洪水数据平台治理:确定技术和社会技术方法的差异

IF 4.9 2区 环境科学与生态学 Q1 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES Environmental Science & Policy Pub Date : 2024-11-12 DOI:10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103938
Mahardika Fadmastuti , David Nowak , Joep Crompvoets
{"title":"洪水数据平台治理:确定技术和社会技术方法的差异","authors":"Mahardika Fadmastuti ,&nbsp;David Nowak ,&nbsp;Joep Crompvoets","doi":"10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103938","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Data platform governance concept focuses on what decision must be made in order to reach the data platform mission and who makes that decision. The current study of the data platform governance framework is applied for the general platform ecosystem that values managing data as an organizational asset. However, flood data platforms are essential tools for enhancing the governance of flood risks and data platform governance in flood platforms is understudied. By adopting a data governance domains framework, this paper identifies the technological and socio-technical approach(es) differences in public value(s) of flood data platforms. Empirically, we analyze 2 cases of flood data platforms to contrast the differences. Utilizing a qualitative approach, we combined web-observations and interviews to collect the data. Regardless of its approach, integrating flood data platform technologies into government authorities’ routines requires organizational commitment that drives value creation. The key differences between these approaches lies in the way the government sectors see this flood data platform technology. Empirically, our case study shows that the technological approach values improving capabilities and performances of the public authority while the socio-technical approach focuses more importantly providing engagement value with the public users. We further explore the differences of these approaches by analyzing each component of decision domains in the data governance framework.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":313,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Science & Policy","volume":"162 ","pages":"Article 103938"},"PeriodicalIF":4.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Flood data platform governance: Identifying the technological and socio-technical approach(es) differences\",\"authors\":\"Mahardika Fadmastuti ,&nbsp;David Nowak ,&nbsp;Joep Crompvoets\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103938\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Data platform governance concept focuses on what decision must be made in order to reach the data platform mission and who makes that decision. The current study of the data platform governance framework is applied for the general platform ecosystem that values managing data as an organizational asset. However, flood data platforms are essential tools for enhancing the governance of flood risks and data platform governance in flood platforms is understudied. By adopting a data governance domains framework, this paper identifies the technological and socio-technical approach(es) differences in public value(s) of flood data platforms. Empirically, we analyze 2 cases of flood data platforms to contrast the differences. Utilizing a qualitative approach, we combined web-observations and interviews to collect the data. Regardless of its approach, integrating flood data platform technologies into government authorities’ routines requires organizational commitment that drives value creation. The key differences between these approaches lies in the way the government sectors see this flood data platform technology. Empirically, our case study shows that the technological approach values improving capabilities and performances of the public authority while the socio-technical approach focuses more importantly providing engagement value with the public users. We further explore the differences of these approaches by analyzing each component of decision domains in the data governance framework.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Science & Policy\",\"volume\":\"162 \",\"pages\":\"Article 103938\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Science & Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"93\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901124002727\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"环境科学与生态学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Science & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"93","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1462901124002727","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"环境科学与生态学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

数据平台治理概念的重点是,为了完成数据平台任务,必须做出哪些决策,以及由谁来做出决策。目前对数据平台治理框架的研究适用于重视将数据作为组织资产进行管理的一般平台生态系统。然而,洪水数据平台是加强洪水风险治理的重要工具,而洪水平台中的数据平台治理研究不足。通过采用数据治理领域框架,本文确定了洪水数据平台公共价值的技术和社会技术方法差异。我们通过分析 2 个洪水数据平台案例来对比两者之间的差异。我们采用定性方法,结合网络观察和访谈收集数据。无论采用哪种方法,将洪水数据平台技术整合到政府部门的日常工作中都需要组织承诺来推动价值创造。这些方法的关键区别在于政府部门如何看待洪水数据平台技术。从经验上看,我们的案例研究表明,技术方法重视提高公共机构的能力和绩效,而社会技术方法则更重视为公众用户提供参与价值。我们通过分析数据管理框架中决策域的各个组成部分,进一步探讨了这些方法的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Flood data platform governance: Identifying the technological and socio-technical approach(es) differences
Data platform governance concept focuses on what decision must be made in order to reach the data platform mission and who makes that decision. The current study of the data platform governance framework is applied for the general platform ecosystem that values managing data as an organizational asset. However, flood data platforms are essential tools for enhancing the governance of flood risks and data platform governance in flood platforms is understudied. By adopting a data governance domains framework, this paper identifies the technological and socio-technical approach(es) differences in public value(s) of flood data platforms. Empirically, we analyze 2 cases of flood data platforms to contrast the differences. Utilizing a qualitative approach, we combined web-observations and interviews to collect the data. Regardless of its approach, integrating flood data platform technologies into government authorities’ routines requires organizational commitment that drives value creation. The key differences between these approaches lies in the way the government sectors see this flood data platform technology. Empirically, our case study shows that the technological approach values improving capabilities and performances of the public authority while the socio-technical approach focuses more importantly providing engagement value with the public users. We further explore the differences of these approaches by analyzing each component of decision domains in the data governance framework.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Environmental Science & Policy
Environmental Science & Policy 环境科学-环境科学
CiteScore
10.90
自引率
8.30%
发文量
332
审稿时长
68 days
期刊介绍: Environmental Science & Policy promotes communication among government, business and industry, academia, and non-governmental organisations who are instrumental in the solution of environmental problems. It also seeks to advance interdisciplinary research of policy relevance on environmental issues such as climate change, biodiversity, environmental pollution and wastes, renewable and non-renewable natural resources, sustainability, and the interactions among these issues. The journal emphasises the linkages between these environmental issues and social and economic issues such as production, transport, consumption, growth, demographic changes, well-being, and health. However, the subject coverage will not be restricted to these issues and the introduction of new dimensions will be encouraged.
期刊最新文献
Forest owners’ perceptions of machine learning: Insights from swedish forestry Understanding how landscape value and climate risk discourses can improve adaptation planning: Insights from Q-method Articulating futures: Community storylines and assisted ecosystem adaptation in the Great Barrier Reef Insights into the public engagement of coastal geoscientists Flood data platform governance: Identifying the technological and socio-technical approach(es) differences
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1