The Digital Revolution’s Impact

Chapter 1

1.1 Background of the study

Currently, the world’s relationships, social, political and economic activities are largely transacted on the internet (Dean et al, 2012). This has led to the emergence of what is termed as ‘the digital revolution’ and contributed to the emergence of ‘digital society’ and ‘digital economy’ (Kalapesi et al, 2010). Consequently, people can access a huge amount of content from the internet regardless of where they are in the world, content that shapes the way they interact with each other and with the environment. Furthermore, because of the internet, human’s social life is highly mediated; augmented and influenced by the interaction they have with each other online (Graham et al, 2013). Research by Dean et al (2012) identifies Britain as one of the largest internet economies globally, particularly because according to their estimations, the internet accounts for 8.3% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Thus, the economic activities running in Britain’s internet takes a larger economic share than other important economic sectors such as education, construction and healthcare. Moreover, Dean et al (2012) estimated that in a few years to come, British internet economy would grow faster than that of China and double the USA’s growth rate. This increase in digital economy would present tangible benefits to people living in the UK. For instance, the internet contributes to a stronger job market thereby contributing to domestic job income growth by eliminating geographically related barriers to business – enabling easier access to ideas, markets and customers. Furthermore, according to Graham & Blank (2014), the internet enhances business supply chains, leading to efficiencies that contribute to lower online product prices (Kalapesi et al, 2010).

Apart from the economic benefits, internet use has several personal benefits. For instance, internet users’ access to cheaper entertainment, lower product prices, prompt access to news and easier information dissemination. However, people who are not online do not access these benefits. With this regard, an earlier research by Hoffman & Novak (1998) and Katz & Aspden (1997) investigated internet access by involving people who did not have any physical access to the internet either through an internet link or computer. A common finding among the two pieces of research was that internet access was not enough. Today, most people find it almost impossible to live a life without digitally communicating. This justifies the argument that the internet plays a significant role in facilitating communication, even from a governance perspective where it enables citizens to interact with the government online (Warren, 2007). Yet, despite the pervasive nature of the digital society, not everyone is connected. British statistics produced by Office of National Statistics (2014) indicate that in 2014, at least 14% of households were not connected to the internet. Interestingly, internet participation in other parts of the world such as the Global North is by choice. But, according to Warren (2007), many people may lack digital skills or be unable to afford the services offered by internet service providers, revealing the close relationship between social exclusion and economic exclusion. Nonetheless, people may lack digital access as a result of barriers contributed by the geography of digital communication infrastructure including territorial barriers which may be overlooked as a mediating factor contributing to national digital inequality.

1.2 Problem Statement

Despite the importance of the internet in humans’ daily life, there is a paucity of knowledge about the use of the internet from a geographical point of view, and how people participate in the internet at a national scale. For instance, it is difficult to tell whether London, Edinburgh, Cardiff or Aberdeen residents have more access to the internet than other boroughs in the UK. This is especially intriguing considering some speculations that the extent of digital divide in the UK is alarming. However, because these differences point out to digital inequalities at a geographical level, it is monumental to investigate this further. Currently, there is a rapidly growing competition in economic development among various geographical areas in England, Scotland and Wales (Bauer, 2018). This implies that communities, businesses and individuals are increasingly demanding for internet connectivity, and more so the enterprises that are struggling to gain a competitive edge against their competitors. Among other challenges, digital divide contributes to costly challenges that businesses and individuals in the non-connected areas undergo daily. Therefore, this study aims to find a solution to the problem of the digital divide in a bid to promote the community, individuals’ and enterprises’ economic well-being.

1.3 Research Aim

The main aim of this study is to identify primary and secondary data highlighting the geographical and economic impact of digital divide in England, Scotland and Wales.

1.4 Research Objectives

To explore the extent of territorial digital divide in the England, Scotland and Wales

To explore the implication of digital exclusion in rural remote areas in England, Scotland and Wales

To explore the most appropriate solutions for digital divide in England, Scotland and Wales.

1.5 Research questions

What is the level of territorial digital divide in the England, Scotland and Wales?

What are the implications of digital exclusion in rural remote areas in England, Scotland and Wales?

What are the most appropriate solutions for digital divide in England, Scotland and Wales?

1.6 Significance of the study

The findings of this study will be of great importance to policy and regulatory initiatives aimed at promoting equal internet connectivity within the UK. The study will be of great importance to policymakers who seek to develop effective policies for promoting internet access in the UK. Furthermore, the study findings will be useful in sensitizing the UK’s general public on digital divide and its geographical and economic impact.

The internet is one of the most significant necessities for any population globally. Globalization, for instance, has led to the vital uses of the internet because some of the most essential products and services are offered online. With the number of people connected to the internet increasing globally, soon the internet will be a necessity of life. This study seeks to examine the extent to which people in England, Scotland and Wales are connected to the internet and the geo-economic impacts of internet non-connectivity. Given the economic importance of the internet, this study will contribute the necessary knowledge for developing and implementing an effective intervention to address the issue of digital divide in England, Scotland and Wales.

1.7 Structure of the Dissertation

This dissertation will start with an overview of the study background, which introduces the audience to the concept of digital divide. Furthermore, the introduction part will shed light on the state of internet access in the UK. The next chapter will be the literature review, which will help in identifying what is known about digital divide, what is yet to be known and how the present study might contribute to topic. The next section will be the methodology section, which will highlight the research strategies used in achieving the study objectives. The penultimate section will highlight and discuss the findings of the study while the final section will give conclusions and recommendations.

Chapter 2

2.1 Defining digital exclusion, digital inequality and digital divide

From time immemorial, the subject of digital divide relates to topics such as digital inequalities and digital exclusion; and have continued to receive attention from both international and national policymakers within a variety of disciplines including telecommunications (Helsper 2012), media, human geography (Riddlesden & Singleton 2014), public policy (White & Selwyn 2013) and sociology (Khatiwada & Pigg 2010). However, a few of these studies have offered an explicit geographical perspective on digital inequality challenges and their impacts on society. In a study by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), researchers effectively defined digital divide as the difference between businesses, individuals and households and geographic areas with regards to their opportunities to access information and communication technology and to their internet use for various activities (OECD, 2001). Similarly, DiMaggio et al (2010) described digital divide as the inequalities involved in internet access, quality of internet connection, search strategy skills and extent of use. Later, Sparks (2013) asserted that digital divide can be defined as a variety of social differences in the access and use of digital services and equipment and the ability to access the internet with regards to internet equipment access and use. Meanwhile, existing literature tends to conceptualize digital divides from a socio-economic perspective.

