Paper presented in ePart 2019 conference, Linz, Austria. The paper is available from Springer (see http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-03781-8_7)

1. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab
Evaluating eParticipation
sophistication of Regional
Authorities websites:
The case of Greece and Spain
Eleni Panopoulou, Efthimios Tambouris,
Maria Zotou, Konstantinos Tarabanis
University of Macedonia

2. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab2
Contents
 Objective
 Methodology
 Results
 Discussion
 Limitations
 Conclusion

3. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab3
Rationale
 At 2007 the Information Systems Laboratory of the University of
Macedonia won a tender by the Greek Observatory for the Information
Society to, amongst others, undertake a study of online sophistication
of all Greek local and regional public authorities
 For this purpose, a framework has been developed, which includes
four evaluation axes: general info, content, eGovernment and
eParticipation.
 After the end of the study, we decided to continue performing the same
study every year to dictate progress
 This year we decided it would be interested to compare the
eParticipation results of the evaluation for regions with that of another
country

4. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab4
Objective
 Objective:
– to determine and compare the eParticipation capabilities of regional
authorities’ websites in Greece and Spain
 Through:
– evaluating the eParticipation online sophistication of regional authorities’
websites
 Using:
– a published evaluation framework1 for measuring online sophistication of
public authorities’ websites.
– 1 Available at: Eleni Panopoulou, Efthimios Tambouris and Konstantinos Tarabanis (2008) “A
framework for evaluating websites of public authorities” Aslib Proceedings, Vol. 60, Number 5,
pp. 517-546.

5. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab5
Contents
 Objective
 Methodology
 Results
 Discussion
 Limitations
 Conclusion

6. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab6
Background
 The two countries have a number of similarities to enable comparisons
– Similar population density (~ 86 inhabitants per km2)
– Mediterranean countries  similarities in mentality and culture

7. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab7
Greece: Regional Structure and Relevant Strategies
 13 Peripheries (Regions)
– General Secretaries of Regions are not directly elected by citizens; rather
they are appointed by the Greek government
 57 Prefectures
– Prefectural representatives are elected by citizens every four years
 “Digital Strategy 2006-2013”
– does not include any concepts relevant to eParticipation or eDemocracy.
 “Greece in the Information Society: Strategy and Actions” (2002)
– refers to strengthening of the democratic processes through ICT
– “encouraging greater participation of citizens in matters of common
interest”
– each regional authority is invited to prepare its own plan for the
Information Society aimed among others at “increasing public awareness
and active participation in public matters”.

8. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab8
Spain: Regional Structure and Relevant Strategies
 17 Autonomous Communities (Regions)
– Each Region has its own president, government, and Supreme Court (holding
thus more power than the corresponding regional authorities in Greece).
 50 Provinces
– Provincial representatives in Spain are elected by the citizens every four years
(as with Prefectures in Greece).
 “Ministerio de Industria, Turismo y Comercio: Plan Avanza 2006-2010” &
“Ministerio de Administraciones Públicas: Plan Moderniza 2006-2008”
– they focus more on issues such as provision of qualitative services to citizens
and improvement of public administration processes than on promoting
eParticipation.
– the latter also provides for measures aiming among others to the establishment
of an online area dedicated to public eConsulting on normative projects or
government decisions.
 “Ministry of Public Administration: White Paper on the Improvement of Public
Services” (2000)
– Mentions eParticipation concerns as challenges to be faced by the Spanish
Public administration.

9. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab9
Methodology – Evaluation framework
 The framework1 for evaluating the websites of public authorities has 4 axes.
 eParticipation is one of the four axes and its evaluation includes:
– 3 factors
– 6 metrics
1. Panopoulou E., Tambouris E. and Tarabanis K.: A framework for evaluating web sites of public authorities. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives,
Vol. 60, No. 5, 517--546 (2008)
Factors Metrics evaluating Metrics
number
Information Online policy documents. 1
Consultation Electronic consultations. 1
Active participation Communication and decision-making
tools, issues proposed by citizens.
4
Metric
number
Question and possible answers
Information factor
Metric 1 Are policy documents available online?
No / Yes, basic documents / Yes, medium level
documents / Yes, high level documents
Consultation factor
Metric 2 Are consultations on important local issues organised
online (e-consultations)?
No / Yes
Active Participation factor
Metric 3 Is it possible for citizens to communicate through:
Chats / Blogs / eForums
Metric 4 Are polls organised online that refer to issues of
local/regional interest and that are also incorporated
into the decision process?
No / Yes
Metric 5 In the case that a discussion forum is available, is it
possible for a citizen to initiate a new discussion
topic?
No / Yes
Metric 6 Is it possible for citizens to provide a new agenda
topic for discussion on the PA council meeting?
No / Yes

10. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab10
Methodology – Evaluation scheme
 each question is awarded a score between 0 and 10 points
 a weighting scheme for factors and metrics is used
 evaluation of Greek Regions and Prefectures: in September – October 2008
 evaluation of Spanish Regions and Provinces: in December 2008 – January 2009
Metric
number
Question and possible answers
Metric weight
Information factor
Metric 1 Are policy documents available online? 100%
No / Yes, basic documents / Yes, medium level
documents / Yes, high level documents
Consultation factor
Metric 2 Are consultations on important local issues organised
online (e-consultations)?
100%
No / Yes
Active Participation factor
Metric 3 Is it possible for citizens to communicate through: 25%
Chats / Blogs / eForums
Metric 4 Are polls organised online that refer to issues of
local/regional interest and that are also incorporated
into the decision process?
25%
No / Yes
Metric 5 In the case that a discussion forum is available, is it
possible for a citizen to initiate a new discussion
topic?
25%
No / Yes
Metric 6 Is it possible for citizens to provide a new agenda
topic for discussion on the PA council meeting?
25%
No / Yes
Factors Factor weight
Information 30%
Consultation 30%
Active participation 40%

11. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab11
Contents
 Objective
 Methodology
 Results
 Discussion
 Limitations
 Conclusion

12. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab12
Results for Greece
 Evaluated: 12/13 Regions and 46/57 Prefectures
 Overall performance:
 Prefectures score frequencies:
Overall Results Regions Prefectures Total
Information 0.00% 15.76% 12.50%
Consultation 25.00% 15.22% 17.24%
Active Participation 0.00% 8.26% 6.55%
Total 7.50% 12.60% 11.54%
69.57%
84.78%
69.57%
26.08%
4.35%
28.26%
2.17%
15.22%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0-10% 10-20% 20-30% 30-40% 40-50% 50-60% 60-70% 70-80% 80-90% 90-100%
Information
Consultation
Active Participation

13. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab13
Results for Spain
 Evaluated: 17/17 Regions and 46/50 Provinces
 Overall performance:
 Score frequencies in total:
 Contrary to Greece, most of Spain’s regional authorities have adopted a
specific template for offering and organising content on their websites
Overall Results Regions Provinces Total
Information 73.53% 73.37% 73.41%
Consultation 17.65% 17.39% 17.46%
Active Participation 1.76% 1.41% 1.51%
Total 28.06% 27.79% 27.87%
1.09%
82.48%
98.92% 98.92%
17.53%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0-10% 10-20% 20-30% 30-40% 40-50% 50-60% 60-70% 70-80% 80-90% 90-100%
Information
Consultation
Active Participation

14. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab14
Contents
 Objective
 Methodology
 Results
 Discussion
 Limitations
 Conclusion

15. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab15
Discussion – Comparison
 Information level: Spain has a very big advantage over Greece scoring
in average 61% more
 Consultation level: similar results
 Active participation level: although both countries display low scores,
Greece has a clear advantage over Spain (Greek Prefectures)
73.41%
12.50%
17.46% 17.24%
1.51%
6.55%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Information Consultation Active Participation
All websites (Spain)
All websites (Greece)
15.76%
15.22%
8.26%
25.00%
73.37%
17.39%
1.41%
73.53%
17.65%
1.76%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Informatio
n
Consultati
on
Active
Participati
on
Regions (Spain)
Provinces (Spain)
Regions (Greece)
Prefectures (Greece)

16. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab16
Discussion
 In overall Greek Regions are performing worse than all other regional
authorities in the two countries.
– responsibilities of Greek Regions are relatively limited; they do not have
legislative power and are not elected directly by the citizens.
 Websites of Spanish regional authorities follow a similar template
– although they are much more autonomous and hold many responsibilities
compared to Greek regional authorities.
 No correlation between eP sophistication and demographic data of
Greek and Spanish Regions
– Regions’ average population in 2006 by Eurostat
– Regions’ gross domestic product (GDP) in 2006 by Eurostat
– any hypotheses that eP sophistication is higher in more populated
Regions or in Regions with higher GDP cannot be supported

17. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab17
Contents
 Objective
 Methodology
 Results
 Discussion
 Limitations
 Conclusion

18. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab18
Limitations
 The approach measures eP in a normative fashion
 The aim is not to suggest that Public Authorities with bigger scores are
more participatory or more democratic than other
 It aims to provide an appreciation on the degree of eP capabilities of
regional websites
 The methodology cares only for the “supply side” (provision of
documents, consultation etc), thus does not account the “demand
side” (e.g. take up by citizens)
 The evaluation was performed from the perspective of the guest user
(not registered user) since it was not always possible to register (e.g.
in some cases one had to be an inhabitant to register)

19. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab19
Contents
 Objective
 Methodology
 Results
 Discussion
 Limitations
 Conclusion

20. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab20
Conclusion
 Neither country’s regional authorities are adequately advanced in
providing eParticipation offerings through their websites.
 Spain performs very good as far as information provision, namely
availability of policy documents, is concerned.
 Only a few regional authorities in Greece and Spain offer engaging
participatory features such as e-consultations, e-forums, e-polls, chats,
etc.
 At the active participation level results are discouraging; not only aren’t
there many opportunities for the citizens to actively participate but also
nearly no evidence have been found that such participation could be
“heard” by the regional authorities.
 Poor results could be partially attributed to the lack of governmental
strategic planning for adopting such eParticipation opportunities
– both countries’ strategic and policy documents on the Information Society
do not include specific goals or measures for eParticipation especially
when it comes to its adoption at the regional or local level.

21. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab21
And an invitation…
 Since 2007, each year the Information Systems Laboratory of the
University of Macedonia undertakes an evaluation study of online
sophistication of all Greek local and regional authorities
 This is based on the published framework and includes evaluating the
websites of all regions and prefectures and a representative sample of
municipalities
 We would like to invite other researchers to use the same framework
for evaluating the websites of the local and regional authorities in their
countries …
 … and of course we welcome partnerships for comparative studies
such as the one presented here!!

22. University of Macedonia
© Information Systems Lab22
Thank you for your attention!
For more information please contact:
Eleni Panopoulou epanopou@uom.gr
Efthimios Tambouris tambouris@uom.gr