[外文4]Quantitative assessment of European municipal web sites_Development and use of an evaluation

QuantitativeassessmentofEuropeanmunicipalwebsites

Developmentanduseofanevaluationtool

´nSanguinoandFranciscoJavierMiranda,Ramo˜egil´sM.BanToma

´micasyEmpresariales,UniversityofExtremadura,FacultaddeCienciasEcono

Badajoz,Spain

Abstract

Purpose–Theinternetisbecomingincreasinglyimportantinthecommunicationbetweenlocalgovernmentsandcitizens,whichmakestheusabilityofmunicipalwebsitesacriticalfactoringovernment-citizencommunication.Thepurposeofthispaperistoproposeandtestamodelforevaluatingthepotentialofmunicipalwebsites.

Design/methodology/approach–Inthisworkanobjectiveinvestigationoftheissuehasbeenconductedbymanuallyaccessingandevaluating84Europeanmunicipalwebsites.QualityofwebhomepageswasdeterminedusinganoriginalWebAssessmentIndex,whichfocusesonfourcategories:accessibility,speed,navigabilityandcontent.

Findings–Adetailedreportoftheresultsarisingfromthisinvestigationispresentedandsystematicallyanalyzed.

Originality/value–Themostvaluableoutputfromthispaperisnottheabilitytoidentifythebestsites,buttoseehoweachmunicipalsiteiscomparedtorelatedsitesandtospotideasandpracticesthatcanimprovecitysites.Thesefindingswillbeusefulforbothresearchersandpractitionerswhoseektounderstandtheissuesrelevanttomunicipale-government.KeywordsWorldwideweb,Internet,Localgovernment,EuropePapertypeResearchpaper

Europeanmunicipalwebsites

425

Received7December2007

Revised13May2009Accepted27May2009

1.Introduction

Thegreatestpotentialforinternetuseinpublicorganizationsliesinapplicationsdesignedtofacilitateopencommunicationbetweenagenciesandcreatedialoguebetweencitizensandtheirgovernment.

So,theinternethasbecomeanimportantcommunicationchannelbetweenmunicipalitiesandcitizens.Municipalwebsitesenabletomakeenormousamountsofinformationavailableatrelativelylowcosts,tomaintainaneasilyrecognizabledisseminationchanneltotheirtargetgroups,offering24-hourperdayserviceandtostaytunedintothecitizensneeds.

Intheelectronicagethebarrierstogovernmentinformation(aslackoffinancial,technicalorpersonnelcapacity,privacyissues,etc.)maybeasrealasthephysicalandintellectualbarrierstoinformationintheageofprintculture.Althoughelectronicmediamayseemtoprovideuniversalaccesstoinformationandspecificallytogovernmentinformation,withoutclearpoliciesandguidelinesfocusedonthisoutcome,thecitizen’saccesstoinformation,andthegovernment’saccountabilityforinformationprovisionmaybereducedratherthanenhanced(CullenandHoughton,2000).

InternetResearchVol.19No.4,2009

pp.425-441

qEmeraldGroupPublishingLimited

1066-2243

DOI10.1108/10662240910981380

INTR19,4

426

Oneofthefascinatingaspectsofmunicipalwebsitesisthatthedesignproblem(theneedtoachieveapresenceontheinternet)isroughlythesameforallmunicipalitiesacrosswesterndemocraticcountries,whereasthedesignsolutions(thewebsitesactuallydesigned)appeartobeverydifferent(deJongandLentz,2006).

Littleresearchhasbeenconductedonanalyzingtheworldwidemovementtodigitalgovernmentfromacomparativeperspective.ResearchersatBrownUniversityhaveconductedacontentanalysisofstateandfederalgovernmentwebsitesintheUSAsince2000,andtheyalsocompletedaworldwideanalysisofcentralgovernmentwebsitesin2001(www.insidepolitics.org/policyreports.html).Theirresearch,however,lacksacomprehensiveframeworkforevaluatingdigitalgovernance.

BestpracticeawardsconductedbytheCenterforDigitalGovernmentandtheMicrosoftCorporation(www.centerdigitalgov.com)and“BestoftheBest”ine-government(www.e-gov.com/showPR.asp?id¼62)aregoodexamplesofattemptstomeasurewhetherandhowdigitalgovernmentinvestmentsareresultinginimprovedservicesforcitizens.

ThisresearchevaluatedthecurrentpracticeofdigitalgovernanceinthelargestEuropeanmunicipalities,assessingtheeffectivenessofmunicipalwebsitesinprovidingequitableandappropriateaccesstogovernmentinformationtoallcitizens,allowingresearchersandmanagerstocompareattributesandcomponentsofinternetsites,inordertodeterminethedrawbacksandopportunities.Forthis,wedevelopawebsiteassessmentindexthatcanbeemployedtocomparethecurrentusageoftheInternetbymunicipalities.Webeginbyidentifyingthemainfactorsconsideredasdeterminantsofwebsitequality,asmentionedinpreviousstudies.Secondlywediscussthedesignofthewebassessmentindex.Then,municipalwebsitesofmostpopulatedEuropeancitiesaresubsequentlyanalyzedusingthisindex.Finally,themainresultsofthisanalysisarediscussedandfutureresearchdirectionsareoutlined.2.Websiteassessmenttools

Evaluatingtheperformanceofwebsiteshasbeenaconstantconcernofresearchersindifferentfields.Areviewoftherecentliteratureonwebsiteassessmentrevealssomeattemptstomeasurewebsitequality(SelzandSchubert,1997;Liuetal.,1997;Ho,1997;EvansandKing,1999;Simeon,1999;Huizingh,2000;YoungandBenamati,2000;BauerandScharl,2000;Palmer,2002).

