=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1152/paper5
|storemode=property
|title=Classification and Ranking of Greek Agricultural and Environmental e-Governement Services
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1152/paper5.pdf
|volume=Vol-1152
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/haicta/ChatzinikolaouB11
}}
==Classification and Ranking of Greek Agricultural and Environmental e-Governement Services==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1152/paper5.pdf
Classification and Ranking of Greek agricultural and
environmental e-governement services
Parthena Chatzinikolaou1, Thomas Bournaris1
1
Department of Agricultural Economics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece,
e-mail: pchatzin@agro.auth.gr
Abstract. In recent years, the e-government revolution has induced
transformational economic and social shifts around the world. The main
objective of this paper is to analyze and rank the e-government agricultural
services provided by the Greek government in Citizens Services Center web
portal. For this reason an analysis of all the official e-government agricultural
and environmental services was made. In order to characterize e-government
evolution we use the four stage-model proposed by Layne and Lee (2001). The
ranking of the environmental and natural resources subcategories was made
with PROMETHEE II method in order to find which sector has proceeded in e-
government evolution stages. The results show that there is a need to increase
the interaction between citizens and different government by providing more
integrated e-government services.
Keywords: agriculture, environment, e-government
1 Introduction
Information and communication technologies (ICTs) have dramatically changed
the face of agriculture in developed countries. Many activities of farms have been
linked to databases, electronic communication, portals and websites, giving the
possibility to farmers for accessing government projects, financial institutions,
markets, technical and scientific assistance (Andreopoulou, Koutroumanidis, &
Manos, 2009). In many cases, access to public knowledge and information has
become a key element of competitiveness in local, regional and international level. In
economic terms, the information has become so important that it is considered as the
fourth production factor. In short, the face of agriculture in the developed world has
changed, and ICT has become increasingly critical for farmers and policy makers
(AED, 2003).
On the other hand, rural areas are by definition distant, sparsely populated and are
dependent on natural resources (Kilkenny, 1998). In Greece, people living in rural
areas and especially farmers are far away from the decision and policy centers. So, it
is not always possible for them (due to lack of transport, time or money and improper
weather conditions) to travel to city centers in order to obtain the necessary
information or to use the available government services for their agricultural holdings
(Mahaman, Ntaliani, & Costopoulou, 2005). Greek agricultural public services are
________________________________
Copyright ©by the paper’s authors. Copying permitted only for private and academic purposes.
In: M. Salampasis, A. Matopoulos (eds.): Proceedings of the International Conference on Information
and Communication Technologies
for Sustainable Agri-production and Environment (HAICTA 2011), Skiathos, 8-11 September, 2011.
51
also characterized by slow computerization, with public services still being
performed through the traditional way. Access to public knowledge and information
is limited and does not cover all agricultural fields. Public web portals in many cases
are not linked, have different navigation structure and only few are updated (Ntaliani,
Costopoulou, & Karetsos, Mobile government: a challenge for agriculture, 2008).
Particularly, e-government portals play an essential role, as are access points for
citizens to local, regional or national electronic administration(Saprikis,
Vlachopoulou, & Manthou, 2009). E-government refers to government’s use of
Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), and particularly web portals
to provide government information and services to citizens, businesses and
government, in order to improve transparency, effectiveness and efficiency of public
administration services(Ntaliani, Costopoulou, Karetsos, Tambouris, & Tarabanis,
Agricultural e-government services: An implementation framework and case study,
2010).
The main objective of this paper is to analyze and rank the e-government
agricultural and environmental services provided by the Greek government in
Citizens Services Center web portal. The paper is organized as follows. In the
following section, e-government types and stages are presented. In Section 3 the
official greek e-governmente services are analysed and classified, followed by the
reanking methodology in Section 4. Section 5 discusses the main results of the
PROMETHEE II methodology. The final section concludes.
2 e-Government types and stages
In recent years, the e-government revolution has induced transformational
economic and social shifts around the world. In order to proceed in designing and
developing an e-government portal for agricultural services we have to define first
what e-government is. For e-Government have been given many definitions, some of
them are complex and others are simpler. One simple definition is given by the
United Nations, which defines e-Government as "the use of ICT and its application
by the government for the provision of information and public services to the people”
(UN World, 2005). Another definition is given by the Organization for Economic
Co-operation and Development (OECD) which defines e-Government as “the use of
ICTs, and particularly the internet, as a tool to achieve better government” (OECD,
2003). In parallel, the European Union (The Commision of the European
Communities, 2003) defines e-government as "the use of ICT combined with
organizational change and new skills in order to improve public services, democratic
processes and public policies”. In a simple definition we can define the e-
Government as "the provision of online public services and information, 24 hours a
day and 7 days a week”.
Many authors mentioned that the main goals of e-Government are to improve the
efficiency of public administration and reduce administrative burdens for businesses
and citizens. The types of e-government are established depending on the type of
transactions that come in contact with the public administration. E-government
includes electronic interactions of three types (Montagna, 2005):
52
a) Government-to-Citizen, (G2C),
b) Government-to-Business, (G2B) and
c) Government-to-Government (G2G)
Recently have been added and two more types (Devadoss, Pan, & Huan, 2002):
d) Government to Non-Governmental Organizations (G2NGO)
e) Government to Non-Profit Organizations (G2NPO)
In order to characterize e-government evolution we use the four stage-model
proposed by Layne and Lee (2001). E-government services normally evolve through
a four stage process (Layne & Lee, 2001). Stage 1 includes the initial web presence
(publication of information on a web site), stage 2 includes limited interactions
(online interactivity), stage 3 includes transactions (electronic delivery of documents)
and stage 4 includes transformation (electronic delivery of services) (Gil-Garcia &
Martinez-Moyano, 2007).
Adoption of e-government services has many potential benefits. First of all
providing citizens with a greater range of services and delivery channels. One other
point is that e-government is giving citizens greater access to the range of services by
providing better, easier to use information on-line and joining up services at the point
of delivery. It also gives services in a way which suits citizens' and businesses' needs
by providing services on-line, 24 hours a day and providing faster and more accurate
services. Finally, improves efficiency by replacing manual processing of routine high
volume work by IT systems and it can also be used to make the purchasing of goods
and services more efficient.
3 Greek Agricultural e-Gov Services
The aim of this paper is to find all the agricultural e-Gov Services provided by Greek
Government to classify and rank them. For this reason, we analyzed the “Environment
and Natural Resources” services of the website of KEP (www.kep.gov.gr), who has
designed and developed electronic information covering the entire Public Sector,
making an easier access for Internet transactions to the Public Administration.
Additionally, it provides citizens and businesses alike, a central information and e-
services hub for a series of administrative procedures, implementing a very
significant step towards e-governance.
Table 1. Thematic Categories and services
A/A Thematic Categories Services %
1 Labour, Insurance and Pension 733 33.7%
2 People, Communities and Living 185 8.5%
3 Entrepreneurship and Competitiveness 166 7.6%
4 Transportation, Travel and Tourism 156 7.2%
5 Environment and Natural Resources 155 7.1%
6 Economy and Finance 139 6.4%
7 Health and Social Care 129 5.9%
8 City planning and Land registry 116 5.3%
9 Education and Research 111 5.1%
53
10 Justice and Public Administration 109 5.0%
11 Public Order and Defence 92 4.2%
12 International and European Union Affairs 39 1.8%
13 Information and Communication 21 1.0%
14 Culture and Leisure 21 1.0%
Total 2172 100.0%
All the services, available to users, are organized in basic thematic categories. In
the next tables, a detailed description of what each thematic category contents is
presented. Each thematic category includes specific services. Table 1 presents the
distribution of the 2.172 services in the fourteen thematic categories. Each thematic
category includes certain subcategories regarding the thematic issues, covered in
each one. As we can see, Work, Insurance and Pension is the category that includes
the most services (733) and covers 33.7%. The next category is People, Communities
and Living which includes 185 services and covers the 8.5% of total services.
Entrepreneurship and Competitiveness includes 166 services and covers 7.6%.
Moreover, the category Transportation, Travel and Tourism includes 156 services
(7.2%) and Environment and Natural Resources includes 155 services (7.1%). The
next categories is Economy and Finance, which includes 139 services (6.4%), and
Health and Social Care, which includes 129 services (5.9%). The next categories
(City planning and Land registry, Education and Research, Justice, State and Public
Administration) cover about 5.0% each one, and the category Public Order and
Defence covers 4.2%. Finally, the last categories (International Affairs and the
European Union, Information and Communication and Culture and Leisure) cover
less than 2.0% respectively.
Table 2. Environment and Natural Resources
A/A Subcategories Services %
1 Natural resources 98 61.3%
6 Flora and fauna 26 16.3%
2 Energy 14 8.8%
4 Environmental Protection 12 7.5%
3 Delineation 9 5.6%
5 Water resources 1 0.6%
Total 160 100.0%
Table 2 focuses on identifying the category “Environment and Natural Resources”
structure and the number of services included in each one. As mentioned above, each
thematic category includes certain subcategories. The subcategories included in this
thematic category are: Utilization of natural resources, Flora and fauna, Energy,
Environmental Protection, Delineation and Water resources.
The first subcategory is Utilization of Natural resources (Table 3). This category
includes services that regard Fisheries (26.7% of total services), Agriculture (27.6%),
Forestry, Livestock (22.9%), Quarries (9.5%), Beekeeping (1.9%), Mines, Quarries,
Poultry (6.7%) and finally Logging (4.8%).
54
Table 3. Natural Resources
Α/Α Subcategories Services %
1 Fisheries 28 26.7%
2 Agriculture 29 27.6%
3 Forestry 0 0.0%
4 Livestock 24 22.9%
5 Quarries 10 9.5%
6 Beekeeping 2 1.9%
7 Mines 0 0.0%
8 Poultry 7 6.7%
9 Logging 5 4.8%
Total 105 100.0%
Table 4. Flora and fauna
Α/Α Subcategories Services %
1 Forests 16 61.5%
2 Animals 8 30.8%
3 Plants 2 7.7%
Total 26 100.0%
On the issue of Flora and Fauna there are 26 services. More than the half of them
(61.5%) regards forests, while 31% regard animals and 7.7% plants (Table 4).
Moreover, for the Subcategory of Energy, it includes services about renewable
energies, electricity and fuels (Table 5). The most services in this subcategory
(78.6%) are about fuels, and the rest 21.4% regard electricity.
Table 5. Energy
Α/Α Subcategories Services %
1 Renewable sources of Energy 0 0.0%
2 Electricity 3 21.4%
3 Fuels 11 78.6%
Total 14 100.0%
Table 6. Environmental Protection
Α/Α Subcategories Services %
1 Ban Hunting 0 0.0%
2 Waste Management 8 61.5%
3 Environmental Protection 4 30.8%
4 Pollution 1 7.7%
Total 13 100.0%
Similarly, in the next subcategory about Environmental Protection, there are 13
ban hunting, waste management, environmental protection generally and pollution
(Table 6). 61.5% of total services regard waste management, 30.8% of them regard
environmental protection generally, and 7.7% pollution.
55
Additionally, the services regarding delineation refer to sea shore, streams and
ditches (Table 7). Most of the services (72.7%) refer to sea shore, while the rest of
them are equally distributed in streams and ditches.
Finally, in the last subcategory, Water resources, there are services referring to
irrigation, lakes, rivers and groundwater (Table 8).
