eParticipation that works

eParticipation that works

Francesco Molinari, mail@francescomolinari.it

http://www.parterre-project.eu

Contents

  Some reflections on
  The “added value” of electronic Participation
  Requirements for eParticipation “to work”
  Our experience in the PARTERRE project
  The issue
  The two ICT tools
  The six European pilots
  Comments and conclusions
  Preliminary lessons learnt
  The (prospective, integrated) service

2 Francesco Molinari, mail@francescomolinari.it Krems, Austria, 3-05-2012

eParticipation = ICT + Participation

  Foundational research lying at the intersection between
  Computer Science
  Political Science
(…broadly speaking…)
  Approximately two (convergent? parallel?) strands
  Which ICT tools can be deployed to improve Participation
  Used to be referred to portals, now to social software etc.
  “Build it and they will come” logic, tempered by some extra degree of
awareness in the recent past
  “Where” and “why” does Participation actually require “which”
ICT tools to be deployed?


Analogy?

http://www.smecc.org/microwave_oven.htm http://cn1.kaboodle.com/hi/img/b/0/0/1b/
1/AAAAC6wd3fQAAAAAABsSMg.jpg?
v=1229463720000


Or…?

http://www.deastore.com/covers/ http://www.infoniac.com/hi-tech/latest-invention-motorized-
978/073/609/ knee-that-allows-running-faster-using-less-muscle-power.html
batch3/9780736095501.jpg?
1318517049


Added value?

http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherry-arnstein/
ladder-of-citizen-participation.html

Hutch Carpenter, http://bhc3.com/2008/12/02/90-9-1-participation-and-enterprise-social-software-adoption/


Two pyramids


Whom is eParticipation helpful to?

http://www.flickr.com/
photos/
39879026@N06/37009
88996/

http://www.globalenvision.org/files/rio.jpg
http://pep-net.eu/blog/2011/07/28/scratching-where-it-doesnt-itch-time-to-talk-about-eparticipation-and-elephants/

Is this what we are looking for?

eParticipation as a political eParticipation as a policy
goal tool
  Dependent on the “slavery of   Goal/Process dependent
numbers”, in two ways:   Solves concrete problems of
decision making
  Too few participants break up
  Immediately operational
the representativeness rule and
  May work fine with several ICT
provide little input to the tools
appointed
  Replicable under analogous
  Too many voices are, in fact, conditions
unheard (J. Fishkin) or provide   (suitable for counter factual
junk decisions (F. Zakaria) analysis)
  Requires political support from   Effective with even small numbers
the Establishment (usually   Sustainable? That depends on a
contingent & temporary) variety of factors


Past research

Molinari @ ePart2010


This research


The issue

  Spatial planning and Strategic Environmental Assessment
  Both themes of European and National/Regional relevance
  Both strongly related to Public Participation (and sometimes,
eParticipation) requirements
  Scenario
  A legal framework completely defined at EU level, which makes
consultation and/or participation compulsory (and devolves most
regulatory power to local Public Administration)
  A plethora of one-off experiments mostly unrelated to the underlying
normative process and possibly unaware of each other’s achievements,
but also
  A number of successful trials — some of which are funded by the EC
under the ICT Framework Programmes, INTERREG III or the
eParticipation Preparatory Action — which have demonstrated their
political and financial advantages


The tools: a) DEMOS-Plan


The tools: b) Electronic TM


The pilots (2011-2012)

  Hamburg City State, DE (3+ DEMOS-Plan iterations)
  Regione Toscana, IT (2 E-TM’s)
  Regione Siciliana/University of Palermo, IT (1 E-TM)
  Larnaca District Development Agency, CY (1 E-TM + 1
DEMOS-Plan experiment)
  University of Ulster, UK (8 E-TM’s)
  University of Turku, FI (4 E-TM’s including closed door
experimentations + 1 DEMOS-Plan experiment)


Preliminary lessons learnt

  It’s a long way to institutionalising eParticipation…
  Living Labs acted as eParticipation intermediaries
  Our ICT tools seemingly outperform generic forums and
social software, not to speak of non-electronic participation
tools, in terms of efficiency and effectiveness
  There is good potential for integration between the two tools
and their underlying processes
  Further contribution to take-up may derive from progress in
the INSPIRE directive implementation at pan-European and
Member State level


The (prospective) service workflow

More soon @ www.parterre-project.eu

Thanks for your kind attention

  All texts and images used in this presentation, though belonging to the public
domain or extracted from Internet sites, are © of their respective authors. Their
usage has been limited to the purposes, divulgative and not lucrative, of the present
communication. I apologise for any involuntary omission of acknowledgements.
  The statements made in this presentation do not involve or engage in any way the European
Commission, whom the PARTERRE Project is funded by under the CIP (ICT-PSP) Program.
  The original contents included in this presentation are licensed by the PARTERRE
Project Partners for free reuse and translation, by always mentioning the source and
with the full responsibility of the user in case of adaptation or change. To read the full
license go to: Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0
Unported License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/)
  Any errors in the above texts are only mine anyway.


eParticipation that works

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Similar a eParticipation that works

Similar a eParticipation that works (20)

Más de Danube University Krems, Centre for E-Governance

Más de Danube University Krems, Centre for E-Governance (20)

Último

Último (20)

eParticipation that works