Althoughsomeresearchershavetriedtoprovidewaysofevaluatingwebsitesspecifically(Boyd,2002;vanderMerweandBekker,2003),theselectionofevaluationcriteriastillrequiresmoretheoreticaljustification.Mostofthepreviousapproacheshavefocusedeitheronbasicmanagementcontentoraspecificsetofwebsiteoutcomes.Mostpreviousassessmentmodelsemploysubjectivefactors,suchaseasy-access,textclearness,presentationquality,attractivenessofcolors,sounds,etc.Tominimizethissubjectivitysiteevaluatorsshouldbegivenpreciseguidelinestorateeachfactorandalargegroupofevaluatorsisneeded(EvansandKing,1999).

Tryingtoavoidthemainweaknessesofpreviousmodels,Buenadichaetal.(2001)developedanewwebsiteassessmentindexthatcanbeemployedtocomparethecurrentuseoftheinternetbydifferentorganizations.Thismodelhasbeenpreviouslyemployedtocomparetheinternetusagefromthe200largestSpanishcompanies

˜egil,2004)andmorerecentlyappliedtoSpanishbanks(Miranda(MirandaandBan

etal.,2006).

AccordingtoEvansandKing(1999),awebassessmenttoolmusthavefivemaincomponents:categories,factors,weights,ratingsandtotalscore.Thefirststepistochoosethecategoriesandfactorsthatarecriticaltowebsiteeffectiveness.Basedonpreviousstudies(Buenadichaetal.,2001;Mirandaetal.,2006),ourinstrumentforevaluatingcityandmunicipalwebsites(WebAssessmentIndexorWAI)selectsfourbroadcategoriesasthebasisforaqualitywebsite:accessibility,speed,navigabilityandsitecontent(Figure1).

Developersofpublic-sectorwebsitesmustassumethatthoseusingtheirsiteshavelimitedtrainingandexperienceandwillneedsitesdesignedforeaseofuse.Theymustalsoconsiderthatthetypeof(website)designsdevelopedforprivate-sectore-commercesitesmightnotnecessarilyworkforpublic-sectorsites.Ourresearchinstrumentgoeswellbeyondpreviousresearchtoevaluategovernmentwebsites(West,2000;West,2001;Kayloretal.,2001).Thekeyfactorswithineachcategoryarechosenbasedontheliteratureandtheresearchers’experience,andmustreflectwhatusersaregenerallyconsideredtobeimportantcomponentsandfeaturesofwebsites.ThefirstcategoryintheWebAssessmentIndex(WAI)isaccessibility.Itisclearthatthequalityofawebsiteisincreasedifthesiteiseasilyidentifiableandaccessibletotheusers.However,merelycounting“hits”onapageisnotanaccuratemeasurementofqualityorsuccessofawebsite(Murray,1997).Inordertoactuallyevaluatetheaccessibilityofawebsite,weneedtodefineobjectivemeasurablequantities.Therefore,theauthorshaveemployedtwofactorstomeasurethiscategory,searchenginespresenceandlinkpopularity:.

Highersearchenginesrankingstranslateintogreatertraffictothesiteandtherefore,increaseitsdegreeofaccessibility.Inthepresentwork,toevaluatethisfactorwehavechosenGoogle,becausethissearchengineisthemostfrequentlyusedbyEuropeaninternetusers..

Thesecondindicatorusedtomeasureaccessibilityisthesite-popularity.Themostcommonmeasureofwebperformanceisthenumberof“hits”asitegenerates.However,thereareaccuracyproblemsassociatedwiththistypeofmeasurement,becausetherearesomemethodstoartificiallyincreasethenumberofhits.Therefore,thetotalnumberofhitsdoesnotnecessarilycorrespondtotheactualnumberofvisitstothesite.

Europeanmunicipalwebsites

427

Figure1.Websitequalityassessmentmodel

INTR19,4

428

Takingthisintoaccount,wedecidedtoemployadifferentkindofmeasurement:wedefined“linkpopularity”asthenumberofexternallinksonthewebthatpointtothewebsitebeinganalyzed.Theadvantagesofalargenumberoflinkstoasiteareevident:first,themoresitesthatlinktoyou,themoretrafficyoucanexpecttoreceive,andsecond,majorsearchengineswillimproveyourpagerankingwhenyouhavemore

˜egil,2004).Forexample,Googleuseslinklinkstoyourwebsite(MirandaandBan

popularityasthemostimportantfactorwhenrankingsites,soifyouwanttohaveasuccessfulwebsite,youmusthavehighlinkpopularity.Althoughattractingusersinmunicipalwebsiteswithexternallinksisthefactofnotsoimportantasinbusiness,weconsiderthatexternallinkscouldbeavalidindicatorofwebaccessibility.InthisstudywehaveusedtheLinkPopularityCheckafreewareprogramthatchecksthelinkpopularitystatusofawebsiteonseveralsearchenginesandcomparesittootherwebsitesontheinternet.

