Do you have an example of citizen participation in the design, adoption, or implementation of AI in Amsterdam or beyond? Reach out to lina.goelzer@amsterdam.nl
Collection
(4)
-
Collection
Guidelines for citizen participation on AI
Citizen participation is a policy priority in Amsterdam; the municipality has put together detailed guidelines and is implementing a new participation regulation this year. When it comes to working with citizens on innovation projects and the development and adoption of AI, unique challenges and considerations may arise. Alongside the core principles set forth in the municipality's participation guidelines, this collection aims to provide supplementary guidance with a focus on AI.
Why participation on AI?
Within the realm of technology and digitization, the municipality has committed to the more democratic and human-centric use of AI through many of its agendas and agreements, such as the manifesto for the Cities Coalition for Digital Rights, and the Agenda Digital City.
The use of AI in the city should reflect the needs and values of citizens, and the input of citizens makes AI better for our society.
Defining the “space” for participation in an AI project
Participation rule #2: “we have been clear from the start about the scope of participation, the role of citizens, and what we do with their input.”
Defining the space for participation can be difficult when you are dealing with AI, or an innovation project broadly speaking. Participation which takes place in the design phase can look very different from participation at the decision-making phase. This makes clear scoping and communication with citizens especially important.
Making AI approachable for citizen participation
Participation rule #4: “we communicate during the entire project in understandable language, tailored to those involved.”
One of the key challenges in mainstreaming citizen participation in the municipality’s design, adoption , and use of AI is that the topic of AI remains unapproachable for many citizens. As such, they often don’t find themselves in a position to meaningfully participate on this topic.
Inclusive Participation on AI
Participation rule #3: “We make extra efforts to actively involve all stakeholders... participation gives us the opportunity to involve more people with different perspectives, this is how we build an inclusive city.”
Every citizen should have a say in how technology shapes their lives in the city. However, many citizens face barriers to participation, especially when it comes to the topic of new technologies. Furthermore, the municipality should ensure that those most impacted by an application of AI are at the center of the conversation.
Following up – the outcome of participation in an AI project
Participation rule #9:" We explain the choices made during the project honestly and clearly"
The outcome of participation on an AI project is not always tangible or visible. Depending on the project, citizen input can lead to a change in the variables considered in an algorithm, or shape a more overarching policy on the use of AI. Sometimes, a decision will be made that does not align with some citizen input. Clear follow-up and communication with citizens is especially important when it comes to decisions about the use of AI by the municipality. -
Collection
Use cases of citizen participation on AI in Amsterdam
In this collection you will find examples of how civil servants within the municipality of Amsterdam have involved citizens in their AI projects.
Accessible Route Planner:
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. With the help of Clientbelang, an interest group representing people with disabilities, the concept team has worked together with citizens with mobility impairments through user experience research and co-design.
Vision on AI:
In order to work towards a more human-centered future for AI in Amsterdan, the municipality collaborated with experts and citizens to create a city-wide Vision on AI. The Urban AI working group held 10 socratic design dialogues with citizens and other stakeholders to generate wisdom about the use of AI in the city, and identify key values to incorporate into the Vision.
Slimme Check (smart livelihood check):
The Slimme Check (smart livelihood check) project developed and piloted the use of an algorithm to help determine which social assistance applications require further investigation. The Participatieraad, a citizen council focused on Work, Participation, and Income, provided valuable input on the design and use of this algorithm. -
Collection
Citizen participation methods for Artificial Intelligence
Are you working on an AI project and want to involve citizens? Whether you're in the design phase of a new innovation, deciding whether you should implement a technological solution that would impact citizens, or developing a new policy on AI, choosing the right approach can be difficult. Here you can find examples of methods that have been used at the municipality of Amsterdam.
Citizen panel
A citizen panel is a group of people selected to deliberate on public issues that affect them, in order to shape decision-making. Democratic theorist Mark Brown describes them as “temporary advisory bodies that involve lay people in cooperative deliberation informed by expert advice”. This participation approach seeks to address concerns about “the competence of participants and the quality of their contributions to decision-making" when it comes to technically complex political issues. According to Crosby et al, citizen panels were originally modeled after the jury system.
