Book chapter by S. Grauwin, S. Sobolevsky, S. Moritz, I. Gódor, C. Ratti, to be published in “Computational Approaches for Urban Environments” (Springer Ed.), October 2014: “This chapter examines the possibility to analyze and compare human activities in an urban environment based on the detection of mobile phone usage patterns. Thanks to an unprecedented collection of counter data recording the number of calls, SMS, and data transfers resolved both in time and space, we confirm the connection between temporal activity profile and land usage in three global cities: New York, London and Hong Kong. By comparing whole cities typical patterns, we provide insights on how cultural, technological and economical factors shape human dynamics. At a more local scale, we use clustering analysis to identify locations with similar patterns within a city. Our research reveals a universal structure of cities, with core financial centers all sharing similar activity patterns and commercial or residential areas with more city-specific patterns. These findings hint that as the economy becomes more global, common patterns emerge in business areas of different cities across the globe, while the impact of local conditions still remains recognizable on the level of routine people activity.”
Every citizen a scientist? An EU project tries to change the face of research
Every citizen can be a scientist
The project helps usher in new advances in everything from astronomy to social science.
‘One breakthrough is our increased capacity to reproduce, analyse and understand complex issues thanks to the engagement of large groups of volunteers,’ says Mr Fermin Serrano Sanz, researcher at the University of Zaragoza and Project Coordinator of SOCIENTIZE. ‘And everyone can be a neuron in our digitally-enabled brain.’
But how can ordinary citizens help with such extraordinary science? The key, says Mr Serrano Sanz, is in harnessing the efforts of thousands of volunteers to collect and classify data. ‘We are already gathering huge amounts of user-generated data from the participants using their mobile phones and surrounding knowledge,’ he says.
For example, the experiment ‘SavingEnergy@Home’ asks users to submit data about the temperatures in their homes and neighbourhoods in order to build up a clearer picture of temperatures in cities across the EU, while in Spain, GripeNet.es asks citizens to report when they catch the flu in order to monitor outbreaks and predict possible epidemics.
Many Hands Make Light Work
But citizens can also help analyse data. Even the most advanced computers are not very good at recognising things like sun spots or cells, whereas people can tell the difference between living and dying cells very easily, given only a short training.
The SOCIENTIZE projects ‘Sun4All’ and ‘Cell Spotting’ ask volunteers to label images of solar activity and cancer cells from an application on their phone or computer. With Cell Spotting, for instance, participants can observe cell cultures being studied with a microscope in order to determine their state and the effectiveness of medicines. Analysing this data would take years and cost hundreds of thousands of euros if left to a small team of scientists – but with thousands of volunteers helping the effort, researchers can make important breakthroughs quickly and more cheaply than ever before.
But in addition to bringing citizens closer to science, SOCIENTIZE also brings science closer to citizens. On 12-14 June, the project participated in the SONAR festival with ‘A Collective Music Experiment’ (CME). ‘Two hundred people joined professional DJs and created musical patterns using a web tool; participants shared their creations and re-used other parts in real time. The activity in the festival also included a live show of RdeRumba and Mercadal playing amateurs rhythms’ Mr. Serrano Sanz explains.
The experiment – which will be presented in a mini-documentary to raise awareness about citizen science – is expected to help understand other innovation processes observed in emergent social, technological, economic or political transformations. ‘This kind of event brings together a really diverse set of participants. The diversity does not only enrich the data; it improves the dialogue between professionals and volunteers. As a result, we see some new and innovative approaches to research.’
The EUR 0.7 million project brings together 6 partners from 4 countries: Spain (University of Zaragoza and TECNARA), Portugal (Museu da Ciência-Coimbra, MUSC ; Universidade de Coimbra), Austria (Zentrum für Soziale Innovation) and Brazil (Universidade Federal de Campina Grande, UFCG).
SOCIENTIZE will end in October 2104 after bringing together 12000 citizens in different phases of research activities for 24 months.”
