nach oben

Electronic Commerce Research

Erschienen in:

01.09.2015

“Crowdsourcing” as a tool for e-participation: two experiences regarding CO₂ emissions at municipal level

verfasst von: Sonia Royo, Ana Yetano

Erschienen in: Electronic Commerce Research | Ausgabe 3/2015

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Public administrations need to find innovative approaches to solving changing problems and to fulfilling their duties. Crowdsourcing in local governments could be defined as the use of new technologies in order to take advantage of citizen knowledge to find solutions to municipal problems. This paper analyzes two experiences of crowdsourcing at local level, and the opinions of the citizens and managers involved, to provide an initial assessment of its effectiveness and suggest avenues for improvement. Engaging citizens in e-participation initiatives is a challenge but, for public sector crowdsourcing initiatives, intrinsic motivation and intangible rewards seem to be enough to motivate participants. Results show that managers find citizens’ propositions viable, but publishing the final results and indicating how the ideas selected will be further developed are pending tasks. Caution is needed as failure to deliver the benefits deemed essential by citizens can make them even more reluctant to engage.

Vorheriger Artikel Shaping public sector innovation theory: an interpretative framework for ICT-enabled governance innovation

Nächster Artikel Factors influencing e-government use in non-urban areas

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Essential to intrinsic rewards is the notion of self-efficacy, which refers to the sense acquired by an individual that he/she can carry out actions which entail some expected results. Political self-efficacy includes the feeling that individual political action has, or can have, an impact upon the political process, the feeling that political and social change is possible and that the individual citizen can play a part in bringing about this change [see 52].

http://peertopatent.org/.

The topic was selected because of the importance of individual action in environmental protection and climate change [4, 7, 24, 53, 54, 74]. In fact, citizen participation is an integral aspect of how some define sustainability [54, 55].

Source: Spanish National Institute of Statistics (http://www.ine.es).

The survey was conducted by “Chi-Cuadrado S. L.” (http://www.chi-cuadrado.com). A Computer Aided Telephone Interviewing (CATI) system was used. The margin error was ±3.46 for each city and ±2.45 for the total sample of the two cities. More information about the quota distribution of the sample can be obtained from the authors.

The initiatives that citizens considered as most important among those promoted by the local government are not reported because, although these preferences were important for the managers, they are outside the scope of this paper.

The local government of Zaragoza has recently launched an open government platform that allows citizens to comment on several proposals made by the local government and to create new proposals themselves to be considered by the local government. The proposals can be commented and voted on by other participants. See http://www.zaragoza.es/ciudadania/gobierno-abierto/participar/listadoPropuestas_Participacion.

Afuah, A., & Tucci, C. L. (2012). Crowdsourcing as a solution to distant search. Academy of Management Review, 37(3), 355–375. doi:10.5465/amr.2010.0146.CrossRef

AGIMO. (2009). Engage Getting on with Government 2.0. Report of the Government 2.0 Taskforce. Australian Government Information Management Office. Retrieved September 15, 2010, from http://www.finance.gov.au.

Alford, J. (2002). Why do public-sector clients coproduce? Toward a contingency theory. Administration & Society, 34(1), 32–56.CrossRef

Alió, M. À., & Gallego, A. (2002). Civic entities in environmental local planning. A contribution from a participative research in the metropolitan area of Barcelona. GeoJournal, 56(2), 123–134. doi:10.1023/A:1022487924585.CrossRef

Allahbakhsh, M., Benatallah, B., Ignjatovic, A., Motahari-Nezhad, H. R., Bertino, E., & Dustdar, S. (2013). Quality control in crowdsourcing systems: Issues and directions. IEEE Internet Computing, 17(2), 76–81. doi:10.1109/MIC.2013.20.CrossRef

Andersen, K. V., Henriksen, H. Z., Secher, C., & Medaglia, R. (2007). Costs of e-participation: the management challenges. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 1(1), 29–43.CrossRef

Astleithner, F., & Hamedinger, A. (2003). Urban sustainability as a new form of governance: Obstacles and potentials in the case of Vienna. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Sciences, 16(1), 51–75. doi:10.1080/1351161032000083772.

Baker, M., Hincks, S., & Sherriff, G. (2010). Getting involved in plan making: Participation and stakeholder involvement in local and regional spatial strategies in England. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 28(4), 574–594.CrossRef

Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Grimes, J. M. (2010). Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: E-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly, 27(3), 264–271. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2010.03.001.CrossRef

10.

Bertot, J. C., Jaeger, P. T., & Hansen, D. (2012). The impact of polices on government social media usage: Issues, challenges, and recommendations. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), 30–40. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2011.04.004.CrossRef

11.

Bingham, L. B., Nabatchi, T., & O’Leary, R. (2005). The new governance: Practices and processes for stakeholder and citizen participation in the work of government. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 547–558.CrossRef

12.

Bonsón, E., Torres, L., Royo, S., & Flores, F. (2012). Local e-government 2.0: Social media and corporate transparency in municipalities. Government Information Quarterly, 29(2), 123–132.CrossRef

13.

Brabham, D. C. (2008). Crowdsourcing as a model for problem solving: An introduction and cases. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 14(1), 75–90. doi:10.1177/1354856507084420.

14.

Brabham, D. C. (2009). Crowdsourcing the public participation process for planning projects. Planning Theory, 8(3), 242–262. doi:10.1177/1473095209104824.CrossRef

15.

Brabham, D. C. (2010). Moving the crowd at threadless. Information, Communication & Society, 13(8), 1122–1145. doi:10.1080/13691181003624090.CrossRef

16.

Brainard, L. A., & McNutt, J. G. (2010). Virtual government-citizen relations: Informational, transactional, or collaborative? Administration & Society, 42(7), 836–858. doi:10.1177/0095399710386308.CrossRef

17.

Collm, A., & Schedler, K. (2012). Managing crowd innovation in public administration. International Public Management Review, 13(2), 1–18.

18.

Coursey, D., & Norris, D. F. (2008). Models of e-government: Are they correct? An empirical assessment. Public Administration Review, 68(3), 523–536. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.00888.x.CrossRef

19.

Churchman, C. W. (1967). Guest editorial: Wicked problems. Management Science, 14(4), B141–B142.CrossRef

20.

Davis, A. (2012). Crowdsourcing and democracy. Retrieved February 25, 2013, from http://blogs.computerworld.com/20101/crowdsourcing_and_democracy.

21.

Desouza, K. C. (2012). Challenge.gov. Using competitions and awards to spur innovation. IBM Center for the Business of Government. Retrieved October 17, 2012, from http://www.businessofgovernment.org.

22.

Estellés-Arolas, E., & González-Ladrón-de-Guevara, F. (2012). Towards an integrated crowdsourcing definition. Journal of Information Science, 38(2), 189–200. doi:10.1177/0165551512437638.CrossRef

23.

Feeney, M. K., & Welch, E. W. (2012). Electronic participation technologies and perceived outcomes for local government managers. Public Management Review, 14(6), 815–833. doi:10.1080/14719037.2011.642628.CrossRef

24.

Few, R., Brown, K., & Tompkins, E. L. (2007). Public participation and climate change adaptation: Avoiding the illusion of inclusion. Climate Policy, 7(1), 46–59.CrossRef

25.

Fienen, M. N., & Lowry, C. S. (2012). Social.Water—A crowdsourcing tool for environmental data acquisition. Computers & Geosciences, 49, 164–169. doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2012.06.015.CrossRef

26.

Font, J., & Navarro, C. (2013). Personal experience and the evaluation of participatory instruments in Spanish cities. Public Administration, 91(3), 616–631. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.2012.02106.x.

27.

Halvorsen, K. E. (2003). Assessing the effects of public participation. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 535–543. doi:10.1111/1540-6210.00317.CrossRef

28.

Hartley, N., & Wood, C. (2005). Public participation in environmental impact assessment—Implementing the Aarhus Convention. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 25, 319–340.CrossRef

29.

Heeks, R. (2006). Implementing and managing eGovernment. An international context. London: Sage Publications.

30.

Hilgers, D., & Ihl, C. (2010). Citizensourcing: Applying the concept of open innovation to the public sector. The International Journal of Public Participation, 4(1), 67–88.

31.

Howe, J. (2006, June). The rise of crowdsourcing. Wired. Retrieved February 15, 2013, from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.06/crowds.html.

32.

Hui, G., & Hayllar, M. R. (2010). Creating public value in e-government: A public-private-citizen collaboration framework in Web 2.0. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 69, S120–S131. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8500.2009.00662.x.CrossRef

33.

Joseph, R. C. (2012). E-government meets social media: Realities and risks. IT Professional, 14(6), 9–15.CrossRef

34.

Kakabadse, A., Kakabadse, N. K., & Kouzmin, A. (2003). Reinventing the democratic governance project through information technology? Public Administration Review, 63(1), 44–60.CrossRef

35.

King, C. S., Feltey, K. M., & Susel, B. O. (1998). The question of participation: Toward authentic public participation in public administration. Public Administration Review, 58(4), 317–326.CrossRef

36.

Klijn, E.-H., Edelenbos, J., & Steijn, B. (2010). Trust in governance networks: Its impacts on outcomes. Administration & Society, 42(2), 193–221. doi:10.1177/0095399710362716.

37.

Kolsaker, A., & Lee-Kelley, L. (2008). Citizens’ attitudes towards e-government and e-governance: A UK study. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 21(7), 723–738. doi:10.1108/09513550810904532.CrossRef

38.

Lakhani, K. R., & Panetta, J. A. (2007). The principles of distributed innovation. Innovations, 2(3), 97–112.CrossRef

39.

Linders, D. (2012). From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly, 29(4), 446–454. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.003.CrossRef

40.

Mahrer, H., & Krimmer, R. (2005). Towards the enhancement of e-democracy: Identifying the notion of the ‘middleman paradox’. Information Systems Journal, 15(1), 27–42. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2575.2005.00184.x.CrossRef

41.

Mandarano, L., Meenar, M., & Steins, C. (2010). Building social capital in the digital age of civic engagement. Journal of Planning Literature, 25(2), 123–135. doi:10.1177/0885412210394102.CrossRef

42.

Marjanovic, S., Fry, C., & Chataway, J. (2012). Crowdsourcing based business models: In search of evidence for innovation 2.0. Science and Public Policy,. doi:10.1093/scipol/scs009.

43.

Meijer, A. J. (2014). New media and the coproduction of safety: An empirical analysis of Dutch practices. The American Review of Public Administration, 44(1), 17–34. doi:10.1177/0275074012455843.CrossRef

44.

Mergel, I. (2013). Social media adoption and resulting tactics in the U.S. federal government. Government Information Quarterly, 30(2), 123–130. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2012.12.004.CrossRef

45.

Mergel, I., & Bretschneider, S. I. (2013). A three-stage adoption process for social media use in government. Public Administration Review, 73(3), 390–400. doi:10.1111/puar.12021.CrossRef

46.

Musso, J., Weare, C., & Hale, M. (2000). Designing Web technologies for local governance reform: Good management or good democracy? Political Communication, 17(1), 1–19.CrossRef

47.

Nalbandian, J., O’Neill, R., Michael Wilkes, J., & Kaufman, A. (2013). Contemporary challenges in local government: Evolving roles and responsibilities, structures, and processes. Public Administration Review, 73(4), 567–574. doi:10.1111/puar.12059.CrossRef

48.

Nam, T. (2012). Suggesting frameworks of citizen-sourcing via Government 2.0. Government Information Quarterly, 29(1), 12–20. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2011.07.005.CrossRef

49.

Norris, D. F., & Reddick, C. G. (2013). Local e-government in the United States: Transformation or incremental change? Public Administration Review, 73(1), 165–175. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02647.x.CrossRef

50.

OECD. (2003). Promise and problems of e-democracy: Challenges of online citizen engagement. Paris: OECD.

51.

Panagiotopoulos, P., Al-Debei, M. M., Fitzgerald, G., & Elliman, T. (2012). A business model perspective for ICTs in public engagement. Government Information Quarterly, 29(2), 192–202. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2011.09.011.CrossRef

52.

Parrado, S., Van Ryzin, G. G., Bovaird, T., & Löffler, E. (2013). Correlates of co-production: Evidence from a five-nation survey of citizens. International Public Management Journal, 16(1), 85–112. doi:10.1080/10967494.2013.796260.CrossRef

53.

Portney, K. (2005). Civic engagement and sustainable cities in the United States. Public Administration Review, 65(5), 579–591. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2005.00485.x.CrossRef

54.

Portney, K. (2013). Taking sustainable cities seriously. Economic development, the environment, and quality of life in American cities (2nd ed.). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

55.

Portney, K. E., & Berry, J. M. (2010). Participation and the pursuit of sustainability in U.S. cities. Urban Affairs Review, 46(1), 119–139. doi:10.1177/1078087410366122.CrossRef

56.

Puron-Cid, G. (2013). Interdisciplinary application of structuration theory for e-government: A case study of an IT-enabled budget reform. Government Information Quarterly, 30, Supplement 1(0), S46–S58. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.07.010.

57.

Rauschmayer, F., van den Hove, S., & Koetz, T. (2009). Participation in EU biodiversity governance: How far beyond rhetoric? Environment and Planning—Part C, 27(1), 42–59.CrossRef

58.

Reddick, C. G. (2011). Citizen interaction and e-government: Evidence for the managerial, consultative, and participatory models. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 5(2), 167–184. doi:10.1108/17506161111131195.CrossRef

59.

Royo, S., Yetano, A., & Acerete, B. (2011). Citizen participation in German and Spanish local governments. A comparative study. International Journal of Public Administration, 34(3), 139–150.CrossRef

60.

Sæbø, Ø., Rose, J., & Flak, L. S. (2008). The shape of eParticipation: Characterizing an emerging research area. Government Information Quarterly, 25(3), 400–428. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2007.04.007.CrossRef

61.

Saxton, G. D., Oh, O., & Kishore, R. (2013). Rules of crowdsourcing: Models, issues, and systems of control. Information Systems Management, 30(1), 2–20. doi:10.1080/10580530.2013.739883.CrossRef

62.

Schweitzer, F. M., Buchinger, W., Gassmann, O., & Obrist, M. (2012). Crowdsourcing leveraging innovation through online idea competitions. Research-Technology Management, 55(3), 32–38. doi:10.5437/08956308x5503055.CrossRef

63.

Seltzer, E., & Mahmoudi, D. (2013). Citizen participation, open innovation, and crowdsourcing: Challenges and opportunities for planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 28(1), 3–18. doi:10.1177/0885412212469112.CrossRef

64.

Shepherd, H. (2012). Crowdsourcing. Contexts, 11(2), 10–11. doi:10.1177/1536504212446453.CrossRef

65.

Snead, J. T. (2013). Social media use in the U.S. Executive branch. Government Information Quarterly, 30(1), 56–63. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2012.09.001.CrossRef

66.

Tambouris, E., Liotas, N., & Tarabanis, K. (2007). A framework for assessing eParticipation projects and tools. In 40th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Hawaii.

67.

Thomas, J. C., & Streib, G. (2005). E-democracy, E-commerce, and E-research: Examining the electronic ties between citizens and governments. Administration & Society, 37(3), 259–280. doi:10.1177/0095399704273212.CrossRef

68.

Tolbert, C. J., & Mossberger, K. (2006). The effects of e-government on trust and confidence in government. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 354–369.CrossRef

69.

Torres, L., Pina, V., & Acerete, B. (2006). E-governance developments in European Union cities: Reshaping government’s relationship with citizens. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration, 19(2), 277–302.CrossRef

70.

Torres, L. H. (2007). Citizen sourcing in the public interest. Knowledge Management for Development Journal, 31(1), 134–145.

71.

United Nations. (2012). United Nations e-government survey 2012. E-government for the people. New York: UN.

72.

Vragov, R., & Kumar, N. (2013). The impact of information and communication technologies on the costs of democracy. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 12(6), 440–448. doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2013.06.003.CrossRef

73.

Walters, L. C., Aydelotte, J., & Miller, J. (2000). Putting more public in policy analysis. Public Administration Review, 60(4), 349–359.CrossRef

74.

Wang, X., Hawkins, C. V., Lebredo, N., & Berman, E. M. (2012). Capacity to sustain sustainability: A study of U.S. cities. Public Administration Review, 72(6), 841–853. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02566.x.

75.

Yang, K., & Callahan, K. (2007). Citizen involvement efforts and bureaucratic responsiveness: Participatory values, stakeholder pressures, and administrative practicality. Public Administration Review, 67(2), 249–264.CrossRef

76.

Yetano, A., Royo, S., & Acerete, B. (2010). What is driving the increasing presence of citizen participation initiatives? Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 28(5), 783–802.CrossRef

77.

Zavattaro, S. M. (2013). Social media in public administration’s future: A response to Farazmand. Administration & Society, 45(2), 242–255. doi:10.1177/0095399713481602.CrossRef

78.

Zuccon, G., Leelanupab, T., Whiting, S., Yilmaz, E., Jose, J., & Azzopardi, L. (2013). Crowdsourcing interactions: Using crowdsourcing for evaluating interactive information retrieval systems. Information Retrieval, 16(2), 267–305. doi:10.1007/s10791-012-9206-z.CrossRef

Titel: “Crowdsourcing” as a tool for e-participation: two experiences regarding CO2 emissions at municipal level
verfasst von: Sonia Royo
Ana Yetano
Publikationsdatum: 01.09.2015
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Electronic Commerce Research / Ausgabe 3/2015
Print ISSN: 1389-5753
Elektronische ISSN: 1572-9362
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10660-015-9183-6

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Springer Professional "Technik"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2015

Legal aspects of accessibility and usability of online public services in Quebec and Canada

Factors influencing e-government use in non-urban areas

Key e-government issues in China: an empirical study based on the orientation-maturity framework

Analog citizens

Shaping public sector innovation theory: an interpretative framework for ICT-enabled governance innovation

Introduction to the special issue on electronic government: investment in communities, firms, technologies and infrastructure