Citizen panels have become increasingly popular as a form of democratic participation in the EU. For example, the European Commission brings together citizens from all member states to discuss upcoming European level proposals. With the help of a facilitation team, citizen panels work together in small groups of around 12, as well as all together in plenaries, to make recommendations to the Commission on policies and initiatives. In February 2024, a citizen panel was launched in Belgium with the goal of shaping the future of AI in Europe.
At the municipality of Amsterdam, citizen panels have been used in different ways to shape decision- making around AI projects.
For example, the Participatieraad, a citizen panel focused on Work, Participation, and Income, provided valuable input on the design and use of the Slimme Check algorithm. This algorithm, which aimed to help determine which social assistance applications require further investigation, was eventually discontinued. As welfare recipients and representatives of interest groups , the members of the participatieraad were expert stakeholders in this particular policy area and were able to give input on a use of technology which would impact them.
In 2024, the municipality’s Computer Vision team has created a citizen panel 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. This panel has been able to develop a nuanced understanding of the technology and its use bring forward their wishes and needs in the design and decision-making phases.
Working with a citizen panel involves a substantial time commitment from both the participants and the organizers. It also involves going in depth with one group, rather than engaging a broader public. However, this group has the opportunity to develop a deeper understanding on complex issues, which is particularly valuable when it comes to decisionmaking around new technologies. A citizen panel also allows for more continuity in participation over long-term projects, which is often the case when it comes to innovation, facilitating follow-up and accountability.
Sources:
- Crosby et al, “Citizens Panels: A New Approach to Citizen Participation”
- Mark Brown, “Survey Article: Citizen Panels and the Concept of Representation”
- European Commission, "European Citizens’ Panels A new phase of citizen engagement"
- Slimme Check: working with a citizen panel for innovation in the social domain
Socratic Design
Socratic Design is a philosophy and method that is applied to social issues where innovation in thinking and doing is desirable. It takes the residents of the city and their experiences as a starting point for creating wisdom for and about the city. The basic principle of the Socratic Design Method is that we cannot solve a problem with the same thinking that caused it. A reflection on our narrative is therefore an essential condition for arriving at practices and actions that contribute to a good future for the city. Through Socratic Design dialogues or labs, participants analyze assumptions that have led to where we are now and which assumptions we can adopt to contribute to a city in which we want to live and be.
Since the end of 2023, the Urban AI working group has been developing a Vision on AI for the municipality of Amsterdam. As described in the Digital City Agenda 2023-2026, this Vision is a collaboration between the municipality, knowledge institutions, professionals, and most importantly, citizens. The team has chosen Socratic Design as the method to generate wisdom from citizens about the use of AI in the city, and identify key values to incorporate into the vision. To date, ten Socratic Design dialogues have been held as part of the Vision on AI participation trajectory.
This methodology is useful for diving deep into a topic an addressing fundamental questions. It also holds value as an exercise in deliberative democracy. As such, it lends itself well to the creation of visions, policies, and agendas. It is important to note that the method is time-consuming, both in terms of the dialogue itself and processing the output. The method also has specific rules, so it is important to have a trained moderator. At the same time, Socratic Design is better suited to broader questions as opposed to very specific questions about technology, as participants also have a lot of agency in shaping the topic of conversation.
Sources:
User experience (UX) co-design
According to the Interaction Design Foundation,
“Co-design is a collaborative approach where designers work together with non-designers to create solutions. Designers act as facilitators and guide the participants through the design process. Co-design aims to harness the collective wisdom and insights of everyone involved, especially the end-users, to innovate and solve problems effectively.”
This approach enables the development of products or solutions with end users as opposed to for them, incorporating diverse perspectives and leading to more inclusive outcomes. It is also rooted in the context where it will be applied. Although co-design can take many forms, such as workshops, studies, or brainstorming sessions, the principles of UX design require user participation throughout the entire design process, iteration and continuous evaluation.
User experience designers at the Municipality of Amsterdam are using co-design to work together with citizens with mobility impairments to develop a prototype of an AI-powered accessible route plannerwhich adapts to the accessibility needs of each user. This initiative is part of the PEER project, a “European collaboration investigating human-AI interaction with the aim of putting the user first, increasing transparency, and making the AI solution personalizable”. It is also part of the broader Amsterdam for All initiative, through which the municipality aims to make the city accessible for all citizens. 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. This is facilitated by collaboration with organizations such as Cliëntenbelang, an organization which aims to improve quality of life for people with disabilities.
This approach ensures that technological solutions are designed in a way that is usable and meets the needs of its end users, who are the most important stakeholders. It gives citizens agency in the early phases of the AI lifecycle to ensure that their priorities and values are reflected in the technology. This can have a positive impact on user satisfaction, trust, and ownership. To achieve this, sharing findings and progress with participants is crucial especially within a lengthy and unpredictable innovation process.
Sources:
- Interaction Design Foundation, "What Is Codesign?"
- Nesbitt et al, User Experience (UX) Design as a co-design methodology
- Working with citizens to design an accessible route planner
Survey
A survey is a common method to gather opinions and ideas from citizens on a given topic. It can vary widely in length and structure, and can be administered digitally or in-person. Surveys often also include some sort of contextual information about the topic.
At the municipality of Amsterdam, the Research and Statistics (O&S) department has a panel of citizens who have signed up to take surveys from the municipality. As such, they are already interested in participating and typically have a high response rate.
As part of a collaborative research project with Digital Rights House, the Research and Statistics department of Gemeente Amsterdam administered an online survey on May 2023 titled “Citizen participation in the use of algorithms by the municipality of Amsterdam”. The survey focused on if and how citizens would like to learn more and participate on the topic of algorithms in the municipality. The thought behind conducting a survey was to use online channels to reach a wider audience than the other participation methods, through a format which takes relatively little time. This method included an explanation of algorithms and examples of those used by the municipality, before diving into deeper questions about the if/ when/ how of citizen’s desire to participate on the topic of municipal use of algorithms.
In August 2023, the Computer Vision team sent out an online survey to the O&S panel to investigate the opinion of Amsterdammers about the use of camera images from scan cars. The team is working on a technological solution that can recognize specific objects in public space. The findings from the survey not only guided the teams development efforts, but also contributed to the development of the citizen panel for responsible scanning.
The benefits of this method are its scalability, especially if it is done digitally, and its ability to provide a high level overview using quantitative data. At the same time, open-ended questions can provide additional depth and personal experiences. Surveys can also be designed to be short, reducing the amount of effort required by participants. There is always a balance to be made between breadth depth, and the influence citizens can have through this method is often limited. As such, surveys are often combined with other methods of participation
Sources:
Interviews
Interviews are a way to gather deeper individual perspectives and experiences about an important issue or initiative. They are a very flexible and customizable approach to research as well as participation, but must be pursued with clear goals and questions in mind. They can also easily be combined with other forms of participation in order to add additional depth and personal experience. Stakeholder interviews usually intentionally target specific groups and individuals impacted by an issue, while outreach interviews entail going out into the field and speaking with citizens in a more spontaneous manner. The core challenge of this approach is that it is not easily scalable. This can be mitigated through working with partner organizations who have a presence “on the ground”.
As part of a collaborative research project with Gemeente Amsterdam, Digital Rights House went to parks and community centers in May 2023 to interview a handful of Amsterdam residents about the municipal use of algorithms and citizen participation. The defining characteristic of their approach, which they called an “outreach interview” is that citizens are met where they are, whether it be a park, community center, or other public space. The “interview” takes the form of an informal conversation led by guiding questions, varying in length depending on the interest of the participant.
The guiding principle behind this approach is meeting the citizens where they are, instead of asking them to go out of their way to participate. As such, it allows for access to a different, and potentially more diverse audience than the other channels. It also prioritizes utilizing existing neighborhood spaces, from parks to community centers, in order to build a trusted, localized network, and as a result, better reach citizens. This participation approach can be valuable in reaching people who have less knowledge about new technologies, and who wouldn’t otherwise think to participate.
