Publications-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
Google ScholarTM
NCCU Library
Citation Infomation
Related Publications in TAIR
題名 政府開放資料使用族群影響力認知評估 -以台灣經驗為例
Open Government Data Impact Cognition of Data Users: A Taiwan Study作者 吳昱明
Wu, Yu-Ming貢獻者 朱斌妤
Chu, Pin-Yu
吳昱明
Wu, Yu-Ming關鍵詞 電子化政府影響力評估
政府資料開放政策
開放政府
Evaluation of E-Government impact
Open government data
Open government日期 2017 上傳時間 1-Jun-2018 15:52:22 (UTC+8) 摘要 近年來，政府資料開放(Open Government Data)政策的研究蔚為一片學術研究的藍海，成為各國政府、企業以及公民社會共同關注的治理議題。然而，過去研究聚焦於資料品質以及政府開放資料動機等研究，較少關注開放資料使用族群以及開放資料影響力。因此，本研究從使用者影響力認知著手，探討我國政府資料開放現狀，並且盤點開放資料能否體現透明課責、參與協作等精神，並且促進在政治、社會與經濟上的各種效益。本次研究採用次級資料分析以及質性訪談方式進行，開放資料影響力問卷部分雜揉各國際組織近年來倡議方向編製而成，衡量指標為透明課、參與協作以及政治、經濟與社會預期效益，發放對象我國開放資料使用族群。質性訪談部分，則觸及我國開放資料的政策執行者、倡議者以及服務開發者，蒐集不同角色之間對於開放資料影響力的認知與意見。研究顯示，我國開放政府尚未走向以資料利用為前提並且促進公民參與協作與創新的階段。在各項影響力指標當中，我國使用族群對於透明指標的現況較為樂觀，但是對於開放資料促進社會影響力部分則前景堪憂，多數受訪者認為當前開放資料影響力不彰的原因在於缺乏良好且具規模的資料轉化機制，除了政府各單位在推動政策上所遇到的瓶頸之外，政府與民間社群對於資料創新也缺乏想像，因此以資料利用為前提來精進政府資料開放政策實有必要，本研究根據結論提出政策與後續研究上相關建議。
As a field of practice and research that is fast-growing and a locus for much attention and activity, open government data (OGD) has attracted stakeholders from different sectors. The open data movement holds out the promise of improving transparency, accountability, citizen participation. Nevertheless, it is not yet clear if Taiwanese government are truly fulfilling these promises. Current literature on open government data has uncovered a wide range of challenges related to data qualities and barriers of policy implementation. In other words, most of the open data research based on a technology-driven perspective, rather than a focus on the potential public value and social benefits of data to be used. As a result, the purpose of this study is to test an open data impact evaluative framework and reveal the open data impact cognition among data users in Taiwn from a variety of origins.This study adopts quantitative method, applying secondary analysis, and qualitative method, applying interview survey, in the meantime. The research subjects include different data users in this field, such as open government initiators, developers and policy executors.This study shows that the impact of open data in Taiwan is limited. Although Taiwan obtained a top ranking of Global Open Data Index these years, Taiwanese government and civil society hasn’t tapped the full potential of open data on promoting public value or creating social benefits. As open data initiatives spread across the globe, research is needed that can deepen our shared understanding of the open data potential in creating a better democratic society.參考文獻 中文文獻王仕圖、吳慧敏（2003）。深度訪談與案例演練。收錄於齊力、林本炫編（2003）。質性研究方法與資料分析，95~113頁。嘉義：南華大學教育社會學研究所。朱斌妤（2016）。政府資料開放績效評估（第一年期中報告）。行政院科技部專題研究計畫，未出版。朱斌妤、李洛維（2009）。電子治理的發展與挑戰。研習論壇月刊，101，1-13。朱斌妤、蕭乃沂（2010）。電子治理績效模型與實證研究。行政院國家科學委員會研究計畫，未出版。朱斌妤、蕭乃沂、楊禮榮（2013）。電子治理中政府對企業計畫(G2B)評估架構。行政暨政策學報，56，1-4。江思穎（2014）。政府資料開放評估指標建立。國立政治大學，台北市。吳冠翰（2016）。影響政府資料開放推動因素之探討。國立政治大學，台北市。宋餘俠、李國田（2012）。 政府部門資料加值推動策略與挑戰。研考雙月刊，36(4)，10-21。林惠玲、陳正倉。（2003）。應用統計學。台北: 雙葉書廊有限公司。國家發展委員會（2015）。政府資料開放進階行動方案。行政院第3465次院會會議簡報。2017年7月5日取自：http://www.ndc.gov.tw/Content_List.aspx?n=B2A92523DCC12607張家生（2012）。從臺北市看政府公開資料（Open Data）。研考雙月刊，36(4)，61-69。張維志（2016）。政府開放資料何去何從，政策與行動策略。新社會政策，43， 11-15。陳舜玲、林珈宏、莊庭瑞（2013）。藏智於民：開放政府資料的現況與原則，台北：中央研究院台灣創用CC計畫。開放文化基金會（2017）。開放政府觀察報告：開放資料之政策基礎與影響力評估。2017年9月15日取自：http://opengovreport.ocf.tw/#tab-0黃朝盟、朱斌妤、黃東益（2008）。電子治理成效調查評估與分析報告。