Accessspeedandresponsetimeareobviouslyverysignificant,becausetimeisalwaysacriticalfactor.Somestudieshaverevealedthatthereisasignificantcorrelationbetweenwebsitedownloadspeedandwebusersatisfaction(Muylleetal.,1998;HoffmanandNovak,1996).Thetimeittakesforapagetodownloadisimportantformakingiteasilyaccessibletoeverycitizeninterestedinaccessingonlinemunicipalservices.

Theaccessspeedhasbeenmeasuredwithachronometer,butthisrecordingisinfluencedbyagreatnumberoffactorssuchashardwareemployed,connectiontime,webtrafficetc.Inordertominimizethesesourcesoferror,thetestswerecarriedoutatthesametimewiththesamecomputer.Webbrowsingwasundertakenbyusingthemostpopularbrowser,InternetExplorer6.0.Thesiteswererepeatedlyaccessedonconsecutivedaystoobtainmorerepresentativeaveragespeedmeasurements.

Thethirdcategoryinourindexiswhatwecallnavigability.Poorwebdesignwillresultinalossofpotentialsalesduetousersbeingunabletofindwhattheywant,andalossofpotentialrepeatedvisitsduetoaninitialnegativeexperience.Giventhatusersshouldneverfeellost,eachpageshouldbeself-sufficientandprovidelinkstothemaincontents.Intermsofnavigation,ouranalysisfocusedontheconsistencyofthenavigationstyle.Navigationbarsshouldbepresentoneverywebsite,inordertoallowquickaccessthroughtheentiresite,particularlyforthosewebsiteswithlargeamountsofcontent.So,thehallmarkofagoodsiteisthatthesiteindexshouldalwaysbeondisplay,therebymakingitveryeasyforanybodytoreachthedesiredlocationfastenough.So,followingtheresearchofMirandaetal.(2006),thefactorsusedtoassessthiscategoryarethefollowing:.

Permanentsitemenuallowingarapidaccesstothedifferentsectionsfromeverypage..

Websitemap,foruserstolocateavailableinterestingitemswithinthecompanyhomepage.Contentisacriticalcomponentofanywebsite.Nomatterhowtechnologicallyadvancedawebsite’sfeatures,ifitscontentisnotcurrentoriftheinformationprovidedisnotcorrect,thenitisnotfulfillingitspurpose.Thecontentqualityofthewebsitewillbemeasuredassessingthepresenceofinformationrelevanttotheusers.Asitemusthavecontentsthatsatisfyusers’needsanditshouldbefrequentlyupdated.Municipalwebsitescancontainvariousfeatures,includingmunicipalservices

information,contactinformationtoenablecustomerfeedback,generalcityinformation,etc.

Importantinformationshouldbeimmediatelyaccessible.If80percentofyourusersareseeking20percentofyourinformation,thenthatinformationshouldbethemostvisibleandtheeasiestaccessible.Basiccontactinformationoftheorganizationshouldbeonthemainmenupageandrelatedinformationshouldbegroupedtogetherratherthanscatteredindifferentsectionsofthesite.

Thefactorsselectedtoquantifycontentqualitywerebasedonsitecontentsidentifiedinpreviousstudies(YoungandBenamati,2000;Huizingh,2000;Buenadicha

˜egil,2004;Mirandaetal.,2006),practitionerjournalsandetal.,2001;MirandaandBan

theresearchers’experience.Moon(2002)developedaframeworkforcategorizinge-government[1]modelsbasedonthefollowingcomponents:informationdissemination,two-waycommunication,services,integration,andpoliticalparticipation.Ourmethodologyforevaluatingmunicipale-governmentservicesincludessuchcomponents;however,wehaveaddedsomeadditionalfactors.Wehaveconsideredthreesetsoffactorstoassessthecontentofawebsiteusingabinaryno/yesscale:

Informationalfactors

Providingonlineservicestocitizens,businesses,andothergovernmentemployeesisthemostimportantpartofaneffectivepublic-sectorwebsite.So,municipalwebsitesarelargelyinformational.Contentmustbeuseful,genericservicesmustbeoffered,andserviceprovisionmechanismssuchasthesemustbeextendedconsistently.Therefore,wehaveconsideredthefollowinginformationalfactors:.

Buses,museumsandlibrariesinformation..

Culturalinformation(theatres,cinemasandmusicconcerts)..Cityhistory..

Travelinformation..

Weatherforecast..

Statisticalinformation..

Hospital,fireandemergencyinformation..

Publicemploymentinformation..

Municipallawsinformation..

Councilmeetingsdates..

Budgetinformation..

