This document discusses online civic engagement and deliberation platforms. It provides examples of online platforms used by various cities and counties for public participation in areas like planning, budgeting, and policymaking. It also discusses challenges of online deliberation like moderating discussions and ensuring diverse participation. Frameworks for evaluating public participation processes and platforms using criteria like information sharing, consultation, collaboration and decision-making power are presented.

1. オンラインプラットフォームあれこれ
Civic Engagement あるいは Online Deliberation
～オンラインによる熟議プロセス～
GrasPP
Hirokazu Okumura
2107/06/06
元は2015年作成でリンクは原則当時のもの
1

2. オンラインプラットフォーム
～オンライン熟議～
2
オープン政策づくり
とりまとめ
意見深化
意見出しあい
個別意見
社
会
課
題
（
政
策
）
の
提
示
・
発
見
政策課題データの構造化プール（オープンデータ）

3. オープン政策づくりプロセスの課題
１．市民の学習環境を整える
– 人向けのデータ公開形式やポリシー系のオープンデータの充実
– 複数の専門家の意見を市民が聞く環境を整える
– データを確認し課題を考え解決策を探る科学的態度の学習
２．現行オンラインツールの限界と意見の社会的公平性への対処
– 集会形式の実の会議とオンラインによる意見交換のハイブリッド
– 意見を述べる市民の選択の問題
– 無作為抽出による会議参加者選択とネット自由参加の組合せ
３．全体の進行役（ファシリテータ）の存在
– 公平中立な立場でかつ意見を出しやすい雰囲気づくり
– 行政職員が担うのかNPOか
– ネット上のファシリテーションの課題
3hirokazuokumura@bettergovernment.jp

4. オンライン上の課題
4
課題 対策
まだ開発途上のツール
（以下の全てが課題）
ソフトウェアで対応可能の範囲を拡大（ま
だ一部は人が対応）
不正常なコメントの抑制 冒涜、個人攻撃、無礼投稿防止と削除
（裏の実名 表の仮名）
フェアな参加方法の奨励 集中的投稿防止と削除
賛否投稿の公平な見える化 filter bubbleの悪影響防止
投稿の奨励 オンライン上の適切な促し
政策データとのリンク オープンデータの構造化

5. 一方で利点も
“Broadening Public Participation Using Online Engagement Tools”
• Reaching More Diverse Residents
• Generating more informed participation
• Inviting a broader range of perspectives
• Producing concrete data for reporting and
evaluation
• Setting the stage for sustained participation
5

6. オンラインプラットフォーム
実例
6

7. 2015 Community Goals: Citizen
Engagement
7
the International City/County Management Association

8. 8
“Broadening Public Participation Using Online Engagement Tools”, Institute for Local Government

9. Planning/Land Use/Transit
• Pacific Coast Highway Safety Study (City of Malibu)
– http://metroquest.com/portfolio/pacific-coast-hwy-safety-study/
– http://p1.malibu.v6.metroquest.com/
• Housing Element (Marin County)
– http://www.marincounty.org/depts/cd/divisions/planning/housing
/housing-element
• Planning options (City of Morgan Hill)
– http://morganhill2035.org/open-town-
hall/?pd_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.peakdemocracy.com%2Fport
als%2F134%2F1555
• Transit Planning (City of Los Angeles)
– http://ideas.la2b.org/
9

10. 10

11. 11

12. 12
Planning options (City of Morgan Hill)

13. 13
“Broadening Public Participation Using Online Engagement Tools”, Institute for Local Government

14. Strategic Planning/Budgeting
• Five Year Strategic Plan Process (City of El Cerrito)
– https://ca-elcerrito.civicplus.com/communityvoice
– http://www.ca-ilg.org/public-engagement-case-story/city-el-
cerrito-engages-residents-five-year-strategic-planning-process
• $500 Budget Challenge (City of Salinas)
– http://www.salinaspubliclibrary.org/home/475-500-budget-
challenge
• Budget Challenge (City of Long Beach)
– http://longbeach.budgetchallenge.org/pages/overview
• Allocating Tax Dollars (San Mateo County)
– N.A.
14

15. 15

16. 16

17. 17
Budget Challenge (City of Long Beach)

18. 18
“Broadening Public Participation Using Online Engagement Tools”, Institute for Local Government

19. Defining/Implementing Specific
Policies or Quality of Life Issues
• Community Forest (Humboldt County)
– http://co.humboldt.ca.us/openhumboldt/#peak_democracy
• Reimagine Downtown (City of Garden Grove)
– http://www.reimaginedowntowngg.com/
• Policy about backyard chickens (City of Ranch Cordova)
– http://www.cityofranchocordova.org/Index.aspx?page=732&
pd_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.peakdemocracy.com%2Fporta
ls%2F141%2F1379
19

20. 20

21. Comparing Three Online Civic
Engagement Platforms using the
“Spectrum of Public Participation”
FrameworkUniversity of California, Berkeley
Brown Institute for Media Innovation, Electrical Engineering, Stanford
University
Office of California Lieutenant Governor
Helsinki Institute for Information Technology (HIIT), Aalto University
などに所属の研究チーム成果
21

22. Public Participation Process Design
Frameworks for Public Participation by
USEPA
• International Association for Public Participation
(IAP2) – Spectrum of Public Participation
• Partnerships Online - Sherry Arnstein’s “Ladder of
Citizen Participation”
• The Co-Intelligence Institute – Functions and
Processes for Community Intelligence
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Spectrum
of Public Involvement
• National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation – 4
Streams of Dialogue and Deliberation
22

23. 23
Late 1990s

24. Details of SPP
Inform Consult Involve Collaborate Empower
Goal To provide the public with
balanced and objective
information to assist them in
understanding the problem,
alternatives, opportunities
and/or solutions.
To obtain public feedback on
analysis, alternatives and/or
decisions.
To work directly with the
public throughout the
process to ensure that public
concerns and aspirations are
consistently understood and
considered.
To partner with the public in
each aspect of the decision
including the development of
alternatives and the
identification of the preferred
solution.
To place final decision
making in the hands of the
public.
Promise We will keep you informed. We will keep you informed,
listen to and acknowledge
concerns and aspirations, and
provide feedback on how
public input influenced the
decision. We will seek your
feedback on drafts and
proposals.
We will work with you to
ensure that your concerns
and aspirations are directly
reflected in the alternatives
developed and provide
feedback on how public input
influenced the decision.
We will work together with
you to formulate solutions
and incorporate your advice
and recommendations into
the decisions to the
maximum extent possible.
We will implement what you
decide.
Tools • Fact sheets
• Web sites
• Open houses
• Public comment
• Focus group
• Surveys
• Public meetings
• Workshops
• Deliberative polling
• Citizen advisory
committees
• Consensus-building
• Participatory decision-
making
• Citizen Juries
• Ballots
• Delegated decision
24

25. Rating scale for each level of the Spectrum of Public Participation
Inform （情報提供）
A description of a societal problem is given (note, this is different from a task description) 4
Factual material is provided or linked to support the description of the societal issue 5
Consult （市民からの提案）
Submitting a new contribution is possible 9
Involve （提案への首長･行政からの回答 提案への市民投票）
Elected leaders or public administration can response to contributions 6
The system can highlight which contributions are seen as important through a voting mechanism or other
method
3
Collaborate （提案がオープン 提案へのコメント可能 センスメーキング支援のインターフェース）
Participants can read each others contributions 2
It is possible to comment on the contributions 4
The interface supports the sense making process 3
Empower （市民による公式の決定プロセス）
A formal decision-making mechanism is implemented and promoted in the system 9
Maximum Total Points Possible 45
25

26. Scores by candidates
Consider.it Reflect Open Town Hall The California
Report Card (CRC)
Inform (9) 9 9 9 4
Consult (9) 9 9 9 9
Involve (9) 0 3 6 3
Collaborate (9) 2 9 9 2
Empower (9) 0 0 0 0
TOTAL (45) 20 30 33 18
26
Living Voters Guide

27. 27
Consider.it + Reflect

28. California Report Card
28
(4a) Assessment: Grading the State of California
(4b) Ideation: Participant suggestion entry
(4c) Collaborative Evaluation: Participants’ suggestions visualized for evaluation
(4d) Collaborative Evaluation: Grading of participant’s suggestion

29. Peak Democracy Inc's Open Town Hall
• a cloud-based online civic engagement platform that augments and diversifies
public participation in ways that also enable government leaders to increase public
trust in their governance.
• Peak Democracy has worked with over 100 government agencies across North
America to power over 1,500 online forums that have attracted over 200,000 online
attendees, and have garnered a user satisfaction rating of over 95%.
29

30. Democracy by Design
Nancy L. Thomas, Tufts University
Active and deliberative
public participation
• A robust civic sector
• Habits of dialogue
and deliberation
• Commitment to
shared governance
and social
responsibility
• Strong social
networks and
connections
• Public efficacy and
agency
Freedom, justice, and
equal opportunity
• Civil and human rights
• Equal economic
opportunity
• Equal access to social
structures
• Just use of power
• Diverse and
multicultural
communities
An educated and
informed citizenry
• Comprehensive civic
education
• Equal access to
information
• A free and attentive
media/press
• Comprehensive co-
created knowledge
• Critically examining,
using, and generating
information
Effective government
structures
• Ethics, transparency
and accountability
• Electoral integrity
• Pathways to citizen
engagement in policy
making
• Just laws and policies
• Balanced application
of constitutional
principles
30

31. Democracy by Design -1,2-
Nancy L. Thomas, Tufts University
Active and deliberative public
participation
• A robust civic sector
• Habits of dialogue and deliberation
• Commitment to shared governance
and social responsibility
• Strong social networks and
connections
• Public efficacy and agency
Freedom, justice, and equal
opportunity
• Civil and human rights
• Equal economic opportunity
• Equal access to social structures
• Just use of power
• Diverse and multicultural
communities
31

32. Democracy by Design -3,4-
Nancy L. Thomas, Tufts University
An educated and informed
citizenry
• Comprehensive civic education
• Equal access to information
• A free and attentive media/press
• Comprehensive co-created
knowledge
• Critically examining, using, and
generating information
Effective government structures
• Ethics, transparency and
accountability
• Electoral integrity
• Pathways to citizen engagement
in policy making
• Just laws and policies
• Balanced application of
constitutional principles
32

33. References 1
• Broadening Public Participation Using Online
Engagement Tools
– http://www.ca-ilg.org/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/broadening_participation_via_online_tools_final_draft
_1.pdf
• Comparing Three Online Civic Engagement Platforms
– http://goldberg.berkeley.edu/pubs/oxford-ipp-2014-spectrum.pdf
• Bowling Together : Online Public Engagement in Policy
Deliberation
– http://catedras.fsoc.uba.ar/rusailh/Unidad%207/Coleman%20and
%20Gotze%20Bowling%20Together,%20online%20public%20enga
gement%20in%20policy%20deliberation.pdf
33

34. References 2
• Public Participation Guide: Internet Resources
on Public Participation, EPA, USA
– http://www2.epa.gov/international-cooperation/public-
participation-guide-internet-resources-public-
participation#frameworks
• Types of Engagement, DSE, Vic, AU
– http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/effective-
engagement/developing-an-engagement-plan/types-of-
engagement
34