Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Civic Technology for Social Innovation

A Systematic Literature Review

  • Published:
Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The recent surge of investment in Civic Technologies represents a unique opportunity to realize the potential of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) for improving democratic participation. In this review, we study what technologies are proposed and evaluated in the academic literature for such goal. We focus our exploration on how civic technology is used in the collaborative creation of solutions for social issues and innovations for public services (i.e., social innovation). Our goal is to provide researchers, designers, and practitioners a starting point to understand both the academic state of the art and the existing opportunities for ICT in a democracy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For more, see http://www.slideshare.net/knightfoundation/knight-civictech

  2. For a discussion on the term, see https://medium.com/@emilydshaw/debugging-democracy-bfa68e37967b

  3. Defining social innovation: https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/faculty-research/centers-initiatives/csi/defining-social-innovation

  4. Transparency and Open Government declaration: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/transparency-and-open-government

  5. The full data set of articles can be accessed at https://goo.gl/gJ1nnb

  6. The full list of pre-selected articles, along with the justification of exclusion, is available at https://goo.gl/gJ1nnb

  7. An interactive web site to navigate through all 35 articles in our study is available at https://participa.org.py/civic-technologies

  8. Participatory democracy is a democratic model that envisions the broad participation of citizens in “their self-governance” (Pateman 2012)

  9. http://maps.google.com

  10. http://openstreetmap.org

  11. Geographic Information Systems (GIS): a system used to report and display spatial and geographical information (Tomlin 1990)

  12. See http://ideas.pbnyc.org/

  13. See https://www.participatorybudgeting.org/mapping-data-driven-community-decisions/

  14. http://www.opengovpartnership.org/

  15. We use the OECD definition, “innovation in the public sector refers to significant improvements to public administration and/or services”. In this case, we refer to the involvement of citizens in the processes that lead to this kind of improvements. For more, see http://www.oecd.org/gov/innovative-government/a-framework-for-public-sector-innovation.htm

  16. https://www.challenge.gov

  17. https://vallejopb.appcivist.org

  18. Participatory budgeting often features several phases of proposal development, where volunteer residents spend several months researching, discussing and deliberating on project proposals, before reaching the final voting phase

  19. https://www.fixmystreet.com/

  20. http://tictec.mysociety.org/

  21. http://cirn.wikispaces.com

References

  • Aitamurto, Tanja (2012). Crowdsourcing for democracy: A new era in policy-making. Parliament of Finland: Publications of the Committee for the Future.

  • Aitamurto, Tanja; Hélène Landemore; and Jorge Saldivar (2016a). Unmasking the crowd: participants’ motivation factors, expectations, and profile in a crowdsourced law reform. Information, Communication & Society, vol. 20, no. 8, pp. 1239–1260.

  • Aitamurto, Tanja; Kaiping Chen; Ahmed Cherif; Jorge Saldivar; and Luis Santana (2016b). Civic CrowdAnalytics: Making Sense of Crowdsourced Civic Input with Big Data Tools. In: AcademicMindtrek ’16. Proceedings of the 20th International Academic Mindtrek Conference, Tampere, Finland, 2016. New York, NY, USA, pp. 86–94.

  • Aitamurto, Tanja; and Hélène Landemore (2016). Crowdsourced Deliberation: The Case of the Law on Off-Road Traffic in Finland. Policy & Internet, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 174–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, Rhys; and David Turner (2006). Modelling the impact of community engagement on local democracy. Local Economy, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 378–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anwar, Afian; Bernhard Klein; Matthias Berger; and Stefan Muller Arisona (2015). Value Lab asia: a space for physical and virtual interdisciplinary research and collaboration. In: iV ’15. 19th international conference on information visualisation, Barcelona, Spain, pp. 348–353.

  • Bailey, Keiron; Benjamin Blandfor; Ted Grossardt; and John Ripy (2011). Planning, technology, and legitimacy: Structured public involvement in integrated transportation and land-use planning in the United States. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 447–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg, Chris (2017). Delegation and unbundling in a Crypto-Democracy. SSRN, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carolin Hagelskamp; Rebecca Silliman; Chloe Rinehart; and David Schleifer (2016). Public spending, by the people participatory budgeting in the United States and Canada in 2014 - 15. Technical report, Public Agenda.