2.1.1 Socio-economic digital divides

According to Philip et al. (2017), determining and analysing the relationship between the digital divide and different socio-economic factors has become very important. There are two types of digital divides which show the overall impact that the internet has had in recent some years. Bezuidenhout et al. (2017) described the first category of the digital divides as one where the individual who is online, does not have any access to the internet. This category is related to people who do not have any access to the internet or to a computer for that matter. However, the study of McDonald and Wren, (2017) showed that access to and use of a computer as well as the internet is largely dependent on attitudes of the concerned individuals, their ICT skills, financial conditions, age and other such demographic variables and personal characteristics. According to Philip et al. (2017), social capital and literacy levels of the concerned individual(s) also has a crucial role to play.

2.1.2 Holistic Digital Divide

This is also known as the second category of the digital divide. It came into light during the 2000s’ and is considered to be a more sophisticated way to define and explain the term – ‘digital divide’. According to Van Dijk (2017), the concept of the digital divide can be associated with inequalities prevailing in the environment. Observably, this understanding of the digital divide reveals researchers’ effort to keep up with the fast-changing digital landscape. In this regard, Okunola et al. (2017) assert that early assessment of internet use was based on the users’ ability to access the internet through a fixed internet connection in a public place or at home through a personal computer. Yet today, the internet can be accessed in different ways, including private connections, public connections, fixed connection and mobile connections. Furthermore, ICT developments such as 4G and 3G mobile internet networks and the increased ownership of various devices such as mobile phones, laptops and tablets which facilitate internet connection have contributed to a more difficult discourse on what constitutes digital divide. Consequently, a more sophisticated understanding of the digital divide incorporates an exploration of who is able or not able to access the many potential benefits offered by the internet. According to Clark (2016), this represents a shift of focus from the digital divide to digital inequalities explainable in four different themes. They are - user autonomy in the access to the internet; digital skills; availability of social support to potential internet users; and the extent to which users are integrated into the internet culture. However, Dwivedi et al. (2016) insist that digital inequality is associated with an individual’s socio-economic circumstances, with no mention of digital behaviour or digital infrastructure.

2.2 Digital divide and digital infrastructure

. For instance, in 2001, OECD discovered an existing urban-rural digital divide emerging from unequal ICT infrastructure capabilities and costs. Various pieces of research in North America and the UK, have reported attempts by various governments to improve ICT infrastructure in rural areas amid eminent digital exclusion in such areas. The findings of these studies indicate that rural telecommunication infrastructure is less developed compared to those of urban areas (Lindblom and Räsänen, 2017). A possible implication of these findings is that people living in rural areas are unable to fully enjoy the benefits of ICT because of where they live, yet there is a dearth of research highlighting the specific problematic nature of digital exclusion in rural areas and the economic and geographical ramifications associated to it. More importantly, the improvements in digital communication infrastructure, especially with regards to the development of 3G and 4G mobile internet networks, have been geographically unequal. In many countries including the UK, most mobile telecommunication companies have somehow favoured urban areas and other areas that are more densely populated than rural areas, leaving the sparsely populated or rural areas behind in terms of digital infrastructure (Choudrie, Pheeraphuttranghkoon and Davari, 2018). As a result, a small business in rural UK still cannot have access to a fixed internet connection. Similarly, those who have access cannot have a reliably stable connection. Thus, with the increasing geographical gaps in internet connection, concerns about the economic impacts of such exclusion in rural context are more likely to rise again from the challenges of telecommunication infrastructure – that is sub-standard because they are associated with the inequalities emerging from potential users who choose not to use the internet due to poor connection or who are not able to access the internet at all (Estacio, Whittle and Protheroe, 2019).

Government perspective/assessment of the digital divide

The UK Government, through the ONS has assessed the extent of digital divide in the UK and taken a position. The report (ONS, 2018) highlights different trends and patters of digital divide in the UK that are worth noting. For instance, the number of adults who have never had an experience with the internet at all or not used the internet in three months (non-internet users) had declined. According to ONS (2018), the internet non-users have been declining by half since 2011 even though by 2018, that number was still at 5.3 million – meaning that by 2018, 10% of UK adult population were internet non-users. Nonetheless, the governments’ position, as illustrated below is that there number of internet non-users from 2011 to 2018 in the UK has declined.

Having realized that at least 105 of the UK’s adult population are internet users, the UK government has expressed concern on the extent of digital inequality in the UK and called for quicker actions and remedies. Particularly, the government through the ONS contend that the internet in a useful tool across various areas of peoples live and that digital technology offers a variety of benefits and therefore such a significant portion of UK’s population should not miss out on (ONS, 2018). ONS (2018) draws data from Centre for Economic and Business Research (CEBR) to argue that the internet has several benefits that the internet non-users are mission out on. For instance, (i) economic benefits that come alongside earnings benefit, whereby internet users are more likely to increase their earnings by 3% to 10% if they have digital skills, (ii) Employment benefits, whereby people with digital skills are more likely to be employed, and those who are inactive are more likely to look for some work, (iii) the delivery of digital transactions, whereby internet products and services are averagely 13% cheaper than those in the store, (iv) having basic digital skills can enhance one’s ability to communicate with friends, family and the community 14% more frequently, (v) the delivery of government services and other private sectors services through the internet can save time compared to the delivery of such services in-person, saving at least 30 minute per transaction. According to ONS (2018), these are some of the most important benefits derived from the internet that 10% of the UK population is missing out on due to digital divide. Data by the UK governments’ Industrial Strategy indicate that the internet, through artificial intelligence creates an important challenge and opportunity in terms of employability and economic growth. With this regard, ONS (2018) estimated that in the next 10 to 20 years, most jobs will require at least some sort of digital skills. This corroborates with the study by Lloyds Bank where half of the participants asserted that the internet had helped them search and find a job. These pieces of data highlight the extent to which digitally excluded population are at a higher risk of mission out on the jobs market unless an intervention is developed to address their needs. Even in an analysis of the most popular activities conducted by adults online, results indicate that sending and receiving mails, internet banking, searching for goods and services, and social networking as the four main activities conducted by adult online at the rate of 84%, 69%, 77% and 65% respectively (ONS, 2018). The figure below illustrates the findings on the internet users’ activity undertaken by users in the UK in 2018.

The UK government, through ONS (2018) has also identified a pattern of digital divide in the UK, and that the digital usage in the UK varies across various regions. First, ONS (2018) acknowledge that the decline in internet non-users across the UK contributed to a general decrease in digital divide across the UK. Nonetheless, the data shows that London has the lowest internet non-users (7%) followed by North Eastern England (12.1%) and Northern Ireland (14.2%). The figure below illustrates the percentage internet non-users across the UK in 2018 compared to 2012:

Ofcom’s Position on UK Digital Divide

UK’s internet regulators have also evaluated the sate of digital divide in the UK and recorded their position in writing. For instance, Ofcom’s data (Ofcom, 2019) on internet connection within the UK indicate that at least 30 million UK households have the access to full-fiber broadband intrenet connection, a 105 higher than the number in the previous year. Furthermore, Ofcom (2019) reports that by 2019, 95% of the UK were connected to superfast internet, meaning that a vast majority of UK households can have a fast download speed of at least 30Mbits/s. Furthermore, the 2019 reports reveal that the take up of superfast internet in 2019 compared to 2018 has increased by 20% even though more people could get superfast internet by upgrading. However, despite the wide coverage of superfast internet as reported by Ofcom (2019), the data reveals that still, at least 610,000 UK households cannot access decent internet of 10Mbit/s. Fortunately, the USO directive issued by the UK authorities that is supposed to be effective in March 2020 is assumed to be a solution to this shortage because as estimated by Ofcom (2019), at least 155,000 premises are eligible as beneficiaries of the USO directive.

