Advertisement

The Role of Citizen Participation in Municipal Smart City Projects: Lessons Learned from Norway

  • Lasse Berntzen
  • Marius Rohde Johannessen
Chapter
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 11)

Abstract

In this chapter, we examine the role of citizen participation in the development of smart cities through literature and example cases from Norwegian cities. We present an overview of technologies used for participation, including their strengths and weaknesses, discuss how different types of projects should be handled differently in the decision-making process and present recommendations for how practitioners can set up citizen participation projects in Smart City initiatives. We present three different categories of participation: citizen competence and experience, data collection through citizens’ use of technology and participation as democratic value. Further, we discuss how these categories can be understood in terms of, who sets the agenda and who makes the final decisions in order to frame the project internally in the municipality and externally so that citizens participating know what the outcome of the project will be. Finally, we offer suggestions for technologies that could be used to collect citizen input in each of the three categories of participation.

Keywords

Smart cities Citizen participation Technology choice Multichannel communication Proprietary systems Social media 

References

  1. Al-Kodmany, K., Betancur, J., & Vidyarthi, S. (2012). E-civic engagement and the youth: New frontiers and challenges for urban planning. International Journal of E-Planning Research (IJEPR), 1(3), 87–104. doi:10.4018/Ijepr.2012070105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berntzen, L., & Trollvik, J. A. (2007). Digital planning dialog. Proceedings, 3rd international conference on E-Government, Academic Conferences, 2007, pp. 61–68.Google Scholar
  3. Bianchi, T., & Cottica, A. (2010). Harnessing the unexpected: A public administration interacts with creatives on the web. European Journal of Epractice, 9, 82–90.Google Scholar
  4. Bryson, J. M., Quick, K. S., Slotterback, C. S., & Crosby, B. C. (2013). Designing public participation processes. Public Administration Review, 73, 23–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Carter, D. (2012). Urban regeneration, digital development strategies and the knowledge economy: Manchester case study. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 4(2), 169–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Casteel, P. D. (2010). Habermas & communicative actions (pp. 1–6). New York: Great Neck Publishing.Google Scholar
  7. Charalabidis, Y., & Loukis, E. (2011). Transforming government agencies’ approach to eparticipation through efficient exploitation of social media. Paper presented at the European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), Helsinki, Finland. http://Aisel.Aisnet.Org/Ecis2011/84.
  8. Chourabi, H., Nam, T., Walker, S., Gil-Garcia, J. R., Mellouli, S., Nahon, K., Pardo, T. A., Scholl, H. J. (2012). Understanding smart city initiatives: An integrative and comprehensive theoretical framework. In Proceedings of the 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, pp. 2289–2297.Google Scholar
  9. Coe, A., Paquet, G., & Roy, J. (2001). E-governance and smart communities: A social learning challenge. Social Science Computer Review, 19, 80–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cranshaw, J., Schwartz, Z., Hong, J. I., & Sadeh, N. (2012). The livehoods project: Utilizing social media to understand the dynamics of a city. Paper presented at the proceedings of the sixth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.Google Scholar
  11. Dameri, R. P., & Cocchia, A. (2013). Smart city and digital city: Twenty years of terminology evolution. Proceedings Itais 2013. http://Www.Cersi.It/Itais2013/Pdf/119.Pdf.Accessed 2 Jan 2014.
  12. Dolson, J., & Young, R. (2012). Explaining variation in the e-government features of municipal websites: An analysis of e-content, e-participation, and social media features in Canadian municipal websites. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 21(2), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Effing, R., van Hillegersberg, J., & Huibers, T. (2011). Social media and political participation: are Facebook, Twitter and YouTube democratizing our political systems? In E. Tambouris, A. Macintosh, & H. de Bruijn (Eds.), Electronic participation (Vol. 6847, pp. 25–35). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Geldermann, J., & Ludwig, J. (2007). Some thoughts on weighting in participatory decision making and e-democracy. International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management, 7(2), 178–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Giffinger, R., Fertner, C., Kramar, H., Kalasek, R., Pichler-Milanovic, N., & Meijers, E. (2007). “Smart cities—ranking of european medium-sized cities”. Smart cities. Vienna: Centre of Regional Science.Google Scholar
  16. Gray, M., & Caul, M. (2000). Declining voter turnout in advanced industrial democracies, 1950 to 1997. Comparative Political Studies, 33, 1091–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Held, D. (2006). Models of democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hudson-Smith, A., Evans, S., & Batty, M. (2005). Building the virtual city: Public participation through e-democracy. Knowledge, Technology & Policy, 18(1), 62–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jaeger, P. T., & Bertot, J. C. (2010). Designing, implementing and evaluating user-centered and citizen-centered egovernment. In C. G. Reddick (Ed.), Citizens and e-government—evaluating policy and management (pp. 1–19).Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  20. Johannessen, M. (2010). Genres of participation in social networking systems: A study of the 2009 norwegian parliamentary election. In E. Tambouris, A. Macintosh, & O. Glassey (Eds.), Electronic participation (Vol. 6229, pp. 104–114). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Johannessen, M. R. (2012). Genres of communication in activist eparticipation: A comparison of new and old media. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, Albany, New York.Google Scholar
  22. Johannessen, M. R., & Munkvold, B. E. (2012). Defining the IT artefact in social media for eparticipation: An ensemble view. European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), 2012 Barcelona.Google Scholar
  23. Johannessen, M. R., Flak, L., & Sæbø, Ø. (2012). Choosing the right medium for municipal eparticipation based on stakeholder expectations. In E. Tambouris, A. Macintosh, & Ø. Sæbø (Eds.), Electronic participation (Vol. 7444, pp. 25–36). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kim, J. (2008). A model and case for supporting participatory public decision making in e-democracy. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17(3), 179–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kolsaker, A., & Kelly, L. L. (2008). Citizens’ attitudes towards e-government and e-governance: A UK study. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(7), 723–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Komninos, N., & Tsarchopoulos, P. (2012). Toward intelligent Thessaloniki: From an agglomeration of apps to smart districts. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 4(2), 149–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Komninos, N., Schaffers, H., & Pallot, M. (2011). Developing a policy roadmap for smart cities and the future Internet paper presented at the e-challenges.Google Scholar
  28. Ladner, A., & Pianzola, J. (2010). Do voting advice applications have an effect on electoral participation and voter turnout? Evidence from the 2007 Swiss Federal Elections.Google Scholar
  29. Loukis, E., Xenakis, A., Peters, R., & Charalabidis, Y. (2010). Using GIS tools to support e-participation—A systematic evaluation. In E. Tambouris, A. Macintosh, & O. Glassey (Eds.), Electronic participation (Vol. 6229, pp. 197–210). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lourenço, R. P., & Costa, J. P. (2006). Discursive e-democracy support. Paper presented at the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii.Google Scholar
  31. Lourenço, R. P., & Costa, J. P. (2007). Incorporating citizens’ views in local policy decision making processes. Decision Support Systems, 43, 1499–1511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lutz, M. (2009). The social pulpit: Barack Obama’s social media toolkit. Chicago: EdelmanGoogle Scholar
  33. Medaglia, R. (2012). E-participation research: Moving characterization forward (2006–2011). Government Information Quarterly, 29, 346–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Norris, P. (2000). A virtuous circle: Political communications in postindustrial societies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Norwegian Ministries. (2012). Digitizing public sector services. http://Www.Regjeringen.No/Upload/Fad/Kampanje/Dan/Regjeringensdigitaliseringsprogram/Digit_Prg_Eng.Pdf.Accessed 12 Dec 2013.
  36. OECD. (2010). Better regulations for Europe: Finland. Http://Www.Oecd.Org/Gov/Regulatory- Policy/45054502.Pdf. Accessed 11 Dec 2013.Google Scholar
