Executive Summary
This research evaluated the current practice of digital governance in
municipalities worldwide. It focused on the evaluation of current practice
from the perspective of the government and the emphasis of this research was
on the evaluation of each Web site in terms of digital governance. Simply
stated, digital governance includes both digital government (delivery of
public service) and digital democracy (citizen participation in governance).
Specifically, we analyzed security, usability, and content of websites, the
type of online services currently being offered, and citizen response and
participation through websites established by city governments.
This research examined cities throughout the world based on their population
size, the total number of individuals using the Internet and the percentage of
individuals using the Internet. The cities were chosen using the “Internet
Indicators” (2002) statistics from the International Telecommunication Union (ITU),
an organization affiliated with the United Nations (UN). ITU’s Internet
indicators report lists the online population for each of 196 countries. Using
the ITU data, 98 UN member countries were identified based on an online
population greater than 100,000. Our research, therefore, selected 98
countries with the highest percentage of Internet users, and examined the
largest city in each of those countries as a surrogate for all cities in the
country. For example, in the
U.S. and South Korea,
New York
and
Seoul were chosen, respectively. In addition, Hong Kong SAR and Macao SAR were
added to the 98 cities selected, since they have been considered as
independent countries for many years and have high percentages of Internet
users.
This research evaluated the official Web sites of each city in their native
languages between June and October of 2003. Sixteen of the 100 cities,
however, have not established official city Web sites. As a result, we have
evaluated only 84 of the 100 possible cities.
Our instrument for evaluating city and municipal websites consists of five
components: 1. Security and Privacy; 2. Usability; 3. Content; 4. Services;
and 5. Citizen Participation. For each of those five components, our research
applies 14 to 20 measures, and each measure was coded on a scale of
four-points (0, 1, 2, 3) or a dichotomy of two-points (0, 3 or 0, 1). Thus,
our research instrument goes well beyond previous research, utilizing 92
measures, of which 45 were dichotomous as above. Furthermore, in developing an
overall score for each municipality we have equally weighted each of the five
categories so as not to skew the research in favor of a particular category
(regardless of the number of questions in each category).
To ensure reliability, each municipal Web site was assessed by two evaluators,
and in cases where significant variation (+ or – 10%) existed on the raw score
between evaluators, websites were analyzed a third time. Furthermore, an
example for each measure indicated how to score the variable. Evaluators were
also given comprehensive written instructions for assessing websites.
Based on the evaluation, of 84 cities,
Seoul, Hong Kong SAR,
Singapore,
New York,
and
Shanghai are the top five cities in the world among UN member countries,
followed by Rome, Auckland, Jerusalem, Tokyo, and Toronto. Table 1 lists the
top 20 municipalities in digital governance.
[Table 1] Top 20
Cities in Digital Governance
|
RANKING |
CITY |
SCORE |
PRIVACY |
USABILITY |
CONTENT |
SERVICE |
PARTICIPATION |
|
1 |
Seoul |
73.48 |
11.07 |
17.50 |
13.83 |
15.44 |
15.64 |
|
2 |
Hong Kong SAR |
66.57 |
15.36 |
19.38 |
13.19 |
14.04 |
4.62 |
|
3 |
Singapore |
62.97 |
11.79 |
14.06 |
14.04 |
13.33 |
9.74 |
|
4 |
New York |
61.35 |
11.07 |
15.63 |
14.68 |
12.28 |
7.69 |
|
5 |
Shanghai |
58.00 |
9.64 |
17.19 |
11.28 |
12.46 |
7.44 |
|
6 |
Rome |
54.72 |
6.79 |
14.69 |
9.57 |
13.16 |
10.51 |
|
7 |
Auckland |
54.61 |
7.86 |
16.88 |
11.06 |
10.35 |
8.46 |
|
8 |
Jerusalem |
50.34 |
5.71 |
18.75 |
10.85 |
5.79 |
9.23 |
|
9 |
Tokyo |
46.52 |
10.00 |
15.00 |
10.00 |
6.14 |
5.38 |
|
10 |
Toronto |
46.35 |
8.57 |
16.56 |
9.79 |
5.79 |
5.64 |
|
11 |
Helsinki |
45.09 |
8.57 |
15.94 |
11.70 |
6.32 |
2.56 |
|
12 |
Macao SAR |
44.18 |
4.29 |
17.19 |
11.91 |
7.72 |
3.08 |
|
13 |
Stockholm |
44.07 |
0.00 |
13.75 |
14.68 |
10.00 |
5.64 |
|
14 |
Tallinn |
43.10 |
3.57 |
13.13 |
12.55 |
6.67 |
7.18 |
|
15 |
Copenhagen |
41.349 |
4.643 |
13.438 |
9.787 |
5.789 |
7.692 |
|
16 |
Paris |
41.338 |
6.429 |
14.375 |
7.660 |
5.439 |
7.436 |
|
17 |
Dublin |
38.85 |
2.50 |
13.44 |
11.28 |
7.02 |
4.62 |
|
18 |
Dubai |
37.48 |
7.86 |
10.94 |
7.87 |
8.25 |
2.56 |
|
19 |
Sydney |
37.41 |
6.79 |
12.19 |
9.15 |
5.44 |
3.85 |
|
20 |
Jakarta |
37.28 |
0.00 |
16.56 |
9.79 |
6.32 |
4.62 |
In addition, Tables 2 through 6 are the top 10 cities in the
category of privacy and security, usability, content, service delivery, and
citizen participation.
[Table 2] Top 10
Cities in Privacy and Security
|
Rank |
City |
Country |
Score |
|
1
|
Hong Kong
SAR |
Hong Kong
SAR |
15.36
|
|
2
|
Singapore |
Singapore |
11.79
|
|
3
|
New York |
United
States |
11.07
|
|
3
|
Seoul |
Republic of
Korea |
11.07
|
|
5
|
Tokyo |
Japan |
10.00
|
|
6
|
Shanghai |
China |
9.64
|
|
7
|
Helsinki |
Finland |
8.57
|
|
7
|
Toronto |
Canada |
8.57
|
|
9
|
Auckland |
New Zealand |