2.4 Telecommunication Infrastructure

UK telecommunication systems are mostly configured into a broadband connection, which typically entails a single line of transmission with two or more channels transmitting both voice and data at the same time. Furthermore, the reliability and speed of the connection are determined by the type of line used and the distance between the use and the telecommunication network (Wilson and Hopkins, 2019). The British telecommunication network used copper telephone lines in the 1980s and 1990s and used a modem to convert telephone lines into a technology that could transmit data. According to Williams, Philip, Farrington, Fairhurst (2016), these connections, also known as dial-up, could transmit data at a download speed of 2Mbts/s. Later, broadband connections were introduced alongside Digital Subscriber Lines. However, in the year 2000, the copper lines were upgraded in the UK to Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Lines (ADSL), which currently supports the copper network cable to allow for a download speed of 24Mbit/s. The ADSL faster download speed is also influenced by the distance between the cabinet and the user’s position. This implies that even people who have situated a distance away from the cabinet might still experience digital inequality. Nonetheless, it is important to note that there are other alternatives to a fixed Internet connection. Within entire Europe, according to Okunola et al. (2017), these are 98.6% satellite coverage. Noticeably, according to Choudrie, Pheeraphuttranghkoon and Davari (2018), the European satellite market is increasingly becoming competitive even though the satellite market takes up in the UK remains to be a very small market share of the British broadband market. Moreover, the internet ‘on-the-go’ is much facilitated by the existing 3G and 4G mobile internet providers and the increasing locations of wi-fi internet hotspots. Whereas study by McDonald and Wren (2017) indicate an increasing number of people gaining access to mobile phones (especially in the period between 2011 and 2014), Ofcom (2015) observed that a majority of people living in UK’s rural areas still lack access to adequate mobile coverage and consequently mobile hotspot. More importantly, most of the UK’s telecommunication companies operate in the private sectors, and therefore they commercially prioritize their infrastructural developments to populous areas with a potential of the largest number of telecommunication service consumers (Bezuidenhout et al., 2017). This explains why the telecommunication infrastructure in urban areas are more developed and of greater quality compared to those in rural areas. Thus, it is now clear that there is an urban-rural digital inequality in the UK that largely result from the variation in the quality of infrastructural developments for telecommunication networks within the different areas. However, there is a dearth of evidence highlighting the characteristics of these digital infrastructures (Philip et al., 2017). This study, therefore, attempts to evaluate the typical characteristic of digital infrastructure in England, Wales and Scotland to demonstrate the nature of digital divide existing between rural and urban areas within the UK.

2.5 Economic Impacts

Many of the current studies have focused on assessing the economic impacts of the digital divide. In such investigations, it has been found, particularly with relevance to the UK, that digital divide has a significant impact on the economic and financial condition of the people (Van Dijk, 2017). These individuals are affected by different economic factors such as productivity, work automation, retail and many more. In the following paragraphs, different such influences have been critically discussed and evaluated.

2.5.1 Productivity

One of the most documented economic impacts of the digital divide in the UK is productivity. More importantly, the need for digital inclusion is more eminent when the latest statistics on the UK’s workforce productivity levels are analyzed (Wilson and Hopkins, 2019). For instance, the UK’s workforce productivity levels experienced a significant decrease in the wake of the 2008 global financial crisis and remained below the pre-crisis peak for several years. However, the UK’s economy has over the last decades, relied on basic digital skills and connectivity to fulfil their roles in most of the economic sectors. This is even more important because, in the wake of Brexit, the UK must remain competitive in the international economic arena by maintaining its productivity and growth. In fact, the OECD recently ranked UK 9th among its other peers in terms of productivity growth (Estacio, Whittle and Protheroe, 2019).

2.5.2 Connectivity and Work Automation

Technological advancement is considered one of the most significant enablers of economic growth. However, according to research findings in the UK, the benefits of technological advances are not often equally distributed across geographical populations (Bezuidenhout et al., 2017). This implies that digital connectivity not only creates jobs but also enables the transformation of existing jobs. Other scholars also insist that the number of jobs created by digital connectivity should never be forgotten. Digital connectivity can facilitate the development of new economic activities and create jobs over existing activities (Philip et al., 2017). Typically, the development of artificial intelligence and robots contributes to the development of supply chain necessary of their production, leading to the demand for new jobs within the sectors of the economy related to these activities. Furthermore, the emergence of technological innovations contributes to a wave of other innovations that lead to the creation of new products and the emergence of new job opportunities.

2.5.3 Digital Divide, Online Retail and Economic Well-Being

The ONS reported that the number of people who have never used the internet has significantly dropped. According to Williams, Philip, Farrington, Fairhurst (2016) estimate that 0.9 million people use the internet occasionally, while at least 4.5 million people have never used the internet in the UK. This is in comparison to statistics produced in 2015, which indicated that 5.9 million and 1.1milllion did not use and occasionally use the internet respectively. While the downward trend of digital inaccessibility is good news, the 4.5 million people that have never used the internet are missing out much on the economic benefits that accompany internet use such as saving money through online shopping as well as other online services. According to Philip et al. (2017) indicate that in 2017, internet shopping accounted for 16.3% of all retail purchases in the UK – a significant increase from the previous 11.2% in 2016. In money terms, the UK population purchased gods worth £59.3 billion in 2017, with the largest volume of purchases encountered in non-store retailing such as mailing orders and online. The increasing popularity of online retail is one of the ways through which internet connectivity has impacted contemporary society. However, it is unfortunate that individuals living in rural areas with little or no internet connectivity are unable to reap these benefits.

2.6 Online Government Services

In a study by the United Nations (UN) on e-government, the UK is the leading country in online government services. The UK’s global leadership in e-government has especially been facilitated by 2012 digital by default strategy that was rolled out to enable the government to conduct an efficient delivery of services to the public. Given its high potential of cost-saving, achieving the program’s full capacity is an important part of promoting the economic well-being of the UK population (Bezuidenhout et al., 2017).

