Within the realm of e-government, the development has moved towards testing new means for democratic decisionmaking, like e-panels, electronic discussion forums, and polls. Although such new developments seem promising, they are not problem-free, and the outcomes are seldom used in the subsequent formal political procedures. Nevertheless, process models offer promising potential when it comes to structuring and supporting transparency of decision processes in order to facilitate the integration of the public into decision-making procedures in a reasonable and manageable way. Based on real-life cases of urban planning processes in Sweden, we present an outline for an integrated framework for public decision making to: a) provide tools for citizens to organize discussion and create opinions; b) enable governments, authorities, and institutions to better analyse these opinions; and c) enable governments to account for this information in planning and societal decision making by employing a process model for structured public decision making.
[1] O. Renn, Risk Analysis and Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2003.
[2] L. Ekenberg, A. Larsson, J. Idefeldt, and S. Bohman, "The Lack of
Transparency in Public Decision Processes," International Journal of
Public Information Systems, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1-8, 2009.
[3] D. Rios Insua, G. E. Kersten, and J. Rios, "Towards Decision Support
for Participatory Democracy," Information Systems and E-Business Management, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 161-191, 2007.
[4] M. J. Dutta-Bergman, "New Media & Society community satisfaction,"
New Media & Society, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 89-109, 2005.
[5] Norris, Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the
Internet worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press., 2001.
[6] Å. Grönlund, "Framing electronic government: e-mc3: in Search of
Strong Inscriptions," in DEXA 03, 2003.
[7] E. Karamagioli and V. Koulolias, "Challenges and barriers in implementing e-participation tools. One year of experience from
implementing Gov2demoss in 64 municipalities in Spain," International
Journal of Electronic Governance, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 434-451, 2008.
[8] M. Danielson, L. Ekenberg, J. Idefeldt, and A. Larsson, "Using a
Software Tool for Public Decision Analysis: The Case of Nacka
Municipality," Decision Analysis, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 76-90, Jun. 2007.
[9] M. Danielson, L. Ekenberg, and A. Riabacke, "A Prescriptive Approach
to Elicitation of Decision Data," Journal of Statistical Theory and
Practice, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 157-168, Mar. 2009.
[10] M. Danielson, L. Ekenberg, A. Larsson, and M. Riabacke, "Transparent
Public Decision Making - Discussion and Case Study in Sweden," in e-
Democracy, vol. 5, D. Rios Insua and S. French, Eds. Dordrecht:
Springer Netherlands, 2010, pp. 263-281.
[11] M. Riabacke, M. Danielson, L. Ekenberg, and A. Larsson, "A
Prescriptive Approach for Eliciting Imprecise Weight Statements in an
MCDA Process," in Algorithmic Decision Theory, vol. 5783, F. Rossi
and A. Tsoukias, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg,
2009, pp. 168-179.
[12] K. Hansson, "Reflexive technology for collaborative environments,"
International Journal of Public Information Systems, vol. 2012, no. 1,
pp. 11-28, 2012.
[13] K. Hansson, H. Verhagen, P. Karlström, and A. Larsson, "Reputation
and Online Communication: Visualizing Reputational Power to Promote
Collaborative Discussions Abstract," in HICSS-46 - Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2012, p. 11.
[14] K. Hansson, P. Karlström, A. Larsson, and H. Verhagen, "Actory: A Tool for Visualizing Reputation as a Means to Formalize Informal
Social Behavior," in The Second International Conference on
Reputation: "Society, Economy, Trust" ICORE 2011, 2011, p. 16.
[15] K. Hansson, H. Verhagen, P. Karlström, and A. Larsson, "Formalizing
informal social behavior - developing a visual tool to support collaborative discussions," in The Seventh International Conference on
Collaborative Computing, 2011, p. 8.
[16] A. Larsson, J. Johansson, L. Ekenberg, and M. Danielson, “Decision
Analysis with Multiple Objectives in a Framework for Evaluating
Imprecision”, International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness, and
Knowledge-Based Systems, vol.13, no.5, pp. 495–509, 2005.
[17] M. Danielson, L. Ekenberg, J. Johansson [Idefeldt], and A. Larsson,
“Investment Decision Analysis: a case study at SCA Transforest,” in
IKE’03: Proceedings of the international conference on information and
knowledge engineering: Vols. 1 and 2, 2003, pp. 79–85.
[18] M. Danielson, L. Ekenberg, Å. Grönlund, and A. Larsson, “Public
Decision Support - Using a DSSto Increase Democratic Transparency,”
International Journal of Public Information Systems, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 3–
25, 2005.
[19] L. Ekenberg, M. Boman, and M. Danielson, “A Tool for Coordinating
Autonomous Agents with Conflicting Goals”, Proceedings of the 1st
International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems ICMAS ’95, pp.89–
93, AAAI/MIT Press, 1995.
[20] A. Larsson, L. Ekenberg, and M. Danielson, “Decision Evaluation of
Response Strategies in Emergency Management Using Imprecise
Assessments,” Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency
Management, vol. 7, no. 1, 2010.
[21] O. Björkqvist, J. Idefeldt, and A. Larsson, “Risk assessment of new
pricing strategies in the district heating market,” Energy Policy, vol. 38,
no. 5, pp. 2171–2178, May 2010.
[22] G. Cars, Ed., Urban governance, institutional capacity and social
milieux. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002.
[1] O. Renn, Risk Analysis and Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2003.
[2] L. Ekenberg, A. Larsson, J. Idefeldt, and S. Bohman, "The Lack of
Transparency in Public Decision Processes," International Journal of
Public Information Systems, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1-8, 2009.
