2011 Mississippi Municipal Internet Adoption & Utilization

Transcription

1 2011 Mississippi Municipal Internet Adoption & Utilization Prepared by: Roberto Gallardo, PhD Southern Rural Development Center Mississippi State University Extension Service January 2012 This report was made possible with funds obtained from the American Recovery and Reconstruction Act through the National Telecommunications & Information Administration housed at the U.S. Department of Commerce.

2 About this Report This report discusses the findings of a survey conducted in fall of 2011 as part of the Mississippi State Extension Broadband Education and Adoption initiative (e-beat). The overall goal of this initiative is to increase broadband adoption in Mississippi, primarily through educational outreach targeting households, local governments, and small businesses. A survey of municipal Internet use was mailed to all city clerks in the state. A second wave was mailed two weeks later in an effort to increase the response rate. In the end, 151 municipalities responded out of 294, resulting in a response rate of 51 percent. Multiple broadband studies point to an increasing digital divide between urban and rural areas. Because of this, the counties where the municipalities are located were divided into three rurality categories 1 : metropolitan, small city, and rural. At a 95 percent confidence level, the confidence interval was plus or minus 5.5 for the total sample; 10.8 percentage points for municipalities in metropolitan counties; 10.1 percentage points for municipalities in small counties; and 8.4 percentage points for municipalities in rural counties. In other words, we are 95 percent confident that the results are within 5.5 percentage points of what all municipalities would answer, 10.8 percentage points of what all municipalities in metropolitan counties would answer, 10.1 percentage points of what all municipalities in small city counties would answer, and 8.4 percentage points of what all municipalities in rural counties would answer. To better understand the breadth and depth of Internet adoption among municipalities, an Internet utilization score was calculated and then broken down into three main categories. A detailed discussion of Internet utilization is provided in section four. This report contains five sections. Section one presents key findings of the survey. Section two showcases general municipal characteristics broken down by rurality categories such as operating budget, number of employees, etc. Section three will discuss Internet related findings such as if the municipality uses Internet, type of connection, website presence, etc. Section four discusses the level of Internet adoption among municipalities. Finally, section five offers some conclusions. 1 Based on the 2003 Census Core-Based Typology including metropolitan, micropolitan, and noncore. Counties were considered metropolitan if they have an urban core with a population of 50,000 or more or at least a quarter of their workforce works in adjacent metropolitan counties. Counties were considered micropolitan or small city if they have an urban core with a population ranging from 10,000 to 49,999 or a quarter of their workforce works in adjacent micropolitan counties. Counties were considered noncore or rural if they did not have an urban core of at least 10,000 residents. 2

3 Section 1. Key Findings Below is a list of the survey s key findings. For more details, please read the full report. Ninety-five percent of municipalities in Mississippi use Internet. No significant difference exists regarding Internet use (access) between municipalities located in metropolitan, small city, and rural counties. DSL technology was the most used among municipalities. T-1 and fiber connections were almost nonexistent in municipalities located in rural counties. Average upload and download speeds reported by municipalities were 2.6 Mbps and 7.4 Mbps, respectively. Average upload and download speeds reported by rural municipalities do not meet broadband minimum requirements (1 Mbps up/4 Mbps down). Of the municipalities using Internet, 47 percent have a website. The more rural the municipality, the greater the likelihood that it does not have any web presence. Main reasons for not having a municipal website include cost, lack of knowledge on how to develop/maintain, and security concerns. Twenty-seven percent of municipalities reported having online municipal services available through their websites; this figure decreased to 14 percent for those municipalities located in rural counties. Results regarding the breadth and depth of municipal Internet adoption indicate an underutilization of Internet on an overall basis. Internet use for communicating public information and facilitating citizen engagement purposes is lacking in all municipalities, especially those located in small city and rural counties. 3

