IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i10p5453-d553817.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Decision Support System to Enable Crowd Identify Neighborhood Issues and Its Solutions for Policy Makers: An Online Experiment at Kabul Municipal Level

Author

Listed:
  • Jawad Haqbeen

    (Department of Computer Science, Nagoya Institute of Technology, Nagoya 466-8555, Japan)

  • Sofia Sahab

    (Department of Social Informatics, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan)

  • Takayuki Ito

    (Department of Social Informatics, Kyoto University, Kyoto 606-8501, Japan)

  • Paola Rizzi

    (Department of Architecture, Design and Urban Planning, University of Sassari, 07100 Sassari, Italy)

Abstract

Planning a city is a systematic process that includes time, space, and groups of people who must communicate. However, due to security problems in such war-ravaged countries as Afghanistan, the traditional forms of public participation in the planning process are untenable. In particular, due to gathering space difficulties and culture issues in Afghanistan, women and religious minorities are restricted from joining male-dominated powerholders’ face-to-face meetings which are nearly always held in fixed places called masjids (religious buildings). Furthermore, conducting such discussions with human facilitation biases the generation of citizen decisions that stimulates an atmosphere of confrontation, causing another decision problem for urban policy-making institutions. Therefore, it is critical to find approaches that not only securely revolutionize participative processes but also provide meaningful and equal public consultation to support interactions among stakeholders to solve their shared problems together. Toward this end, we propose a joint research program, namely, crowd-based communicative and deliberative e-planning (CCDP), a blended approach, which is a mixture of using an artificial-intelligence-led technology, decision-support system called D-Agree and experimental participatory planning in Kabul, Afghanistan. For the sake of real-world implementation, Nagoya Institute of Technology (Japan) and Kabul Municipality (Afghanistan) have formed a novel developed and developing world partnership by using our proposed methodology as an emerging-deliberation mechanism to reframe public participation in urban planning processes. In the proposed program, Kabul municipality agreed to use our methodology when Kabul city needs to make a plan with people. This digital field study presents the first practical example of using online decision support systems in the context of the neighborhood functions of Gozars, which are Kabul’s social and spatial urban units. The main objective was to harness the wisdom of the crowd to innovative suggestions for helping policymakers making strategic development plans for Gozars using open call ideas, and for responding to equal participation and consultation needs, specifically for women and minorities. This article presents valuable insights into the benefits of this combined approach as blended experience for societies and cities that are suffering long-term distress. This initiative has influenced other local Afghan governments, including the cities of Kandahar and Herat as well as the country’s central government’s ministry of urban planning and land, which has officially expressed its intention to collaborate with us.