Chapter 3 Research Methodology

3.1 The Research Approaches

Bryman & Bell (2015) defines research approach as the various techniques and methods used in achieving research objectives by gathering and analyzing data before making a conclusion on the research findings. Two pieces of studies; Bryman & Bell (2015) and Best & Khan (2016) agree that a researcher can take either inductive or deductive research approaches depending on the underlying research objectives. Deductive research approaches refer to the effort to prove the validity of existing theories and frameworks while inductive research approaches entail the use of research findings to develop new theories or hypotheses (Best & Khan, 2016). However, Best & Khan (2016) observe that both inductive and deductive research approaches may entail collecting data from either primary or secondary sources. The data is then analyzed to come up with evidence-based conclusions over the research topic. Against this backdrop, the present study sought to identify the geographical and economic impacts of digital divide in England, Scotland and Wales. The study relied on both secondary and primary sources of data to achieve its objectives. Both types of data will be analyzed and synthesized to develop a comprehensive conclusion to the underlying research questions. This implies that the entire study will be based on deductive approaches.

3.2 Mixed Research Methodologies

The use of both primary and secondary source of data implies that the researcher will rely on mixed research methods. Best & Khan (2016) define mixed research methods as the techniques involved in the use of both qualitative and quantitative data to achieve research objectives. Ideally, mixed research methods are recommended for use in situations where an integration of qualitative and quantitative data provides a better understanding of the phenomenon under investigation. Thus, the present study used both qualitative and quantitative data to identify the economic and geographical impacts of digital divide in the UK. The qualitative data was based on interview survey research design.

3.2.1 Qualitative Data

3.2.1.1 Sampling

Qualitative data was gathered through interviews that involved five participants from rural London, Wales and Scotland. The two-hour interview sessions per participants were held concurrently in each area. The study relied on modified convenient sampling to select all the participants (n=15). Generally, the researcher identified potential participants through her conveniently existing networks. All the participants were 18 years of age and above, born and raised in London, Scotland or Wales. The participants were asked to authorize a recording of the interview sessions and agreed to participate in the study by signing a consent form whose sample is provided in appendix 3. All interviews occurred in English without any translation.

3.2.1.2 Data Collection

The researcher relied on an elaborate qualitative data collection methodology bearing in mind that the validity of results relied on the suitability of data collection technique used (Bryman & Bell, 2015). Thus, to gather qualitative data from the participants, the researcher chose to use interviews. With this regard, Best & Khan (2016) observe that there are different ways of conducting interviews, namely open-ended interviews, or more structured interviews with predetermined questions. However, Burke (2013) asserts that in most cases, interviews are more open-ended and less structured. While the researcher asks the same question to all the respondents, there are variations in the type of follow-up questions asked, order of questions or the wording. In the present study, the interview method of data collection is considered the most appropriate in gathering qualitative data from the participants on the economic impacts of digital divide. This will enable the researcher to gather the participant’s views and opinions on the impacts of digital divide. Interview surveys are useful in gathering data on subjective human experiences through non-statistical methods (Roulston, 2011). The current study aims of understand the human subjective experiences of residents in England, Scotland and Wales on the economic and geographical impacts of digital divide. This is akin to a naturalistic enquiry that involves the comprehension of complex human experiences (Hopwood, et al., 2008). Thus, interviews emerged to be the best qualitative data collection strategy for the study. The study relied on semi-structured interviews, which is considered by Creswell (2017) and Elo & Kyngas (2008) as the ideal way of gathering comparative data and providing the level of flexibility required in developing an in-depth discussion with the respondents. According to Gill et al (2008), this flexibility is a major advantage of qualitative research approach because it minimizes researcher bias and allows the respondents’ voice to be heard. However, a significant disadvantage of this approach is that it is time consuming (Heaton, 2008). Meanwhile, the researcher recorded the interview sessions and transcribed them verbatim. Ultimately, the gathered data were in large volumes and overwhelming to the researcher. Therefore, to effectively identify relevant data that would help answer the research questions, the researcher used thematic analysis technique. According to Elo & Kyngas (2008), thematic analysis is most effective in qualitative research and is used to identify patters of meaning within data. It facilitates a rich description and organization of data to establish a theoretically informed meaning of data. Thus, through thematic analysis, the researcher identified items of analytic interest from the interview transcription and interpreted them to identify the economic impacts of digital divide in the UK.

3.2.2 Quantitative Data

Hitchcock (2012) describes quantitative data as pieces of close-ended information gathered by measuring behaviour, performance instruments and attitudes. It entails statistically analysed scores gathered on instruments such as checklists or questionnaires meant to answer research questions. In the current study, quantitative data was particularly used to identify the geographical impacts of internet divide in the UK. The study relied on Ofcom’s digital infrastructure data to identify the geographical impact of digital divide in the UK. Ofcom is the UK’s telecommunication regulator that publishes data on internet connectivity for all the UK’s Local Authorities (Elo & Kyngas, 2008). Furthermore, Ofcom is rich in postcode level data in the UK, with the latest one published in the year 2013. Thus, Ofcom maintains a database that covers various aspects of internet connectivity in the UK including the broadband data footprint in the UK and how fast the internet connectivity is. The selection of Ofcom’s database as the source of data for this research was informed by the detailed nature of such data and its convenient availability (Elo & Kyngas, 2008). Ofcom’s data contains enough information needed to explore the unequal geographical distribution of internet connectivity in England, Scotland and Wales, especially from a rural-urban context. The use of Ofcom’s data in this study began with the application of rural-urban classification of such data. While there is no official UK-wide definition of urban-rural internet connectivity in terms of speed and footprint, England, Scotland and wales have different definitions that reflect the different geographical characteristics of each nation. First, to facilitate an effective local authority-level analysis, this study applied an elaborate classification developed by the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs among others:

For Britain, the study geographically classified the areas into three major categories namely the local authority rural-urban areas, the predominant rural areas and the significant rural areas (DEFRA, 2005).

For Scotland, we classified the areas as simply urban and rural areas according to Scottish Government (2009).

For Wales, we geographically classified the areas as rural, Valley, Urban and Other used areas according to the Welsh Government (2008) classification.

Besides, to facilitate a finer analysis of Ofcom’s data set, the study geo-coded the unit postcodes as either shallow rural, deep rural or urban based on DEFRA’s urban-rural classification applied across Wales and England; as all as the Scottish Government’s six-step urban rural classification using DEFRA’s matching postcodes. These classifications were as follows:

Under urban classification in England we classified the areas as ‘urban’ – less sparse urban, urban sparse while in Scotland, we classified the urban areas as other urban areas and large urban areas.

Under shallow rural classification, we classified England and Wales as village, hamlet & isolated dwelling, and town fringe-less sparse. In Scotland, we classified the shallow rural areas as accessible rural areas and accessible small towns.

Under the deep rural classification, we classified England and Wales as town & fringe-sparse areas, village, and hamlet & isolated areas-sparse. On the same note, we classified Scotland as very remote rural areas, remote rural areas, and remote small towns.

