Artificial Intelligence systems are more and more being introduced into first response; however, this introduction needs to be done responsibly. While generic claims on what this entails already exist, more details are required to understand the exact nature of responsible application of AI within the first response domain. The context in which AI systems are applied largely determines the ethical, legal, and societal impact and how to deal with this impact responsibly. For that reason, we empirically investigate relevant human values that are affected by the introduction of a specific AI-based Decision Aid (AIDA), a decision support system under development for Fire Services in the Netherlands. We held 10 expert group sessions and discussed the impact of AIDA on different stakeholders. This paper presents the design and implementation of the study and, as we are still in process of analyzing the sessions in detail, summarizes preliminary insights and steps forward. @en

Fire fighters operate in a dangerous, dynamic, and complex environment. Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems can contribute to improve fire fighters' situation awareness and decision-making. However, the introduction of AI systems needs to be done responsibly, taking (human) values into account, especially as the situation in which fire fighters operate is uncertain and decisions have a big impact. In this research, we investigate values that are affected by the introduction of AI systems for fire services by conducting several semi-structured focus group sessions with (operational) fire service personnel. The focus group outcomes are qualitatively analyzed and key values are identified and discussed. This research is a first step in an iterative process towards a generic framework of ethical aspects for the introduction of AI systems in first response, which will give insight into the relevant ethical aspects to take into account when developing AI systems for first responders.@en

Stakeholder participation is a requirement for environmental decision-making in the European Union. Despite this, numerous instances can be seen in water governance in which stakeholders feel undervalued and unheard, thereby creating unfavourable procedural outcomes, resistance and conflict. In this article, we propose that a process of early-stage deliberation constructed around the values of the stakeholders involved can reduce, and even prevent such conflicts. We suggest that if values that stakeholders perceive as relevant can be identified and discussed as part of the deliberation process then (1) stakeholder preferences can change, and (2) participants can develop a mutual understanding of each other’s values and perspectives. To explore these propositions, facilitated workshops were conducted at two Dutch water institutes, based around the topics of land subsidence and the pharmaceutical contamination of water systems. Participants deliberated on values that they considered relevant. The results suggest that mutual understanding of stakeholders’ perspectives increases as a result of value-based deliberation.

@en

Decision-making processes involving multiple stakeholders can be rather cumbersome, turbulent and lengthy. The stance of some stakeholders, upholding their individual interests, can slowdown or even block such processes. Recent research suggests that a focus on the values of the stakeholders could benefit those decision-making processes. However, the role of the values is not yet fully understood. To investigate the interaction between values, norms, and resulting actions in decision-making processes, we introduce a conceptual model to explore the relations between these concepts. The conceptual model presented in this paper is a first step towards a framework to model decision-making processes with the aim of understanding the role that values play in decision-making processes.@en

Decision-making processes in policy making with multiple-stakeholders can be complex because of the technically advanced systems that are decided upon, e.g. water management systems. But the complexity is often also caused by social dependencies and interests at stake. This can lead to processes in which stakeholders firmly defend their interests, resulting in behavior that is so defensive that it severely blocks the process. For this reason, policy makers are trying to find a di↵erent approach.@en