Strategicplan..Municipalorganizationalchart..

Publicserviceinformation..

Touristinformation..

Investmentprojectinformation..

Securityandprivacypolicy..

Externallinks.

Europeanmunicipalwebsites

429

INTR19,4

430

E-governmentfactors

Acriticalcomponentofe-governmentistheprovisionofmunicipalservicesonline.Inmanyjurisdictions,citiesandmunicipalitiesallowonlineuserstofileorpaylocaltaxes,orpayfinessuchastraffictickets.Insomecases,citiesaroundtheworldareallowingtheiruserstoregisterorpurchaseticketstoeventsincityhallsorarenasonline.

Anotherinterestingareaofe-governmentincludesusingtheinternettoengagecitizensindemocraticprocesses.Citizenparticipationingovernmentisaripeareafore-government,inpartbecausetheInternetisaconvenientmechanismforcitizen-userstoengageintheirgovernment,andalsobecauseofthepotentialtodecentralizedecision-making.Despitethatpotential,veryfewmunicipalwebsitesofferonlineopportunitiesforcivicengagement.

Finally,thee-governmentcontentfeaturesthatarefoundineachofthesearchedwebsitescanbeincludedinthefollowingcategories:downloadableforms,e-administrationfeatures,currentstateofadministrativeprocess,onlinetaxpaymentandcitizenparticipation.

Communicationalfactors

Giventhatwebsitesareoftenentrypointstoacityandvisitorstypicallywanttoobtainaccesstoinformationaboutthecity,contactinformationforthecouncilshouldbeonthemainmenupageandthereforeeasilyaccessible.Morebroadenedcontactinformationisabenefitforcitizens.

Inordertoevaluatethecommunicationalcapacityofeachwebsiteweidentifiedwhetherthesitecontainsthefollowingitems:.

Newsonlineupdated..

Complaintsandcommentse-mail..

Telephone/e-maildirectory..

Contactinformation..

Usersfeedbacktools(e-mailbulletin)..Discussionforums.Toensurereliability,eachmunicipalwebsitewasassessedinthenativelanguagebytwoevaluators,andinthosecaseswheresignificantvariations(overorunder10percent)wereshownontherawscorebetweenevaluators,websiteswereanalyzedathirdtime.

Afterdefiningthem,allthecategoriesandfactorswereweighted(basedonatotalof100points).Theseweightingshavebeenassignedfromtheanalysisofpreviousstudies(EvansandKing,1999;BauerandScharl,2000;Buenadichaetal.,2001;

˜egil,2004;Mirandaetal.,2006)andhavetakenintoaccounttheviewsMirandaandBan

ofdifferentinternetexpertusers.Moreover,toensurethereliabilityofthisassignment,tenwebsitesuserswererecruitedasevaluators.Eachwebsiteuserprovidedtherelativeimportanceofthedifferentcategoriesintheinstrument.First,usersdistributed100pointsamongthefourmajorcategories.Resultswereanalyzedforanindicationofinter-raterreliabilityusingstandardcorrelationproceduresforestimatingagreementcorrectedforchance.ADelphianalysisallowedustoestablishthefinallistofitemsandtheirweights.

Theuseofthesesubjectiveweightingsmaybeconsideredasthemainlimitationofourstudy;however,somerecentstudies(Mirandaetal.,2006)haveemployedsimilarweightings.

MeanvaluesoftheweightsobtainedforthedifferentcategoriesandsubcategoriesofmunicipalwebsitesareshowninTableI.

Europeanmunicipalwebsites

431

Categories

Accessibility

PresenceinsearchenginesPopularity

Speed

Accessspeed(inseconds)NavigabilitySitemap

Permanentsitemenu

Contentsquality

Informationalcontent

Buses,museumsandlibrariesinformation

Culturalinformation(theatre,cinemaandmusicconcerts)Cityhistory

TravelinformationWeatherforecast

Statisticalinformation

Hospital,fireandemergencyinformationPublicemploymentinformationMunicipallawsinformationCouncilmeetingsdatesBudgetinformationStrategicplan

MunicipalorganizationalchartPublicservicesinformationTourisminformation

PotentialinvestorsinformationE-governmentcontentDownloadableformsE-administrationfeatures

CurrentstateofadministrativeprocessOnlinetaxpaymentCitizenparticipation

CommunicationalcontentNewsonlineupdated

Complaintsandcommentse-mailTelephone/e-maildirectoryContactinformation

Usersfeedbacktools(e-mailbulletin)DiscussionforumsTotal

Weights

100

TableI.

Webassessmentindex

INTR19,4

432

3.Municipalities’websitesassessment

Thisisoneofthefirstresearcheffortstoevaluatedigitalgovernanceinlargemunicipalitiesindifferentcountries.Eventhoughsomeresearchershaveevaluatedgovernmentwebsites,theyhavefocusedprimarilyone-governmentwithintheUSA.Onlyafewhavepaidattentiontocomparativeanalysesofe-governmentinnationalgovernmentsthroughouttheworld(HolzerandKim,2004).