3.3 Ethical Considerations

Being a study that involves human participants, there are several ethical considerations that were considered extremely important. For instance, the study ensured that the respondents’ confidentiality was maintained. Furthermore, the researcher ensured that the respondents willingly gave their answers. No personal information including names, email address or phone number was shared anywhere within the stud, as part of the efforts to promote anonymity. All participants signed an informed consent form before participating to ensure that their participation was voluntary. The informed consent form included the details of the research and the specific rights of each participant, including the right to withdraw from the study any as and when they feel like.

Chapter 4 Results and Discussion

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the major results of the study. Here, we use tables and diagrams to highlight the key findings of the study based on both the qualitative and quantitative data. We draw from Ofcom’s data as well as the interview data to identify the geographic and economic impacts of digital divide in England, Scotland and Wales. First, we present the readily available data from Ofcom’s data set, then present the results of the interviews.

4.2 The Geographical Impact of Digital Divide in the UK

4.2.1 Digital Divide in terms of speed in the UK

The first set of important data we derived from Ofcom’s database was the characteristics of fixed internet infrastructure both at the local authority and national levels of England, Scotland and Wales. With this regard, our review of Ofcom’s data (Ofcom 2014a) reveal that by the end of 2013, at least 22.6 million fixed broadband internet connections were connected to private residences and small and medium enterprises in the UK. Based on the varying speeds that broadband connections can support, the report indicate that there were many areas in the UK that could not support the ISP’s top speed internet levels due to poor telecommunication infrastructure. With the ever-increasing range of activities conducted online, there is a growing data requirement, and this must be supported with a stronger broadband that can connect multiple devices simultaneously within a household. However, based on Ofcom’s (2014a) data, the UK households still lack quality broadband connectivity that meets their expectations. The variability of internet provision in the UK can be measured by the speed of broadband connection received by households. On this note, our analysis of Ofcom’s data reveal that the broadband connectivity speed in the UK is ‘two-speed’. As illustrated in appendix 1, there is a pattern in the UK whereby the rural areas receive broadband connectivity with lower speed compared to those received in the urban areas, which are most likely to receive faster broadband infrastructure. A recent observation ma by the UK’s department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) was that upon the introduction of the Communication’s Act 2003) that regulated broadband internet, internet service providers delivered broadband connectivity of at least 0.5Mbit/s. However, over a decade later, ISPs still deliver broadband internet connectivity of as low as 2.2. Mbit/s or below – an inadequate internet service. According to Dutton & Blank (2011), such slow connectivity cannot support the now many internet application sand activities run online including video streaming and conference calling. Furthermore, these slow connections are incapable of supporting next generation households that run several devices and engage in different activities simultaneously. It is somehow difficult to identify the variability of national speed data especially at smaller spatial scales and at local authority level. For instance, the proportion of extremely small connections in England exists between 33.1% in City of Kingston and 22.3% in Isles of Scilly (Ofcom, 2014c). Furthermore, as illustrated in appendix 1, rural local authority areas are more likely to have a slow connection of below 2.2 Mbit/s than urban local authority areas. This corroborate with the observations by Williams et al (2016) that in rural areas, the longer distance of telecommunication network from the cabinet to the households (final mile distance) is the main reason for their slow broadband internet connection. Nonetheless, data from Ofcom (2014c) indicate that the UK’s BDUK program has contributed to at least 78% of properties to superfast internet, accounting for 6.1 million superfast internet connections by the beginning of 2014. Unfortunately, though, these pieces of data also indicate that the telecommunication infrastructure brining superfast internet connections are more concentrated in the densely populated areas, reports from Ofcom indicating that they are readily available in England than in Wales and Scotland.

It is also evident that there is a variation in the accessibility of superfast internet across rural and urban areas. For instance, according to Ofcom (2014a), the English areas defined by DEFRA as predominantly rural have poor access to superfast internet connectivity compared to rural local authority areas and English urban areas yet these areas are more likely to have superfast broadband internet connectivity compared to local authority areas in Wales and Scotland classified as rural. Ofcom’s data also give a hint of the actual broadband data speeds that clients receive – also known average sync speed. For instance, according to Ofcom (2014a), the average sync speed for Scotland, Wales and England combined was 16.0 Mbit/s. However, as reported by Ofcom (2014a), there is a variation in the sync speed data among rural local authority and urban areas within England. According to Ofcom (2014d), England has the highest average sync speeds, implying that it has the most widespread superfast broadband connectivity that the other two nations. Nonetheless, none of the local authorities in Wales has an average sync speed that matches England’s average sync speed. Scottish data also indicate that only one local authority’s sync speed matched the Scottish average, while only four Scottish rural local authorities out of fourteen had average sync speeds that exceeded or matched the Scottish rural average. It is more worrying that at least a fifth of the UK’s local authorities reported an average of 10Mbit/s which according to DCMS (2016), is also the British Government’s measure as the minimum speed needed for full participation in the country’s digital society. Ofcom’s database separately reports superfast broadband and overall broadband take up rates. According to Ofcom (2014b), there is a little broadband take up variation of 73%, 71.9% and 69.8% among England, Scotland and Wales respectively; despite a negligible variation between rural and urban areas. More interestingly, Ofcom’s data revealed a positive correlation between the take up and availability of superfast broadband internet connection. This implies that the availability of broadband connection influences internet uptake especially in the remote rural areas. Ofcom (2014a) also show that in Scotland, there is a positive correlation between the availability of broadband connection and take up of internet connection both in the urban and rural areas. A possible implication of these findings is that in rural and urban areas, the faster the availability of superfast broadband internet the faster people will take up internet use from ISPs. When we analyzed the broadband take up and speed data in local various local authorities, we realized a variation between rural and urban Wales, England and Scotland, revealing the existence of digital divide. However, we might not have had the clearest analysis of the existing digital divide by the fact that we focused on local authorities. This is particularly because there are urban and rural authorities that are sparsely populated. In the subsequent section of this chapter, we analyses the extent of digital in the UK based on the postcode area data denoted as deep rural, shallow rural and urban areas to provide a more comprehensive understanding of geographical impacts of digital divide in the UK.

