Abstract
In recent decades, the focus of public participation in urban planning and development has shifted from IF to HOW citizen involvement can be realized. Additionally, diffusion of information and communication technology (ICT) and the recent advancement of mobile devices have altered the ways citizens can interact with others and with their urban environment. This article endeavors to explore and critically discuss the practical potentials and limitations of mobile participation (as an emerging field of electronic participation) based on the example of the FlashPoll app (
Key points for practitioners:
This paper elaborates the following points for practitioners: Characteristics of mobile partici- pation, its practical benefits and barriers as well as the contribution of mParticipation in processes of citizens involvement, including quality aspects, challenges and opportunities.
Keywords
Introduction
Since the 1960s, citizen participation has entered in urban planning discourse as an essential part of urban planning and urban development processes. By its definition, citizen participation enables citizens to shape planning decisions and outcomes while increasing their levels of social and political empowerment (Laurian, 2004). Apart from legally mandatory participation processes, a broad variety of so-called informal methods have developed since then. According to the earliest concept, Arnstein’s ladder of participation (Arnstein, 1969), these methods range from information events and public surveys on the lower levels of public involvement, to higher levels of interaction like participative planning (American Planning Association, 2006, p. 57) and more recently, co-design or co-creation (Çalışkan, 2012).
Today, the question is no longer IF the public should be involved, but rather HOW and with which methods can a broader spectrum of citizens participate in planning processes? Furthermore, the diffusion of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) and the ubiquitous internet have had an enormous influence on urban societies (Castells, 1989; Giddens, 1990; Harvey, 1989), and they recently changed participative approaches as well. Given the internet as a low-threshold communication channel, nearly everyone around the globe can instantly and permanently exchange information and knowledge with each other (Drohsel et al., 2010). Considering a technologically deterministic approach, these technological changes have resulted in humans’ abilities to share and act in a collective way outside traditional institutional and organizational frameworks (Shirky, 2008) and independent of location. Moreover, the rapid evolution of telecommunications technology has brought about widespread use of mobile phones and smartphones with internet connections, which has changed the way citizens interact in and with the urban environment (Evans-Cowley, 2010). In that sense, with the help of mobile internet, feedback from users or citizens can be directly connected to their everyday experience and life-context (Vanobberghen et al., 2013). As a result, technology is not seen as an external force, but rather, is the outcome of a process of socialization where its everyday use shapes its meaning and impact (Pinch & Bijker, 1987).
Mobile subscribers are well into the billions, making mobile technologies among the fastest growing communication technology ever (Campbell et al., 2010). The statistical reports on the penetration of internet and mobile phones – at least in EU countries with an 87% penetration for the internet (2016)1
This article aims to discuss the potentials and limitations of mobile participation (mParticipation) in light of the quality of participation (Dienel et al., 2014; Geissel & Newton, 2012) in the context of urban development. Furthermore, this article endeavors to incorporate some insights and takeaways from an implemented mParticipation case study in Berlin, Germany. In doing so, the theoretical background section begins by describing the current citizen participation approach and its limitations. Afterwards, the concept of mParticipation (as one of the recent developments in the participation arena), its characteristics and its typologies are further elaborated. Taking participation as the main and fundamental topic of this article, the authors review the quality and level of engagement in the next step. Afterwards, by using a case study, the mobile application “FlashPoll” is introduced as an example of mParticipation, and the real-world challenges and difficulties are discussed. At the end, the mParticipation practices and typologies are discussed in terms of quality of participation and engagement level.
Traditional citizen participation and its limitations
As mentioned before, citizen participation discourse entered into the urban planning context in the 1960s e.g. through the introduction of advocacy planning by Davidoff (1965). In an article written by Day (1997), citizen participation in urban planning is debated as an essentially contested concept. This ambivalence appears in the literature in different forms as some announced citizen participation as “Achilles heel of planning” or “wicked” problem. Some also fundamentally doubt the ability of the “masses” to constructively contribute to governance (Friedmann, 1987; Stivers, 1990). The communicative action theory introduced to planning in the late 80’s and soon became a dominant debate. In the 80s and 90s new flexible structures of capital and globalized labour resulted in reborning of the concepts such as active citizenship and public participation, together with new interpretations of the democracy as being more inclusive rather than representative. Urban planning practices encompass notions such as moderating between different stakeholders, talking and listening to opinions of the citizens (Hillier, 2002b).
Planning theories found themselves in a dead-end with previous rational-comprehensive planning approaches, which were dominated by top-down thinking. Therefore, theorists of urban planning discipline started pursuing new theoretical contexts and approaches in order to prove the importance and functionality of planning. While the neo-liberal economic and political system were receiving a vast amount of criticism, Habermas (1985) indicated how technocratic approaches were giving scientific legitimacy to the decisions that did not bring about consensus in public and open consultations. Conversely, he believed in communicative ways of actions providing the basis for a kind of thinking, which end in a consensus in decision-making and policies generation, more advanced than the available democratic and participatory methods. Hence, the collaborative model of planning became the dominant theory of planning since the 1980’s (Allmendinger & Tewdwr-Jones, 2002; Healey, 1996a, 1997; Hillier, 2002a, 2002b; Innes, 1995). This new paradigm of citizen participation as collaborative participation seeks to deal with the interests of all actors (public agencies, powerful private interests, and disadvantaged citizens) and treats all equally within the discussions. During the course of this process learning takes place, and sometimes conflicts are resolved and innovations emerge (Connick & Innes, 2003; Healey, 1993, 1996b).