Giving is a question of time: Response times and contributions to a real world public good
Discussion Paper (University of Heidelberg) by Lohse, Johannes and Goeschl, Timo and Diederich , Johannes: “Recent experimental research has examined whether contributions to public goods can be traced back to intuitive or deliberative decision-making, using response times in public good games in order to identify the specific decision process at work. In light of conflicting results, this paper reports on an analysis of response time data from an online experiment in which over 3400 subjects from the general population decided whether to contribute to a real world public good. The between-subjects evidence confirms a strong positive link between contributing and deliberation and between free-riding and intuition. The average response time of contributors is 40 percent higher than that of free-riders. A within-subject analysis reveals that for a given individual, contributing significantly increases and free-riding significantly decreases the amount of deliberation required.”
Finding Mr. Smith or why anti-corruption needs open data
Martin Tisne: “Anti-corruption groups have been rightly advocating for the release of information on the beneficial or real owners of companies and trust. The idea is to crack down on tax evasion and corruption by identifying the actual individuals hiding behind several layers of shell companies.
But knowing that “Mr. Smith” is the owner of company X is of no interest, unless you know who Mr. Smith is.
The real interest lies in figuring out that Mr. Smith is linked to company Y, that has been illegally exporting timber from country Z, and that Mr. Smith is the son-in-law of the mining minister of yet another country, who has been accused of embezzling mining industry revenues.
For that, investigative journalists, prosecution authorities, civil society groups like Global Witness and Transparency International will need access not just to public registries of beneficial ownership but also contract data, political exposed persons databases (“PEPs” databases), project by project extractive industry data, and trade export/import data.
Unless those datasets are accessible, comparable, linked, it won’t be possible. We are talking about millions of datasets – no problem for computers to crunch, but impossible to go through manually.
This is what is different in the anti-corruption landscape today, compared to 10 years ago. Technology makes it possible. Don’t get me wrong – there are still huge, thorny political obstacles to getting the data even publicly available in the first place. But unless it is open data, I fear those battles will have been in vain.
That’s why we need open data as a topic on the G20 anti-corruption working group.”
A Big Day for Big Data: The Beginning of Our Data Transformation
Mark Doms, Under Secretary for Economic Affairs at the US Department of Commerce: “Wednesday, June 18, 2014, was a big day for big data. The Commerce Department participated in the inaugural Open Data Roundtable at the White House, with GovLab at NYU and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. The event brought businesses and non-profit organizations that rely on Commerce data together with Commerce Department officials to discuss how to make the data we collect and release easier to find, understand and use. This initiative has significant potential to fuel new businesses; create jobs; and help federal, state and local governments make better decisions.
Under Secretary Mark Doms presented and participated in the first Open Data Roundtable at the White House, organized by Commerce, GovLab at NYU and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
Data innovation is revolutionizing every aspect of our society and government data is playing a major role in the revolution. From the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) climate data to the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent and trademark records, and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) research, companies, organizations and people are using this information to innovate, grow our economy and better plan for the future.
At this week’s Open Data 500, some key insights I came away with include:
- There is a strong desire for data consistency across the Commerce Department, and indeed the federal government.
- Data should be catalogued in a common, machine-readable format.
- Data should be accessible in bulk, allowing the private sector greater flexibility to harness the information.
- The use of a single platform for access to government data would create efficiencies and help coordination across agencies.
Furthermore, business leaders stand ready to help us achieve these goals.
Secretary Pritzker is the first Secretary of Commerce to make data a departmental priority in the Commerce Department’s Strategic Plan, and has branded Commerce as “America’s Data Agency.” In keeping with that mantra, over the next several months, my team at the Economics and Statistics Administration (ESA), which includes the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the U.S. Census Bureau, will be involved in similar forums. We will be engaging our users – businesses, academia, advocacy organizations, and state and local governments – to drive this open data conversation forward.
Today was a big first step in that process. The insight gained will help inform our efforts ahead. Thanks again to the team at GovLab and the White House for their hard work in making it possible!”
How a Sensor-Filled World Will Change Human Consciousness
Scientific American: “Here’s a fun experiment: Try counting the electronic sensors surrounding you right now. There are cameras and microphones in your computer. GPS sensors and gyroscopes in your smartphone. Accelerometers in your fitness tracker. If you work in a modern office building or live in a newly renovated house, you are constantly in the presence of sensors that measure motion, temperature and humidity.
Sensors have become abundant because they have, for the most part, followed Moore’s law: they just keep getting smaller, cheaper and more powerful. A few decades ago the gyroscopes and accelerometers that are now in every smartphone were bulky and expensive, limited to applications such as spacecraft and missile guidance. Meanwhile, as you might have heard, network connectivity has exploded. Thanks to progress in microelectronics design as well as management of energy and the electromagnetic spectrum, a microchip that costs less than a dollar can now link an array of sensors to a low-power wireless communications network….”
Government, Foundations Turn to Cash Prizes to Generate Solutions
Megan O’Neil at the Chronicle of Philanthropy: “Government agencies and philanthropic organizations are increasingly staging competitions as a way generate interest in solving difficult technological, social, and environmental problems, according to a new report.
“The Craft of Prize Design: Lessons From the Public Sector” found that well-designed competitions backed by cash incentives can help organizations attract new ideas, mobilize action, and stimulate markets.
“Incentive prizes have transformed from an exotic open innovation to a proven innovation strategy for the public, private, and philanthropic sectors,” the report says.
Produced by Deloitte Consulting’s innovation practice, the report was financially supported by Bloomberg Philanthropies and the Case; Joyce; John S. and James L. Knight; Kresge; and Rockefeller foundations.
The federal government has staged more than 350 prize competitions during the past five years to stimulate innovation and crowdsource solutions, according to the report. And philanthropic organizations are also fronting prizes for competitions promoting innovative responses to questions such as how to strengthen communities and encourage sustainable energy consumption.
One example cited by the report is the Talent Dividend Prize, sponsored by CEOs for Cities and the Kresge Foundation, which awards $1-million to the city that most increases its college graduation rate during a four-year period. A second example is the MIT Clean Energy Prize, co-sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy, which offered a total of $1 million in prize money. Submissions generated $85 million in capital and research grants, according to the report.
A prize-based project should not be adopted when an established approach to solve a problem already exists or if potential participants don’t have the interest or time to work on solving a problem, the report concludes. Instead, prize designers must gauge the capacity of potential participants before announcing a prize, and make sure that it will spur the discovery of new solutions.”
The Emerging Power of Big Data
New America Foundation Report on the Chicago experience of using big data: “Big data is transforming the commercial marketplace but it also has the potential to reshape government affairs and urban development. In a new report from the Emerging Leaders Program at the Chicago Council of Global Affairs, Lincoln S. Ellis, a founding member of the World Economic Roundtable, and other authors from the Emerging Leaders Program, explore how big data can be used by mega-cities to meet the challenges they face in an age of resource constraints to improve the lives of their residents.
Using Chicago as a case study, the report examines how the explosion of data availability enables cities to do more with less—to improve government services, fund much needed transportation, provide better education, and guarantee public safety. And do more with less is what many cities have had to do over the past five years because many cities have had to cut their budgets and reduce the number of public employees in the post-financial crisis economy. It is also what they will need to continue to do in the future.
“Unfortunately, resource constraints are a consistent feature of the post-crisis global landscape,” argues Ellis. “Happily, so too is the renaissance in productivity gains garnered by our ability to leverage technology and information to achieve our most important public purposes in a smarter and more efficient way.”
Click here to view the report as a PDF.”
Transparency, legitimacy and trust
John Kamensky at Federal Times: “The Open Government movement has captured the imagination of many around the world as a way of increasing transparency, participation, and accountability. In the US, many of the federal, state, and local Open Government initiatives have been demonstrated to achieve positive results for citizens here and abroad. In fact, the White House’s science advisors released a refreshed Open Government plan in early June.
