Effect of the Citys Intervention on Online Public Engagement - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Effect of the City’s Intervention

• n Online Public Engagement

Politics of Co-Creation: 17.1.2020 at 13:15, Metsätalo (Unioninkatu 40) Sali 29

Bokyong (Bo) Shin

Contents

• Background
• Research questions and theoretical framework
• Case Study: Omastadi
• Data Collection and analysis
• Results
• Discussions

Cooperation

Engaging with others in a mutually beneficial activity

(Bowles and Gintis 2013, 2) Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions

Governance

Decision-making processes by which a network of political actors manages collective affairs through deliberation and negotiation (Torfing 2005)

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions

Communicative planning Theory

• Stakeholders
• New institutional arrangements
• Deliberation and argumentation
• The changing role of planners towards a facilitator and mediator
• The quality of democracy in terms of
• Input (who participates with what agenda)
• Process (how stakeholders interact and build consensus)
• Outcomes (institutional capacity: intellectual, social, political capital)

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions

PhD Thesis: how stakeholders cooperate in communicative planning

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions To Topic Ma Main Qu Question Ty Type Me Method 1 Social Capital How social capital is measured Literature review Systematic literature review 2 How social capital is developed Case study Exponential Random Graph Model 3 Deliberation How actors engage in online deliberation Stochastic Actor-oriented Model 4 What is the content of deliberation Content analysis: Topic Modeling

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions

Participatory budgeting (Wampler 2007): a decision-making process through which citizens deliberate and negotiate

• ver the distribution of public resources.

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions

Research gap (Jonsson and Åström 2014)

• Previous studies focused on new technology and analyzed the

quality of deliberation and opinion change based on surveys, experiments, and interviews

• > Institution, empirical data of online engagement

Ertiö et al. (2019) identified 1) Direct democratic participation of citizens 2) A mix of online and offline participation (digital technology) 3) Changing role of public sector

• > Public intervention is still crucial regardless of technology

Communicative Planning Theory

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions

Research questions

• What was the role of the City in PB?
• What kinds of interventions did they use?
• Were interventions effective in promoting public engagement?

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions

• Participatory budgeting
• Residents can draw up

proposals and vote on how the City spends €4.4 million annually.

• 8 areas
• Offline + Online

deliberation

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions

Omastadi used Decidim digital platform Decidim: from the Catalan for "let’s decide", is a digital infrastructure for participatory democracy, built entirely and collaboratively as free software.

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions

Vote

Plans Proposals Ideas

Deliberation: a process whereby group of people, often ordinary citizens, engage in reasoned opinion expression on a social or political issue in an attempt to identify solutions to a common problem and to evaluate those solutions (Stromer-Galley 2007, 3)

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions

Proposals impossible possible plans vote

The role of city government for promoting online engagement

1.No initiating, no decision-making 2.Facilitator (ads and offline meeting) 3.Moderator

• Liaisons
• Evaluation of proposals
• Making plans

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions

Da Data Co Collection Method: Customized web crawler (script written in Python) Period: 18 to 30 Nov. 2019 Note: No private information was collected (just unique IDs)

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions

“Jo muutamia…”

OmaStadi p… HEL-PROP…

Operationalization of engagement “Individual i makes a comment on proposal j at time t”

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions

“Jo muutamia…”

OmaStadi p… HEL-PROP… A network of online engagement at time t

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions Ar Area # P # Proposals # # Ma Mahdollinen Pe Percent (%) # V # Voted ed Pe Percent (%) Central 167 113 67.7 2 1.2 East 177 106 59.9 15 8.5 Entire 263 186 70.7 23 8.8 Northeast 151 108 71.5 14 9.3 North 78 49 62.8 3 3.9 Southeast 115 81 70.4 8 7 South 155 82 52.9 9 5.8 West 167 113 67.7 9 5.4 Total 1273 838 65.8 83 6.5 Descriptive statistics of proposals and plans

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions Ar Area # P # Proposals # # Ma Mahdollinen # p # plan Central 167 113 32 East 177 106 36 Entire 263 186 66 Northeast 151 108 33 North 78 49 17 Southeast 115 81 34 South 155 82 42 West 167 113 38 Total 1273 838 298

