Digital Environmental Reporting in Australia: Understanding Citizen Participation and Environmental Governance

Environmental apps and digital reporting tools are increasingly used to support environmental management in Australia, yet research remains fragmented across citizen science, digital government, technology adoption and environmental governance. This paper develops an integrated conceptual framework for digital environmental reporting in Australia through a systematic narrative review of 86 sources. The framework is conceptual and has not been empirically tested. It explains how four core constructs - digital tool characteristics, user behaviours, institutional settings and environmental outcomes - may be associated with the effectiveness of citizen-generated environmental reporting. The review identifies opportunities for improved monitoring coverage, transparency, operational efficiency, rapid detection of environmental harms and adaptive management. It also identifies challenges related to digital inequality, privacy, data governance, verification, institutional fragmentation, long-term maintenance, power, politics and Indigenous data sovereignty. Six propositions are advanced to guide future empirical research rather than to state causal findings. The paper contributes a governance-focused model that extends technology acceptance and digital government frameworks by situating environmental reporting within Australia's fragmented institutional context.

environmental apps; digital reporting; citizen-generated data; environmental governance; digital participation.

1. Access Canberra. (n.d.). Fix My Street. https://www.accesscanberra.act.gov.au/city-services/fix-my-street [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Abu Bakar, H., Razali, R., & Jambari, D. I. (2022). A qualitative study of legacy systems modernisation for citizen-centric digital government. Sustainability, 14(17), 10951. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710951 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Ajina, A. S., Islam, D. M. Z., Zamil, A. M. A., & Khan, K. (2024). Understanding green IT adoption: TAM and dual-lens of innovation resistance. Cogent Business & Management, 11(1), Article 2403646. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2024.2403646 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Alarabiat, A., Soares, D., and Estevez, E. (2021). Determinants of citizens’ intention to engage in government-led electronic participation initiatives through Facebook. Government Information Quarterly, 38(1), Article 101537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2020.101537 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Alfonso, L., Gharesifard, M., & Wehn, U. (2022). Analysing the value of environmental citizen-generated data. Complementarity and cost per observation. Journal of Environmental Management, 303, 114157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.114157 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Ardanaz, M., Otálvaro-Ramírez, S., & Scartascini, C. (2023). Does information about citizen participation initiatives increase political trust? World Development, 162, 106132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.106132 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Asmawanti-S, D., Afiah, N. N., Ritchi, H., & Suharman, H. (2025). Literature review of government digital services based on public value theory and citizen perspectives. Cogent Business & Management, 12(1), Article 2518494. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2025.2518494 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Atalay, H. N., & Yücel, Ş. (2024). Decoding privacy concerns: The role of perceived risk and benefits in personal health data disclosure. Archives of Public Health, 82, 180. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-024-01416-z [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Australian Government, Digital Transformation Agency. (2024). Policy for the responsible use of AI in government. Australian Government. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Baganz, E., McMahon, T., Khorana, S., Magee, L., & Culos, I. (2024). ‘Life would have been harder, harder and more in chaos, if there wasn’t internet’. Digital inclusion among newly arrived refugees in Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic. Communication Research and Practice, 11(1), 24-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/22041451.2024.2345000https://doi.org/10.1080/22041451.2024.2345000 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Balázs, B., Mooney, P., Nováková, E., Bastin, L., & Jokar Arsanjani, J. (2021). Data quality in citizen science. In K. Vohland et al. (Eds.), The science of citizen science (pp. 139-157). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4_8https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4_8 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Bikowski, L. (2026). Social Media Strategies for Building Trust in Nonprofit Hospitals a Conceptual Framework. European Journal of Management Issues, 34(1), 21-29. https://doi.org/10.15421/192602 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Bikowski, L. (2025). Consumer Responses to Algorithmic Marketing Synthesis of Evidence and a Guiding Framework. Expert Journal of Marketing, 13(1), 19-30. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Sukhera J. (2022). Narrative Reviews: Flexible, Rigorous, and Practical. Journal of graduate medical education, 14(4), 414-417. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-22-00480.1https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-22-00480.1 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., & Petticrew, M. (2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. Lancaster University. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.1018.4643 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC medical research methodology, 8, 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Berti Suman, A., Schade, S., & Abe, Y. (2020). Exploring legitimization strategies for contested uses of citizen-generated data for policy. Journal of Human Rights and the Environment, 11(3), 74-102. https://doi.org/10.4337/jhre.2020.03.04https://doi.org/10.4337/jhre.2020.03.04 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Bernardo, B. M. V., Mamede, H. S., Barroso, J. M. P., & Santos, V. M. P. D. dos. (2024). Data governance & quality management-Innovation and breakthroughs across different fields. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 9(4), 100598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2024.100598 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Hauashdh, A., Nagapan, S., Jailani, J., & Gamil, Y. (2024). An integrated framework for sustainable and efficient building maintenance operations aligning with climate change, SDGs, and emerging technology. Results in Engineering, 21, 101822. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2024.101822 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Boncu, Ș., Candel, O.-S., & Popa, N. L. (2022). Gameful green. A systematic review on the use of serious computer games and gamified mobile apps to foster pro-environmental information, attitudes and behaviors. Sustainability, 14(16), 10400. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610400 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Bonney, R., Phillips, T. B., and Enck, J. W. (2016). Can citizen science enhance public understanding of science? Public Understanding of Science, 25(1), 2-16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515607406 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Borghys, K., Vandercruyssen, L., Veeckman, C., Temmerman, L., & Heyman, R. (2024). Localizing the sustainable development goals in smart and sustainable cities. How can citizen-generated data support the local monitoring of SDGs? A case study of the Brussels Capital Region. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 12, 1369001. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2024.1369001 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Cho, C.-K., & Kim, B.-Y. (2022). Development and application of environmental education program for in-service geography teachers using community mapping and photovoice. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 18(11), Article em2171. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/12487 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Climate Council of Australia Ltd. (2021). Annual report 2020-21 (ISBN 978-1-922404-35-0). Climate Council. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Cooper, C. B., Rasmussen, L. M., & Jones, E. D. (2021). Perspective The power (dynamics) of open data in citizen science. Frontiers in Climate, 3, 637037. https://doi.org/10.3389/fclim.2021.637037 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. David, A., Yigitcanlar, T., Li, R. Y. M., & Corchado Rodríguez, J. M. (2023). Understanding local government digital technology adoption strategies. A PRISMA review. Sustainability, 15(12), 9645. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15129645 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Davison, A. M., de Koning, K., Taubert, F., & Schakel, J.-K. (2025). Automated near real-time monitoring in ecology. Status quo and ways forward. Ecological Informatics, 89, 103157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2025.103157 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. De Silva Lokuwaduge, C. S., Smark, C., & Mir, M. (2022). The surge of environmental social and governance reporting and sustainable development goals. Australasian Accounting, Business and Finance Journal, 16(2), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.14453/aabfj.v16i2.2 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Department of Planning and Environment. (2023). Marine debris threat and risk assessment summary report. State of New South Wales, Department of Planning and Environment. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Fritz, S., See, L., Carlson, T. et al. (2019). Citizen science and the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Nature Sustainability, 2(10), 922-930. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0390-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Fraisl, D., Hager, G., Bedessem, B., Gold, M., Hsing, P.-Y., Danielsen, F., Hitchcock, C. B., Hulbert, J. M., Piera, J., Spiers, H., Thiel, M., & Haklay, M. (2022). Citizen science in environmental and ecological sciences. Nature Reviews Methods Primers, 2(1), Article 64. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43586-022-00144-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Fraisl, D., See, L., Campbell, J., Danielsen, F., & Andrianandrasana, H. T. (2023). The contributions of citizen science to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals and other international agreements and frameworks. Citizen Science: Theory and Practice, 8(1), Article 27. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.643 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Ghauri, P., Fu, X., & Minayora, A. (2022). Digital technology-based entrepreneurial pursuit of the marginalised communities. Journal of International Management, 28(2), 100948. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intman.2022.100948 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Golumbic, Y. N. (2024). Where does the balance lie? Scientific, societal, and individual goals of citizen science projects. Environmental Science & Policy, 159, Article 103828. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103828 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Groot, B., Abma, T., Lakeman, S., Kruithof, K., Triemstra, M., & Widdershoven, G. (2022). Ethics framework for citizen science and public and patient participation in research. BMC Medical Ethics, 23, 54. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-022-00761-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Guenther, J., Holmes, C., & Williamson-Kefu, M. (2025). Principles of successful digital inclusion initiatives in remote Australia. Australian Journal of Social Issues. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.70064 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Hajj-Hassan, M., Chaker, R., & Cederqvist, A.-M. (2024). Environmental education: A systematic review on the use of digital tools for fostering sustainability awareness. Sustainability, 16(9), 3733. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16093733 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Haklay, M., Fraisl, D., Greshake Tzovaras, B., Hecker, S., Gold, M., Hager, G., Ceccaroni, L., Kieslinger, B., Wehn, U., Woods, S., Nold, C., Balázs, B., Mazzonetto, M., et al. (2021). Contours of citizen science: A vignette study. Royal Society Open Science, 8(8), Article 202108. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.202108 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Hansen, J. S., Gadegaard, S., Hansen, K. K., Larsen, A. V., Møller, S., Thomsen, G. S., & Holmstrand, K. F. (2021). Research data management challenges in citizen science projects and recommendations for library support services A scoping review and case study. Data Science Journal, 20, 25. https://doi.org/10.5334/dsj-2021-025 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Haque, A., Shampa, M., Akter, M., Hussain, M. M., Rahman, M. R., Salehin, M., & Rahman, M. (2024). An integrated risk-based early warning system to increase community resilience against disaster. Progress in Disaster Science, 21, 100310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pdisas.2023.100310 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Heydari-Gharaei, E., Nourinejad, M., & Roorda, M. J. (2025). Planning mobile sensing cycles for urban data collection. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5601919 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Howard, L., van Rees, C. B., Dahlquist, Z., Luikart, G., & Hand, B. K. (2022). A review of invasive species reporting apps for citizen science and opportunities for innovation. NeoBiota, 71, 165-188. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.71.79597 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Issah, W. B., Ferdous, L. T., Bhuiyan, F., & Sharif, T. (2024). Digitalisation and environmental management activities. The effects of family ownership. Business Strategy and the Environment. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.3706 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Jamtli, B., Svendsen, E. J., Jørgensen, T. M., Kramer-Johansen, J., Ranhof Hov, M., & Hardeland, C. (2024). Factors affecting emergency medical dispatchers’ decision making in stroke calls: A qualitative study. BMC Emergency Medicine, 24, Article 214. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12873-024-00951-w [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Johnson, N., Druckenmiller, M. L., Danielsen, F., & Pulsifer, P. L. (2021). The use of digital platforms for community-based monitoring. BioScience, 71(5), 452-466. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biaa162 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Kassen, M. (2022). Open data governance and its actors: Theory and practice. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92065-4 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Kloppenburg, S., Gupta, A., Kruk, S. R. L., Makris, S., Bergsvik, R., Korenhof, P., Solman, H., & Toonen, H. M. (2022). Scrutinizing environmental governance in a digital age. New ways of seeing, participating, and intervening. One Earth, 5(2), 181-193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2022.02.004 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Körner, M.-F., Leinauer, C., Ströher, T., & Strüker, J. (2025). Digital measuring, reporting, and verification (dMRV) for decarbonization. Business and Information Systems Engineering, 67, 753-765. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-025-00953-3 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Kosmala, M., Wiggins, A., Swanson, A., and Simmons, B. (2016). Assessing data quality in citizen science. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 14(10), 551-560. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.1436 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Lemos, M., Henriques, A. R., Lopes, D. G., Mendonça, N., Victorino, A., Costa, A., Arriaga, M., Gregório, M. J., de Sousa, R., Canhão, H., & Rodrigues, A. M. (2024). Usability and Utility of a Mobile App to Deliver Health-Related Content to an Older Adult Population: Pilot Noncontrolled Quasi-Experimental Study. JMIR formative research, 8, e46151. https://doi.org/10.2196/46151 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Llasat-Botija, M., Esbrí, L., Rigo, T., & Llasat, M. C. (2025). The application of citizen science to evaluate the emergency and the response of the population in the October 2019 flash flood event in the Francolí River (NE Spain). Water, 17(5), 610. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17050610 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

