Skip to main content

The Use of Open Government Data to Create Social Value

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Electronic Government (EGOV 2022)

Abstract

The current work aims to identify the perspectives from which scholars have studied the link between the citizens’ involvement in the use of Open Government Data (OGD) and the creation of social value to solve local issues in cities as the expected result. Recent studies have concentrated on studying the barriers and conditions of using OGD by focusing on specific types and users’ motivations. Researchers have found that the critical problem of Open Data initiatives is the lack of utilization. Therefore, to allow more rigorous empirical research to assess if the estimated effects of OGD are measurable, there is a need to investigate the link between the types of users and the potential type of effects, that for this proposal is the creation of social value. The study adopted a systematic literature review to map the most current work addressing the utilization of OGD to create social value within different domains. Forty-six records were identified and characterized into four categories of studies: i) Governance - the interconnection of aspects that allow managing and using OGD; ii) Availability- aspects limiting OGD access and re-use; iii) Adoption - aspects that enable the acceptance or rejection of OGD; and iv) Impact - capacity to solve social problems. This study reinforces the move toward decentralizing data governance and civic services.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Puerari, E., de Koning, J., von Wirth, T., Karré, P., Mulder, I., Loorbach, D.: Co-creation dynamics in urban living labs. Sustainability 10(6), 1893 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061893

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bovaird, T., Loeffler, E.: From engagement to co-production: the contribution of users and communities to outcomes and public value. VOLUNTAS: Int. J. Volunt. Nonprofit Organ. 23(4), 1119–1138 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9309-6

  3. Brandsen, T., Steen, T., Verschuere, B.: Co-Production and Co-Creation; Engaging Citizens in Public Services. Taylor & Francis Group, Milton Park (2018). www.routledge.com

  4. Wessels, B., Finn, R., Wadhwa, K., Sveinsdottir, T.: Open data and the knowledge society. In: Open Data and the Knowledge Society. Amsterdam University Press (2017). https://doi.org/10.5117/9789462980181

  5. Bichard, J.-A., Knight, G.: Improving public services through open data: public toilets. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.- Munic. Eng. 165(3), 157–165 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1680/muen.12.00017

  6. Bachtiar, A., Suhardi, Muhamad, W.: Literature review of open government data. In: 2020 International Conference on Information Technology Systems and Innovation (ICITSI), pp. 329–334 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICITSI50517.2020.9264960

  7. Davies, T.: Open data, democracy and public sector reform (2010). http://www.practicalparticipation.co.uk/odi/report/

  8. Susha, I., Grönlund, Å., Janssen, M.: Organizational measures to stimulate user engagement with open data. Transform. Gov.: People Process Policy 9(2), 181–206 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-05-2014-0016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Purwanto, A., Zuiderwijk, A., Janssen, M.: Citizen engagement with open government data. Int. J. Electron. Gov. Res. 16(3), 1–25 (2020). https://doi.org/10.4018/IJEGR.2020070101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hossain, M.A., Dwivedi, Y.K., Rana, N.P.: State-of-the-art in open data research: insights from existing literature and a research agenda. J. Organ. Comput. Electron. Commer. 26(1–2), 14–40 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1080/10919392.2015.1124007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Yuan, Q.: Co-production of public service and information technology: a literature review. In: Proceedings of the 20th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, pp. 123–132 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3325112.3325232

  12. Safarov, I., Meijer, A., Grimmelikhuijsen, S.: Utilization of open government data: a systematic literature review of types, conditions, effects, and users. Inf. Polity 22(1), 1–24 (2017). https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-160012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kalampokis, E., Hausenblas, M., Tarabanis, K.: Combining social and government open data for participatory decision-making. In: Tambouris, E., Macintosh, A., de Bruijn, H. (eds.) Electronic Participation, vol. 6847, pp. 36–47. Springer, Cham (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23333-3_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  14. Huijboom, N., Van den Broek, T.: Open data: an international comparison of strategies. Eur. J. ePract. 12(1), 4–16 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  15. de Azambuja, L.: Drivers and barriers for the development of smart sustainable cities: a systematic literature review. In: 14th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, pp. 422–428 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3494193.3494250

  16. Neto, A.J.A., Neves, D.F., Santos, L.C., Junior, M.C.R., do Nascimento, R.P.C.: Open government data usage overview. In: Proceedings of the Euro American Conference on Telematics and Information Systems, pp. 1–8 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3293614.3293619

  17. Page, M.J.: The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 18(3) (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2017.1285123

  18. van Loenen, B., Zuiderwijk, A., Vancauwenberghe, G., et al.: Towards value-creating and sustainable open data ecosystems: a comparative case study and a research agenda. JeDEM – eJ. eDemocr. Open Gov. 13, 1–27 (2021). https://doi.org/10.29379/jedem.v13i2.644

  19. Grant, M.J., Booth, A.: A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf. Libr. J. 26, 91–108 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., Smart, P.: Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br. J. Manag. 14(3), 207–222 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wolfswinkel, J., Furtmueller, E., Wilderom, C.: Using grounded theory as a method for rigorously reviewing literature. Eur. J. Inf. Syst. 22(1), 45–55 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1057/ejis.2011.51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Wohlin, C.: Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literatures studies and a replication in software engineering. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering - EASE 2014, pp. 1–10 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1145/2601248.2601268

