Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 25, Issue 5, pp 923–940 | Cite as

The Contribution of Social Context to Participatory Planning Processes Within a Japanese Community

  • Madoka Chosokabe
  • Haya Umeda
  • Hiroyuki Sakakibara


The concerns of diverse members in the community should be considered in the process of generating various alternatives. This requires a participatory process; a typical example being a small group discussion format such as a workshop. In small group discussions, understandability of participants’ opinions can be affected by the wording of their opinions. Our hypothesis in this study is, “The higher the similarity of wording between an expressed opinion and its wording in the media, the higher the likelihood of opinion adoption”. The hypothesis is examined and tested. In this study, we use the term “social acceptability” to denote the similarity of the wording of participants’ opinions with that used in media articles. To test this hypothesis, we proposed a methodology for evaluating the wording of a WS discussion and applied the methodology to the dialog data of two types discussions held in Ube, a Japanese city located in Yamaguchi Prefecture. Our analysis showed a positive correlation between social acceptability and adoption rate. To improve social acceptability, we suggest that a facilitator should frame the wording used by participants.


Participatory planning process Workshop Discussion Wording Social context Social acceptability 


  1. Asahi shimbun digital (2014) KIKUZO II VISUAL, Accessed 20 Jan 2014
  2. Bollegala D, Matsuo Y, Ishizuka M (2007) Measuring semantic similarity between words using web search engines, WWW ’07 Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web, 757–766. doi: 10.1145/1242572.1242675
  3. Bowles S, Gintis H (2002) Social capital and community governance. Econ J 112(483):419–436. doi: 10.1111/1468-0297.00077 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brains LC, Wattenberg PM (1996) Campaign issue knowledge and salience: comparing reception from TV commercials, TV news, and newspapers. Am J Polit Sci 40(1):172–193. doi: 10.2307/2111699 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chosokabe M, Sakakibara H, Miyaji T, Nishimura T (2012) Analysis of WS discussion in participatory planning process, proceedings of the 2012 IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics, 2441–2445. doi: 10.1109/ICSMC.2012.6378109
  6. Chosokabe M, Takeyoshi H, Sakakibara H (2015) Study on Temporal Change of Social Context: In: the case of bicycle riding issue in Japan, Linden, I. et al. (Editors), Information and knowledge management in decision process, EWG-DSS IV Edition of the Springer LNBIP Book, 64-74,doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-21536-5_6
  7. Chung YM, Lee JY (2001) A corpus-based approach to comparative evaluation of statistical term association measures. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 52(4):283–296. doi: 10.1002/1532-2890(2000)9999:9999:AID-ASI10733.0.CO;2-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ellingsen T, Johannesson M, Mollerstrom J, Munkhammar S (2012) Social framing effects: preferences or beliefs? Games Econ Behav 76(1):117–130. doi: 10.1016/j.geb.2012.05.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Garreau J (1992) Edge city: life on the new frontier. Anchor,Google Scholar
  10. Henning C (2007) Cluster-wise assessment of cluster stability. Comput Statics Data Anal 52:258–271. doi: 10.1016/j.csda.2006.11.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jaccard P (1912) The distribution of the flora in the alpine zone. New Phytol 11(2):37–50. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.1912.tb05611.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jenks M, Burton E, Williams K. (eds) (1996) The compact City (1996) A sustainable urban form? RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Jeong H, Shiramatsu S, Hatori T, Kobayashi K (2008) Discourse analysis of public debates using corpus linguistic methodologies. J Comput 3(8):58–68. doi: 10.4304/jcp.3.8.58-68 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jeong H, Hatori T, Kobayashi K (2007) Discourse analysis of public debate: a corpus-based approach, proceedings of the 2007 IEEE international conference on systems, man and cybernetics, 1782–1793. doi: 10.1109/ICSMC.2007.4413973
  15. Kawakita J (1986) The KJ method: seeking order out of chaos. Choukouron-sha, Tokyo (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  16. Levin IP, Schneider SL, Gaeth GJ (1998) All frames are not created equal: a typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 76(2):149–188. doi: 10.1006/obhd.1998.2804 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Liberman V, Samuels SM, Ross L (2004) The name of the game: predictive power of reputations versus situational labels in determining Prisoner’s Dilemma game moves. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 30(9):1175–1185. doi: 10.1177/0146167204264004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mueller D (ed.) (1997) Perspectives on Public Choice-A Handbook, Cambridge University Press: CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  19. Nara Institute of Science and Technology (2007) ChaSen,, Accessed 8 April 2014
  20. Prince V (1989) Social Identification and public opinion: effects of communicating group conflict. Public Opin Q 53(2):197–224. doi: 10.1086/269503 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Rees F (2005) The facilitator excellence handbook, 2nd edn. Pfeiffer, NewYorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Scupin R (1997) The KJ method: a technique for analyzing data derived from Japanese ethnology. Human Organ 56(2):233–237. doi: 10.17730/humo.56.2.x335923511444655 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sen A (1970) Collective choice and social welfare. Holden-Day, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  24. Silverstone R (1999) Why study the media?. SAGE Publication, LondonGoogle Scholar
  25. Somerville P (2005) Community governance and democracy. Polic Polit 33(1):117–144. doi: 10.1332/0305573052708438 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stasser G, Titus W (1985) Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: biased information sampling during discussion. J Pers Soc Psychol 48(6):1467–1478. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1467 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ube city (2010) Action plan for eco-friendly transportation in Ube City, Workshop for eco-friendly transportation in Ube City,, Accessed Feb 2012. (in Japanese)
  28. Ube city (2014) Committee for public transportation policy in Ube City, Accessed 8 April 2014. (in Japanese)
  29. Van Eck NJ, Waltman L (2009) How to normalize cooccurrence data? An analysis of some well-known similarity measures. J Am Soc Inform Sci Technol 60(8):1635–1651. doi: 10.1002/asi.21075 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Madoka Chosokabe
    • 1
  • Haya Umeda
    • 1
  • Hiroyuki Sakakibara
    • 1
  1. 1.Graduate School of Science and EngineeringYamaguchi UniversityYamaguchiJapan

Personalised recommendations