EDP Sciences logo
Web of Conferences logo
Search
Menu
All issues Volume 440 (2023) E3S Web Conf., 440 (2023) 03019 References
Open Access
Issue
E3S Web Conf.
Volume 440, 2023
International Conference on Environment and Smart Society (ICEnSO 2023)
Article Number 03019
Number of page(s) 22
Section Media and Culture in Smart Society
DOI https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202344003019
Published online 01 November 2023
  1. Abdullah, W. N. R., Mansor, N., & Hamzah, A. (2013). Keeping ahead of the game: Innovations and challenges in e-government in Malaysia. The Economic and Labour Relations Review, 24, 549-567. https://doi.org/10.1177/1035304613508868. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  2. Abidin, N. I., Zakaria, R., Aminuddin, E., Saar, C. C., Munikanan, V., Zin, I. S., & Bandi, M. (2016). Malaysia’s Local Agenda 21 : Implementation and approach in Kuala Lumpur, Selangor and Johor Bahru. IIOAB Journal, 7, 554-562. [Google Scholar]
  3. Aichholzer, G., & Rose, G. (2020). Experience with digital tools in different types of e-participation. European e-democracy in practice, 93-140. [Google Scholar]
  4. Alharbi, A., Kang, K., & Hawryszkiewycz, I. (2016). The Influence of Trust and subjective Norms on Citizens Intentions to Engage in E-participation on E-government Websites. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1606.00746 [Google Scholar]
  5. Ali, H., Ali, T., Matar, Z., & Jawad, F. (2015). Citizens’ acceptance and readiness towards adopting e-participation tools in kingdom of Bahrain. International Journal for Infonomics, 8(2), 1029-1036. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  6. Amron, M. T., Ibrahim, R., Bakar, N. A. A., & Chuprat, S. (2019). Acceptance of cloud computing in the Malaysian public sector: a proposed model. International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 11, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1847979019880709 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  7. Armenia, A., & Irina, G. (2022). E-participation in Europe, a comparative perspective. Вопросы государственного и муниципального управления, (5), 7-29. https://doi.org/10.17323/1999-5431-2022-0-5-7-29 [Google Scholar]
  8. Balakrishnan, V., & Shuib, N. L. M. (2021). Drivers and inhibitors for digital payment adoption using the Cashless Society Readiness-Adoption model in Malaysia. Technology in Society, 65, 101554. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.10155 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  9. Basri, N. H., Adnan, W. A. A., & Baharin, H. (2019). E-Participation service in Malaysian e-government website: The user experience evaluation. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on E-Education, E-Business, E-Management and E-Learning (IC4E ‘19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York: USA, 342–346. [Google Scholar]
  10. Chaputula, A. H., & Mutula, S. (2018). eReadiness of public university libraries in Malawi to use mobile phones in the provision of library and information services. Library Hi Tech, 36(2), 270-288. https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-10-2017-0204 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  11. Chauhan, S., & Jaiswal, M. (2016). Determinants of acceptance of ERP software training in business schools: Empirical investigation using UTAUT model. The International Journal of Management Education, 14(3), 248-262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2016.05.005 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  12. Choi, J. C., & Song, C. (2020). Factors explaining why some citizens engage in E-participation, while others do not. Government Information Quarterly, 37(4), 101524. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101524 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  13. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management science, 35(8), 982-1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  14. Dhondt, S., Kraan, K. O., & Bal, M. (2022). Organisation, technological change and skills use over time: A longitudinal study on linked employee surveys. New Technology, Work and Employment, 37(3), 343-362. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12227 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  15. Donmez-Turan, A. (2020). Does unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) reduce resistance and anxiety of individuals towards a new system?. Kybernetes, 49(5), 1381-1405. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-08-2018-0450 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dorasamy, M., Marimuthu, M., Raman, M., & Kaliannan, M. (2012). E-Government services online: An exploratory study on tax e-filing in Malaysia. In Technology Enabled Transformation of the Public Sector: Advances in E-Government, 312-325. IGI Global. [Google Scholar]