  • Delbecq, Andre L; Andrew H Van de Ven; and David H Gustafson (1975). Group techniques for program planning: A guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Scott Foresman.

  • Desouza, Kevin C; and Akshay Bhagwatwar (2014). Technology-Enabled Participatory platforms for civic engagement: The case of US cities. Journal of Urban Technology, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 25–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans-Cowley, Jennifer S (2010). Planning in the age of Facebook: the role of social networking in planning processes. GeoJournal, vol. 75, no. 5, pp. 407–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farina, Cynthia R.; Mary J. Newhart; Josiah Heidt; and Jackeline Solivan (2013). Balancing inclusion and ”Enlightened understanding” in designing online civic participation systems: Experiences from regulation room. In: dg.o ’13. Proceedings of the 14th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, Quebec, Canada, 2013. New York, NY, USA, pp. 180–189.

  • Farnham, Shelly; David Keyes; Vicky Yuki; and Chris Tugwell (2012). Puget Sound off: Fostering Youth Civic Engagement Through Citizen Journalism. In: CSCW ’12. Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Seattle, Washington, USA, 2012. New York, NY, USA, pp. 285–294.

  • Fredericks, Joel; Martin Tomitsch; Luke Hespanhol; and Ian McArthur (2015). Digital Pop-Up: investigating bespoke community engagement in public spaces. In: OzCHI ’15. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Australian Special Interest Group for Computer Human Interaction, Parkville, VIC, Australia, 2015. New York, NY, USA, pp. 634–642.

  • Ganoe, Craig H.; Harold R. Robinson; Michael A. Horning; Xiaoyan Xie; and John M. Carroll (2010). Mobile Awareness and Participation in Community-oriented Activities. In: COM.Geo ’10. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference and Exhibition on Computing for Geospatial Research & Application, Washington, D.C., USA, 2010. New York, NY, USA, pp. 1–8.

  • Garcia, Ana Cristina B; Adriana S Vivacqua; and Thiago C Tavares (2011). Enabling Crowd Participation in Governmental Decision-making. Journal of Universal Computer Science, vol. 17, no. 14, pp. 1931–1950.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giupponi, Carlo (2007). Decision support systems for implementing the European water framework directive: the MULINO approach. Environmental Modelling & Software, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 248–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodin, Robert E; and John S Dryzek (2006). Deliberative impacts: the macro-political uptake of mini-publics. Politics & society, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 219–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossardt, Ted; Keiron Bailey; and Joel Brumm (2003). Structured public involvement: problems and prospects for improvement. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, vol. 1848, pp. 59–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Han, Kyungsik; Patrick C. Shih; and John M. Carroll (2014). Local news chatter: Augmenting community news by aggregating hyperlocal microblog content in a tag cloud. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 1003–1014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Held, David (2006). Models of democracy. Polity.

  • Holston, James; Valérie Issarny; and Cristhian Parra (2016). Engineering Software Assemblies for Participatory Democracy: The Participatory Budgeting Use Case. In: ICSE ’16. Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Software Engineering Companion, Austin, Texas, 2016. New York, NY, USA, pp. 573–582.

  • Hosio, Simo; Jorge Goncalves; Vassilis Kostakos; and Jukka Riekki (2015). Crowdsourcing public opinion using urban pervasive technologies: Lessons from Real-Life experiments in oulu. Policy and Internet, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 203–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hou, Youyang (2016). Understand the design and implementation of civic technologies in public organizations. In: CSCW ’16 Companion. Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing Companion, San Francisco, California, USA, 2016. New York, NY, USA, pp. 147–150.

  • Johnson, Ian G.; John Vines; Nick Taylor; Edward Jenkins; and Justin Marshall (2016). Reflections on Deploying Distributed Consultation Technologies with Community Organisations. In: CHI ’16. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, California, USA, 2016. New York, NY, USA, pp. 2945–2957.

  • Khan, Zaheer; David Ludlow; and Wolfgang Loibl (2013). Applying the CoReS requirements development method for building IT tools for urban management systems: The urbanAPI project. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 25–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knowles, Dudley (2001). Political philosophy, Vol. 6. McGill-Queen’s Press-MQUP.

