2,250 rated or chosen profiles from 150 respondents, in up to 5 tasks of 3 profiles varying on 5 attributes.

About this table

Description	Researchers, tech-startup members and computing students in Adama City, Ethiopia (Aug-Dec 2025, n=150) ranked in 5 fixed choice sets three hypothetical open-government-data portals (search, download format, API, data quality, visualization) plus a status quo; the table stores each portal's rank 1-4 (1 = most preferred).
Reference	Debele, G. (2026). Dataset for: User-centered design for open government data platforms in developing smart cities: A discrete choice experiment in Adama City, Ethiopia [Data set]. Zenodo.
Licence	CC BY 4.0
Source data	https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18877925

Notes

Conjoint table (irw_conjoint). Discrete choice experiment, fixed design (same 5 sets of 3 portals for everyone) plus a status quo alternative without attributes. rating: rank of the alternative among the four, 1 = most preferred to 4 = least preferred (record description), stored as is; the status quo's rank is the one missing from a task. No choice column.

These notes describe the source data, which the IRW reproduces as released. All notes are listed on the Data Notes page.

Design

Topic	public administration, technology ai privacy
A profile represents	product service
Country	ET
Language shown	unknown
Language of stored levels	en
Randomization restrictions	yes (stated by the source): fixed design: the same 15 profiles in the same 5 choice sets for all respondents (no randomization across respondents); level frequencies unequal (e.g. Keyword search in 7 of 15 profiles, Basic files 7, No API access 7, User-reported 7)
Task order	recorded in the deposit
Profile position	recorded in the deposit

Because the attribute levels were not randomized independently, an estimator has to account for the restriction; a plain difference in means across levels can mislead.

Outcomes:

rating	Rank these four alternatives from most preferred (Rank 1) to least preferred (Rank 4). (paraphrase) [rating, 1 (most preferred) to 4 (least preferred)]

Columns

attr_api_availabilityattr_data_qualityattr_download_formatattr_search_functionalityattr_visualizationcov_age_groupcov_experiencecov_gendercov_rolecov_used_ogdidprofileratingtask

The layout (one row per respondent, task and profile; choice/rating outcomes; attr_ columns holding each attribute level as displayed) is defined in the IRW conjoint standard. What the outcomes asked is under Design above.

Get the data

Download CSVno account needed Browse on Redivisexplore and query Croissant metadataHugging Face, Kaggle, OpenML

Or load it directly in R or Python (both need a free Redivis account; the first call opens a browser to sign in):

# R
install.packages("remotes")
remotes::install_github("itemresponsewarehouse/Rpkg")
library(irw)
df <- irw_fetch("debele_2026_opendata_portal", source = "conj")

# Python
pip install irw

import irw
df = irw.fetch("debele_2026_opendata_portal", source="conj")

How to cite

@misc{https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18877925,
  doi = {10.5281/ZENODO.18877925},
  url = {https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.18877925},
  author = {Debele, Girma},
  title = {Dataset for: User-Centered Design for Open Government Data Platforms in Developing Smart Cities: A Discrete Choice Experiment in Adama City, Ethiopia},
  publisher = {Zenodo},
  year = {2026},
  copyright = {Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International}
}

Respondents	150
Rows (one per respondent, task and profile)	2,250
Tasks per respondent (most)	5
Profiles per task	3
Attributes	5

IRW version	v584
Redivis dataset	irw_conjoint v4.2
Redivis dataset DOI	10.57761/qkye-q530
Manifest pin for this IRW version	v4.2
Metadata source	irw_meta v44.0

debele_2026_opendata_portal