4 Section 2. Municipal General Characteristics As discussed in the previous section, the municipalities were divided into three categories in an effort to identify if significant differences between urban or rural counties exist regarding municipal Internet use. Figure 1 shows the breakdown by the rurality category of the counties where all municipalities are located (inner circle) and the counties where the municipalities that participated in the survey are located (outside circle). Figure 1. Overall and Survey Rurality Breakdown (n = 151) 2 21% 44% 45% Metropolitan Small City 35% Rural 32% ; 2003 Core-Based Typology As shown, 44 percent of municipalities that participated in our survey (n=67) were located in rural counties, followed by 33 percent (n =49) in small city counties, and 23 percent (n= 35) located in metropolitan counties. These figures are closely aligned with the overall distribution of municipalities by the three county types. Specifically, 44% of municipalities in the state are located in rural counties, another 32% in small city counties, and the remaining 21 percent in metropolitan counties (using the 2003 Core-Based Statistical Area typology). Figure 2 highlights the average operating budget of the 151 municipalities taking part in our study, a figure of around $5.6 million. However, the average operating budget was clearly tied to the type of county in which these municipalities were located, ranging from an average of $1.6 million for those located in rural counties to an average of $14 million for municipalities situated in the state s metropolitan counties. 4

5 Figure 2. Average Operating Budgets by Rurality (n=103) $16,000,000 $14,044,546 $14,000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 $8,000,000 $6,000,000 $5,620,331 $5,233,891 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,603,379 $0 Overall (n=103) Metropolitan (n=21) Small City (n=42) Rural (n=40) The average population reported by municipalities is shown in Figure 3, again presented on the basis of their county rurality category. The overall average population for all municipalities stood at a little less than 6,200 residents. On the other hand, municipalities located in metropolitan counties had on average population of just over 15,300 residents compared to less than 2,000 for municipalities located in rural counties. Figure 3. Average Population by Rurality (n=147) 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2, ,199 Overall (n=147) 15,301 Metropolitan (n=35) 5,400 Small City (n=47) 1,942 Rural (n=66) 5

6 General characteristics of municipalities involved in our study are summarized in Table 1. Municipalities in metropolitan counties had on average almost six times more full-time employees than did municipalities located in in rural counties. Municipalities in rural counties had on average 19 full-time employees compared to 64 for municipalities in small city counties and 114 for municipalities in metropolitan counties. Table 1. Municipal Summary of General Characteristics (averages) Overall Metropolitan Small City Rural Operating Budget $6.7M $14.0M $5.2M $1.6M Full-Time Employees Part-Time Employees Total Employees Population 6,199 10,647 5,400 1,942 n Range Note: Employment figures may not add up due to average rounding On the other hand, and as expected, the percentage of all employees who worked only part-time was proportionally higher in rural county-based municipalities (28%) than in municipalities located in small city or metropolitan counties (15% and 14%, respectively). The data discussed in this section are important because they provide a backdrop for understanding the degree to which Internet adoption and the scope and depth of Internet use by municipalities may be impacted by the types of counties in which they are embedded. Section 3. Municipal Internet & Computer Use Findings This section discusses findings regarding municipal Internet use including upload/download speeds, website presence, availability of online services, connection type, etc. The upload/download speeds were obtained from asking municipalities to conduct a speed test of their Internet connections using the website. Both upload and download speeds are shown in megabits per second (Mbps). When asked if the municipal building used Internet, no significant differences emerged among the rurality categories. Figure 4 shows that an overwhelming 95 percent of municipalities in the state report using the Internet, with 97 percent of of the users being municipalities located in metropolitan counties, 95 percent in small city counties, and 94 percent located in rural counties. 6

7 Figure 4. Municipalities Reporting Internet Usage by Rurality 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 4.6% 2.9% 4.1% 6.0% 95.4% 97.1% 95.9% 94.0% Overall (n=151) Metropolitan (n=35) Small City (n=49) Rural (n=67) No Yes The main reasons reported by municipalities for not using the Internet include cost, lack of service, and connection too slow/unreliable. Differences surface when examining the type of technology used to access the Internet. Figure 5 reveals that that a DSL connection is the most used technology followed by cable. Interestingly, the use of a DSL connection increases as the type of county in which a municipality is located is more rural, while use of cable connections for Internet access dips as the type of county in which the municipality is located in more rural-type counties. T-1 and fiber connections are almost nonexistent in municipalities located in rural counties. DSL connections were reported in 45 percent of municipalities located in metropolitan counties, compared to 60 percent in municipalities located in small city counties and 82 percent in municipalities located in rural counties. Regarding cable technology, however, eight percent of municipalities located in rural counties used this technology to access the Internet compared to 14 percent of municipalities located in small city counties and 16 percent of municipalities located in metropolitan counties. 7

