Digital and multi-channel citizen participation in Germany: A comprehensive overview of patterns, methods and determinants

Karic, Sarah; Heissler, Jan; Althaus, Marie-Christin Article Digital and multi-channel citizen participation in Germany: A comprehensive overview of patterns, methods and determinants Raumforschung und Raumordnung / Spatial Research and Planning Provided in Cooperation with: Leibniz-Forschungsnetzwerk "R – Räumliches Wissen für Gesellschaft und Umwelt | Spatial Knowledge for Society and Environment" Suggested Citation: Karic, Sarah; Heissler, Jan; Althaus, Marie-Christin (2024) : Digital and multichannel citizen participation in Germany: A comprehensive overview of patterns, methods and determinants, Raumforschung und Raumordnung / Spatial Research and Planning, ISSN 1869-4179, oekom verlag, München, Vol. 82, Iss. 3, pp. 215-230, https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.2170 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/300781 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ rur.oekom.de https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.2170 BEITRAG ARTICLE OPEN ACCESS Digital and multi-channel citizen participation in Germany: A comprehensive overview of patterns, methods and determinants Sarah Karic , Jan Heissler, Marie-Christin Althaus Received: 7 July 2023 Accepted: 30 November 2023 Published online: 9 February 2024 Abstract Citizen participation has played an increasingly relevant role inspatialplanninganddevelopmentaimingtoshapesustainable and innovative processes since the 1970s. Nevertheless, analogue participation is associated with various problems, such as social selectivity and a loss of civic trust in administration and politics. Against this background, high expectations lie in the development of digital participation formats, which have significantlychanged the participation landscape. Despite the rapid development of digital participation based on new technologies and external factors such as the Covid19 pandemic, there is still a lack of comprehensive empirical studies on spatial patterns and determinants. Therefore, the aim of the paper is to give an overview of the patterns, methodsanddeterminantsofdigitaland multi-channelparticipation in Germany. We comprehensively investigated digital and multi-channel participation processes on the websites of German cities and districts – about 4,000 approaches in total.Theresultsshowspatialdisparitiesindigital participation Dr. Sarah Karic, Institut für Geographie, Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen, Senckenbergstraße 1, 35390 Gießen, Germany [email protected] Jan Heissler, Institut für Geographie, Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen, Senckenbergstraße 1, 35390 Gießen, Germany [email protected] Marie-ChristinAlthaus, Institut für Geographie, Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen, Senckenbergstraße 1, 35390 Gießen, Germany [email protected] © 2024 by the author(s); licensee oekom. This Open Access article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Licence (CC BY). processes. While the availability of broadband internet and public debt do not significantly influence the digital participation density in districts and cities, low election turnouts go along with high densities. This suggests that the administrations are responding to political disinterest with digital participation.Theresultsalsoindicatethatdigitalparticipationcan belesssociallyselective,ashighsharesofpopulationwithout Germancitizenship,highmigrationratesandlowemployment rates have significant positive effects on digital participation. Keywords: Citizen participation digital participation  spatial planning spatial development Digitale und mehrkanalige Partizipation in Deutschland: Ein umfassender Überblick über Strukturen, Methoden und Determinanten Zusammenfassung Bürgerbeteiligung spielt seit den 1970er-Jahren in der Raumplanung und -entwicklung eine zunehmend relevante Rolle zur Gestaltung nachhaltiger und innovativer Prozesse. Dennoch ist analoge Partizipation mit Problemen wie sozialer Selektivität und dem Verlust bürgerschaftlichen Vertrauens in Verwaltung und Politik verbunden. Vor diesem Hintergrund liegen hohe Erwartungen in digitalen Beteiligungsformaten, die das Beteiligungsspektrum aufgrund neuer Technologien und externen Faktoren, wie der Covid-19-Pandemie, deutlich verändert haben. Dennoch fehlen bislang umfassende empirische Studien zu räumlichen Mustern und Determinanten. DieserBeitraggibteinenÜberblicküberdieMuster,Methoden und Determinanten digitaler und mehrkanaliger Beteiligung in Deutschland.Dazu wurden die Webseitendeutscher Städte undLandkreiseumfassenduntersucht–insgesamtrund4.000 Beteiligungsansätze. Die Ergebnisse zeigen räumliche UnRaumforschung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Planning (2024) 82/3: 215–230 215 S. Karic et al. terschiede bei digitalen Beteiligungsverfahren. Während die VerfügbarkeitvonBreitbandinternetundöffentlicheSchulden keinensignifikantenEinflussaufdieVerfahrensdichteinLandkreisen und Städten haben, geht eine niedrige WahlbeteiligungmithohenBeteiligungsdichteneinher.DiesgibtHinweise darauf, dass Verwaltungen mit digitalerPartizipation auf politisches Desinteresse reagieren. Die Ergebnisse deuten zudem darauf hin, dass digitale Beteiligung weniger sozial selektiv sein kann, da hohe Bevölkerungsanteile ohne deutsche Staatsbürgerschaft, Migrationsraten und niedrige BeschäftigungsquotendigitaleBeteiligungsangebotesignifikantpositiv beeinflussen. Schlüsselwörter: Partizipation digitale Beteiligung  Raumplanung Raumentwicklung 1 Introduction Cities are growing rapidly, thus urban policy faces the challenges of urban transformation and enabling social welfare and justice (Hovik/Giannoumis 2022: 2). Since a major part of the world’s population lives in cities, an important role is played by local and urban governance (Silva 2020:2),which has witnessed a collaborative and participatory turn in recent decades (Dean 2018: 180). Citizen participation as the involvement and engagement of citizens in decision-making processes has been key in the context of sustainable planning and lifestyles since the 1970s (Amado/Santos/Moura et al. 2010: 102; Meschede 2020: 201; Turken/Eyuboglu 2021: 173). Citizens are most influenced by the urban environment and should be strongly integrated in the governance process (Bastos/Fernández-Caballero/Pereira et al. 2022: 14; Legard/Hovik 2022: 168). Collaborative and cooperative planning thus relies on citizen participation to enable innovative solutions for shaping cities (Lahode/Schaumann 2022: 292). Overall, citizen participation formats can lead to greater transparency of planning processes for the public as well as better decisionand policy-making by local politics and administration (Caddy 2005: 126; Meschede 2020: 202). Against this background and in view of the relevance of the various levels of governance in Germany, local participatory governance plays a central role in the German planning system (Walk 2008: 45). Yet, participatory planning processes are flawed in practice and associated with various problems including a lack of interest and trust, inequalities, selectivity and participation barriers for underrepresented groups (Evans-Cowley/Hollander 2010: 397; Morais 2022: 5; Akmentina 2023). Due to the criticism of analogue citizen participation, the use of digital technologies to improve digital participation in planning processes is a key step towards greater citizen empowerment (Silva 2020: 7). Digital participation processes have the potential to be cheaper and more efficient and can lower barriers to participation as they are easier to access (Kubicek/Aichholzer 2016: 16). In Germany, digital participation is booming, especially since public resistance against Stuttgart 211(Martini/Fritzsche 2015: 123) and most recently due to social distancing during the Covid-19 pandemic (Hovik/Giannoumis 2022: 1). Despite the practical relevance of such approaches, there is a strong fragmentation of topic-related empirical studies (Kubicek/ Aichholzer 2016: 11; Freschi/Rony/Norbjerg 2009: 65). Against this background, the aim of the paper is to provide an overview of the practice of digital and multi-channel citizen participation at the local level in Germany and thus to contribute to understandings of digital participation in spatial planning and development. Based on systematic research of digital participation processes initiated by cities and districts, we aim to answer the following research questions: – How is the digital participation landscape in Germany shaped regarding the areas of application, the use of methods and the spatial distribution? – How do socio-economic and demographic characteristics of German districts impact the application of digital and multi-channel participation processes? The paper is structured as follows. In the first section, we present the evolution of participation in the context of urban and regional governance, the legal framework and the existing challenges. On this basis, we discuss the digitalisation of citizen participation, its chances and associated risks. In the empirical part of the paper, we first provide an overview of the research design and the data before we present the status quo of digital participation in Germany, its spatial distribution patterns and determinants in the findings section. Finally, we conclude with a discussion and summary. 2 Participation in spatial planning and development 2.1 A brief disambiguation First, we briefly define the concept of citizen participation. According to Hovik and Giannoumis (2022: 3), cit1Stuttgart 21 is a large-scale Deutsche Bahn project to convert Stuttgart’s main railway station, which was subject to massive protests in the noughties, peaking in 2010, due to inter alia a lack of democratic legitimacy, planning deficits and high costs (Novy/ Peters 2012: 128–129; Martini/Fritzsche 2015:123). 216 Raumforschung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Planning (2024) 82/3: 215–230 Digital and multi-channelcitizen participationin Germany: A comprehensiveoverview of patterns, methods and ... izen participation in general refers to “voluntary contributions or involvement of citizens in public decision-making”, although they do not address the governance levels of participation. In the context of Germany, however, the various federal, state, regional and local levels of governance in the planning system, with the central significance of the local level, must be taken into account. Jiang, Geertman and Witte (2019: 249) refer to the local level by describing participatory planning as raising awareness for local challenges and the involvement of citizens in local decisionmaking processes. At the urban level, Morais (2022:3)addresses the dimensions of participation as institutionalised and non-institutionalised participation. Institutionalised participation processes are organised top-down, such as citizen assemblies, while non-institutionalised participation describes rather bottom-up protests and events. In this paper, we understand citizen participation as the involvement and engagement of citizens in planning and decision-making processes at different governance levels. Since the 1980s, hierarchical administrative structures of governments have increasingly evolved into agile forms of governance networks to accommodate the collective needs of the local population (Taylor 2012: 15; Silva 2020:2). This evolution is also referred to as participatory governance within the collaborative or participatory turn (Dean 2018: 180). In Germany, this participatory governance was fostered at the local level in the 1990s through the introduction of direct elections, direct-democratic elements such as referendums, and deliberative democracy in the form of local agenda processes (Walk 2008: 21). 2.2 Relevance and functions of citizen participation Participation has multiple functions and effects for cities and regions and their citizens. Silva (2020: 2) describes citizen participation as a process that improves the results of planning, reduces costs, increases transparency and builds trust. Citizens are directly affected by the developments in their city and can therefore provide specific suggestions for their environment (Bastos/Fernández-Caballero/Pereira et al. 2022: 14; Lahode/Schaumann 2022: 292). Thus, participation enables an openness to new ideas and perspectives. A kind of intermediary arena between political power and civil society emerges (Meschede 2020: 201; Sierra/Ott 2022: 45). Thus, an active commitment arises, giving the population a sense of empowerment (Kang 2014: 412). Transformative and collective ideas need to emerge for cities to address urban issues, as highlighted during the Covid19 pandemic (Morais 2022: 1). Participation enables citizens to value the resources used in planning processes and thus new sustainable activities and planning processes can emerge (Amado/Santos/Moura et al. 2010: 102). In this way, cities and regions can take new paths towards sustainable transformation through new participatory planning processes (Amado/Santos/Moura et al. 2010: 107). 2.3 On legal settings and shortcomings of participation in Germany The relevance of participation and cooperative policy-making has been recognised globally and discussed through conferences and agreements (i.e. Local Agenda, Sustainable Development Goals) since the 1970s (Turken/Eyuboglu 2021: 173). In Germany, the Federal Building Code (Baugesetzbuch) currently contains guidelines for the implementation of formal participation in planning processes. These include meetings, public displays and written comments. Informal participation, such as future workshops, is not legally regulated, but can be implemented in addition to formal participation in planning (Kaczorowski 2014: 87). Nevertheless, in order to strengthen various forms of participation, the state and federal ministries have published a growing number of handbooks on institutionalisation in recent years (Sippel 2015: 32). Over time, participation has been further enhanced by various innovations. However, challenges remain in practice. Unequal distribution of power in face-to-face participation is a central problem. Participation is often only oneway and is used to inform and legitimise finalised decisions (Evans-Cowley/Hollander 2010: 399). Moreover, it is challenging for the administration to integrate disadvantaged and less articulate population groups into the process (Ertiö 2015: 303). Citizens are thus excluded from the actual decision-making and are ascribed a spectator role (Nyseth/ Ringholm/Agger 2019: 14; Carvajal Bermúdez 2022: 160). The will for more transparent and constant communication is growing (Fathejalali/Jain 2019: 217). In contrast, a lack of interest in participation and trust in politics and the administration is evident among citizens (Akmentina 2023). Fiscal crises and the associated limited governmental resources lead to a decline in citizen participation and deficits in the implementation of participation results on a local level in Germany (Holtkamp/Bathge 2012: 47). Furthermore, the results of participation are not adequately embedded in planning and thus do not directly influence the process (Morais 2022: 23–24). In addition, the intensity of participation is usually insufficient. In planning processes, the focus is mainly on providing information or allowing citizens to identify urban deficits, while the active involvement of citizens in the process is not a priority (Bastos/FernándezCaballero/Pereira et al. 2022: 10). In this context, already in 1969, Arnstein identified different levels of participation with her “Ladder of Citizen Participation”, while criticising Raumforschung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Planning (2024) 82/3: 215–230 217 S. Karic et al. that only a minor part of participation is designed to actively involve citizens in the decision-making process and there is no guarantee that their opinions are taken into account (Arnstein 1969). 3 The digitisation of citizen participation 3.1 Definition and evolution of new participation modes In light of the shortcomings of conventional participation described above, new forms of participation have developed in recent years through digitalisation. In the past two decades, the spread of information and communication technologies (ICT) and the development of new media have led to new collective narratives and public discourses in cities (Graziano 2020: 582) and a transformation of the process for developing urban spaces (Turken/Eyuboglu 2021: 171). The information and consultation process has been diversified through the introduction of digital participation. Digital participation (or e-participation) involves the use of digital tools for the implementation of citizen participation, mediated by information and communication technologies and primarily the internet (Al-Dalou/Abu-Shanab 2013: 1; Hovik/Giannoumis 2022: 3). Macintosh (2004:3) defines three levels of e-participation: e-enabling describes the provision of information such as websites or newsletters; e-engaging refers to consultation via surveys, discussion forums and the like; and e-empowering means the active participation of the population in order to influence planning by, for example, e-petitions (Mandarano/Meenar 2015: 462; Martini/Fritzsche 2015: 125). This connects to Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of participation. Meanwhile, digital participation is constantly evolving through new technologies and faster and cheaper data availability (Antoniou/Potsiou 2021: 38; Turken/Eyuboglu 2021: 169; Akmentina 2023). The use of social media by public administrations is a growing trend (Sobaci 2016: 3). Access to high-speed internet is a prerequisite. Hence, especially in highly developed countries with widespread high-speed internet and modern public administrations, digital participation and e-government are developing rapidly (Donders/Hartmann/Kokx 2014: 58). Nevertheless, digital citizen participation has so far been used less commonly than assumed (Lebezova/Ovcharenko 2022: 79). In Germany, the demand for digital participation tools was accentuated by Stuttgart 21 and the restrictions on physical contacts during the Covid-19 pandemic. Here, the local level in particular serves as a field of experimentation (Martini/ Fritzsche 2015: 123; Hovik/Giannoumis 2022:1).Wiktorska-Swiecka (2023: 226) observes for Berlin that the pandemic developed a window of opportunity to rethink participatory formats and enabled a transformation towards new participatory governance as the “new normal”, also by means of information and communication technologies. Hanninger (2023: 99) finds that Covid-19 was a kind of “digitalisation catalyst” for some Bavarian municipalities. In the future, digital participation processes will continue to evolve and be increasingly used. The support of and combinations with analogue formats takes centre stage (Turken/Eyuboglu 2021: 179), with digital participation viewed as a complement rather than a substitute (Freschi/ Rony/Norbjerg 2009: 64). Combinations of digital and analogue formats are known as blended, hybrid or multichannel participation and are commonly employed in planning practice, both in the development of comprehensive planning processes and in the capacity building of citizens (Akmentina 2023). 3.2 Chances and risks associated with digital participation Digital participation offers many advantages over traditional participation. Cheaper and more efficient methods and platforms can be used, thus saving time and costs for governments and administrations (Kubicek/Aichholzer 2016: 16; Sobaci 2016: 11). Moreover, new forms of participation through interactive methods on the internet can potentially address and activate new population groups that are otherwise reluctant to participate, such as young people (Nyseth/Ringholm/Agger 2019: 14). It can also overcome barriers to participation, as digital approaches are more flexible and easier to access (Kubicek/Aichholzer 2016: 16). Due to time-space independencies, more people can be reached (Martini/Fritzsche 2015: 124; Turken/Eyuboglu 2021: 169; Lahode/Schaumann 2022: 291). In this way, citizens are better integrated in political decision-making processes because they are also better connected to politics, and information and communication technologies enable a better understanding of the processes (Al-Dalou/Abu-Shanab 2013: 1). The inclusivity of planning processes can thus be increased and previously excluded population groups can be mobilised (Legard/Hovik 2022: 169). Overall, digital participation can promote social cohesion (Damurski 2012: 40). In addition, more diverse forms of feedback opportunities and data have emerged, including public geoinformation systems (Akmentina 2023). With visual tools, language is not a general barrier (Evans-Cowley/Hollander 2010: 400). New possibilities such as gamification enable a playful engagement with planning topics and urban problems and increase motivation to participate (Muehlhaus/ Eghtebas/Seifert et al. 2023: 345). Moreover, digital tech218 Raumforschung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Planning (2024) 82/3: 215–230 Digital and multi-channelcitizen participationin Germany: A comprehensiveoverview of patterns, methods and ... nologies are increasingly being used to optimise participation in urban design (Turken/Eyuboglu 2021: 179). Socalled digital co-design or co-creation is characterised by design concepts being created by non-experts through gaming setups and virtual reality, with support from experts and planners. One example of a holistic digital co-design system is U_CODE (Stelzle/Naumann/Holmer et al. 2020: 85). This creates a larger knowledge base by crowdsourcing local knowledge, ideas and the creativity of citizens or nonexperts, allowing urban design to become an iterative, agile process (Münster/Georgi/Heijne et al. 2017: 2396–2397). Mobile apps allow constant participation over a long duration, thus covering an entire decision-making process (Fathejalali/Jain 2019: 216). In contrast, digital participation is also associated with various new challenges that cannot be solved and that do not affect analogue participation. Research findings indicate that citizens who already engage in participation are more likely to use digital participation offerings (Carvajal Bermúdez 2022: 162). A study by Legard and Hovik (2022: 178) shows that while the age and gender of participants represent the entire population well, people with low income and education levels and a migration background are underrepresented. In addition, the problem of the digital divide has to be mentioned on several levels. Firstly, cities and regions must have sufficient broadband internet available for implementation (Sobaci 2016: 13). Accordingly, the synergy of citizen participation and digitalisation is limited in rural areas, as a lack of internet connectivity is an obstacle in these regions (Stein/Pentzold/Peter et al. 2022: 259). Secondly, users rely on sufficient internet access. This can create a division between population groups with internet access and those without (Evans-Cowley/Hollander 2010: 406; Donders/Hartmann/Kokx 2014: 58). Disparities can be assumed regarding age and other social, cultural and financial conditions. A lack of political interest among citizens also has a negative impact on the use of digital participation, meaning that the “democratic divide” does not dissolve and may even intensify (Brake 2008: 65). In addition, digital participation is associated not only with costefficiencies but also with a high level of effort. Establishing the platforms is time-consuming and costly (Turken/ Eyuboglu 2021: 177). Besides time resources, human resources also flow into digital participation, especially with initial costs. Specific staff must be hired or trained for this purpose (Sobaci 2016: 13–14). Therefore, digital participation is potentially a problem for municipalities and districts with limited financial and human resources. A key social and political hurdle to the implementation of digital participation in Germany is scepticism towards the digitisation strategies of local governments due to concerns and fears about privacy and digital automation; this requires solutions such as educational work (Wirtz/Kubin 2021: 289–290). Great care is also needed to ensure security and privacy in digital participation processes (Antoniou/Potsiou 2021: 42), and to prevent fake news, cyber-attacks and discrimination (Sobaci 2016: 14). More research is needed to understand how technological developments and digitalisation in cities affect organisational structures and citizens (Mello Rose 2022: 21) and what the contextual factors are where citizens participate digitally (Hovik/Giannoumis 2022: 4). Furthermore, barriers to the use of digital participation on the user and supplier sides are rarely considered in research. Kubicek and Aichholzer (2016: 11) identify a twofold evaluation gap of missing success criteria and comparable empirical studies. In addition to the local level, other levels such as the regional level should also be considered. Here, transdisciplinary, empirical research projects can bring new insights (Freschi/Rony/Norbjerg 2009: 66). 4 Research design 4.1 Data collection In order to describe the digital participation landscape in Germany and to analyse the determinants for the implementation of digital participation, we applied both data-exploring and hypothesis-testing quantitative analyses. In a first step, the aim was to collect data on digital participation processes at different governance levels in order to examine participatory elements at different scales and to address the German planning system accordingly. For this purpose, we consulted the websites of all federal states, regional planning authorities, districts and administratively independent cities or those with over 5,000 inhabitants to assess whether and, if so, which and how many, digital participation processes have been offered by the respective administrative bodies. The basis of the study therefore comprised 2,437 cases (16 federal states, 69 regional planning authorities, 294 districts and 2,058 cities). In this paper, we focus on the processes in districts and cities in order to examine local types of digital participation in the context of spatial planning and development. We utilised the websites of the urban and district administrations as a database, as they are an important source of information regarding policy priorities and the services provided (Neumann/Linder/Desmarais 2022). We assume that relevant information must be freely and easily accessible for citizens via the websites. Citizens are able to access information or to directly participate online. Accordingly, we use the free availability of information through an internet search to study digital participation. The research was divided into a preliminary search, inRaumforschung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Planning (2024) 82/3: 215–230 219 S. Karic et al. Figure 1 Flow-chart of search approach depth research of the processes by means of the websites of the respective administrations, and follow-up research and examination of missing data between June and September 2022. In order to ensure consistent data collection across all investigated units, we defined a standardised procedure with a limited in-depth research period of 10 minutes per unit. In a first step, we checked the landing page of the administration’s website for ongoing participation processes. In a second step, we examined the drop-down menu of the website for relevant topics, such as participation or urban development. In a third central step, research focused on keywords like (digital/online) (citizen) participation, workshop, information event, assembly, survey, reporting of shortcomings and other methods in the German language. We also examined external participation portals. The federal states are predominantly responsible for these portals and publish the various participation processes of different administration levels. After the follow-up, we collected the results in a dataset to determine duration, affected area, planning field, stage in the planning process, participants, methods used, participation intensity, channel, contact person and URL. By categorising the planning area, we wanted to examine whether specific sectoral planning or administrative units are affected (transport, environment, integration, digitalisation, finance, tourism, sport and culture, economy, education), whether participation takes place within integrated concepts (e.g. urban development concepts), or whether the reconstruction or new construction of specific areas is addressed (urban planning), which also includes formal landuse planning processes. In addition, the classification by variables helped to analyse which stakeholder groups were specifically involved (participants). By using the variables ‘stage in the planning process’ and ‘methods’, we were able to examine the intensity of participation (whether only information is provided, whether citizens are consulted in processes or whether they can actively influence the process). Furthermore, we consulted secondary data to consider the structure of the cities and regions. Finally, the collected data were first analysed descriptively and then presented visually. We identified a total of 3,828 digital participation processes. Figure 1illustrates the approach. 4.2 Hypotheses and analysis of determinants Besides the descriptive analysis of the content and spatial distribution of digital participation processes, we investigated determinants of the number of processes per 100,000 inhabitants, and the participation density in the districts and administratively independent cities (cities that by definition do not belong to a district and act independently). The analysis of cities is limited to a descriptive presentation, as data for a regression at this level are not comprehensively available, which would limit the satisfactory explanatory power of the models. We derived the following hypotheses from the conceptual framework of this paper: H1: The availability of broadband internet in a district increases the digital participation density This first hypothesis refers to the problem of the digital divide, which addresses the crucial factor of sufficient broadband access for digital participation (Sobaci 2016: 13). This depends on both regional location (Stein/ Pentzold/Peter et al. 2022: 260) and individual internet access (Evans-Cowley/Hollander 2010: 406). H2: The debt of a district has a negative effect on the digital participation density While digital participation is discussed as a more cost-efficient method on the one hand (Kubicek/Aichholzer 2016: 6), on the other hand the implementation of digital participation processes is associated with considerable effort and especially high initial costs (Sobaci 2016: 13–14; Turken/ Eyuboglu 2021: 177). Since public financial problems can be considered a negative determinant for participation in general (Holtkamp/Bathge 2012: 47) and specifically for digital participation, this is tested for districts with Hypothesis 2. H3: A low turnout in federal elections in a district goes along with a high digital participation density Hypothesis 3 addresses the democratic divide and solutions due to digital participation. Since citizens with a generally low level of political interest participate less in spatial 220 Raumforschung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Planning (2024) 82/3: 215–230 Digital and multi-channelcitizen participationin Germany: A comprehensiveoverview of patterns, methods and ... planning and development (Brake 2008: 65), new digital interaction and presentation tools create the potential to better involve less active citizens (Nyseth/Ringholm/Agger 2019: 14), which could motivate those responsible to offer more digital participation. H4: A lower educational level, higher migration rates and lower employment rates among a district’s population lead to a high digital participation density While Legard and Hovik (2022: 178) showed that lowTable 1 Variable description and descriptive statistics (districtlevel) Name Area Description nMin Max Mean Std. dev. Dependent variable Digipart Number of digital participation processes per 100,000 inhabitants 399 0.00 24.80 2.2316 2.74396 Independent variables Foreign Population Share of population without German citizenship in %a399 2.1 36.6 10.827 5.3979 Migration Population Total net migration per 1,000 inhabitantsa399 -6.3 17.8 4.664 3.2766 Graduates_ high school Education Share of school leavers with higher education entrance qualification in %a399 0.0 67.5 33.730 10.6108 Leavers_ without_qual Education Share of schoolleavers without lower secondary school qualification in %a399 1.2 14.4 6.202 2.5037 Stud Education Number of students at universities per 1,000 inhabitantsa399 0.0 379.6 28.723 52.2335 Employ Economy Employees subject to social insurance at place of residence per 100 working-age inhabitants in %a399 45.0 71.3 62.238 4.3615 Unemploy Economy Share of unemployed among civilian labour force in %a399 1.4 16.4 5.170 2.7434 GDP Economy Gross domestic product in €1,000 per inhabitanta399 16.6 188.3 38.569 16.9886 Pub_dept Finance Public debt in € per inhabitanta399 0.0 9808 1487.1 1447.541 Highspeed_int Digitisation Share of households withbroadband coverage at 50 Mbit/s in %a399 36.8 100 86.159 11.4498 Turnout Politics Share of all votes (valid and invalid) among eligible voters in % (federal elections 2021)c399 63.4 85.5 76.281 4.0001 Controls Pop_dens Location Inhabitants per km2a 399 35.6 4777 540.87 716.3469 Dummy_loc Location Spatial location type according to BBSR (1 very central, 2 central, 3 peripheral)b399 Ave_age Population Average age of the population in yearsa399 40.4 50.8 44.827 1.9549 Dev_funding Finance Proposed federal subsidies for urban development in € per inhabitanta399 3.1 716.6 133.57 105.9465 Women_council Politics Share of women with seats in districtcouncils in %a399 8.7 60.0 28.513 8.0690 Vote_CDU/CSU Politics Share of votes for CDU/CSU in % (federal election 2021)c399 11.8 39.2 25.015 6.3740 Vote_SPD Politics Share of votes for SPD in % (federal election 2021)c399 12.7 43.4 25.673 6.4942 Vote_green Politics Share of votes for Bündnis 90/The Greens in % (federal election 2021)c399 0.0 36.0 12.835 5.8888 Vote_AfD Politics Share of votes for AfD in % (federal election 2021)c399 2.9 32.5 11.345 5.8960 Vote_FDP Politics Share of votes for FDP in % (federal election 2021)c399 6.7 18.9 11.089 2.2369 Vote_left Politics Share of votes for DIE LINKE in % (federal election 2021)c399 1.6 15.6 4.602 2.9527 Source: aBBSR (2021); bBBSR (2015); cDie Bundeswahlleiterin (2022) income, less educated and migrant populations are underrepresented in digital as well as in traditional participation, the assumption is that new ways of participation through interactive forms and opportunities of providing information via the internet can reach and activate citizens who have not participated before (Nyseth/Ringholm/Agger 2019: 14). Accordingly, with Hypothesis 4 we aim to test whether digital participation has the motivation and potential to reduce social selectivity. Raumforschung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Planning (2024) 82/3: 215–230 221 S. Karic et al. To test the hypotheses, we conducted multiple linear regression analyses for the districts and independent cities. To address the heteroscedasticity of the data, we ran OLS regressions with standard error estimations (HC3; Hayes/Cai 2007). The following variables shown in Tab. 1are included in the regression model as dependent, independent and control variables. In addition to the definition of the variables, the table shows descriptive statistics. The dependent variable Digipart (participation density; number of digital participation processes per 100,000 inhabitants) is used for every model. The variable is intended to contribute to the comparability of the districts and cities considered in this analysis of spatial patterns. In addition, it is assumed that the number of inhabitants of the districts and municipalities determines the supply of and demand for participation. In order to test the formulated hypotheses and to portray the structure of the districts, we integrated variables relating to population, economy, finances, digitisation, location and politics into the model (see column area). 399 German districts and independent cities are included in the analysis. A central question is how the availability of appropriate internet affects digital participation; hence, we included the variable Highspeed_int based on H1. To test whether public debt has a negative impact on the use of digital participation (H2), we integrated Pub_dept. In addition, the variable Turnout is included to account for the influence of political interest (H3). Leavers_without_qual, Graduates_highschool, Stud, i.e. the shares of educational levels in the population are found in the model to test digital participation for social selectivity in H4, as well as the variables Figure 2 Share of the related planning areas of the digital and multi-channel participation processes Foreign, Migration, Employ, Unemploy and GDP. In addition, we add several control variables to better represent the districts in addition to the variables for testing the hypotheses, and to increase the significance of the model. Due to the variables of the vote shares of the different political parties and in order to test the robustness of the analysis, we conducted six models with one party in each model, keeping the other variables constant. We present the results and discussion of the models in the following section to give an overview of the determinants of digital citizen participation at district level. 5 The status quo of digital and multichannel participation in Germany 5.1 Focal topics and applied methods of digital participation Initially, we provide an overview of the participation contents. For this purpose, we first look at the planning areas related to the participation. Figure 2shows the different fields descending by their relative importance. It appears that over 25% of the digital participation formats identified cannot be clearly categorised, but deal with rather general matters. This is because many cities, especially small ones, have a central contact point for citizen suggestions or criticism, which are then forwarded to the appropriate departments. Many cities refer to such tools as problem-reporting with a central web page tab. Beyond gen222 Raumforschung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Planning (2024) 82/3: 215–230 Digital and multi-channelcitizen participationin Germany: A comprehensiveoverview of patterns, methods and ... volved. In: International Journal of E-Planning Research 3, 2, 54–69. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijepr.2014040104 Ertiö, T.-P. (2015): Participatory Apps for Urban Planning – Space for Improvement. In: Planning Practice and Research 30, 3, 303–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02697459.2015.1052942 Evans-Cowley, J.; Hollander, J. (2010): The New Generation of Public Participation: Internet-based Participation Tools. In: Planning Practice and Research 25, 3, 397–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2010. 503432 Fathejalali, A.; Jain, A. (2019): Mobile participation (mParticipation) in urban development: The experience of FlashPoll app in Berlin (Germany). In: Information Polity 24, 2, 199–222. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP180096 Freschi, A.C.; Rony, M.; Norbjerg, J. (2009): eParticipation in the institutional domain: a review of research: analytical report on eParticipation research from an administration and political perspective in six European countries. Bergamo. Graziano, T. (2020): Citizen e-Participation in Urban Planning: Achievements and Future Challenges in a Mediterranean City. In: Khosrow-Pour, M. (ed.): Megacities and Rapid Urbanization: Breakthroughs in Research and Practice. Hershey, 582–600. https://doi.org/10.4018/97 8-1-5225-9276-1 Hanninger, L.-M. (2023): Status quo der digitalen Transformation in niederbayerischen Kommunen. In: Ahrens, D. (ed.): Smart Region: Angewandte digitale Lösungen für den ländlichen Raum: Best Practices aus den Modellprojekten „Digitales Dorf Bayern“. Wiesbaden, 81–103. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-38236-0_6 Hayes, A.F.; Cai, L. (2007): Using heteroscedasticity-consistent standard error estimators in OLS regression: An introduction and software implementation. In: Behavior Research Methods 39, 4, 709–722. https://doi.org/10. 3758/BF03192961 Holtkamp, L.; Bathge, T. (2012): Lokale Bürgerbeteiligung in der Haushaltskrise. In: Der moderne Staat. Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management 5, 1, 47–64. https://doi.org/10.3224/dms.v5i1.04 Hovik, S.; Giannoumis, G.A. (2022): Linkages Between Citizen Participation, Digital Technology, and Urban Development. In: Hovik, S.; Giannoumis, G.A.; ReichbornKjennerud, K.; Ruano, J.M.; McShane, I.; Legard, S. (eds.): Citizen Participation in the Information Society: Comparing Participatory Channels in Urban Development. Cham, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-03099940-7_1 Jiang, H.; Geertman, S.; Witte, P. (2019): Smart urban governance: An urgent symbiosis? In: Information Polity 24, 3, 245–269. https://doi.org/10.3233/IP-190130 Kaczorowski, W. (2014): Die smarte Stadt – Den digitalen Wandel intelligent gestalten. Handlungsfelder, Herausforderungen, Strategien. Stuttgart. https://doi.org/10.5771/ 9783415052178 Kang, M. (2014): Understanding Public Engagement: Conceptualizing and Measuring its Influence on Supportive Behavioral Intentions. In: Journal of Public Relations Research 26, 5, 399–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 1062726X.2014.956107 Kubicek, H.; Aichholzer, G. (2016): Closing the Evaluation Gap in e-Participation Research and Practice. In: Aichholzer, G.; Kubicek, H.; Torres, L. (eds.): Evaluating e-Participation: Frameworks, Practice, Evidence. Cham, 11–45. = Public Administration and Information Technology 19. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-25403-6_ 2 Lahode, C.; Schaumann, E. (2022): Cooperative Planning Strategies in Urban Development Processes. In: Coors, V.; Pietruschka, D.; Zeitler, B. (eds.): iCity. Transformative Research for the Livable, Intelligent, and Sustainable City. Cham, 283–293. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-03 0-92096-8_18 Lebezova, E.M.; Ovcharenko, L.A. (2022): A model of citizens’ digital participation in the Smart Environment. In: Journal of New Economy 23, 3, 62–85. https://doi.org/ 10.29141/2658-5081-2022-23-3-4 Legard, S.; Hovik, S. (2022): The Impact of Digital Participation on Democratic Urban Governance. In: Hovik, S.; Giannoumis, G.A.; Reichborn-Kjennerud, K.; Ruando, J.M.; McShane, I.; Legard, S. (eds.): Citizen Participation in the Information Society: Comparing Participatory Channels in Urban Development. Cham, 167–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-99940-7_8 Macintosh, A. (2004): Characterizing E-Participation in Policy-Making. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2004.1265300 Mandarano, L.A.; Meenar, M. (2015): e-Participation: Comparing Trends in Practice and the Classroom. In: Planning Practice and Research 30, 4, 457–475. https://doi. org/10.1080/02697459.2015.1017933 Martini, M.; Fritzsche, S. (2015): E-Participation in Germany: New Forms of Citizen Involvement between Vision and Reality. In: Fraenkel-Haeberle, C.; Kropp, S.; Palermo, F.; Sommermann, K.-P. (eds.): Citizen Participation in Multi-level Democracies. Leiden, 121–160. = Studies in Territorial and Cultural Diversity Governance. Mello Rose, F. (2022): Civil Society Involvement in Smart Cities. Citizen Participation or User Co-Creation? Dissertation, HafenCity Universität Hamburg. Raumforschung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Planning (2024) 82/3: 215–230 229 S. Karic et al. Meschede, C. (2020): Urban Governance for Sustainable Development: Information Dissemination, Open Data, and Citizen Participation. Dissertation. Heinrich-HeineUniversität Düsseldorf. Morais, M. (2022): Citizen Participation in Urban Policy: Lessons Based on Berlin and Sao Paulo Experiences. Berlin. = WZB Discussion Paper SP V 2022-101. Muehlhaus, S.L.; Eghtebas, C.; Seifert, N.; Schubert, G.; Petzold, F.; Klinker, G. (2023): Game.UP: Gamified Urban Planning Participation Enhancing Exploration, Motivation, and Interactions. In: International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 39, 2, 331–347. https://doi. org/10.1080/10447318.2021.2012379 Münster, S.; Georgi, C.; Heijne, K.; Klamert, K.; Noennig, J.R.; Pump, M.; Stelzle, B.; van der Meer, H. (2017): How to involve inhabitants in urban design planning by using digital tools? An overview on a state of the art, key challenges and promising approaches. In: Procedia Computer Science 112, 2391–2405. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.procs.2017.08.102 Neumann, M.; Linder, F.; Desmarais, B. (2022): Government websites as data: a methodological pipeline with application to the websites of municipalities in the United States. In: Journal of Information Technology and Politics 19, 4, 411–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2 021.1999880 Novy, J.; Peters, D. (2012): Railway Station Mega-Projects as Public Controversies: The Case of Stuttgart 21. In: Built Environment 38, 1, 128–145. Nyseth, T.; Ringholm, T.; Agger, A. (2019): Innovative Forms of Citizen Participation at the Fringe of the Formal Planning System. In: Urban Planning 4, 1, 7–18. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v4i1.1680 Sierra, R.; Ott, K. (2022): Citizen participation in the longterm process of high-level radioactive waste disposal: Future tasks and adequate forms of participation. In: TATuP – Zeitschrift für Techikfolgenabschätzung in Theorie und Praxis 31, 3, 44–50. https://doi.org/10.14512/tatup.31.3. 44. Silva, C.N. (2020): Introduction: Smart Digital Technologies and the ‘Ladder’ of Citizen-Responsive Urban E-Planning. In: Silva, C.N. (ed.): Citizen-Responsive Urban E-Planning: Recent Developments and Critical Perspectives. Hershey, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.4018/ 978-1-7998-4018-3.ch001 Sippel, H.-J. (2015): Auf dem Weg zu einer (neuen) politischen Kultur der Beteiligung. In: Sommer, J. (ed.): Kursbuch Bürgerbeteiligung 1. Berlin, 22–47. Sobaci, M.Z. (2016): Social Media and Local Governments: An Overview. In: Sobaci, M.Z. (ed.): Social Media and Local Governments: Theory and Practice. Cham, 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17722-9_1 Stein, V.; Pentzold, C.; Peter, S.; Sterly, S. (2022): Digitalization and Civic Participation in Rural Areas. A Systematic Review of Scientific Journals, 2010-2020. In: Raumforschung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Planning 80, 3, 251–265. https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.112 Stelzle, B.; Naumann, F.; Holmer, T.; Jannack, A.; Noennig, J.R. (2020): A minimal viable process and tools for massive participation in urban development. In: International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development 11, 1, 80–97. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJKBD.2020.106839 Taylor, N. (2012): Urban Planning Theory since 1945. London. Turken, A.O.; Eyuboglu, E.E. (2021): E-participatory Approaches in Urban Design. In: Journal of Contemporary Urban Affairs 5, 2, 169–182. https://doi.org/10.25034/ ijcua.2021.v5n2-2 Walk, H. (2008): Partizipative Governance. Beteiligungsformen und Beteiligungsrechte im Mehrebenensystem der Klimapolitik. Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-531-90803-8 Wiktorska-Swiecka, A. (2023): Towards a New Normal in Participatory Governance in Berlin during COVID-19. A “Lost Year” or a “New Beginning”? In: Lissandrello, E.; Sorensen, J.; Olesen, K.; Steffansen, R.N. (eds.): The ‘New Normal’ in Planning, Governance and Participation: Transforming Urban Governance in a PostPandemic World. Cham, 217–228. https://doi.org/10.10 07/978-3-031-32664-6_17 Wirtz, B.W.; Kubin, P.R.M. (2021): E-Government in Deutschland: Entwicklung, Barrieren und Verbesserungsansätze. In: Verwaltung und Management 27, 6, 285–294. https://doi.org/10.5771/0947-9856-2021-6 230 Raumforschung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Planning (2024) 82/3: 215–230