行政院研考會委託研究報告（報告編號09640D002503）。台北市，行政院研考會。黃東益、朱斌妤、蕭乃沂、李仲彬（2009）。電子治理成效指標與評估：G2C與G2B。行政院研考會委託研究報告（編號：0972461343）。臺北市：行政院研究考核委員會。資訊工業策進會（2014）。主要國家「政府開放資料」機制與作法追蹤觀察報告（一）─美國。2017年7月3日，取自：http://opendata.tca.org.tw/spaw2/uploads/images/Open%20Government%20Data%202014/2014Open%20Government%20Data-U.S.pdf廖淑君（2007）。政府資訊加值利用與管理法制研究：以美國及英國爲例。科技法律透析，19(7)，35-61。蕭景燈（2012）。資料開放發展現況與展望。研考雙月刊，36(4)，22-38。羅晉、楊東謀、王慧茹、項靖（2014）。 政府開放資料的策略與挑戰：使用者觀點的分析。Electronic Commerce Studies, 12(3), 283-300。羅清俊（2010）。社會科學研究方法：打開天窗說量化。威仕曼文化事業股份有限公司。 英文文獻Andersen, K. N., Medaglia, R., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2012). Social media in public health care: Impact domain propositions. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 462-469.Attard, J., Orlandi, F., Scerri, S., & Auer, S. (2015). A systematic review of open government data initiatives. Government Information Quarterly, 32(4), 399-418.Burgess, R. G. (1984). In the Field: An Introduction to Field Research. London, Allen and Unwin.Caddy, J., & Vergez, C. (2003). Open government: Fostering dialogue with civil society. OECD Publishing.Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (Eds.). (2006). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford University Press on Demand.City of Cambridge. (2016). Community Engagement Strategies for Open Data Collaborations. Retrieved July 02, 2017 from: https://goo.gl/wbrX0aDurant, W. (1926). The story of philosophy. No. 04; RMD, B72 D8.Davies, T., & Perini, F. (2016). Researching the emerging impacts of open data: revisiting the ODDC conceptual framework. The Journal of Community Informatics, 12(2), 148-178.European Commission. (2016). EU eGovernment Action Plan 2016-2020. Retrieve July 29, 2017 from: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/communication-eu-egovernment-action-plan-2016-2020-accelerating-digital-transformationFath-Allah, A., Cheikhi, L., Al-Qutaish, R. E., & Idri, A. (2014). E-government maturity models: A comparative study. International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications, 5(3), 71.Gurin, J. (2014). Open Data Now: The Secret to Hot Startups, Smart Investing, Savvy Marketing, and Fast Innovation. McGraw-Hill.Heeks, R. (2006). Benchmarking e-government: Improving the national and international measurement, evaluation and comparison of e-government. IDPM i-Government Working Paper, 18, 1-33.Johnson, J. M. (2002). In-depth interviewing. Handbook of interview research: Context and method, 103-119.Lee, G. & Kwak, Y. H. (2012). An open government maturity model for social media-based public engagement. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 492-503.Macintosh, A. (2004). Characterizing e-participation in policy-making. In System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 10-pp). IEEE.Noveck, B. S. (2009). Wiki government: how technology can make government better, democracy stronger, and citizens more powerful. Brookings Institution Press.Noveck, B. S. (2011). Defining Open Government. Retrieved July 02, 2017 from http://cairns.typepad.com/blog/2011/04/whats-in-a-name-open-gov-we-gov-gov-20-collaborative-government.htmlOKFN (2017). The State of Open Government Data in 2017: Creating meaningful open data through multi-stakeholder dialogue. Retrieve August 14, 2017 from https://index.okfn.org/insights/Open Data Institute (2015). Benchmarking Open Data Automatically. Retrieve July 4, 2017 from https://theodi.org/guides/benchmarking-data-automatically Open Knowledge Foundation. (2006). Open Knowledge Definition. Retrieved July 4, 2017, from http://www.opendefinition.org/Rubin, H. J. and Rubin S. I. (1995). Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. London, Sage.Yang, T. M., & Wu, Y. J. (2016). Examining the socio-technical determinants influencing government agencies` open data publication: A study in Taiwan. Government Information Quarterly, 33(3), 378-392.Safarov, I., Meijer, A., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2017). Utilization of open government data: A systematic literature review of types, conditions, effects and users. Information Polity, 22(1), 1-24.Ubaldi, B. (2013). Open Government Data: Towards Empirical Analysis of Open Government Data Initiatives. OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 22, OECD Publishing. Retrieved July 02, 2017 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k46bj4f03s7-enUbaldi, B. (2016), Rebooting Public Service Delivery: How Can Open Government Data Help to Drive Innovation.UN, E. (2016). UN e-Government Survey 2016. E-Government in Support of Sustainable Development. New York: UN. Retrieved July 02, 2017 from http://workspace.UN.org/sites/Internet/Documents/UN96407.pdfVeljković, N., Bogdanović-Dinić, S., & Stoimenov, L. (2014). Benchmarking open government: An open data perspective. Government Information Quarterly, 31(2), 278-290.Vigoda, E. (2002). From responsiveness to collaboration: Governance, citizens, and the next generation of public administration. Public administration review, 62(5), 527-540.Viscusi, G., Castelli, M., & Batini, C. (2014). Assessing social value in open data initiatives: a framework. Future Internet, 6(3), 498-517.World Bank Group (2015). Open Data for Sustainable Development. Retrieve July 4, 2017 from http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/999161440616941994/Open-Data-for-Sustainable-Development.pdfWorld Wide Web Foundation (2016). Open Data Barometer Global Report 3nd Edition, Retrieve July 4, 2017 from http://webfoundation.org/about/research/open-data-barometer-3rd-edition/ World Wide Web Foundation (2017). Open Data Barometer Global Report 4nd Edition, Retrieve July 4, 2017 from http://webfoundation.org/about/research/open-data-barometer-fourth-edition/ Worthy, B. (2015). The impact of open data in the UK: Complex, unpredictable, and political. Public Administration, 93(3), 788-805.Zuiderwijk, A., & Janssen, M. (2014). Open data policies, their implementation and impact: A framework for comparison. Government Information Quarterly, 31(1), 17-29. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
公共行政學系
104256033資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104256033 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 朱斌妤 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Chu, Pin-Yu en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 吳昱明 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Wu, Yu-Ming en_US dc.creator (作者) 吳昱明 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Wu, Yu-Ming en_US dc.date (日期) 2017 en_US dc.date.accessioned 1-Jun-2018 15:52:22 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 1-Jun-2018 15:52:22 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Jun-2018 15:52:22 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0104256033 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/117430 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 公共行政學系 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 104256033 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 近年來，政府資料開放(Open Government Data)政策的研究蔚為一片學術研究的藍海，成為各國政府、企業以及公民社會共同關注的治理議題。