Advertisement

E-Participation Social Effectiveness: Case of “Our Petersburg” Portal

  • Lyudmila VidiasovaEmail author
  • Iaroslava Tensina
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 947)

Abstract

The issues of involving citizens in political management are becoming more and more relevant all over the world. Many different platforms are being created, where residents can express their ideas, proposals, complaints and leave their voices. From a scientific point of view, the issue of estimating the effects that these platforms result in remains unresolved. The paper presents the results of developing a methodology for assessing the social effectiveness of e-participation portals. In the paper results of its’ approbation for social effectiveness estimation of a portal for urban problems in Petersburg (Russia) are demonstrated. According to collected data, the portal “Our Petersburg” referred to the medium level of social effectiveness development. The portal has demonstrated a great progress in organizational dimension indicators and less success in technical and socio-economic ones.

Keywords

E-Participation Social effectiveness Citizens’ engagement Urban development Saint Petersburg 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was conducted with the support of RFBR grant No. 16-36-60035, “The research of social efficiency of e-participation portals in Russia”.

References

  1. 1.
    Coleman, S.: Can the Internet Strengthen Democracy?. Polity Press, UK (2017)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Measuring and Evaluating e-Participation (METEP): Assessment of Readiness at the Country Level. UNDESA Working Paper (2013). http://workspace.unpan.org/sites/Internet/Documents/METEP%20framework_18%20Jul_MOST%20LATEST%20Version.pdf
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    Zheng, Y.: The impact of E-participation on corruption: a cross-country analysis. Int. Rev. Public Adm. 21(2), 91–103 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1080/12294659.2016.1186457CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schroeter, R., Scheel, O., Renn, O., Schweizer, P.: Testing the value of public participation in Germany: theory, operationalization and a case study on the evaluation of participation. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 13, 116–125 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.12.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Terán, L., Drobnjak, A.: An evaluation framework for eParticipation: the VAAs case study. Int. Scholary Sci. Res. Innov. 7(1), 77–85 (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Macintosh, A., Whyte, A.: Towards an evaluation framework for e-Participation. Transforming Gov. People Process Policy 2(1), 16–30 (2008).  https://doi.org/10.1108/17506160810862928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Perez-Espes, C., Wimmer, M., Jimenez, J.M.M.: A framework for evaluating the impact of E-participation experiences. Innov. Public Sect. 21, 20–29 (2014).  https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-429-9-20
  9. 9.
    Millard, J., Thomasen, L., Pastrovic, G., Cvetkovic, B.: A roadmap for e-participation and open government: empirical evidence from Western Balkans. In: Proceedings of the ICEGOV 2018 (2018, in press)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chugunov, A.V., Kabanov, Y., Misnikov, Y.: Citizens versus the government or citizens with the government: a tale of two e-participation portals in one city - a case study of St. Petersburg, Russia. In: ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, Part F128003, pp. 70–77. ACM (2017)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Raoelson, H., Rakotonirina, V.: E-government: factor of public administration efficiency and effectiveness. Case of the ministry of higher education and scientific research in Madagascar. In: Proceedings of the ICEGOV 2018 (2018, in Press)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vidiasova, L., Dawes, S.S.: The influence of institutional factors on e-governance development and performance: an exploration in the Russian Federation. Inf. Polity 22(4), 267–289 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-170416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gil-Garcia, J.R., Pardo, T.A., Sutherland, M.K.: Information sharing in the regulatory context: revisiting the concepts of cross-boundary information sharing. In: ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, 01–03 March 2016, pp. 346–349. ACM (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Civil Participation in Decision-making Processes: An overview of standards and practices in Council of European Member States. European Center for Not-for-profit Law. European Center for Not-for-profit Law (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Agbabiaka, O.: The public value creation of e-Government: an Empirical study from citizen perspective. In: Proceedings of the ICEGOV 2018 (2018, in Press)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Zolotov, M.N., Oliveira, T., Casteleyn, S.: Continued intention to use online participatory budgeting: the effect of empowerment and habit. In: Proceedings of the ICEGOV 2018 (2018, in press)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hagen, L., Harrison, T.M., Uzuner, Ö., May, W., Fake, T., Katragadda, S.: E-petition popularity: do linguistic and semantic factors matter? Gov. Inf. Q. 33(4), 783–795 (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2016.07.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kawaljeet, K.K., Amizan, O., Utyasankar, S.: Enabling multichannel participation through ICT adaptation. Int. J. Electron. Gov. Res. 13, 66–80 (2017).  https://doi.org/10.4018/IJEGR.2017040104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jho, W., Song, K.: Institutional and technological determinants of civil e-Participation: Solo or duet? Gov. Inf. Q. 32, 488–495 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.09.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Reggi, L., Dawes, S.: Open government data ecosystems: linking transparency for innovation with transparency for participation and accountability. In: Scholl, H., et al. (eds.) EGOV 2016. LNCS (LNAI, LNB), vol. 9820, pp. 74–86. Springer, Heidelberg (2016).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44421-5_6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Harrison, T.M., et al.: E-Petitioning and online media: the case of #bringbackourgirls. In: ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, Part F128275, pp. 11–20. ACM (2017)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Picazo-Vela, S., et al.: The role of social media sites on social movements against policy changes. In: ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, Part F128275, pp. 588–589. ACM (2017)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gil-Garcia, R., Pardo, T.: Multi-method approaches to digital government research: value lessons and implementation challenges. In: Proceedings of 39th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS-39) (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vidiasova, L., Tensina, I., Bershadskaya, E.: Social efficiency of E-participation portals in Russia: assessment methodology. In: Alexandrov, D.A., Boukhanovsky, A.V., Chugunov, A.V., Kabanov, Y. (eds.) DTGS 2018. CCIS, vol. 858, pp. 51–62. Springer, Heidelberg (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02843-5_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Van Dijk, J.A.G.M.: Participation in policy making. Study of social impact of ICT (CPP № 55 A- SMART №2007/0068). Topic Report, pp. 32–72 (2010)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ITMO UniversitySaint PetersburgRussia

Personalised recommendations