Citizen Participation and the Rise of Digital Media Platforms in Smart Governance and Smart Cities

(1)

DOI: 10.4018/IJEPR.2019010102

Citizen Participation and the Rise of Digital Media Platforms in Smart Governance and Smart Cities

Olga Gil, Facultad de Ciencias Políticas, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

María E. Cortés-Cediel, Facultad de Ciencias Políticas, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, Spain Iván Cantador, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

ABSTRACT

Manygovernmentsandfirmsdobelievethattechnologycansupplantgovernanceandhuman

responsibility.Thisbeliefposesthequestionofwhowillreallybenefitfromsmartcities.Thisarticle

exploresthisfundamentalquestionthroughthestudyofdigitalmediaplatforms.Theultimategoalis

tounderstandthelinkbetweene-governanceandsmartcityinitiativesinourcasesofstudybytesting

whethertheseprojectsareexplicitlyforcitizens.Thisarticleshowshowe-platformsrepresenttheuse

ofinformationandcommunicationtechnologieswiththeaimofencouragingcitizenparticipationin

decision-makingprocesses,improvinginformationandservicedelivery,reinforcingtransparency,

accountability,aswellascredibility.Thirteendigitalmediaplatformsaresurveyed,mostlyincities

acrosscountries.Thesee-platformsraiseimplementationchallengesforbothfirmsandpolicymakers,

andnewresearchopportunitiesforscientisttobuildupnewresearchandtoexperimentwiththeaim

tomakethebenefitsforcitizenswiderandtheparticipatorydimensionstronger.

KEywoRDS

Citizen Participation, E-Platforms, E-Participation, E-Governance, G2B, G2C, G2G, Smart Cities, Smart Government

INTRoDUCTIoN

Managingurbanareasisoneofthemostimportantdevelopmentchallengesofthe21^stcentury–54%

oftheworldpopulationislivingincities,aproportionthatisexpectedtoincreaseto66%by2050,

asstatedintheUNWorldUrbanizationProspect2014.

Themanagementofurbanareasincludesnewactionsoninfrastructures,energysustainability,

naturalenvironment,education,healthcare,andpublicsafety,tonameafew.However,challenges

includingraisingdemandforresources,organizationandmanagementcomplexity,makecitiesmain

sourcesofcongestion,pollutionandwaste,exacerbatingavarietyofsocio-economicproblems,such

aspoverty,unemployment,transport,andcriminality.

Boththeideasofasmartcityandsmartgovernmenthavebeenconceivedasapproachesto

addresssuchcomplexurbanproblems.Thesmartcityandsmartgovernmentapproachesmakeuse

(2)

ofInformationandCommunicationTechnologies(ICT)withtheaimofincreasingtheinteractivity,

quality,andefficiencyofurbanservices,reducingcostsandresourceconsumption,andimproving

theinteractionsbetweengovernment,citizensandbusinesses(Alawadhietal.,2012).Smartcityand

smartgovernment,however,arealsocommonlypresentedasiftechnologycouldsupplantgovernance

andhumanresponsibility.

Inthiswork,theauthorsreviewtheriseofdigitalmediaplatformsine-governance,analyzing

applicationcasesandexistinge-platformsforgovernment-to-citizen(G2C),citizens-to-government

(C2G),government-to-business(G2B),andgovernment-to-government(G2G)services.Theauthors

hypothesizethatcitizenstogovernmentwouldbealessdevelopedmodeofe-governanceindigital

mediaplatforms,whichislaterconfirmedforoursetofcases.Thirteendigitalmediaplatforms

forsmartgovernmentsandsmartcitiesarecompared,includingBetter ReikjavikinIceland,Fix My Street,Open Street MapandSmall Business Research InitiativeinUK,Línea VerdeinSpain,

Madame la Maire, J´ai un idéeinParis,Billiji,New Urban Mechanics,andYouth BostoninBoston

city,Sharing Car Seoul,Peta JakartainIndonesia,BlockpoolinginSingapore,andUshahidiin

Kenia.Foreachoftheabove-mentionede-servicecategories,theauthorsanalyzewhichplatforms

accommodatebetter.Thiswillallowtopursueanin-depthcomparisonofe-platformsthatwillbe

latersummarizedinTable1.Theresearchersalsofindoutliersamongthecasesanalyzed.Those

outliersincludedigitalplatformsmostlyfocusedonbusinesstogovernmentandbusinesstocitizens,

orhybridservices–includingboth.

Theworkproceedsasfollows.Inthenextsection,definitionsareprovided,startingwitha

briefexplanationofe-governance,describingitsmainstakeholdersandtheirinteractions,aswell

ase-platforms.Then,theauthorsintroduceconceptsofcitizenparticipation.Lateron,theriseof

digitalmediaplatformsinsmartcitiesandsmartgovernmentsanalyzingthescopeofthirteenexisting

e-platformsisaddressed.Thepresentedtypologyallowstheresearcherstogivestrongexamplesthat

Table 1. Findings and comparisons among e-platforms

(3)

platformsareexplicitlyforcitizens,andthus,todrawaclearerlinkbetweene-governanceandthe

smartcity.Theresearchersshowthetypologyisusefulforfurthercomparativeandappliedendeavours

forbothresearchersandpractitioners,towidenthescopeandthequalityoffutureworks.Together

withafinaldiscussion,acomparativetableshowinglevelsofparticipationintheplatformcovered

ispresented.Finally,theconclusionswrapupthearticlepinpointingthelinkbetweengovernance

andsmartcityinitiativesandhowthedifferentprojectsareactuallyforcitizens.

DEFINITIoNS

Thedefinitionofsmartcitydiffersamongdisciplines,andhasevolvedovertime.Chourabietal.

(2012)identifyeightcriticalfactorsofsmartcityinitiatives:1)managementandorganization,2)

technology,3)economy,4)builtinfrastructure,5)naturalenvironment,6)peopleandcommunities,

7)policycontext,and8)governance,which,withtheuseofICT,shouldbeaccountable,responsive,

andtransparent,allowingcollaboration,dataexchange,serviceintegration,andcommunication.

Amongthesefactors,(smart)governancecanbeconsideredasthecoreandmostimportant

challengeofsmartcitiesinitiatives(Chourabietal.,2012).Governancereferstoanewformof

governingwhereanetworkofpublicandprivateactorssharetheresponsibilityofdefiningpolicies,

andregulatingandprovidingpublicservices.Examplesoftheseactors–commonlyreferredtoas

stakeholders–aregovernmentagencies,citizens,markets,andorganizations.

Figure1depictsthegeneralfunctionsofsuchstakeholders,andtherelationshipsbetweenthem.

Thefigurealsoshowspossiblelinksbetweene-governanceandsmartcityinitiatives.

Inthelate1980s,theconceptofgovernancegainedmomentum.Thishappenedasaresponseto

thecitizens’demandfortransparencyandgoodmanagementinpublicadministration,whichfaced

acrisisoflegitimacy.Actorswithintheinstitutionsrealizedtheneedforopennessandconsidered

newformsofgoverningandmanagement.

Hence,in1992,inits“GovernanceandDevelopment”report,theWorldBankpioneeredthe

introductionofgovernanceinthefieldofeconomicdevelopment,byidentifyingseveraltarget

areas,namelythepublic-sectormanagement,accountability,legalframeworkfordevelopment,and

informationandtransparency.Thereportincludedexperiencesandbestpracticesineacharea,aiming

foramoretransparentandefficientwayofgoverning.

Figure 1. The three main governance stakeholders and their relationships

(4)

In2001,theEuropeanUnionpublishedawhitepaperaimedtobringcitizensclosertothe

Europeaninstitutions.Thisentailedencouragingstrategiestoconsolidategovernance,bymeansof

initiativesandgrants.

Inthiscontext,withtheconsolidationoftheWebandsocialmedia,thegoalofefficient

implementationsofgovernancemodelshasbroughttheadoptionofICT,originatingtheso-called

electronicgovernance(ore-governance)frameworks.

E-governancehasbeendefinedastheapplicationofICTintheinteractionsofgovernmentwith

citizensandbusinesses–e.g.,deliveryofservices,exchangeofinformation,communication,and

transactions–,andininternalgovernmentoperations,aimingtosimplifyandimprovedemocratic,

businessandgovernmentalaspectsofgovernance(Backus,2001).

Thenumberofe-governancesolutionshasincreasedremarkablyinrecentyears,providingthe

involvedstakeholderswithawidearrayofe-servicesbetweenthem.Thesesolutionscanbeclassified

asgovernment-to-citizens(G2C),government-to-businesses(G2B),andgovernment-to-government

(G2G)e-services,inadditiontoothercases,suchasC2G,B2G,andB2C.

E-governanceapproaches,however,havebeenincreasinglyexaminedandquestioned.Many

criticshaveclaimedthattechnologicalpossibilitiesratherthanuserneedshavedeterminedtoooften

thedesignofonlinepublicservices(Verdegen&Verleye,2009).Inreactiontothis,theneedfor

(more)user-centerede-governanceservicesbecamemoreprominent.Hence,progresshastobedone

onthedevelopmentofapproachesthatnotonlyallowformoreefficiente-services,butalsoincrease

theusers’satisfactionandengagement(Dawes,2008).

Forthepurposeofthiswork,digitalmediaplatformswillbedefinedfollowingO’Reilly(2010),

wherebygovernment“provides[throughICT)resources,setsrules,andmediatesdisputes,butallows

citizens,nonprofits,andtheprivatesectortodomostoftheheavylifting,”therebyempoweringthe

people,unleashingsocialinnovation,andreinvigorating(...)democracy.”

Themotivationofthisworkistounderstandtheconsequencesofdifferente-governance

approaches,lookingintocasesofplatformswithdirectorpotentiallinkwithsmartcityinitiatives.

Ourultimategoalistounderstandthelinkbetweene-governanceandsmartcityinitiativesinour

casesofstudy,andtestwhethertheseprojectsareexplicitlyforcitizens.Inordertounderstand

betterthearrayofe-servicesandtheire-governanceimplicationstheauthorspresentthirteendigital

platformsselectedindifferentcitiesandsmartgovernmentsacrossdifferentcountries.Thesedigital

mediaplatformshaveonedimensionincommon:theircapacityforpotentialoractualchangesin

publicpolicies.

Thechoiceofanalyzedapplicationcaseshasbeendependentuponthreebases:1)testing

e-governanceapproaches,2)choosingrelevantdigitalmediaplatformsthatwereallinplaceinearly

2016,and3)includingcasesthatcouldbeexampleofinnovationacrosscitiesandcountriesinorder

toreapthebenefitsofpossibleinnovationsworldwide.Assuch,theauthorsselectedthefollowing

thirteencasesofstudy,includingBetter ReikjavikinIceland,Fix My Street,Open Street Mapand

Small Business Research InitiativeinUK,Línea VerdeinSpain,Madame la Maire, J´ai un idéein

Paris,Billiji,New Urban Mechanics,andYouth BostoninBostoncity,Peta JakartainIndonesia,

BlockpoolinginSingapore,andUshahidiinKenia.

E-GoVERNANCE

Thepublicsectorandconsequentlythee-governancedomainarecomplex,andinvolveavariety

ofstakeholders.Inthiscontext,anindividualmaybelongtoseveralgroupsandplaymultiple

roles,e.g.,shecouldbeaserviceuser,acitizen,andanemployeeinabusiness.Rowley(2011),for

example,identifiestwelvee-governmentstakeholderroles.Thedifferentinterests,objectivesand

benefitsoftargetstakeholdersentaildominantcharacteristicsofe-governanceservices.Simplifying

theframeworktothreeprincipalstakeholders,namelygovernment,citizensandbusinesses,inthis

(5)

worktheauthorsfocusonfourmajor,commonlyacceptedcategoriesofe-governancethatreflect

therelationshipsexistingbetweentheabovestakeholders:

• Government-to-citizens (G2C):e-governanceaimstoprovidecitizenswithavarietyofonline

informationande-servicesinanefficientandcost-effectivemanner,andtostrengthenthe

relationshipbetweengovernmentandcitizensusingICT.G2Cservicesallowcitizenstoaccess

governmentdocuments(e.g.,legislationsandregulations),maketransactions(e.g.,paymentof

taxesandcityutilities),andperformbureaucratictasks(e.g.,changesofaddress,andapplication

forfacilitiesandgrants);

• Citizens to Government (C2G):e-governanceaimstoprovidethecitizenswithe-platformswith

thepurposeofsharingdistributedinformationorcollaboratinginpublicpolicyformulation.Ina

two-waycommunication,C2Gservicesallowcitizenstomessagedirectlytopublicadministrators,

sendremoteelectronicvotes,propose,discussandvotepublicinitiatives;

• Government-to-businesses (G2B):e-governanceaimstofacilitateinteractionbetweenthe

governmentandcorporatebodiesandorganizationsoftheprivatesectorwiththepurposeof

providingbusinessesinformationandadviceone-businessbestpractices.G2Bservicesallow

entrepreneurstoaccessonlineinformationaboutlegislationsandregulations,andrelevantforms

neededtocomplywithgovernmentalrequirementsfortheirbusiness(e.g.,corporatetaxfiling

andgovernmentprocurement).

Finally,government-to-government(G2G)e-governancefacilitatestheonlinenon-commercial

interactionbetweengovernmentorganizations,departmentsandauthoritieswiththepurposeof

reducingcosts,e.g.derivedfrompaperclutter,excessivecommunications,andunnecessarystaffing.

Othercategoriescouldalsobeconsidered,suchasbusiness-to-government(B2G)andbusiness- to-citizens(B2C).

Regardingtheabovecategoriesofe-governmentservices,theauthorsadvancethehypothesis

thatC2Gisalessdevelopmodeofe-governanceindigitalmediaplatformsforsmartcities.Inthe

nexttwosections,theresearchersshowhowthemaine-governancemodelsarerelatedtocitizen

participation.Theauthorsfirstoutlineintroductorydefinitionsaboutcitizenparticipation,andthen,

thirteenrealdigitalmediaplatformsareanalyzedinthelightofthefoure-governancemodels.

