Advertisement

Participatory Data Gathering for Public Sector Reuse: Lessons Learned from Traditional Initiatives

  • Nathalie Stembert
  • Peter Conradie
  • Ingrid Mulder
  • Sunil Choenni
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8074)

Abstract

Local governments are increasingly looking for new ways to involve citizens in policy and decision-making, for example by combining public sector data sources with data gathered by citizens. Several examples exist of data gathering where personal mobile devices act as data collectors. While these efforts illustrate the technical capability of data sourcing, they neglect the value of local knowledge where people use their senses to capture and interpret data. Traditional data gathering initiatives, however, exploit this local knowledge to inform policy makers, e.g., neighborhood policing. To understand data gathering processes of these traditional data gathering initiatives, three cases are examined. We analyze these cases, focusing on the various elements they contain, concluding how digital data gathering can be informed by these traditional variants, concerning what the benefits of using digital means can be for data gathering and how traditional initiatives ensure data re-use by the public sector.

Keywords

Data Gathering Participatory Citizenship Local knowledge Open Data 

References

  1. 1.
    Reddel, T., Woolcock, G.: From consultation to participatory governance? A critical review of citizen engagement strategies in Queensland. Australian Journal of Public Administration 63, 75–87 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amichai-Hamburger, Y.: Potential and promise of online volunteering. Computers in Human Behavior 24, 544–562 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johannessen, M.R., Flak, L.S., Sæbø, Ø.: Choosing the Right Medium for Municipal eParticipation Based on Stakeholder Expectations. In: Tambouris, E., Macintosh, A., Sæbø, Ø. (eds.) ePart 2012. LNCS, vol. 7444, pp. 25–36. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Maier-Rabler, U., Huber, S.: “Open”: the changing relation between citizens, public administration, and political authority. JeDEM 3, 182–191 (2011)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Maisonneuve, N., Stevens, M., Ochab, B.: Participatory noise pollution monitoring using mobile phones. Information Polity 15, 51–71 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eriksson, J., Girod, L., Hull, B., Newton, R., Madden, S., Balakrishnan, H.: The Pothole Patrol: Using a Mobile Sensor Network for Road Surface Monitoring. In: MobiSys 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Savage, N.: Cycling through data. Communications of the ACM 53, 16 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Levine, C., Fisher, G.: Citizenship and service delivery: The promise of coproduction. Public Administration Review 44, 178–189 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gouveia, C., Fonseca, A., Câmara, A., Ferreira, F.: Promoting the use of environmental data collected by concerned citizens through information and communication technologies. Journal of Environmental Management 71, 135–154 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Coleman, S., Gøtze, J.: Bowling Together: Online Public Engagement in Policy Deliberation Online Public Engagement in Policy Deliberation (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Corburn, J.: Community knowledge in environmental health science: co-producing policy expertise. Environmental Science & Policy 10, 150–161 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Corburn, J.: Bringing Local Knowledge into Environmental Decision Making: Improving Urban Planning for Communities at Risk. Journal of Planning Education and Research 22, 420–433 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nicholson, E., Ryan, J., Hodgkins, D.: Community data-where does the value lie? Assessing confidence limits of community collected water quality data. Water Sci. Technol. 45, 193–200 (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bromenshenk, J.J., Preston, E.M.: Public participation in environmental monitoring: A means of attaining network capability. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 6, 35–47 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stokes, P., Havas, M., Brydges, T.: Public participation and volunteer help in monitoring programs: An assessment. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 15, 225–229 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Au, J., Bagchi, P., Chen, B., Martinez, R., Dudley, S.A., Sorger, G.J.: Methodology for public monitoring of total coliforms, Escherichia coli and toxicity in waterways by Canadian high school students. Journal of Environmental Management 58, 213–230 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Girardin, F., Blat, J., Calabrese, F., Fiorre, F.D.: Digital Footprinting: Uncovering Tourists with User-Generated Content. IEEE Pervasive Computing 7, 36–43 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fischer, F.: Citizens, experts, and the environment: The politics of local knowledge. Duke University Press (2000)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Corburn, J.: Bringing Local Knowledge into Environmental Decision Making Improving Urban Planning for communities at risk, 420–433 (2003)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    King, S.F.S., Brown, P.: Fix my street or else: using the internet to voice local public service concerns. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, Macau, pp. 72–80 (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yearley, S.: Experts in Public: Publics’ Relationships to Scientific Authority. In: Making Sense of Science: Understanding the Social Study of Science, pp. 113–128. SAGE Publications Ltd., London (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Susskind, L., Elliott, M.: Learning from Western Europe. In: Paternalism, Conflict, and Coproduction: Learning from Citizen Action and Citizen Participation in Western Europe, p. 3. Plenum Press (1983)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ehrmann, J., Stinson, B.: Joint Fact-finding and the Use of Technical Experts. In: The Consensus Building Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide to Reaching Agreement, pp. 375–400. Sage Publications (1999)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Yin, R.: Case Study Research Design and Methods. SAGE, London (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Baxter, P., Jack, S.: Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report 13, 544–559 (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Visser, F.S., Van Der Lugt, R., Stappers, P.J.: Participatory design needs participatory communication: New tools for sharing user insights in the product innovation process. In: Proceedings of 9th European Conference on Creativity and Innovation, Lódz, Poland, pp. 1–17 (September 2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nathalie Stembert
    • 1
  • Peter Conradie
    • 1
  • Ingrid Mulder
    • 1
    • 2
  • Sunil Choenni
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Creating 010Rotterdam University of Applied SciencesThe Netherlands
  2. 2.ID-StudioLabDelft University of TechnologyThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Research and Documentation CentreMinistry of JusticeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations