Analysis of Citizens’ Challenges regarding Electronic Participation in Decision Makings of Bojnourd City Council

Document Type : علمی - پژوهشی

Authors

• Zahra Haghjouyan ¹
• Gholamreza HaghighatNaeini ²

¹ Senior expert of Urban Management, Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Art, Tehran, Iran

² Associate Professor, Department of Urban Planning, Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning, University of Art, Tehran, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22067/jgusd.2022.77910.1228

Abstract

Extended Abstract

Introduction

A look at urban management approaches over the history shows that urban approaches have becoming more flexible. The current approach is urban governance and one of the principles of urban governance is participation. Many believe that more informed and legitimate decisions can be made by involving citizens. Due to the advancement of information technologies and the increase in the use of the Internet and participation tools in recent years, electronic participation has also started to increase the scope and transparency of the government and, as a result, increase the trust of citizens in the government. Citizen-initiated electronic-participation is often in the form of consultative communication in which participants communicate with government administrators, monitor, comment on others’ opinions, and respond to the opinions.
As an institution that is made up of people’s representatives, the city council is one of the important principles of the urban management system in Iran. For satisfying the needs of the people, this institution has an urgent need to get people’s votes and opinions, and one of the prerequisites for getting their opinions is involving them in urban management issues. Since the use of the Internet and virtual space is increasing every day, it is not possible to hold meetings with the presence of all citizens. And as the purpose of electronic participation is increasing the participation of citizens in digital governance, their participation can help officials, including city council members, to offer better services to people and solve their problems. Bojnord city council’s facilities for electronic participation are limited to the website of the organization, Telegram groups, and Instagram pages of members of the council. Taking these issues into consideration, this study tried to examine the challenges of citizens regarding their electronic participation in Bojnord city council’s decisions and to offer some solutions that make citizens’ electronic participation easier.

Method

A mixed method was used for this applied research. A semi-structured interview was used in three sections. First, public relations experts (website officials) of the city council were interviewed to see the website's status. In the second section, interactive interviews were conducted with members of city council and city managers and experts regarding citizens' participation through open questions. In the third part, the virtual literacy of citizens and the amount of current training were explored to see the access of citizens of Bojnord to electronic tools. For this purpose, an employee of Seraj in North Khorasan province was interviewed. Content analysis was applied to analyze the data from the interviews. Another questionnaire was designed, the target group of which was all the citizens of Bojnord older than 18, because these people can vote for selecting city council members. As it was not possible to access all the people of this city, aged 18 to 20, the statistical population was considered to be all citizens over 20 years of age, which according to the last census in 2016 were 153122 people. SPSS was run to analyze the data of this section. The one-sample t-test and descriptive tests were used. DPSER and SWAT methods were also applied to understand the status of electronic participation.

Results

The results showed that three important issues are needed for electronic participation of citizens: 1) conditions or prerequisites for electronic participation (economic/financial conditions, social/cultural conditions, legal/law conditions, and technical and infrastructure conditions); 2) the methods of electronic participation (electronic notification, electronic consultation and electronic decision-making); and 3) electronic participation tools (available platforms). Moreover, the investigations showed that full electronic informing has been done regarding the news and approvals of the city council of Bojnord and the news of daily meetings has been published for the citizens, but the citizens have not been informed about the presence of city council members on different platforms and the way of electronic communication with them. Therefore, many citizens did not know at all about the presence of city council members in social media and though they have wanted to communicate electronically, they did not know the communication methods.

Discussion and Conclusion

The results showed that resorting to electronic participation has many such advantages as creating a more comprehensive view of the problems and even a more specialized solution to them. Generally speaking, one can say that Bojnord city council is in electronic notification stage. Here are some strategies to overcome barriers and emphasize strengths. The goal is that all city councils with similar conditions that do not have a single platform for electronic participation can use these suggestions to solve the participation problems. These suggestions are as follows:

Appropriate and public informing about the activeness of city council members in electronic media;
Determining the duties for each member of city council for electronic presence. This will encourage citizens to communicate electronically with members of city councils;

Creating a technology department in the city councils and employing experts in this regard;
Improving the facilities of city councils’ websites and providing some possibilities, including sending emails to citizens, uploading photos and videos by citizens, and online broadcast of the meetings of city councils;
Using the power of city council representatives in the supreme council of provinces to make legislations for citizens’ electronic participation.



 
 
 

Keywords

• Keywords: Participation
• Electronic Participation
• Electronic Informing
• City Council
• Bojnord City

References

1.  

