hyperlocal e-participation: scottish community councils on the internet, for cedem 2014
DESCRIPTION
A brief presentation that talks a little about the implications of our 2012 survey of internet use by Community Councils in Scotland - and exploring options for further research approachesTRANSCRIPT
Peter Cruickshank
Bruce Ryan
Colin F Smith
‘Hyperlocal e-participation’?
Evaluating online activity
by Scottish Community Councils
What are community councils
• Their purpose is to represent small areas within Local Authorities
• Powers are limited
– Mostly, the right to be consulted
– Some more direct input into planning processes
• Community Council members are unpaid volunteers
• Small to non-existent budgets
– Average annual income is around £400
– enough to hire a monthly meeting room, pay for some stationery
(Arrangements of hyperlocal government vary across the United Kingdom between
England, Wales and Scotland and Northern Ireland but share a common model)
CEDEM14
Three similar countries
Austria Norway Scotland*
Pop. (m) 8.3 5.0 5.3
Federal 9 Bundesländer - (Part of UK)
County 84 Bezirke
15 Statutarstädte
19
fylker
32 Local
Authorities
Community 2346 Gemeinden 434 kommuner 1369 Community
Councils
‘000 people per
community 3.5 11.5 3.9
CEDEM14
*Depending who you ask
Three smallish countries with a mix of urban and remote rural populations
Three similar countries
Austria Norway Scotland
Websites 98% (2008) 90% (2003)
Hosting .gv.at
Social media 58% (2011)
CEDEM14
Community councils online
Three similar countries
Austria Norway Scotland
Websites 98% (2008) 90% (2003) ?
Hosting .gv.at ?
Social media 58% (2011) ?
CEDEM14
Community councils online
What does the literature say • E-participation
– Can hold government to account
– Helps communication (Grosse 2013)
– But isn’t everything: Reinforces power relations
– Seen in context of channel choice (Saglie & Vabo, 2009)
– Don’t expect 100% (active) participation
• Delivery of information: perhaps models of media would be where to look?
– Recognises role of passive participation (‘lurking’)
• Voluntary organisation? – Should we look to charities? (Goatman & Lewis 2007)
– And how they target interest groups (Winterich et al 2012)
• Impact of smallscale Geography – Cities are different from countryside
– Part of identification with small towns (Bruns 2010)
– Community groups as a way to get to now your neighbours (Nyseth & Ringholm, 2008)
CEDEM14
How are CCs (visibly) acting?
Represent-ative body
Com-
munity group
Campaign-ing group
Local media
CEDEM14
Gathering the data
Lim
ita
tio
ns
Offline only
Closed groups
Social media not the web
CEDEM14
Activity levels
Level of e-participation
Content types
• Contacts
• News
• Planning
• Local info
Hosting arrangements
• Where are the servers
• What platform is used
Results
Inactive
CCs
Active with online presences…
Total
CCs …missing
…out-of-
date
…up-
to-date
Total 213 498 351 307 1,369
% of all 16% 36% 26% 22% 100%
%of active NA 43% 30% 27% 100%
CEDEM14
Results
What does seem to work?
CEDEM14
050
100150200250300350400450500
Active and…
Results
• This level of use of websites compares adversely with the 98% of Austrian Gemeinden and 90% of Norwegian kommuner.
• Only 38 CCs (12% of active online sites) had information to support engagement with the planning process • despite this being core to their mission.
• Low level of use of Facebook
• LA-hosted presences tended to have only minutes and CC contact details
• What are the drivers for use if internet? – Data seem to imply support from LA was most significant
– No simple relationship between urban/rural characteristic of LAs and CCs’ online effectiveness
– Probably need to drill down into more detailed social statistics
– Profile of the community councillors (eg age) is probably also significant
CEDEM14
Put simply:
Community Councils aren’t flying
CEDEM14
• Essentially, Looking at a
failed part of the political
system
…an edge case
» Technology will
not solve this
problem
• BUT: It is interesting to look
for cases where technology
does make a difference
• Can models of practice be
shared?
www.identitybydesign.co.nz
What next
Data gathering…
• Resurvey
• Twitter analysis
• Ethnography
Interventions
• KM
• ?
CEDEM14