  23. Ruijer, E., Grimmelikhuijsen, S., Meijer, A.: Open data for democracy: developing a theoretical framework for open data use. Gov. Inf. Q. 34, 45–52 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ojo, A., Mellouli, S.: Deploying governance networks for societal challenges. Gov. Inf. Q. 35, 106-S112 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.04.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Rodríguez Bolívar, M.P.: Analyzing collaborative environments in smart cities. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (ICEGOV 2018), pp. 489–498 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1145/3209415.3209428

  26. Bonina, C., Eaton, B.: Cultivating open government data platform ecosystems through governance: lessons from Buenos Aires, Mexico City, and Montevideo. Gov. Inf. Q. 37(3), 101479 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Slobodova, O., Becker, S.: Zooming into the ecosystem: agency and politics around open data platforms in Lyon and Berlin. Front. Sustain. Cities 2, 20 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2020.00020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Reggi, L., Dawes, S.: Creating open government data ecosystems: network relations among governments, user communities, NGOs and the media. Gov. Inf. Q. 101675 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2022.101675

  29. Calzada, I.: Emerging digital citizenship regimes: pandemic, algorithmic, liquid, metropolitan, and stateless citizenships. Citizsh. Stud. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1080/13621025.2021.2012312

  30. McBride, K., Toots, M., Kalvet, T., Krimmer, R.: Open government data driven co-creation: moving towards citizen-government collaboration. In: Parycek, P., et al. (eds.) Electronic Government. LNCS, vol. 11020, pp. 184–195. Springer, Cham (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98690-6_16

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  31. Rodriguez Müller, A.P., Steen, T.: Behind the scenes of coproduction of smart mobility: evidence from a public values’ perspective. In: Lindgren, I., et al. (eds.) Electronic Government. LNCS, vol. 11685, pp. 338–352. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27325-5_26

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Hyun Park, C., Longo, J., Johnston, E.W.: Exploring non-state stakeholder and community-led open governance: beyond the three pillars of open government. Public Perform. Manag. Rev. 43(3), 587–612 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2019.1677253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Seo, H., Myeong, S.: Determinant factors for adoption of government as a platform in South Korea: mediating effects on the perception of intelligent information technology. Sustainability 13, 10464 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Zhang, J., Li, S., Wang, Y.: Shaping a smart transportation system for sustainable value co-creation. Inf. Syst. Front. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-021-10139-3

  35. Gagliardi, D., Schina, L., Sarcinella, M.L., Mangialardi, G., Niglia, F., Corallo, A.: Information and communication technologies and public participation: interactive maps and value-added for citizens. Gov. Inf. Q. 34(1), 153–166 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.09.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Lieven, C.: DIPAS – towards an integrated GIS-based system for civic participation. Proc. Comput. Sci. 112, 2473–2485 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.08.182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Alizadeh, T., Sarkar, S., Burgoyne, S.: Capturing citizen voice online: enabling smart participatory local government. Cities 95, 102400 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.102400

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Longo, A., Zappatore, M., Bochicchio, M.A.: Apollon: towards a citizen science methodology for urban environmental monitoring. Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst. 112, 899–912 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2020.06.041

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Nikiforova, A., McBride, K.: Open government data portal usability: a user-centred usability analysis of 41 open government data portals. Telematics Inform. 58, 101539 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Doctor, G., Joshi, P.: Empowering cities through open data - open government data initiatives in India. In: 14th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, pp. 352–361 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1145/3494193.3494241

  41. Chatfield, A.T., Reddick, C.G.: A longitudinal cross-sector analysis of open data portal service capability: the case of Australian local governments. Gov. Inf. Q. 34(2), 231–243 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.02.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Saddiqa, M., Rasmussen, L., Magnussen, R., Larsen, B., Pedersen, J.M.: Bringing open data into Danish schools and its potential impact on school pupils. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Symposium on Open Collaboration, pp. 1–10 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3306446.3340821

  43. Lee-Geiller, S.: Conditions influencing e-participation: a cross-country comparative mixed-methods analysis. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (ICEGOV 2020), pp. 754–761 (2020). https://doi-org.zorac.aub.aau.dk, https://doi.org/10.1145/3428502.3428615

  44. Rodríguez Bolívar, M.P., Villamayor Arellano, C.L., Alcaide Muñoz, L.: Demographical attributes explaining different stages of OG development in spanish local governments. In: Viale Pereira, G., et al. (eds.) EGOV 2020. LNCS, vol. 12219, pp. 387–399. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57599-1_29

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  45. Changfeng, J., Yanl, Z., Mingyi, D., Xintao, L.: Visualizing spatiotemporal patterns of city service demand through a space-time exploratory approach. Trans. GIS 25(4), 1766–1783 (2021)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Ho, D.H., Lee, Y.: Big data analytics framework for predictive analytics using public data with privacy preserving. In: IEEE International Conference on Big Data, pp. 5395–5405 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1109/BigData52589.2021.9671997