CITIZEN PARTICIPATIoN

Inrecentyears,sociologists,politicalscientistsandeconomistshaveobservedadeclineinlevels

ofpublicconfidenceinpublicinstitutions.Distrustanddisaffectionamongthecitizensareprone

inmanycountries.Openingtheadministrationtocitizensviadigitalmediaplatformshasbeen

suggestedandexperimentedasawaytoregainlegitimacy.Inscenariosofgrowingdisaffection,

citizenparticipationmightbeaninstrumentthroughwhichthepopulationhasagreatercapacity

tomonitorandperformfunctionsfromcontroltogovernment.Thus,citizenparticipationwould

betheprocedurethatallowsasocietytobeinvolvedindecision-makingwithinday-to-daypolicies

oractions.Twoofthemodelsofcitizenparticipationwithagreaterrelevanceintheliterature

onparticipationrefer1)tothecitizen’sinvolvement(Arnstein,1969),and2)ontheinteraction

betweenthecitizenandtheadministration(OECD,2001).

Citizenparticipationisoneofthemostcontendedissuesinpoliticalsciencetopics,andmost

studiedbythesocialsciences.Thereisalackofconsensusaboutwhattypeofparticipationis

appropriateorevenwhyparticipationshouldbeencouraged(Campos,2010).Inpractice,governments

caninvitecitizenstoparticipatebyincludingtheminurbandevelopmentpolicies,astheycando

theopposite,discouragingthemandavoidingtheirconcerns.Anotherremarkabledebateiswhocan

participate,andinwhichresources(publicorprivate)acitizenhastoparticipate.

(6)

Definingcitizenparticipationhasnotbeenaneasytaskwithinliterature(Roberts,2004).First,

itmayrefertodifferentactionsbydifferentpeople(Pateman,1970).Citizenparticipationcanalso

beunderstoodastheinterventionofcivilsocietyinthepublicsphere(Cunill,1991).Otherauthors

defineparticipationastheprocessinwhichcitizens’issues,needsandvaluesareincorporatedinto

governmentandcorporatedecision-making(Creighton,2005).Roberts(2004)pointsoutthatcitizen

participationistheprocessinwhichmembersofasociety,thatis,thosewhoarenotmembersofthe

government,sharepowerwithpublicmanagersinareassuchasdecisionmakingonactionsrelevantto

thecommunity.InthissameRoberts’vein,andfromtheurbanplanningschool,comeworkssuchas

Peng,andBugsetal.,showinghowInternetGISofferspotentialforpublicparticipationanddecision

makingprovidingthegeneralpublicwithdata,analysistools,andforatoexploreknowledge,express

opinionanddiscussissues(Peng,2001,Bugsetal.,2010).

Forthepurposeofthiswork,theauthorswilladoptRoberts’definition:citizenparticipationasthe

processinwhichmembersofasociety,thatis,thosewhoarenotmembersofthegovernment,share

powerwithpublicmanagersinareassuchasdecisionmakingonactionsrelevanttothecommunity.

Theresearcherschosesuchdefinitionbecause,beingspecific,allowstheresearcherstoincorporatein

theanalysisawidevarietyofcasesofdigitalmediaplatforms,whichistheresultoftheirinterestin

understandinghowgovernancechangesandevolves,notjusthowgovernmentchanges.Thisdefinition

ofparticipationwouldalsoincludecasesintheemergingfieldofself-organizationofmovementsand

activistgroups,caseshavinganimpactonurbanplanninganddevelopment,aswellasotherareas

ofpublicpolicy.However,theselectionofcaseshasnotbeendonefocusingjustintheseemerging

andpromisingtypesofcases(i.e.,tacticalactivism).Roberts’definitioniscoherentwithArnstein’s

qualificationofcitizeninvolvement,thatdistinguishesamongcitizencontrol,delegatedpower,

partnershiporcollaboration,placation,consultation,informing,therapyandmanipulation.Thus,

mergingbothapproachestheresearchshowsanelaboratedcomparison.Thiscomparisonispresented

beforetheconclusions,inTable1,asatentativeframeworkthatallowsforwidercomparisonswith

abiggersetofcasesthatcouldbecombinedwithmorerefinedin-depthcasestudies.

E-INFoRMATIoN, E-CoNSULTATIoN AND E-PARTICIPATIoN

Government-to-citizene-servicescanbecategorizedintermsofthedegreeorlevelofinteraction

betweenthegovernmentandthecitizens,distinguishingamonginformation,consultation,participation

andco-design(Coleman,2008;OECD,2011).

Atthee-informationlevel,governmentandcitywebsitesprovideinformationonpoliciesand

programs,lawsandregulations,budgets,andotherissuesofpublicinterest.Governmentsandcities

alsooffersoftwaretools–suchasemailsubscriptionlists,onlinenewsgroups,andwebforums–for

thedissemination,andtimelyaccessanduseofpublicinformationandservices.

Atthee-consultationlevel,governmentsofferonlineconsultation(a.k.a.e-voting)mechanisms

andtools,whichpresentcitizenswithchoicesaboutpublicpolicytopics,allowingforthedeliberation

inrealtime,aswellastheaccesstoarchivedaudiosandvideosofpublicmeetings.Withthese

mechanismsandtools,citizensareencouragedtocontributetogovernmentconsultation.Inthis

context,digitalmediaplatformsmayallowcitizenstobeinformedaboutdiscussionsandothers’

opinionsonconsultedissuesthatcouldaffecttheirlives.Increasingthevalueoftheinformationfor

thecitizencouldhelpcitygovernmentstoobtainmorecitizens’votes,andimproveitscitizen-centered

decision-andpolicy-making.

Atthee-participationlevel,localgovernmentsintendtoincorporatecitizensintodecision-making

processes,inmostcasesbymeansofparticipatorybudgeting.Forsuchpurpose,theyprovideonline

participationplatformswherecitizenscanpropose,discuss,givefeedback,andvoteforinitiatives

aimedtosolveorimproveawiderangeofsituationsandproblemsindifferentaspectsofacity.