然而，過去研究聚焦於資料品質以及政府開放資料動機等研究，較少關注開放資料使用族群以及開放資料影響力。因此，本研究從使用者影響力認知著手，探討我國政府資料開放現狀，並且盤點開放資料能否體現透明課責、參與協作等精神，並且促進在政治、社會與經濟上的各種效益。本次研究採用次級資料分析以及質性訪談方式進行，開放資料影響力問卷部分雜揉各國際組織近年來倡議方向編製而成，衡量指標為透明課、參與協作以及政治、經濟與社會預期效益，發放對象我國開放資料使用族群。質性訪談部分，則觸及我國開放資料的政策執行者、倡議者以及服務開發者，蒐集不同角色之間對於開放資料影響力的認知與意見。研究顯示，我國開放政府尚未走向以資料利用為前提並且促進公民參與協作與創新的階段。在各項影響力指標當中，我國使用族群對於透明指標的現況較為樂觀，但是對於開放資料促進社會影響力部分則前景堪憂，多數受訪者認為當前開放資料影響力不彰的原因在於缺乏良好且具規模的資料轉化機制，除了政府各單位在推動政策上所遇到的瓶頸之外，政府與民間社群對於資料創新也缺乏想像，因此以資料利用為前提來精進政府資料開放政策實有必要，本研究根據結論提出政策與後續研究上相關建議。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) As a field of practice and research that is fast-growing and a locus for much attention and activity, open government data (OGD) has attracted stakeholders from different sectors. The open data movement holds out the promise of improving transparency, accountability, citizen participation. Nevertheless, it is not yet clear if Taiwanese government are truly fulfilling these promises. Current literature on open government data has uncovered a wide range of challenges related to data qualities and barriers of policy implementation. In other words, most of the open data research based on a technology-driven perspective, rather than a focus on the potential public value and social benefits of data to be used. As a result, the purpose of this study is to test an open data impact evaluative framework and reveal the open data impact cognition among data users in Taiwn from a variety of origins.This study adopts quantitative method, applying secondary analysis, and qualitative method, applying interview survey, in the meantime. The research subjects include different data users in this field, such as open government initiators, developers and policy executors.This study shows that the impact of open data in Taiwan is limited. Although Taiwan obtained a top ranking of Global Open Data Index these years, Taiwanese government and civil society hasn’t tapped the full potential of open data on promoting public value or creating social benefits. As open data initiatives spread across the globe, research is needed that can deepen our shared understanding of the open data potential in creating a better democratic society. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 目次 I圖次 III表次 IV第一章 緒論 51.1 政府資料開放發展趨勢 51.2 我國政府資料開放發展現況 71.3 政府資料開放影響力評估的重要性 101.4 研究目的與研究問題 131.5 研究流程 14第二章 文獻檢閱 152.1 重要國家政府資料開放現況 152.2 重要國際組織政府資料開放研究 252.3 政府資料開放政策績效評估理論架構 442.4 文獻回顧總結與發現 51第三章 研究設計與方法 583.1 量化研究：開放政府資料使用者調查 603.2 質化研究：深度訪談法 68第四章 研究分析與發現 714.1 量化分析 714.2 質化分析 90第五章 結論與建議 1305.1 研究結論 1305.2 政策建議 1395.3 研究限制與建議 142參考文獻 146中文文獻 146英文文獻 148附錄一 開放資料使用族群問卷 152附錄二 研究分析圖表 159 zh_TW dc.format.extent 3089720 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0104256033 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 電子化政府影響力評估 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 政府資料開放政策 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 開放政府 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Evaluation of E-Government impact en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Open government data en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Open government en_US dc.title (題名) 政府開放資料使用族群影響力認知評估 -以台灣經驗為例 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Open Government Data Impact Cognition of Data Users: A Taiwan Study en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文文獻王仕圖、吳慧敏（2003）。深度訪談與案例演練。收錄於齊力、林本炫編（2003）。質性研究方法與資料分析，95~113頁。嘉義：南華大學教育社會學研究所。朱斌妤（2016）。政府資料開放績效評估（第一年期中報告）。行政院科技部專題研究計畫，未出版。朱斌妤、李洛維（2009）。電子治理的發展與挑戰。研習論壇月刊，101，1-13。朱斌妤、蕭乃沂（2010）。電子治理績效模型與實證研究。行政院國家科學委員會研究計畫，未出版。朱斌妤、蕭乃沂、楊禮榮（2013）。電子治理中政府對企業計畫(G2B)評估架構。行政暨政策學報，56，1-4。江思穎（2014）。政府資料開放評估指標建立。國立政治大學，台北市。吳冠翰（2016）。影響政府資料開放推動因素之探討。國立政治大學，台北市。宋餘俠、李國田（2012）。 政府部門資料加值推動策略與挑戰。研考雙月刊，36(4)，10-21。林惠玲、陳正倉。（2003）。應用統計學。台北: 雙葉書廊有限公司。國家發展委員會（2015）。政府資料開放進階行動方案。行政院第3465次院會會議簡報。2017年7月5日取自：http://www.ndc.gov.tw/Content_List.aspx?n=B2A92523DCC12607張家生（2012）。從臺北市看政府公開資料（Open Data）。研考雙月刊，36(4)，61-69。張維志（2016）。政府開放資料何去何從，政策與行動策略。新社會政策，43， 11-15。陳舜玲、林珈宏、莊庭瑞（2013）。藏智於民：開放政府資料的現況與原則，台北：中央研究院台灣創用CC計畫。開放文化基金會（2017）。開放政府觀察報告：開放資料之政策基礎與影響力評估。2017年9月15日取自：http://opengovreport.ocf.tw/#tab-0黃朝盟、朱斌妤、黃東益（2008）。電子治理成效調查評估與分析報告。行政院研考會委託研究報告（報告編號09640D002503）。台北市，行政院研考會。黃東益、朱斌妤、蕭乃沂、李仲彬（2009）。電子治理成效指標與評估：G2C與G2B。行政院研考會委託研究報告（編號：0972461343）。臺北市：行政院研究考核委員會。資訊工業策進會（2014）。主要國家「政府開放資料」機制與作法追蹤觀察報告（一）─美國。2017年7月3日，取自：http://opendata.tca.org.tw/spaw2/uploads/images/Open%20Government%20Data%202014/2014Open%20Government%20Data-U.S.pdf廖淑君（2007）。政府資訊加值利用與管理法制研究：以美國及英國爲例。科技法律透析，19(7)，35-61。蕭景燈（2012）。資料開放發展現況與展望。研考雙月刊，36(4)，22-38。羅晉、楊東謀、王慧茹、項靖（2014）。 政府開放資料的策略與挑戰：使用者觀點的分析。Electronic Commerce Studies, 12(3), 283-300。羅清俊（2010）。社會科學研究方法：打開天窗說量化。威仕曼文化事業股份有限公司。 英文文獻Andersen, K. N., Medaglia, R., & Henriksen, H. Z. (2012). Social media in public health care: Impact domain propositions. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 462-469.Attard, J., Orlandi, F., Scerri, S., & Auer, S. (2015). A systematic review of open government data initiatives. Government Information Quarterly, 32(4), 399-418.Burgess, R. G. (1984). In the Field: An Introduction to Field Research. London, Allen and Unwin.Caddy, J., & Vergez, C. (2003). Open government: Fostering dialogue with civil society. OECD Publishing.Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (Eds.). (2006). Open innovation: Researching a new paradigm. Oxford University Press on Demand.City of Cambridge. (2016). Community Engagement Strategies for Open Data Collaborations. Retrieved July 02, 2017 from: https://goo.gl/wbrX0aDurant, W. (1926). The story of philosophy. No. 04; RMD, B72 D8.Davies, T., & Perini, F. (2016). Researching the emerging impacts of open data: revisiting the ODDC conceptual framework. The Journal of Community Informatics, 12(2), 148-178.European Commission. (2016). EU eGovernment Action Plan 2016-2020. Retrieve July 29, 2017 from: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/communication-eu-egovernment-action-plan-2016-2020-accelerating-digital-transformationFath-Allah, A., Cheikhi, L., Al-Qutaish, R. E., & Idri, A. (2014). E-government maturity models: A comparative study. International Journal of Software Engineering & Applications, 5(3), 71.Gurin, J. (2014). Open Data Now: The Secret to Hot Startups, Smart Investing, Savvy Marketing, and Fast Innovation. McGraw-Hill.Heeks, R. (2006). Benchmarking e-government: Improving the national and international measurement, evaluation and comparison of e-government. IDPM i-Government Working Paper, 18, 1-33.Johnson, J. M. (2002). In-depth interviewing. Handbook of interview research: Context and method, 103-119.Lee, G. & Kwak, Y. H. (2012). An open government maturity model for social media-based public engagement. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 492-503.Macintosh, A. (2004). Characterizing e-participation in policy-making. In System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 10-pp). IEEE.Noveck, B. S. (2009). Wiki government: how technology can make government better, democracy stronger, and citizens more powerful. Brookings Institution Press.Noveck, B. S. (2011). Defining Open Government. Retrieved July 02, 2017 from http://cairns.typepad.com/blog/2011/04/whats-in-a-name-open-gov-we-gov-gov-20-collaborative-government.htmlOKFN (2017). The State of Open Government Data in 2017: Creating meaningful open data through multi-stakeholder dialogue. Retrieve August 14, 2017 from https://index.okfn.org/insights/Open Data Institute (2015). Benchmarking Open Data Automatically. Retrieve July 4, 2017 from https://theodi.org/guides/benchmarking-data-automatically Open Knowledge Foundation. (2006). Open Knowledge Definition. Retrieved July 4, 2017, from http://www.opendefinition.org/Rubin, H. J. and Rubin S. I. (1995). Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. London, Sage.Yang, T. M., & Wu, Y. J. (2016). Examining the socio-technical determinants influencing government agencies` open data publication: A study in Taiwan. Government Information Quarterly, 33(3), 378-392.Safarov, I., Meijer, A., & Grimmelikhuijsen, S. (2017). Utilization of open government data: A systematic literature review of types, conditions, effects and users. Information Polity, 22(1), 1-24.Ubaldi, B. (2013). Open Government Data: Towards Empirical Analysis of Open Government Data Initiatives. OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, No. 22, OECD Publishing. Retrieved July 02, 2017 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k46bj4f03s7-enUbaldi, B. (2016), Rebooting Public Service Delivery: How Can Open Government Data Help to Drive Innovation.UN, E. (2016). UN e-Government Survey 2016. E-Government in Support of Sustainable Development. New York: UN. Retrieved July 02, 2017 from http://workspace.UN.org/sites/Internet/Documents/UN96407.pdfVeljković, N., Bogdanović-Dinić, S., & Stoimenov, L. (2014). Benchmarking open government: An open data perspective. Government Information Quarterly, 31(2), 278-290.Vigoda, E. (2002). From responsiveness to collaboration: Governance, citizens, and the next generation of public administration. Public administration review, 62(5), 527-540.Viscusi, G., Castelli, M., & Batini, C. (2014). Assessing social value in open data initiatives: a framework. Future Internet, 6(3), 498-517.World Bank Group (2015). Open Data for Sustainable Development. Retrieve July 4, 2017 from http://pubdocs.worldbank.org/en/999161440616941994/Open-Data-for-Sustainable-Development.pdfWorld Wide Web Foundation (2016). Open Data Barometer Global Report 3nd Edition, Retrieve July 4, 2017 from http://webfoundation.org/about/research/open-data-barometer-3rd-edition/ World Wide Web Foundation (2017). Open Data Barometer Global Report 4nd Edition, Retrieve July 4, 2017 from http://webfoundation.org/about/research/open-data-barometer-fourth-edition/ Worthy, B. (2015). The impact of open data in the UK: Complex, unpredictable, and political. Public Administration, 93(3), 788-805.Zuiderwijk, A., & Janssen, M. (2014). Open data policies, their implementation and impact: A framework for comparison. Government Information Quarterly, 31(1), 17-29. zh_TW
