Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Cass R. Sunstein: “Why are some nudges ineffective, or at least less effective than choice architects hope and expect? Focusing primarily on default rules, this essay emphasizes two reasons. The first involves strong antecedent preferences on the part of choosers. The second involves successful “counternudges,” which persuade people to choose in a way that confounds the efforts of choice architects. Nudges might also be ineffective, and less effective than expected, for five other reasons. (1) Some nudges produce confusion on the part of the target audience. (2) Some nudges have only short-term effects. (3) Some nudges produce “reactance” (though this appears to be rare) (4) Some nudges are based on an inaccurate (though initially plausible) understanding on the part of choice architects of what kinds of choice architecture will move people in particular contexts. (5) Some nudges produce compensating behavior, resulting in no net effect. When a nudge turns out to be insufficiently effective, choice architects have three potential responses: (1) Do nothing; (2) nudge better (or different); and (3) fortify the effects of the nudge, perhaps through counter-counternudges, perhaps through incentives, mandates, or bans….(More)”.

Samantha Ehlinger in FedScoop: “The Transportation Department is looking for public input on how to better interpret and use data on fatal crashes after 2015 data revealed a startling spike of 7.2 percent more deaths in traffic accidents that year.

Looking for new solutions that could prevent more deaths on the roads, the department released three months earlier than usual the 2015 open dataset about each fatal crash. With it, the department and the White House announced a call to action for people to use the data set as a jumping off point for a dialogue on how to prevent crashes, as well as understand what might be causing the spike.

“What we’re ultimately looking for is getting more people engaged in the data … matching this with other publicly available data, or data that the private sector might be willing to make available, to dive in and to tell these stories,” said Bryan Thomas, communications director for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, to FedScoop.

One striking statistic was that “pedestrian and pedalcyclist fatalities increased to a level not seen in 20 years,” according to a DOT press release. …

“We want folks to be engaged directly with our own data scientists, so we can help people through the dataset and help answer their questions as they work their way through, bounce ideas off of us, etc.,” Thomas said. “We really want to be accessible in that way.”

He added that as ideas “come to fruition,” there will be opportunities to present what people have learned.

“It’s a very, very rich data set, there’s a lot of information there,” Thomas said. “Our own ability is, frankly, limited to investigate all of the questions that you might have of it. And so we want to get the public really diving in as well.”…

Here are the questions “worth exploring,” according to the call to action:

• How might improving economic conditions around the country change how Americans are getting around? What models can we develop to identify communities that might be at a higher risk for fatal crashes?
• How might climate change increase the risk of fatal crashes in a community?
• How might we use studies of attitudes toward speeding, distracted driving, and seat belt use to better target marketing and behavioral change campaigns?
• How might we monitor public health indicators and behavior risk indicators to target communities that might have a high prevalence of behaviors linked with fatal crashes (drinking, drug use/addiction, etc.)? What countermeasures should we create to address these issues?”…(More)”

Literature review by Sanket Subhash Khanwalkar: “Despite heavy investment by the United States and several other national governments, terrorism related problems are rising at an alarming rate. Lone-wolf terrorism, in particular, in the last decade, has caused 70% of all terrorism related deaths in the US and the West. This literature survey describes lone-wolf terrorism in detail to analyse its structure, characteristics, strengths and weaknesses. It also investigates crowdsourcing intelligence, as an unorthodox approach to counter lone-wolf terrorism, by reviewing its current state-of-the-art and identifying the areas for improvement….(More)”

Hiroaki Itai, Akira Inoue, and Satoshi Kodama in Special Issue on Nudging of The Tocqueville Review/La revue Tocqueville: “Recently, libertarian paternalism has been intensely debated. It recommends us to employ policies and practices that “nudge” ordinary people to make better choices without forcing them to do so. Nudging policies and practices have penetrated our society, in cases like purchasing life insurance or a residence. They are also used for preventing people from addictive acts that may be harmful to them in the long run, such as having too much sugary or fatty food. In nudging people to act rationally, various kinds of cognitive effects impacting the consumers’ decision-making process should be considered, given the growing influence of consumer advertising. Since libertarian paternalism makes use of such effects in light of the recent development of behavioral economics and cognitive psychology in a principled manner, libertarian paternalism and its justification of nudges attract our attention as an approach providing a normative guidance for our action. …

This paper has two aims: the first is to examine whether libertarian paternalism can give an appropriate theoretical foundation to the idea and practice of nudges. The second is to show that utilitarianism, or, more precisely, the classical version of utilitarianism, treats nudges in a more consistent and plausible manner. To achieve these two aims, first of all, we dwell on how Cass Sunstein—one of the founder of libertarian paternalism—misconceives Mill’s harm principle, and that this may prompt us to see that utilitarianism can reasonably legitimate nudging policies (section one). We then point to two biases that embarrass libertarian paternalism (the scientism bias and the dominant-culture bias), which we believe stem from the fact that libertarian paternalism assumes the informed preference satisfaction view of welfare (section two). We finally argue that classical utilitarianism not only can overcome the two biases, but can also reasonably endorse any system monitoring a choice architect to discharge his or her responsibility (section three)….(More)”

Book edited by Vinod Kumar, T. M.: “The present book highlights studies that show how smart cities promote urban economic development. The book surveys the state of the art of Smart City Economic Development through a literature survey. The book uses 13 in depth city research case studies in 10 countries such as the North America, Europe, Africa and Asia to explain how a smart economy changes the urban spatial system and vice versa. This book focuses on exploratory city studies in different countries, which investigate how urban spatial systems adapt to the specific needs of smart urban economy. The theory of smart city economic development is not yet entirely understood and applied in metropolitan regional plans. Smart urban economies are largely the result of the influence of ICT applications on all aspects of urban economy, which in turn changes the land-use system. It points out that the dynamics of smart city GDP creation takes ‘different paths,’ which need further empirical study, hypothesis testing and mathematical modelling. Although there are hypotheses on how smart cities generate wealth and social benefits for nations, there are no significant empirical studies available on how they generate urban economic development through urban spatial adaptation.  This book with 13 cities research studies is one attempt to fill in the gap in knowledge base….(More)”

Jean-Paul Chretien, Caitlin M. Rivers, and Michael A. Johansson in PLOS Medicine: “In February 2016, Wellcome Trust organized a pledge among leading scientific organizations and health agencies encouraging researchers to release data relevant to the Zika outbreak as rapidly and widely as possible [1]. This initiative echoed a September 2015 World Health Organization (WHO) consultation that assessed data sharing during the recent West Africa Ebola outbreak and called on researchers to make data publicly available during public health emergencies [2]. These statements were necessary because the traditional way of communicating research results—publication in peer-reviewed journals, often months or years after data collection—is too slow during an emergency.

The acute health threat of outbreaks provides a strong argument for more complete, quick, and broad sharing of research data during emergencies. But the Ebola and Zika outbreaks suggest that data sharing cannot be limited to emergencies without compromising emergency preparedness. To prepare for future outbreaks, the scientific community should expand data sharing for all health research….

Open data deserves recognition and support as a key component of emergency preparedness. Initiatives to facilitate discovery of datasets and track their use [40–42]; provide measures of academic contribution, including data sharing that enables secondary analysis [43]; establish common platforms for sharing and integrating research data [44]; and improve data-sharing capacity in resource-limited areas [45] are critical to improving preparedness and response.

Research sponsors, scholarly journals, and collaborative research networks can leverage these new opportunities with enhanced data-sharing requirements for both nonemergency and emergency settings. A proposal to amend the International Health Regulations with clear codes of practice for data sharing warrants serious consideration [46]. Any new requirements should allow scientists to conduct and communicate the results of secondary analyses, broadening the scope of inquiry and catalyzing discovery. Publication embargo periods, such as one under consideration for genetic sequences of pandemic-potential influenza viruses [47], may lower barriers to data sharing but may also slow the timely use of data for public health.

Integrating open science approaches into routine research should make data sharing more effective during emergencies, but this evolution is more than just practice for emergencies. The cause and context of the next outbreak are unknowable; research that seems routine now may be critical tomorrow. Establishing openness as the standard will help build the scientific foundation needed to contain the next outbreak.