  37. Päivärinta, T., & Sæbø, Ø. (2006). Models of E-democracy. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 17(4). Google Scholar
  38. Panopoulou, E., Tambouris, E., & Tarabanis, K. (2010). eParticipation initiatives in Europe: Learning from practitioners.In E. Tambouris, A. Macintosh, & O. Glassey (Eds.), Electronic participation (Vol. 6229, pp. 115–126). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  39. Park, J., & Cho, K. (2009). Declining relational trust between government and publics, and potential prospects of social media in the government public relations. Paper presented at the Egpa Conference 2009 The Public Service: Service Delivery In The Information Age, St. Julian’s, Malta.Google Scholar
  40. Phang, C. W., & Kankanhalli, A. (2008). A framework of ICT exploitation for e-participation initiatives. Communications of the ACM, 51, 128–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Portney, K. E., & Berry, J. M. (2010). Participation and the pursuit of sustainability in U.S. Cities. Urban Affairs Review, 46, 119–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Porwol, L., O’donoghue, P., Breslin, J., Mulligan, B., & Coughlan, C. (2012). eParticipation and transport management: A practical approach. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 13th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research, College Park, Maryland.Google Scholar
  43. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Rainie, L., Smith, A., Schlozman, K. L., Brady, H., & Verba, S. (2012). Social media and political engagement Pew Internet & American Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media//Files/Reports/2012/PIP_SocialMediaAndPoliticalEngagement_PDF.pdf. Accessed 11 Dec 2013.Google Scholar
  45. Ramilli, M., & Prandini, M. (2010). An integrated application of security testing methodologies to e-voting systems.In E. Tambouris, A. Macintosh, & O. Glassey (Eds.), Electronic Participation (Vol. 6229, pp. 225–236). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  46. Ratti, C, & Townsend, A. (2011). The social nexus. Scientific American, 305(3), 42–48.Google Scholar
  47. Reed, T. V. (2005). The art of protest: Culture and activism from the civil rights movement to the streets of Seattle. Minneapolis: Minnesota University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Rose, J., & Sæbø, Ø. (2010). Designing deliberation systems. The Information Society, 26, 228–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Salazar, J. L., Piles, J. J., Ruíz, J., & Moreno-Jiménez, J. M. (2008). E-cognocracy and its voting process. Computer Standards and Interfaces, 30, 124–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sæbø, Ø., Rose, J., & Nyvang, T. (2009). The role of social networking services in e-participation . In A. Macintosh & E. Tambouris (Eds.), Electronic participation (Vol. 5694, pp. 46–55). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  51. Schaffers, H., Komninos, N., Pallot, M., Trousse, B., Nilsson, M., & Oliveira, A. (2011). Smart cities and the future Internet: Towards cooperation frameworks for open innovation. In J. Domingue, A. Galis, A. Gavras, T. Zahariadis, D. Lambert, F. Cleary, P. Daras, S. Krco, H. Müller, M.-S. Li, H. Schaffers, V. Lotz, F. Alvarez, B. Stiller, S. Karnouskos, S. Avessta, & M. Nilsson (Eds.), The future Internet (Vol. 6656, pp. 431–446). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sivesind, K. H., Lorentzen, H., Selle, P., & Wollebæk, D. (2002). The voluntary sector in Norway: Composition, changes and causes. Oslo: Institute for Social Research, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
  53. Strömbäck, J. (2005). In search of a standard: Four models of democracy and their normative implications for journalism. Journalism Studies, 6, 331–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Taewoo, N. (2010). Whither digital equality?: An empirical study of the democratic divide. Paper presented at the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS).Google Scholar
  55. Van Biezen, I., Mair, P., & Poguntke, T. (2012). Going, going,… gone? The decline of party membership in contemporary Europe. European Journal of Political Research, 51, 24–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Yang, K., & Pandey, S. K. (2011). Further dissecting the black box of citizen participation: When does citizen involvement lead to good outcomes? Public Administration Review, 71, 880–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Business and ManagementBuskerud and Vestfold University CollegeDrammenNorway

Personalised recommendations