IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/meanco/v6y2018i4p175-186.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impact of User Participation Methods on E-Government Projects: The Case of La Louvière, Belgium

Author

Listed:
  • Anthony Simonofski

    (Leuven Institute for Research on Information Systems (LIRIS), Faculty of Economy and Business, KU Leuven/Computer Science Faculty, University of Namur, 5000 Namur, Belgium)

  • Benoît Vanderose

    (Computer Science Faculty, University of Namur, Belgium)

  • Antoine Clarinval

    (Computer Science Faculty, University of Namur, Belgium)

  • Monique Snoeck

    (Leuven Institute for Research on Information Systems (LIRIS), Faculty of Economy and Business, KU Leuven, Belgium)

Abstract

In recent years, information and communication technologies (ICT) have allowed governments to improve their internal functioning and to improve the delivery of information and services to their users. This application of ICT in governments has been conceptualized as “e-government”. However, more recently, smart cities emerged as a locally-embedded paradigm that proposes the design of innovative solutions across all domains of our everyday life (mobility, environment, economy, education, quality of life, and governance) with ICT as an enabler. In their recent evolutions, these two concepts have advocated for increased involvement of their stakeholders (citizens, businesses, public servants, etc.) through user-participation methods to support the design of their projects. This article intends to examine how these methods impact an e-government project and, more particularly, to find out which challenges and benefits practitioners experience. In order to reach that goal, we studied the case of the city of La Louvière (Belgium) through a one year plus study following action research’s best practices. This article contributes at several levels. First, it describes the challenges and benefits experienced with participation methods in a concrete project. Second, it proposes an e-government implementation process enhanced with these methods. Third, this article discusses the similarities and differences between e-government and smart cities through the lens of participation methods.

Suggested Citation

  • Anthony Simonofski & Benoît Vanderose & Antoine Clarinval & Monique Snoeck, 2018. "The Impact of User Participation Methods on E-Government Projects: The Case of La Louvière, Belgium," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(4), pages 175-186.
    • Handle: RePEc:cog:meanco:v6:y:2018:i:4:p:175-186
    DOI: 10.17645/mac.v6i4.1657
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/mediaandcommunication/article/view/1657
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/mac.v6i4.1657?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert G. Hollands, 2008. "Will the real smart city please stand up?," City, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(3), pages 303-320, December.
    2. Robert G. Hollands, 2015. "Critical interventions into the corporate smart city," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 8(1), pages 61-77.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Constance Carr & Markus Hesse, 2020. "When Alphabet Inc. Plans Toronto’s Waterfront: New Post-Political Modes of Urban Governance," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(1), pages 69-83.
    2. Kummitha, Rama Krishna Reddy & Crutzen, Nathalie, 2019. "Smart cities and the citizen-driven internet of things: A qualitative inquiry into an emerging smart city," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 140(C), pages 44-53.
    3. Johannes Stübinger & Lucas Schneider, 2020. "Understanding Smart City—A Data-Driven Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-23, October.
    4. Ari-Veikko Anttiroiko, 2016. "City-as-a-Platform: The Rise of Participatory Innovation Platforms in Finnish Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(9), pages 1-31, September.
    5. Renata Biadacz & Marek Biadacz, 2021. "Implementation of “Smart” Solutions and An Attempt to Measure Them: A Case Study of Czestochowa, Poland," Energies, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-28, September.
    6. Seema Mundoli & Hita Unnikrishnan & Harini Nagendra, 2017. "The “Sustainable” in smart cities: ignoring the importance of urban ecosystems," DECISION: Official Journal of the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, Springer;Indian Institute of Management Calcutta, vol. 44(2), pages 103-120, June.
    7. Małgorzata Baran & Monika Kłos & Monika Chodorek & Karolina Marchlewska-Patyk, 2022. "The Resilient Smart City Model–Proposal for Polish Cities," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-23, March.
    8. Solis, Miriam & Bashar, Samira Binte, 2022. "Social equity implications of advanced water metering infrastructure," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    9. Kummitha, Rama Krishna Reddy, 2020. "Why distance matters: The relatedness between technology development and its appropriation in smart cities," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    10. Trencher, Gregory, 2019. "Towards the smart city 2.0: Empirical evidence of using smartness as a tool for tackling social challenges," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 117-128.
    11. Francesco Schiavone & Francesco Paolo Appio & Luca Mora & Marcello Risitano, 2020. "The strategic, organizational, and entrepreneurial evolution of smart cities," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 16(4), pages 1155-1165, December.
    12. Kummitha, Rama Krishna Reddy, 2018. "Entrepreneurial urbanism and technological panacea: Why Smart City planning needs to go beyond corporate visioning?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 330-339.
    13. J. Ramon Gil-Garcia & Tzuhao Chen & Mila Gasco-Hernandez, 2023. "Smart City Results and Sustainability: Current Progress and Emergent Opportunities for Future Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-17, May.
    14. Kummitha, Rama Krishna Reddy, 2019. "Smart cities and entrepreneurship: An agenda for future research," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    15. Jun Zhang & Shuyang Li & Yichuan Wang, 2023. "Shaping a Smart Transportation System for Sustainable Value Co-Creation," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 365-380, February.
    16. Haarstad, Håvard & Wathne, Marikken W., 2019. "Are smart city projects catalyzing urban energy sustainability?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 129(C), pages 918-925.
    17. Huaxiong Jiang & Stan Geertman & Patrick Witte, 2020. "Avoiding the planning support system pitfalls? What smart governance can learn from the planning support system implementation gap," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 47(8), pages 1343-1360, October.
    18. Schiavone, Francesco & Paolone, Francesco & Mancini, Daniela, 2019. "Business model innovation for urban smartization," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 210-219.
    19. Marchesani, Filippo & Masciarelli, Francesca & Bikfalvi, Andrea, 2023. "Smart city as a hub for talent and innovative companies: Exploring the (dis) advantages of digital technology implementation in cities," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 193(C).
    20. Gimpel, Henner & Graf, Vanessa & Graf-Drasch, Valerie, 2020. "A comprehensive model for individuals’ acceptance of smart energy technology – A meta-analysis," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:meanco:v6:y:2018:i:4:p:175-186. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.