Recent epidemics were surprises—Zika and chikungunya sweeping through the Americas; an Ebola pandemic with more than 10,000 deaths; the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome and Middle East respiratory syndrome, and an influenza pandemic (influenza A[H1N1]pdm09) originating in Mexico—and we can be sure there are more surprises to come. Opening all research provides the best chance to accelerate discovery and development that will help during the next surprise….(More)”

Book edited by Carlos E. Jiménez-Gómez and Mila Gascó-Hernández: “Open government initiatives have become a defining goal for public administrators around the world. However, progress is still necessary outside of the executive and legislative sectors.

Achieving Open Justice through Citizen Participation and Transparency is a pivotal reference source for the latest scholarly research on the implementation of open government within the judiciary field, emphasizing the effectiveness and accountability achieved through these actions. Highlighting the application of open government concepts in a global context, this book is ideally designed for public officials, researchers, professionals, and practitioners interested in the improvement of governance and democracy….(More)

Each of these seemingly disconnected everyday buttons you pressed may have something in common: it is quite possible that none of them did a thing to influence the world around you. Any perceived impact may simply have been imaginary, a placebo effect giving you the illusion of control.

In the early 2000s, New York City transportation officials finally admitted what many had suspected: the majority of crosswalk buttons in the city are completely disconnected from the traffic light system. Thousands of these initially worked to request a signal change but most no longer do anything, even if their signage suggests otherwise.

Naturally, a number of street art projects have popped up around the humorous futility of pedestrians pressing placebo buttons:

Crosswalk buttons were originally introduced to NYC during the 1960s. At the time, there was less congestion and it made sense to leave green lights on for major thoroughfares until cross traffic came along … or until a pedestrian wanting to cross the street pushed a button.

Today, a combination of carefully orchestrated automation and higher traffic has made most of these buttons obsolete. Citywide, there are around 100 crosswalk buttons that still work in NYC but close to 1,000 more that do nothing at all. So why not take them down? Removing the remaining nonfunctional buttons would cost the city millions, a potential waste of already limited funds for civic infrastructure….(More)”

White House: “Today the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is releasing an update to the Federal Government’s governing document for the management of Federal information resources: Circular A-130, Managing Information as a Strategic Resource.

The way we manage information technology(IT), security, data governance, and privacy has rapidly evolved since A-130 was last updated in 2000.  In today’s digital world, we are creating and collecting large volumes of data to carry out the Federal Government’s various missions to serve the American people.  This data is duplicated, stored, processed, analyzed, and transferred with ease.  As government continues to digitize, we must ensure we manage data to not only keep it secure, but also allow us to harness this information to provide the best possible service to our citizens.

Today’s update to Circular A-130 gathers in one resource a wide range of policy updates for Federal agencies regarding cybersecurity, information governance, privacy, records management, open data, and acquisitions.  It also establishes general policy for IT planning and budgeting through governance, acquisition, and management of Federal information, personnel, equipment, funds, IT resources, and supporting infrastructure and services.  In particular, A-130 focuses on three key elements to help spur innovation throughout the government:

• Real Time Knowledge of the Environment.  In today’s rapidly changing environment, threats and technology are evolving at previously unimagined speeds.  In such a setting, the Government cannot afford to authorize a system and not look at it again for years at a time.  In order to keep pace, we must move away from periodic, compliance-driven assessment exercises and, instead, continuously assess our systems and build-in security and privacy with every update and re-design.  Throughout the Circular, we make clear the shift away from check-list exercises and toward the ongoing monitoring, assessment, and evaluation of Federal information resources.
• Proactive Risk Management.  To keep pace with the needs of citizens, we must constantly innovate.  As part of such efforts, however, the Federal Government must modernize the way it identifies, categorizes, and handles risk to ensure both privacy and security.  Significant increases in the volume of data processed and utilized by Federal resources requires new ways of storing, transferring, and managing it Circular A-130 emphasizes the need for strong data governance that encourages agencies to proactively identify risks, determine practical and implementable solutions to address said risks, and implement and continually test the solutions.  This repeated testing of agency solutions will help to proactively identify additional risks, starting the process anew.
• Shared Responsibility.  Citizens are connecting with each other in ways never before imagined.  From social media to email, the connectivity we have with one another can lead to tremendous advances.  The updated A-130 helps to ensure everyone remains responsible and accountable for assuring privacy and security of information – from managers to employees to citizens interacting with government services. …(More)”