Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Social Media Adoption and Use by Australian Capital City Local Governments

  • Chapter
Social Media and Local Governments

Part of the book series: Public Administration and Information Technology ((PAIT,volume 15))

Abstract

This chapter explores social media adoption and use by Australian capital city local governments. Despite digital communication with the community being an integral part of modern local government functions, the types of digital communication being used are not commonly monitored or analyzed in the Australian context. This chapter provides an investigation of the types of social media being employed by local governments and a sentiment analysis of Twitter accounts from a sample of local governments in Sydney. The results suggest that social media is being used in a variety of forms according to the size and function of the local governments and is influenced by the level of Twitter activity undertaken by the mayor.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This chapter does not include the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern territory, because the Australian Capital Territory does not have local governments and the Northern Territory has a different government structure and functions to the states.

  2. 2.

    Brisbane is the exception to this description, as it is Australia’s largest local government and covers the central business district and a large proportion of Brisbane’s suburban areas.

  3. 3.

    Twitalyzer defines impact as a measure one’s activity in a network.

  4. 4.

    Twitalyzer defines Klout as a number between 1–100 which represents your influence. Influence is the ability to drive action. When you share something on social media or in real life and people respond, that’s influence. The more influential you are, the higher your Klout Score.

  5. 5.

    Twitalyzer describes ‘reporters’ as user who are likely to communicate outwardly but often don’t generate a specific response from their network.

  6. 6.

    Twitalyzer states that ‘casual users’ are individuals who drop in and out of Twitter on a whim, treating the network as a social channel when it suits their needs.

References

  • Australian Bureau of Statistics (2012). 2011 Census QuickStats. Retrieved June 29, 2014, from http://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/quickstats.

  • Australian Bureau of Statistics (2013). 3218.0—Regional population growth, Australia, 2012–13. Retrieved July 23, 2014, from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/3218.02012-13?OpenDocument.

  • Australian Government (2014). The Australian Government. Retrieved July 23, 2014, from http://australia.gov.au/about-australia/our-government/australian-government.

  • Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly, 27(3), 264–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brabham, D. (2009). Crowdsourcing the public participation process for planning projects. Planning Theory, 8(3), 242–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonsón, E., Torres, L., Royo, S., & Flores, F. (2012). Local e-government 2.0: Social media and corporate transparency in municipalities. Government Information Quarterly, 29(2), 123–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. (2008). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan, Q. (2011). An evaluation analysis of e-government development by local authorities in Australia. International Journal of Public Administration, 34(14), 926–934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foth, M. (2006). Analyzing the factors influencing the successful design and uptake of interactive system to support social networks in urban neighborhoods. International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction, 2(2), 65–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gauld, R., Gray, A., & McComb, S. (2009). How responsive is e-government? Evidence from Australian and New Zealand. Government Information Quarterly, 26(1), 69–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gauld, R., Goldfinch, S., & Horsburgh, S. (2010). Do they want it? Do they use it? The ‘Demand-Side’of e-government in Australia and New Zealand. Government Information Quarterly, 27(2), 177–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heeks, R., & Bailur, S. (2007). Analyzing e-government research: Perspectives, philosophies, theories, methods and practice. Government Information Quarterly, 24(2), 243–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofmann, S., Beverungen, D., Räckers, M., & Becker, J. (2013). What makes local governments’ online communications successful? Insights from a multi-method analysis of Facebook. Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 387–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kavanaugh, A., Fox, E., Sheetz, S., Yang, S., Li, L., Shoemaker, D., Natsev, A., & Xie, L. (2012). Social media use by government: From the routine to the critical. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 480–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, H. (2012). Perspectives on sentiment analysis. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 56(4), 435–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klout (2013) How the Klout score is calculated. Retrieved January 16, 2013, from http://www.klout.com/corp/klout_score.

  • McMillan, S. (2002). A four-part model of cyber-activity: Some cyber-places are more interactive than others. New Media and Society, 4(2), 271–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mergel, I. (2013a). A three-stage adoption process for social media use in government. Public Administration Review, 73(3), 390–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mergel, I. (2013b). Social media adoption and resulting tactics in the US federal government. Government Information Quarterly, 30(2), 123–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, D. F., & Reddick, C. G. (2013). Local e‐government in the United States: Transformation or incremental change? Public Administration Review, 73(1), 165–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/whatis-web-20.html.

  • Picazo-Vela, S., Gutiérrez-Martínez, I., & Luna-Reyes, L. (2012). Understanding risks, benefits, and strategic alternatives of social media applications in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 504–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reddick, C. G., & Norris, D. F. (2013). E-Participation in local governments: An examination of political-managerial support and impacts. Transforming Government People, Process and Policy, 7(14), 453–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, D. G., Yu, H., & Felten, E. W. (2010). Enabling innovation for civic engagement. In D. Lathrop & L. Ruma (Eds.), Open government: Collaboration, transparency and participation in practice (pp. 83–89). Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandoval-Almazan, R., & Gil-Garcia, J. R. (2012). Are government internet portals evolving towards more interaction, participation, and collaboration? Revisiting the rhetoric of e-government among municipalities. Government Information Quarterly, 29(S1), 72–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shackleton, P., Fisher, J., & Dawson, L. (2006). E-government services in the local government context: an Australian case study. Business Process Management Journal, 12(1), 88–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shi, Y. (2006). E-Government web site accessibility in Australia and China a longitudinal study. Social Science Computer Review, 24(3), 378–385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. (2010). Government online. Pew Research Center. Retrieved May 31, 2010, from http://www.pewinternet.org/media//Files/Reports/2010/PIP_Government_Online_2010.pdf.

  • Sobaci, M. Z., & Karkin, N. (2013). The use of twitter by mayors in Turkey: Tweets for better public services? Government Information Quarterly, 30(4), 417–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teicher, J., & Dow, N. (2002). E-government in Australia: Promise and progress. Information Polity, 7(4), 231–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thelwall, M. (2014). Sentiment analysis and time series with Twitter. In K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, M. Mahrt, & C. Puschmann (Eds.), Twitter and society (pp. 83–95). New York: Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Twitalyzer (2012). Twitalyzer. Retrieved December 16, 2012, from http://www.twitalyzer.com/5/index.asp.

  • United Nations (2014). United Nations E-Government survey 2014: E-government for the future we want. Retrieved October 22, 2014, from http://unpan3.un.org/egovkb/Portals/egovkb/Documents/un/2014-Survey/E-Gov_Complete_Survey-2014.pdf.

  • Wellman, B., & Haythornthwaite, C. (2002). The internet in everyday life. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, W., & Parolin, B. (2012). Review of web-based communications for town planning in local government. Journal of Urban Technology, 19(1), 43–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, W., & Parolin, B. (2013). Web 2.0 and social media growth in planning practice: A longitudinal study. Planning Practice and Research, 28(5), 544–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yildiz, M. (2007). E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations and ways forward. Government Information Quarterly, 24(3), 646–665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography and Planning, Macquarie University, North Ryde, NSW, Australia

    Wayne Williamson & Kristian Ruming

Authors
  1. Wayne Williamson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kristian Ruming
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wayne Williamson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences Department of Public Administration, Uludağ University, Nilufer, Turkey

    Mehmet Zahid Sobaci

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Williamson, W., Ruming, K. (2016). Social Media Adoption and Use by Australian Capital City Local Governments. In: Sobaci, M. (eds) Social Media and Local Governments. Public Administration and Information Technology, vol 15. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17722-9_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation