Skip to Content
Last modified by Hyunji Cho on 2022/03/07 16:37
From version 3.1
edited by Emily West
on 2022/03/03 18:36
Change comment: There is no comment for this version
To version 9.1
edited by Emily West
on 2022/03/04 11:21
Change comment: There is no comment for this version

Summary

Details

Page properties
Content
... ... @@ -1,7 +1,9 @@
1 1  = 1.2.4 Level of Digital Participation =
2 2  
3 -Project: U_CODE (Urban Collective Design Environment)
3 +New indicator
4 4  
5 +Linked to project: U_CODE (Urban Collective Design Environment)
6 +
5 5  (% class="table-bordered" %)
6 6  |(% style="width:211px" %)(((
7 7  ====== **Social challenge/ impact linked to:** ======
... ... @@ -18,24 +18,32 @@
18 18  )))
19 19  |(% style="width:211px" %)(((
20 20  ====== **Description** ======
21 -)))|(% style="width:730px" %)Participation is important to ensure just and equal measures. Increasingly this must involve digital participation to allow the involvement of larger and more diverse actors in decision-making (Hofmann et al. 2020).
23 +)))|(% style="width:730px" %)(((
24 +From the [[Encyclopedia of Gerontology and Population Aging>>url:https://link.springer.com/referencework/10.1007/978-3-030-22009-9]] (Seifert & Rössel, 2021).
25 +
26 +The term //digital participation// refers to the active involvement in digital society through the use of modern information and communication technology (ICT), such as the Internet. This participation includes access to not only the Internet but also various online services and content. Non-participation in the digital world could lead to a feeling of social exclusion, whereas a feeling of social inclusion may be induced by having access to the Internet as well as the willingness and skills to use it.
27 +
28 +Participation is important to ensure just and equal measures. Increasingly this must involve digital participation to allow the involvement of larger and more diverse actors in decision-making (Hofmann et al. 2020).  Several components are important for participation to be successful and fair:
29 +
30 +* representativeness of 6+1 groups proportional to their
31 +* Inclusiveness (the opportunity and ability of all participants to equally contribute)
32 +* Internal transparency (at any time in the process it should be clear where the process is headed and what + why the next step is being taken)
33 +* facilitation of deliberation (participants must understand each other and take on others' perspectives).
34 +
35 +Internet access has been desribed as a "right", and furthermore its iequality is revealed by the link between digital exclusion and social deprivation (Digital Scotland).
36 +)))
22 22  |(% style="width:211px" %)(((
23 23  ====== **Scale as linked to D2.2 framework** ======
24 24  )))|(% style="width:730px" %)(((
25 -Delete as appropriate:
26 -
27 27  * National
28 28  * City
29 29  * Neighborhood
30 30  * Project Area
31 -* Street
32 -* Household
33 -* Object
34 34  )))
35 35  |(% style="width:211px" %)(((
36 36  ====== **Data source and input type** ======
37 37  )))|(% style="width:730px" %)(((
38 -*
48 +* Private sector data from technology companies
39 39  )))
40 40  |(% style="width:211px" %)(((
41 41  ====== **Connection with SDGs** ======
... ... @@ -45,28 +45,34 @@
45 45  |(% style="width:211px" %)(((
46 46  ====== **Required Data** ======
47 47  )))|(% style="width:730px" %)(((
48 -*
58 +* Broadband subscriptions
59 +* Density of discrete domain names and websites in communities, per 100 people
49 49  )))
50 50  |(% style="width:211px" %)(((
51 51  ====== **Expected Outputs** ======
52 52  )))|(% style="width:730px" %)(((
53 -*
64 +* Correlation between economic deprivation indices and participation in digital technology
54 54  )))
55 55  |(% style="width:211px" %)(((
56 56  ====== **Calculation methods** ======
57 57  )))|(% style="width:730px" %)(((
58 -*
69 +* Uptake of broadbands
70 +* Soioeconomic background on those who do not have broadband connection
71 +* Population distribution
59 59  )))
60 60  |(% style="width:211px" %)(((
61 61  ====== **Level of expertise required** ======
62 62  )))|(% style="width:730px" %)(((
63 -*
76 +* High
64 64  )))
65 65  |(% style="width:211px" %)(((
66 66  ====== **Links and references** ======
67 67  )))|(% style="width:730px" %)(((
81 +* Seifert, A. and Rössel, J., 2021. Digital participation. In //Encyclopedia of Gerontology and Population Aging// (pp. 1446-1450). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
68 68  * Hofmann, M., Münster, S. and Noennig, J.R., 2020. A theoretical framework for the evaluation of massive digital participation systems in urban planning. //Journal of Geovisualization and Spatial Analysis//, //4//(1), pp.1-12.
69 -* Seele, P., Jia, C.D. and Helbing, D., 2019. The new silk road and its potential for sustainable development: how open digital participation could make BRI a role model for sustainable businesses and markets. //Asian journal of sustainability and social responsibility//, //4//(1), pp.1-7.
83 +* Morrison, C., 2016. Digital participation: a national framework for local action. Digital Scotland.
84 +* [[white_paper_vf-final-march2020.pdf (asu.edu)>>https://techdatasociety.asu.edu/sites/default/files/white_paper_vf-final-march2020.pdf]]
85 +* [[How to make digital participation inclusive? (citizenlab.co)>>url:https://www.citizenlab.co/blog/civic-tech/how-to-make-digital-participation-inclusive/]]
70 70  )))
71 71  
72 72  (% class="lead" %)