The Digital Divide in Citizen-Initiated Government Contacts: A GIS Approach

Journal of Urban Technology

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 2014, Pages 77-93

  Cavallo, Sara ^a   Lynch, Joann ^b   Scull, Peter ^b  

^a PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Center for Language and Brain   (United States)

Author keywords

311; digital divide; e government; municipal services; volunteered geographic information

Indexed keywords

GIS; INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY; LOCAL GOVERNMENT; LOCAL PARTICIPATION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; VISUALIZATION;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 84919682158     PISSN: 10630732     EISSN: 14661853     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10630732.2014.942167     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. M. Asgarkhani, “The Reality of Social Inclusion Through Digital Government,” Journal of Technology in Human Services 25 (2007) 127–146. doi: 10.1300/J017v25n01_09
2. J. Baird, R. Zelin, and Q. Booker, “Is there a "Digital Divide" in the Provision of E-Government Services at the County Level in the United States?,” Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues 15 (2012) 93–104.
3. F. Bélanger and L. Carter, “The Impact of the Digital Divide on E-Government Use,” Communications of the ACM 52: 4 (2009) 132–135. doi: 10.1145/1498765.1498801
4. S. Bell, K. Wilson, L. Bissonnette and T. Shah, “Access to Primary Health Care: Does Neighborhood of Residence Matter?,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 103 (2013) 85–105. doi: 10.1080/00045608.2012.685050
5. E. Berman, “Dealing with Cynical Citizens,” Public Administration Review 57: 2 (1997) 105–112. doi: 10.2307/977058
6. CCSF, "About 311." (2012) San Francisco 311. City and County of San Francisco. Accessed October 3, 2012.
7. J. Cinnamon and N. Schuurman, “Confronting the Data-Divide in a Time of Spatial Turns and Volunteered Geographic Information,” Geojournal 78 (2012) 657–674. doi: 10.1007/s10708-012-9458-6
8. M. Crutcher and M. Zook, “Placemarks and Waterlines: Racialized Cyberscapes in Post-Katrina Google Earth,” Geoforum 40 (2009) 523–534. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.01.003
9. DC, "311 Online," (2012) District of Columbia <311.dc.gov> Accessed December 9, 2012.
10. A. Dugdale,, “Accessing E-Government: Challenges for Citizens and Organizations,” International Review of Administrative Sciences 71: 1 (2005) 109–118. doi: 10.1177/0020852305051687
11. E-Government Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107–347, §2, 116 Stat. 2901 (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 2002).
12. N. Elbahnasawy, “E-Government, Internet Adoption, and Corruption: An Empirical Investigation,” World Development 57 (2014) 114–126. doi: 10.1016/j.worlddev.2013.12.005
13. S. Elwood, “Geographic Information Science: Emerging Research on the Societal Implications of the Geospatial Web,” Progress in Human Geography 34 (2010) 349–357. doi: 10.1177/0309132509340711
14. S. Elwood, M. Goodchild, and D. Sui, “Researching Volunteered Geographic Information: Spatial Data, Geographic Research, and New Social Practice,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 102 (2012) 571–590. doi: 10.1080/00045608.2011.595657
15. J. Evans-Cowley, and M. Conroy, “The Growth of E-Government in Municipal Planning,” Journal of Urban Technology 13: 1 (2006) 81–107. doi: 10.1080/10630730600752892
16. M. Gilbert , “Theorizing the Digital Divide: Information and Communication Technology Use Frameworks among Poor Women Using a Telemedicine System,” Geoforum 39: 2 (2008) 912–925. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2007.08.001
17. M. Goodchild, “Citizens as Sensors: the World of Volunteered Geography,” Geojournal 69 (2007) 211–221. doi: 10.1007/s10708-007-9111-y
18. T. Hall and J. Owens, “The Digital Divide and E-Government Services,” In E. Estevez and M. Janssen, Eds., Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 2011) 37–44.
19. K. Hampton, and B. Wellman, “Neighboring in Netville: How the Internet Supports Community and Social Capital in a Wired Suburb,” City & Community 2: 4 (2003) 277–311. doi: 10.1046/j.1535-6841.2003.00057.x
20. P. Johnson and R. Sieber, “Motivations Driving Government Adoption of the Geoweb,” GeoJournal 77 (2012) 677–680.
21. P. Johnson and R. Sieber, “Situating the Adoption of VGI by Government,” in D. Sui, S. Elwood and M. Goodchild, eds., Crowdsourcing Geographic Knowledge: Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) in Theory and Practice (New York: Springer Science & Business Media Dordrecht, 2013) 65–81.
22. A. Leszczynski, “On the Neo in Neogeography,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 104: 1 (2014) 60–79. doi: 10.1080/00045608.2013.846159
23. D. Maguire & P. Longley, “The Emergence of Geoportals and Their Role in Spatial Data Infrastructures,” Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 29: 1 (2005) 3–14. doi: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2004.05.012
24. NCR, “The New Laboratories of Democracy. Part three: Potholes and PDAs,” National Civic Review 98 (2009) 15–20. doi: 10.1002/ncr.247
25. NYC311, Department of Information Technology and Telecom. The City of New York. Web. 28 Mar (2014) Accessed March 7th, 2014.
26. Open311.org, “GeoReport v2/Servers,” (2012) Accessed November 7, 2012.
27. SF311, San Francisco 24×7 Service Center. The City of San Francisco, CA (2014) Accessed March 7th, 2014.
28. R. Schwester, T. Carrizales, and M. Holzer, “An Examination of the Municipal 311 System,” International Journal of Organization Theory and Behavior 12 (2009) 218–236.
29. M. Stephens, “Gender and the Geoweb: Divisions in the Production of User-Generated Cartographic Information,” GeoJournal 78 (2013) 981–996. DOI: 10.1007/s10708-013-9492-z.
30. J. Thomas and G. Streib, “The New Face of Government: Citizen-Initiated Contacts in the Era of E-Government,” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 13 (2003) 83–102. doi: 10.1093/jpart/mug010
31. J. Thomas, “Creating a Citizen-Friendly City Hall: An Evaluation of the Chattanooga 311 Innovations,” in The Proceedings of The International Conference on Engaging Communities, eds., D. Gardiner and K. Scott (Brisbane, Australia: Queensland Department of Main Roads, 2005), 1–14.
32. A. Turner, Introduction to Neogeography (Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media, 2006).
33. U. S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5-year Estimates: San Francisco, C.A. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011c) Accessed October 20, 2012.
34. U. S. Census Bureau, Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: San Francisco, C.A. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010a) Accessed October 20, 2012.
35. U. S. Census Bureau, Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: Washington, D.C. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010b) Accessed October 20, 2012.
36. U. S. Census Bureau, Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics: New York City, N.Y. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010c) Accessed October 20, 2012.
37. U. S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5-year Estimates: Washington D.C. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011a) Accessed October 20, 2012.
38. U. S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 5-year Estimates: New York City, N.Y. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011b) Accessed October 20, 2012.
39. L. Van Aerschot and N. Rodousakis, “The Link Between Socioeconomic Background and Internet Use: Barriers Faced by Low Socio-economic Status Groups and Possible Solutions,” Innovation: the European Journal of Social Science Research 21 (2008) 317–351.
40. T. Wolhers, “The Digital World of Local Government: A Comparative Analysis of the United States and Germany,” Journal of Information Technology 6 (2009) 126–0.