  • Landemore, Hélène (2015). Inclusive Constitution-Making: The Icelandic Experiment. Journal of Political Philosophy, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 166–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lathrop, Daniel; and Laurel Ruma (2010). Open government: Collaboration, transparency and participation in practice. O’Reilly Media, Inc.

  • Lee, Deirdre; Nikolaos Loutas; Elena Sánchez-Nielsen; Esen Mogulkoc; and Oli Lacigova (2011). Inform-consult-empower: a three-tiered approach to eParticipation. In: ePart 2011. Tambouris E., Macintosh A., de Bruijn H. (eds) Electronic Participation, Delft, The Netherlands, 2011. Berlin, Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 121–132.

  • Lerner, Josh A (2014). Making democracy fun: How game design can empower citizens and transform politics. MIT Press.

  • Living Cities (2012). Field scan of civic technology. https://www.livingcities.org/resources/131-field-scan-of-civic-technology.

  • Matsusaka, John G (2005). The eclipse of legislatures: Direct democracy in the 21st century. Public Choice, vol. 124, no. 1-2, pp. 157–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McInnis, Brian; Alissa Centivany; Juho Kim; Marta Poblet; Karen Levy; and Gilly Leshed (2017). Crowdsourcing law and policy: a Design-Thinking approach to Crowd-Civic systems. In: CSCW ’17 Companion. Companion of the 2017 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing, Portland, Oregon, USA, 2017. New York, NY, USA, pp. 355–361.

  • Mergel, Ines; and Kevin C Desouza (2013). Implementing open innovation in the public sector: The case of Challenge. gov. Public administration review, vol. 73, no. 6, pp. 882–890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mosconi, Gaia; Matthias Korn; Christian Reuter; Peter Tolmie; Maurizio Teli; and Volkmar Pipek (2017). From facebook to the neighbourhood: Infrastructuring of hybrid community engagement. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 26, no. 4-6, pp. 959–1003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelimarkka, Matti; Brandie Nonnecke; Sanjay Krishnan; Tanja Aitamurto; Daniel Catterson; Camille Crittenden; Chris Garland; Conrad Gregory; Ching-Chang Allen Huang; Gavin Newsom; et al. (2014). Comparing three online civic engagement platforms using the spectrum of public participation” framework. In: IPP’14. Proceedings of the Oxford Internet, Policy, and Politics Conference, Oxford, England, pp. 25–26.

  • Newman, William Lambert (1902). The Politics of Aristotle: With an Introduction, Two Prefactory Essays and Notes Critical and Explanatory, Vol. 3. Clarendon Press.

  • Olivier, Patrick; and Peter Wright (2015). Digital civics: Taking a local turn. Interactions, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 61–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parra, Cristhian; Christelle Rohaut; Marianne Maeckelbergh; Valerie Issarny; and James Holston (2017). Expanding the design space of ICT for participatory budgeting. In: C&T ’17. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Communities and Technologies, Troyes, France, 2017, New York, NY, USA, pp. 213–221.

  • Patel, Mayur; Jon Sotsky; Sean Gourley; and Daniel Houghton (2013). The emergence of civic tech: Investments in a growing field. Knight Foundation.

  • Pateman, Carole (2012). APSA Presidential address: Participatoryx democracy revisited. Perspectives on politics, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 7–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peixoto, Tiago (2009). Beyond theory: E-participatory budgeting and its promises for eParticipation. European Journal of ePractice, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, Kerry D.; Michael J. Berson; and Peter Levine (2010). On becoming a legislative aide: Enhancing civic engagement through a digital simulation. Action in Teacher Education, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 70–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratto, Matt; and Megan Boler (2014). DIY citizenship: Critical making and social media. MIT Press.

  • Rinner, Claus; and Michelle Bird (2009). Evaluating community engagement through argumentation maps—a public participation GIS case study. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 588–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ronaghan, Stephen A (2002). Benchmarking e-government: a global perspective.

  • Rowe, Gene; and Lynn J Frewer (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, technology & human values, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 251–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saldivar, Jorge; Marcos Báez; Carlos Rodríguez; Gregorio Convertino; and Gregor Kowalik (2016). Idea Management in the Wild: An exploratory study of 166 online communities. In: CTS’16. Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Collaboration Technologies and Systems, Orlando, Florida, USA, 2016, pp. 81–89.

  • Schroeter, Ronald (2012). Engaging new digital locals with interactive urban screens to collaboratively improve the city. In: CSCW ’12. Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Seattle, Washington, USA, 2012. New York, NY, USA, pp. 227–236.

  • Spada, Paolo; Jonathan Mellon; Tiago Peixoto; and Fredrik M Sjoberg (2016). Effects of the internet on participation: study of a public policy referendum in Brazil. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 187–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinberger, Fabius; Marcus Foth; and Florian Alt (2014). Vote with your feet: Local community polling on urban screens. In: PerDis ’14. Proceedings of The International Symposium on Pervasive Displays, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2014. New York, NY, USA, pp. 44–49.

  • Sullivan, Brian (2008). CivicEvolution Technology Presentation.

  • Suri, Manik V (2013). From Crowd-Sourcing potholes to community policing: Applying interoperability theory to analyze the expansion of ’Open311’. SSRN: Berkman Center Research Publication, vol. 8447, no. 2013-18, pp. 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swan, Melanie (2015). Blockchain: Blueprint for a new economy. O’Reilly Media, Inc.

  • Sȧnchez-Nielsen, Elena; and Lee, Deirdre (2013). Eparticipation in practice in Europe: The case of “Puzzled by Policy: Helping you be part of EU”. In: HICSS’13. Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, USA, 2013, pp. 1870–1879.

  • Thiel, Sarah Kristin; Ulrich Lehner; Theresa Stürmer; and Janina Gospodarek (2015). Insights from a m-participation prototype in the wild. In: PerCom’15. IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communication Workshops, St. Louis, Missouri, USA, 2015, pp. 166–171.

  • Tomlin, C Dana (1990). Geographic information systems and cartographic modeling., No. 526.0285 T659. Prentice Hall.

  • Van Herzele, Ann (2004). Local knowledge in action valuing nonprofessional reasoning in the planning process. Journal of Planning Education and Research, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 197–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vlachokyriakos, Vasillis; Clara Crivellaro; Christopher A. Le Dantec; Eric Gordon; Pete Wright; and Patrick Olivier (2016). Digital Civics: Citizen empowerment with and through technology. In: CHI, EA ’16. Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, California, USA, 2016. New York, NY, USA, pp. 1096–1099.

  • Wagner, Ina (2012). Building urban narratives: Collaborative site-seeing and envisioning in the MR tent. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 1–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, Matthew W. (2011). ’Training the eye’: formation of the geocoding subject. Social & Cultural Geography, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 357–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodcock, Andree; Katerina Frankova; and Laurence Garton (2012). Voiceyourview: Anytime, anyplace, anywhere user participation. Work, vol. 41, no. Supplement 1, pp. 997–1003.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Association of Public Participation (IAP2) (2014). Spectrum of Public Participation. http://www.iap2.org/resource/resmgr/foundations_course/IAP2_P2_Spectrum_FINAL.pdf. Accessed: 2017-11-21.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Dr. Brandie Nonnecke and Dr. Tanja Aitamurto for their generous collaboration as experts in the Delphi process of the study. This work was supported by CONACYT, Paraguay through the program PROCIENCIA and resources from the Fund for the Excellence in Education and Research (FEEI by its Spanish acronym).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidad Católica “Nuestra Señora de la Asunción”, Asunción, Paraguay

    Jorge Saldivar, Cristhian Parra, Marcelo Alcaraz, Rebeca Arteta & Luca Cernuzzi

Authors
  1. Jorge Saldivar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cristhian Parra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marcelo Alcaraz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rebeca Arteta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Luca Cernuzzi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jorge Saldivar.

Appendix A: Selected Studies

Appendix A: Selected Studies

[S1] Anwar, Afian; Bernhard Klein; Matthias Berger; and Stefan Muller Arisona (2015). Value lab Asia: A space for physical and virtual interdisciplinary research and collaboration. In: iV ’15. 19th International Conference on Information Visualization, Barcelona, Spain, 2015. pp. 348–353.

[S2] Bailey, Keiron; Benjamin Blandfor; Ted Grossardt; and John Ripy (2011). Planning, technology, and legitimacy: Structured public involvement in integrated transportation and land-use planning in the United States. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 38, no. 3, pp. 447–467.

