Defining the space for participation can be difficult when you are dealing with AI. This is because the nature of projects, their goals, and their constraints vary widely. Some participation trajectories may take place in the design or adoption phase of an AI system, while others may deal with the creation of a new AI policy. Participation can look very different in each circumstance, making clear scoping and communication with citizens especially important. One of the biggest frustrations that citizens can face when contributing their time, energy, and wisdom to a project is not knowing what impact they can have. With a topic as seemingly controversial and complex as the use of AI in the city, setting clear expectations for participation is particularly important.
Rule #2 of the Amsterdam participation guidelines states that you must be clear from the start about “the scope of participation, the role of citizens, and what we do with their input”. The guidelines emphasize the importance of having a clear participation question, and an overview of the topics that will be discussed with participants. In order to manage expectations, it is necessary to identify what preconditions are fixed in the project, such as policies, technical frameworks, and decisions already made.
Below we will explore how participation space has been defined in three projects related to the use of AI in Amsterdam.
The participation plan for Amsterdam’s Vision on AI states the following:
““The wisdom generated by citizens through our Socratic Design Dialogue Sessions will shape the municipality's vision on AI. This could look like the inclusion of citizen values to shape the development of AI, or a call to limit AI development in a certain area which citizens find problematic. Overall, citizen participation will serve to humanize the vision on AI, to ensure that the future of AI in Amsterdam is more human-centered...The Vision is also shaped by existing policies and agendas on the use of technology in Amsterdam, such as the Digital City Agenda, Grip op Tech Initiative, and Data Strategy.”
The concrete outcome of the Vision on AI is a document that is shared with the public and adopted by the city council. Through a participation process consisting of 10 dialogues, citizens were able to shape the values and principles that make up the Vision itself, and thus steer the municipality’s approach to AI.
Computer Vision- Responsible Scanning and Recognition
In 2024, the municipality’s Computer Vision team embarked on a citizen participation trajectory for their Responsible Scanning and Recognition project. This is part of a broader collaboration with knowledge institutions, Amsterdam residents, and a technology provider focused on designing an image recognition solution for the public space which is ethically responsible, privacy friendly, and as secure as possible. The citizen panel is present during the entire research and development process, working alongside experts and civil servants. The participation plan for this project defines the space for participation by outlining the following components in which citizens will be involved.
1) Thinking along about ‘how’ the image recognition facility, including collecting and anonymizing data from public space, should be used, and which steps need to be taken to improve this. This is the most significant topic for participation.
2) Thinking along about whether other objects or situations are valuable for the municipality to recognize in public space
3) Actively evaluating how the collaboration with other parties is going, where improvement is possible and what the lessons learned from this collaboration are.
The Municipality of Amsterdam is developing a prototype accessible route planner which adapts to the accessibility needs of each user. The project aims to put citizens at the center of every step of the AI lifecycle, starting from design and development, all the way through evaluation. Although citizens were involved from the early phases of the project, the municipality already knew that they would use AI as part of the solution. This is an example of a “decision already made” which shapes the participation space of a project. As such, the team focused on “finding the bridge between what are the needs of the target group and what technology and available data sources can offer”.
As you can see with these examples from Amsterdam, the space for participation differs significantly from project to project, especially when youre dealing with an innovation such as AI. It can also be shaped by the phase in the AI lifecycle in which the participation takes place (this topic will be explored further in another article). It is important to clearly define what aspects of your project citizens can shape through your participation trajectory, and what elements are already fixed. Once that is determined, the space for participation should be clearly communicated to participants from the start of the project in order to set expectations.