Over the course of the last few decades, scholars have been trying to investigate different aspects of this notion, including the definition (Arnstein, 1969; Chetkow-Yanoov, 1982; Glass, 1979; Laurian, 2004; Roberts, 2004), advantages (Burby, 2003; Fainstein, 2005; Potapchuk, 1996; Potapchuk & Crocker, 1999) and disadvantages (Day, 1997; Irvin & Stansbury, 2004; Selle, 2013). The recent lines of debate and criticism on the discourse of citizen participation emphasize the ineffectiveness and sometimes even failure of traditional participatory methods – particularly public hearings, review and comment procedures. For instance, Innes and Booher (2004) investigated the failure of formal citizen participation in the US planning system and claimed that legally required methods of public participation in government decision-making in the US do not work. In their opinion, these forms of citizen participation do not achieve genuine participation in planning or other decisions; they do not satisfy members of the public to the extent that they feel they are being heard; they seldom can be said to improve the decisions that agencies and public officials make; they do not incorporate a broad spectrum of the public. Worse than previous issues, these methods often antagonize the members of the public who do try to work with them; the methods often pit citizens against each other, as they feel compelled to speak of the issues in polarizing terms to get their points across (see also Gohde-Ahrens, 2013, for the German experience).
Furthermore, institutionalization of the participation processes in the formal (and traditional) methods (e.g. public meetings) limits the time and extent to which a participant can learn about a complex public issue. Therefore, the meaning and effectiveness of participation in this environment has decreased in comparison to what it could be. As a result, in most cases, participation turns to an information event, and in some cases it turns into an information exchange rather than a learning process (Evans-Cowley & Hollander, 2010). Additionally, the exchange of this information is directly related to the physical presence of citizens at these kinds of events. Fortunately, participation today is considered important for having a democratic planning process, and the public demands it. But the organization is complicated, long term, cost-intensive, and it requires a high investment in time from the participants’ perspective (presence during event, traveling time, sometimes also preparation) (Höffken & Streich, 2011). As a result, planners and urban authorities are increasingly looking for new techniques and methods – in particular, ICT-enabled methods – which address the aforementioned challenges, while maximizing citizen engagement in urban development processes.
mParticipation as a subset of eParticipation: Definition, related concepts and characteristics
With the widespread diffusion of mobile phones and especially smartphones and faster and omnipresent network connection, the internet is going mobile. Mobile devices and wireless of 4G connections currently enable citizens to surf the web nearly everywhere and anytime as the “mobile factor” nearly reduces the limits of distance and time completely. This level of connectivity provides a unique opportunity to join different social media and networked citizens in urban public spaces (Drohsel et al., 2010). These power users are relevant stakeholders in future urban planning processes, have the skills to use smartphones, and use smartphones for their daily conversations or communicate via social media. They are the actual users of the internet, spend most of their time in the cyber net, and the mobile device contributes to a substantial part of their online activities (Höffken & Streich, 2011). Furthermore, research done by Campbell and Kwak (2010) reveals the supportive role of certain mobile communication patterns in terms of civic engagement and political activities for such users (Campbell & Kwak, 2010).
The term mParticipation is basically a subset of the notion of eParticipation, and it is illustrative of the development from desktop computer-based participation to a more “on-the-go” participation. Therefore, to define the mParticipation concept requires an initial understanding of the concept of eParticipation. The term eParticipation incorporates procedures based on information and communication technology (ICT) to enable the participation of citizens and other stakeholders in political decision-making processes (Albrecht et al., 2008; Macintosh, 2004, 2006; OECD, 2003). Tambouris and colleagues posit that eParticipation could be a part of a broader spectrum of the topic of eDemocracy, and they believe that eParticipation should include all forms of digital engagement, ranging from top-down government initiatives to bottom-up community initiatives. Therefore, it can be defined as, “the use of information and communication technologies to broaden and deepen political participation by enabling citizens to connect with one another and with their elected representatives” (Tambouris et al., 2007, p. 9). In the concept of eParticipation, it is intended that citizens provide their perspectives and inputs in urban policy-making process, and both monitor and evaluate the implementation of these policies, while urban authorities act as a networked organization, collaborate with citizens in different stages of the policy process, co-innovate with citizens and other local stakeholders, and share resources (Silva, 2013b). For instance, the work of Al-Kodmany (2001) and his colleagues can be described as one of the initial attempts in the context of urban planning. They used an interactive map to advance a community planning process in the US (Illinois, Chicago).
mParticipation therefore represents one of the recent developments within eParticipation. mParticipation is described as, “the use of mobile devices (e.g., mobile phones, smart phones and tablet computers) via wireless communication technology to broaden the participation of citizens and other stakeholders by enabling them to connect with each other, generate and share information, comment and vote” (Höffken & Streich, 2013, p. 206). Therefore, it is important to elaborate what makes mParticipation different from eParticipation and how they shapes the characteristics of mParticipation.
Ertiö (2013) sees this difference in terms of portability, as it removes barriers to access according to the “online whenever wherever” idea; hence, citizens no longer have to attend meetings scheduled during a certain time frame. Höffken and Streich (2013) argue this difference in light of smartphone features and consider it as the core element of mParticipation concept. They believe that the popularity of smartphones is not solely due to their calling capabilities, but rather due to multi-functional computing and multi-channel communication, context aware sensors, the variety of apps, mobile internet, usability, ubiquity and readiness (Höffken & Streich, 2013). Looking at the recent works of scholars in the communications field from a broader perspective reveals influences of mobile technologies on altering the form and function of communication. Using the affordance framework, Schrock (2015) discusses how mobile technologies are integrated into our routines and are affecting subsequent patterns of communication. In his work, he discusses four important factors that shape the communicative affordance of mobile media, which are portability, availability, locatability, and multimediality (Schrock, 2015). The technological features of smartphones, in combination with communicative affordance of mobile media, determine certain characteristics for mParticipation that distinguish it from other types of citizen participation, namely face-to-face and eParticipation.