Table 7. Delineation
Α/Α Subcategories Services %
1 Sea shore 8 72.7%
2 Streams 2 18.2%
3 Ditches 1 9.1%
Total 11 100.0%
Table 8. Water resources
Α/Α Subcategories Services %
1 Irrigation 0 0.0%
2 Lakes 0 0.0%
3 Rivers 0 0.0%
4 Groundwater 0 0.0%
Total 0 0.0%
4 Ranking Methodology
The method that was used for the ranking of the six subcategories of the
“Environment and Natural Resources” main category was the multicriteria analysis
PROMETHEE II, which applied a linear form of function in this particular case,
using selected criteria. A considerable number of successful applications has been
treated by the PROMETHEE methodology in various fields such as Banking,
Industrial Location, Manpower planning, Water resources, Investments, Medicine,
Chemistry, Health care, Tourism, Ethics in OR, Dynamic management, (Albadvi,
Formulating national information technology strategies: A preference ranking model
usin PROMETHEE method, 2004; Albadvi, Chaharsooghi, & Esfahanipour,
Decision making in stock trading: An application of PROMETHEE, 2007; Amador,
Sumpsi, & Romero, 1998)(Andreopoulou, Tsekouropoulos, Koutroumanidis,
Vlachopoulou, & Manos, 2008)(Andreopoulou, Koutroumanidis, & Manos, The
adoption of e-commerce for wood enterprises, 2009)(Koutroumanidis,
Papathanasiou, & Manos, 2002)(Olson, 2001)(Siskos & Grigoroudis, 2002)
The success of the methodology is basically due to its mathematical properties and
to its particular friendliness of use.
The PROMETHEE II method (preference ranking organization method for
enrichment evaluation) is a multicriteria decision-making method developed by
(Brans & Vinke, A preference ranking organization method: The PROMETHEE
method for multiple criteria decision making, 1985). It is well adapted to problems
56
where a finite number of alternatives are to be ranked considering several, sometimes
conflicting criteria. (Brans, Vincke, & Mareschal, How to select and how to rank
projects: The PROMETHEE method, 1986) considered the following multicriteria
problem:
ݔܽܯሼ݂ଵ ሺܽሻǡ ǥ ݂ ሺܽሻǡܭ א ܽ ךሽ, (1)
where K is a finite set of actions and ݂ ǡ ݅ ൌ ͳǡ ǥ ݇ , are k criteria to be maximized.
The PROMETHEE methods include two phases (Roy, 1968) (Roy, 1996):
- the construction of an outranking relation on K,
- the exploitation of this relation in order to give an answer to (1).
In the first phase, a valued outranking relation based on a generalization of the
notion of criterion is considered: a preference index is defined and a valued
outranking graph, representing the preferences of the decision maker, is obtained
(Roy, The outranking approach and the foundations of ELECTRE methods., 1991).
The exploitation of the outranking relation is realized by considering for each action
a positive and a negative flow in the valued outranking graph: a partial preorder
(PROMETHEE I) or a complete preorder (PROMETHEE II) on the set of possible
actions can be proposed to the decision maker in order to achieve the decision
problem. Only a few parameters are to be fixed in these methods and they all have an
economic signification so that the decision maker is able to determine their values
easily. Furthermore, some small deviations in the determination of these values do
not often induce important modifications of the obtained rankings.
The preference structure of PROMETHEE is based on pair wise comparisons. In
this case the deviation between the evaluations of two alternatives on a particular
criterion is considered. The preference index for each pair of alternatives ܽǡ ܾ ܭ א,
ranges between 0 and 1. The higher it is (closer to 1) the higher the strength of the
preference for ܽ over ܾ is.
ܪሺ݀ሻ is an increasing function of the difference ݀ between the performances of
alternatives ܽ and ܾ on each criterion. ܪሺ݀ሻ is a type of preference intensity (Vincke,
1992). This function is represented by figure 1.
ܲሺܽǡ ܾሻǡ݀ Ͳǡ
ܪሺ݀ሻ ൌ ൜ (2)
ܲሺܾǡ ܽሻǡ݀ ͲǤ
The ܪሺ݀ሻ function can be of various different forms, depending upon the
judgment policy of the decision maker (Kalogeras, Baourakis, Zopounidis, & Dijk,
2005). Generally, six forms of the ܪሺ݀ሻ function are commonly used (Brans,
Macharis, Kunsch, Chevalier, & Schwaninger, 1998) suppose that the decision maker
has specified a preference function ܲ, and weight ߨ for each criterion ݂ǡ ሺ݅ ൌ
ͳǤ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ Ǥ ݇ሻ of problem (6). The weight ߨ is a measure of the relative importance of
criterion ݂ if all the criteria have the same importance for the decision maker, all
weights can be taken equal.