[S3] Bojovic, Dragana; Laura Bonzanigo; Carlo Giupponi; and Alexandros Maziotis (2015). Online participation in climate change adaptation: A case study of agricultural adaptation measures in Northern Italy. Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 157, pp. 8–19.

[S4] Farnham, Shelly; David Keyes; Vicky Yuki; and Chris Tugwell (2012). Puget Sound off: Fostering Youth Civic Engagement Through Citizen Journalism. In: CSCW ’12. Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Seattle, Washington, USA, 2012. New York, NY, USA, pp. 285–294.

[S5] Fredericks, Joel; Martin Tomitsch; Luke Hespanhol; and Ian McArthur (2015). Digital Pop-Up: Investigating Bespoke Community Engagement in Public Spaces. In: OzCHI ’15. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Australian Special Interest Group for Computer Human Interaction, Parkville, VIC, Australia, 2015. New York, NY, USA, pp. 634–642.

[S6] Freelon, Deen G; Travis Kriplean; Jonathan Morgan; W Lance Bennett; and Alan Borning (2012). Facilitating Diverse Political Engagement with the Living Voters Guide. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 279–297

[S7] Ganoe, Craig H.; Harold R. Robinson; Michael A. Horning; Xiaoyan Xie; and John M. Carroll (2010). Mobile Awareness and Participation in Community oriented Activities. In: COM.Geo ’10. Proceedings of the 1st International Conference and Exhibition on Computing for Geospatial Research & Application, Washington, D.C., USA, 2010. New York, NY, USA, pp. 1–8.

[S8] Garcia, Ana Cristina B; Adriana S Vivacqua; and Thiago C Tavares (2011). Enabling Crowd Participation in Governmental Decision-making. Journal of Universal Computer Science, vol. 17, no. 14, pp. 1931–1950.

[S9] Goel, Ashish; Anilesh K Krishnaswamy; Sukolsak Sakshuwong; and Tanja Aitamurto (2015). Knapsack voting. Collective Intelligence, vol. 1.

[S10] Gordon, Eric; and Jessica Baldwin-Philippi (2014). Playful Civic Learning: Enabling Lateral Trust and Reflection in Game-based Public Participation. International Journal of Communication, vol. 8 pp. 28.

[S11] Gordon, E.; and E. Manosevitch (2011). Augmented deliberation: Merging physical and virtual interaction to engage communities in urban planning. New Media & Society, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 75–95.

[S12] Hall, G Brent; Raymond Chipeniuk; Robert D Feick; Michael G Leahy; and Vivien Deparday (2010). Community-based production of geographic information using open source software and Web 2.0. International journal of geographical information science, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 761–781.

[S13] Han, Kyungsik; Patrick C. Shih; and John M. Carroll (2014). Local News Chatter: Augmenting Community News by Aggregating Hyperlocal Microblog Content in a Tag Cloud. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 30, no. 12, pp. 1003–1014.

[S14] Hosio, Simo; Jorge Goncalves; Vassilis Kostakos; and Jukka Riekki (2015). Crowdsourcing Public Opinion Using Urban Pervasive Technologies: Lessons From Real-Life Experiments in Oulu. Policy and Internet, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 203–222.

[S15] Khan, Zaheer; David Ludlow; Wolfgang Loibl; and Kamran Soomro (2014). ICT enabled participatory urban planning and policy development. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 205–229.

[S16] Kriplean, Travis; Jonathan Morgan; Deen Freelon; Alan Borning; and Lance Bennett (2012). Supporting Reflective Public Thought with Considerit. In: CSCW ’12. Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Seattle, Washington, USA, 2012. New York, NY, USA, pp. 265–274.

[S17] Kriplean, Travis; Michael Toomim; Jonathan Morgan; Alan Borning; and Andrew Ko (2012). Is This What You Meant?: Promoting Listening on the Web with Reflect. In: CHI ’12. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Austin, Texas, USA, 2012. New York, NY, USA, pp. 1559–1568.