(7)

DIGITAL MEDIA PLATFoRMS FoR CITIZEN PARTICIPATIoN AND GoVERNANCE

Followingthepresentedcategoriesofgovernancee-services,inthissection,theauthorsproposea

numberofparticularapplicationcasesofe-governance,andforeachofthem,theresearchersidentify

existingdigitalmediaplatforms,andthecitizenparticipationlevelitentails.Thepurposeofthe

workinthissectionistwofold;firstofall,totestwhethertheseprojectsareexplicitlyforcitizens,

andsecondly,veryrelated,towhatextentopendecision-makingprocesses–orplanningprocesses

whenthisisthecase–involvingparticipationofcitizensandcommunitygroupsensuremeaningful

effectsonthedecision-makingprocess,assuggestedbyPeng(2001).Thecasesanalysedwillallow

totestwhetherseriousapplicationsofWeb2.0continuetobesparse,asarguedbyRinner,Keßler

andAndrulis(2008),oronthecontrary,examplesstarttoaboundshowingthate-platformsare

illustrationsofsuchapplicationsonaglobalscale.

our Choice of Platforms was Pursued in Early 2016

• Better Reikjavik (Iceland):Thisisanonlineconsultationforumwherecitizensaregiven

thechancetopresenttheirideasonissuesregardingservicesandoperationsoftheCityof

Reykjavík.Anyonecanviewtheopenforumandregistereduserswhoapprovethetermsof

participationintheforum.Registeredusersparticipateintheconsultationforumbypresenting

theirideas,viewingotherusers’ideas,arguingissues,voicingtheiropinion,andratingideasand

argumentationssupportingoropposingthem.Eachmonth,thefivetopratedideasareprocessed

intheappropriatestandingcommittee.Inaddition,thetop-ratedideaineachcategoryisaddressed

intheappropriatestandingcommitteeeverymonth;thecategoriesaretourism,operations,

recreationandleisure,sports,humanrights,artandculture,education,transportation,planning,

administration,environment,welfare,various.Thecity,however,hasaspecificpurview,sonot

alltheideaspresentedarenecessarilyaddressed;

• Fix My Street (UK):Thisisaplatformthatallowsreportingproblemstothecitygovernment.

Theplatformfunctionsasfollows:first,byenteringanearbypostcode,orstreetnameandareain

theUnitedKingdom;secondly,bylocatingaproblemonamapofthearea;thirdly,byentering

detailsoftheproblem;andfinally,bysendingtheinformationtothecouncilonthebehalfof

thecitizenorresident.ThisisaB2Gplatform.ThereexistsaFixMyStreetProfessionalversion

thatisannouncedas“theone-stopstreetreportingserviceforcouncils”,anditallowsintegrating

theplatformwiththecouncilsystemforend-to-endreportfulfillment;

• Open Street Map (UK):Thisisaplatformthatallowscreatingandprovidingfreegeographic

data,suchasstreetmaps,toanyone.ThisprojectisbackedbytheOpenStreetMapFoundation,

aninternationalnot-for-profitorganization.Itsgoalistoencouragethegrowth,developmentand

distributionoffreegeospatialdataandtoprovidegeospatialdataforanyonetouseandshare.The

foundationorganizestheconferenceState-of-the-map,withannualeditionsfrom2007worldwide;

• SBRI - Small Business Research Initiative (UK):Thisisaplatformthatconnectspublic

sectorchallengeswithnewideasfromindustry.ThegoalofthisG2Bplatformistosupport

companies to generate economic growth, and to work together towards improvement in

achievinggovernmentobjectives.SBRIhasbeenorganizedcompetitionsofbusinessideas

from2009to2016infieldscoveringawiderangeoftopicsfromnewvaccinesforglobal

epidemicstochildcareandelderlyprovision;

• Línea Verde (Spain):Developedin2009,thisplatformallowscitizens,businessandresidents

toreportproblemsabouturbanequipmenttolocalgovernmentsinsomeSpanishcitiesviaa

mobileapplication.Thewebplatformalsoincludeslocalregulations,legislation,environmental

news,subsidiesanagenda,andmonthlycampaigns.Theplatform,createdasaB2Gproject,has

(8)

beenadoptedasanoutsourcedserviceincitiessuchasCalafell,CiudadReal,Huelva,Laredo

andSegovia;

• Madame la Maire, J´ai un idée (Paris):Inthisdigitalplatform,residentsofParisareinvited

toproposeideasandprojectsforthecity,accordingtothematictags.Theseideascanbefurther

discussed,enrichedandreshapedinacollaborativemannerbyallparticipants.Thefirstcampaign

hostedontheplatformwasaparticipatorybudget.ThisbudgetallowedallParisianstopropose

aproject,atthescaleofthedistrictortheentirecapital.Eachyear,Parisiansareinvitedtovote

ontheproposedprojects,withabudgetof480millioneurosovertheentiremayormandate(5%

oftheinvestmentbudget);

• Billiji (Seoul):ThiswasaKorea-basedweb/appplatformforpeer-to-peerlendingandsharing.

Itofferedasecureandconvenientplatformforuserstoshareorlendtheiritemstoothers.Billiji

washeadquarteredattheCollegeofBusinessAdministrationinKoreaAdvancedInstituteof

Science,inSeoul;

• New Urban Mechanics (Boston):TheMayor’sOfficeofNewUrbanMechanics(MONUM)

inBostonwasformedin2010.MONUMresearchanddesignprojectstackletopicsfromcivic

engagementtocityinfrastructuretoeducation.TheMONUMteamworksoncivicinnovation,and

ithasextendeditsdefinitionfromincreasinggovernmentefficiencytoimprovingtheexperience

andwell-beingofresidentsandvisitors.Themembersoftheteamexplore,experimentand

evaluatecivicinnovationprojectsacrossdepartmentsandthroughoutBostoncity.Onesuch

exampleistheEngagementLab,whichaimstofindnewwaystocreatedemocraticaction.The

MONUMteamseekstocreateanopencultureofcivicactionanddialog.Itsmembersfocus

ontryingnewprogramsthatengageandempowerthecommunity,makinggovernmentmore

transparentthroughdataandstorytelling,findingnewideasandtalentthroughlocalresearch

anddesigncommunities,usinganalogaswellasdigitaltoolstoengagewithpeople,andgetting

morepeopleinvolved,withafocusonqualityconversations;

• Youth Boston (Boston):Youth Lead the Changeisaplatformforparticipatorybudgeting

processwhereyoung12to25years-oldBostoniansdecidehowtospend$1,000,000of

theCity’sbudget.TheMayor’sYouthCouncilrunsthisprocessandsharesrule-making

authoritywithyouthorganizationsacrossthecity.Itworksinthreesteps:first,ideasare

collected;secondlyproposalsaredeveloped;andlastly,ideasarevoteduponinJuneevery

yearsince2014.VotinglocationsarelocatedatschoolsandtransportstationsacrossBoston.

StudentscanvoteonlineiftheyareenrolledatBostonPublicSchools.Fiveprojectshave

beencompletedsinceitsinception,andanotherthirteenareinprogress,assignedtoacity

departmentwithadedicatedprojectmanager;

• Sharing City Seoul (Korea):Thisplatformseekstomitigatesocialproblemsbypromotingshared

useofbothpublicandprivateresources,whileboostingcivicengagementandsupportinglocal

businesses.SeoullocalgovernmentstartedtheSharing City SeoulinitiativeonSeptember2012,

alongwithaplantoimplementsharingprojectscloselyrelatedtothelivesofcitizensandto

establishandbroadenthefoundationforsharing.SeoullocalgovernmentseestheSharing City Seoulinitiativeasasocialinnovationmeasuredesignedtocreateneweconomicopportunities,to

restorereliablerelationships,andtoreducewasteofresourceswithaviewtoresolvingeconomic,

social,andenvironmentalproblemsinurbanareas.Ithasdonesowiththeaidofasharehub

platform,onlineandoffline;