  17. Dwivedi, Y. K., Rana, N. P., Jeyaraj, A., Clement, M., & Williams, M. D. (2019). Re-examining the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT): Towards a revised theoretical model. Information Systems Frontiers, 21(3), 719-734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-017-9774-y [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  18. Farah, M. F., Hasni, M. J. S., & Abbas, A. K. (2018). Mobile-banking adoption: empirical evidence from the banking sector in Pakistan. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 36(7), 1386-1413. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-10-2017-0215 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  19. Fashoro, I., & Barnard, L. (2021). Assessing South African Government’s Use of social media for Citizen Participation. The African Journal of Information Systems, 13(1), 3. [Google Scholar]
  20. Fedotova, O., Teixeira, L., & Alvelos, H. (2012). E-participation in Portugal: evaluation of government electronic platforms. Procedia Technology, 5, 152-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2012.09.017 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  21. Gong, R. (2020, September 7). Digital Inclusion: Assessing Meaningful Internet Connectivity in Malaysia. Khazanah Research Institute. http://krinstitute.org/assets/contentMS/img/template/editor/20200907%20Inclusion%20v4.0.pdf [Google Scholar]
  22. Google Play. (n.d.a). i-Tegur. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=my.gov.onegovappstore.itegur. [Google Scholar]
  23. Google Play. (n.d.b). MyMBSP. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=my.gov.mpsp.mpspinfo&hl=en&gl=US [Google Scholar]
  24. Hassan, L., & Hamari, J. (2020). Gameful civic engagement: A review of the literature on gamification of e-participation. Government Information Quarterly, 37(3), 101461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101461 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  25. Islam, M. (2008). Towards a sustainable e-Participation implementation model. European Journal of ePractice, 5(10), 1-12. [Google Scholar]
  26. Khadzali, N. R. (2022). The Effectiveness of E-Participation In The Local Government In Malaysia: A Case Study At Alor Setar City Council (MBAS) Kedah. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Universiti Utara Malaysia. [Google Scholar]
  27. Khadzali, N. R., & Zan, Z. M. (2018). E-participation: A systematic understanding on public participation in the government in 21st century. Jurnal Intelek, 13(2), 29-46. [Google Scholar]
  28. Kim, S., Lee, K. H., Hwang, H., & Yoo, S. (2016). Analysis of the factors influencing healthcare professionals’ adoption of mobile electronic medical record (EMR) using the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT) in a tertiary hospital. BMC medical informatics and decision making, 16(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-016-0249-8 [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Le Blanc, D. (2020, January). E-participation: a quick overview of recent qualitative trends. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. https://www.un.org/esa/desa/papers/2020/wp163_2020.pdf [Google Scholar]
  30. Lee, S., & Kim, J. (2014). Effects of Servicescape on Perceived Service Quality, Satisfaction and Behavioural Outcomes in Public Service Facilities. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 13, 125-131. http://doi.org/10.3130/jaabe.13.125. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  31. Lee-Geiller, S., & Lee, T. D. (2019). Using government websites to enhance democratic E-governance: A conceptual model for evaluation. Government Information Quarterly, 36(2), 208-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.01.003 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  32. Lim, S. B., & Yigitcanlar, T. (2022). Participatory governance of Smart cities: Insights from e-participation of Putrajaya and Petaling Jaya, Malaysia. Smart Cities, 5(1), 71-89. https://doi.org/10.3390/smartcities5010005 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  33. Lin, C. H., Shih, H. Y., & Sher, P. J. (2007). Integrating technology readiness into technology acceptance: The TRAM model. Psychology & Marketing, 24(7), 641-657. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20177 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  34. Macintosh, A., & Whyte, A. (2008). Towards an Evaluation Framework for e-Participation. Transforming Government People Process and Policy, 2, 3351-33514. http://doi.org/10.1108/17506160810862928. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  35. Maguire, M., & Delahunt, B. (2017). Doing a thematic analysis: A practical, step-by-step guide for learning and teaching scholars. All Ireland Journal of Higher Education, 9(3). [Google Scholar]
