Abstract
The Swedish city of Örebro has since long faced complex problems with poor water quality in a local river. This problem is a typical example of a regional decision problem, since there are several different stakeholders that might be affected, and there are different views on the need for, and effect of, different measures. The problems also strongly relate to the environmental condition of the river and involve other municipalities as well. In this chapter, we describe how to address this problem using an implementation of a systematic democratic decision process for enhancing the transparency and the decision quality in itself. The process is in conformity with common democratic processes, but with higher emphasis on accuracy and precision and on the interaction between civil servants and decision makers. A main issue here is to clearly separate the various views involved in these processes from the actual facts and, at the same time, facilitate input from various stakeholders. Therefore, we allow for modelling of outcomes based on different preferences and facilitate an elicitation process where views are extracted and combined with basic data from the background investigations preceding the decision. The process is divided into two stages. The first one is emphasized in this chapter and concerns the internal democracy, i.e. the formulation and refinement of the original and extended decision problems and the interaction between politicians and civil servants, while the second stage deals with the external democracy, i.e. the communication with the public, where communication channels directed towards citizens will be formed.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Barzilai, J., W. Cook and B. Golany. 1987. Consistent weights for judgements matrices of the relative importance for alternatives. Operations Research Letters, 6, 131–134.
Danielson, M. 2004. Handling imperfect user statements in real-life decision analysis. International Journal of Information Technology and Decision Making, 3(3), 513–534.
Danielson, M. and L. Ekenberg. 2007. Computing upper and lower bounds in interval decision trees. European Journal of Operational Research, 181(2), 808–816.
Danielson, M., L. Ekenberg, A. Ekengren, T. Hökby and J. Lidén. 2008. A process for participatory democracy in electronic government. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 15(1–2), 15–30.
Danielson, M., L. Ekenberg, Å. Grönlund and A. Larsson. 2005. Public decision support – using a dss to increase democratic transparency. International Journal of Public Information Systems, 1(1), 3–25.
Danielson, M., L. Ekenberg, J. Johansson and A. Larsson 2003a. Investment decision analysis – a case study at SCA transforest. Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on Information and Knowledge Engineering. CSREA Press. pp. 79–85.
Danielson, M., L. Ekenberg, J. Johansson and A. Larsson. 2003b. The DecideIT decision tool. In Bernard, J.-M., Seidenfeld, T., Zaffalon, M. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Imprecise Probabilities and their Applications. Lugano, Carleton Scientific. pp. 204–217.
Edwards, W. 1977. How to use multiattribute utility measurement for social decision making. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 7(5), 326–340.
Ekenberg, L., L. Brouwers, M. Danielson, K. Hansson, J. Johansson, A. Riabacke and A. Vári. 2003. Flood risk management policy in the upper Tisza basin: a system analytical approach – simulation and analysis of three flood management strategies. IIASA Report IR-03-003, Laxenburg, Austria.
Ekenberg, L., A. Larsson, J. Idefeldt and S. Bohman. 2009. The lack of transparency in public decision processes. International Journal of Public Information Systems, 5(1), 1–8.
Fishburn, P. 1970. Utility Theory for Decision Making. New York, NY, Wiley.
Grönlund, A. 2001. IT, demokratin och medborgarnas deltagande (IT, Democracy, and the Citizens’ Participation). Stockholm, Vinnova and Teldok.
Grönlund, A. 2003. Framing electronic government: e= mc3. In R. Traunmüller and K. Lenk (Eds.), Proceedings of DEXA 03. New York, NY, Springer.
Jiménez, A., S. RÃos-Insua and A. Mateos. 2006. A generic multi-attribute analysis system. Computers & Operations Research, 33(4), 1081–1101.
Keeney, R. 1992. Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decision Making. Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press.
Keeney, R. and H. Raiffa. 1976. Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs. New York, NY, Wiley.
Krovak, J. 1987. Ranking alternatives – comparison of different methods based on binary comparison matrices. European Journal of Operational Research, 32, 86–95.
Larsson, A., J. Johansson, L. Ekenberg and M. Danielson. 2005. Decision analysis with multiple objectives in a framework for evaluating imprecision. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 13(5), 495–510.
Lootsma, F. A. 1993. Scale sensitivity in the multiplicative AHP and SMART. Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 2, 87–110.
Matsatsinis, N. F. and A. P. Samaras. 2001. MCDA and preference disaggregation in group decision support systems. European Journal of Operational Research, 130(2), 414–429.
OECD. 2003. Engaging citizens online for better policy-making. OEDC Policy Brief. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/62/23/2501856.pdf
Rowe, G. and L. J. Frewer. 2000. Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Science, Technology & Human Values, 25(1), 3–29.
Saaty, T. L. 1977. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 15, 234–281.
Saaty, T. L. 1980. The Analytical Hierarchy Process. New York, NY, McGraw-Hill.
Salo, A. A. and R. P. Hämäläinen. 1995. Preference programming through approximate ratio comparisons. European Journal of Operational Research, 82, 458–475.
Watson, S. R. and A. N. S. Freeling. 1982. Assessing attribute weights. OMEGA, 10, 582–583.
Watson, S. R. and A. N. S. Freeling. 1983. Comments on: assessing attribute weights by ratio. OMEGA, 11, 13Â ff.
Wilhelm, A. G. 2000. Democracy in the Digital Age. Challenges to Political Life in Cyberspace. New York, NY, Routledge.
Wilson, D. 2000. Exploring the limits of public participation in local government. Parliamentary Affairs, 52(2), 246–259.
Acknowledgements
The work presented in this chapter was funded by the Swedish Research Council FORMAS.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Danielson, M., Ekenberg, L., Larsson, A., Riabacke, M. (2010). Transparent Public Decision Making: Discussion and Case Study in Sweden. In: Rios Insua, D., French, S. (eds) e-Democracy . Advances in Group Decision and Negotiation, vol 5. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9045-4_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9045-4_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-9044-7
Online ISBN: 978-90-481-9045-4
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)