Suggested Citation

  • Jawad Haqbeen & Sofia Sahab & Takayuki Ito & Paola Rizzi, 2021. "Using Decision Support System to Enable Crowd Identify Neighborhood Issues and Its Solutions for Policy Makers: An Online Experiment at Kabul Municipal Level," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-34, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:10:p:5453-:d:553817
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/10/5453/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/10/5453/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Beath, Andrew & Christia, Fotini & Enikolopov, Ruben, 2012. "Empowering women : evidence from a field experiment in Afghanistan," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6269, The World Bank.
    2. David Rios Insua & Gregory E. Kersten & Jesus Rios & Carlos Grima, 2008. "Towards Decision Support for Participatory Democracy," International Handbooks on Information Systems, in: Handbook on Decision Support Systems 2, chapter 66, pages 651-685, Springer.
    3. Thomas W. Malone & Mark Klein, 2007. "Harnessing Collective Intelligence to Address Global Climate Change," Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, MIT Press, vol. 2(3), pages 15-26, July.
    4. Eduardo Medeiros & Arno van der Zwet, 2020. "Sustainable and Integrated Urban Planning and Governance in Metropolitan and Medium-Sized Cities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-20, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mikko Rask & Bokyong Shin, 2024. "Integrating Paths: Enhancing Deliberative Democracy Through Collective Intelligence Insights," Societies, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-27, December.
    2. Dorota Kamrowska-Załuska, 2021. "Impact of AI-Based Tools and Urban Big Data Analytics on the Design and Planning of Cities," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-19, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alattar, Mohammad Anwar & Cottrill, Caitlin & Beecroft, Mark, 2021. "Public participation geographic information system (PPGIS) as a method for active travel data acquisition," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    2. King, Elisabeth & Samii, Cyrus, 2014. "Fast-Track Institution Building in Conflict-Affected Countries? Insights from Recent Field Experiments," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 740-754.
    3. Beath,Andrew & Christia,Fotini & Enikolopov,Ruben & Beath,Andrew & Christia,Fotini & Enikolopov,Ruben, 2012. "Winning hearts and minds through development ? evidence from a field experiment in Afghanistan," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6129, The World Bank.
    4. Sara Bianchi & Anna Richiedei, 2023. "Territorial Governance for Sustainable Development: A Multi-Level Governance Analysis in the Italian Context," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-28, January.
    5. Marta Cordini & Tatjana Boczy & Ruggero Cefalo, 2021. "Place-Sensitive Social Investment and Territorial Cohesion: Implications for Sustainability," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-16, June.
    6. Bin Li & Yuxiang Tan & Qingqing Guo & Weihuan Wang, 2023. "Application of Comprehensive Evaluation of Line Loss Lean Management Based on Big-Data-Driven Paradigm," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(15), pages 1-21, August.
    7. Hugh Waddington & Ada Sonnenfeld & Juliette Finetti & Marie Gaarder & Denny John & Jennifer Stevenson, 2019. "Citizen engagement in public services in low‐ and middle‐income countries: A mixed‐methods systematic review of participation, inclusion, transparency and accountability (PITA) initiatives," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(1-2), June.
    8. Yasuhiro Asa & Takeshi Kato & Ryuji Mine, 2022. "Composite Consensus-Building Process: Permissible Meeting Analysis and Compromise Choice Exploration," Papers 2211.08593, arXiv.org.
    9. Beath, Andrew & Christia, Fotini & Enikolopov, Ruben, 2013. "Do elected councils improve governance ? experimental evidence on local institutions in Afghanistan," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6510, The World Bank.
    10. Abebe Mengaw Wubie & Walter T. de Vries & Berhanu Kefale Alemie, 2020. "A Socio-Spatial Analysis of Land Use Dynamics and Process of Land Intervention in the Peri-Urban Areas of Bahir Dar City," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-27, November.
    11. Dwivedi, Yogesh K. & Hughes, Laurie & Kar, Arpan Kumar & Baabdullah, Abdullah M. & Grover, Purva & Abbas, Roba & Andreini, Daniela & Abumoghli, Iyad & Barlette, Yves & Bunker, Deborah & Chandra Kruse,, 2022. "Climate change and COP26: Are digital technologies and information management part of the problem or the solution? An editorial reflection and call to action," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    12. Hugh Waddington & Jennifer Stevenson & Ada Sonnenfeld & Marie Gaarder, 2018. "PROTOCOL: Participation, inclusion, transparency and accountability (PITA) to improve public services in low‐ and middle‐income countries: a systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 1-69.
    13. Jinhyo Joseph Yun & Zheng Liu & Euiseob Jeong & Sangwoo Kim & Kyunghun Kim, 2022. "The Difference in Open Innovation between Open Access and Closed Access, According to the Change of Collective Intelligence and Knowledge Amount," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-19, February.
    14. Takayuki Ito & Rafik Hadfi & Shota Suzuki, 2022. "An Agent that Facilitates Crowd Discussion," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 621-647, June.
    15. Sepideh Bazazi & Jorina von Zimmermann & Bahador Bahrami & Daniel Richardson, 2019. "Self-serving incentives impair collective decisions by increasing conformity," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(11), pages 1-12, November.
    16. Peter J. Alsip & John H. Hartig & Gail Krantzberg & Kathleen C. Williams & Julia Wondolleck, 2021. "Evolving Institutional Arrangements for Use of an Ecosystem Approach in Restoring Great Lakes Areas of Concern," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-23, February.
    17. Andrew Beath & Fotini Christia & Georgy Egorov & Ruben Enikolopov, 2016. "Electoral Rules and Political Selection: Theory and Evidence from a Field Experiment in Afghanistan," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 83(3), pages 932-968.
    18. El Bachir Diop & Jérôme Chenal & Stéphane Cédric Koumetio Tekouabou & Rida Azmi, 2022. "Crowdsourcing Public Engagement for Urban Planning in the Global South: Methods, Challenges and Suggestions for Future Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(18), pages 1-21, September.
    19. Katsuhide Fujita & Takayuki Ito & Mark Klein, 2012. "A Secure and Fair Protocol that Addresses Weaknesses of the Nash Bargaining Solution in Nonlinear Negotiation," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 29-47, January.
    20. Oguz Ali Acar & Jan van den Ende, 2015. "Understanding Fear of Opportunism in Global Prize-Based Science Contests: Evidence for Gender and Age Differences," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(7), pages 1-13, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:10:p:5453-:d:553817. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.