Abstract:The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of internet access across various aspects of life, from remote work and online education to healthcare services and social connections. As we transition to a post-pandemic era, a pressing need arises to update our understanding of the multifaceted nature of internet access. This study is one of the first attempts to do so. Using survey data from New Zealand adult internet users (n=960), it compares internet connection types, frequency of internet use at home, social media use, and concerns about online risk between people with and without disabilities. Results show people with disabilities have restricted fibre access and higher wireless broadband (a much slower connection type). People with disabilities use social media platforms less and are more concerned about certain online risks. The findings highlight persistent disparities in internet access for people with disabilities in the post-pandemic era. Implications of the study are discussed.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The main problem that this paper attempts to solve is to explore the differences in Internet access between the disabled and non - disabled groups in the post - pandemic era. Specifically, the research aims to answer the following questions: Are there significant differences between the disabled and non - disabled in terms of Internet access frequency, Internet connection types, social media use frequency, perception of Internet benefits, and the degree of concern about online risks?
### Research Background and Motivation
1. **The Impact of the COVID - 19 Pandemic**
- During the COVID - 19 pandemic, the Internet became an important means for remote work, online education, medical services, and social connections (Lai & Widmar, 2021).
- However, disabled people faced more challenges during this period, such as difficulty in accessing online health, education, and support services due to poorly - designed digital platforms (Jesus et al., 2021).
2. **Insufficiencies of Existing Research**
- Although existing research has shown that there are differences in Internet use between the disabled and non - disabled, most of these studies have focused on during or in the early days of the pandemic (Dobransky & Hargittai, 2021; Cho & Kim, 2022; Park, 2022; Caton et al., 2022).
- Entering the post - pandemic era, more evidence is needed to assess whether Internet access inequalities still exist and what the specific manifestations of these inequalities are (Pacheco et al., 2021).
3. **Multidimensional Internet Access**
- Internet access is not only a physical connection but also includes multiple aspects such as users' attitudes, skills, and use frequency (van Deursen & van Dijk, 2015a).
- In New Zealand, the government has recognized this and has developed a digital inclusion work plan (digital.govt.nz, 2022).
4. **The Digital Divide and Disability**
- The digital divide refers to the differences in the use of the Internet and other digital tools among different groups (Dijk, 2017; Litchfield et al., 2021).
- Disabled people face greater challenges in this regard, such as lower Internet access rates, slow broadband speeds, and greater concern about online risks (Grimes & White, 2019; MBIE & DIA, 2017; Scholz et al., 2017).
### Research Purposes
By comparing the differences in Internet access between the disabled and non - disabled groups, this research hopes to provide suggestions for policymakers on how to promote digital inclusion, thereby reducing Internet access inequalities and ensuring that disabled people can participate in social life equally.
### Main Research Questions
- Are there significant differences between the disabled and non - disabled in terms of Internet access frequency, connection types, social media use frequency, perception of Internet benefits, and the degree of concern about online risks?
By answering these questions, the research hopes to reveal the specific manifestations of Internet access inequalities in the post - pandemic era and provide a basis for relevant policy interventions.