  47. Leon, R.-D., Romanelli, M.: Rethinking Romanian and Italian smart cities as knowledge-based communities. In: Lazazzara, A., Ricciardi, F., Za, S. (eds.) Exploring Digital Ecosystems, vol. 33, pp. 11–23. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23665-6_2

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  48. Kassen, M.: Open data and e-government–related or competing ecosystems: a paradox of open government and promise of civic engagement in Estonia. Inf. Technol. Dev. 25, 552–578 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2017.1412289

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Rahmatika, M., Krismawati, D., Rahmawati, S.D., Arief, A., Sensuse, D.I., Fadhil Dzulfikar, M.: An open government data maturity model: a case study in BPS-statistics Indonesia. In: 7th International Conference on Information and Communication Technology (ICoICT), pp. 1–7 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1109/ICoICT.2019.8835352

  50. Kopackova, H., Komarkova, J., Horak, O.: Enhancing the diffusion of e-participation tools in smart cities. Cities 125, 103640 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Kopackova, H., Komarkova, J.: Participatory technologies in smart cities: what citizens want and how to ask them. Telematics Inform. 47, 101325 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2019.101325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Currie, M.: Data as performance – showcasing cities through open data maps. Big Data Soc. 7(1) (2020). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951720907953

  53. Vidiasova, L., Tensina, I.: E-participation social effectiveness: case of “Our Petersburg” portal. In: Chugunov, A., Misnikov, Y., Roshchin, E., Trutnev, D. (eds.) Electronic Governance and Open Society: Challenges in Eurasia, vol. 947, pp. 308–318. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13283-5_23

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  54. Chohan, S.R., Hu, G.: Success factors influencing citizens’ adoption of IoT service orchestration for public value creation in smart government. IEEE Access 8, 208427–208448 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3036054

  55. Marjanovic, O., Cecez-Kecmanovic, D.: Open government data platforms – a complex adaptive sociomaterial systems perspective. Inf. Organ. 30(4), 100323 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2020.100323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Mutambik, I., Nikiforova, A., Almuqrin, A., Liu, Y.D., Floos, A.Y.M., Omar, T.: Benefits of open government data initiatives in Saudi Arabia and barriers to their implementation. J. Glob. Inf. Manag. 29(6), 1–22 (2021). https://doi.org/10.4018/JGIM.295975

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Sangkachan, T.: Open government data: the key to promoting public participation, and fighting against corruption. Thai J. Public Adm. 19(2), 41–70 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  58. Reddick, C.G., Chatfield, A.T., Puron-Cid, G.: Online budget transparency innovation in government: a case study of the U.S. state governments. In: Proceedings of the 18th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (DG.O 2017), pp. 232–241 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3085228.3085271

  59. Gao, Y., Janssen, M.: The open data canvas–analyzing value creation from open data. Digit. Gov.: Res. Pract. 3(1), 1–15 (2022). https://doi-org.zorac.aub.aau.dk, https://doi.org/10.1145/3511102

  60. Cabitza, F., Locoro, A., Batini, C.: Making open data more personal through a social value perspective: a methodological approach. Inf. Syst. Front. 22(1), 131–148 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-018-9854-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Allen, B., Tamindael, L.E., Bickerton, S.H., Cho, W.: Does citizen coproduction lead to better urban services in smart cities projects? An empirical study on e-participation in a mobile big data platform. Gov. Inf. Q. 37(1), 101412 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Wilson, B., Cong, C.: Beyond the supply side: use and impact of municipal open data in the U.S. Telematics Inform. 58, 101526 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101526

  63. Coutinho, E.D., Freitas, A.S.: Public value through technologies developed with open government data: the Love Serenade Operation case. Revista de Administração Mackenzie 22(6), 1–26 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-6971/eRAMD210079

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Yuan, Q., Gasco-Hernandez, M.: Open innovation in the public sector: creating public value through civic hackathons. Public Manag. Rev. 23(4), 523–544 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1695884

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Manoharan, A.P., Melitski, J., Holzer, M.: Digital governance: an assessment of performance and best practices. Public Organ. Rev. (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11115-021-00584-8

  66. Attard, J., Orlandi, F., Scerri, S., Auer, S.: A systematic review of open government data initiatives. Gov. Inf. Q. 32(4), 399–418 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.07.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Straub, E.T.: Understanding technology adoption: theory and future directions for informal learning. Rev. Educ. Res. 79(2), 625–649 (2009). http://www.jstor.org/stable/40469051

  68. Harrison, T.M., Pardo, T.A., Cook, M.: Creating open government ecosystems: a research and development agenda. Future Internet 4(4), 900–928 (2012). https://doi.org/10.3390/fi4040900

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to María Elena López Reyes .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 IFIP International Federation for Information Processing

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

López Reyes, M.E., Magnussen, R. (2022). The Use of Open Government Data to Create Social Value. In: Janssen, M., et al. Electronic Government. EGOV 2022. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13391. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15086-9_16

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15086-9_16

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-15085-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-15086-9

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics