Evaluating Collaborative (e-)Participation in Climate Protection: Approach and Field Study

Aichholzer, Georg; Allhutter, Doris; Kubicek, Herbert; Strauß, Stefan

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-25403-6_7

Cited by 5 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results show that some factors that have been highlighted in previous literature as influencing the success of e-participation initiatives, such as the level of government, the ownership of the platform, the level of participation pursued, and the previous background in e-participation (Aichholzer et al, 2016;Randma-Liiv & Lember, 2022;Smith & Martín, 2021), are not crucial.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

“…Overall, the evidence suggests that several factors such as the legal framework, funding, organizational structure and culture, commitment by politicians, administrators and staff, security and privacy issues, and transparency‐related issues may contribute to the success or failure of e‐participation initiatives (Aichholzer et al, 2016; Falco & Kleinhans, 2018; Panopoulou et al, 2014; Porwol et al, 2016; Randma‐Liiv & Lember, 2022). Cross‐organizational issues and pre‐existing forms of citizen participation have not been properly addressed by previous research (Hovik et al, 2022; Randma‐Liiv, 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Defining "success" in e-participation is not straightforward as there is no conceptual agreement on success criteria (Aichholzer et al, 2016), as it will depend on the specific objectives of each initiative and the expectations of the different parties involved. Two clear and straightforward criteria have been used to select our cases: their international relevance and duration.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The success of e‐participation. Learning lessons from Decide Madrid and We asked, You said, We did in Scotland

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Electronic participation (e‐participation) has grown across the world in recent decades and many governments offer a range of opportunities for e‐participation. However, there is a lack of comparative analyses of successful initiatives, which can be useful in supporting subsequent adopters. This paper identifies the best practices and areas for improvement of Decide Madrid and We asked, You said, We did in Scotland, whose software has been widely adopted by hundreds of institutions worldwide. Key common enablers include political leadership and senior management support, top‐down approach, high levels of internal and external collaboration, embeddedness in the formal policy‐making processes and careful consideration of design features. Most of these factors are related to processes, organizational or managerial dimensions, rather than being linked to the institutional context or ICT. Areas for improvement relate to the way the initiatives provide feedback, allow discussion and flexibility on policy options, incorporate possibilities for offline participation, and involve a wider range of stakeholders. An important contribution is the identification of factors contributing to the robustness and continuity of e‐participation initiatives, combining the flexibility of collaborative network governance and the stability of public bureaucracy.This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 54%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The success of e‐participation. Learning lessons from Decide Madrid and We asked, You said, We did in Scotland

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The characteristics of the participation process (a) itself are of particular interest because in contrast to the other dimensions, to a large degree these can be shaped by institutions setting up such processes. Four elements of a participation process can be distinguished (Aichholzer et al, 2016; Kochskämper et al, 2018): The (i) input are the citizens who decide to engage in the process. These participants are then offered different means of engagement and interaction with each other.…”

Section: Legitimacy and Public Participationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet comparative designs that systematically analyze similarities and differences across different instances of participation remain rare (for exceptions see Dietz & Stern, 2008; Kochskämper et al, 2018; Pratchett et al, 2009; Renn et al, 2010) and often are limited to lab or survey experiments (Esaiasson et al, 2012; Strebel et al, 2019; Ulbig, 2008). Also, evaluation of online participatory democratic innovations on the local level is still limited (Aichholzer et al, 2016; Gabriel & Kersting, 2014; Michels, 2012; Vetter, 2008).…”

Section: Legitimacy and Public Participationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of online citizen participation on legitimacy beliefs in local government. Evidence from a comparative study of online participation platforms in three German municipalities

Escher,

Rottinghaus

2023

Policy & Internet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In order to generate legitimacy for policies and political institutions, governments regularly involve citizens in the decision‐making process, increasingly so via the Internet. This research investigates if online participation does indeed impact positively on legitimacy beliefs of those citizens engaging with the process, and which particular aspects of the participation process, the individual participants, and the local context contribute to these changes. Our surveys of participants in almost identical online consultations in three German municipalities show that the participation process and its expected results have a sizeable effect on satisfaction with local political authorities and local regime performance. While most participants report at least slightly more positive perceptions that are mainly output‐oriented, for some engagement with the process leads not to more, but in fact to less legitimacy. We find this to be the case both for those participants who remain silent and for those who participate intensively. Our results also confirm the important role of existing individual resources and context‐related attitudes such as trust in and satisfaction with local (not national) politics. Finally, our analysis shows that online participation is able to enable constructive discussion, deliver useful results, and attract people who would not have participated offline to engage.

show abstract

Digital Justice in the Smart City Developing a Framework for Participatory Digitalisation Strategies at the Local Level

Schüle,

Pollok,

Güleş

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An integrated consideration of digital inequalities in smart cities is relatively new to most discussions of the subject, and an applicable research framework for the assessment and management of digital inequalities in the smart city is still lacking. This paper proposes a framework for an action-oriented approach to analyse and strategically reduce digital injustices in smart cities. There are five requirements for creating digital justice: the availability of a concept with sufficiently allocated resources, the availability of digital infrastructures and technologies, programmes for learning digital competencies, offerings for citizen participation and a holistic perspective on the global dimensions of digital justice. For different case studies, we assess the coverage, integration and impact of these features. The analysis confirms that the proposed methodological approach can record and evaluate strategies for digital participation in smart cities.

show abstract

Evaluating Collaborative (e-)Participation in Climate Protection: Approach and Field Study

Cited by 5 publications

References 12 publications

The success of e‐participation. Learning lessons from Decide Madrid and We asked, You said, We did in Scotland

The success of e‐participation. Learning lessons from Decide Madrid and We asked, You said, We did in Scotland

Effects of online citizen participation on legitimacy beliefs in local government. Evidence from a comparative study of online participation platforms in three German municipalities

Digital Justice in the Smart City Developing a Framework for Participatory Digitalisation Strategies at the Local Level

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About