In terms of characteristics, we find five main characteristics for mParticipation that distinguish this concept, which are listed below:
on demand locally-specified and enriched on the go real-time and fast cost-effectiveness reciprocity and feedback
One of the characteristics, specifically in projects that utilize mobile apps, is that it is “on demand”. A specific feature available on smartphones, known as notification, provides a unique possibility to reach users easily and draw their attention. In the case of a participatory project, this feature can provide a possibility to ask (demand/ remind) citizens for their contributions. Of course, in terms of technicality, this characteristic can be hindered by modification on the settings of devices. Nevertheless, this argument has merit. Availability, as one of the communicative affordances of mobile media (Schrock, 2015), emphasizes the possibility of mobile media to empower people to manage their communication strategies with different people only by using mobile phones (Light & Cassidy, 2014). “Locally-specified and enriched” participation can be named as the second characteristic of mParticipation. This characteristic is derived from the possibilities of the new services in smartphones called ‘location-based services’, what Schrock (2015) discusses as ‘locatability’. This feature, which relies on GPS sensors on smartphones, enables planners to engage citizens of a specific area with the planning process. Many scholars in recent decades have explored how embedding location, as another layer of information, can provide new possibilities for individuals to interact with each other and intervene in their living environment by connecting these two worlds (Farman, 2012; Gordon & de Souza e Silva, 2011). The notion of “net locality,” introduced by Frith and de Souza e Silva (2012), also supports our argument that mobile technologies enable knowledge transfer from micro entities (e.g. neighborhoods) to influence macro entities (Frith & de Souza e Silva, 2012). In other words, mParticipation projects can target members of the public in a specific place (location or area) and engage them, while providing specific information related to a specific geographical area (see .Gordon, 2008).
Another important aspect here is that citizens can contribute to the planning process by providing extra information (geo-location, picture, video, sensor data, etc.) from and related to the area that is is being planned. This point can be argued based on multimediality as one of the other communicative affordances of mobile media (Schrock, 2015). Nowadays, it is a normal act for people to take pictures or videos (Lenhart et al., 2010), or send/share their current location with friends and families through their smartphones. In this sense, the content and contributions of citizens can be enriched with extra layers of data (such as geo-location, picture, video, sensor data, etc) that are relevant for planning purposes and can be integrated into the analytical stages of the planning process.
The third characteristic of mParticipation can be referred to as “on the go” participation. This mostly goes back to the portability aspect of mobile phones, as citizens carry their phones with them and can now provide feedback from wherever their location might be. This characteristic depends on a citizen’s current position and allows participation “on the go” (Ertiö, 2013). Schrock (2015) also explains portability as one of the communicative affordance factors of mobile media that fundamentally differentiates mobile media from desktops computers (Schrock, 2015). Therefore, the citizens can participate without certain time and space barriers (for instance, while they are in public transportation going to work or heading back home).
The fourth characteristics of mParticipation can be called the “real-time and fast” participation. Considering the power of the mobile phone as part of our “always on” society, there is a real potential for creating a real-time participation processes (Evans-Cowley, 2010). The availability of affordable data plans (mobile internet) for smartphone users in recent years (at least in EU countries with the exception of Germany3
Based on the aforementioned characteristics of mParticipation and the features of smartphones and tablets, some scholars believe that mParticipation creates a low-threshold gateway for communication (even low income people) and a point-of-entry for engaging passer-bys (Ertiö, 2013; Höffken & Streich, 2013); however, this can’t be generalized, as it depends on the context of participatory projects. Moreover, it reduces spatial and temporal limits, while allowing for instant information transfer from anywhere and at anytime; and, it lowers the personnel costs for involvement (Höffken & Streich, 2011). In addition, the promise of mParticipation is to reach out to a diverse spectrum of participants and in particular, young adults, who tend, to a certain extent, to be under-represented in traditional participatory processes (Ertiö, 2013).
On the other hand, the technical obstacles of smartphones (battery power, system compatibility, app updates, etc.), issues of privacy (specifically in European context), app installation (Höffken & Streich, 2013) – especially the motivation of installation of new apps, the digital divide and excluded groups, superficial text elements and low quality inputs (Drohsel et al., 2010) have been highlighted as the major barriers of mParticipation. Additionally, the quality of background information provided on the smartphone screen, as well as the intensity of the opinion forming process, can be discussed critically.
In terms of classifying mParticipation practices, few attempts have been made by scholars with respect to urban development. In a broader context, Campbell and Kwak (2010) investigated the intersection of mobile technologies and civic engagement. Considering the uses and gratifications framework (U&G), they explored the possible ways that differential uses of mobile technologies can influence civic and political engagement. U&G is a theoretical orientation, which highlights how user needs and motivations influence media use and other outcomes, as opposed to the “effects” of simple exposure to media content (Blumler & Katz, 1974 cited in Campbell & Kwak, 2010). According to U&G framework, which is rooted in traditional mass communication channels (e.g. television, radio, and print media), some main purposes for media use encompass fulfilling needs for information, social interaction, entertainment, as well as personal identity (McQuail, 1983 cited in Campbell & Kwak, 2010). The finding of this research reveals three types of mobile phone uses (namely, a) use of mobile phones for information exchange about news and public affairs, b) sociability with family and peers, and (c) personal recreation) as significant variables for functions of using mobile phones for civic and political engagement (Campbell & Kwak, 2010).
In the context of urban development, some of the earliest attempts are the typology of participatory planning apps introduced by Desouza and Bhagwatwar (2012) and Ertiö (2013; 2015). Desouza and Bhagwatwar (2012) reviewed several so called “citizen apps”, which were developed to solve urban complex problems. In their article, they studied a representative example of 20 apps from countries around the world, and they classified these apps according to three dimensions: data source, goals of the application, and developer motivation. In terms of data source, citizen apps were categorized into three types 1) user feeds, 2) governmental data and 3) hybrid. Based on the goal of the application, four types of categories were identified, including citizen opinion seeking, problem identification, problem resolution and creating awareness. Regarding developer motivations, prizes, solving social problems and open-data app startups were three types under this category.