   1. 1. بلوکات، م. (1392). کاربرد مشارکت الکترونیک در مدیریت و برنامه‌ریزی محله‌ای، نمونه موردی محله انقلاب، منطقه 11 تهران. پایان‌نامه اخذ کارشناسی ارشد. گروه شهرسازی. دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی. دانشگاه هنر.
   2. جلیلی، س.م.، وعبدالهی ثابت، م.م. (1396). تبیین الگوهای غالب مدیریت شهری (1) مبادی و مدل‌های مدیریت شهری، تهران: مرکز مطالعات و برنامه‌ریزی شهر تهران، دانش شهر شماره 474.
   3. زاهد زاهدانی، س.س.، وزهری بیدگلی، س.م. (1391). مدیریت شهری و تبیین مشارکت اجتماعی شهروندان در شهرداری. مطالعات جامعه شناختی شهری، 2 (5) ،120-83.
   4. زیاری، ک.، بیک محمدی، ح.، ورضایی کوچی، م. (1398). بررسی نقش مشارکت شهروندان در افزایش موفقیت مدیریت شهری (مورد: کلانشهر شیراز). فصلنامه پژوهش و برنامه ریزی شهری، 10(38)، 62-51.
   5. زیاری، ک.، حاتمی، ا.، عاشوری،‌ ح.، وبوته‌ریگی، م. (1397). بررسی علل ناکارآمدی شوراهای اسلامی شهر در مدیریت شهری (نمونه موردی: شهر زاهدان). فصلنامه پژوهش‌های نوین علوم جغرافیایی. معماری و شهرسازی، 2(13)، 111-93.
   6. شرفی، م. (1389). بررسی و شناخت شیوه‌های مشارکتی و کاربرد آن‌ها در برنامه‌ریزی توسعه شهری نمونه موردی: محله چهار منطقه شش شهر تهران. پایان‌نامه اخذ کارشناسی ارشد. تهران: گروه شهرسازی. دانشکده معماری و شهرسازی. دانشگاه هنر.
   7. عاقل، خ. (1396). پیشایندهای مشارکت الکترونیکی شهروندان؛ شهر رفسنجان. پایان نامه کارشناسی ارشد. رفسنجان: دانشگاه ولی عصر (عج) رفسنجان.
   8. عزیزی، م.ص. (1397). امکان‌سنجی توسعه پارک‌های جیبی با رویکرد مشارکت شهروندان مطالعه موردی: محلات (زیباشهر و امیرکبیر) شهرزنجان. پایان‌نامه کارشناسی ارشد. زنجان: دانشگاه زنجان.
   9. عظیمی، ن.، اسماعیل‌پور، ر.، وحیدری، س. (1394). ارزیابی عوامل موثر بر مشارکت الکترونیکی شهروندان در مدیریت امور شهری. مطالعات و پژوهش‌های شهری و منطقه‌ای، 7(26)، 206-189.
   10. فخرایی، ع.، ومرزی، ر. (1396). بررسی رابطه مشارکت شهروندان و فاکتورهای اصلی مدیریت شهری مطالعه موردی: شهر تهران. مطالعات محیطی هفت حصار، 6 (21)، 26-17.
   11. کاظمیان، غ.،‌صالحی، ا.، ایازی، س.م.ه.، نوذرپور، ع.، ایمانی جاجرمی، ح.، سعیدی رضوانی، ن.، وعبداللهی، م. (1392). مدیریت شهری. جلد اول. ‌چاپ دوم. تهران: تیسا.
   12. گلکار، ک. (1385). مناسب سازی تکنیک تحلیلی سوآت (SWOT) برای کاربرد در طراحی شهری. نشریه علمی پژوهشی صفه، 41، 2-21.
   13. مهندسین مشاور نقش جهان پارس. (1389). طرح توسعه و عمران شهر بجنورد. جلد اول. بجنورد: سازمان مسکن و شهرسازی استان خراسان شمالی.
   14. نبیی، ص. (1391). ارزیابی عملکرد دوره سوم شورای شهر تهران بر اساس وظایف و اختیارات قانونی آن در حوزه برنامه‌ریزی شهری. پایان‌نامه اخذ کارشناسی ارشد. تهران: دانشگاه هنر.
   15. نوروزی سیله، ن.، سبحانی، ن.، وبیرانوندزاده،‌ م. (1395). بررسی عملکرد شورای شهر در کلان شهرها با رویکرد مشارکت شهروندان (نمونه موردی: کلان شهر اهواز). فصلنامه پژوهش‌های نوین علوم جغرافیایی. ‌معماری و شهرسازی، 1(3)، 182-165.

    

   16. Abildgaard, JS., Hasson, H., Schwarz, UT., Løvseth, LT., Ala-Laurinaho, A., Nielsen, K. (2018). Forms of participation: The development and application of a conceptual model of participation in work environment intervent. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 3(41), 746-769.
   17. Allen, B.E., Tamindael, L.H., Bickerton, S., Cho, W. (2020). Does citizen coproduction lead to better urban services in smart cities projects? An empirical study on e-participation in a mobile big data platform. Government Information Quarterly, 37(1),1-10.
   18. Biswas, R., Jana, A., Arya, K., Ramamritham, K. (2018). A good-governance framework for urban management. Journal of Urban Management, 1-13.
   19. Blanc, D.L. (2020). E-participation: a quick overview of recent qualitative trends. New York: United Nations DESA Working Papers.
   20. Callahan, K. (2007). Citizen Participation: Models and Methods. International Journal of Public Administration, 1179-1196.
   21. Cárcaba, A., González, E., Ventura, J., Arrondo, R. (2017). How Does Good Governance Relate to Quality of Life? Sustainability,1-16.
   22. Choi, J., Song, Ch. (2020). Factors explaining why some citizens engage in E-participation, while others do not. Government Information Quarterly, 37(3), 1-15.
   23. City Partners (City of Atlanta, City of Albuquerque, City of Baltimore, City of New Orleans. City of Seattle). (2016).1-70.
   24. Citizen Vision eParticipation Institute, Netherlands. (2012). The eCitizen Charter as a tool for public sector innovation through citizen engagement and social accountability Matt Poelmans, 1-3.
   25. Herrera, A.A., Díaz, M.C., Paronyan, H., Murillo, V. (2019). Use of the neutrosophic IADOV technique to diagnose the real state of citizen participation and social control, exercised by young people in Ecuador. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, (26), 169-174.
   26. IAP2. (2018). IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation.
   27. Lane, M.B. (2012). Public participation in planning: an intellectual history. Australian Geographer, 283-299.
   28. Lee, J., Kim, S. (2014). Active Citizen E-Participation in Local Governance: Do Individual Social Capital and E-Participation Management Matter?. Hawaii International Conference on System Science, (7), 2044-2053.
   29. Lironi, E. (2016). Potential and Challenges of e-Participation in the European Union. Directe for internal policies Policy department C: citizen’s rights and constitutional affairs.
   30. Macintosh, A., & Whyte, A. (2008). Towards an Evaluation Framework for eParticipation, Transforming Government: People. Process & Policy, 2 (1), 16-30.
   31. Naranjo Zolotova, M., Oliveira, T., Casteleyn, S., Irani, Z. (2019). Continuous usage of e-participation: The role of the sense of virtual community. Government Information Quarterly, (36)4, 536-545.
   32. Naranjo-Zolotov, M., Oliveira, T., Cruz-Jesus, F., Martins, J., Gonçalves, R., Branco, F., & Nuno, X. (2019). Examining social capital and individual motivators to explain the adoption of online citizen participation. Future Generation Computer Systems, 92, 302-311.
   33. Participation Working Group. (2013). Participation Toolkit. Participation Working Group.
   34. Porwol, L., Ojo, A., & Breslin, J.G. (2016). An ontology for next generation e-Participation initiatives, Government Information Quarterly, 33(3), 583-594.
   35. Royo, S., Pina, V., & Garcia-Rayado, J. (2020). Decide Madrid: A Critical Analysis of an Award-Winning e-Participation Initiative. Sustainability, 12, 1-19.
   36. Sachs, M., Schossböck, J. (2015). Perspectives on Electronic Identity Applications in Online Engagement. Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government, 373-376.
   37. Sæbø, Ø., Rose, J., Molka-Danielsen, J. (2014). eParticipation: Designing and Managing Political Discussion Forums, 1-45.
   38. Sanford, C., & Rose, J. (2007). Characterizing eParticipation. International Journal of Information Management. Social Science Computer Review, 28(4), 403-426.
   39. Vicente, M.R., & Novo, A. (2014). An empirical analysis of e-participation. The role of social networks and e-government over citizens' online engagement. Government Information Quarterly, 379-387.
   40. World bank group. (2017). An assessment of service delivery and performance drivers in the west bank and Gaza. The performance of Palestinian local governments.
   41. Zhang, Y., Schachter, H.L., & Holzer, M. (2015). The impact of government form on e-participation: A study of New Jersey municipalities. Government Information Quarterly, 31(4), 653-659.
   42. http://nkhbojnord.ir/index.php
   43. https://rc.majlis.ir/fa