52. Local Government Victoria. (2025). Local government better practice guide: Performance reporting indicator guide (2024-2025). Victorian State Government. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

53. Lush, V., Bastin, L., Otsu, K., & Masó, J. (2024). Assessing FAIRness of citizen science data in the context of the Green Deal Data Space. International Journal of Digital Earth, 17(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2024.2344587 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

54. Lv, L., & Zhang, P. (2025). Unlocking green potential. How open government data enhances green economic efficiency in China? Journal of Environmental Management, 380, 125043. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2025.125043 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

55. MacPhail, V. J., Gibson, S. D., & Colla, S. R. (2020). Community science participants gain environmental awareness and contribute high quality data but improvements are needed: Insights from Bumble Bee Watch. PeerJ, 8, e9141. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9141 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

56. Mansoor, M. (2021). Citizens’ trust in government as a function of good governance and government agency’s provision of quality information on social media during COVID-19. Government Information Quarterly, 38(4), 101597. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101597 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

57. Martinez-Osuna, J. F., Piermattei, V., Coppini, G., & Marcelli, M. (2025). Low-cost water level measurement technologies for assessing the impact of climate change and storm surges in coastal areas, suitable for citizen science initiatives. Frontiers in Marine Science, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2025.1604069 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

58. McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., and Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. Information Systems Research, 13(3), 334-359. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.13.3.334.81 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

59. Mehrabadi, M. A., Dutt, N., & Rahmani, A. M. (2021). The causality inference of public interest in restaurants and bars on daily COVID-19 cases in the United States: Google Trends analysis. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, 7(4), e22880. https://doi.org/10.2196/22880 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

60. Miao, H., Mohamad Saleh, M. S., & Zolkepli, I. A. (2022). Gamification as a learning tool for pro-environmental behavior: a systematic review. Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (MJSSH), 7(12), e001881. https://doi.org/10.47405/mjssh.v7i12.1881 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

61. Mo, H., & Beh, L.-S. (2025). From expectation and participation to satisfaction: The moderating role of perceived government responsiveness in digital government. Administrative Sciences, 15(9), 364. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15090364 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

62. Molobela, T. (2023). E-government and public administration. Navigating through the public administration paradigm of governance to make sense of e-governance. International Journal of Social Science Research and Review, 6(8), 340-351 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

63. Mosca, O., Manunza, A., Manca, S., Vivanet, G., & Fornara, F. (2024). Digital technologies for behavioral change in sustainability domains: A systematic mapping review. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1234349. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1234349 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

64. Mustafa, R., Han, J., Sarkar, N. I., & Petrova, K. (2025). Secure cross-layer mobile sensing framework for real-time disaster reporting and visualisation using a mobile application. Sensors, 25(21), 6766. https://doi.org/10.3390/s25216766 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

65. National Indigenous Australians Agency. (2021). Indigenous digital inclusion plan: Discussion paper - September 2021. Commonwealth of Australia. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

66. O’Donnell, M., Collier, M., Pineda-Pinto, M., Cooper, C., Nulty, F., & Rodríguez Castañeda, N. (2025). Redefining co-design for social-ecological research and practice. A systematic literature review. Environmental Science & Policy, 164, 103998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2025.103998 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

67. OECD (2020). The OECD digital government policy framework: Six dimensions of a digital government. OECD Public Governance Policy Papers, No. 02. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/f64fed2a-en [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

68. OECD. (2025a). Drivers of trust in public institutions in Australia. OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

69. OECD. (2025b). Government at a glance 2025: Open government data chapter. OECD Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

70. Paul, J. D., Bee, E., & Budimir, M. (2021). Mobile phone technologies for disaster risk reduction. Climate Risk Management, 32, 100296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crm.2021.100296 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

71. Peng, X., & Xiao, D. (2024). Can open government data improve city green land-use efficiency? Evidence from China. Land, 13(11), 1891. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13111891 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

72. Ponti, M., & Craglia, M. (2020). Citizen-generated data for public policy. A brief review of European citizen-generated data projects (JRC Technical Report No. JRC120231). European Commission, Joint Research Centre. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

73. Pramuditha, R., Muhafidin, D., Sumaryana, A., & Susanti, E. (2024). Exploring the impacts of e-government service quality on citizen satisfaction and trust. Evidence from population administration services. Journal of Logistics, Informatics and Service Science, 11(8), 283-302. https://doi.org/10.33168/JLISS.2024.0817 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

74. Puiu, S., & Udriștoiu, M. T. (2023). Environmental volunteering projects management. A multivariate analysis of volunteers’ perspective on the knowledge and skills gained, their involvement in community life and the role of environmental monitoring sensors. Sustainability, 15(14), 11139. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151411139 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

75. Robinson, L. D., Cawthray, J. L., West, S. E., Bonn, A., & Ansine, J. (2018). Ten principles of citizen science. In S. Hecker, M. Haklay, A. Bowser, Z. Makuch, J. Vogel, & A. Bonn (Eds.), Citizen science: Innovation in open science, society and policy (pp. 27-40). UCL Press. https://doi.org/10.14324/111.9781787352339 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

76. Scholta, H., Halsbenning, S., & Niemann, M. (2025). A coordination perspective on digital public services in federal states. Government Information Quarterly, 42(1), Article 101984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2024.101984 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

77. Shinbrot, X. A., Jones, K. W., Newman, G., & Ramos-Escobedo, M. (2023). Why citizen scientists volunteer: The influence of motivations, barriers, and perceived project relevancy on volunteer participation and retention from a novel experiment. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 66(1), 122-142. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2021.1979944 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

78. Sleep, L., & Harris, P. (2021). The importance of digital inclusion in accessing care and support in our increasingly digitised world. Journal of Social Inclusion, 12(2), 1-2. https://doi.org/10.36251/josi252 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

79. Szedmák, B., Varga, L., & Szabó, R. Z. (2025). Digital transformation of public services. The case of the document management application. International Journal of Public Administration. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2025.2520522 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

80. Thomas, J., McCosker, A., Parkinson, S., Hegarty, K., Featherstone, D., Kennedy, J., Holcombe-James, I., Ormond-Parker, L., & Ganley, L. (2023). Measuring Australia’s digital divide. The Australian digital inclusion index 2023. RMIT University, Swinburne University of Technology, and Telstra. https://doi.org/10.25916/528s-ny91 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

81. Thomas, J., McCosker, A., Parkinson, S., Hegarty, K., Featherstone, D., Kennedy, J., Ormond-Parker, L., Morrison, K., Rea, H., & Ganley, L. (2025). Measuring Australia’s digital divide. 2025 Australian Digital Inclusion Index. ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society, RMIT University, Swinburne University of Technology, and Telstra. https://doi.org/10.60836/mtsq-at22 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

82. Toșa, C., Paneru, C. P., Joudavi, A., & Tarigan, A. K. M. (2024). Digital transformation, incentives, and pro-environmental behaviour: Assessing the uptake of sustainability in companies’ transition towards circular economy. Sustainable Production and Consumption, 47, 632-643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2024.04.032 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

83. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., and Davis, F. D. (2003). User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425-478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

84. Wang, J., Chen, Y., & Luo, Q. (2025). Does government data openness have a green effect? An examination from the perspective of green innovation. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 13, 1530892. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2025.1530892 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

85. Wehn, U., and Evers, J. (2015). The social innovation potential of ICT-enabled citizen observatories to increase eParticipation in local flood risk management. Technology in Society, 42, 187-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2015.05.002 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

86. Wesseling, J., de Ruiter, H., Blokhuis, C., Drukker, D., Weijers, E., Volten, H., Vonk, J., Gast, L., Voogt, M., Zandveld, P., van Ratingen, S., & Tielemans, E. (2019). Development and implementation of a platform for public information on air quality, sensor measurements, and citizen science. Atmosphere, 10(8), 445. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos10080445 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

87. Woods, S. M., Daskolia, M., Joly, A., Bonnet, P., Soacha, K., Llián, S., Woods, T., Piera, J., & Ceccaroni, L. (2022). How networks of citizen observatories can increase the quality and quantity of citizen-science-generated data used to monitor SDG indicators. Sustainability, 14(7), 4078. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074078 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

88. Yulianto, Y., Rosalia, F., & Hutagalung, S. S. (2025). Adaptive governance in environmental issue. Systematic literature review. International Journal of Energy and Environment, 16(3), 615-625. https://doi.org/10.18280/ijei.080319 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Block-Based Programming for Education: A Comprehensive Analysis of Visual Programming Environments in K-12 Learning
• Management of Academic Libraries and Client Satisfaction Towards Digital Utilization: Basis for Monitoring Library Operations in SOCCSKSARGEN Region.
• Revenue Leakages in TPA Insurance Claims and Corporate Claims: An Institutional Overview of Aster Prime Hospital, Hyderabad
• Technology and Innovation in Hospitality and Tourism: A Management Perspective
• Geospatial Distribution of Tarok Sacred Grove of Langtang North and Langtang South Local Government Areas