For people living in rural and remote areas, information technology affords many conveniences, such as eliminating the need for travel to complete errands (bill paying, shopping etc.); providing opportunities for e-commerce (exporting wines, wool etc); monitoring weather patterns; contacting family, friends and community groups via email; providing access to a plethora of news and information from various viewpoints; and enabling communication with people from all over the world via virtual communities, which may dispel feelings of isolation. In Australia, the trend for rural branches of banks and government offices to close means that the need for the Internet to provide these services is strong. Therefore, reliable access to the Internet is required at an affordable cost. Despite the benefits IT can afford people residing in rural and remote areas, rates of IT adoption are frequently lower than those for metropolitan areas, as the following studies show:
Mills and Whitacre (2003, p.219) state that, in the US in 2001, differences in education and income accounted for 63% of the current metropolitan - non-metropolitan digital divide. This result shows the interplay between the various dimensions of the digital divide; in this instance (but certainly not in all cases), the underservered residents of rural areas are comparatively less educated and have lower incomes. Newburger (2001, in Mills and Whitacre, 2003, p.221) asserts that a significantly higher share of metropolitan households (55%) use the Internet at home than non-metropolitan households. The [1] OECD report Understanding the Digital Divide measured internet access among rural and urban households in Canada, Japan, Netherlands and United States annually from 1997 to 2000. The following results were reported: · Internet access in urban areas was everywhere greater than in rural areas. · Members of households in urban areas are more likely to have occupations where computers and the Internet are part of their work environment. · Costs tend to be higher and quality of access lower in rural areas, despite efforts to ensure standardised pricing and quality. · Incomes tend to be lower in rural areas and ICT costs are relatively higher for low-income groups. · In Japan in 2000, 13.6% of rural homes had internet access, compared to 17.7% of urban homes. · In the United States in 2000, 38.9% of rural homes had internet access, compared to 42.3% of urban homes. · Internet access levels are higher in capital cities and highly industrialised and advanced regions than in rural and peripheral regions. · Network infrastructure tends to be more expensive and of lower capacity and quality in remote areas.
Hindman (2000, p.549) counters the arguments listed above, stating one’s income, age, and education were more closely associated with the use of information technology than was geographical location. However, because remote areas are typically less populated than metropolitan areas, remote telecommunications infrastructure may not be as advanced, high speed broadband may not be widely available and dialup services unreliable. Australia’s population is one of the most concentrated in the world. Australian Communications Authority figures reveal that in 1998, 63% of Ausralia’s 6.8 million households reside in the eight state and territory capital cities, 28% in regional provincial centres and 9% in rural and remote areas. Despite universal service provisions set out in government legislation, rural Australians often complain of poor telecommunications services, especially the Internet. Broadband technology is simply not available for some remote Australian communities. Gere (2002) believes that most rural dwellers are voluntary non-users, and a ‘culture of resistance would be expected to persist as a barrier to adoption and use of IT’s,’ attributed to an emphasis on tradition rather than innovation, localite orientation, and resistance to ideas imposed from outside the community. To overcome the resistance perceived by Gere, rural community figures could be selected to receive IT training, with the aim of developing skills to create local content. This knowledge could then be disseminated amongst the rest of the community via free workshops. Network externalities could then be created, which refer to the increase in value to all users of a network as more users join the network (e.g. email, chat rooms) (Compaine, 2001, p.324).
Compaine, B.M. (2001) ‘Declare the War Won’ in The Digital Divide: Facing a Crisis or Creating a Myth? Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 270, 320, 324-325. ISBN 0262531933
Gere, C. (2002) Digital Culture London: Reaktion Books, p.88
Hindman, D.B. (2000) ‘The rural-urban digital divide,’ Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly. Vol. 77, Iss. 3, p. 549.
Mills, B.F. and Whitacre, B.E. (2003) ‘Understanding the Non-Metropolitan - Metropolitan Digital Divide, Growth and Change. Vol. 34, No. 2 (Spring) pp. 219-221.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ‘Understanding the Digital Divide (2002) Available: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/38/57/1888451.pdf Retrieved 20/10/05
