Content uploaded by María Elena López Reyes
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by María Elena López Reyes on Sep 13, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
The Use of Open Government Data to Create
Social Value
María Elena López Reyes(B)and Rikke Magnussen
Aalborg University, A.C Meyers Vænge 15, 2450, Copenhagen SV, Denmark
melr@ikp.aau.dk
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 Gov-
ernment 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’ motiva-
tions. 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 inves-
tigate 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 intercon-
nection 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.
Keywords: Open government data ·Social value creation ·Citizens’
involvement
1 Introduction and Background
Over the past decades, there has been an increase in the collaboration between citizens,
public institutions, the private sector, and knowledge institutions to facilitate the creation
of social value to solve local issues [1]. It has been acknowledged that public services
are no longer provided only by governmental agencies but are designed and delivered
through coordination across multiple sectors [2]. At the same time, it has become more
accepted that as “experts on themselves,” citizens take more responsibility for the services
they or their dependents receive playing a more proactive role [3]. Align to this trend,
the Open Government Data (OGD) movement entered the global political agendas to
encourage public organizations to collect and make factual, nonperson-specific data
public [4].
© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2022
Published by Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022
M. Janssen et al. (Eds.): EGOV 2022, LNCS 13391, pp. 244–257, 2022.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-15086-9_16
The Use of Open Government Data to Create Social Value 245
The Open Data philosophy’s central proposition is that data, information, and knowl-
edge become a shared asset in society, allowing anyone to use it to engage and partici-
pate in economic, social, political, and cultural projects [4]. Data availability enables the
coalition, combination, and enhancement of data through processes and tools [5] that
allow the use, reuse, redistribution, and merge of available OGD with other data sources
[6]. These processes enable the transformation of data into fact information, insight,
interface, new data, or services [7–9].
The goal of the release of OGD is to transform how governments relate to the
public by engaging citizens in using the available data [10]. The intention is to enable
citizens to transform their community or environment; or help local governments solve
challenges by benefiting from their knowledge, ideas, and the ability of people to provide
surveillance [6]. The expected effects can be of three kinds. Firstly, it can drive social
effects by creating or improving solutions to public service provision and creating social
value. Secondly, it can improve governance by raising transparency and accountability,
increasing citizen trust, and stimulating citizen participation. And thirdly, it can lead to
economic effects by driving economic development [11,12].
Specifically, using datasets related to public services and facilities can increase social
value as they offer citizens the opportunity to enhance social life quality [13]. The use
of OGD allows citizens to share information, take part in policing and law enforcement,
analyzing and monitoring social issues and government actions, developing social inno-
vation, engaging in public services innovation or improvement, generate wealth through
the downstream use of outputs, and more generally, enhance the interaction between
government and citizens to solve local problems [10,12].
Despite the efforts to engage citizens in the use of OGD [14] and the rapid advances
in information and communication technology [11], several studies point out that the
critical problem of OGD initiatives is the lack of its utilization [6,12]. There has been
a significant focus in the literature on studying the relationship between the utilization
of OGD and the social and technical conditions enabling or disabling its use [6,12,15,
16]. Scholars have found that the barriers and conditions to using OGD are related to the
quality of data such as metadata and readability; legislation on topics such as policy and
privacy; challenges related to the user such as lack of knowledge, lack of skills, or lack
of interest; barriers related to the infrastructure such as interoperability, availability, and
security; and finally economic challenges [6,12,15,16].
More recent studies have concentrated on the barriers and conditions of using OGD
by focusing on specific types and users’ motivations [12]. For example, Purwanto et al.
[9] focused on the individual citizens’ drivers and inhibitors for engaging with the use
of OGD. However, 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 [12].
In the current paper, we focus on identifying the perspectives from which scholars
have studied the link between the citizens’ involvement in using OGD and the expected
effect of the creation of social value to solve local issues in cities as an expected result.
The research question guiding this study is “what perspectives have been used to study
citizens’ involvement in using OGD when the expected effect is creating social value to
solve local issues in cities?”
