We have the tools How to attract the people?

1
We have the toolsHow to attract the people?
Creating a culture of Web-based participation in
environmental decision making

• Jyri Mustajoki
• Raimo P. Hämäläinen
• Mika Marttunen

2
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

3
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

4
Collaboration

• Finnish Environment Institute
• Water Resources Unit
• Regional Environmental Centres
• Southeast Finland, North Savo, Pirkanmaa
• Academy of Finland
• RESTORE, SUNARE and PRIMEREG projects

5
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

6
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

7
Development of lake regulation policies

• Lake Päijänne
• 19951999
• Lake Kallavesi
• 19992001
• Pirkanmaa lakes
• 19992003
• In collaboration with Finnish Environment
  Institute

8
Lake Päijänne

• Steering 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

9
Lake Päijänne Web site
10
Lake Kallavesi

• Steering 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

11
Lake Kallavesi Web site
12
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

13
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

14
Pirkanmaa lakes Web site

• Information about the recommendations on the Web

15
Visits to the Web questionnaire

• Open from February 19 to March 7

Weekend
Weekend
16
Pirkanmaa lakes Web site

• Results available for the public

17
Framework for the use of Web
Steering Group
Assisted use
Preference elicitation
Analysis of results
Analysis of the feedback
Information
Web-HIPRE
Opinions-Online
Web Site
Results to Web
Results to Web
Web
Decision on recommendations
Preference elicitation
Feedback
Analysis of the feedback
Analysis of results
Independent use
Information
Public
18
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

19
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

20
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

21
Web-HIPRE
22
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

23
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

24
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

25
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

26
Opinions-Online - Creating a new session
27
Opinions-Online - Analysis of results
28
Opinions-Online Vote

• Advanced voting rules
• Condorcet criteria
• Copelands methods, Dodgsons method, Maximin
  method
• Borda count
• Nansons method, University method
• Blacks method
• Plurality voting
• Coombs method, Hare system, Bishop method

29
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

30
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

31
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

32
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

33
Conclusions

• Tools 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

34
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

35
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