8 Figure 5. Internet Connection by Rurality 100% 3.7% 90% 8.1% 16.1% 4.4% 80% 4.4% 3.2% 9.7% 70% 9.7% 60% 14.0% 7.0% 4.7% 6.6% 1.6% 50% 40% 66.7% 45.2% 60.5% 82.0% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0.7% 11.9% Overall (n=135) 16.1% 14.0% Metropolitan (n=31) Small City (n=43) 1.6% 8.2% Rural (n=61) Cable Dial-up DSL Fiber T-1 Wireless Not sure Influenced by the technology used to access the Internet, some major differences exist when looking at average upload and download speeds shown in Figure 6. The average overall upload speed reported was of 2.62 Mbps compared to a reported download speed of 7.44 Mbps. Interestingly, municipalities in small city counties had the fastest average upload speed clocking 5.1 Mbps. On the other hand, municipalities located in metropolitan counties had the fastest average download speed, clocking in at almost 14 Mbps. Differences regarding upload and download speeds also exist between municipalities in metropolitan counties and those located in rural counties. Average upload speeds reported for municipalities in rural counties was 0.5 Mbps compared to an average 5.1 Mbps for municipalities located in small city counties. Note that the Internet connection speeds reported by municipalities located in rural counties fail to meet the broadband requirements of 4Mbps down and 1Mbps up. 8

9 Figure 6. Average Upload and Download Speeds Reported (in Mbps) Overall (n=87) Metropolitan (n=20) Small City (n=24) 0.50 Rural (n=43) Upload Download Even though the majority of municipalities (95 percent) in the state reported using Internet, this is not the case when it comes to having an online presence 2. Figure 7 shows that of those municipalities that reported using Internet, more than half (about 53 percent), did not have a website. Figure 7. Municipalities Having a Website by Rurality 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 52.8% 47.2% Overall (n=144) % Metropolitan (n=34) % Small City (n=45) 61.5% 38.5% Rural (n=65) No Yes 2 Online presence refers only to websites and did not ask about Facebook, twitter, or blogs. 9

10 A relationship exists between rurality and online presence is shown in Figure 7. Just over one-third (35.3 percent) of municipalities located in metropolitan counties reported not having a website. This figure increases to more than half (53.3 percent) for those municipalities located in small city counties and to 61.5 percent for those located in rural counties. Among the key reasons offered for not having a website include the following: cost of developing/maintaining a site (42%), lack of knowledge on how to develop/maintain a website (3), and security concerns (25%). Figure 8. Reasons Reported by Municipalities for Not Having a website 45% 40% 35% 42% 30% 25% 3 20% 25% 15% 10% 5% 0% Cost Lack of Knowledge Security Concerns ; n=76 Regarding availability of online municipal services, a similar trend on the basis of rurality category is showcased in Figure 9. Overall, almost three-quarters of municipalities reported not having online services on their websites. But availability varied by the county s rurality. That is, 61 percent of municipalities located in metropolitan counties reported not having online services available on their website compared to 70 percent for municipalities in small city counties and 85 percent for those located in rural counties. 10

11 Figure 9. Municipal Online Services by Rurality 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 73.2% 26.8% Overall (n=56) 61.1% 38.9% Metropolitan (n=18) 70.6% 29.4% Small City (n=17) 85.7% 14. Rural (n=21) No Yes Section 4. Internet Utilization To better understand the scope and depth of municipal Internet adoption, the following section will (1) show a breakdown of primary reasons for having Internet; (2) discuss an Internet utilization score measuring the scope; and (3) catalog Internet uses into three main categories to measure the depth or diversity of municipal Internet uses. 4.1 Primary reasons for having Internet As shown in Figures 10-13, the specific ways in which the Internet is being used by municipalities do not vary significantly across the three rurality categories. Regardless of the geographic location of the municipalities, the top two primary reasons reported for having an Internet connection include and filing reports with state agencies. Researching rules and statutes, general research, and research grant information were among the top reasons reported for having an Internet connection. On the other hand, community bulletin boards and newsletters were the least likely to be tapped as reasons for having an Internet connection by municipalities overall, or by those located in metropolitan, small city, and rural counties. Using the Internet for emergency response information and for securing input from the public ranked at the bottom tier of reasons for using Internet. 11