246 M. E. López-Reyes and R. Magnussen
The article’s content has the following structure: The next section describes the
methodology, including a systematic literature review [17]; the third section presents the
content analysis results. The fourth section discusses the research findings, conclusion,
and study’s limitations. This review belongs to the European Union’s Horizon 2020
innovation program ODECO. The research focus will serve as a building block to broader
research on Open Data Ecosystems [18] that seeks to understand how to sustain OGD
availability and increase its use to create social value and solve local problems.
2Method
This section explains the method of the literature study performed to identify the per-
spectives used by scholars to study citizens’ involvement in using OGD. The focus has
been on understanding the effect of data used to create social value to solve local issues
in cities. The methodological approach followed was a systematic review which helps
to appraise and synthesize research evidence [19] and it is more reliable than other tra-
ditional reviews as it considers a transparent process to increase methodological rigor
[20]. A five-step method described in the following paragraphs and illustrated in Fig. 1
was applied [21].
The first step was to define the review process and the inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Considering the goal of this review, the keywords to perform the search were defined,
as well as the set of inclusion and exclusion criteria. As this study aimed to identify
perspectives to study citizens’ involvement in using OGD, the term “open government
data” and its variations (e.g., open data, open government, public sector information,
public data, public government data, open public data) were used. The inclusion criteria
were determined as follows: Papers should be academic journal articles and conference
papers available online in full text, which are relevant to the study goal and to answer the
research question. Table 1shows the articles’ complete list of inclusion criteria to define
the relevance of the studies to be considered. Examples of relevant papers are studies
mentioning open data platforms, user needs, social effects, public value cocreation, open
government data initiatives implementation, and citizen participation. The exclusion
criteria were defined by publications that are not primary studies, date outside the range
of dates from 2017 and 2022, and lack an empirical approach to study the use of OGD
when the expected outcome is to create social value to solve local issues in cities.
The second step was doing database searches and applying the selected search sting.
The search was undertaken in February 2022 using Scopus, and ACM Digital Library.
The query string used in the databases was: (“Open Government Data” OR “Open
Data” OR “public sector information” OR “public data” OR “public government data”
OR “open public data”) AND (“Social value creation” OR “Public value creation” OR
“Public Service creation” OR “Public Service innovation”) AND (“citizen use” OR “ci-
tizen engagement” OR “citizen participation” OR “citizen involvement”) AND (“local”
OR “community” OR “urban” OR “city”). The selection of the keywords was done after
reviewing the first outcomes of the search, and to ensure that it covered all the possible
variations of the keywords.
The Use of Open Government Data to Create Social Value 247
Table 1. Inclusion criteria for selecting papers for characterization
Inclusion criteria: Studies should …
Record standard 1.Be available online in full text as part of an academic journal article
or as a conference paper
2.Be studies dating from 2017 to 2022
3.Be primary studies with empirical approaches
4.Include the keywords in the title, abstract, or keywords to ensure
that citizens’ use of OGD remains central
Citizens’ use of OGD 5.Involves citizens in the use of OGD
Open Government Data 6.Include the implementation of Open Government Data initiatives
Social value 7.Include the aim to create social value to solve local issues in cities
Fig. 1. Systematic mapping review process flow diagram modified from the Preferred Reporting
Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) flowchart [17].
This search string allowed the identification of studies with both focus on OGD and
the interplay of citizens and government representatives in the creation of social value.
The search allowed us to look for the keywords in the article title, abstract, keywords
list, and full text. Since OGD is a multidomain field, the journals were not limited to one
specific area. Moreover, since the development of the OGD domain in the latest years has
significantly increased and transformed, the search was performed by only considering
248 M. E. López-Reyes and R. Magnussen
publications from 2017 to 2022 to portray the latest developments and avoid outdated
approaches. The query resulted in 91 records in Scopus, and 14 in ACM Digital Library.
The searches resulted in a total of 105 records. The third step was the selection of the
literature sample. The first step was to look for double items through a manual review
of the list of 105 records, which resulted in 98 unique records. Then, a screening was
performed to verify the inclusion and exclusion criteria prior defined.
