* Online Deliberation and Impact on Decision:A Local Planning CaseNicolas Desquinabo (UMR G-Eau, Cemagref & Telecom ParisTech / France)Nils Ferrand (UMR G-Eau, Cemagref / France)OD 2010, Leeds, UK, 30 June - 2 July 2010

Outline

Local planning & Online deliberation

Camargue OD context & design

Hypotheses & Evaluation design

Main results

Conclusion

Local planning governanceGoals and policies for urban development and natural resources management at the local scaleFinal decisions are taken by local representatives (and ratified by national government in France)Long processes (3 to 6 years form diagnosis to policy plan), long texts over 100 pages with complex topicsThe texts proposed are co-written by a limited number of stakeholders:Mostly experts from public agencies and business lobbies invited in small thematic groupsGenerally, their proposals are written by a moderator (if no one insists to modify it)

Potential for OD on local planningLargestakeholder deliberations are limited by :organisational costs inequality of speech and inequality of influence between lay and professional stakeholders

Organisational and financial costs of online deliberation processes are limitedOnline interfaces could facilitate the expression and the impact on decision of the less expert and organized (Spears & Lea, 1992; Strauss, 1996; Coleman, 2004; Price, 2006; Monnoyer-Smith, 2006)Moderation problems (Wright, 2006; Wojcik, 2007) could be less important: the participants are not anonymous and they also meet in face-to-face meetings

Camargue Park planning process

Design of Camargue online deliberation82 stakeholders were invited with an email and an identifying login/pwd (10 local governments, 17 public agency experts, 31 business lobbies, 24 associations)Software of the Intermed project (2008-2011, funded by the French National Research Agency) :Stakeholders could read any part of the management plan project (120 pages), annotate it and read the other annotationsThey were are asked to precise if they wanted to suppress, modify or just comment the selected part of the planThe debates were not moderated : the participants were just warned that illegal messages could be suppressed The sponsor (representatives committee) was clearly the final judge of the proposals integration in the management plan

Online deliberation interface

Why these design choices ?Annotation tool :entice the participants to read the different parts of the document collect localized comments (on the 120 pages document)facilitate the integration process of the annotationsFree text :collect complex information and evaluation of stakeholders But a form of pre-structured expression has been suggested (suppression, modification or comment mode) Controlled and identifying type of login create accountability limit the need for moderation (less cost and more trust)

HypothesesMore deliberative process than comparable face-to-face debates ? (Strauss, 1996; Witschge, 2004):less concentration of speech (% of words by participant), less thematic specialisation (% of plan chapters discussed) without a significant increase of flames (e.g. blames or insults of groups or individuals)More deliberative outcomes ? (Gastil & Levine, 2005):increased perception of satisfaction and competence gain by the participants more influence on decision by lay stakeholders (vs. expert or professional stakeholders)Economic and organisational benefits ?organizers satisfaction (participation rate, type and quantity of information and opinions gathered)limited cost (preparation, moderation, processing) vs. comparable face-to-face processes

Evaluation designData collected on two set of face-to-face workshops (vs. online process):Interviews of organizers (cost, process features, satisfaction)Workshops proceedings analysis (participation rate, etc.) Online deliberation analysis (participation, flames, etc.) Interviews of 60% of the invited stakeholders:data on their practices (previous participations, use of Internet) their assessment of the online deliberationthe reasons why they did or did not post messages Impact on decision assessment:pre-deliberation plan, post-deliberation plan and posts comparisonSeven types of modification proposals :form (syntax or spelling)self-commitment (a stakeholder suggest to modify his commitment)diagnosisgeneral goalpark (joint union) commitmentaction or limitation (e.g. ban motorcycles on certain roads)other stakeholder commitment (a stakeholder suggest to add or modify another stakeholders commitment)

Main results (1)

Main results (2)High volume of posts (625 posts, 21296 words, M=34 words/post) Participation clearly concentrated (20 stakeholders sent at least one post, the 10 most active posted 88% of the messages and 82% of the words)Main reasons for non-posting :lack of time (37% of the interviewed non-posters)Opinion already included in the plan (22% of the non-posters)Internet access or website usability (only 11%) The length of the deliberation (too short for 15 big stakeholders)Buisness representatives are particularly absent online:big lobbies (mostly business ones) for organisational reasons, small lobbies (small business lobbies or cultural associations) because already included in the plan or access problems.The level of flames has certainly not increased significantly (only 2 flames can be observed in the online posts)

Main results (3)Thematic specialization has significantly been reduced (most of the themes vs. most on one theme)Disagreement with the content of the plan is frequent (40% of messages)Direct expression of disagreement between participants is as rare online as offline (

Main results (4): Impact on decisionMost of form correction and self-commitment are accepted (83% and 91%)Proposals of general goals or park commitments by Lay lobbies are less accepted (~35% vs. ~60%)Only a few collective action and other stakeholder commitment are proposed and acceptedThe most influential stakeholder is a well funded ecological association with many experts who work frequently with the park representatives and who are pro-park and anti-bridge

Main results (5): Organisational benefits Many additional comments, proposals and form corrections have been collected (625 posts and 494 modification proposals) with a limited cost and without a flame increase The total costs estimated by the park managers are approximately:30000 for the 40 workshops (~590 per participant)15000 for the 16 workshops (~305 per participant)5000 for the online deliberation (~100 per participant who read at least a few posts)Most of the online deliberation cost was for the processing: the posts analysis and the integration process But the leading public manager emphasized that the annotation system induced the posters to locate their comment in the text and consequently allowed an easier integration process

Conclusion

Many additional policy proposals and form corrections with a limited cost and without an increase of flamesSeveral deliberative benefits observed (more diverse opinions on more topics, some knowledge gains, etc.)But speech is apparently more concentrated than in face-to-face events (even if many non-posters did not post because they had all their comments already included)High global impact on the new version of the plan. Yet, most of the policy proposals on precise collective goals or actions were not accepted. The lay stakeholders had an impact but less than local governments and professional (and consensual) associations

Discussion

For this type of online deliberation, a moderation tool is not useful and online polls would have been not informative enoughImprovements of the tools usability and additional tools (cartographic or multi-criteria decision supports) could probably enhance the participation But the main barriers to a wider and more deliberative participative e-governance remain institutional (length, complexity and vagueness of the management plan, rare salient issues, etc.)Methodological improvements:Direct observation of similar face-to-face events would have improved the comparison (speech concentration and disagreement expression)Online deliberation processes using different e-tools in similar institutional and social contexts.

Appendix

Visits and visitors

Distribution of annotations (= 621)TdeValat 206Region PACA101SM Palissade71Dept 1344Ass salin com35SMG Gard 21Mairie Ste MM20SM Pays Arles20ARPE 19SMG Asynd15Mairie Arles14Comit de soutien13Confrerie Gardians10CCI Arles 8Nacioun Gardiano 7SMT Rhone 7PNR Alpilles 3CIQ Tete Camargue 1Comp Salins Midi 1

Impact on decision

*