Transparent Public Decision Making: Discussion and Case Study in Sweden

Danielson, Mats; Ekenberg, Love; Larsson, Aron; Riabacke, Mona

doi:10.1007/978-90-481-9045-4_15

Cited by 10 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We have also elicited categories of tools from papers that discuss types of tools concerning particular projects or experiments and from the analyses of specialized fields within e-democracy research. Examples include (Saebø, Rose, and Nyvang, 2009), who discuss the role of Social Networking Services (SNS) in e-participation, and (Danielson et al, 2010) who discuss decision analysis in e-participation as a social process and sketches a basic architecture for an ICT system to support such processes.…”

Section: Methodological Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Framework for Categorising and Evaluating Tools for e‑Democracy

Danielson¹,

Ekenberg²

2020

EJEG

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The design of tools and interfaces for e‑democracy systems takes place in a highly multidisciplinary context.However, the inter‑contextual understanding of democracy is still immature. This article presents a framework suitable forevaluating tools for e‑democracy. The framework has been developed based on earlier theories and frameworks and thenfurther evaluated against two test cases: Twitter and BottenAda. The evaluation model builds on the inclusion of differentviews of e‑democracy, not seeing them as conflicting per se but rather making it possible for e‑democracy tool users anddevelopers to understand the varying degree of support a tool can display for several aspects of democracy. The model alsoprovides a visualization of complex theories and can thus contribute to a more informed discussion on what types ofdemocratic values are being supported in a particular e‑democracy tool.

show abstract

Section: Methodological Considerationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Framework for Categorising and Evaluating Tools for e‑Democracy

Danielson¹,

Ekenberg²

2020

EJEG

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Natural resource decisions have a larger effect on the local scale; locals will benefit the most from phytoremediation in their own area. Monitoring work at the village scale involving local people is much more effective and has led to decisions implemented within a year (Danielson et al 2010). This result is often due to the sense of ownership within the community that leads to increased advocacy and accountability for local policymakers.…”

Section: Recommendation Two: Include Communitybased Strategies For Phytoremediation At Heavy Pollution Sitesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phytoremediation Strategies for United Kingdom River Health in the Flood of Climate Change

Riley

Malloy

Piper

et al. 2021

JSPG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Industrialization and urbanization in the United Kingdom has led to practices that impact the quality of their river systems. In a recent 2020 report, 0% of rivers in England meet the current criteria of ‘good health’. Climate change will increase the frequency of flooding and compound this alarming issue. Phytoremediation is a nature-based strategy that employs the use of plants to uptake waste materials such as heavy metals and antibiotic waste. Here, we recommend UK counties use phytoremediation-based strategies in conjunction with community involvement to improve river quality and make communities around river systems more resilient against the impacts of climate change.

show abstract

“…The outputs evaluation will shows which of the two facilities (alternatives) uses ICT the most in its healthcare functions, while the outcomes analysis suggests the alternative that accrued the most benefits as a result of the ICT use. DecideIT offers various forms of evaluation to explain the model results (Danielson et al, 2007a;Danielson et al, 2010). This study specifically relied on ordinal ranking, expected value graphs and tornado graphs.…”

Section: Output and Outcome Model Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…METHODOLOGY In the study presented herein, we utilize the Analytical Decision Layer model suggested in Danielson et al (2010) for handling the stakeholders, criteria and alternatives involved. This is designed for handling imprecise and vague information, facilitating multidimensional and multi-stakeholder assessment processes and evaluations, when the handling of uncertainty attributed to incomplete and vague information is necessary.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Using a Structured Approach to Evaluate ICT4D: Healthcare Delivery in Uganda

Kivunike

Ekenberg

Danielson

et al. 2015

E J Info Sys Dev Countries

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using a case from the healthcare delivery sector, we demonstrate how a structured evaluation approach can facilitate the measurement of actual ICT contributions in various contexts. Typically, such are intricate due to the complexities inherent in the environments, making it difficult to evaluate the relationship between ICT and the benefits it intends to achieve to a reasonable degree. The approach suggested in this paper tries to partly remedy some of these complications, by facilitating qualitative data elicitations, aggregation, analysis and evaluation. To make this computationally meaningful, a decision support tool for handling numerically imprecise information is used for the data analysis and evaluation details. The results of this indicate that such an approach makes at least some meaningful input for practitioners and policymakers. In comparison to the qualitative in-depth approaches this approach facilitates a one-point in time assessment, which is less resource intensive, but provides prompt and substantial insight on the development performance of ICT4D initiatives. A similar approach would also be applicable to different sectors, and can utilize a broader scope of criteria, as well as incorporate views from several categories of stakeholders.

show abstract

Transparent Public Decision Making: Discussion and Case Study in Sweden

Cited by 10 publications

References 16 publications

A Framework for Categorising and Evaluating Tools for e‑Democracy

A Framework for Categorising and Evaluating Tools for e‑Democracy

Phytoremediation Strategies for United Kingdom River Health in the Flood of Climate Change

Using a Structured Approach to Evaluate ICT4D: Healthcare Delivery in Uganda

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About