The document type and the availability online were verified. After removing books,
book chapters, book reviews, conference reviews lists (exclusion reason 1, 17 records),
articles dating out from 2017 to 2022 (exclusion reason 2, 4 records), and records without
an empirical approach (exclusion reason 3, 18 records), 59 were assessed for eligibility.
The screening of abstracts resulted in 24 eligible articles. A snowballing approach [22]
was used to complement the search resulting in 24 additional records. Figure 1summa-
rizes the literature identification, screening, and inclusion process through the PRISMA
flowchart [17].
The last step was analyzing and categorizing the papers according to the perspective
addressed by the authors to observe citizens’ use of OGD to create social value that
solves local problems. A qualitative content analysis was performed to get results and
synthesize the reviewed studies. The extracted information was recorded and classified
using Excel worksheets. Next, the content was structured to present the findings in the
following section.
3 Results
This section presents the content analysis results of the 46 identified and reviewed
records. By focusing on the question “what perspectives have been used to study users’
involvement in the utilization of OGD when the expected effect is creating social value
to solve local issues in cities?” four different categories were identified according to
the content analysis. The first research theme encompasses studies that touches upon
a particular aspect of the OGD Governance, by studying a specific actor’s roles in the
open data ecosystem, outlining management recommendations, or proposing mecha-
nisms or evaluation methods for governance. The second theme refers to the work done
that observes aspects related to the OGD Availability. The studies that fall into this cate-
gorization focus on understanding user needs regarding the specific media to make data
available and the effects of different data collection methods and provisions. The third
theme encapsulates the research done by taking an angle referring to OGD Adoption,
mainly referring to the drivers or motives for using OGD and reflecting on the assessment
of its use. Finally, the fourth theme concerns understanding the OGD impact or value,
and the research is done to understand the effects or assessment mechanisms to unveil
the value of using OGD. The reviewed and categorized articles included in Table 2are
the records that met the inclusion criteria listed in Table 1. The categorization of the
identified articles is shown in Table 2.
The Use of Open Government Data to Create Social Value 249
Table 2. Overview of reviewed articles and identified research perspectives of studying the use
of OGD to create social value in cities characterized by four different themes.
Theme Authors No. studies
Governance [23–34]12
Availability [35–46]12
Adoption [27,30,33,47–54]11
Impact [55–65]11
3.1 Governance
According to the literature, effective development, and implementation of OGD initia-
tives require structures, policies, actors, and institutions to manage, produce, access,
share, exchange, and use different types of data [66]. In that sense, the reviewed articles
take a governance perspective on researching the use of OGD to create social value, as
they discuss the different roles that actors can play within the open data infrastructures
and the interrelations that can influence the data-driven value creation mechanisms [24,
25,28–30,34], as well as the effects of different governance models [27,32]. In some
cases, they also consider the expected outcomes like innovation [26] or democracy [23].
The discussion raised by the perspective of this group of research highlights the relevance
of the interrelation, and the interdependency between actors, communication tools, and
contexts, to succeed in the OGD service delivery and value creation. In this regard, some
studies suggest that actors’ engagement might be influenced by geographic proximity
and the effect of local contexts [27–29].
Most of the studies explored governance by taking the perspective of one of the actors
involved and considering how they shape or get shaped by the technological elements of
the OGD infrastructure. This was explored by comparing cases to propose recommen-
dations, conceptual frameworks, or models to assist the development of OGD initiatives
or programs [23,26,27,30,31,34]. For example, some studies offer theoretical mod-
els based on empirical case studies to deal with the context interdependence and allow
the emergence and development of innovation [26,32]. Some others offer conceptual
models to deepen the understanding of specific actors’ roles or democratic processes,
such as Calzada [29], who proposed a taxonomy of digital citizenship regimes, or Rujier
et al. [23], who developed a Democratic Activity Model of Open Data Use. Another
example is the research that focuses on the role of ICT developments and their effects on
the coproduction and cocreation of value within the network of stakeholders by offer-
ing insights to improve the governance models. For example, Rodríguez [25] focuses
on the role of e-participation technologies and the need for introducing collaborative
and participative governance models, while Zhang et al. [34] offer reflections on net-
working computing and its role in creating sustainable value, specifically in the smart
transportation systems.
250 M. E. López-Reyes and R. Magnussen
3.2 Availability
Open data availability refers to the different elements that need to be in place so that the
public can access data without restrictions that would impede the re-use of information
[66]. The studies included in this theme focus on analyzing three different perspectives
that would affect the channels through which data is being made available for users to
create social value. In the first group, the authors focus on collecting data to make it
available [38,42]. A second group focuses on aspects that affect the accessibility to data
[35,36,41,44–46]. Finally, a third group focuses on the users’ needs to access it [37,
39,40,43].
An emerging issue affecting the data availability and addressed by the first group of
the literature identified in this theme is the integration of different data sources. In this
perspective, the authors reflect on cases in which the collected data comes from sensors,
crowdsourcing, or data collected by citizens [36,38,42]. The educational contexts arise
as a setting that allows exercising inclusion, addressing the skills gaps in dealing with
data, and enabling a greater observation control [38,42]. The technological resources
for automatization and data processing become relevant aspects to continuing to be
explored, especially considering citizens’ co-production of information [36,42] and the
involvement and exploitation of new data sources [38].
The second group of authors identified in this group addressed the accessibility
and reflected on the technical capabilities and channels that affect data provision and
integration mediums [41,44,46]. For example, Chatfield & Reddicks [41] reflect on
how the data portals’ capabilities might differ according to the data formats, policies,
and resources. All these considerations would also define the channels, which according
to Rodríguez et al. [44], should contemplate transparency and citizens’ participation
influenced by demographic characteristics such as population density or educational level
within the city. On its part, Ho and Lee [46] bring in their observations on the problems
that arise when there are divergent geographic levels or time horizons within the data
collected, which are challenges that public officers face when trying to augment existing
data sources. These studies provide empirical evidence and quantitative conclusions
from their analysis of open data portals [41,44] and analytical inputs for data curation
and privacy-preserving of the OGD [46].
The third group of authors addressing the users’ needs to access to data highlight
the display of information as a critical aspect to consider in terms of data availability.
According to some of these authors, visualization techniques are being explored to
provide citizens with the analytical tools to exploit data [35,45]. Also, in this direction,
the revised literature follows different approaches to investigate user needs, challenges,
and conditions for their individual and collective involvement, primarily focusing on the
technological channels of interaction [37,39,40,43]. For example, one of the studies
explores the accessibility of OGD portals in India by comparing them to portals in other
countries [40]. On her part, Alizadeh et al. [37] analyzed participatory tools to allow
communities to be part of a deliberative process of public decision-making by using
social media as a source for improving the quality of data.
The Use of Open Government Data to Create Social Value 251
3.3 Adoption
According to the reviewed literature, there is a need to understand how to drive adoption
to increase the use of data. In this context, we refer to adoption as the choices an individual
makes to accept or reject a particular innovation, and the extent to which that innovation
is integrated into the appropriate context [67]. In that sense, the reviewed articles present
two clear paths of research. On the one hand, there is an interest in identifying the drivers
that can lead to the OGD adoption [27,30,33,48,52]. In some cases, the adoption of
OGD is studied when it is used through e-participation platforms [51,53], and in other
cases when it is used through IoT tools [54]. On the other hand, there is also a focus
on assessing the maturity level of the open data ecosystems [49] and the strengths and
weaknesses of specific cases [47], which would ultimately influence the adoption of
OGD.
Another important aspect to understand the adoption of OGD is identifying the
factors and motivators for its use. For example, one of the reviewed studies identified
adoption factors for an e-participation tool in Czech cities. The study concluded that
the innovativeness of a city or increasing the number of e-participation tools would not
necessarily increase the number of adopters. Instead, researchers suggest focusing on
contacting current adopters of participation activities to understand the possible adoption
process [51]. For example, a study analyzing Romanian and Italian cities through a
knowledge management perspective found that the efforts to use open data concentrate
on the economy, mobility, and people [47]. However, another study points out that one
of the reasons for not using the data is the lack of communication channels with the
platform managers. In that sense, one possible research direction could be to focus on
first adopters to improve communication with platform managers [27].
