Examining Perceptions of E-Governance Participation in Public Management and Water Conservation

The E-Water Gap

Brandon F. De Bruhl Masters of Public Policy and Masters of Science in Analytics

Emily Chen (YixMasters of Public Policy

Rhett Parnaey Masters of Public Policy and Masters of Planning

Prepared for the 2015 Los Angeles Symposium hosted at the RAND Corporation and Sponsored by the Price School of Public Policy

Finalist in the Fels Policy ChallengePolicy Solution:

LA Saves – A Water Engagement E-Governance Platform.

Contest Award:$5,000

Neubauer Gant Award:$3,700

Total Funding:$8,700

1 Introduction

Water is a California Problem

2 Background

Provided by the United States Geological Service and the National Geospatial Institute for Resource Management, University of California, Berkeley.

Los Angeles Water Management(MWD,SCE and LADWP)

3 Background

Courtesy of the Metropolitan Water District, Southern California Edison and the Los Angeles County Department of Power and Water.

Number of Water Districts:

27Individuals Served

6.7 MillionNumber of Combined

Administrative Offices:

114

Internal Water E-Government Practices (Research Questions)

4 Project

Digital Governance in LA (Status Quo)

5 Project

Capturing Public Administration of Water (Methodical Approach)

6 Project

Survey Instruments (Convince Sampling)

Data CollectionSurvey Instrument:

Technical Panel: Water Engineers

Administrative Panel: Water Program Managers

Expert Elicitation Policy PanelCity Officials

Water District Officials

Data Sources Baseline Data:

Santa Catalina Company (Southern California Edison)

Data Collection Participants:Southern California EdisonMetropolitan Water District

Los Angeles Water and Power

7 Analysis

Multi-Attribute Utility Theory(Decision Model)

Attributes EvaluatedTechnological Perception of

E-Governance in Utility Score.

Administrative Perception of E-Governance in Utility

Score.Policy Perceptions of E-

Governance in Utility Score. Cost of a Internal E-

Governance System*. 8 Analysis

The decision process for water policy adoption.

Informing Water Governance(Expected Results)

9 Analysis

Outcome One: Inform Decision MakersProviding a Framework for Public Water Decision Makers to understand and leverage e-governance in water.

Outcome Two: A Vehicle for Political DialogTo provide a point of discussion to State and Municipal leaders around the use of e-governance as a way to improve water management.

Outcome Three: E-Governance Preference in Public Utilities To open the public policy dialog around the use of e-governance in the public utility space.

Limitations & SensitivitySensitivity

Sensitivity Outside the Context of LA CountyValue is Sensitive to Water Availability

Cost Technology

Limitations of the ProjectSampling Bias

Omitted Variable BiasConstrained by Time and Geography

Utility Score is only Represents the Values of Participants

9 Analysis

Thank You!

Brandon F. De Bruhl Masters of Public Policy and Masters of Science in Analytics

Emily Chen Masters of Public Policy

Rhett Parnaey Masters of Public Policy and Masters of Planning

Prepared for the 2015 Los Angeles Symposium hosted at the RAND Corporation and Sponsored by the Price School of Public Policy

A Special Thank you to….Daniel A. Mazmanian Ph.D

Academic Director, USC Schwarzenegger Institute for State and Global Policy

Diane Yoder Ph.DProfessional Practice of Public Administration