The multicriteria preference index ߎ is then defined as the weighted average of
the preference functions ܲ :
σೖ
సభ గ ሺǡሻ
ߎሺܽǡ ܾሻ ൌ σೖ
(3)
సభ గ
57
ߎሺܽǡ ܾሻ represents the intensity of preference of the decision maker of action ܽ
over action ܾ, when considering simultaneously all the criteria. It is a figure between
0 and 1 and:
- ߎሺܽǡ ܾሻ ൌ Ͳ denotes a weak preference of ܽover ܾ for all the criteria,
- ߎሺܽǡ ܾሻ ൌ ͳ denotes a strong preference of ܽ over ܾ for all the criteria.
This preference index determines a valued outranking relation on the set ܭof
actions. This relation can be represented as a valued outranking graph, the nodes of
which are the actions of ܭ. When each alternative is facing other alternatives in ܭ,
the following outranking flows are defined:
The positive outranking flow:
߮ ା ሺܽሻ ൌ σא ߎሺܽǡ ܾሻ 4)
The positive outranking flow expresses how an alternative is outranking all the
others. It is its power, its outranking character. The higher the߮ ା ሺܽሻ, the better the
alternative.
The negative outranking flow:
߮ ି ሺܽሻ ൌ σא ߎሺܾǡ ܽሻ (5)
The negative outranking flow expresses how an alternative is outranked by all the
others. It is its weakness, its outranked character. The lower the߮ ି ሺܽሻ, the better the
alternative.
The net outranking flow can is the balance between the positive and the negative
outranking flows. The higher the net flow, the better the alternative:
߮ሺܽሻ ൌ ߮ ା ሺܽሻ െ ߮ ି ሺܽሻ (6)
4.1 Application of the methodology
The next stage is the ranking of the six Environment and Natural Resources
subategories with the implementation of the multicriteria method of PROMETHEE
II, according to specific criteria. The criteria we have chosen are the number of the
services included in each category and the number of the services included in each
stage (publication of information on a web site, online interactivity, electronic
delivery of documents and electronic delivery of services). The next table (table 9)
presents the rates of the services of each category, included in the four different
stages.
Table 9. Rates of environment and natural resources e-gov services distribution in the four e-
gov stages
A/A Thematic Categories Stages
1st 2nd 3rd 4th
1 Utilization of natural resources 21.43% 73.47% 2.04% 3.06%
2 Energy 28.57% 64.29% 7.14% 0.00%
3 Delineation 88.89% 11.11% 0.00% 0.00%
4 Environmental Protection 58.33% 41.67% 0.00% 0.00%
5 Water resources 100.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
6 Flora and fauna 19.23% 69.23% 11.54% 0.00%
58
The multi-criteria method PROMETHE II was applied as a part of the theory of
relevance superiority. The shape of the ܪሺ݀ሻ function selected is the Gaussian form
(Gaussian criterion) defined as follows:
ܪሺ݀ሻ ൌ ͳȂ ݁ݔሼെ݀ ଶ Ȁʹߪ ଶ ሽ (7)
where ݀ is the difference among the categories ܽ and ܾ ሾ݀ ൌ ݂ሺܽሻ ൌ ݂ሺܾሻሿ and ߪ
is the standard deviation of all differences ݀ and for each criterion.
The multicriteria indicator of preference ߎሺܽǡ ܾሻ which is a weighted mean, of the
preference functions ܲሺܽǡ ܾሻwith weights ߨ for each criterion, express the
superiority of the category ܽ against category ܾafter all the criteria tested.
We received 50 scenarios of weights and on each scenario of weights we receive
10 scenarios on the standard deviation of ߪ distribution of Gauss. The 10 scenarios
ߪ oscillate from ͲǤʹͷ ݏuntil ʹǤͷݏwith stepͲǤʹͷݏ, where ݏthe standard deviation of
all differences ݀ for the each criterion. Globally we take 500 prices for each net flow
per category and find the medium price (Koutroumanidis, Nicola Giata,
Papathanasiou, & Manos, 2002).
When two categories ሺܽǡ ܾሻ are compared to each other one is assigned two values
of flows: the positive and the negative outranking flow. The positive flow expresses
the total superiority of the category ܽ against all the other categories for all the
criterions. The negative flow expresses the total superiority of all the other categories
against category ܽ for all the criterions.