3.4 Impact
Even though there has been an increase in the number of OGD initiatives, the impact
is still uncertain [60,62]. We refer to impact as the extent to which data helps “solving
problems and meet essential needs of individuals, communities or society at large” [68].
In that sense, most of the articles that fall into this theme take as the main challenge the
assessment of the impact that the use of OGD can bring to communities. Several of the
reviewed articles focused on assessing the impact of the use of ODG through a specific
tool [61,63,65], within a specific context [56,62,64], or by assessing a specific outcome
[58]. For example, Allen et al. [61] examined the impact of citizen e-participation on
service performance, while Wilson and Cong [62] focused on assessing the impact of
municipal government data in nine cities across the US, and finally, Reddick et al. [58]
focused on assessing the performance of the government online budget transparency
portals in the US.
Another branch of research under this theme focused on the development of assess-
ment mechanisms to get conclusions about the impact of the use of OGD on creating
social value [59,60]. For example, in their work, Cabitza et al. [60] developed a con-
ceptual model to understand the perceived social value of real-life open data sets in the
health care domain. However, the results only provided insights on the perceptions of the
users and the results of the study give feedback on the users’ preferences regarding the
252 M. E. López-Reyes and R. Magnussen
presentation of the information, and not on the benefits perse. Finally, the most recent
contribution by Gao and Janssen [59] combined the components of the business model
canvas and value creation conceptualization from literature to create the value model
canvas. The model creates an overview of the needs in terms of data and capabilities to
understand the value generation logic. It is important to mention that within this theme,
there has been also a focus on empirically understanding the negative effects of the use
of OGD through digital platforms, which is an emerging research direction in the Open
Data domain. That is the case of Marjanovic and Cecez-Kecmanovic [55] who analyzed
the negative effects of the performance data from Australian schools.
Overall, the research in this category focused on case studies or cross-case analy-
ses using quantitative and qualitative approaches. These are the first attempts to create
conceptual frameworks and give recommendations for improving the impact of the use
of OGD. The studies suggest that more research is still missing that focuses on public
value creation [58] and understanding how the use of different e-governance tools can
influence complex problems affecting the involvement of multiple agencies [61]. The
researchers also mention the lack of monitoring mechanisms to evaluate the broader
effect of the use of OGD [62].
4 Discussion and Conclusion
The current work presents the results of a systematic mapping review comprising 46
articles to address the question “what perspectives have been used to study citizens’
involvement in using OGD when the expected effect is creating social value to solve
local issues in cities?” This review belongs to broader research on Open Data Ecosystems
[18] that has the aim to provide insights that serve as a building block in the understand-
ing of the use and value of OGD on a local level. Through a content analysis, four
research perspectives of the most current research on the use of OGD were identified
and categorized.
These perspectives evidence the relevance of understanding the different aspects
of the interdependence within OGD infrastructure which are Governance, Availability,
Adoption, and Impact. Across the studies in all categories, there has also been special
attention to understanding the different scales in which the elements can be affected and
interrelated, such as national and local, network and individual, platform and ecosystems,
and specific tools or technology.
The research included in the Governance theme shows a growing interest in study-
ing the OGD phenomena by focusing on specific interactions, actors’ interrelations,
and the different elements intertwined in the implementation of OGD efforts, such as
individual actors and the outcomes of their interactions. One of the relevant aspects of
the Governance perspective is that it evidences the significance of considering the role
of technology and how the mechanisms are affected by the rapidly changing digital
dynamics and technological advances.
The attention in the research studies belonging to the theme of Availability shows
the significance of understanding the lifecycles of OGD. From OGD collection to the
mechanisms and tools to make it available until the service delivery by taking care of
the interactions and usability. This category of studies reveals an interest in creating
The Use of Open Government Data to Create Social Value 253
models and frameworks for evaluating different aspects of the implementation of an
OGD ecosystem, such as the data collection mechanisms, accessibility, and usability.