12 Figure 10. Primary reasons for Having Internet, Overall (n=144) File reports with state agencies Research rules and statutes General research Research grant information Purchase goods and services Identify/Contact vendors Update municipal website Accountability Info to public Showcase community assets/qol Calendar of events Emergency response information Seek input from the public Newsletter Community bulletin board 1% 1% 4% 6% 8% 7% 10% 12% 11% 1 15% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% Here is how of the Internet ranked by metropolitan, small town, and rural countybased municipalities: Metropolitan-based Municipalities: They reported that using was their primary reason for having Internet followed by filing reports with state agencies, and researching rules and statutes, as shown in Figure 11. Seeking input from the public, newsletters, and community bulletin boards were among the least reported reasons for having Internet. 12

13 Figure 11. Primary reasons for Having Internet, Metropolitan Counties (n=34) File reports with state agencies Research rules and statutes General research Research grant information Update municipal website Identify/Contact vendors Purchase goods and services Showcase community assets/qol Accountability Info to public Calendar of events Emergency response information Seek input from the public Newsletter Community bulletin board 2% 5% 5% 4% 4% 4% 8% 8% 8% 7% 9% 9% 12% 12% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% Municipalities in Small City Counties: Reasons for having Internet service were similar to those reported by metropolitan counties. Again, sending newsletters and having a community bulletin board ranked at the bottom of the list, as shown in Figure 12. Figure 12. Primary Reasons for Having Internet, Small City Counties (n=47) File reports with state agencies Research rules and statutes General research Research grant information Purchase goods and services Identify/Contact vendors Update municipal website Accountability Info to public Calendar of events Emergency response information Seek input from the public Showcase community assets/qol Newsletter Community bulletin board 1% 1% 2% 4% 5% 8% 8% 10% 11% 14% 14% 15% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 13

14 Rural County-Based Municipalities: also showed as the primary reason for having Internet in municipalities located in rural counties. Figure 13 also shows that newsletter and community bulletin boards are among the least reported reasons. Figure 13. Primary reasons for having Internet, Rural Counties (n=63) File reports with state agencies General research Research rules and statutes Research grant information Purchase goods and services Identify/Contact vendors Update municipal website Accountability Info to public Calendar of events Showcase community assets/qol Seek input from the public Emergency response information Newsletter Community bulletin board 1% 1% 2% 2% 5% 7% 8% 10% 1 12% 14% 17% 4.2 Internet Utilization Score 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% In order to gain a measure of the breadth and depth of municipal Internet adoption, an Internet utilization score was calculated. The scale was created by adding the variety of ways in which the Internet could be utilized by a municipality. A municipality was provided a list of 15 different ways in which it could use the Internet. As such, municipalities could have scores ranging from 0 (not using the Internet for any of the activities) to 15 (using the Internet in all 15 ways). So, the higher the score the greater the breadth (or variety of uses) of Internet use by a given municipality. To better understand the depth of Internet use, we classified the Internet activities into three main categories. 3 Table 2 presents a summary of the categories along with the primary reasons for having Internet. 3 A principal component analysis was conducted using a varimax with Kaiser normalization rotation method. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy (KMO) was of indicating sample size is appropriate for factor analysis. 14

15 Table 2. Breadth of Internet Utilization: Three Categories Primary reasons for having an Internet connection Business & Reporting Identify/Contact vendors Purchase goods and services File reports with state agencies Research Research grant information Research rules and statutes General research Public Information & Engagement Provide accountability info to the public Seek input from the public Update municipal website Community bulletin board Newsletter Calendar of events Showcase community assets/qol Emergency response information As shown in Table 2, three main categories of Internet usage were identified: business and reporting, research, and public information and engagement. These categories are explained in more detail below. Business and reporting captures Internet uses dealing with vendors, purchases of products/services, and filing reports to state agencies. is included in this category as it potentially serves as the main tool to conduct and/or submit business and reporting. The research category is self-explanatory as it encompasses Internet uses for research purposes including rules and statutes as well as grant information. Finally, Internet uses for public information and engagement range from purposes such as seeking public input to providing community-specific information. Internet use for purposes of updating the website is included in this category since websites can serve as community information portals. The average Internet utilization score is shown in Figure 14. The overall average score was of 6.5 (maximum of fifteen). In other words, municipalities across the state are not maximizing Internet use for municipal purposes since the score is below the midpoint of 7.5. However, scores vary depending on whether the counties where the municipalities are located are metropolitan, small city, or rural. 15

16 Figure 14. Average Internet Utilization Scores by Rurality Overall Metropolitan Small City Rural Municipalities located in metropolitan counties had an average Internet utilization score of 8.1 above the midpoint of 7.5 indicating municipal Internet use for multiple purposes is higher in metropolitan counties. On the other hand, the average Internet utilization score for municipalities located in small city counties was of 6.2, slipping to 5.8 for municipalities located in rural counties. Bottom line, municipalities located in small city and rural counties are not fully underutilizing the Internet. What is the depth of Internet utilization by municipalities that took part in our survey? Figure 15 shows the Internet utilization score for all municipalities across the three groupings of Internet use. Overall, less than a quarter (24 percent) of the municipalities are using the Internet for public information and engagement purposes, 43percent for business and reporting purposes, and 32 percent for research purposes. 16

17 Figure 15. Internet Utilization score by Category 100% 90% 80% 43.4% 38.4% 70% 60% 50% 27.2% 40% 32.6% 30% 20% 34.4% 10% 24.0% 0% 44.8% 46.1% 35.1% 34.7% 20.1% 19.2% Overall Metropolitan Small City Rural Business & Reporting Research Public Information & Engagement Municipalities in metropolitan counties had a more diverse use of Internet for municipal purposes since not a single category exceeded 40 percent. Interestingly, Internet use for municipal research purposes was the lowest among all three categories in metropolitan counties On the other hand, municipalities in small city and rural counties reported about or less than one-fifth of Internet use for public information and engagement purposes. The implications of these findings are further discussed in the following section. Municipalities in metropolitan counties had a more balanced use of the Internet across the three depth categories, while small city and rural-based municipalities were fare more likely to use the Internet for business and reporting and slightly less so for research. Less the 1 in 5 small city or rural county-based municipalities employed the Internet for public information and engagement purposes. Section 5. Conclusions The reasons for (1) not using Internet and (2) not having a municipal website include cost, lack of knowledge, and security concerns. The latter two barriers can be addressed by promoting awareness and delivering targeted educational programs to municipal leaders and staff. In many respects, the MSU Extension Service s e-beat could play a vital role in helping guide the appropriate use of the Internet by municipal governments. Even though 95 percent of municipalities already use the Internet, results regarding the breadth and depth of municipal Internet adoption indicate an underutilization of Internet for a variety of municipal-related activities. This underutilization could be the result of three related factors. 17

18 First, slow and unreliable connections, coupled with the cost of Internet service, serve as powerful disincentives for municipalities who may be open to enhancing their Internet use and applications. Moreover, lack of knowledge of the benefits that could accrue to municipal governments that embrace the Internet serves as a limiting factor as well. Again, e-beat can be a valuable conduit for helping introduce municipalities to the positive outcomes that they could achieve via the adoption of the Internet. In closing, 95 percent of municipalities in Mississippi are already using the Internet, so a concerted effort to help local governments strengthen the breadth and depth of Internet applications makes a good bit of sense. It is an issue that may be worth serious attention by the Mississippi Broadband Connect Coalition, the MSU ES e- BEAT, the Mississippi Municipal League, and other groups and organizations committed to supporting the needs of municipalities across the state, especially among municipalities located in small city and rural-based counties. 18