11 MiraMap: A Collective Awareness Platform to Support Open …
129
the transparency of administrative processes and involve stakeholders in public policy
processes.
In particular, its priority User empowerment stresses the importance of increasing
the capacity of citizens and organizations, promoting the development of services
designed around users’ needs, and inclusive services, the collaborative production of
services, the re-use public sector information, improving transparency and fostering
the involvement of citizens and businesses in policy-making processes.
The Action Plan underlines that ‘social networking and collaborative tools enable
users to play an active role in the design and production of public services’ (eGovernment Action Plan 2011–2015, 2.1.2). However, it invites to explore which are the
most suitable tools and how best to apply these to effectively engage civil society
and individual citizens.
Also, the European Innovation Partnership on Smart Cities and Communities
(establishing strategic partnerships at the local level and across borders in Europe)
recommends new tools of engagement. One of the main actions proposed is to ‘implement collaborative, integrated smart city planning and operation, that maximise
city-wide data to deliver more agile processes; employing modern multi-criteria
simulation and visualisation tools’ (EIP Smart Cities and Communities, Strategic
Implementation Plan 2013).
The focus of innovation’s needs for Europe was defined in the European research
programme Horizon 2020, that also addresses funding to projects that promote platforms to set up more participatory democratic processes and to support grassroots
processes and practices to share knowledge. Collective Awareness Platforms are
expected to have very concrete impacts to foster open democracy, open policy-making
(better decision-making based on open data) or in new collaborative approaches to
inclusion (Horizon 2020 Work Programme 2016–2017, 5.i. Information and Communication Technologies).
In the report Cities of Tomorrow—Challenges, visions, ways forward (European
Commission, DG Regional Policy 2011b), the European Commission made the following recommendations for actions: empowering cities to define their own policies
related to their context; ensuring transversality of policies and impact of one area on
the other; supporting cities but leaving them room for manoeuvre in connecting with
citizens; letting cities decide on their own priorities.
The Bureau of European Policy Advisors gave a definition of social innovation:
‘Innovations that are social in both their ends and in their means. Specifically, we
define social innovation as new ideas (products, services and models) that simultaneously meets social needs and creates new social relationships or collaborations. In
other words, they are innovations that are not only good for society but also enhance
society’s capacity to act’ (BEPA 2011a, p. 33).
Social innovation is, therefore, considered at the heart of reshaping society: it can
be used and developed, both as a means and as an end to city governance. However,
the bridge between these diffused initiatives and the ability to catalyze them into
inclusive governance is often missing, so, it is solicited a more integrated connection
(De Filippi et al. 2017).
129
the transparency of administrative processes and involve stakeholders in public policy
processes.
In particular, its priority User empowerment stresses the importance of increasing
the capacity of citizens and organizations, promoting the development of services
designed around users’ needs, and inclusive services, the collaborative production of
services, the re-use public sector information, improving transparency and fostering
the involvement of citizens and businesses in policy-making processes.
The Action Plan underlines that ‘social networking and collaborative tools enable
users to play an active role in the design and production of public services’ (eGovernment Action Plan 2011–2015, 2.1.2). However, it invites to explore which are the
most suitable tools and how best to apply these to effectively engage civil society
and individual citizens.
Also, the European Innovation Partnership on Smart Cities and Communities
(establishing strategic partnerships at the local level and across borders in Europe)
recommends new tools of engagement. One of the main actions proposed is to ‘implement collaborative, integrated smart city planning and operation, that maximise
city-wide data to deliver more agile processes; employing modern multi-criteria
simulation and visualisation tools’ (EIP Smart Cities and Communities, Strategic
Implementation Plan 2013).
The focus of innovation’s needs for Europe was defined in the European research
programme Horizon 2020, that also addresses funding to projects that promote platforms to set up more participatory democratic processes and to support grassroots
processes and practices to share knowledge. Collective Awareness Platforms are
expected to have very concrete impacts to foster open democracy, open policy-making
(better decision-making based on open data) or in new collaborative approaches to
inclusion (Horizon 2020 Work Programme 2016–2017, 5.i. Information and Communication Technologies).
In the report Cities of Tomorrow—Challenges, visions, ways forward (European
Commission, DG Regional Policy 2011b), the European Commission made the following recommendations for actions: empowering cities to define their own policies
related to their context; ensuring transversality of policies and impact of one area on
the other; supporting cities but leaving them room for manoeuvre in connecting with
citizens; letting cities decide on their own priorities.
The Bureau of European Policy Advisors gave a definition of social innovation:
‘Innovations that are social in both their ends and in their means. Specifically, we
define social innovation as new ideas (products, services and models) that simultaneously meets social needs and creates new social relationships or collaborations. In
other words, they are innovations that are not only good for society but also enhance
society’s capacity to act’ (BEPA 2011a, p. 33).
Social innovation is, therefore, considered at the heart of reshaping society: it can
be used and developed, both as a means and as an end to city governance. However,
the bridge between these diffused initiatives and the ability to catalyze them into
inclusive governance is often missing, so, it is solicited a more integrated connection
(De Filippi et al. 2017).