On average, 2.8 proposals were combined

Descriptive statistics of proposals and plans

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions Ar Area # p # proposals + + p plans ns # C # Comment ents # C # Comment ents p per er pr propo posals a and pl d plans # uni # unique ID ue ID Central 199 345 1.7 224 East 213 273 1.3 135 Entire 329 530 1.6 215 Northeast 184 362 2 208 North 95 144 1.5 99 Southeast 149 348 2.3 190 South 197 614 3.1 233 West 205 501 2.4 246 Total 1571 3117 2 1550 Descriptive statistics of comments

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions Number of comments by date

Proposal (-09.12.18) Evaluation (-31.1.19) Plan (-06.4.19) Cost estimate (-15.6.19) No official activity (-30.9.19) Vote (-30.10.19)

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions Number of comments by date (types)

Proposal (-09.12.18) Evaluation (-31.1.19) Plan (-06.4.19) Cost estimate (-15.6.19) No official activity (-30.9.19) Vote (-30.10.19)

Proposal (Possible) Proposal (Impossible) Plan People still commented on Proposals (ei mahdollinen and mahdollinen)

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions Most active actors were mostly liaisons.

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions

11.02 – 28.02 (17 days) 01.03 – 18.03 (17 days) 19.03 – 06.04 (17 days)

Grey circle: users Red square: Proposals (ei mahdollinen) Blue square: Proposals (mahdollinen) Yellow square: Plans

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions

Stochastic Actor-oriented model : Model for the co-evolution of network ties and behaviors

actor-oriented: network changes are consequence of decisions made by actors who are interdependent but capable of individual action / actors can decide 1) to comment on specific proposals (network), and 2) how often (behavior)

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions

I am still experimenting models. Please do not circulate these results.

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions Ty Type Ef Effect cts Hy Hypo potheses Pa Parame meters Constant Density Overall tendency to engage in proposals Outdegree (density) Exogenous Facilitation Citizens will make comments more frequently Facilitation Focus Citizens will make comments on plans rather than proposals that got “ei mahdollinen” Focus Endogenous Preferential attachment Tendency for popular proposals to attract more citizens Proposal popularity Activity Tendency for active citizens to engage more proposals Citizen activity (net) Tendency for active citizens to engage proposals more frequently Citizen activity (beh) 4-cycles Tendency for pairs of citizens to engage the same proposals 4-cycles

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions Pa Parame meters Con Configuration

• n (t

(t1) Con Configuration

• n (t

(t2) De Definition Outdegree (density) !

"

𝑦$" Facilitation !

"

𝑦$"𝑤$ Focus !

"

𝑦$"𝑤" Proposal popularity !

"

𝑦$" !

&

𝑦&" Citizen activity (net) !

"

𝑦$" !

"

𝑦$" Citizen activity (beh) !

"

𝑦$"𝑤$ 4-cycles !

$',$),"',")

𝑦$'"'𝑦$'")𝑦$)"'𝑦$)") Conaldi et al. (2012)

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions Outdegree (Density): The negative sign is typical because social network is often sparse. It refers to the overall propensity of citizens to make comments. Making comments are rare event.

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions Main effect 1 (facilitation):

• 2.43 shows that citizens made

comments less frequently over time.

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions Main effect 2 (Focus): 2.49 indicates that plans attracted more citizens rather than proposals got “ei mahdollinen”

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions controlled effects (4-cycles): 1.19 indicates a tendency towards a local clustering

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions controlled effects (popularity and activity): Positive popularity effect indicates already popular proposals attract more citizens. Positive activity effects indicate already active citizens become more active in making comments.

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions

Research questions

• What was the role of the City in PB?
• What kinds of interventions did they use?
• Were they effective in promoting public engagement?

Findings

• The role of the City
• No role of initiation and final decision
• Facilitator (promotions, offline meetings)
• Moderator (evaluation of proposals, plans)

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions

Findings

• The effect on online engagement
• Operationalization of engagement: a person makes a comment
• n a proposal at time t
• SAOM model
• Facilitator -> Negative. People made less comments over time
• Moderator -> Positive. People concentrated on engaging plans

Background Theoretical Framework Case: Omastadi Data Collection, analysis Results Discussions

Conclusion This study found that the role of city government was changed but still crucial and public interventions are

• nly effective when they are properly designed.

It calls for attention on more systematic and institutional research (Ertiö et al. 2019)