However, a recent study in Sweden says the benefits of transparency may vary, and may have little impact on citizens’ perception of legitimacy and trust in government. This research suggests important lessons on how public managers should approach the design of transparency strategies, and how they work in various conditions.
Jenny de Fine Licht, a scholar at the University of Gothenberg in Sweden, offers a more nuanced view of the influence of transparency in political decision making on public legitimacy and trust, in a paper that appears in the current issue of “Public Administration Review.” Her research challenges the assumption of many in the Open Government movement that greater transparency necessarily leads to greater citizen trust in government.
Her conclusion, based on an experiment involving over 1,000 participants, was that the type and degree of transparency “has different effects in different policy areas.” She found that “transparency is less effective in policy decisions that involve trade-offs related to questions of human life and death or well-being.”
The background
Licht says there are some policy decisions that involve what are called “taboo tradeoffs.” A taboo tradeoff, for example, would be making budget tradeoffs in policy areas such as health care and environmental quality, where human life or well-being is at stake. In cases where more money is an implicit solution, the author notes, “increased transparency in these policy areas might provoke feeling of taboo, and, accordingly, decreased perceived legitimacy.”
Other scholars, such as Harvard’s Jane Mansbridge,contend that “full transparency may not always be the best practice in policy making.” Full transparency in decision-making processes would include, for example, open appropriation committee meetings. Instead, she recommends “transparency in rationale – in procedures, information, reasons, and the facts on which the reasons are based.” That is, provide a full explanation after-the-fact.
Licht tested the hypothesis that full transparency of the decision-making process vs. partial transparency via providing after-the-fact rationales for decisions may create different results, depending on the policy arena involved…
Open Government advocates have generally assumed that full and open transparency is always better. Licht’s conclusion is that “greater transparency” does not necessarily increase citizen legitimacy and trust. Instead, the strategy of encouraging a high degree of transparency requires a more nuanced application in its use. While the she cautions about generalizing from her experiment, the potential implications for government decision-makers could be significant.
To date, many of the various Open Government initiatives across the country have assumed a “one size fits all” approach, across the board. Licht’s conclusions, however, help explain why the results of various initiatives have been divergent in terms of citizen acceptance of open decision processes.
Her experiment seems to suggest that citizen engagement is more likely to create a greater citizen sense of legitimacy and trust in areas involving “routine” decisions, such as parks, recreation, and library services. But that “taboo” decisions in policy areas involving tradeoffs of human life, safety, and well-being may not necessarily result in greater trust as a result of the use of full and open transparency of decision-making processes.
While she says that transparency – whether full or partial – is always better than no transparency, her experiment at least shows that policy makers will, at a minimum, know that the end result may not be greater legitimacy and trust. In any case, her research should engender a more nuanced conversation among Open Government advocates at all levels of government. In order to increase citizens’ perceptions of legitimacy and trust in government, it will take more than just advocating for Open Data!”
Open for Business: How Open Data Can Help Achieve the G20 Growth Target
New Report commissioned by Omydiar Network on the Business Case for Open Data: “Economic analysis has confirmed the significant contribution to economic growth and productivity achievable through an open data agenda. Governments, the private sector, individuals and communities all stand to benefit from the innovation and information that will inform investment, drive the creation of new industries, and inform decision making and research. To mark a step change in the way valuable information is created and reused, the G20 should release information as open data.
In May 2014, Omidyar Network commissioned Lateral Economics to undertake economic analysis on the potential of open data to support the G20’s 2% growth target and illustrate how an open data agenda can make a significant contribution to economic growth and productivity. Combining all G20 economies, output could increase by USD 13 trillion cumulatively over the next five years. Implementation of open data policies would thus boost cumulative G20 GDP by around 1.1 percentage points (almost 55%) of the G20’s 2% growth target over five years.
Recommendations
Importantly, open data cuts across a number of this year’s G20 priorities: attracting private infrastructure investment, creating jobs and lifting participation, strengthening tax systems and fighting corruption. This memo suggests an open data thread that runs across all G20 priorities. The more data is opened, the more it can be used, reused, repurposed and built on—in combination with other data—for everyone’s benefit.
We call on G20 economies to sign up to the Open Data Charter.
The G20 should ensure that data released by G20 working groups and themes is in line with agreed open data standards. This will lead to more accountable, efficient, effective governments who are going further to expose inadequacy, fight corruption and spur innovation.
Data is a national resource and open data is a ‘win-win’ policy. It is about making more of existing resources. We know that the cost of opening data is smaller than the economic returns, which could be significant. Methods to respect privacy concerns must be taken into account. If this is done, as the public and private sector share of information grows, there will be increasing positive returns.
The G20 opportunity
This November, leaders of the G20 Member States will meet in Australia to drive forward commitments made in the St Petersburg G20 Leaders Declaration last September and to make firm progress on stimulating growth. Actions across the G20 will include increasing investment, lifting employment and participation, enhancing trade and promoting competition.
The resulting ‘Brisbane Action Plan’ will encapsulate all of these commitments with the aim of raising the level of G20 output by at least 2% above the currently projected level over the next five years. There are major opportunities for cooperative and collective action by G20 governments.
Governments should intensify the release of existing public sector data – both government and publicly funded research data. But much more can be done to promote open data than simply releasing more government data. In appropriate circumstances, governments can mandate public disclosure of private sector data (e.g. in corporate financial reporting).
Recommendations for action
- G20 governments should adopt the principles of the Open Data Charter to encourage the building of stronger, more interconnected societies that better meet the needs of our citizens and allow innovation and prosperity to flourish.
- G20 governments should adopt specific open data targets under each G20 theme, as illustrated below, such as releasing open data related to beneficial owners of companies, as well revenues from extractive industries
- G20 governments should consider harmonizing licensing regimes across the G20
- G20 governments should adopt metrics for measuring the quantity and quality of open data publication, e.g. using the Open Data Institute’s Open Data Certificates as a bottom-up mechanism for driving the adoption of common standards.
Illustrative G20 examples
Fiscal and monetary policy
Governments possess rich real time data that is not open or accessed by government macro-economic managers. G20 governments should:
- Open up models that lie behind economic forecasts and help assess alternative policy settings;
- Publish spending and contractual data to enable comparative shopping by government between government suppliers.
Anti corruption
Open data may directly contribute to reduced corruption by increasing the likelihood corruption will be detected. G20 governments should:
- Release open data related to beneficial owners of companies as well as revenues from extractive industries,
- Collaborate on harmonised technical standards that permit the tracing of international money flows – including the tracing of beneficial owners of commercial entities, and the comparison and reconciliation of transactions across borders.
Trade
Obtaining and using trade data from multiple jurisdictions is difficult. Access fees, specific licenses, and non-machine readable formats all involve large transaction costs. G20 governments should:
- Harmonise open data policies related to trade data.
- Use standard trade schema and formats.
Employment
Higher quality information on employment conditions would facilitate better matching of employees to organizations, producing greater job-satisfaction and improved productivity. G20 governments should:
- Open up centralised job vacancy registers to provide new mechanisms for people to find jobs.
- Provide open statistical information about the demand for skills in particular areas to help those supporting training and education to hone their offerings.
Energy
Open data will help reduce the cost of energy supply and improve energy efficiency. G20 governments should:
- Provide incentives for energy companies to publish open data from consumers and suppliers to enable cost savings through optimizing energy plans.
- Release energy performance certifications for buildings
- Publish real-time energy consumption for government buildings.
Infrastructure
Current infrastructure asset information is fragmented and inefficient. Exposing current asset data would be a significant first step in understanding gaps and providing new insights. G20 governments should:
- Publish open data on governments’ infrastructure assets and plans to better understand infrastructure gaps, enable greater efficiency and insights in infrastructure development and use and analyse cost/benefits.
- Publish open infrastructure data, including contracts via Open Contracting Partnership, in a consistent and harmonised way across G20 countries…”