Regarding the theme of OGD Adoption, the focus on elements, specific geograph-
ical contexts, industries, or specific motivations such as transparency, corruption, par-
ticipation, or decision-making appears to be necessary to create a more empirical body
of knowledge regarding the different dimensions of evaluation and assessment for the
adoption of OGD. These aspects would ultimately affect the OGD’s potential to create
public value.
Finally, the focus on the Impact of OGD shows a more strategic perspective on
delivering value through OGD. The mechanisms and assessment tools to prove the
effectiveness of OGD in creating value appear to be an essential branch of knowledge
that requires a broader development and exploration in empirical scenarios. One crucial
aspect to consider in this regard is to be aware of the negative impact that the OGD
utilization might cause. An emergent direction for research in this category is to focus
on specific types of channels to deliver OGD and different sectors to understand and
compare results that can show the value and impact of using OGD.
The emerging research directions elucidated through the different perspectives to
investigating the use of OGD confirm that the decentralization of civic services requires
new perspectives on how to plan, implement, assess, and follow up the OGD initia-
tives if the intention is to create and sustain the value that is expected to deliver. This
study reinforces the move toward decentralizing data governance and civic services by
discussing the different perspectives that emerge in the literature when focusing on the
citizens’ involvement in using OGD to create public value. This review contributes to
the gap of a holistic overview of the perspectives on using OGD to create social value.
Moreover, to sustain the Availability and value of the OGD, there is a need to address
the different barriers holistically by also considering the different domains encountered
in implementing OGD initiatives.
The review also considers some limitations as it only covers peer-reviewed journals
and conference papers from 2017 to March 2022; this could limit the perspectives present
in the literature. Another limitation is the depth of the analysis, as more layers could have
been considered, such as methods to study the use of OGD, types of use and types of
relationships, and technologies concerning the use of OGD. The identified perspectives
could be evaluated further, and future work can be developed to analyze different layers
of the perspectives.
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/su1
0061893
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
254 M. E. López-Reyes and R. Magnussen
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.practicalpar
ticipation.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
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
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
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 system-
atic literature review of types, conditions, effects, and users. Inf. Polity 22(1), 1–24 (2017).
https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-160012
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
14. Huijboom, N., Van den Broek, T.: Open data: an international comparison of strategies. Eur.
J. ePract. 12(1), 4–16 (2011)
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 govern-
ment 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
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
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
The Use of Open Government Data to Create Social Value 255
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 theo-
retical framework for open data use. Gov. Inf. Q. 34, 45–52 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.giq.2017.01.001
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
25. Rodríguez Bolívar, M.P.: Analyzing collaborative environments in smart cities. In: Proceed-
ings 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 gover-
nance: lessons from Buenos Aires, Mexico City, and Montevideo. Gov. Inf. Q. 37(3), 101479
(2020). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101479
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
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, metropoli-
tan, 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
31. Rodriguez Müller, A.P., Steen, T.: Behind the scenes of coproduction of smart mobility: evi-
dence 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
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
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
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.: Informa-
tion 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
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
37. Alizadeh, T., Sarkar, S., Burgoyne, S.: Capturing citizen voice online: enabling smart par-
ticipatory local government. Cities 95, 102400 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2019.
102400
256 M. E. López-Reyes and R. Magnussen
38. Longo, A., Zappatore, M., Bochicchio, M.A.: Apollon: towards a citizen science methodol-
ogy for urban environmental monitoring. Futur. Gener. Comput. Syst. 112, 899–912 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2020.06.041
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
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
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
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)
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 Ecosys-
tems, vol. 33, pp. 11–23. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-236
65-6_2
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
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
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
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
The Use of Open Government Data to Create Social Value 257
Open Society: Challenges in Eurasia, vol. 947, pp. 308–318. Springer, Cham (2019). https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13283-5_23
54. Chohan, S.R., Hu, G.: Success factors influencing citizens’ adoption of IoT service orchestra-
tion 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 adap-
tive sociomaterial systems perspective. Inf. Organ. 30(4), 100323 (2020). https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.infoandorg.2020.100323
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
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)
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
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
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 gov-
ernment data: the Love Serenade Operation case. Revista de Administração Mackenzie 22(6),
1–26 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-6971/eRAMD210079
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
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
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/fi4
040900