In addition to the abovementioned typology, Ertiö classified the mParticipation apps in a typology using three dimensions of the type of data collected (Kanhere, 2011); information flow (Rowe & Frewer, 2005); and empowerment of citizens (Winstanley et al., 1995), which were derived from citizen participation theories. According to these dimensions she reviewed nearly one hundred apps, selected 35 samples and then introduced eight types of participatory planning apps, such as informing apps, shared reality apps, trend monitoring apps, integrator apps, nudge apps, local network apps, citizen impact apps and public dialog apps (Fig. 1). Each app has its own function and provides different opportunities for engaging citizens via their mobile devices. For instance, informing apps are the first and largest category of apps that retrieve information from the environment surrounding them and present the information to the citizens so that they can use this information in their daily activities. Another example is citizen impact apps. Citizen impact apps include those that take-up citizens’ input into strategic planning despite a one-way communication flow (Ertiö, 2015).
Typology of mParticipation apps (Source: Ertiö, 2015: 311).
Following the concept of Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation (1969), Lüttringhausen (2000) defined the four levels of citizen participation as 1. information, 2. consultation, 3. Cooperation, and 4. self-management. These levels, which define the intensity of interaction between people and decision-makers, are discussed here in the context of methods and their influence on the quality and level of public participation.
Information
Being informed, e.g. about a planned motorway or a new shopping center, is a basic requirement for further communication on a certain topic, for opinion forming and for action. Hence, transparent information is a precondition for any kind of participation. Still, whether just providing information, e.g. at public townhall meetings where planners and decision-makers just explain about their plans (which went through the political decision-making process already), can be subsumed under the idea of citizen participation can be discussed critically. The flow of information, however, is not restricted from “top” (decision-makers) to “bottom” (public), it can also follow in the reverse direction. In this context, information as a first step of participation and with a limited degree of genuine involvement may also mean: involving people in local assessments and data collection in order to extract information or local knowledge that is not accessible otherwise (Schinkel et al., 2014, p. 17).
Consultation
On the second level, participants are asked by decision-makers to give their feedback in the form of complaints or recommendations. In order to consult the public, it is generally required to initiate and organize a dialogue between decision-makers and the people concerned, and to evaluate the results. In most cases, this kind of dialogue is organized “top-down”, e.g. the mayor of a city asks the citizens’ view on a planned project in a public hearing.
Cooperation
The third level of participation offers the possibility to actors and people concerned to actively engage in the decision-making process by challenging the aims, strategies and plans offered by authorities. Cooperation means that the citizens not only give their feedback and ideas, but that decision-makers or their representatives and the citizens work jointly on a given problem in order to find a common solution. However, the final decision is not up to the vote of the citizens, but in the decision-maker’s power.
Self-management
The fourth level is self-management, which requires common decision-making of all involved and includes shared liability of the decision taken. Nonetheless, self-management also includes a shared responsibility regarding the outcome of the decision and managing of the further process.
Depending on the topic and the political boundary conditions of each use case, the level of participation will vary. It will have to be defined and put into action carefully. This is because every participatory process (or co-creation / co-design process) is an engagement-offer to the people and implies a promise to the participants: they are given the opportunity to make a change and make their voice heard. In return, they are asked for their engagement and time.
On each level of participation, though, a good quality of the interaction should be ensured. Only then will the overall process be a positive experience for citizens involved, and the results can attain legitimacy. Criteria for
Whether people’s opinions and ideas are reflected in the final plan is mostly up to the elected representative’s decision and hence, not the only success factor for a participatory process. Still, the range and opportunities of the participants’ influence should be made very clear from the beginning. In order to avoid disappointment, it is necessary to define the scope and the limits of the decision-making power of the people and to make transparent who will make the final decision (and finally bear the responsibility for it). Managing expectations facilitates cooperation between citizens, the public and also the private sector because roles, rights and duties of decision-makers and citizens (participants) are defined and made transparent. For instance, in case the citizens’ ideas and suggestions cannot be realized in the final plan, “good public participation” asks for feedback and for comprehensible arguments. The promise should be given at the beginning of each cooperative process and needs to be kept (reliability).
Methodology
Research design
The research design of this paper is based on literature review, an exploratory research approach and qualitative methods of real world user tests. The research design of this paper encompasses three layers:
Theoretical layer
In the theoretical layer, the authors investigate the available literature on mParticipation and related fields, which enables the authors to gain insights on the topic such as definition, characteristics and typologies. Moreover, literature on quality of participation and levels of engagement as important aspects of participatory processes are reviewed.
Case study layer
In the case study layer, the first tests of the FlashPoll app were analyzed. The results of these tests and observations, conducted in Berlin, West Moabit, provide the authors the possibility to explore potentials and limitations of mParticipation in practice. In order to achieve these, three polls with different characteristics were designed to be conducted by the authors. For conducting the polls in the area, the local ‘Neighborhood Management’ office as main local actor was consulted and engaged in co-designing the contents of the polls.
The first poll with FlashPoll app was purposefully integrated in an already running participatory process as a complementary tool/method focusing on a short timeframe of a week and small spatial scale (neighborhood). The second poll was designed to be conducted in a longer timeframe, as the single element of participatory process, in a larger spatial area. The main focus here was to enable the researchers to have a longer time to try different promotion strategies and increase the rate of participation. The third poll was also designed to be conducted also for a long timeframe, but on a larger spatial scale, in order to involve more participants and get better response.
In order to get direct feedback from actual and potential users, the research team combined the tests with events where they promoted the Flashpoll app at public events (in summer 2016) and talked face to face with citizens. During the talks (short unstructured interviews), some of the citizens directly tested Flashpoll, some with their own mobile phone and some on a tablet provided by the researchers. These allowed the researchers to get in direct contact with potential participants and hence to gain insights into the user-perspective. Demonstration of the app, observation of app-use and direct oral feedback made it possible to identify some barriers and challenges of potential participants.
