The New Digital Era of Environmental Decision-Making

Uploaded on

The presentation “The New Digital Era of Environmental Decision Making” deals with the contemporary phenomenon emerging with new media - environmental and social change initiatives and movements …

The presentation “The New Digital Era of Environmental Decision Making” deals with the contemporary phenomenon emerging with new media - environmental and social change initiatives and movements coming from the modern e-citizen.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1. The New Digital Era of Environmental Decision-Making Mgr. Karel Sál Ph.D. candidate - Institute of Political Studies Faculty of Social Sciences Charles University in Prague PhD thesis: The Position and Role of New Media between Dahl‟s Second and Third Transformation of Democracy
  • 2. Used methods and research questions Confirming Case Study [Lijphart 1979: 692] based on the analysis of a single case (environmental protests in Turkey 2013) within the framework of the Network Society [van Dijk 2012: 24] 1. How do new media change the traditional decision-making model? 2. Can the environmental agenda be described in the political process as a wicked problem [Rittel, Webber 1974]? 3. Why and how can a clash between the citizens and the government on the local level quickly escalate into a nationwide crisis?
  • 3. Current Changes of the DecisionMaking Model I New actors: e-citizens [Mossberger et al. 2012] • young and productive individuals, mostly students • well informed • digitally skilled • 24/7 connection to the Internet New form of society: a network society (NS) • many social and media networks at an individual, group and societal level • basic units = individuals • process = free information exchange without effective control by the state authorities
  • 4. A Network Society Model Source: Dijk, J. van (2012): The Network Society. 3rd Edition. London: Sage. p. 30.
  • 5. Current Changes of the DecisionMaking Model II Procedural changes: deliberation • starts 1990‟s while solving local level issues • inclusive approach, primarily for active citizens • today – discussions on Internet forums (agenda setting), online knowledge communities (policy preparation), evoting (decision-making) etc.
  • 6. Issues of Environmental Agenda in the Network Society • governments are limited in bringing satisfactory solutions to worldwide problems • governmental concepts concerning environmental agenda and policy are vague and unclear • a vague concept or party program is safer and easier to communicate • zero contribution thesis [Olson 1965] • another theory: wicked problems
  • 7. A New Player in the DecisionMaking Process: Green Groups Environmental behavior change: • e-citizens put emphasis on environmental issues • green behavior becomes a new social norm and an indicator of high social status Character of green groups: • web constructed groups are well informed (in their scope of interest) • well organized with natural leaders • prepared for action • interest in a local cause from a wide range of ideological groups
  • 8. From Green Group Defiance to National Crisis: Gezi Park Protests I “Our traditional environmental understanding and culture shall be utilized in the solution of environmental issues.” • started on 28 May 2013 • iniciator: a small group of environmentalists (50 individuals) • reason: urban development plan for Istanbul‟s Taksim Gezi Park • 31 May - use of police force • a general commotion across the country followed • minimal coverage of the events by Turkish broadcasters (“old media”)
  • 9. Source: [2013-09-12].
  • 10. Source: [2013-09-12].
  • 11. From Green Group Defience to National Crisis: Gezi Park protests II • more than 100,000 Turks informed through international media sources and Internet-based social media • change of the original environmental topic to the general issues of freedom of expression and press, freedom of assembly and the government‟s encroachment on Turkey‟s secularism • 8 dead and more than 4,000 injured people • 14 June Erdoğan suspends the mall construction “for now”
  • 12. Conclusion Changes in western democracies due to new media (in general): • stronger role of non-governmental organizations, groups or individuals • democracies can no longer moderate or control the information flow • governments are more monitored on how they keep their promises
  • 13. Further Possibilities of New Media • they can be a potent tool in creating public consensus in the case of environmental issues • and in addressing citizens to participate in the decision-making process • deliberation becomes an effective tool for solving wicked problems • finding acceptable solutions with broad public support and participation can be easier
  • 14. References I • • • • • • • • • • • • • AKP – Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi. Party program: 5.11 Environment. Available at: (visited 2013-8-21). ANDAY, S. et al. (2012): New Media a Conflict after Arab Spring. Peaceworks No. 80, Washington: United States Institute of Peace. CNN – In concession, Erdogan halts Istanbul park plans, for now. In: CNN. 14 June, 2013. Available at: (visited 2013-8-10). DAHL, R., A. (1989): Democracy and its Critics. New Haven, London: Yale University Press. DICKINSON, J. L. et al. (2013): Can evolutionary design of social networks make it easier to be „green‟? In: Trends in Ecology & Evolution. Elsevier. pp. 1-9. (article in press) DIJK, J. van (2012): The Network Society. 3rd Edition. London: Sage. FRANK, R., H. (1985): Choosing the Right Pond: Human Behavior and the Quest for Status. Oxford University Press. GOLDSTEIN, N., J. et al. (2008): A room with a viewpoint: using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. In: J. Consum. Res. 35, pp. 472–482. HOWE, J. (2008): Crowdsourcing: Why the Power of the Crowd is Driving the Future of Business. Three Rivers Press. ITC – The International Teledemocracy Centre. Available at: (visited 2013-8-11). LIJPHART, A. (1979): Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method. In: The American Political Science Review, Vol. 65, No. 3, pp. 682-693. MOSSBERGER, K., et al. (2011): Digital Citizenship. The Internet society and Participation. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London: The MIT Press. Dostupné z: <> (21. 7. 2013). NYT – Turkey Premier Says Protests Won‟t Stop Demolition. In: The New York Times. 3 June, 2013, pp. A8. Available at: (visited 2013-8-20).
  • 15. References II • • • • • • • • • • OLSON, M. (1965): The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Harvard University Press. RITTEL, H., W., J., WEBBER, M., M. (1974): Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. In: Policy Sciences, Vol. 4, Amsterdam: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company. pp. 155-169. SEXTON, S., SEXTON, A. (2011): Conspicuous conservation: the Prius effect and willingness to pay for environmental bona fides. In: The Selected Works of Steven E. Sexton. Available at: (visited 2013-8-20). SCHMALENSEE, R. (2012): From “Green Growth” to sound policies: An overview. In: Energy Economics. Vol. 34, pp. S2-S6. SCHMIDT, E., COHEN, J. (2013): The New Digital Age. Reshaping the Future of People, Nations and Business. New York: Knopf. SOBEL, D. (2004): Place-based Education: Connecting Classrooms and Communities. The Orion Society. TP – Turkey Protests. Available at: (visited 2013-8-20). TTB – Demonstrator’s Health Conditions. Turkish Medical Association. 7 June, 2013. Available at: (visited 2013-8-20). ZANOTTI, J. (2013): Turkey: Background and U.S. Relations. CRS Report for Congress: Congressional Research Service. Available at: (visited 2013-8-20).
  • 16. Thank you for your attention. Contact: +420604534485 U Kříže 8, 158 00 Praha 5 – Jinonice Czech Republic