[S18] Meneses, Maria Elena; Brandie Nonnecke; Alejandro Martin del Campo; Sanjai Krishnan; Jay Patel; Moonhyok Kim; Camille Crittenden; and Ken Goldberg (2017). Overcoming Citizen Mistrust and Enhancing Democratic Practices: Results from the E-participation Platform México Participa. Information Technologies & International Development, vol. 13 pp. 138–154.

[S19] Newhart, Mary J; and Joshua D Brooks (2017). Barriers to Participatory eRulemaking Platform Adoption: Lessons Learned from RegulationRoom. Cornell e-Rulemaking Initiative Publications, vol. 19.

[S20] News, Engagement Lab (2016), The California Report Card Version 1.0. Technical report. Accessed: 2017-11-14.

[S21] Nuojua, Johanna (2010). WebMapMedia: A map-based Web application for facilitating participation in spatial planning. Multimedia Systems, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 3–21.

[S22] Pieper, Alice Katharina; and Michael Pieper (2015). Political participation via social media: a case study of deliberative quality in the public online budgeting process of Frankfurt/Main, Germany 2013. Universal Access in the Information Society, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 487–503.

[S23] Poole, Kerry D.; Michael J. Berson; and Peter Levine (2010). On Becoming a Legislative Aide: Enhancing Civic Engagement Through a Digital Simulation. Action in Teacher Education, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 70–82.

[S24] Poplin, Alenka (2014). Digital serious game for urban planning: “B3-Design your Marketplace!.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 493–511.

[S25] Rinner, Claus; and Michelle Bird (2009). Evaluating community engagement through argumentation maps—a public participation GIS case study. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 588–601.

[S26] Sánchez-Nielsen, Elena; and Deirdre Lee (2013). Eparticipation in practice in Europe: The case of “Puzzled by Policy: Helping you be part of EU.” In: HICSS ’13. Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii, USA, 2013. pp. 1870–1879.

[S27] Sawhney, Nitin; Christo de Klerk; and Shriya Malhotra (2015). Civic Engagement through DIY Urbanism and Collective Networked Action. Planning Practice & Research, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 337–354.

[S28] Schiavo, Gianluca; Marco Milano; Jorge Saldivar; Tooba Nasir; Massimo Zancanaro; and Gregorio Convertino (2013). Agora2.0: Enhancing Civic Participation Through a Public Display. In: C&T ’13. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Communities and Technologies, Munich, Germany, 2013. New York, NY, USA, pp. 46–54.

[S29] Schroeter, Ronald (2012). Engaging New Digital Locals with Interactive Urban Screens to Collaboratively Improve the City. In: CSCW ’12. Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Seattle, Washington, USA, 2012. New York, NY, USA, pp. 227–236.

[S30] Steinberger, Fabius; Marcus Foth; and Florian Alt (2014). Vote With Your Feet: Local Community Polling on Urban Screens. In: PerDis ’14. Proceedings of The International Symposium on Pervasive Displays, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2014. New York, NY, USA, pp. 44–49.

[S31] Thiel, Sarah Kristin; Ulrich Lehner; Theresa Sturmer; and Janina Gospodarek (2015). Insights from a m-participation prototype in the wild. In: PerCom ’15. IEEE International Conference on Pervasive Computing and Communication Workshops, St. Louis, Missouri, USA, 2015. pp. 166–171.

[S32] Thome, Jason; Aolly Li; Vijay Sivaraman; and Catherine Bridge (2014). Mobile crowdsourcing older people’s opinions to enhance liveability in regional city centers. In: ISSNIP’14. IEEE 9th International Conference on Intelligent Sensors, Sensor Networks and Information Processing, Singapore, 2014. pp. 21–24.

[S33] Wagner, Ina (2012). Building urban narratives: Collaborative site-seeing and envisioning in the MR tent. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 1–42.

[S34] Wilson, Matthew W. (2011). ‘Training the eye’: formation of the geocoding subject. Social & Cultural Geography, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 357–376.

[S35] Woodcock, Andree; Katerina Frankova; and Laurence Garton (2012). VoiceYourView: Anytime, anyplace, anywhere user participation. Work, vol. 41, no. Supplement 1, pp. 997–1003.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Saldivar, J., Parra, C., Alcaraz, M. et al. Civic Technology for Social Innovation. Comput Supported Coop Work 28, 169–207 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-018-9311-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606-018-9311-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation