How can we examine/understand the participation dynamics in our Citizen Observatory?

Why is it relevant?

Examining and understanding the participation dynamics in Citizen Observatories is of key for several reasons. It allows CO participants and practitioners to gain insight into the level of engagement, commitment, and involvement of (other) participants, which are crucial factors in the success and effectiveness of an observatory. By understanding the dynamics of participation, strengths and weaknesses of the initiative can be identified, potential gaps in stakeholder representation can be explored, and strategies to enhance inclusion and active engagement can be developed. Secondly, examining participation dynamics helps in the assessment of the impact of the observatory on decision-making processes, policy development, and environmental management. By understanding how participants interact, communicate, and contribute, CO leaders and practitioners can evaluate the effectiveness of the observatory in empowering citizens and influencing environmental outcomes. Lastly, examining CO participation dynamics provides valuable knowledge for the continuous improvement and evolution of the CO, enabling the adaption and refinement of approaches, communication methods, and support systems to foster meaningful and sustained participation in environmental monitoring, planning, and management.

How can this be done?

One framework that could be used to broadly understand and conceptualise participation dynamics in citizen observatories, is the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework (Ostrom, 2009). The framework focuses on analysing the institutional arrangements and collective action processes that influence the behaviour of individuals and groups within a specific context related to common pool natural resources. In the case of CitiObs, this concerns in the first instance air quality but may also cover other natural resources such as water quality and quantity. In the context of a CO, the IAD framework can help identify the key actors, their roles, and the rules governing their interactions. It allows for an examination of the design principles and governance structures that shape participation, as well as the external factors such as social norms, power dynamics, and resource constraints that influence engagement. By applying the IAD framework, CO leaders and practitioners can gain a deeper understanding of the participation dynamics within the CO, identify barriers and facilitators of participation, and develop strategies to foster effective and inclusive engagement of citizens in the observatory's activities (find out more about inclusive engagement in the CitiObs Leave No One Behind Toolkit in deliverable D1.5).

To apply the IAD, Strandburg, Frischmann, and Madison (2017) developed a set of questions, known as the Knowledge Commons Framework and Representative Research, in order to apply the framework to Knowledge Commons. (The Knowledge Commons refers to the collective resources and knowledge that are available to a community and are managed and shared by that community and as such is closely related to the core concept and characteristics of COs) These questions can also be adapted to reflect on participation dynamics in COs, as follows:

Background environment

• What is the background context (legal, cultural, etc.) of this particular CO?

• What is the “default” status, in that background context, of the sorts of resources involved in the commons (patented, copyrighted, open, or other)?

Attributes - Resources

• What resources are pooled and how are they created or obtained?

• What are the characteristics of the resources? Are they rival or nonrival, tangible or intangible? Is there shared infrastructure?

• What technologies and skills are needed to create, obtain, maintain, and use the resources?

Attributes – Community Members

• Who are the community members and what are their roles?

• What are the degree and nature of openness with respect to each type of CO member and the general public?

Attributes - Goals and Objectives

• What are the goals and objectives of the CO and its members, including obstacles or dilemmas to be overcome?

• What are the history and narrative of the CO?

Governance

• What are the relevant action arenas and how do they relate to the goals and objective of the CO and the relationships among various types of participants and with the general public?

• What are the governance mechanisms (e.g., membership rules, resource contribution or extraction standards and requirements, conflict resolution mechanisms, sanctions for rule violation)?

• Who are the decision makers and how are they selected?

• What are the institutions and technological infrastructures that structure and govern decision making?

• What informal norms govern the CO?

• How do non-members interact with the CO? What institutions govern those interactions?

• What legal structures (e.g., intellectual property, subsidies, contract, licensing, tax, antitrust) apply?

Patterns and outcomes

• What benefits are delivered to members and to others (e.g., innovations and creative output, production, sharing, and dissemination to a broader audience, and social interactions that emerge from the CO)?

• What costs and risks are associated with the CO, including any negative externalities?

References

Ostrom, E. (2009). The institutional analysis and development framework and the commons. Cornell L. Rev., 95, 807.

Strandburg, K. J., Frischmann, B. M., & Madison, M. J. (2017). The knowledge commons framework. Governing medical knowledge commons, 9-18.