Wehaveassessedcitieswithmorethan300,000inhabitantsofthefollowingEuropeancountries:Austria,Belgium,Bulgaria,CzechRepublic,Denmark,Finland,France,Germany,Greece,Hungary,Ireland,Italy,Macedonia,Netherlands,Norway,Portugal,Romania,Slovakia,Spain,SwedenandtheUK.ThisresearchevaluatedtheofficialwebsitesofeachcityselectedintheirnativelanguagesbetweenMayandSeptemberof2007.Therationalecriteriatoselectthelargestmunicipalitiesstemsfromthee-governmentliterature,whichsuggestsapositiverelationshipbetweenpopulationande-governmentcapacityatlocallevel(Moon,2002;MoonanddeLeon,2001;Mussoetal.,2000;Weareetal.1999).Belowisalistofthe84citiesselected:(1)Amsterdam.

(2)Antwerpen(Anvers).(3)Athinai(Athens).(4)Barcelona.(5)Bari.

(6)Beograd(Belgrade).(7)Berlin.(8)Bielefeld.(9)Bilbao.

(10)Birmingham.(11)Bochum.(12)Bologna.(13)Bradford.(14)Bratislava.(15)Bremen.(16)Bristol.(17)Budapest.(18)Cardiff.(19)Catania.

´rdoba.(20)Co

(21)Coventry.(22)Dortmund.(23)Dresden.(24)Dublin.(25)Dudley.

(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34)(35)(36)(37)(38)(39)(40)(41)(42)(43)(44)(45)(46)(47)(48)(49)(50)(51)(52)(53)(54)(55)(56)(57)(58)(59)(60)(61)(62)Duisburg.¨sseldorf.Du

EastRidingofYorkshire.Edinburgh.Essen.Fife.Firenze.

FranfurtamMain.Genova.Glasgow.

¨teborg(Gothenburg).Go

Hamburg.Hannover.Helsinki.Kirklees.

Kobenhavn(Copenhagen).¨ln(Cologne).Ko

LasPalmas.Leeds.Leipzig.

Lisboa(Lisbon).Liverpool.

Londres(London).Lyon.Madrid.´laga.Ma

Manchester.Mannheim.Marseille.

Milano(Milan).¨nchen(Munich).MuMurcia.

Napoli(Naples).Nice.

NorthLanarkshire.¨mberg(Nuremberg).NuOslo.

Europeanmunicipalwebsites

433

INTR19,4

434

(63)()(65)(66)(67)(68)(69)(70)(71)(72)(73)(74)(75)(76)(77)(78)(79)(80)(81)(82)(83)(84)Palermo.Paris.Roma.Rotterdam.Sevilla.

S-Gravenhage(DenHaag).Sheffield.Skoplje.Sofia.

SouthLanakshire.Stockholm.Stuttgart.

Torino(Turin).Toulouse.Valencia.Valladolid.Wakefield.Wien(Vienna).Wigan.Wirral.Wuppertal.Zaragoza.

AccordingtoHolzerandKim(2004),inourresearch,themaincityhomepageisdefinedastheofficialwebsitewhereinformationaboutcityadministrationandonlineservicesareprovidedbythecity.Thecitywebsiteincludeswebsitesaboutthecitycouncil,mayorandexecutivebranchofthecity.

AccordingtotheWAI,thebestwebsitescorrespondtothreeItaliancities:Milano,TorinoandBologna.However,themostvaluableoutputfromourstudyisnottheabilitytoidentifythebestsites,buttoseehoweachmunicipalsiteiscomparedtorelatedsitesandtospotideasandpracticesthatcanimprovecitysites.OurresultsdonotshowahighcorrelationbetweenWAIandcitypopulation.So,largercitiesdonotpresenthighervaluesintheWAI.

Figure2showsanoutlineoftheresultsderivedfromthestudyforthetop20cities(accordingtoWAI).Themainoverallresults,groupedbycategories(accessibility,speed,navigabilityandsitecontent),aresummarizedanddiscussedinthefollowingsections.

Figure3showstheaveragescorebycountry.CitiesinItaly(0.73),theUK(0.69)andFinland(0.67)havehigherIEWvaluescomparedtotherest.Thefactthattherearedifferencesamongcountriesisasignofaninternationaldigitaldivide,andadvancedcitiesandinternationalorganizationshouldmakeeveryefforttoreducethatdivide.

Europeanmunicipalwebsites

435

Figure2.

WAIvaluesforthetop20

cities

INTR19,4

436

Figure3.

WAIvaluesbycountry

4.Accessibility

¨ln(Cologne),Mu¨nchen(Munich)andHamburg)showtheFourGermancities(Berlin,Ko

greatervaluesinthiscategory,especiallyinthepopularityindex.Germany,Norway,FinlandandSwedenarethecountrieswithhighestpopularityvalues.