• Peta Jakarta (Indonesia):ThisisanopensourcefloodmapforthecityofJakarta,Indonesia,

which experiences severe flooding on an annual basis. It offers up-to-date information,

criticalforreliefandresponseeffortstobetargetedandeffective.PetaJakartacombines

informationabouttheextentandlocationsofdisasters,suchasfloods,whichiskeytoreduce

harmfulimpactsandmaximizingresilience.PetaJakartaenablestheJakartaEmergency

ManagementAgencytoseelocationsoffloodingacrosstheentirecityataglance,meaning

lesstimefordatacollectionandmoretimeforresponse.ThePetaJakarta.orgwebsitecombines

(9)

differentdata–fromsocialmediareportstorivergaugemeasurements–toprovidethebest

possible source of information for decision-making during flooding. Its map combines

citizenreporting,socialmedia,governmentfloodalertsandsensordatatoprovideflood

informationforresidentsandthegovernment;

• Blockpooling (Singapore):Thisisasocialnetworkforcommunities,whichwassetup

in2013withagrantfromthegovernmenttoenableneighborstosharebelongings,offer

and ask for services. The platform aims to strengthen communities in Singapore and

makingmoreefficientuseofresources.A‘lendandborrow’functionusespostcodesto

helppeopletofindothersintheirneighborhoodwhohaveitemstheyarewillingtoshare

orhaveathingtheyneedtoborrow.Thesamefunctionalityletspeopleconnectwith

othersintheirblock,seekoutadvice,invitethemtoevents(usersareencouragedtohost

eventsforneighbors),andinformthemaboutactivitiessuchasbuildingworkorparties

thatmightinconveniencethem;

• Ushahidi (Kenya):Thisplatformwasdevelopedtomapreportsofviolenceinthecountryafter

thepost-electionviolencein2008.Sincethen,theplatformstatesthatthousandshaveused

itscrowdsourcingtoolstoraisetheirvoice.Afurtherdevelopment,headquarteredinNairobi,

providedsoftwareandservicestogovernmentsectorsandcivilsocietytohelpimproving

thebottomupflowofinformation.Theyaimtoprovidepeoplewitheasycommunication

withorganizationsandgovernments,whichinturnmaymoreeffectivelyrespondtotheir

communities’needs.

Atthetimeofthisempiricalresearch,theseplatformswhereoutliersandveryadvancedintermsof

digitalsupportforparticipationincities.Moreover,otherdigitalmediaplatformshavebeendeveloped,

andmightbeincorporatedintoafurtherstudy.

Next,foreachoftheconsiderede-governancecategories–namelyG2C,C2G,G2BandG2G

e-services–,theauthorspresentanumberofapplicationcasesaddressedbydigitalplatformsforthe

correspondingstakeholders.Theresearchersalsocategorizetheanalyzeddigitalplatformsinsuch

applicationcases.

G2C and C2G Digital Platforms

Followingthedescriptionofthedigitalplatforms,inthissectiontheauthorsanalyzewhichparticular

platformsmayfallwithinthelabelofgovernment-to-citizensdigitalplatforms(G2C).Forthispurpose,

thefollowingapplicationcasesareidentified:

• Providing citizens with government notifications and services:Inthiscase,digitalplatformsmay

takecitizens’profilesintoaccounttoprovidepersonalizedservices.Besides,theymayconsider

theprovisionofcontext-awaree-services,whichmayhavepotentialinterestincertainsituations

where,amongotheraspects,periodsoftime(e.g.,aparticulartaxcollectioncampaign),locations

(e.g.,citizen’sneighborhood),andpersonalevents(e.g.,parties,pendingbirthofacitizen’s

child,hiringofneighbors)areused.Forthiscase,theauthorsidentifythreeplatformsamong

thosestudied:Linea VerdeinSpanishCities,whichhasanagendaandincludesinformationon

legislationandlocalnews,Youth Boston,awebportalforparticipatorybudgetingamongthe

youthinBostoncity,andPeta Jakarta,whichusessocialmediaforcivicco-managementduring

monsoonfloodinginJakarta,Indonesia.Thethreecasesareexplicitlyforcitizens;

• Keeping the government informed about the citizens’ problems, concerns and opinions:In

thiscase,e-consultationande-participationplatforms,aswellasexternalsocialmedia,such

asonlinesocialnetworksandmicrobloggingsystems,areused.Thesedigitalmediaplatforms

mightfunctionastoolsofanticipatorypolicy-making,allowingthegovernmenttoanticipateto

futureproblems(Guston,2014).Thefollowingdigitalmediaplatformsaresuitedwithinthiscase:

Better ReikjavikinIceland,New Urban Mechanics,Fix My StreetinUK,Línea VerdeinSpain,

(10)

Open Street MapinUK,Madame la Maire, J´ai un idéeinParis,Peta JakartainIndonesia,

andUshahidiinKenia.Besidesshowingthatcasesunderthislabelareexplicitlyforcitizens,

certainfeaturesoftheplatformsalsoinvolveparticipationofcitizensandcommunitygroups,

anditcouldbefurthertestinfutureworksifthoseplatformsensuremeaningfuleffectsonthe

decisionmakingprocess,followingPeng(2001);

• Assisting the citizens in finding relevant proposals, individuals and associations:Inan

e-participationplatform,thenumberofinitiativesanddiscussionsmaybeoverwhelming,and

thereisaneedtorankthosemorerelevantforaparticularcitizenbasedonherpreferences.This

canbedoneaccordingtopersonalinterestsexplicitlydeclaredthoughvotes,forums,orimplicitly

expressedbymeansofonlinecommentsandsociallinks.Thefollowingdigitalmediaplatforms

aresuitedwithinthiscase:Better ReikjavikinIceland,Youth BostoninBostoncity,Madame la Maire, J´ai un idéeinParis,Linea VerdeinseveralSpanishcities;

• Sharing distributed information or collaborating in public policy formulation:Thisisa

particularC2Gcase.Amongtheselectedplatforms,apossiblebestsampleofsuchclear-cut

formulationofdigitalmediaplatformisUshahidi,inKenia.Ushahidiwasdevelopedtomap

reportsofviolenceafterthepost-electionviolencein2008.Sincethen,thecrowdsourcingtools

enabledbytheplatformhaveservedtoraisecitizens’voice.Thisisanexampleofacitizenteam

thatdevelopedasbusinesssoftwareandservicesprovidertohelpimprovethebottomupflowof

information.RecentworkbyCantadoretal.(2017)aimstoobtainmoremeaningfulparticipatory

budgetinginformationfrome-platformsforbothcitizensandgovernments.Thisworkfocuses

onthedevelopmentofplatforms’capacitytobetteradapttocitizensandresidentsneedsthrough

personalizedrecommendations.