Our analysis of Ofcom’s (2014c) data reveal a difference in the characteristics of the fixed broadband network connection in the deep rural, shallow rural and urban areas across the UK. Typically, the most significant difference is the availability of Next Generation Broadband (NGB) in 86.43% and 1.18% of England’s postcode areas and deep rural Welsh areas respectively. Similarly, one of the most striking differences is the range of maximum speed that seems to be higher in urban England (25.9Mbit/s) compared to that of rural Wales (9.27 Mbit/s), indicating a national inequality in superfast broadband internet connectivity. As illustrated in appendix 2, the maximum speeds and mean average of shallow rural, deep rural and shallow postcodes across the UK tend to hide the inequalities between rural and urban contexts. The maximum and average speeds in deep and shallow rural areas are much lower than those in urban areas, indicating that infrastructure upgrade interventions in the urban areas has contributed to better internet connectivity in urban than in rural areas. Worryingly, the rural telecommunication network infrastructure projects have predominantly focused on the more populated shallow rural areas and this is illustrated in the relatively better connectivity in the shallow rural areas as compared to deep rural areas – as evidenced in appendix 2. On the same note, data from Ofcom indicate that the peripheral and sparsely populated deep rural areas are the least recipients of infrastructural upgrade and display the most prominent digital divide compared to urban areas. As illustrated in Ofcom’s unit postcode maximum broadband speed data (appendix 3), the maximum speeds vary between shallow rural, deep rural and urban areas. The map also illustrates that the North-East Scottish urban areas (i.e. Moray, Aberdeenshire and Aberdeen City), Shropshire and Galloway in Southern Scotland have the highest average maximum connectivity speed. Conversely, the lowed speeds are found in geographically extensive but sparsely populated deep rural areas of England and Scotland.

4.2.2 The Mobile Internet Connectivity Divide in the UK

Considering that the global population is increasingly moving from fixed internet connection to a more flexible and on-the-go mobile internet connectivity as a result of the increase in Wi-Fi hotspots for use with tablets and laptops, we analyzed Ofcom’s data to see whether there was an inequality in mobile internet connectivity in the UK. This analysis was especially useful considering that all for the user to be online, they need to be in areas with telecommunication infrastructure that support mobile internet connectivity i.e. areas with 4G or 3G signals. The UK population was introduced to 4G network in 2012 and two years later, there at least 6 million 4G internet subscribers (Ofcom 2014c). However, many areas in the UK, especially deep rural areas still have limited 4G connectivity. While there are no published data on sub-UK 4G internets take up but there are data on the 2G and 3G mobile network provided by phone services. Our analysis indicates that regardless of the widespread use of mobile phones in the UK (Ofcom 2014c) at least 12.79% of the UK’s land mass were never connected to 2G network by 2013 (Ofcom, 2013). Similar reports indicate that at the same time, 22.9% of the UK land mass was not connected to 3G network. Ideally, the poor 3G connectivity experienced in rural areas affect internet connectivity and hinders on-the-move online access in those areas. Our analysis reveals that there is a clear rural-urban disparity in the connection of 2G and 3G networks across the UK. Nationally, mobile internet connectivity is better across England than in Scotland, while geographical level coverage is worse than premises-level coverage. At a sub-national level, the rural areas of Scotland have the poorest mobile network connection. From a geographical perspective, Ofcom’s data indicate that almost a quarter of Scottish geographical rural land mass lacks a reliable 3G network from any network operator. This implies that it is impossible to be online while in half of Scottish land mass without finding a Wi-Fi hotspot. Contrastingly, most urban areas are served with 3G or 2G network from different operators while the rural areas are served with only a one operator, particularly because the UK’s telecommunication operators do not support data roaming across networks. Consequently, telecommunication consumers ha a relatively limited choice, a situation that was recently condemned by British Infrastructure Group (2016), a British cross-party MPs’ report. With the rural connectivity, urban dwellers find it difficult to connect to their respective networks from their usual operators when they move from urban to rural area where there is limited 3G connectivity. This implies that those working and living on urban areas cannot connect online on-the-move. In various areas within Wales, England and Scotland, there is a correlation between poor 3G coverage and poor fixed broadband coverage. While Ofcom suggest that the areas with poor quality fixed broadband connectivity can be compensated with the use of mobile internet, this compensation is not feasible across most areas in the UK. Whereas there is a huge potential benefit of mobile internet in the rural areas, businesses and rural residents may not achieve of the full potential of mobile internet benefits if there is a lack of adequate infrastructure, unless the mobile network coverage is extended. An analysis of Ofcom’s data indicates that the deep rural residents in the UK are less likely to fully exploit the benefits of internet connectivity compared to their urban counterparts. This is not because they prefer not to be online but because they have poor mobile and fixed telecommunication infrastructure through which they should access the internet. Whereas the UK society is increasingly becoming digital, these geographical digital inequalities continue to affect how people across all demographics participate in the digital society. In the subsequent section, we illustrate the economic impact of digital divide based on the qualitative data collected through interviews. Particularly, we highlight how digital divide affects businesses in the rural areas and how this affects the economic well-being of the population. The interview results revealed two major themes namely the impact of digital divide in agricultural enterprises and impact of digital divide on non-agricultural enterprises.

4.3 Economic Impact of Digital Divide in the UK

The interview results have identified a variety of ways through which digital divide affects the UK citizens economically. The study’s thematic analysis has revealed two major themes namely: the economic impact of digital divide on rural agricultural enterprises and the economic impact of digital divide on non-agricultural enterprises. Below are the details of the findings:

4.3.1 The impact of digital divide on agricultural enterprises

The first respondent who gave significant response was a farmer who begun farming five years ago and had tried to get a broadband internet connected into their home. When asked about the connectivity challenges he was encountering, he mentioned that:

P: It was really poor, and I always had to spend hours with the service providers to have it connected…. after a few months, they had to come and relay the entire cable, and this did not even fix it. In the end, they admitted that there is nothing there could do about it.

Thus, Mr. P did not have any alternative but to use a dongle in accessing internet through mobile signals which is also increasingly becoming ineffective. This indicate the tendency of individuals and communities who have poor access to internet to improvise their own way of getting internet connectivity and finding solutions that fit their needs.

The few respondents who had internet connection complained that their connectivity was either unreliable or too slow. With the withdrawal of offline regulatory paperwork and commercial transactions, digital connectivity continues to be extremely important for rural area businesses.

One respondent who practices farming together with her husband, Mrs X, had recently subscribed to a community broadband connectivity and was willing to share her user experience. She noted that:

X: I mostly need the internet for registering newborn livestock because it is a regulation that they must be registered within 2 days, which has to be done online based on the regulations by British Cattle Movement Service. Thereafter, I use the registration for tax filling and VAT returns, all which can only be done online. We have no option but to do all these things online.

The above comments illustrate that reliable internet connectivity is important for their livestock business because without the broadband connectivity, her business would not adhere to the regulatory requirements of registering livestock online. Consequently, they would incur financial penalties and fines if they use offline services. These findings confirm the earlier findings from Ofcom’s data on the extent of digital divide in in most rural areas. Ofcom’s data indicate that in some rural areas with connectivity, the connectivity is weak or unreliable. Consequently, therefore, the communities, businesses, and individuals living in such areas are disadvantaged in the sense they are not able to fully enjoy the benefits of internet connectivity. More unfortunately, businesses may incur huge fines and for failing to submit regulatory compliance through various online platforms.

