International Journal of

ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES

EISSN: 2313-3724, Print ISSN: 2313-626X

Frequency: 12
line decor
  
line decor

 Volume 11, Issue 9 (September 2024), Pages: 36-47

----------------------------------------------

 Original Research Paper

Evaluating ICT development: Indicators, digital progress, and societal impact for sustainable development

 Author(s): 

 Christopher Perumal 1, 2, Novel Lyndon 1, *, Zaini Sakawi 1, 3

 Affiliation(s):

 1Center for Research in Development, Social and Environment (SEEDS), Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Malaysia
 2Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Malaysia Sarawak, Sarawak, Malaysia
 3Institute of Climate Change, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Malaysia

 Full text

  Full Text - PDF

 * Corresponding Author. 

  Corresponding author's ORCID profile: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5049-8247

 Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

 https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2024.09.005

 Abstract

Measuring the progress of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) is important for achieving sustainable development. Various methods and indices have been created to evaluate the level of digitalization in a society or country. ICT indicators and indices involve choosing and weighing factors such as the accessibility, efficiency, and impact of ICT development. This study used the PRISMA method to select and review eighteen previous studies, focusing on the ICT development indicators they used and assessing their effects on society. It identified many indicators, with access, usage, and ICT skills being the most common. By examining these indicators, the study has gained insights into how to measure digital progress, assess the digital divide, create strategic policies, and evaluate the influence of ICT on human and social capital. The study concludes that the development and selection of ICT indicators should be broadened beyond the current framework to improve the effectiveness and relevance of ICT development goals.

 © 2024 The Authors. Published by IASE.

 This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

 Keywords

 ICT development, Digitalization, Indicators, Sustainable development, Digital divide

 Article history

 Received 30 April 2024, Received in revised form 26 August 2024, Accepted 2 September 2024

 Acknowledgment

This study acknowledges the contribution of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia by providing a writing workshop and access to an online database to search all the articles. Also, thanks to Azlan Abas, a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, who has guided me in writing this article. I also sincerely thank Geran Kursi Endowmen MPOB-UKM (Grant under Novel Lyndon: ID: MPOB-UKM-2024-003) and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia for supporting the publication fees associated with this manuscript and throughout my doctoral journey. Additionally, I extend my heartfelt thanks to Universiti Malaysia Sarawak and the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia for sponsoring my PhD study at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia.

 Compliance with ethical standards

 Conflict of interest: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Citation:

 Perumal C, Lyndon N, and Sakawi Z (2024). Evaluating ICT development: Indicators, digital progress, and societal impact for sustainable development. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 11(9): 36-47

 Permanent Link to this page

 Figures

 Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 Fig. 4 Fig. 5 

 Tables

 Table 1 Table 2 

----------------------------------------------   

 References (47)