Sources:
Citizen conversations
In the context of the collaborative research conducted by Digital Rights House and Gemeente Amsterdam, citizen conversations are small group discussions intended to facilitate dialogue and knowledge-sharing with and between citizens on a chosen topic.
In April of 2023, a citizen conversation was held at Digital Rights House on the topic of citizen participation and the municipality’s use of algorithms. The goal was to allow for a dialogue with citizens where information about algorithms could be communicated in an accessible way, and where they could share their thoughts and ideas in a low-pressure setting.
The citizen conversation aimed to address broader questions such as the perception of algorithms in general, and the perception of algorithms used by the municipality. The algorithm register was incorporated into the conversation to show examples of algorithms in use by the municipality. This then prompted more discussion about the citizens’ desire to be informed about and participate in the municipality’s use of algorithms.
A 90-minute-long agenda was created with ice-breakers, an informative presentation on algorithms using two examples from Amsterdam’s algorithm register, guided group discussion, and collaborative sense-making.
Overall, the Citizen Conversation format is conducive to fostering more in-depth dialogue as well as information sharing. This participation format allows citizens to learn from each other and reflect on their experiences. In this case, the session was hosted by Digital Rights House; working with partner organizations in the future could make this approach more scalable, but only if there is a clear way for citizen input to reach relevant stakeholders in the municipality.
Sources:
-
Article
Bibliography on Citizen Participation and AI
Resources on democracy, participation, and Artificial Intelligence
“Algorithmic Accountability for the Public Sector”
Ada Lovelace Institute, AI Now Institute, & Open Government Partnership.
This report provides an overview and analysis of algorithmic accountability policies in the public sector, identifying challenges and best practices. It highlights the importance of “meaningful public engagement and civic participation in the governance of algorithmic systems”. https://www.adalovelaceinstitute.org/project/algorithmic-accountability-public-sector/
“Artificial intelligence in the city: Building civic engagement and public trust”
Ana Brandusescu and Jess Reia, Centre for Interdisciplinary Research on Montréal, McGill University.
This collection of essays brings together experience and expertise from around the world on fostering meaningful civic engagement and public trust as data and AI increasingly shape life in urban areas.
https://www.mcgill.ca/centre-montreal/projects/completed-projects/ai-city
“The legitimacy gap of algorithmic decision-making in the public sector: Why it arises and how to address it”
Pascal D. König and Georg Wenzelburger , Technology in Society
This paper argues that stakeholder involvement can address the legitimacy gaps which exist in algorithmic decision-making systems used by the state. They then propose a model for stakeholder participation.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160791X21001639
“AI and Cities: Risks, Applications and Governance”
UN Habitat
This report serves as a guide for local authorities on the responsible use of AI by identifying risks, applications, and governance tools. It recommends public participation and deliberative processes methods to “enrich the contextual knowledge and co-design of AI systems in the city”
https://unhabitat.org/ai-cities-risks-applications-and-governance
“ Democratizing Algorithmic Fairness”
Pak Hang Wong, Philosophy and Technology
In this article, Wong argues that algorithmic fairness is a political measure because it involves choices between competing values. As such, it should be resolved politically through a deliberative approach.
https://scholars.hkbu.edu.hk/en/publications/democratizing-algorithmic-fairness
“Power and Public Participation in AI”
Eric Corbett, Emily Denton, and Sheena Erete, Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization
This article uses the ladder of citizen participation to evaluate participatory approaches to AI development in recent scholarship, and offers suggestions for new participatory approaches.
https://dl.acm.org/doi/fullHtml/10.1145/3617694.3623228
“ What do the public think about AI? Understanding public attitudes and how to involve the public in decision-making about AI”
Ada Lovelelace Institute
This evidence review summarizes existing research on people’s views on AI technologies, and provides “evidence-based solutions for how to meaningfully include the views of the public in decision-making processes”.https://www.adalovelaceinstitute.org/evidence-review/what-do-the-public-think-about-ai/
“Democratizing AI: Principles for Meaningful Public Participation”
Michele Gilman, Data & society
This report identifies critical uses of AI where public participation is particularly important, and provides practical guidelines for meaningful public participation