4.3.2 Non-agricultural Enterprises

4.3.2.1 Impacts on online retail/services

Non-agricultural enterprises have also been affected by the issue of digital divide. Our interviews revealed that the lack of, or unstable internet connection has affected various entrepreneurs in the rural areas, including business consultants who rely on the internet to deliver their services. one respondent (Mr. J), when asked to explain his encounters with internet connectivity in the rural area asserted that:

J: At the moment, the internet speed down here is close to useless and this has a considerable impact on my business…. when the internet speed is poor, it means that you cannot even download videos, or transmit any file in the internet. It is just practically impossible. This is especially harmful to our business because currently we are a point where we are handling more customers and suppliers online than we did before.

Another respondent who relied on the internet to coordinate his team noted how poor internet connectivity affected his ability to run the business smoothly. Because he works from a rural area with poor internet connectivity, he cannot run his business activities online due to the poor or unstable internet connection. Mr. M lives in the rural areas of Shropshire but remotely works for a utility company. He complains that:

M: In most cases I work remotely off my phone which uses a fixed broadband internet connection, however, when I am at home, I access my work platform through a home broadband connection. Unreliable often affect my job because I make a lot of phone calls……When clients call me, I have to go wherever they need me in 2 hours and therefore it does not make sense trying to get the job done in more than three hours through my laptop….For instance, last night I was called and I had to stop on the way to deliver the job because I knew if I went home I would take like forever to complete the work because the internet at home is not reliable. Even if I tried to do it at home, I am sure it would remain in my outbox because of poor internet and the client will have to ask me to resend it.

These pieces of qualitative indicate that internet inequality in rural areas have significant negative impacts on the economic well-being of businesses in the rural areas and affects the job opportunities of the people back in the rural areas. Mr M’s case confirms the findings of earlier reviewed literature about productivity and how failure to access the internet either due to poor connectivity or lack of digital skills affects the ability of rural residents to productive. Mr. M clearly illustrates that he had rather go physically to meet his clients’ needs rather than do it remotely at home through the internet.

4.4 Impact of the digital divide based on people’s experience

The extent to which individuals, households and organizations use the internet depends on the availability of telecommunication infrastructure developed and maintained by the private or public sector. Therefore, any attempt to reflect on the digital divide must consider digital infrastructure as a factor that influences internet accessibility. Furthermore, the reliability, type, quality and extent of digital infrastructure vary at national, international and global levels and these variations significantly affect internet users’ ability to be connected and achieve their expected internet experiences. During the current study, it was noted that the definition of digital exclusion entails the extent to which the general public suffers a significant gap in the adoption of ICT through channels beyond their control.

A typical example of such digital exclusion is geographical and reflects the unequal availability of quality telecommunication infrastructure within different geographical areas. For instance, a rural-urban digital divide across many countries globally has been identified by major economic policy bodies such as the OECD. Nevertheless, it is possible to achieve faster speeds regardless of the users’ distance from the cabined if fiber optic cables are used for connectivity. Fiber optic cables consist of very thin fiber glasses that do not weaken with distance, meaning that the end-users do not experience weak connection no matter their distance from the cabinet. In most cases, the fiber connection distance relies on the cabinet’s distance, and therefore, their effectiveness depends on the copper upgraded lines. However, the UK has not yet achieved a universal connection for optic fiber cables. Furthermore, the high installation cost of these cables inhibits the government's ability to prioritize the installation where this likely to be no potential subscribers to make the projects economically viable. While the recent labour productivity might have recovered, the UK’s productivity growth is still lagging compared to that of other peer-countries. This implies that the UK continues to face the challenge of improving its workforce’ productivity and should consider any intervention to achieve this objective. In a recent study by Ofcom, researchers found that the average wage of a British resident related to their digital skills and connectivity was between 3% and 10% of their earnings (Office of National Statistics, 2014). This implies that employee’s earning has a strong correlation with their digital skills and connectivity and that employers are willing to pay more for employees with digital skills and less for employees with poor or no digital skills. Consequently, it is evident that the availability of digital skills and connectivity has a significant influence on productivity and employability levels. Against this backdrop, a review of the literature reveals an existing debate over the potential impacts of technology on business process automation and how it destroys jobs. The current results indicate that while areas with greater digital connectivity reap massive benefits from it, such areas have also experienced an alarming rate of job destruction. The study further highlights that at least 30% of UK jobs could be at risk by the year 2030 as a result of automation. However, it is argued that it would be impossible to see the massive destruction of occupations resulting from automation. Thus, it is more sensible to extrapolate that automation will cause varying effects on occupations. Automation is more likely to affect tasks than jobs. According to Ofcom, only 10% of UK jobs will be destroyed by automation by 2030 (Office of National Statistics, 2014). The role of digital connectivity in the job market and employment, in general, has mixed information. The current results show that at least 55% of people with internet connectivity had never used them to apply for online jobs or seek for jo opportunities. While 55% is a significant adult population, most of this percentage could have been driven by the number of people who have never had the experience of using the internet to search for a job opportunity or apply for a job, i.e. lack the digital skills. Nonetheless, a key message emerging from these pieces of literature is that as the technological change continues to impact the employment and general economic well-being of UK citizens, efforts must be made to address the issue of digital divide both from the digital infrastructure of skills perspectives. The good thing is that the UK Digital Strategy has made significant steps towards addressing these issues. However, there is a need to invest in the UK’s population digital inclusion – as part of the efforts to prepare the general public on the new roles and tasks brought about by workplace digitization. A possible implication of these pieces of data is that individuals in rural areas who have limited access to digital connectivity might not be able to effectively prepare for the future workplace digitization wave, excluding them from future employment opportunities eve if they qualify on other aspects of the work. It is consensual that online retail is currently ‘Stealing away’ from the street sale. However, having the ability to shop online (i.e. digital skills and internet connectivity) and acquire better sales deal online can cause an increase in demand for online goods thereby promoting the retail sectors while making it cheaper for consumers to purchase at a time when there are financially squeezed. There is a significant achievement that the UK government has made with regards to ensuring that the online public services are accessible to all. For instance, according to research by ONS on internet access, one of the most common reasons for accessing online public service websites is to access information on government services. It can be said that there is more to be done in improving access to online government services; part of it is the improvement of internet access across the Kingdom.