G2B Digital Platforms

Once government-to-citizens application cases have been presented, the researchers turn on

government-to-businessdigitalplatforms(G2B).Ingovernment-to-businesse-governance,the

researchersidentifythefollowingapplicationcasesthatarefurtherexplainedbelow:1)finding

businesspartnersingovernmentandcityservices,2)informingcompaniesand3)onlinesupportin

legalandadministrativeconsultancy:

• Finding business partners in government and city services:Herethegoalistheconnection

ofthegovernmentwiththeindustry.Thetargetcouldbeindustrypartnersfortherealization

ofinitiativesandactions,atmultipledimensions,e.g.,technological,commercial,financial,

social,andpolitical–orthecompanies–whichmayneedthecollaborationofotherpartnersfor

particulartasksoftheirbusinessesandprojects(orientedtothecitizensorthegovernment).The

followingdigitalmediaplatformswouldfallwithinthiscase:BillijiinKorea,Fix My Streetin

UK,Línea VerdeinSpain,BlockpoolinginSingapore,Sharing Car SeoulinKorea,andSmall Business Research InitiativeinUK;

• Informing the companies about events that involve or are related with their businesses and the government agencies:Suchaspubliccalls,initiativesandprojects,grantsandsubventions,

andexhibitions,fairs,seminarsandconferences.Heredigitalmediaplatformswouldsuggest

businessopportunitiesaccordingtoimplicitgovernmentandcitizens’needs,especiallyat

municipallevel.Nodigitalmediaplatformwasreportedtoaddresstheseservicesatthetime

theempiricalworkwascarriedout;

• Providing the companies with online support in legal and administrative consultancy:On

governmentlaws,regulationsandprocedures.Thiscouldbedoneinapersonalizedway,

accordingtotheirbusinessprofiles,andateitherlocal,regional,nationalorinternationallevel.

Nodigitalmediaplatformwasreportedtoaddresstheseservicesatthetimetheempirical

workwascarriedout.However,Línea VerdeinsomeSpanishcitiesoffersaserviceanswering

(11)

environmentalquestionsin24hoursandithasarelatedplatformallowingforlegaland

administrativeconsultancy.

G2G Digital Platforms

Government-to-governmente-servicesaimtosupportbettercoordinationandcooperationbetween

governmentagencies,departmentsandemployees.Acommonsituationisthateachgovernmental

organizationusuallyhasdevelopeditsowninformationsystemsinisolation.Effectiveandefficient

(electronic)communication,however,isneededtogetcommitmentandtosupportdecision-making,

whichiscomplicatedduetothelargenumberofinvolvedstakeholders,suchaspoliticians,information

managers,administrativedepartments,andICTteams.

In addition to (certain) lack of interoperability, governmental organizations are usually

characterizedbyrigidandcryptic,verticalhierarchies(Weber,1946),whichhasbeenshownto

generatecitizens’disaffection.InitiativessuchastheNewPublicManagement,OpenGovernment,and

SmartGovernmentaimtoprovidemoretransparencyandflexibility,andthusrestoretheconfidence

onthepublicsector.

ThefollowingapplicationcaseswouldfallwithinthescopeofimprovedG2G-services.Here,

nonetheless,theauthorsdidnothaveempiricalcasesamongthoseselected:

• Enhancing the government electronic interoperability:Heretheresearcherswouldinclude

effective digital media platforms that aggregate and transfer knowledge from/towards

differentagents;

• Improving the management of human resources in government:Heretheauthorswouldinclude

digitalmediaplatformsshowingpublicofficialswhocouldperformparticulartasksortakecertain

governmentpositions.Thiscouldbeachievedifgovernmentemployeeshaveanacademicand

professionalprofileassociated,aswellasinformationaboutworkavailabilityandrestrictions;

• Providing government employees with recommendations of professional events:Digitalmedia

platformscouldgeneratepersonalizedsuggestionsofavailablejobpositions,newpromotion

examinations,andseminarsandcoursesofferedbygovernmentagencies.Theemployees’

profilesmaybethesameasthosepresentedinthecaseofe-managementofhumanresources

ingovernment.

Theauthorsalsofoundoutliersamongthecasesanalyzed.Thoseoutliersincludedplatforms

mostlyfocusedonbusiness-to-government(B2G)andbusiness-to-citizens(B2C)services,orhybrid

services,includingboth.Thesecategorieshavetobeaddedafterthestudiestheresearchersanalyzed,

followingthefactthattherangeofcasescameoutwiderthanexpected.Componentsofthesetwo

categorieswerefoundinthefollowingdigitalplatforms:BillijiinKorea,Fix My StreetinUK,Línea VerdeinSpain,BlockpoolinginSingapore,Sharing Car SeoulinKorea,andUshahidiinKenia.

Theseplatformswhererelevantforthedegreeofinnovationcreatingnewmarkets,marketswith

moretransparency,andnovelwaystoaddresspolicymaking.

Table1summarizesthefindingsandthecomparisonamonge-platformsinthecontextof

thedefinitionsprovidedinthesectioncitizenparticipation,inparticular,regardingArnstein

ladderofparticipation.

Asageneraldiscussion,thecomparisonofthecasesallowsunderstandinganddefiningthelink

betweene-governanceandsmartcityinitiatives.Firstofall,astheauthorswantedtotestwhetherdata

showsthatplatformsareexplicitlyforcitizens,makingacontributiontothesocialsciencesonthe

currentdebateinthefieldsofeconomy,politicalscienceandsociologybyshowingthatparticipation

doesincreasesinqualitativeandquantitativewaysinthecasesstudied.Moreover,theworkalsoshows

evolutionine-platformsenhancingtheparticipationexperience,withdramaticimprovementsbeyond

theroleofinformationreceiver.Thisstronglycompareswiththefactthatmostplatformsprovided

(12)

onlyonewayinformationafewyearsago(ConroyandEvans-Cowley,2006).Therefore,theauthors

findanimportantleapforward,withtwo-wayfeed-backasstandardinthecasesstudied.Thedata

collectedonthecaseshaveshownthatinvolvingmorestakeholdersintheplanningprocessmight

resultinmorepolicyrecommendations.Itcouldalsobestudiedinfurtherworks,whetherinvolving

morestakeholdersresultsinmoreimplementation,assuggestedbyGoodspeed(2008).

Secondly,thecomparisonofthecasesalsoshowthatplatformsmightconnecthugeamountsof

informationinengagingandinteractiveways.Thirdly,theempiricalcasesalsomakecontributionsto

urbanplanningbyshowingthate-platformsareusefultoengagethepublicassocialtoolsinvolving

communitymembersincontext,contributinginafundamentalwaytodebatesstartedbyBugsetal.

(2010)andPeng(2001).Theempiricalcasesalsoshowhowtechnologyisusednotonlyassubstitute

fortraditionalapproachesbutalsoasawayfornewapproachestocitizenparticipation,addingnew

evidencetothedebatesuggestedbyCaseyandLi(2014).

Ontechnologicalgrounds,therearepromisingopportunitiesonpersonalizationofe-governance

services.Therearealsopromisingstreamsofjointresearchonhowcomputersystemscouldfacilitate

citizenengagement.Furthermore,westilllacksharedknowledgeondigitalmediaplatformsamong

technologists,policymakers,researchersandpractitioners,andtheresearchersexpectthishasbeen

amodestcontributiontothiskindofcollaborativeresearch.

CoNCLUSIoN

Inthisarticle,theultimategoalistounderstandthelinkbetweene-governanceandsmartcityinitiatives

inourcasesofstudy,andtestwhethertheseprojectsareexplicitlyforcitizens.Manygovernments

andfirms,asshownbyPaudyn(2014,2016),believethattechnologycansupplantgovernanceand

humanresponsibility.Thisworkshows,however,thatplatformsmightbeexplicitlyforcitizens.

Thisworkstartswiththedefinitions,abriefexplanationofe-governance,describingitsmain

stakeholdersandtheirinteractionsandconceptsofcitizenparticipation.Theauthorsalsohypothesize

thatcitizens-to-governmentserviceswouldbealessdevelopedmodeofe-governanceindigital

mediaplatforms,whichhasbeenconfirmedforoursetofcases.Lateron,theriseofdigitalmedia

platformsinsmartcitiesandsmartgovernmentsisanalyzedfromthepointofviewofthestakeholders

andtheirinteractions.Indoingsotheresearchersalsofindthattherewereoutliersamongthecases

analyzed.Theseoutliersincludeddigitalplatformsmostlyfocusedonbusiness-to-governmentand

business-to-citizens,orhybridservices–includingboth.

Theauthorshavereviewedtheriseofdigitalmediaplatformsine-governance,analyzing

applicationcasesforG2C,G2BandG2Gservices.Todoso,theauthorsexploredthirteendigital

mediaplatformsforsmartgovernmentsandsmartcities,includingBetter ReikjavikinIceland,Fix My Street,Open Street MapandSmall Business Research InitiativeinUK,Línea VerdeinSpain,

Madame la Maire, J´ai un idéeinParis,Billiji,New Urban Mechanics,andYouth BostoninBoston

city,Sharing Car Seoul,Peta JakartainIndonesia,BlockpoolinginSingapore,andUshahidiinKenya.

Foreache-servicecategory,theauthorsdepictwhatplatformsamongthoseselectedandstudied

accommodatebetter.Theresearchersdepicttypesofe-governanceandcitizenparticipationamong

theproposedcases.Theresearchersshowthistypologyandexamplesareusefulforfurtherwork

bybothresearchersandpractitioners.Thistypologydoeshelpustoshowvariationsincomplexity

anddimensionsofthethirteenplatforms.Furtherworksareneededinordertobetterunderstandthe

variationsincomplexity,dimensionandecologiesofevolvinge-platforms.Eventhoughonewayto

addressthiscomplexityhasbeentotakethedefinitionofe-platformsfromO’Reilly(2010),which

temporarilysolvestheproblem,theresearchersareawareofthechallengecomingfromcontinuous

innovation,inICT,policies,policytransferandfrompolicyimitation(Gil,2016).

Thelimitationsofthisanalysishavetodowiththerelativelysmallsetofdigitalplatforms

(thirteenintotal).However,ourstudyhasgeneratedenoughconclusionsaimedtoimprovethe

(13)

capacitytoanalyzedigitalmediaplatformsincomparativeperspective,fromboththeperspectives

ofe-governanceandcitizenparticipation.

Thereareremainingissuestoaddress,andamongthecurrentlimitationsofe-governanceservices,

andparticipationthroughe-platformstheauthorsfindmoreworkisneededonfeedbackinG2C

andC2G,activelistening,thelevelofparticipationthe–inmanycases-outweighedparticipation

ofthemosteducated,theneedtoincorporatetechnologytoprocesses,andthecurrentlimitedthe

possibilitiesofferedtoaddintelligencetodigitalmediaplatforms.

Asfurtherwork,onparticipatorygrounds,moreworkisneededtounderstandwhatdrives

largenumberofpeopletoparticipateine-platforms,andwheredoestheirmotivationforincreased

participationlie,followingtheworkbyNeis,ZielstraandZipf(2012).Finally,moreevidenceisneeded

ontheresultsofparticipationondigitalmediaplatformsacrossabiggersetofcasesassolutionsto

challengesoftherealworld.

ACKNowLEDGMENT

Thecommentsofthreeanonymousreviewershavebeenextremelyusefultoarrivetothisstageinthe

workpublished.Theauthorsareindebtedtothemfortheirtime,theirwork,ideasandcorrections.This

workhasbeensupportedbyGrantCITADELH2020Empowering Citizens to Transform European PubLic Administrations.H2020FrameworkProgram(underGA726755,runningfrom1/9/2016to

1/9/2020)directedbyDanielDiaz-Fuentes,UniversityofCantabria--ThisisapanEuropeanproject

withtheinnovationBasquefirmTECNALIAasgeneralcoordinator.Thisworkhashasalsobeen

supportedbytheSpanishMinistryofEconomy,IndustryandCompetitiveness(TIN2016-80630-P).

(14)

REFERENCES

Alawadhi,S.,Aldama-Nalda,A.,Chourabi,H.,Gil-García,J.R.,Leung,S.,Mellouli,S.,...Walker,S.2012.

Buildingunderstandingofsmartcityinitiatives.InProceedingsofthe2012InternationalConferenceonElectronic

Government(pp.40–53).

Asiaone.(n.d.).Blockpooling,Retrievedfromhttp://www.asiaone.com/singapore/facebook-neighbors Backus,M.(2001).E-Governance and Developing Countries: Introduction and Examples (Technical report).

TheHague,TheNetherlands:TheInternationalInstituteforCommunicationandDevelopment.

BetterReikjavik.(n.d.).Retrievedfromhttps://betrireykjavik.is Billiji.(n.d.).Retrievedfromhttp://billiji.com

Bugs,G.,Granell,C.,Fonts,O.,Huerta,J.,&Painho,M.(2009).AnAssessmentofPublicParticipationGISand

Web2.0TechnologiesinUrbanPlanningPracticeinCanela,Brazil.Cities (London, England),27(3),172–181.

doi:10.1016/j.cities.2009.11.008

Campos,E.(2010).Participaciónciudadanaenelámbitomunicipal.Reflexiones teórico-empíricas y prácticas participativas.

Cantador, I., Bellogín, A., Cortés-Cediel, M. E., & Gil, O. (2017). Personalized recommendations in

e-participation:Offlineexperimentsforthe‘DecideMadrid’platform.InProceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Recommender Systems for Citizens.doi:10.1145/3127325.3127330

Casey,C.,&Li,J.(2014).Web2.0TechnologiesandAuthenticParticipation:EngagingCitizensinDecision

MakingProcesses.CyberBehavior:Concepts.InMethodologies,ToolsandApplications(pp.767–793).

Hershey,PA:IGIGlobal.

Chourabi,H.,Nam,T.,Walker,S.,Gil-García,J.R.,Mellouli,S.,Nahon,K.,&Scholl,H.J.et al.(2012).

Understandingsmartcities:Anintegrativeframework.InProceedings of the 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences(pp.2289–2297).IEEE.

Coleman,S.(2008).DoingITforthemselves:Managementversusautonomyinyouthe-citizenship.InW.Lance

Bennett(Ed.),Civiclifeonline:Learninghowdigitalmediacanengageyouth(pp.189-206).Cambridge,MA:

TheMITPress.

Conroy,M.M.,&Evans-Cowley,J.(2006).E-participationinPlanning:AnAnalysisofCitiesAdoptingon-line

citizenParticipationTools.Government and Policy,24(3),371–384.doi:10.1068/c1k

Creighton,J.L.(2005).The public participation handbook: Making Better Decisions through Citizen Involvement.

JohnWiley&Sons.

Cunill,N.(1991).Participación ciudadana.Caracas:CLAD.

Dawes,S.S.(2008).Theevolutionandcontinuingchallengesofe‐governance.Public Administration Review,

68(s1),S86–S102.doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00981.x

EuropeanUnion.(2001).EuropeanGovernance-AWhitePaper.Retrievedfromhttp://europa.eu/rapid/press- release_DOC-01-10_en.htm

FixMyStreet.(n.d.).Retrievedfromhttps://www.fixmystreet.com

Gil,O.(2016).AnálisisdePolíticasPúblicasenPerspectivaComparada.InE.A.delaPolíticaMikelBarreda

&L.Ruiz(Eds.),Huygens(pp.463–480).Barcelona.

Goodspeed,R.C.(2008).CitizenParticipationandtheInternetinUrbanPlanning.Unpublishedmaster’sthesis

fortheDegreeofMasterofCommunityPlanning,UniversityofMaryland,CollegePark.

Guston,D.H.(2014).Understanding‘anticipatorygovernance.’Social Studies of Science,44(2),218–242.

doi:10.1177/0306312713508669PMID:24941612

LíneaVerde.(n.d.).Retrievedfromhttp://www.Lineaverdemunicipal.com

(15)

Neis,P.,Zielstra,D.,&Zipf,A.(2012).TheStreetNetworkEvolutionofCrowdsourcedMaps:OpenStreetMap

inGermany2007–2011.Future Internet.,4(1),1–21.doi:10.3390/fi4010001

NewUrbanMechanics.(n.d.).Retrievedfromhttps://www.boston.gov/departments/new-urban-mechanics O’Reilly,T.(2010).GovernmentasaPlatform.InD.Lathrop&L.Ruma(Eds.),Open government: Collaboration, transparency, and participation in practice.O’ReillyMedia.

OpenStreetMap.https://www.openstreetmap.org/about

OrganisationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment(OECD).(2001).Citizens as partners: Information, consultation and public participation in policy-making.OECDPublishing.

ParisMadamelaMaire.(n.d.).J’aiunidée.Retrievedfromhttps://idee.paris.fr

Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/

CBO9780511720444

Paudyn,B.(2014).Credit Ratings and Sovereign Debt: The Political Economy of Creditworthiness through Risk and Uncertainty.Springer.doi:10.1057/9781137302779

Paudyn,B.(2017).FinancialEngineeringthroughriskuncertainty:Theperformativepoliticaleconomyofcredit

worthinessanditsself-generativeeffectsforcreditratingagencies.International Political Sociology.

Peerby.(n.d.).Retrievedfromhttps://www.peerby.com

Peng,Z.-R.(2001).InternetGISforpublicparticipation.Environment and Planning. B, Planning & Design,

28(6),889–905.doi:10.1068/b2750t

PetaJakarta.(n.d.).Retrievedfromhttps://petajakarta.org

Rinner,C.,Keßler,C.,&Andrulis,S.(2008).TheuseofWeb2.0conceptstosupportdeliberationin

spatial decision-making. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 32(5), 386–395. doi:10.1016/j.

compenvurbsys.2008.08.004

Roberts,N.(2004).Publicdeliberationinanageofdirectcitizenparticipation.American Review of Public Administration,34(4),315–353.doi:10.1177/0275074004269288

Rowley,J.(2011).e-Governmentstakeholders-Whoaretheyandwhatdotheywant?International Journal of Information Management,31(1),53–62.doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2010.05.005

SharingCitySeoul.(n.d.).Retrievedfromhttp://english.sharehub.kr/what-is-a-sharing-city-seoul SmallBusinessResearchInitiativeinUK.(n.d.).Retrievedfromhttps://sbri.innovateuk.org Ushahidi.(n.d.).Retrievedfromhttps://www.ushahidi.com/about

Verdegem,P.,&Verleye,G.(2009).User-centerede-Governmentinpractice:Acomprehensivemodelfor

measuringusersatisfaction.Government Information Quarterly,26(3),487–497.doi:10.1016/j.giq.2009.03.005 Weber,M.(1946).Bureaucracy.InFromMaxWeber:Essaysinsociology(pp.232–235).

WorldBank.1992.GovernanceandDevelopment.Washington,DC,April1992.http://documents.worldbank.

org/curated/en/604951468739447676/Governance-and-development

WorldUrbanizationProspectUN.(2014).Retrievedfromhttps://esa.un.org/unpd/wup YouthBoston.(n.d.).Retrievedfromhttp://youth.boston.gov/youth-lead-the-change

(16)

Olga Gil is Full professor (accredited) whose interests cover public policy, local government, technology, regulation, and digital transformation in cities. Dr. Gil is currently a member of the EU project CITADEL (2016-2020):

Empowering Citizens to Transform European Public Administrations, under the H2020 Framework Programme.

Call H2020-SC6-CULT-COOP-2017-2017. Proposal 726755. Gil is member of the The Smart Cities and Smart Governments Research-Practice Consortium based at the Center for Technology in Government, University at Albany. Doctor Gil has recently published a book on smart cities in comparative perspective in Spanish: ¿Quién Gobierna las Ciudades?, comparing Shanghai, Iskandar, cities in Japan, New York, Amsterdam, Málaga, Santander and Tarragona. In 2017 Gil published chapters in two books with world specialists in Palgrave and Elsevier, on cities coordination mechanisms, and Chinese smart city plans, and the most recent, on Coordination Mechanisms and Network Performance has been published in the Journal Croatian and Comparative Public Administration.

At the moment she is working on E-Governance in Smart Cities: New Opportunities for Recommender Systems, together with Iván Cantador (Escuela Politécnica, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid) and Elicia Cortés (Facultad de Ciencias Políticas, Universidad Complutense de Madrid).

María E. Cortés-Cediel has received her Bachelors in Law and Political Science and Public Administration from Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid,Spain. She received the MSc in Government and Public Administration from Universidad Complutense de Madrid in 2017.

Iván Cantador received a PhD degree in Computer Science in 2008 at Universidad Autónoma de Madrid (UAM), Spain. During his doctoral studies, he was a research consultant at the Knowledge Media Institute at the Open University (UK), and a research visitor at University of Southampton (UK). After earning his PhD, he worked for one year as a research associate at University of Glasgow (UK), and as a postdoctoral research visitor at the Free University of Bozen-Bolzano (Italy). Currently, he is a senior lecturer at UAM. In the last 5 years, he has supervised 3 PhD and 5 MSc theses. He has participated in 2 EU/FP6 IP projects, and in 12 Spanish projects, being the principal investigator of 3 of them. Dr. Cantador has co-authored over 70 publications in journals and conferences on Recommender Systems, Information Retrieval, and Semantic Web. He serves regularly as reviewer and scientific committee member in venues of the aforementioned fields, including prestigious conferences such as RecSys, SIGIR, WWW, CIKM, Hypertext, UMAP, ISWC, ESWC, AAAI and IJCAI. He has also been member of international conference and workshop organizing committees, and has been part of the editorial board of a