series, 59(1), 16–44.
CNNIC (2018). Statistical report on internet development in ChinaRetrieval January 14th,
2019, from http://www.cnnic.net.cn. (in Chinese).
Crenshaw, E., & Robison, K. (2006). Globalization and the digital divide: The roles of
structural conduciveness, and global connection in Internet diffusion. Social Science
Quarterly, 87, 190–207.
Cruz, J. F., Oliveira, T., & Bacao, F. (2012). Digital divide across the European Union.
Information & Management, 49(6), 278–291.
Cruz, J. F., Oliveira, T., & Bacao, F. (2018). The global digital divide: Evidence and dri-
vers. Journal of Global Information Management, 26(2), 1–26.
Cruz, J. F., Oliveira, T., Bacao, F., & Irani, Z. (2017). Assessing the pattern between
economic and digital development of countries. Information Systems Frontiers, 19(4),
835–854.
Cuervo, M., & Menéndez, A. (2006). A multivariate framework for the analysis of the
digital divide: Evidence for the European Union-15. Information & Management, 43(6),
756–766.
Dewan, S., & Riggins, F. J. (2005). The digital divide: Current and future research di-
rections. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 6(12), 298–337.
Donnermeyer, F. (2003). Digital divide evidence in four rural towns. IT & Society, 1(4),
107–117.
Eynon, R. (2009). Mapping the digital divide in Britain: Implications for learning and
education. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(4), 277–290.
Florida, R. (2012). The rise of the creative class revisited. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Frankel, K. A. (1990). Women and computing. Communications of the ACM, 33(11), 34–45.
Fong, M. (2009). Digital divide between urban and rural regions in China. The Electronic
Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 36(6), 1–12.
Fuchs, C. (2009). The role of income inequality in a multivariate cross-national analysis of
the digital divide. Social Science Computer Review, 27(1), 41–58.
Graham, S., & Marvin, S. (2001). Splintering urbanism: Networked infrastructures, techno-
logical mobilities and the urban condition. London: Routledge.
Grubesic, T. (2010). Efficiency in broadband service provision: A spatial analysis.
Telecommunications Policy, 34, 117–131.
Hargittai, E. (2002). Second-level digital divide: Differences in people’s online skills. First
Monday, 7(4), 1–20.
Hargittai, E., & Hsieh, Y. (2013). Digital inequality. In W. H. Dutton (Ed.). The Oxford
handbook of internet studies (pp. 129–150). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Harwit, E. (2004). Spreading telecommunications to developing areas in China:
Telephones, the internet and the digital divide. The China Quarterly, 180, 1010–1030.
Helsper, E. J. (2012). A corresponding fields model for the links between social and di-
gital exclusion. Communication Theory, 22(4), 403–426.
Helsper, E., & Van Deursen, A. (2017). Do the rich get digitally richer? Quantity and
quality of support for digital engagement. Information, Communication and Society,
20(5), 700–714.
Hilbert, M. (2016). The bad news is that the digital access divide is here to stay:
Domestically installed bandwidths among 172 countries for 1986–2014.
Telecommunications Policy, 40(6), 567–581.
Hoffman, D., Novak, T., & Schlosser, A. (2000). The evolution of digital divide: How gaps
in internet access may impact electronic commerce. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication, 5(3), 200–203.
Hsieh, J., Rai, A., & Keil, M. (2008). Understanding digital inequality: Comparing con-
tinued use behavioral models of the social-economically advantaged and
Z. Song, et al.
disavantaged. MIS Quarterly, 32, 97–126.
Hsu, M. H., Chang, C. M., & Chuang, L. W. (2015). Understanding the determinants of
online repeat purchase intention and moderating role of habit: The case of online
group-buying in Taiwan. International Journal of Information Management, 35, 45–56.
Igari, N. (2014). How to successfully promote ICT usage: A comparative analysis of
Denmark and Japan. Telematics and Informatics, 31(1), 115–125.
ITU (2009). Measuring the information society 2009. Switzerland.
ITU (2017). Measuring the information society 2017. Switzerland.
Krishnan, S., Teo, T., & Lymm, J. (2017). Determinants of electronic participation and
electronic government maturity: Insights from cross-country data. International
Journal of Information Management, 37, 297–312.
Kvasny, L., & Keil, M. (2006). The challenges of redressing the digital divide: A tale of two
U.S. cities. Information Systems Journal, 16, 23–53.
Lenhart, A., et al. (2003). The ever-shifting internet population: A new look at internet access
and the digital divide. Retrieval January 14th, 2019, fromThe Pew Internet & American
Life Projecthttp://www.pewinternet.org.
Lengsfeld, H. (2010). An econometric analysis of the sociodemographic topology of the
digital divide in Europe. The Information Society, 27(3), 141–157.
Liu, W. (2002). Development of the internet in China and its spatial characteristics. In R.
Hayter, & R. Heron (Eds.). Knowledge, Territory and industrial space (pp. 87–106). UK:
Ashgate: Hampshirem.
Martin, P. (2003). Is the digital divide really closing? A critique of inequality measure-
ment in a nation online. IT & Society, 1(4), 1–13.
Moss, M., & Townsend, A. (2000). The Internet backbone and the American metropolises.
The Information Society, 16(1), 35–47.
Mossberger, K., Kaplan, D., & Gilbert, M. (2008). Going online without easy access: A tale
of three cities. Journal of Urban Affairs, 30(5), 469–488.
Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., Bowen, D., & Jimenez, B. (2012). Unraveling different
barriers to internet use: Urban residents and neighborhood effects. Urban Affairs
Review, 48(6), 771–810.
Nishida, T., Pick, J., & Sarkar, A. (2014). Japan’s prefectural digital divide: A multivariate
and spatial analysis. Telecommunications Policy, 38(11), 992–1010.
Norris, P. (2001). The digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty & the internet
worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press UK.
NTIA (2011). Exploring the digital nation: Computer and internet usage at home. Washington,
DC: National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S. Department
of Commerce.
Park, S. (2013). The impact of B2B electronic commerce on the dynamics of metropolitan
space. Urban Geography, 25(4), 298–314.
Pick, J., & Azari, R. (2011). A global model of utilization of technology based on gov-
ernmental, social, economic, and business investment factors. Journal of Management
Information Systems, 28(1), 51–85.
Pick, J., Nishida, T., & Zhang, X. (2013). Determinants of China’s technology utilization
and availability 2006–2009: A spatial analysis. The Information Society, 29(1), 26–48.
Pick, J., Sarkar, A., & Johnson, J. (2015). United States digital divide: State level analysis
of spatial clustering and multivariate determinants of ICT utilization. Socio-economic
Planning Sciences, 49, 16–32.
Qi, J., Zheng, X., & Guo, H. (2019). The formation of Taobao villages in China. China
Economic Review, 53, 106–127.
Riemenschneider, C., Harrison, D., & Mykytyn, P. (2003). Understanding IT adoption
decisions in small business: Integrating current theories. Information & Management,
40(4), 269–285.
Scheerder, A., van Deursen, A., & van Dijk, J. (2017). Determinants of Internet skills, uses
and outcomes. A systematic review of the second- and third-level digital divide.
12
International Journal of Information Management 52 (2020) 102072
Telematics and Informatics, 34(8), 1607–1624.
Seddon, J., & Currie, W. (2017). Healthcare financialisation and the digital divide in the
European Union: Narrative and numbers. Information & Management, 54(8),
1084–1096.
Selwyn, N. (2004). Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital
divide. New Media & Society, 6(3), 341–362.
Sharma, S. (1996). Applied multivariate techniques. New York: Wiley.
Song, J., & Wang, E. (2012). China’s information and communication technology in
geographic perspective. Eurasian Geography and Economics, 53(4), 502–526.
Song, Z., & Liu, W. (2013). The challenge of wide application of new information and
communication technologies to traditional location theory. Journal of Geographic
Science, 23(2), 315–330.
Song, Z., Liu, W., Ma, L., & Mick, D. (2014). Measuring spatial differences of in-
formatization in China. Chinese Geographical Science, 24(6), 717–731.
Stern, M., Adams, A., & Elsasser, S. (2009). Digital inequality and place: The effects of
technological diffusion on internet proficiency and usage across rural, suburban, and
urban counties. Sociological Inquiry, 79(4), 391–417.
Taylor, R., & Zhang, B. (2007). Measuring the impact of ICT: Theories of information and
development. Washington, DC: Telecommunications Policy Research Conference.
Van Deursen, A., & Helsper, E. (2015). The third-level digital divide: Who benefits most from
being online? Communication and information technologies annual. Emerald Group
Publishing Limited29–52.
Van Deursen, A., Helsper, E., & Eynon, R. (2016). Development and validation of the
internet skills scale (ISS). Information, Communication and Society, 19(6), 804–823.
Van Deursen, A., & Helsper, E. (2018). Collateral benefits of Internet use: Explaining the
diverse outcomes of engaging with the Internet. New Media & Society, 20(7),
2333–2351.
Van Deursen, A., Helsper, E., Eynon, R., & Van Dijk, G. (2017). The compoundness and
sequentiality of digital inequality. International Journal of Communication, 11,
452–473.
Van Deursen, A., & Van Dijk, J. (2015). Toward a multifaceted model of internet access
for understanding digital divides: An empirical investigation. The Information Society,
31(5), 379–391.
Van Dijk, J. (2005). The deepening divide: Inequality in the information society. Sage
Publications.
Van Dijk, J. (2006). Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics,
34(4-5), 221–235.
Vicente, M., & Lopez, A. (2011). Assessing the regional divide across the European Union-
27. Telecommunication Policy, 35(3), 220–237.
Wang, M., Liao, F., Lin, J., & Huang, L. (2016). The making of a sustainable wireless city?
Mapping public wi-fi access in Shanghai. Sustainability, 8(2), 111.
Warschauer, M. (2002). Reconceptualizing the digital divide. First Monday, 7(7), 12–15.
Wei, K., Teo, H., Chan, H., & Tan, B. (2011). Conceptualizing and testing a social cog-
nitive model of the digital divide. Information Systems Research, 22(1), 170–187.
Witte, J., & Mannon, S. (2010). The internet and social inequalities. Routledge.
Xue, & Wang, J. (2011). A measure of rural-urban digital divide in China. IEEE, 2,
637–640.
Yang, Y., Hu, X., Qu, Q., & Lai, F. (2013). Roots of tomorrow’s digital divide:
Documenting computer use and internet access in China’s elementary schools today.
China & World Economy, 21(3), 61–79.
Zhang, X. (2013). Income disparity and digital divide: The internet consumption model
and cross-country empirical research. Telecommunications Policy, 37(6–7), 515–529.
Zhu, S., & Chen, J. (2016). The digital divide in individual e-commerce utilization in
China: Results from a national survey. Information Development, 29(1), 69–80.