Inspiteofthat,thesepopularityvaluesarefarfromthoseobtainedbyleadinginternationalfirms(cf.Berlinwith293,347hitsvsMicrosoftwith38,776,447hits).5.Speed

Typically,thosesiteswhosepagesfullyloadedquicklywerealsoeasilynavigable.Thetermspeedisoftenusedsynonymouslyasdatarateinnetworking.Technicallyspeaking,speedreferstotheuser-perceivedperformanceofthenetworkapplication.Speedcorrelatespositivelywithbandwidthinmanycases,butnotalways.One’swebbrowser,forexample,mayperform“slowly”onahigh-bandwidthnetworkforseveralreasons,suchasabottleneckatthewebserveroratone’sISP.

´s,Edinburgh,ManchesterandLiverpoolweretheNorthLanarkshire,Valencia,Parı

sitesthatreceivedthehighestpossibleratinginthisarea.Therangeofvaluesmeasuredvariedfrom0.3to35seconds.

6.Navigability

Weassessedhoweasyitwastonavigatearoundthesite,toreturntothehomepageortofindrelevantinformation.Linkstocomponentswithinthesiteshouldbeavailablefromeverypageandthesecuritymustbeappropriatefortheinteractionsconductedatthesite(EvansandKing,1999).

Almost70percentofthesitesprovidedapermanentmenuandasitemaptomakethenavigationeasythroughthesite.Only7percentofthesitesdidnotprovideeitherpermanentmenuorsitemap.Thepresenceofthispermanentmenuisessentialtopreventusersfromgettinglost,informingthemofwheretheyareonthesiteandhowtofindtheinformationtheywant.

7.Sitecontent

Sitecontenthasbeenassessedbyconsideringtherelevantinformationthatmustappearinamunicipalwebsiteaccordingtotheneedsofpotentialusers.MilanoandWuppertalachievedthehigherratesinthiscategory.Lookingatthecountries,Italian,BritishandSpanishcitiesshowthehighestvaluesinsitecontent.

Thekindofinformationthatismostoftenavailableonthewebsiteistheoneonbuses,museumsandlibraries,touristicandculture(seeFigure4).Besides,informationaboutcityhistoryisavailableon81.18percentofthesitesandtravelinformationin81.18percentofthem.

Theuseoftheinternetbygovernmentsandorganizationshasraisedconcernsabouttheprivacyofwebbrowsingactivities.Therefore,thepresenceofaclearlystatedprivacypolicyisarequirementforallwebsites,andespeciallyforgovernmentalones.Theresultofouranalysisisthatonly55percentmunicipalwebsitesdoprovideaprivacypolicy.

Withrespecttothee-governmentcontentfeaturesthatarefoundineachofthesearchedwebsites,themostinterestingareainvolvesusingtheinternettoengagecitizensindemocraticprocesses.Citizenparticipationingovernmentisusedin80percentofthemunicipalsitesanalyzed.

Currentstateofadministrativeprocess(50.6percent)andonlinetaxpayment(44.71percent)arealsoveryusual.Downloadableforms(38.82percent)ande-administrationfeatures(38.82percent)areleastfrequent.

Bycountries,Italian,British,PortugueseandIrishcitiesarethemostadvancedine-government.

Europeanmunicipalwebsites

437

Figure4.

Informationalcontent

INTR19,4

438

Finally,withrespecttocommunicationalfactorsjust44.7percentofthesitesreviewedinthestudyofferedfeedbacktoolsforusers.Contactinformationwasfoundonlyin38.82percentofthewebsitesassessed.Mostsitesprovideanewonlineserviceupdated(83.53percent),withonlyabout38.82percentofthemprovidingadiscussionforum.Morethan70percentprovideane-mailforcomplaintsandcommentsandatelephone/e-maildirectoryispresentin78.82percent.

8.Discussionandconclusion

Thewebenvironmentoffersmunicipalgovernmentstheopportunitytodeliverinformationandservices,toenhancecommunicationtoandamongitscitizens,andtoprovidemeansforcitizenstointeractwithgovernmentofficials.Politicalscientists,sociologists,managementresearchers,andsocialcriticshavespeculatedaboutandencouragedelectronicservicesthatmightbenefitcitizens.Inresponse,stateadministratorshavetakenupthechallengetoproducewebsiteswithinformationandservices.Earlyresponsesareenthusiastic,butamorematurephasewillleadtogreaterconcern.

Thispaperproposesandtestsamodel,theWebAssessmentIndex(WAI),forevaluatingthepotentialofmunicipalwebsites,allowingresearchersandmanagerstocompareattributesandcomponentsofinternetsites,inordertodeterminethedrawbacksandopportunities.

Themainchallengeintheelaborationoftheindexwastoavoidsubjectivefactors,whichhavebeenpredominantinpreviousassessmenttools.Ourindexisbasedonfourbroadcategories:sitecontent,speed,accessibilityandnavigabilitywhicharequantifiedinanobjectiveandlogicalway.TheresultsoftheapplicationofthisindextotheanalysisofmunicipalwebsiteshavedemonstratedthehighflexibilityoftheWAIandhavedetectedthemainweaknessesofthewebpagesassessed.

Thefindingsreportedabovesuggestthatprogresstowardsthegovernment’sgoalsisuneven,withsomelocalauthoritiestakingrealstepstowardsmeetingthem,butothersfallingbehindandingeneralmakinglittleprogressinovercomingthecomplexityinthestructureofserviceprovision.WenoticedthatsomeEuropeanmunicipalsitesareonlyinthebeginningintermsoffunctionality.Besides,significantdifferencesbetweenEuropeancountrieshavebeenhighlighted.Finally,thestatisticalcorrelationsamongwebpagequalityfactorshavebeenidentified,inordertohelpfirmsofeachindustrytodecidethefeaturestheyshouldinvestupon.

Itisworthnotingthatthereareseverallimitationsforthisanalysis.Firstly,allthedatainthesurveywascollectedfromalimitednumberofvisitstoeachsiteatacertaintime,despitethefactthatthewebisahighlydynamicandchangeablemedium.Similarstudiesatdifferenttimesarelikelytoshowdifferentresults.Suchanevaluationovertimewillalsoshedsomelightonwhetherthereisadivergenceorconvergenceofwebactivities.

Asecondconcernwasthesubjectivenatureoffactorsweightings,whichalthougharebasedontheresultsofpreviousstudiesandpersonalinterviewswithinternetexperts,introducessubjectivityintoouranalysis.

Nevertheless,thestrengthofthisstudyliesinitsfoundationforfutureresearch:HavingidentifiedthecriticalcategoriesandfactorsintheWAI,thenextstageistotestthistoolindifferentcountriesandmeasuretherelationshipbetweentheindexvalue

andonlinebankingsuccess.Furtherresearchinthisimportantareaiscurrentlyunderway.

Evaluatorscanusethisinstrumenteasilywithoutspecifictrainingorknowledgeand,besides,theevaluationtimeislowerthaninotherassessmentmodels(vanderMerweandBekker,2003).

Asfurtherinformationonwebdesignandusabilitymethodsbecomesavailable,theassessmentindexpresentedherecanberefinedintoanempiricallyvalidatedtoolkitforthedesignoffunctionalcorporatesites.Theproposedindexconstitutesasuitablemethodforevaluatingwebsitesandmakingacomprehensiveanalysisoftheusageofthenewmedium.

Note

1.Wedefinee-governmentastheuseofinformationtechnologies(IT)todelivergovernmentinformationandservicesandtoinvolvecitizensinthedemocraticprocessandreal-timegovernmentdecisionmaking.

Europeanmunicipalwebsites

439

References

Bauer,C.andScharl,A.(2000),“Quantitativeevaluationofwebsitecontentandstructure”,

InternetResearch:ElectronicNetworkingApplicationsandPolicy,Vol.10No.1,pp.31-43.Boyd,A.(2002),“Thegoals,questions,indicators,measures(GQIM)approachtothe

measurementofcustomersatisfactionwithe-commercewebsites”,AslibProceedings,Vol.54No.3,pp.177-87.

´lez,O.R.(2001),“AnewwebassessmentBuenadicha,M.,Chamorro,A.,Miranda,F.J.andGonza

index:Spanishuniversitiesanalysis”,InternetResearch:ElectronicNetworkingApplicationsandPolicy,Vol.11No.3,pp.226-34.

Cullen,R.andHoughton,C.(2000),“Democracyonline:anassessmentofNewZealand

governmentwebsites”,GovernmentInformationQuarterly,Vol.17No.3,pp.243-67.deJong,M.andLentz,L.(2006),“Scenarioevaluationofmunicipalwebsites:developmentand

useofanexpert-focusedevaluationtool”,GovernmentInformationQuarterly,Vol.23,pp.191-206.

Evans,J.R.andKing,V.E.(1999),“Business-to-businessmarketingandtheworldwideweb:

planning,managingandassessingwebsites”,IndustrialMarketingManagement,Vol.28,pp.343-58.

Ho,J.(1997),“Evaluatingtheworldwideweb:aglobalstudyofcommercialsites”,Journalof

ComputerMediatedCommunication,Vol.3No.1.

Hoffman,D.L.andNovak,T.P.(1996),“Marketinginhypermediacomputermediated

environments:conceptualfoundations”,JournalofMarketing,Vol.60,July,pp.50-68.Holzer,M.andKim,S.(2004),“Digitalgovernanceinmunicipalitiesworldwide:anassessmentof

municipalwebsitesthroughouttheworld”,NationalCenterforPublicProductivity(Globale-Policye-GovernmentInstituteatwww.gepegi.org).

Huizingh,E.(2000),“Thecontentanddesignofwebsites:anempiricalstudy”,Informationand

Management,Vol.37,pp.123-34.

Kaylor,C.H.,Deshazo,R.andVanEck,D.(2001),“Gauginge-government:areporton

implementingservicesamongAmericancities”,GovernmentInformationQuarterly,Vol.18,pp.293-307.

INTR19,4

440

Liu,C.,Arnett,K.,Capella,L.andBeatty,R.(1997),“WebsitesoftheFortune500Companies:

facingcustomersthroughhomepages”,InformationandManagement,Vol.31,pp.335-45.

˜egil,T.M.(2004),“Quantitativeevaluationofcommercialwebsites:Miranda,F.J.andBan

anempiricalstudyofSpanishfirms”,InternationalJournalofInformationManagement,Vol.24No.4,pp.313-8.

