Muriël Pels (Municipality Utrecht) Hier komt ook tekst Expectations Utrecht Muriël Pels (Municipality Utrecht) Hier komt ook tekst Questions and dilemma’s (no solutions).

What Utrecht wants to learn from the Smart Governance project: What is the best way to use ICT’s to engage citizens in urban sustainability governance?

How to best use ICTs to engage citizens in urban sustainability governance: Best: contributing to sustainability, supporting participatory democracy, cost-effective, and avoiding national/EU fines. ICTs: internet, social media, planning support systems, GIS, urban information platforms, open data portals, etc. Engage: participation intrinsically motivated.

What is ‘best’ use of ICTs to engage citizens in sustainability governance? Legitimate = transparant AND specific = ..? Trustworthy = safe AND user-friendly = ..? Democratic = e-inclusive = ..? Contributing to sustainability = engaging = ..? Cost-effective = standardised, interoperable = ..? 1: Factors for engagement….Personal interest (e.g. my street), interactive medium (e.g. scenario’s), fun (attractive , easy to understand, easy to use). 2: offline/online …. Inviting people for digital panel that were not inivited for (paid) city talks on energy plan. Is it the interface or something else?? 3: Gov is law enforcer and service provider. Privacy by design essential – for industry and gov. 4: Barcode being stuck on bicycles of people leaving public bicycling parking space. Educate mobility policy advisors on opportunities and risks of gathering and processing (personal) data. Lots of work for our ‘Advisor processing of personal data’ (since summer 2015, obligatory for all Dutch municipalities as of summer 2016).

Towards a ‘knowledge agenda’ for best use of ICTs for citizen engagement: What are the differences between offline and online citizen engagement? What are the critical (success) factors for citizen engagement enabled by ICTs? What is the role of local government in this? What does this mean for capacity building in the organization? 1: offline/online …. Inviting people for digital panel that were not inivited for (paid) city talks on energy plan. Is it the interface or something else?? 2: Factors for engagement….Personal interest (e.g. my street, innovation, lower price), interactive medium (e.g. scenario’s), fun (attractive , easy to understand, easy to use). 3: Gov is law enforcer AND service provider. Privacy by design essential for future market and future government. 4. Example: barcode being stuck on bicycles of people leaving public bicycling parking space… Garbage container keys became passes… What is gathered? Why? What is done with my data (or not: selling..)? Most of all: citizens increasingly want to be in control of their data! Educate mobility policy advisors on opportunities and risks of gathering and processing (personal) data. Lots of work for our ‘Advisor processing of personal data’ (since summer 2015, obligatory for all Dutch municipalities as of summer 2016).

Towards a ‘process agenda’: how to move.. From interpretation of citizen-generated data to assessment of citizen-generated data? From municipality-created solutions to demand-based solutions? From no unless.. to yes provided that.. in use of ICTs for citizen engagement? 1. Are the data correct? Is our definition of the problem correct that we have gathered the data for? Is the problem really the problem, or is there another problem behind it? 2. What's in that for the data-generating citizen themselves? Role for government: secure one-stop-shop, connecting within the organization from citizen’s perspective, facilitating processes of co-creation, securing participative democracy). 3. Can we do this? Do we want to do this? Or are there conflicting interests that make us unable and/or unwilling to do this (in certain situations)?