  36. Makkonen, M., Frank, L., & Koivisto, K. (2017). Age differences in technology readiness and its effects on information system acceptance and use: the case of online electricity services in Finland. In A. Pucihar, M. K. Borštnar, C. Kittl, P. Ravesteijn, R. Clarke, & R. Bons (Eds.), Bled 2017 : Proceedings of the 30th Bled eConference. Digital Transformation : From Connecting Things to Transforming Our Lives (pp. 403-420). University of Maribor Press. https://doi.org/10.18690/978-961-286-043-1 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  37. MAMPU. (n.d.). MyGovernment Portal. https://www.malaysia.gov.my/portal/index [Google Scholar]
  38. Manoharan, A. P., & Ingrams, A. (2018). Conceptualizing E-Government from Local Government Perspectives. State and Local Government Review, 50(1), 56–66. http://doi.org/10.1177/0160323X18763964. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  39. Mossberger, K., Wu, Y., & Crawford, J. (2013). Connecting citizens and local governments? Social media and interactivity in major US cities. Government information quarterly, 30(4), 351-358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.05.016 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  40. Munoz, L. A., & Bolivar, M. P. R. (2019). A Walk for e-Participation in the Smart City’s Era. New Organizational Challenges and New Models of Governance. In L. A. Munoz, & M. P. R. Bolivar (Eds.), Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT): Vol. 34. E-Participation in Smart Cities: Technologies and Models of Governance for Citizen Engagement (pp. 205-213). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89474-4_10 [Google Scholar]
  41. Napitupulu, D., Adiyarta, K., & Albar. (2019). Public Participation Readiness Toward E-Gov 2.0: Lessons from Two Countries. Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, USA, 240-243. https://doi.org/10.1145/3326365.3326397 [Google Scholar]
  42. Naranjo-Zolotov, M., Oliveira, T., & Casteleyn, S. (2019). Citizens’ intention to use and recommend e-participation: Drawing upon UTAUT and citizen empowerment. Information Technology & People, 32(2), 364-386. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-08-2017-0257 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  43. Noordin, N. A., & Ngah, K. (2018). Does Social Capital Influence Participation In Planning? Evidence From Subang Jaya, Malaysia. International Journal of Law, Government and Communication, 3(8), 32-44. [Google Scholar]
  44. Nurudin, S. M., Hashim, R., Rahman, S., Zulkifli, N., Mohamed, A. S. P., & Hamik, S. A. (2015). Public participation process at local government administration: a case study of the Seremban Municipal Council, Malaysia. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 211, 505-512. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.11.067 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  45. OECD. (n.d.). Open Government Data. OECD Home. https://www.oecd.org/gov/digital-government/open-government-data.htm [Google Scholar]
  46. Oni, A. A., Oni, S., Mbarika, V., & Ayo, C. K. (2017). Empirical study of user acceptance of online political participation: Integrating civic voluntarism model and theory of reasoned action. Government Information Quarterly, 34(2), 317-328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.02.003 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  47. Parasuraman, A. (2000). Technology Readiness Index (TRI) a multiple-item scale to measure readiness to embrace new technologies. Journal of Service Research, 2(4), 307-320. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670500240 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  48. Parycek, P., Schossböck, J. & Rinnerbauer, B. (2015). Identification in E-Participation: Between Quality of Identification Data and Participation Threshold. In: E. Tambouris, P. Panagiotopoulos, Ø. Sæbø, K. Tarabanis, M. A. Wimmer, M. Milano, & T. Pardo (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNISA): Vol. 9249. Electronic Participation (pp. 108–119). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22500-5_9 [Google Scholar]
  49. Rahi, S., & Ghani, M. A. (2018). The role of UTAUT, DOI, perceived technology security and game elements in internet banking adoption. World Journal of Science, Technology and Sustainable Development, 15(4), 338-356. https://doi.org/10.1108/WJSTSD-05-2018-0040 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  50. Rajala, T., & Aaltonen, H. (2020). Reasons for the Failure of Information Technology Projects in the Public Sector. In H. Sullivan, H. Dickinson, & H. Henderson, (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of the Public Servant. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29980-4_78 [Google Scholar]