´s,R.andBarriuso,C.(2006),“Quantitativeevaluationofe-bankingwebsites:Miranda,F.J.,Corte

anempiricalstudyofSpanishbanks”,TheElectronicJournalInformationSystemsEvaluation,Vol.9No.2,pp.73-82.

Moon,M.J.(2002),“Theevolutionofe-governmentamongmunicipalities:rhetoricorreality?”,

PublicAdministrationReview,Vol.62No.4,pp.424-33.

Moon,M.J.anddeLeon,P.(2001),“Municipalreinvention:municipalvaluesanddiffusionamong

municipalities”,JournalofPublicAdministrationResearchandTheory,Vol.11No.3,pp.327-52.

Murray,M.(1997),“Evaluatingwebimpact:thedeathofthehighwaymetaphor”,Direct

Marketing,Vol.59,pp.36-9.

Musso,J.,Weare,C.andHale,M.(2000),“Designingwebtechnologiesforlocalgovernance

reform:goodmanagementorgooddemocracy”,PoliticalCommunication,Vol.17No.1,pp.1-19.

Muylle,S.,Moenaert,R.andDespontin,M.(1998),“Introducingwebsiteusersatisfaction:

anintegrationofaqualitativepilotstudywithrelatedMISresearch”,workingpaper,OwenGraduateSchoolofManagement,VanderbiltUniversity,Nashville.

Palmer,J.W.(2002),“Websiteusability,design,andperformancemetrics”,InformationSystems

Research,Vol.13No.2,pp.151-67.

Selz,D.andSchubert,P.(1997),“Webassessment:amodelfortheevaluationandtheassessment

ofsuccessfulelectroniccommerceapplications”,ElectronicMarkets,Vol.7No.3,pp.46-8.Simeon,R.(1999),“Evaluatingdomesticandinternationalwebsitestrategies”,InternetResearch:

ElectronicNetworkingApplicationsandPolicy,Vol.9No.4,pp.297-308.

vanderMerwe,R.andBekker,J.(2003),“Aframeworkandmethodologyforevaluating

e-commercewebsites”,InternetResearch:ElectronicNetworkingApplicationsandPolicy,Vol.13No.5,pp.330-41.

Weare,C.,Musso,J.andHale,M.(1999),“Electronicdemocracyandthediffusionofmunicipal

webpagesinCalifornia”,AdministrationandSociety,Vol.31No.1,pp.3-27.

West,D.M.(2000),“Assessinge-government:theinternet,democracy,andservicedelivery”,

StateandFederalGovernments,availableat:www.insidepolitics.org/egovtreport00.htmlWest,D.M.(2001),“WMRCglobale-governmentsurvey”,October,2001,availableat:www.ins

idepolitics.org/egovt01int.html

Young,D.andBenamati,J.(2000),“Differenceinpublicwebsites:thecurrentstateoflargeUS

firms”,JournalofElectronicCommerceResearch,Vol.1No.3.Furtherreading

˜a”,availableat:www.aece.es.´nicoenEspanAECE(2000),“TercerestudiosobreComercioElectro

Cheung,W.M.andHuang,W.(2002),“Aninvestigationofcommercialusageoftheworldwide

web:apicturefromSingapore”,InternationalJournalofInformationManagement,Vol.22,pp.377-88.

Christopher,D.(1997),“Siteslackinggoodinformationdesign”,availableat:www.netb2b.com,

article1,September14,pp.1-3.

Fink,D.andLaupase,R.(2000),“Perceptionsofwebsitedesigncharacteristics:

aMalasyan/Australiancomparison”,InternetResearch:ElectronicNetworkingApplicationsandPolicy,Vol.10No.41,pp.44-55.

Gromov,G.R.(2000),availableat:www.internetvalley.com/intvalstat.html

Ligos,M.(1998),“Gettingrealworldresultsincyberspace:canyoumeasuretheeffectsofaweb

site?”,SalesandMarketingManagement,Vol.150,p.71.

Misic,M.andJohnson,K.L.(1999),“Benchmarking:atoolforwebsiteevaluationand

improvement”,InternetResearch:ElectronicNetworkingApplicationsandPolicy,Vol.9No.5,pp.383-92.

OCLCResearchProject:MeasuresScopeoftheWeb(1999),availableat:www.oclc.org

Olsina,L.,Godoy,D.,Lafuente,G.J.andRossi,G.(1999),“Specifyingqualitycharacteristicsand

attributesforwebsites”,FirstICSEWorkshoponWebEngineering,LosAngeles,USA.Vijayan,P.andShanmugam,B.(2003),“Servicequalityevaluationofinternetbankingin

Malaysia”,JournalofInternetBankingandCommerce,Vol.8No.1,p.June.Correspondingauthor

FranciscoJavierMirandacanbecontactedat:fmiranda@unex.es

Europeanmunicipalwebsites

441

Topurchasereprintsofthisarticlepleasee-mail:reprints@emeraldinsight.comOrvisitourwebsiteforfurtherdetails:www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints