S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology We have the tools How to attract the people? Creating a culture of Web-based participation.

S ystemsAnalysis LaboratoryHelsinki University of Technology

We have the toolsHow to attract the people?

Creating a culture of Web-based participation in environmental decision making

Jyri MustajokiRaimo P. Hämäläinen

Mika Marttunen


World Wide Web

New possibilities to support participatory decision making • Decision analytical tools• Tools for participation

Experiences from environmental management• Multiple objectives• Multiple stakeholders

• Often geographically in different locations


We have the tools

www.Decisionarium.hut.fi:Opinions-Online (www.opinion.hut.fi)Platform for global participation, voting, surveys, and group decisions

Web-HIPRE (www.hipre.hut.fi)Value tree based decision analysis and support

Joint Gains (www.jointgains.hut.fi)

Multi-party negotiation support with the method of improving directions


Collaboration

Finnish Environment Institute• Water Resources Unit

Regional Environmental Centres• Southeast Finland, North

Savo, Pirkanmaa

Academy of Finland• RESTORE, SUNARE and

PRIMEREG projects


Stages in participatory environmental policy processes

1. Initial screening of stakeholder concerns

2. Evaluation and modeling of the problem

3. Informing the public, e.g. about decision recommendations

4. Collecting and analysing feedback from the public

5. Decision on policy recommendations

6. Public evaluates the decision


Web-software

We have Web-based software for each task of the process

To what extent can these tools be used?• Everyone does not yet have a Web access

What are the requirements for the use?

Experiences of the Web support in lake regulation management


Development of lake regulation policies

Lake Päijänne• 1995–1999

Lake Kallavesi• 1999–2001

Pirkanmaa lakes• 1999–2003

In collaboration with Finnish Environment Institute


Lake PäijänneSteering group, 20 people• Decision analysis interviews with HIPRE and

Web-HIPRE• Typical models publicly available on the Web

Initial screening by mail questionnaires

10 public meetings, including interactive DA

Closing seminar• 51 participants• The results of the value tree analyses• Opinions-Online feedback


Lake Päijänne Web site


Lake KallavesiSteering group, 20 people• 6 meetings

Mail questionnaire to public about the regulation recommendations• Sample of 387 persons (response rate 39 %)• Results posted on the Web by Opinions-Online

7 public meetings (84 participants)

Opinions-Online was a public alternative to mail questionnaire • 28 responses


Lake Kallavesi Web site


Pirkanmaa lakes

Steering group, 40 people• 6 workshops/meetings

Initial screening by mail questionnaire• Sample of 3216 persons (response rate 36 %)

8 workshops/seminars/meetings related to specific issues

Testing of Image Theory


Pirkanmaa lakes

Opinions-Online was the primary way to collect public feedback about the regulation recommendations• Web questionnaire and material broadly

advertised on:• e-Mail lists, Web pages• Local newspapers • Local radio and TV

• Possibility to alternatively reply by mail• 333 replied on the Web and 6 by mail


Pirkanmaa lakes Web site

Information about the recommendations on the Web


Visits to the Web questionnaire

Open from February 19 to March 7

Weekend

Weekend


Pirkanmaa lakes Web site

Results available for the public


Public

Web-HIPRE

Opinions-Online

Web Site

Decisio

n o

n reco

mm

end

ation

s

Steering Group

Results

to Web

Preferenceelicitation

Analysisof results

Preferenceelicitation

Information

Feedback Analysis ofthe feedback

Analysis ofthe feedback

Information

Analysisof results

Web

Ind

ep

en

de

nt

us

e A

ss

iste

du

se

Framework for the use of Web

Results

to Web


1. Initial screening of stakeholder concerns

Web does not yet provide natural ways to inform about possibilities to participate

Traditional ways of informing the public still needed• Newspapers, radio, TV, …• Mail questionnaires

• Expensive to send and analyze

Once public has been informed, Web can be used for collecting opinions


2. Evaluation and modeling of the problem

Decision analysis provides a transparent way to model preferences

Applicable with relatively small number of stakeholders

Steering group of representatives

Different techniques• Decision analysis interviews• Decision conferences/workshops


Use of Web-HIPRE

Decision analysis interviews• Analyst assures the proper use of the methods• Stakeholder weights and rankings can be

published on the Web

Decision conferences/workshops• Individual preference models under collective

supervision• Group models


Web-HIPRE


3. Informing the public

Web site for information delivery

Analysis of Web-HIPRE models of steering group members• Aim to understand objectives of different types

of stakeholder groups• Collectively in local meetings• Published on the Web site


Use of Web-HIPRE

Independent use of Web-HIPRE to create and evaluate own preference models?• Requires expertise in decision modelling Not easily applicable with general public

Independent analysis of steering group members' models with Web-HIPRE?• Yes – less expertise required

Web-based learning material to help understand the methods and software


4. Collecting and analysing public feedback

Web provides a very cheap way to collect public opinions

Everyone does not have access to Web• Possibility to alternative ways to participate, e.g.

by mail, should be provided• Web tools can still be used by entering the

opinions from mail questionnaires


Opinions-Online v.2.0

Easy-to-use interface

Different ways of setting priorities• Ranking• Approval voting• Multiattribute rating

On-line analysis of the results• Possibility to view results according to any field

on the questionnaire• Differences between stakeholder groups


Opinions-Online - Creating a new session


Opinions-Online - Analysis of results


Opinions-Online Vote

Advanced voting rules• Condorcet criteria

• Copeland’s methods, Dodgson’s method, Maximin method

• Borda count• Nanson’s method, University method

• Black’s method• Plurality voting

• Coombs’ method, Hare system, Bishop method


Discussion

The Web-based framework meets several objectives of public participation• Openness• Fairness• Clarification of facts and values• Opportunity for every person to present an

opinion - not only stakeholder representatives• Provides a possibility for an active role for the

public


Discussion

Is Web participation too easy?• How to assure that stakeholders examine the

different options thoroughly?• E.g. in the Pirkanmaa Web questionnaire the

use of material provided on recommendations remained low

Learning of the regulation and understanding of the other stakeholders' views may decrease

Committed interest from the public needed


How to attract the people?

It is not enough to have tools – technology push does not work !

New innovations take 30 years to be accepted

Where are we now? Can we speed up the process?

Creating the demand for a new tradition / culture in electronic democracy

eLearning support sites will be useful


Culture grows from positive case studies

Collaboration of DA researchers and policy support administrators

Small steps

Simple Web-based tools first• Web pages for information• Surveys• Steering group use of DA tools• Interactive evaluation of decision models by

stakeholdes


ConclusionsTools for participation are available

The Web provides means to enhance public participation

Possibility to use traditional ways• All the people feel to be treated fairly

Commitment to the process needed by administrators and planners

Can the public use DA tools independently?

This will take years


Web sites

Systems Analysis Laboratory: www.sal.hut.fi

Finnish Environment Institute: www.vyh.fi

Water Resources in Finland:

www.vyh.fi/eng/environ/state/waterre/waterre.htm

Lake Päijänne project: www.paijanne.hut.fi

Lake Kallavesi project: www.kallavesi.hut.fi

Pirkanmaa lakes project: www.pirkanmaa.hut.fi

Decisionarium: www.decisionarium.hut.fi


References

M. Marttunen and R.P. Hämäläinen (1995): Decision analysis interviews in environmental impact assessment, European Journal of Operational Research, 87(3), 1995, 551-563.

M. Marttunen, E.A. Järvinen, J. Saukkonen and R.P. Hämäläinen (1999): Regulation of Lake Päijänne - a learning process preceding decision-making, Finnish Journal of Water Economy, 6, 29-37. (in Finnish)

J. Mustajoki and R.P.Hämäläinen (2000): Web-HIPRE: Global decision support by value tree and AHP analysis, INFOR, 38(3), 208-220.

R.P. Hämäläinen, E. Kettunen, M. Marttunen and H. Ehtamo (2001): Evaluating a Framework for Multi-Stakeholder Decision Support in Water Resources Management, Group Decision and Negotiation, 10(4), 331-353.

J. Mustajoki, R.P. Hämäläinen and M. Marttunen (2003): Participatory multicriteria decision support with Web-HIPRE: A case of lake regulation policy. Manuscript. Downloadable at www.sal.hut.fi/Publications/pdf-files/mmusb.pdf

S ystems Analysis Laboratory Helsinki University of Technology We have the tools How to attract the people? Creating a culture of Web-based participation.

Documents

web support

culture of web

web accesswhat

web questionnaireopen

webbased software

webhipretypical models

public feedback

participatory decision