[3] D. Rios Insua, G. E. Kersten, and J. Rios, "Towards Decision Support
for Participatory Democracy," Information Systems and E-Business Management, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 161-191, 2007.
[4] M. J. Dutta-Bergman, "New Media & Society community satisfaction,"
New Media & Society, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 89-109, 2005.
[5] Norris, Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the
Internet worldwide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press., 2001.
[6] Å. Grönlund, "Framing electronic government: e-mc3: in Search of
Strong Inscriptions," in DEXA 03, 2003.
[7] E. Karamagioli and V. Koulolias, "Challenges and barriers in implementing e-participation tools. One year of experience from
implementing Gov2demoss in 64 municipalities in Spain," International
Journal of Electronic Governance, vol. 1, no. 4, pp. 434-451, 2008.
[8] M. Danielson, L. Ekenberg, J. Idefeldt, and A. Larsson, "Using a
Software Tool for Public Decision Analysis: The Case of Nacka
Municipality," Decision Analysis, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 76-90, Jun. 2007.
[9] M. Danielson, L. Ekenberg, and A. Riabacke, "A Prescriptive Approach
to Elicitation of Decision Data," Journal of Statistical Theory and
Practice, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 157-168, Mar. 2009.
[10] M. Danielson, L. Ekenberg, A. Larsson, and M. Riabacke, "Transparent
Public Decision Making - Discussion and Case Study in Sweden," in e-
Democracy, vol. 5, D. Rios Insua and S. French, Eds. Dordrecht:
Springer Netherlands, 2010, pp. 263-281.
[11] M. Riabacke, M. Danielson, L. Ekenberg, and A. Larsson, "A
Prescriptive Approach for Eliciting Imprecise Weight Statements in an
MCDA Process," in Algorithmic Decision Theory, vol. 5783, F. Rossi
and A. Tsoukias, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg,
2009, pp. 168-179.
[12] K. Hansson, "Reflexive technology for collaborative environments,"
International Journal of Public Information Systems, vol. 2012, no. 1,
pp. 11-28, 2012.
[13] K. Hansson, H. Verhagen, P. Karlström, and A. Larsson, "Reputation
and Online Communication: Visualizing Reputational Power to Promote
Collaborative Discussions Abstract," in HICSS-46 - Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2012, p. 11.
[14] K. Hansson, P. Karlström, A. Larsson, and H. Verhagen, "Actory: A Tool for Visualizing Reputation as a Means to Formalize Informal
Social Behavior," in The Second International Conference on
Reputation: "Society, Economy, Trust" ICORE 2011, 2011, p. 16.
[15] K. Hansson, H. Verhagen, P. Karlström, and A. Larsson, "Formalizing
informal social behavior - developing a visual tool to support collaborative discussions," in The Seventh International Conference on
Collaborative Computing, 2011, p. 8.
[16] A. Larsson, J. Johansson, L. Ekenberg, and M. Danielson, “Decision
Analysis with Multiple Objectives in a Framework for Evaluating
Imprecision”, International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness, and
Knowledge-Based Systems, vol.13, no.5, pp. 495–509, 2005.
[17] M. Danielson, L. Ekenberg, J. Johansson [Idefeldt], and A. Larsson,
“Investment Decision Analysis: a case study at SCA Transforest,” in
IKE’03: Proceedings of the international conference on information and
knowledge engineering: Vols. 1 and 2, 2003, pp. 79–85.
[18] M. Danielson, L. Ekenberg, Å. Grönlund, and A. Larsson, “Public
Decision Support - Using a DSSto Increase Democratic Transparency,”
International Journal of Public Information Systems, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 3–
25, 2005.
[19] L. Ekenberg, M. Boman, and M. Danielson, “A Tool for Coordinating
Autonomous Agents with Conflicting Goals”, Proceedings of the 1st
International Conference on Multi-Agent Systems ICMAS ’95, pp.89–
93, AAAI/MIT Press, 1995.
[20] A. Larsson, L. Ekenberg, and M. Danielson, “Decision Evaluation of
Response Strategies in Emergency Management Using Imprecise
Assessments,” Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency
Management, vol. 7, no. 1, 2010.
[21] O. Björkqvist, J. Idefeldt, and A. Larsson, “Risk assessment of new
pricing strategies in the district heating market,” Energy Policy, vol. 38,
no. 5, pp. 2171–2178, May 2010.
[22] G. Cars, Ed., Urban governance, institutional capacity and social
milieux. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2002.
@article{"International Journal of Information, Control and Computer Sciences:60603", author = "Karin Hansson and Göran Cars and Mats Danielson and Love Ekenberg and Aron Larsson", title = "Diversity and Public Decision Making", abstract = "Within the realm of e-government, the development has moved towards testing new means for democratic decisionmaking, like e-panels, electronic discussion forums, and polls. Although such new developments seem promising, they are not problem-free, and the outcomes are seldom used in the subsequent formal political procedures. Nevertheless, process models offer promising potential when it comes to structuring and supporting transparency of decision processes in order to facilitate the integration of the public into decision-making procedures in a reasonable and manageable way. Based on real-life cases of urban planning processes in Sweden, we present an outline for an integrated framework for public decision making to: a) provide tools for citizens to organize discussion and create opinions; b) enable governments, authorities, and institutions to better analyse these opinions; and c) enable governments to account for this information in planning and societal decision making by employing a process model for structured public decision making.
", keywords = "Negotiation games, Agenda setting, Multi-criteria decision analysis, Elicitation method.", volume = "6", number = "11", pages = "1440-6", }