The net flow is the number that is used for the comparison between the categories
in order to obtain the final ranking. ߔሺݔሻis the net flow of each category. Thus is
created the table of net flows of the six categories according to that becomes the
ranking of them. The net flows are presented in table 10 and the ranking of the six
categories as obtained from the net flows, is presented in table 11.
The category ranked in first place is Utilization of Natural Resources. According
to the results of the analysis we observe that Flora - fauna and Energy have also
positive net flows and possess the second and third place, respectively. The next
positions in the ranking belong to Delineation and Environmental Protection with
small negative net flows around 0. At the lowest position we find the Water
Resources with negative net flows.
Table 10. Net flows of the 6 Categories
Services Net flows
X1 Utilization of natural resources Φ1
X2 Energy Φ2
X3 Delineitation Φ3
X4 Environmental Protection Φ4
X5 Water resources Φ5
X6 Flora and fauna Φ6
Table 11. Ranking of the 6 Services
Ranking Services Net Flow
1 Utilization of natural resources Φ1 0.777761
2 Flora and fauna Φ6 0.556467
59
3 Energy Φ2 0.120247
4 Delineation Φ3 -0.24157
5 Environmental Protection Φ4 -0.30767
6 Water resources Φ5 -0.90523
5 Conclusions
The aim of this paper is to analyze and rank the agricultural and environmental e-
gov services provided officially by the Greek government portal KEP
(www.kep.gov.gr). For this reason an analysis of all the e-government agricultural
services was made. The classification results show that the agricultural and
environmental e-government services are in the fifth place of the main categories
provided by the Greek government. Specifically, agricultural, livestock and fisheries
e-gov services are the main subcategories of the natural resources and the services
provided are well organized.
On the other hand, the distribution of these services in the four e-government
evolution stages shows that the majority belongs to the initial stages of the simple
web presence and interaction. Greek government web services normally offer static
information about agencies and government organizations.
The ranking of the environmental and natural resources subcategories was made in
order to find which sector has proceeded in e-government evolution stages. The
criteria chosen was the number of the services included in each category and the
number of the services included in each e-government stage. The results show that
utilization of natural resources which includes e-government services for agriculture,
livestock and fisheries was ranked in the first place. The results also show that there
is a need to increase the interaction between citizens and different government by
providing more integrated e-government services. Therefore, Greek government
needs to cross organizational boundaries and develop a comprehensive and integral
vision of the government as a whole.
References
1. AED. (2003). Future Directions in Agriculture and Information and
Communication Technologies (ICTs) at USAID.
2. Albadvi, A. (2004). Formulating national information technology strategies: A
preference ranking model usin PROMETHEE method. European Journal of
Operational Research , 153, 290-296.
3. Albadvi, A., Chaharsooghi, S., & Esfahanipour, A. (2007). Decision making in
stock trading: An application of PROMETHEE. European Journal of European
Research , 177, 673-683.
4. Amador, F., Sumpsi, M. J., & Romero, C. (1998). A non-interactive
methodology to assess farmers’ utility functions: an application to large farms
in Andalusia, Spain. European Review of Agricultural Economics , 25, 92-109.
60
5. Andreopoulou, Z. S., Koutroumanidis, T., & Manos, B. (2009). The adoption of
e-commerce for wood enterprises. Int. J. Business Information Systems , 4 (4),
440-459.
6. Andreopoulou, Z., Koutroumanidis, T., & Manos, B. (2009). The adoption of e-
commerce for wood enterprises. International Journal of Business Information
Systems , 4 (4), 440-459.
7. Andreopoulou, Z., Tsekouropoulos, G., Koutroumanidis, T., Vlachopoulou, M.,
& Manos, B. (2008). Typology for e-business activities in the agricultural
sector. IJBIS, International Journal of Business Information Systems , 3 (3),
231-251.
8. Brans, J. P., & Vinke, P. (1985). A preference ranking organization method:
The PROMETHEE method for multiple criteria decision making. Management
Science , 31 (6), 647–656.
9. Brans, J. P., Vincke, P., & Mareschal, B. (1986). How to select and how to rank
projects: The PROMETHEE method. European Journal of Operational
Research , 24, 228-238.
10. Brans, J., Macharis, C., Kunsch, P., Chevalier, A., & Schwaninger, M. (1998).
Combining multicriteria decision aid and system dynamics for the control of
socio-economic processes. An iterative real-time procedure. European Journal
of Operational Research , 109 (2), 428-441.
11. Devadoss, P., Pan, S., & Huan, J. (2002). Structurational analysis of e-
Government initiatives: a case study of SCO. Decision Support Systems , 34,
253-269.
12. Gil-Garcia, R. J., & Martinez-Moyano, I. J. (2007). Understanding the evolution
of e-government: The influence of systems of rules on public sector dynamics.
Government Information Quarterly , 54, 266-290.
13. Kalogeras, N., Baourakis, G., Zopounidis, C., & Dijk, G. v. (2005). Evaluating
the financial performance of agri-food firms : a multicriteria decision-aid
approach. Journal of Food Engineering , 70 (3), 365-371.
14. Kilkenny, M. (1998). Transport Costs and Rural Development. Journal of
Regional Science , 38 (2), 293-312.
15. Koutroumanidis, T., Nicola Giata, M., Papathanasiou, J., & Manos, B. (2002).
Multi criteria analysis of efficiency of agricultural sector in Balkan countries.
6th Balkan Conference on Operational Research 22-25 May. Thessaloniki.
16. Koutroumanidis, T., Papathanasiou, J., & Manos, B. (2002). A Multicriteria
analysis of productivity of agricultural regions of Greece. Operational
Research. An International Journal , 2 (3), 339-346.
17. Layne, Κ., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing Fully Functional E-government: A
Four Stage Model. Government Information Quarterly , 18, 122-136.
18. Mahaman, B. D., Ntaliani, M. S., & Costopoulou, C. I. (2005). E-Gov for Rural
Development: Current Trends and Opportunities for Agriculture. Proceedings
of the 2005 EFITA/WCCA Joint Congress on "T in Agriculture". Vila Real,
Portugal, July 25-28,.
19. Montagna, J. M. (2005). A framework for the assessment and analysis of
electronic government proposals. Electronic Commerce Reseach and
Applicaions , 4 (3), 204-219.
61
20. Ntaliani, M., Costopoulou, C., & Karetsos, S. (2008). Mobile government: a
challenge for agriculture. Government Information Quarterly , 25 (4), 699-716.
21. Ntaliani, M., Costopoulou, C., Karetsos, S., Tambouris, E., & Tarabanis, K.
(2010). Agricultural e-government services: An implementation framework and
case study. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture , 70, 337-347.
22. OECD. (2003). The e-Government Imperative. OECD.
23. Olson, D. (2001). Comparison of three multicriteria methods to predict known
outcomes. European Journal of Operational Research , 130, 576-587.
24. Roy, B. (1968). Classement et choix en presence de points de vue multiple, (La
methode ELECTRE). RIRO , 55-57.
25. Roy, B. (1996). Multicriteria Methodology for Decision Aiding. Dordrecht:
Kluwer.
26. Roy, B. (1991). The outranking approach and the foundations of ELECTRE
methods. Theory and Decision , 31, 49–73.
27. Saprikis, V., Vlachopoulou, M., & Manthou, V. (2009). A typology framework
of Greek business-to-business electronic marketplaces. International Journal of
Business Innovation and Research , 3 (3), 252-267.
28. Siskos, Y., & Grigoroudis, E. (2002). Measurement Customer satisfaction for
various services using multicriteria analysis. In Aiding decisions with multiple
criteria (pp. 457-482). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
29. The Commision of the European Communities. (2003). The Role of e-
Goverment for Europe's Future. Brussels, 26/9/2003.
30. UN World. (2005). e-Government Readiness Report 2005: From E-government
to E-Inclusion.
31. Vincke, P. (1992). Multicriteria Decision Aid. New York: John Wiley & Sons
Ltd.
62