  51. Reddick, C., & F. Norris, D. (2013). E-participation in local governments: An examination of political-managerial support and impacts. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 7(4), 453-476. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-02-2013-0008 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  52. Rotta, M. J. R., Sell, D., dos Santos Pacheco, R. C., & Yigitcanlar, T. (2019). Digital commons and citizen coproduction in smart cities: Assessment of Brazilian municipal e-government platforms. Energies, 12(14), 2813. https://doi.org/10.3390/en12142813 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  53. Sachs, M. & Schossbock, J. (2019). Acceptance of Tools for Electronic Citizen Participation. In P. Panagiotopoulos, N. Edelmann, O. Glassey, G. Misuraca, P. Parycek, T. Lampoltshammer, & B. Re. (Eds.), Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNISA): Vol. 11686. Electronic Participation (pp. 35-46). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-27397-2_4 [Google Scholar]
  54. Saebo, Ø., Rose, J., & Flak, L. (2008). The Shape of E-participation: Characterizing an Emerging Research Area. Government Information Quarterly, 25(3), 400-428. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2007.04.007 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  55. Salamat, M. A., Shahizan, H., & Syakiran, M. M. (2011). Electronic Participation in Malaysia. Journal of E-Government Studies and Best Practices. 1-11. http://doi.org/10.5171/2011.270543. [Google Scholar]
  56. Samaradiwakara, G. D. M. N., & Gunawardena, C. G. (2014). Comparison of existing technology acceptance theories and models to suggest a well improved theory/model. International technical sciences journal, 1(1), 21-36. [Google Scholar]
  57. Sivarajah, U., Weerakkody, V., Waller, P., Lee, H., Irani, Z., Choi, Y., & Morgan, R., & Glikman, Y. (2015). The Role of e-Participation and Open Data in Evidence-Based Policy Decision Making in Local Government. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 26. http://doi.org/10.1080/10919392.2015.1125171. [Google Scholar]
  58. Troisi, O., Fenza, G., Grimaldi, M., & Loia, F. (2022). Covid-19 sentiments in smart cities: The role of technology anxiety before and during the pandemic. Computers in Human Behavior, 126, 106986. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106986 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  59. Webster, J., & Watson, R. T. (2002). Analyzing the past to prepare for the future: Writing a literature review. MIS quarterly, xiii-xxiii. [Google Scholar]
  60. Unified Public Consultation. (n.d.). Unified Public Consultation. https://upc.mpc.gov.my/csp/sys/bi/%25cspapp.bi.index.cls?scnH=714&scnW=1490 [Google Scholar]
  61. United Nations. (2022). UN E-Government Knowledgebase. https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/Data/Country-Information/id/103-Malaysia [Google Scholar]
  62. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management science, 46(2), 186-204. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  63. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425 - 478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  64. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157-178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  65. Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., Chan, F. K., & Hu, P. J. (2016). Managing citizens’ uncertainty in e-government services: The mediating and moderating roles of transparency and trust. Information Systems Research, 27(1), 87-111. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.2015.0612 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  66. Waddington, H., Sonnenfeld, A., Finetti, J., Gaarder, M., John, D., & Stevenson, J. (2019). Citizen engagement in public services in low‐and middle‐income countries: A mixed‐methods systematic review of participation, inclusion, transparency and accountability (PITA) initiatives. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 15(1-2), 1025. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1025 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
  67. White, J. D. (2007). Managing information in the public sector. New York: M.E. Sharpe. [Google Scholar]
  68. Wimmer, M. A. (2007). Ontology for an e-participation virtual resource centre. Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Theory and practice of electronic governance (ICEGOV ‘07), 89-98. https://doi.org/10.1145/1328057.1328079 [Google Scholar]
  69. Wirtz, B. W., Daiser, P., & Binkowska, B. (2018). E-participation: A strategic framework. International Journal of Public Administration, 41(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2016.1242620 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.

Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.

Initial download of the metrics may take a while.