5.0 Conclusion and Recommendations

This study has explored qualitative and quantitative data indicating the extent and impact of digital divide in England, Scotland and Wales. There is a significant disparity in the internet connectivity in the UK’s rural and urban areas both in terms of fixed broadband connectivity and mobile network (i.e. 3G and 2G). Consequently, there is a need for various interventions that address the identified digital divide, thereby enhancing the ability of both rural and urban areas. This chapter attempts to give suggestions and recommendations on how the UK’s digital divide can be addressed. Around the world, governments have made significant investments in improving the digital infrastructure aimed at supporting mobile, satellite, fixed and other types of internet connectivity. Interestingly, the UK is no exception to such efforts, as evidenced by the implementation of BDUK program in which the UK government invested at least 780 million pounds (DCMS 2013). From its onset, the BDUK program’s major objective was meant to facilitate an extensive footprint of superfast broadband connectivity by providing 95% of UK premises with superfast (24Mbit/s) internet connectivity and ensuring that all households in the UK benefit from the connectivity of 2Mbit/s by 2017. According to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (2013) at les 53 million pounds have been allocated towards stimulating the commercial investment needed to connect UK’s rural areas with broadband internet while 250 million pounds have been spent in bringing superfast internet to other hard to reach areas in the UK. With this regard, the BDUK has realized that it would not be commercially viable for private internet service providers to distribute fixed broadband internet infrastructure in remote rural areas that are hardest to reach. Practically though, these areas are still disadvantaged both economically and geographically, and will still lag in terms of speed and connectivity. Researchers have made various speculations on why the remote rural areas are still more likely to lag in digital connectivity, one of them being the UK’s policy emphasis on superfast internet. Generally, the UK’s superfast internet ambitions follow the targets set by the European Commission on superfast broadband connectivity (European Commission 2012). However, the focus is too much on speed that it detracts the commitment to provide universal access. Particularly, the focus on speed directs most investments towards speed technologies such as high-speed cellular internet and fiber optics, diverting investment away from technologies that would help achieve universal accessibility such as satellite. A general assessment of the BDUK project reveals a generally good progress in terms of improving digital telecommunication infrastructure. However, the ambition to get everyone in the UK connected to the internet, fix the inadequacies of broadband connectivity and address the socio-economic factors that hinder the connection of the ‘final few’ may not have any significant effect on UK’s digital divide if the only focus is on providing fixed telecommunication infrastructure, which are unfortunately only delivered by ISPs. Instead, there is a dire need for mixed model of solution seeking to solve the inadequacies experienced in rural digital infrastructure. This implies that the government, market participants and Local Authorities must join hands in developing the most appropriate solutions for addressing the rural connectivity needs and laying down a durable rural telecommunication infrastructure (Carnegie UK Trust 2012).

We acknowledge that some communities, business and households have identified their own need for being online against the slow pace of the commercial implementation of the BDUK infrastructural developments and taken matters in their own hands. Consequently, certain British communities have managed to raise funds for developing their own broadband internet connectivity. Other communities have also taken advantage of devolved infrastructural development funds from the government to set up their own satellite broadband internet connectivity. According to Mandel et al (2012)The ability of these communities to pool resources and jointly come up with plans that address their connectivity needs of quality and faster internet connection through robust telecommunication infrastructure is a testimony that community actors have the potential ability to respond to the currently glaring digital divide in the UK. On that note, Carnegie UK Trust (2012) pointed out the important role that communities can play in the improvement of internet connectivity to fit their specific need internet needs and circumstances. Ideally, such community responses in the UK attempt to address the inadequacies of broadband connection services offered by commercial ISPs. More significantly, in their efforts to address their connectivity needs, communities can apply for more funding from the government. Ultimately, community-led internet and telecommunication infrastructure developed by local service providers have varied models depending on the geography, funding and community capacity. Thus, this study concludes that the best approach to addressing digital divide in the UK is through community-led connectivity initiatives supported with funding from the government. This appears to be the best solution because different communities have different connectivity needs that can only be addressed by tailored services.

References

Ashmore, F. H., Farrington, J. H., & Skerrat, S. (2015). Superfast broadband and rural community resilience: Examining the rural need for speed. Scottish Geographical Journal, 131, 265–278.

Blank, G. Groselj G. (2015) Examining Internet use through a Weberian lens Int. J. Commun., 9, pp. 2763-2783.

Berriman R. (2017) Will robots steal our jobs? The potential impact of automation on the UK and other major economies, UK Economic Outlook March 2017.

Dean, D., DiGrande, S., Field, D., Lundmark, V., O’Day, J., Pineda, J., & Zwillenberg, P. (2012). The connected world: The Internet economy in the G-20. Boston, MA: Boston Consulting Group.

Dean, D., DiGrande, S., Field, D., Lundmark, V., O’Day, J., Pineda, J., & Zwillenberg, P. (2012). The connected world: The Internet economy in the G-20. Boston, MA: Boston Consulting Group.

Graham, M., Zook, M., & Boulton, A. (2013). Augmented reality in the urban environment: Contested content and the duplicity of code. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38, 464–479.

Hargittai, E. (2008). The digital reproduction of inequality. In D. Grusky (Ed.), Social stratification (pp. 936–944). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Helsper E. (2012) A corresponding fields model for the links between social and digital exclusion Commun. Theory, 22, pp. 403-426 CrossRefView Record in Scopus

Khatiwada, K. Pigg E. (2010) Internet Service Provision in the U.S. Counties: is spatial pattern a function of demand?Am. Behav. Sci., 53 (9), pp. 1326-1343

Malecki, E. J., & Moriset, B. (2008). The digital economy: Business organization, production processes and regional developments. London, England: Routledge.

Mandel, H. Alemanne, D. McClure R. Rural Anchor Institution Broadband Connectivity: Enablers and Barriers to Adoption Proceedings of the iConference, 7–10/2/2012, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Stenberg, P. Morehart, M. Vogel, S. Cromartie, J. Brenerman, V. Brown D., (2009) Broadband Internet’s Value for Rural America Economic Research Service, US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Report Number 78.

Townsend, L., Sathlaseelan, A., Fairhurst, F., & Wallace, C. (2013). Enhanced broadband access as a solution to the social and economic problems of the rural digital divide. Local Economy, 28, 580–595.

Philip, L., Cottrill, C., & Farrington, J. (2015). ‘Two-speed’ Scotland: Patterns and implications of the digital divide in contemporary Scotland. Scottish Geographical Journal, 131, 148–170.

Bezuidenhout, L. M. et. al., (2017). Beyond the digital divide: Towards a situated approach to open data. Science and Public Policy, 44(4), 464-475.

McDonald, S. and Wren, C. (2017). Consumer search ability, price dispersion and the digital divide. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 79(2), 234-250.

Choudrie, J., Pheeraphuttranghkoon, S. and Davari, S. (2018). The Digital Divide and Older Adult Population Adoption, Use and Diffusion of Mobile Phones: a Quantitative Study. Information Systems Frontiers, 1-23.

Dwivedi, Y. K. et. al., (2016). Common Services Centres (CSCs) as an approach to bridge the digital divide. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy.

Estacio, E. V., Whittle, R. and Protheroe, J. (2019). The digital divide: Examining socio-demographic factors associated with health literacy, access and use of internet to seek health information. Journal of health psychology, 24(12), 1668-1675.