Analysis layer
In this layer, at first, the findings of the case studies are analyzed and reflected based on the literature review conduced in the theoretical layer as well as the findings from test results. The authors here discuss the possibilities and limitations of mParticipation regarding quality of participation, on a broader term.
Case study: FlashPoll app in Berlin
In this article, we take the latest typology offered by Ertiö as the basis for introducing the FlashPoll tool as an example of public dialog apps. These types of apps are people-centric, interactive apps with strategic power. They provide citizens with the opportunity to give their inputs regarding planning and development issues via mobile devices. With the help of this type of app, architects and planners can gain insight into the needs and wants of diverse segments of the population (Ertiö, 2015).
Description of the FlashPoll app
FlashPoll is mobile app, which has been developed in a European research project, “Developing a Municipal FlashPoll Tool”. The project was funded in the framework of the European Institutes of Technology EIT-ICT. The aim of the project was to develop a tool that allows for better, more satisfying and more consistent communication between citizens and city governments/administration. In addition, the project intended to facilitate municipal decision-making processes by means of an instant feedback function and, moreover, generate bottom-up discussion. During the course of the project, the FlashPoll mobile application was developed for Android and iOS mobile devices, combined with a web-app solution for more inclusiveness (see:
In terms of technical features, FlashPoll uses the Location-Based Services (LBS) feature of smartphones and tablets, which allows for the pushing of polls at defined moments and in specific geographical areas. This feature provides the possibility of engaging only the residents of a specific neighbourhood and collecting context-based knowledge and opinions of citizens for planning purposes. The FlashPoll app offers different types of answers for each question, such as single choice, multiple choice, ranking and open questions. In an example scenario, shown in Fig. 2, a municipality wants to consult the public before taking a decision. With the help of this web-interface, time, duration and location can be defined, and the polls can be created. A “FlashPoll” consists of a title, a short description, and a set of three to five questions. In order to incentivize the participants, a “Thank You” message can be created to conclude the poll. This message can also be used to provide links to further information or to give the contact details of the organization that initiated the poll.
General scenario of using FlashPoll tool (Flashpoll, 2015).
Citizens (who have already installed the app on their smartphone) moving through the city and entering a geo-fenced area where a poll is active, will receive a notification which leads them directly to the relevant poll listed in the app. After having answered the questions, the users will get immediate feedback on results on their phone. This important feature has been implemented in order to provide an incentive to participate in polls and to increase user stickiness. With the help of additional face-to-face events, PR and social media activities, the community building among participants can increase engagement and long-term participation. In the last step, the municipality can evaluate the results showing the citizens’ opinions and integrate them into the decision-making process (Flashpoll, 2015).
There are some factors that make FlashPoll a unique tool for citizen engagement in the urban planning context. First, it supports decision-making by fast polling, as it enables large numbers of people to give their opinion instantly and in real-time. Additionally, the FlashPoll app immediately visualizes the feedback of public opinion in current polls so that participants can see the results of the poll directly after their participation, which increase transparency of the engagement process. Furthermore, FlashPoll allows context-based polling, which allows decision-makers to engage stakeholders of a specific planning area within clear spatial and temporal boundaries. More importantly, FlashPoll is privacy sensitive, and therefore, the responses cannot be traced back to the users or to their devices. Finally, the FlashPoll app has a high level of flexibility in terms of technicality and can be integrated into other apps or platforms. Table 1 summarizes the main characteristics of the FlashPoll app in terms of mParticipation concept and quality criteria of participation.
The city quarter of Moabit West is a mix of industrial areas (43 hectare) as well as high-density residential areas (QM Moabit West, 2013). According to statistics, 21.182 inhabitants lived in Moabit West by 2012, and the trend shows an increase of population. Regarding the social structure, Moabit West has a multi-cultural texture, as almost half of the inhabitants (49.8 percent) are foreigners or Germans with immigration in their family background. In terms of age structure, the quarter has a young population age, as 65.8 percent of the inhabitants are below 45 years old. With respect to the economic situation of inhabitants (2011), it should be highlighted that nearly 37 percent of the residents receive governmental aid, and 10 percent of the inhabitants are unemployed (QM Moabit West, 2013).
Unemployment, dependence on state aid and issues arising from a lack of social and ethnic integration affect the everyday life and future prospects of the residents (Senate of Berlin, 2010, p. 6). In this “socially disadvantaged area”, a Neighborhood Management office is in place, which tries to facilitate communication and co-operation to foster political engagement and social cohesion in the area.
On behalf of the Neighborhood Management office three polls were initiated in summer 2015:
A poll on the re-design and re-structuring of a residential street (Waldstrasse), A poll within the city district on the level of publicity of the Neighborhood Management itself, A poll on mobility and traffic issues in the district.
The general idea was to activate citizens and integrate them with the local development processes. From a scientific perspective, the aim was to identify the most influential factors for mParticipation.
Summary of the main characteristics of the FlashPoll app
The first poll used FlashPoll in a short timeframe (less than a week), at the scale of the neighborhood, and in combination with face-to-face methods in a running participatory process. The second poll applied FlashPoll for a longer timeframe (four months) in the area where the Neighborhood Management was active. Here, FlashPoll was used as a single element of public feedback and participation. The third poll tested FlashPoll for a longer timeframe (three months) and on a larger spatial scale (district scale), with FlashPoll as a single element of interaction.
Regarding the polls’ contents, the first poll focused on a very local topic, was connected to the everyday-life of the people addressed, and it concentrated on a specific spatial setting. Moreover, FlashPoll was used as an online component of a broader public participation process. The second poll encompassed nearly the same area, but the topic was not connected to the everyday concerns of most of the people. Additionally, FlashPoll was used as the only method for getting the citizens’ feedback. The third poll had a larger spatial outreach but was not connected to any running participation process or any urgent local problem. It addressed the topic of mobility with relevance to everyday life; however, this issue was not seen as urgent matters in the case study area.
The Neighborhood Management office of Moabit West acted as the main local partner for the tests, as they were already known and integrated in the network of actors (since 2000) responsible for engaging residents of the quarter in the urban development process. The Neighborhood Management office supported implementation of the tests.
Different promotion channels were applied during the poll implementation, in order to involve a broader spectrum of citizens in the polls. The used promotion channels ranged from using online media (social networks, internet websites, newsletters) and conventional media (printed flyers and posters) to informational face-to-face events and presence on local festivals. It is important to mention that the information flyers consisted of instruction for participation in the process as well as notes on privacy and data protection policy for the app. Example of the distributed flyers is shown in Fig. 3.
Information flyer (including instructions) used for promotion.
As the co-design process with the local actors has revealed, deficits of language knowledge has been recognized as a very important barrier for any kind of participation. During the meetings they mentioned language problems of inhabitants as one of the reasons for low level of participation in general in the neighborhood. To tackle this challenge, the designed information flyers for polls were translated into Arabic and English, so that more inhabitants were informed about the possibility of participation via their mobile phones.
In the first experiments of the Flashpoll app it became apparent that the main challenge of the mobile participation method lies in getting participants on board. As can be seen from Table 2 (below), the numbers of participants in all polls are quite low and are nearly the same in all cases. The findings of the case study can be categorized in the following themes.
Summary of the three polls in West Moabit Neighbourhood
Summary of the three polls in West Moabit Neighbourhood
The participants of the polls were mainly in the age group of 19 to 35 years, different from other online dialogues where the dominant group is above 40 years. Given the higher number of participants in the first poll (Waldstrasse) and the specific relevance of the topic for local residents of the Moabit West neighbourhood, we also observed that mParticipation – like face-to-face participation – works best when the topics are close to the everyday life and experiences of people, and the subject lies in front of their door (or in their backyard).
Outreach strategies and promotion
The main issue in the Flashpoll case study was the low number of participants across all three polls, which confirms that participants had barriers to participate. One of the possible barriers for any participation (conventional, online or mobile), though, is to inform about and market current public participation processes successfully. This barrier also existed in the FlashPoll experiment in Moabit West, as there were not enough resources to advertise about the polls. Despite trying different sets of online (website of QM, online magazine, Facebook page) and offline (flyer, neighborhood magazine, event-based promotions) outreach channels in the tests, it has been challenging to outreach citizens and to motivate them to participate in the process.
Even the efforts of translating information material into different languages seemed to not be successful as there were not much difference in the number of participants in the last poll compared to the first two polls.
Mobile apps, technical compatibility and data privacy
Next to the lack of information of participation opportunities in general, handful of users feedback had shown that the barrier in mParticipation (specifically app-based tools) is the requirement to download an app. At least during the events where the FlashPoll app was promoted, people were hesitant to download the application on their smartphone. Concerns regarding privacy were mentioned by test users and people who just wanted to take a look during short interviews at promotional events as one of the main reasons for hesitation. Furthermore, some technical considerations (e.g. lack of memory space, or mobile internet volume) were also raised by some people in such conversations.
Discussion
There are practical lessons learned and also theoretical reflections, which we can draw from the examples described. These lead us to conclusions – or more first insights – regarding the future of mParticipation.
Potentials and challenges of mParticipation
Although the number of participants and the impact of the case study was limited and cannot be generalized, the results of our case study reveal some of the (theoretical) potentials and (practical) challenges of mParticipation. On the one hand: in comparison to online and face-to-face participation methods, the FlashPoll app allows for geographically defined, context-based polling (location). This spatial aspect of mParticipation has been emphasized by some researchers (e.g. Ertiö, 2013; Korn, 2013). With FlashPoll app, the spatial context can be further defined by time so that decision-makers can involve the public via their mobile devices “right here, right now”. Such approaches are currently lacking when it comes to public participation in urban development and planning. This just-in-time interaction between decision-makers and the people who live in the area concerned gets more and more important, especially with regard to detailed design and implementation planning on the local level.
As with online participation, mParticipation potentially enables large numbers of people to instantly give their opinion, allowing for a higher legitimation of (political) decisions by collecting opinions prior to making the actual decision. However, our case study clearly indicates that the efforts to reach out to the people and to make them participate cannot be underestimated. More applied research is therefore needed in order to be able to choose the right communication tools for a specific participation context.
The FlashPoll app incentivises the participants, as, after voting, it immediately visualizes the actual results and thereby provides instant feedback. This feedback also allows for the creation of professional surveys (open/closed questions, rankings) with documented results in a time efficient and cost-effective way. This feature also improves the transparency of the decision-making process, as the participants can see how the other citizens (in total) answered the questions. However, this feature can only be acknowledged by the users after having overcome the barrier of downloading the app which is apparently a big challenge.
Regarding the technical solution, the most important feature is that the survey cannot be manipulated. This means, once the poll has started, the questions can neither be changed, nor can the poll be stopped immediately. One person taking the same poll multiple times is restricted, as the system allows only one vote per device. This is different in most online tools. In addition, the FlashPoll app has strictly followed the privacy by design rules: it doesn’t collect or store any user related data. Although the location of the device is checked regularly, the position is not stored and the person cannot be tracked. Users can participate without any login, and they stay anonymous if they want. Socio-demographic data is only collected if the survey contains such sets of questions.