  1. Abas A, Er AC, Tambi N, and Yusoff NH (2022). A systematic review on sustainable agricultural practices among oil palm farmers. Outlook on Agriculture, 51(2): 155-163. https://doi.org/10.1177/00307270211021875   [Google Scholar]
  2. Abbasabadi HM and Soleimani M (2021). Examining the effects of digital technology expansion on unemployment: A cross-sectional investigation. Technology in Society, 64: 101495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2020.101495   [Google Scholar]
  3. Beroggi GEG, Taube VG, and Levy M (2005). Statistical indicators for monitoring and controlling the ICT system. International Journal Technology, Policy and Management, 5(1): 93-120. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTPM.2005.007245   [Google Scholar]
  4. Bilan Y, Oliinyk O, Mishchuk H, and Skare M (2023). Impact of information and communication technology on the development and use of knowledge. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 191: 122519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.122519   [Google Scholar]
  5. Binsfeld N, Whalley J, and Pugalis L (2017). Playing the game: Explaining how Luxembourg has responded to the networked readiness index. Digital Policy, Regulation and Governance, 19(4): 269-286. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPRG-02-2017-0008   [Google Scholar]
  6. Borjigin C, Feng H, Zhang B, and Zhao G (2016). The information resources utilization index: A case study in China. Program, 50(1): 2-15. https://doi.org/10.1108/PROG-07-2013-0041   [Google Scholar]
  7. Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, and Welch VJHW (2019). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Wiley, Hoboken, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  8. Chereshnia O (2023). Spatial assessment of the digital economy at the national and sub-national level. Social Sciences, 12(8): 445. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci12080445   [Google Scholar]
  9. Damrah S, Satrovic E, and Shawtari FA (2022). How does financial inclusion affect environmental degradation in the six oil exporting countries? The moderating role of information and communication technology. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 10: 1013326. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.1013326   [Google Scholar]
  10. Diansyah MW, Abas A, and Sakawi Z (2021). A systematic review on community forest management in Southeast Asia: Current practices and impacts on biodiversity conservation and livelihood quality of local communities. Human Ecology Review, 27(1): 3-21. https://doi.org/10.22459/HER.27.01.2021.01   [Google Scholar]
  11. Gerpott TJ and Ahmadi N (2015). Composite indices for the evaluation of a country's information technology development level: Extensions of the IDI of the ITU. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 98: 174-185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.03.012   [Google Scholar]
  12. Hiebl MR (2023). Sample selection in systematic literature reviews of management research. Organizational Research Methods, 26(2): 229-261. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120986851   [Google Scholar]
  13. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, and Welch VA (2019). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2nd Edition, John Wiley and Sons, London, UK. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119536604   [Google Scholar]
  14. Hincu D, Fratila L, and Tantau A (2011). Gap indicator for measuring digital divide. Management Research and Practice, 3(2): 74-88.   [Google Scholar]
  15. ITU (2023). New global connectivity data shows growth, but divides persist. International Telecommunication Union, Geneva, Switzerland.   [Google Scholar]
  16. Kerras H, Sánchez-Navarro JL, López-Becerra EI, and de-Miguel Gomez MD (2020). The impact of the gender digital divide on sustainable development: Comparative analysis between the European Union and the Maghreb. Sustainability, 12(8): 3347. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12083347   [Google Scholar]
  17. Khalid MZ, Ahmed A, and Shayiq AB (2019). Changing technology, emerging development: Sustainable development in rural India through mobile telephony. Journal of Content, Community and Communication, 10(5): 39-49. https://doi.org/10.31620/JCCC.12.19/05   [Google Scholar]
  18. Khan H, Weili L, and Khan I (2022). Examining the effect of information and communication technology, innovations, and renewable energy consumption on CO2 emission: Evidence from BRICS countries. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 29: 47696-47712. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-19283-y   [Google Scholar] PMid:35184242
  19. Lnenicka M and Machova R (2022). A theoretical framework to evaluate ICT disparities and digital divides: Challenges and implications for e-government development. Sciendo: Review of Economic Perspectives, 22(1): 25-51. https://doi.org/10.2478/revecp-2022-0002   [Google Scholar]
  20. Machova R and Lnenicka M (2015). Reframing e-government development indices with respect to new trends in ICT. Review of Economic Perspectives, 15(4): 383-411. https://doi.org/10.1515/revecp-2015-0027   [Google Scholar]
  21. Mahan AK (2007). ICT indicators for advocacy. In: Banks K, Bissio R, Currie W, Esterhuysen A, Ramilo CG, and Sigilito M (Eds.), Global information society watch: 77-87. Karen Higgs, Montevideo, Uruguay.   [Google Scholar]
  22. Makoza F and Chigona W (2012). The livelihood outcomes of ICT use in microenterprises: The case of South Africa. The Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries, 53(1): 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1681-4835.2012.tb00374.x   [Google Scholar]
  23. Marston HR, Ivan L, Fernández-Ardèvol M, Rosales Climent A, Gómez-León M, Blanche-T D, Earle S, Ko PC, Colas S, Bilir B, and Öztürk Çalikoglu H et al. (2020). COVID-19: Technology, social connections, loneliness, and leisure activities: An international study protocol. Frontiers in Sociology, 5: 574811. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsoc.2020.574811   [Google Scholar] PMid:33869500 PMCid:PMC8022752
  24. Martínez-Cerdá JF, Torrent-Sellens J, González-González I, and Ficapal-Cusí P (2018). Opening the black-box in lifelong E-learning for employability: A framework for a socio-technical e-learning employability system of measurement (STELEM). Sustainability, 10(4): 1014. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041014   [Google Scholar]
  25. Masoura M and Malefaki S (2023). Evolution of the digital economy and society index in the European Union: A socioeconomic perspective. TalTech Journal of European Studies, 13(2): 177-203. https://doi.org/10.2478/bjes-2023-0020   [Google Scholar]
  26. Megbowon ET and David OO (2023). Information and communication technology development and health gap nexus in Africa. Frontiers Public Health, 11: 1145564. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1145564   [Google Scholar] PMid:37064667 PMCid:PMC10097944
  27. Miranda LCM and Lima CAS (2012). Trends and cycles of the internet evolution and worldwide impacts. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79: 744-765. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.09.001   [Google Scholar]
  28. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, and Altman DG (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. British Medical Association, 339(7716): 332-336. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535   [Google Scholar]
  29. Moldabekova A, Philipp R, Reimers H, and Alikozhayev B (2021). Digital technologies for improving logistics performance of countries. Transport and Telecommunication, 22(2): 207-216. https://doi.org/10.2478/ttj-2021-0016   [Google Scholar]
  30. Naivinit S (2009). Gender, access to community telecentre and livelihood asset changes. Journal of Information Communication and Ethics in Society, 7(2): 128-135. https://doi.org/10.1108/14779960910955846   [Google Scholar]
  31. Nakono S and Washizu A (2021). Will smart cities enhance the social capital of residents? The importance of smart neighbourhood management. Cities, 115: 103244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103244   [Google Scholar]
  32. Nightingale A (2009). A guide to systematic literature reviews. Surgery (Oxford), 27(9): 381-384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mpsur.2009.07.005   [Google Scholar]
  33. Novo-Corti I and Barreiro-Gen M (2015). Public policies based on social networks for the introduction of technology at home: Demographic and socioeconomic profiles of households. Computers in Human Behavior, 51: 1216-1228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.040   [Google Scholar]
  34. OECD (2020). Digital economy outlook. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Publishing, Paris, France.   [Google Scholar]
  35. Okoli C (2015). A guide to conducting a standalone systematic literature review. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 37: 879-910. https://doi.org/10.17705/1CAIS.03743   [Google Scholar]
  36. Perez-Martinez J, Hernandez-Gil F, Miguel GS, Ruiz D and Arredondo MT (2023). Analysing associations between digitalization and the accomplishment of the sustainable development goals. Science of the Total Environment, 857: 159700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.159700   [Google Scholar] PMid:36306850
  37. Perumal C, Lyndon N, and Sakawi Z (2023). SWOT analysis of telecentre development as a rural community empowerment strategy. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 10(12): 109-120. https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2023.12.013   [Google Scholar]
  38. Pieper D, Mathes T, and Eikermann M (2014). Impact of choice of quality appraisal tool for systematic reviews in overviews. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 7(2): 72-78. https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12097   [Google Scholar] PMid:25155764
  39. Rojon C, Okupe A, and McDowall A (2021). Utilization and development of systematic literature reviews in management research: What do we know and where do we go from here? International Journal of Management Reviews, 23(2): 191-223. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12245   [Google Scholar]
  40. Saeed HK, Razak NA, and Aladdin A (2022). Digital literacy and communication competence among academic leaders: Post-COVID-19 study. Journal of Language Studies, 22(4): 232-245. https://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2022-2204-13   [Google Scholar]
  41. Solomon EM and Klyton AV (2020). The impact of digital technology usage on economic growth in Africa. Utilities Policy, 67: 101104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2020.101104   [Google Scholar] PMid:32904493 PMCid:PMC7456578
  42. Srinuan C and Bohlin E (2011). Understanding the digital divide: A literature survey and ways forward. In the 22nd European Regional Conference of the International Telecommunications Society, Innovative ICT Applications – Emerging Regulatory, Economic and Policy Issues, Budapest, Hungary.   [Google Scholar]
  43. Torkayesh AE and Torkayesh SE (2021). Evaluation of information and communication technology development in G7 countries: An integrated MCDM approach. Technology in Society, 66: 101670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2021.101670   [Google Scholar]
  44. UN (2022). Information and communication technologies (ICTs). United Nations: Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York, USA.   [Google Scholar]
  45. WEF (2021). Annual report 2020-2021: Committed to improving the state of the world. World Economic Forum. Cologny, Switzerland.   [Google Scholar]
  46. Whyte A (2000). Assessing community telecentres: Guidelines for researchers. International Development Research Centre, St. Albert, Canada.   [Google Scholar]
  47. Yang S, Fichman P, Zhu X, Sanfilippo M, Li S, and Fleischmann KR (2020). The use of ICT during COVID‐19. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 57(1): e297. https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.297   [Google Scholar] PMid:33173819 PMCid:PMC7645918