Abstract
Location-based citizen participation systems have so far mostly been characterized by mediated human-to-human communication between citizens, authorities and other stakeholders. However, in the near future we will see more automatized feedback elements, which inform citizens about the expectable financial or legal implications of their requests. We conducted an experiment to provide research-driven guidance for interaction design in this application context. Thirty participants submitted tree planting proposals with an experimental prototype that varied along the dimensions immediacy, implicitness, and precision. They rated the different forms of provided automatic feedback with regard to satisfaction, and they ranked them in a subsequent card sorting trial. The results show that users have considerably high expectations towards the immediacy and precision of automated feedback, regardless of the inherently higher responsiveness compared to human-operated participation systems. With regard to interaction design, results indicate that the automatically processed information should be made available as early and as possible to users.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allen M, Regenbrecht H, Abbott M (2011) Smart-phone augmented reality for public participation in urban planning. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Australian computer-human interaction conference. ACM, pp 11–20
Åström J, Karlsson M (2016) Will e-participation bring critical citizens back in? In: International conference on electronic participation. Springer, pp 83–93
Bohøj M, Borchorst NG, Bødker S, Korn M, Zander PO (2011) Public deliberation in municipal planning: supporting action and reflection with mobile technology. In: Proceedings of the 5th International conference on communities and technologies. ACM, pp 88–97
Busch M, Lorenz M, Tscheligi M, Hochleitner C, Schulz T (2014) Being there for real: presence in real and virtual environments and its relation to usability. In: Proceedings of the 8th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction: fun, fast, foundational (NordiCHI ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 117–126
Carver S, Openshaw S (1996) Using GIS to explore the technical and social aspects of site selection for radioactive waste disposal facilities. Accessed 14 September 2016 from http://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/5043/1/96-18.pdf
Conroy MM, Evans-Cowley J (2006) E-participation in planning: an analysis of cities adopting on-line citizen participation tools. Environ Plann C Govern Policy 24(3):371–384
Desouza KC, Bhagwatwar A (2012) Citizen apps to solve complex urban problems. J Urban Technol 19(3):107–136
Dix A (2009) Human-computer interaction. Springer
Fröhlich P, Oulasvirta A, Baldauf M, Nurminen A (2011) On the move, wirelessly connected to the world. Commun ACM 54(1):132–138
Gordon E, Baldwin-Philippi J (2014) Civic learning through civic gaming: community planit and the development of trust and reflective participation. Int J Commun 8(2014):759–786
Harding M, Knowles B, Davies N, Rouncefield M (2015) HCI, civic engagement & trust. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 2833–2842
Karsten J, West DM (2016) Streamlining government services with bots (07 June 2016). Accessed 12 Sept 2016 from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2016/06/07/streamlining-government-services-with-bots/
Kearns I, Bend J, Stern B (2002) E-participation in local government. Institute for Public Policy Research
Kim S, Lee J (2012) E-participation, transparency, and trust in local government. Public Adm Rev 72(6):819–828
Kohlisch O, Kuhmann W (1997) System response time and readiness for task execution the optimum duration of inter-task delays. Ergonomics 40(3):265–280
Korn M (2013) Situating engagement: ubiquitous infrastructures for in-situ civic engagement. PhD Dissertation. Aarhus University, Science and Technology, Institute for DatalogiDepartment of Computer Science
Kweit MG, Kweit RW (2004) Citizen participation and citizen evaluation in disaster recovery. Am Rev Public Adm 34(4):354–373
Lukensmeyer CJ, Torres LH (2008) Citizensourcing: citizen participation in a networked nation. Civic Engagem Netw Soc 2008:207–233
Mace RL, Story MF, Mueller JL (1998) The universal design file: designing for people of all ages and abilities. NC State University
Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA, Malhotra A (2005) ES-QUAL a multiple-item scale for assessing electronic service quality. J Servi Res 7(3):213–233
Phoneia Technology & Entertainment (2016) Politibot, the first bot Telegram to follow the elections 26J (10 July 2016). Accessed 12 Sept 2016 from http://phoneia.com/politibot-the-first-bot-telegram-to-follow-the-elections-26j/
Poplin A (2012) Playful public participation in urban planning: a case study for online serious games. Comput Environ Urban Syst 36(3):195–206
Prieto-Martín P, de Marcos L, Martínez JJ (2012) A critical analysis of EU-funded eParticipation. In: Empowering open and collaborative governance. Springer, pp 241–262
Rhodes DL, Wolf W (1999) Overhead effects in real-time preemptive schedules. In: Proceedings of the international workshop on HW/SW codesign, pp 193–197
Schröder C (2015) Through space and time: using mobile apps for urban participation. In: Conference for e-democracy and open governement, p 133
Simão A, Densham PJ, Haklay MM (2009) Web-based GIS for collaborative planning and public participation: an application to the strategic planning of wind farm sites. J Environ Manage 90(6):2027–2040
Steinberger F, Foth F, Alt F (2014) Vote with your feet: local community polling on urban screens. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on pervasive displays. ACM, p 44
Szameitat AJ, Rummel J, Szameitat DP (2009) Behavioral and emotional consequences of brief delays in human-computer interaction. Int J Hum Comput Stud 67(7):561–570
Tambouris E, Liotas N, Tarabanis K (2007) A framework for assessing eParticipation projects and tools. In: 40th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences HICSS 2007. IEEE, p 90
Thiel S-K, Fröhlich P, Sackl A (2016) Experiences from a living lab trialling a mobile participation platform. In: Real Corp’16: 21st international conference on urban planning and regional development in the information society geomultimedia, pp 263–272
Valkanova N, Walter R, Moere AV, Müller J (2014) MyPosition: sparking civic discourse by a public interactive poll visualization. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing. ACM, pp 1323–1332
Vogt M, Fröhlich P (2016) Understanding cities and citizens: developing novel participatory development methods and public service concepts. In: Proceedings of 21st international conference on urban planning, regional development and information society. RealCORP, pp 991–995
Webler T, Tuler S (2000) Fairness and competence in citizen participation theoretical reflections from a case study. Adm Soc 32(5):566–595
West MD (2004) E-government and the transformation of service delivery and citizen attitudes. Public Adm Rev 64(1):15–27
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Sackl, A., Thiel, SK., Fröhlich, P., Tscheligi, M. (2018). “Thanks for Your Input. We Will Get Back to You Shortly.” How to Design Automated Feedback in Location-Based Citizen Participation Systems. In: Kiefer, P., Huang, H., Van de Weghe, N., Raubal, M. (eds) Progress in Location Based Services 2018. LBS 2018. Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71470-7_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71470-7_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-71469-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-71470-7
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)