On the other hand: why is the participation rate in the case described still low? Obviously, having a good tools and good questions on a relevant topic is not sufficient to make a big number of citizens participate. Therefore, an essential prerequisite for successful mParticipation is – as in any participation process – to put energy in informing and acquiring participants and motivating them to participate. The challenge is two-fold: get people motivated and able to use the technology and make them interested in the topic. The most substantial challenge – as we have observed in the FlashPoll tests described above – is convincing people to download the app, even after they showed interest in the topic and the process. This was proven not only in the case study described above, but also by other research (e.g. Fathejalali, 2017; Höffken & Streich, 2013) and during a number of user-testing events conducted during the course of the FlashPoll development project. An example includes the “Long Night of Science” event in Berlin (2014), where the FlashPoll team was present at three locations, presented the solution and asked more than hundred visitors to participate in event-specific polls.4
see:
It should be noted that these finding are not representative and more lines of research must be conducted accordingly. Furthermore, taking users’ perspective into account, this challenge (downloading the app) and the low number of participants can be rooted in the idleness of people or to some extent, their preferences in using different technologies or existing platforms that they are used to. However, using SMS-based systems (e.g. Textizen) or web-apps (which does not require downloading) can eliminate this barrier to participation and can support a more user-centric technology solution as an easier mode of participation.
The case study has shown that we can neither state a general lack of interest nor a general problem of accessing the technology. What we see is a high level of concern when it comes to questions of privacy and trust (Deva et al., 2016, p. 175; Evans-Cowley, 2010; Höffken, 2015; Shilton, 2012). However, the researchers found this argument not convincing, as many of them had many other apps installed, that used their personal data (e.g. Facebook, Gmail). In the short interviews people always asked: What kind of data is collected, stored, and shared (by using the app, not by answering the questions)? Who collects the data? What happens with the data? This skepticism we observed strongly in Germany, whereas it seems to be less intense in other European countries, such as France or Sweden, where some pilot tests were also done (e.g. during the COP21 in Paris). Nonetheless, these observations are not representative and need more in-depth research and analysis.
The biggest challenge faced in the case study was to get participants on board (e.g. .Ertiö & Ruoppila, 2014). It could have been due to many factors, but we understand that significant promotion and marketing could have been influential, during, and after participatory processes. This issue is also identified by Desouza and Bhagwatwar (2014, p. 31) in their study of technology-enabled participatory platforms in US. This is not limited to the use of tools for mParticipation, but also refers to face-to-face meetings. Hence, PR and user incentives are great challenges: they have to be designed in a way that even users who have privacy concerns use the tool (like it is the case i.e. with Facebook or WhatsApp). However, if mParticipation wants to scale up, trust needs to be built, but additionally PR and incentive strategies need to be designed in a better way (Fathejalali, 2017). This necessity, in turn, makes the gathering of opinions more time and cost intensive. In the end, mParticipation may not necessarily be more cost effective than face-to-face participation (Schröder, 2014, p. 537).
So far, the development of ICT-empowered participation tools has mainly focused on technological features. But to ensure good quality, mParticipation solutions also need to be linked to the methods and theory of participation more carefully in order to achieve the desired results. To reach these results, in each participative process the tools need to be chosen according to the level, and also conflict potential, of public involvement. Considering the above-mentioned typology of mParticipation solutions (Ertiö, 2015), as well as the levels of engagement defined by Lüttringhausen (2000), many apps focus on level 1, the information level: they provide data or other kinds of information in order to create awareness; or the other way around, they gather information from participants by asking them to provide data or to identify problems in their neighborhood. Another large portion of apps address level 2, the level of consultation: they seek the opinion of people, ask for suggestions to solve a problem and/or collect ideas. Here, mParticipation already has great potential to support decision-making.
To achieve level 3 – cooperation – with the help of online tools is still a challenge, as cooperation is mostly based on a two-way communication and hence typically a face-to-face dialogue. So, the lowest number of tools provides support for online cooperation between citizens and the public sector. However, some tools have been developed to support the work of living labs in cities where they recently try to combine online and face-to-face methods of public participation. For example, tools like “Fanvoice” (
Today, level 4 solutions for self-management have been developed “bottom-up” by people very close to the target group and with deep insights regarding the actual demand. They have been implemented for managing current issues: excellent examples can be studied when looking at the tools which have been developed to support the management of the so-called refugee crisis in Germany and other countries in Europe. Some examples are the web-apps/ apps for managing the donation needs of different temporary refugee settlements (e.g. ‘GiveNow’). ‘Refugees Welcome’ (web-app) provides refugees with useful information and supports them with starting their new life in Germany (consultancy for flat renting, job search, etc.). And finally, ‘Tarjemly’ app, a live translation app that connects volunteer translators to refugees in case of need provides yet another example.
As elaborated above, the use of ICT tools can not only address different levels but also several quality aspects of participation. First, we discuss some of the opportunities that we see in the use of such tools that can contribute to higher quality of participation: The widespread use of mobile devices with instant communication possibilities has the potential to involve people at a large-scale and therefore, provide possibilities to include a larger quantity of relevant stakeholders. As the background-information on the topic discussed is provided online and the results of the participants’ feedback are published instantly, the access to information and transparency with regard to the results is also given (e.g. a diagram shows how many people suggest a park instead of a shopping center). In the case of context-sensitive tools like FlashPoll, the preparedness of the participants regarding the topic is much higher (compared, for instance, to town hall meetings), as they are asked for their feedback when they are right in the relevant context – the location that is under discussion for future development and planning. Even if eye-to-eye dialogue is not possible in large-scale mParticipation in a literal sense, people still give their opinion directly to the decision-maker. Also, as mParticipation tools allow for public involvement over longer periods of time, a constant dialogue between decision-maker and participating community can be established.
Secondly, there are also some challenges to overcome when it comes to quality of mParticipation. Still, there are some groups of people who do not use smartphones (for a variety of reasons). For some of these groups, other modes of participation need to be provided in order to secure inclusiveness by including the relevant stakeholders. For other groups, the capacity for using ICT tools can be built. Moreover, even if information is provided online, it can hardly be assured that the participants will find and read it before making their decision. Additionally, unlike in live-meetings, they cannot directly ask questions in case of doubt or if a point of uncertainty comes up.
In any case, the most important aspects with regard to the quality of participation are indifferent to the mode of participation. The scope and the limits of peoples’ influence on the planning or decision-making process can be found in eParticipation, mParticipation or offline participation methods. Unfortunately, it is rarely addressed in all cases. Feedback on the people’s ideas and arguments can also be given through the different channels. From the procedural perspective, it is even easier to get back to participants of online-processes, as their contact details are already shared. The most important, yet often neglected aspect for good quality of participation is reliability, which is closely connected to scope and feedback. The best way to ensure reliability and hence, satisfaction with the process (not necessarily with the results) is to communicate regularly and provide transparent and reliable information regarding the results and the further processes. Even after the final decision has been taken and the results are communicated, the public should be informed about the process as it continues e.g. regarding the implementation. This can either be done online, where information can be given frequently, or face-to-face e.g. in an open meeting with the mayor after the end of the process, where he explains how the people’s feedback and ideas were taken into account in the decision-making process.
To summarize: Looking at the types of tools and the use-case described, mParticipation may not support an intense and complex deliberative process (due to technical limitation e.g. screen size), but it can supplement the decision-making process via geo-tagged ideas, inputs and feedbacks in an urban planning context. With respect to cooperation and self-management, it can be said that increasing the scale and broadening the participation range can intensify the network power (see Booher & Innes, 2002), facilitate collaborative processes and hence contribute to the quality of participation.
Conclusion: Future tasks and limitation of the research
Up until now, participation has mostly been organized in an event-based manner and not as a long-term process: there is a project on the horizon, a critical question comes up, and politicians are urged or feel urged to “somehow get the public involved”. After public hearings, the results of the debate are hardly ever published; people rarely hear anything from the follow-up process, e.g. the decision-maker’s reaction on the views they have given. Apparently, this is undergoing a change because the people demand more transparency. Current practice indicates that in the future there will be demand for a more constant communication between e.g. the mayor and the citizens. Some cities even today have opened up urban labs where co-creation is on the public agenda. Here, technology can help maintain constant exchange between planners, decision makers, and the community, as well as business or start-ups, eventually.
Taking into consideration both the opportunities and the constraints of the tools studied, we believe that mParticipation has a promising future, but needs to be further developed. Lifestyles, mobility and time rhythms, social networks, as well as ways and means of communication, get more and more complex. Participation strategies will have to take this into account and offer multi-modal access and multi-channel communication for future involvement of the public.
For future research and development, we suggest that the following challenges have to be met:
The usability of mParticipation tools needs to be improved, e.g. by limiting the barrier to download an app: One possible solution is the app in app concept. Further, many tools predominantly use text for information and also ask participants to read and comment on the other participants’ texts or even to write their own contribution. This requires the participant’s readiness to read and write, and respectively, invest time. Using a more visual language in the design of tools could limit this barrier. This aspect needs to be researched more comprehensively.
Incentive strategies and PR: The biggest challenge we see, and which is hardly addressed so far in the literature, is how to get people on board. First, they need to simply know about an ongoing participative process (online or face-to-face). Next, they need to feel attracted and motivated to take part. Looking at the different factors like intrinsic motivation (“it’s fun”), instrumental stimulus (“I participate because I want to achieve a certain goal”) or extrinsic factors (“winning social acceptance”) (see: Send et al., 2014, p. 12), makes people participate and what keeps them away needs to be studied in more depth. Accordingly, relevant incentive and PR strategies can be designed. However, incentive strategies can be supported or even made unnecessary by integrating mobile polling in existing commonly used apps (like city apps) or linking it to relevant websites. Moreover, when mixed with face-to-face elements, promotion of online tools can also be supported. Keeping long-term relationships with the citizens is another challenge: mParticipation strategies work best in middle and long term processes because they need time and effort to make people use the tools and also, “satisfaction emerges […] as a factor of sustainable participation” (Mannarini & Fedi, 2010, p. 180). The good news is that mParticipation tools like FlashPoll allow for community building. Once people have used the tool, they can be more easily reached the next time. So, it can be used for continuous dialogue in development processes (and panel surveys). This can also be discussed in light of social capital and the critical question of how to build social capital through digital participation forms e.g. mParticipation (Mandarano et al., 2010). Revision of urban planners and governments’ perspective: Dealing with future urbanization also calls for a revision of urban planners’ perspective on the planning agenda and characteristics of future citizens as connected and mobile citizens. Conservative top-down participation approaches, which are today sometimes limited to information events, will change into more co-operative ways of thinking about urban development and co-producing the city. Governments should realize that a key way to promote and enable citizen empowerment is to allow citizens to frame solutions for local problems by making the right set of tools available to them.
However, these are some first insights which need further proof as the main limitation of this article is the limited available empirical material in the case study part. Therefore, the authors try to highlight some critical issues observed in their own work and compare it to the existing literature. Hence, we suggest to properly consider the aforementioned issues in the early design of any online or mobile participation process.
Still, there are several questions that require further research. For example, how is the actual effectiveness of mParticipation projects compared to eParticipation and face-to-face participation? To what extent is there an influence of tools or participation modes on the participating social groups; how can a high level of inclusiveness be achieved?
In the end, it is not an either-or decision that is to be taken. An inclusive approach requires a mix of methods and tools. mParticipation has the potential to develop its strengths when it is integrated in a wider portfolio of participation methods, combining online and face-to-face interaction. It is inclusive in the way that it provides a tool that potentially interests younger people to get involved in participative decision-making. Possibly, people who have limited time resources, but are generally interested in politics, have a low threshold – compared to face-to-face participation.
Footnotes
Acknowledgments
This article is part of the PhD research project of the corresponding author at the Technische Universität Berlin, which was financially supported by the German Academic Exchange Agency (DAAD) scholarship. In addition, the FlashPoll project was funded by the European Commission (H2020, EIT Digital in the Action Line “Digital Cities”). The Authors would like to thank the aforementioned funding institutions.