We have the tools How to attract the people?

1. We have the toolsHow to attract the people? Creating a culture of Web-based participation in environmental decision making Raimo P. Hämäläinen Jyri Mustajoki Mika Marttunen

2. Web-tools • New possibilities to support participatory decision making • Decision analytical tools • Tools for participation • Experiences of web support in environmental management • Multiple objectives • Multiple stakeholders • Often in georaphically different locations

3. Development of lake regulation policies • Lake Päijänne • 1995–1999 • Lake Kallavesi • 1999–2001 • Pirkanmaa lakes • 1999–2003 • In collaboration with Finnish Environment Institute

4. The tools used • www.Decisionarium.hut.fi • Opinions-Online (www.opinion.hut.fi) • Platform for global participation, voting, surveys, and group decisions • Web-HIPRE (www.hipre.hut.fi) • Value tree based decision analysis and support • Joint Gains (www.jointgains.hut.fi) used only in a student role playing test • Multi-party negotiation support with the method of improving directions

5. Opinions-Online v.2.0 • Online generation of web-survey forms • Multiple / single choice questions • Open ended • Different ways of setting priorities • Ranking, • Approval voting, • Multiattribute rating • On-line analysis of the results • Possibility to view and link to the results according to any field on the questionnaire • Allows to see differences between stakeholder groups

6. Opinions-Online - Creating a new session

7. Opinions-Online - Analysis of results

8. Web-HIPRE

9. Who can use Web-HIPRE to create and evaluate preference models? • Requires methodological support • Not easily applicable with general public • Ok in steering groups with assistance • Independent analysis of steering group members' models with Web-HIPRE? • Possibly Ok – still risk of misunderstandings • Web-based learning material can help understand the methods and software

10. Framework for the use of Web Steering Group Assisted use Preference elicitation Analysis of results Analysis of the feedback Information Web-HIPRE Web Site Opinions-Online Results to Web Results to Web Web Decision on recommendations Preference elicitation Feedback Analysis of the feedback Analysis of results Independent use Information Public

11. Stages in a traditional participatory environmental policy process • 1. Initial screening of stakeholder concerns • 2. Evaluation and modeling of the problem • 3. Informing the public, e.g. about decision recommendations • 4. Collecting and analysing feedback from the public • 5. Decision on policy recommendations • 6. Public evaluates the decision

12. 1. Initial screening of stakeholder concerns • Web does not yet provide natural ways to inform about possibilities to participate •  Traditional ways of informing the public still needed • Newspapers, radio, TV, … • Mail questionnaires • Expensive to send and analyze • Once public has been informed, Web can be used for e-participation

13. 2. Evaluation and modeling of the problem • Decision analysis provides a transparent way to model preferences • Stakeholder weights and rankings can be published on the Web • Decision analysis interviews • Analyst assures the proper use of the methods • Decision conferences/workshops • Individual preference models as a basis of discussion and group models

14. Lake Päijänne • Steering group, 20 people • Decision analysis interviews with HIPRE and Web-HIPRE • Typical models publicly available on the Web • Initial screening by mail questionnaires • 10 public meetings, including interactive DA • Closing seminar • 51 participants • Results of the value tree analyses • Opinions-Online feedback

15. Lake Päijänne Web site

16. 3. Web Site for Informing the Public • Impacts of policy alternatives • Pictures, text, graphs, diagrams • Description of Web-HIPRE models of the steering group members • Clear separation of facts and values • Aim to explain the values and objectives of different stakeholder groups • Can be analyzed by stakeholders in local meetings

17. Pirkanmaa lakes Web site • Information about the recommendations on the Web

18. 4. Collecting and analysing public feedback • Direct links to opinions-online surveys and results • opinions from different geographical areas and stakeholder groups • people learn each others’ perspectives – feeling that they have a voice • Everyone does not have access to Internet • Alternative ways to participate, e.g. by mail, should be provided • Web tools can still be used by entering the opinions from the mail questionnaires into the web

19. Pirkanmaa lakes • Opinions-Online was the primary way to collect public feedback about the regulation recommendations • Web questionnaire and material broadly advertised on: • e-Mail lists, Web pages • Local newspapers • Local radio and TV • Possibility to alternatively reply by regular mail • 333 replied on the Web and 6 by mail

20. Visits to the Web questionnaire • Open from February 19 to March 7 • Weekend • Weekend

21. Pirkanmaa lakes Web site • Results available for the public

22. Is Web participation too easy? • How to assure that stakeholders examine the different options thoroughly? • E.g. in the Pirkanmaa Web questionnaire very few people visited the information material provided on the recommendations  Learning of the regulation and understanding of the other stakeholders' views may not happen • Public anchored onto just expressing a voice or a vote but were not ready for active participation?

23. Discussion • The Web-based framework meets several objectives of public participation • Openness • Fairness • Clarification of facts and values • Opportunity for every person to present an opinion - not only stakeholder representatives • Provides a possibility for an active role for the public

24. Culture grows from positive experiences • Collaboration of DA researchers and policy planners • Small steps • Simple Web-based tools first • Web pages for information • Surveys • Steering group use of DA tools • Interactive evaluation of decision models by stakeholdes • Can the public use DA tools independently? • This will take years

25. How to attract the people? • It is not enough to have tools – technology push does not work ! • New innovations take 30 years to be accepted • eTools for participation are available but they are not enough: • Participation process has to be designed with a systems intelligent perspective • -Communication so that trust will not be lost • -Collaboration and learning as a working mode

26. References • M. Marttunen and R.P. Hämäläinen (1995): Decision analysis interviews in environmental impact assessment, European Journal of Operational Research, 87(3), 1995, 551-563. • M. Marttunen, E.A. Järvinen, J. Saukkonen and R.P. Hämäläinen (1999): Regulation of Lake Päijänne - a learning process preceding decision-making, Finnish Journal of Water Economy, 6, 29-37. (in Finnish) • J. Mustajoki and R.P.Hämäläinen (2000): Web-HIPRE: Global decision support by value tree and AHP analysis, INFOR, 38(3), 208-220. • R.P. Hämäläinen, E. Kettunen, M. Marttunen and H. Ehtamo (2001): Evaluating a Framework for Multi-Stakeholder Decision Support in Water Resources Management, Group Decision and Negotiation, 10(4), 331-353. • R.P. Hämäläinen (2003): Decisionarium - Aiding Decisions, Negotiating and Collecting Opinions on the Web, Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, 12(2-3), 101-110 • J. Mustajoki, R.P. Hämäläinen and M. Marttunen (2004): Participatory multicriteria decision support with Web-HIPRE: A case of lake regulation policy, Environmental Modelling & Software, 19(6), 537-547.

27. Web sites • Findings of 20 years of research in environmental decision analysis and participation: • www.environment.sal.hut.fi/ • Lake Päijänne project: www.paijanne.hut.fi • Lake Kallavesi project: www.kallavesi.hut.fi • Pirkanmaa lakes project: www.pirkanmaa.hut.fi • Decisionarium: www.decisionarium.hut.fi • Finnish Environment Institute: www.vyh.fi • Water Resources in Finland: • www.vyh.fi/eng/environ/state/waterre/waterre.htm