Citizen Observatories: Concept, Opportunities and Communication with Citizens in the First EU Experiences

  • Filipe MontargilEmail author
  • Vitor Santos
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 25)


This chapter discusses the emerging concept of Citizen Observatories (COs), explores the opportunities it represents for public authorities to go beyond incremental bureaucratic innovation and presents the first generation of European-funded experiences, held between 2012 and 2016. The concept of CO implies, according to the existing definitions, an open and shared information system dedicated to the collection of data on the environment and natural resources, using ICT, and the volunteer participation of individuals in data collection. The EU has adopted a more specific concept of CO in the projects funded, so that the resulting information complements existing earth observation systems (including the European Copernicus satellite programme). In the 2012–2016 period five CO projects have been funded by the EU, covering different areas: natural waters monitoring, odour monitoring, air quality monitoring, flood risk management and a platform for citizen science surveys. These COs allowed to develop and test the concept’s implementation, although the societal impact is still very limited, involving a reduced number of users. These projects have, however, established a very valuable set of resources, knowledge and expertise. This is an emerging field with interesting perspectives and possibilities. Although there is an economic rationale behind it (lowering the cost of in situ observation networks), it encloses the possibility of using ICT in the creation of a relation between public authorities and citizens that can produce a valuable return for citizens.


European Union Flood Risk Social Networking Site Flood Risk Management Volunteer Geographic Information 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Angelopoulos, Constantinos Marios, Sotiris Nikoletseas, Theofanis P. Raptis and José Rolim (2015). “Design and evaluation of characteristic incentive mechanisms in Mobile Crowdsensing Systems”, Simulation Modelling Practice and Theory, 55: 95–106.Google Scholar
  2. Anthopoulos, Leonidas, Christopher G. Reddick, Irene Giannakidou and Nikolaos Mavridis (2016). “Why e-government projects fail? An analysis of the website”, Government Information Quarterly, 33: 161–173.Google Scholar
  3. Bartonova, Alena (2016). Development of a community-based air quality monitoring system: the CITI-SENSE project experience.Google Scholar
  4. Bekkers, Victor and Vincent Homburg (2007). “The Myths of EGovernment: Looking Beyond the Assumptions of a New and Better Government”, The Information Society, 23(5): 373–382.Google Scholar
  5. Bliss, John, Greg Aplet, Cate Hartzell, Peggy Harwood, Paul Jahnige, David Kittredge, Stephan Lewandowski and Mary Lou Soscia (2001). “Community-based ecosystem monitoring”, Journal of Sustainable Forestry, 12: 143–167.Google Scholar
  6. Craglia, Max (2007). “Volunteered Geographic Information and Spatial Data Infrastructures: when do parallel lines converge?”, Specialist Meeting on Volunteered Geographic Information. 13–14 December, Santa Barbara (CA).Google Scholar
  7. Conners, Deanna E., Susan Eggert, Jennifer Keyes and Michael Merrill (2001). “Community-based water quality monitoring by the Upper Oconee Watershed Network”, in K. J. Hatcher (Ed.), Proceedings of the 2001 Georgia Water Resources Conference (pp. 706–709). Georgia: Athens.Google Scholar
  8. Degrossi, Lívia Castro, João Porto de Albuquerque, Maria Clara Fava e Eduardo Mario Mendiondo (2014). “Flood Citizen Observatory: a crowdsourcing-based approach for flood risk management in Brazil”, Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering (SEKE), Vancouver, Canada, pp. 1–6.Google Scholar
  9. European Commission (2014). Citizens’ Observatories: Empowering European Society Conference Report Version 1.0, (Retrieved August 25th, 2016).
  10. European Commission (2015). HORIZON 2020 Work Programme 2014 – 2015. 12. Climate action, environment, resource efficiency and raw materials – Revised (European Commission Decision C (2015)2453 of 17 April 2015).Google Scholar
  11. Ganti, Raghu K., Fan Ye and Hui Lei (2011). “Mobile crowdsensing: Current state and future challenges”, IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 49, no. 11, Nov.: 32–39.Google Scholar
  12. Goodchild, Michael F. (2007): “Citizens as sensors: Web 2.0 and the volunteering of geographic information”, GeoFocus (Editorial), 7: 8–10.Google Scholar
  13. Lambert, Patrick (2016). “EASME, Horizon 2020 and GEO”, 10th GEO European Projects Workshop, 31 May – 2 June 2016, Berlin, (Retrieved August 25th, 2016).
  14. Lanfranchi, Vitaveska, Stuart N. Wrigley, Neil Ireson, Fabio Ciravegna and Uta When (2014). “Citizens’ Observatories for Situation Awareness in Flooding”, in S.R. Hiltz, M.S. Pfaff, L. Plotnick, and P.C. Shih (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International ISCRAM Conference, University Park, Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  15. Liu, Hai-Ying, Mike Kobernus, David Broday and Alena Bartonova (2014). “A conceptual approach to a citizens’ observatory – supporting community-based environmental governance”, Environmental Health, 13:107.Google Scholar
  16. McKenzie, L. J., W. J. Lee Long, R. G. Coles and C. A. Roder (2000). “Seagrass-Watch: Community-based monitoring of seagrass resources”, Biologia Marina Mediterranea, 7(2): 393–396.Google Scholar
  17. Montargil, Filipe (2010). “Electronic government and government transformation: technical interactivity, political influence and citizen return”, in Paul Nixon e Vassiliki Koutrakou (Org.), E-Government in Europe: Issues and Challenges. London: Routledge, pp. 61–77.Google Scholar
  18. Morandi, Daniele, Iacopo Carreras, Enrico Gregori, Ian Graham and James Stewart (2013). “Measuring Net Neutrality in Mobile Internet: Towards a Crowdsensing-based Citizen Observatory”, IEEE International Conference on Communications, IEEE ICC’13, Workshop on Beyond Social Networks: Collective Awareness: 199–203.Google Scholar
  19. MSH and UNICEF (1998). “Community-Based Monitoring”, The Guide to Managing for Quality, (Retrieved August 25th, 2016).
  20. Paulin, Alois (2015). “Twenty Years After the Hype: Is E-Government Doomed? Findings from Slovenia”, International Journal of Public Administration in the Digital Age 2 (2): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rubio-Iglesias, José Miguel (2014). “Citizens’ Observatories - Five approaches to empower European citizens”, Copenhagen, 12th March 2014.Google Scholar
  22. Van Boven, Leaf, David Dunning and George Loewenstein (2000). “Egocentric empathy gaps between owners and buyers: Misperceptions of the endowment effect”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79: 66–76.Google Scholar
  23. Van Boven, Leaf and George Loewenstein (2005). “Cross-situational projection”, in M. D. Alike, D. Dunning, and J. Krueger (Eds.), The Self in Social Judgment, New York: Psychology Press, pp. 43–64.Google Scholar
  24. Yang, Kaifeng and Seung-Yong Rho (2007). “E-Government for Better Performance: Promises, Realities, and Challenges”, International Journal of Public Administration, 30:11: 1197–1217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Communication and Media Studies (ESCS) and Lisbon Institute of Communication and Media Studies (ICML)LisbonPortugal
  2. 2.NOVA Information Management School (NOVA IMS) and NOVA IMS Research and Development Center (MagIC)LisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations