Category: conference/workshop

Further Development: Recommendations for Action in the Use of Consultation for Mobility Transitions

In a presentation at the Dortmund Conference (dokorp) 2025 “Reasons for planning in time of multiple crisis”, Katharina Holec, Laura Mark and Tobias Escher presented further selected recommendations for dealing with planning conflicts in the context of the transport transition. The presentation arose from the ongoing work on recommendations for action, which was developed by the CIMT research group as a synthesis of the various strands of research and in cooperation with practitioners.

These recommendations are derived from various research findings from the CIMT project. They are based on quantitative data from surveys of more than 2,000 people and qualitative data from more than 20 interviews on various mobility planning processes in three German cities, as well as a quantitative analysis of the participation landscape in Germany based on an extensive database of over 350 transport-related participation processes that we have built up. Following feedback from practitioners, they were revised and put into a coherent form.

Recommendations

For the presentation, the following two recommendations were selected from those developed to date and presented for discussion:

It is not the primary task of consultation processes to reach a consensus on fundamentally controversial issues such as the mobility transition.

Compared to the presentation at the CMUS conference in Aalborg, this recommendation was slightly adapted and reformulated in the process of developing the recommendations for action, so that consensus is still not seen as the primary task of consultation procedures, but can at least be sought as a partial aspect. Furthermore, it is emphasized that the transport transition is fundamentally controversial. The derivation of the recommendations for action can be found in the contribution to the Mobilities Controversies Conference in Aalborg 2024.

The results of the consultation must be supplemented by other perspectives in order to arrive at a balanced decision in the interests of the mobility transition!

Here, too, the wording was slightly adapted after discussion with practitioners. The wording was changed primarily to make it clear once again that decisions should primarily be made in the interests of the mobility transition and that these should also be balanced for different socio-economic groups.

Presentation and publication

We are currently working on a compilation of these and other empirically based recommendations for the use of participation in the mobility transition.

5th workshop for practitioners on recommendations for action generated from the results

On October 31, November 7 and December 11, workshops for practitioners were held at which we presented recommendations for action and discussed them with the participants. The participants were administrative staff responsible for citizen participation in the various municipalities with which we cooperated and who were involved in the planning and implementation of the participation processes that we examined in our research.

In the course of our investigation of various open consultative participation formats on the topic of urban mobility planning, we were able to generate various findings from which theses can be derived. In a further step, we combined these numerous theses into seven recommendations for action, which are intended to support the implementation of consultative participation formats. At the beginning of the workshops, we used an example to outline the path from insight to recommendations for action before the practitioners themselves got involved and were able to leave comments in our mind map. With the help of digital sticky notes, they added their opinions, additions, criticisms and experiences to the individual recommendations for action. This was followed by discussions on individual recommendations for action. Important points were:

  • The usefulness of the recommendations for action in participation practice as tools for classifying one’s own participation
  • The usefulness of the recommendations for action in participation practice as an aid to justifying the importance of participation

Overall, the experts agreed that the results of our research are very helpful in communicating the challenges of citizen participation and the resulting consequences to policymakers. In addition, many of the practitioners noted that they found the link to the results of the research clear and structured. Some had the impression that participation and specific consultations are viewed critically in municipal administrations. They share the view that our results can help to train administrative staff and make them aware of the usefulness of participation procedures.

Major points of discussion in the workshops were

  • the specificity of the recommendations for action and the inclusion of examples in the presentation of results
  • a potentially stronger emphasis on the transparency aspect through the recommendations for action
  • an arrangement of the recommendations for action in the chronological order of a participation process

The planners note that the recommendations for action could be made more specific in order to clarify their practical relevance and make them more likely to be applied. In the form in which they were presented, they were rather general and always in strict relation to the results of the research. It was suggested that the recommendations be underpinned with examples from specific participation formats. For example, our research objects could be mentioned, which form the basis of our findings, the theses and thus also the recommendations for action.

Although reformulations and concretizations have been made, examples cannot be found directly in the recommendations. This would have been complicated, especially with regard to the partly abstract quantitative results. However, some examples from the specific participation processes form the basis for the development of the recommendations for action and are sometimes used to underline their importance.

Another aspect that the experts raised is that different tasks and questions arise at different times in a planning process. Some of the seven recommendations for action relate to the planning, implementation or evaluation of the procedures. It was suggested that specific attention should be paid to the participation process and that the recommendations be arranged according to the different stages. This was implemented in the order of the recommendations.

At the end of the workshops, we asked for suggestions for the publication of the results. It was emphasized how important it is for the planners to be able to find these recommendations easily and it was recommended to use existing networks in order to disseminate the results as widely as possible.

We would like to thank the practitioners for their time and important input – and to a large extent for their years of cooperation. We gained many important insights and suggestions that will help us in our work on a helpful and practical publication of recommendations for action.

Addressing Mobilities Controversies through Public Participation?

In a presentation at the C-MUS Congress 2024 in Aalborg (Denmark), Katharina Holec, Laura Mark and Tobias Escher presented selected recommendations for managing planning conflicts in the context of the transport transition.

These recommendations are derived from various research findings from the CIMT project. They are based on quantitative data from surveys of more than 2,000 people and qualitative data from more than 20 interviews on various mobility planning processes in three German cities, as well as a quantitative analysis of the participation landscape in Germany based on an extensive database of over 350 transport-related participation processes that we have compiled.

Recommendations

For the presentation, the following two recommendations were selected from those developed to date and presented for discussion:

It is not the role of a consultation to reach a consensus!

This is derived from the fundamentally conflictual nature of transport planning, which is also reflected in our data and could not be satisfactorily resolved by the participation formats analysed. For example, in the freiRaum Ottensen project, despite extensive participation, 21% of participants were still dissatisfied with the decision made, and 74% of the population were not even aware of the opportunity to participate. This means that the aim should not be to resolve conflicts, but to create a forum for dialogue and the generation of ideas, and that participation should not be judged by the degree of conflict resolution.

Consultation results must be complemented with other perspectives in order to come to a balanced decision!

Participation results can provide a picture of existing concerns and should be taken seriously, but firstly they do not reflect the general mood of the population due to their lack of representativeness, and secondly it cannot be assumed that all important aspects for the mobility transition are included or that mainly supportive contributions are made. This means that consultations should be supplemented by other forms of participation. Participation results should be supplemented and weighed up with other perspectives from different stakeholder spheres and cannot replace a bold political decision.

Presentation and publication

We are currently working on a compilation of these and other empirically based recommendations for the use of participation in the transport transition. This publication will be linked here once it has been finalised. The presentation can be downloaded here:

CIMT C-MUS 2024Herunterladen

Inclusivity, transparency and policy effects – procedural justice through participation?

In a presentation at the annual congress of AESOP (Assosiation of European Schools of Planning) in 2023, Katharina Holec, Laura Mark and Tobias Escher presented results from a consultative participation procedure. Key question was whether the procedure could contribute to procedural justice.

Summary

Consultative participation is a frequently used tool to correct traditional inequalities in planning. It is often used to negotiate conflicts relevant to everyday life. Citizens are encouraged to express their interests and ideas. In addition, local administrations expect an increase in legitimacy beliefs among citizens through including them into processes. Procedural justice can be seen as an important aspect of the desired increase in acceptance. The underrepresentation of certain socio-economic groups in the input of consultative participation is one of the main challenges for procedural justice.

Our example is one of the case studies, which we have accompanied scientifically over the last years. Using a mixed methods we investigate the contribution that the procedure makes to procedural justice. We conceptualize this describing the relevance of the aspects inclusivity, transparency and policy effects of a consultative procedure.

Although inclusivity was the declared goal of the organizers it is hardly achieved in the input of the process – that is, in the question of who participates. Things look somewhat more positive when observing the throughput. Discussions were well organized and were also perceived positively by citizens. If we look at the evaluation of the transparency of the process itself, i.e. the throughput, the participants rated it positively. There are limitations in the evaluation of the transparency of the result and the communication after the process. A policy effect exists and is primarily perceived by the participants. However, the policy effect is limited to non-essential issues of the process.

Key findings

  • While the consultation process was organized aiming at an overrepresentation of specific marginalized groups, it fails to include lower educated and non-male individuals. The assessment of throughput inclusivity is more positive.
  • The consultation process was carried out with timely publication of the results of the individual procedural steps and is also perceived as transparent overall with few differences between different social groups. People with disabilities are somewhat more critical. The assessment of the transparency of the results is somewhat more negative.
  • Effects on political decision-making can be found in the fact that the process strengthened and supported the progressive ideas of the administration. Influences of participation existed but were mainly relevant for specific issues, such as the location of bike paths or bus stops not a general direction.
  • These effects are more strongly perceived by participants.

Mobility transition in practical terms: Perspectives of the SÖF junior research groups with a focus on mobility

On 25 & 26 October the three SÖF junior research groups with a focus on mobility met in Hannover to exchange insight from their current research, identify common themes and discuss possible future opportunities for collaboration.

There is more information available in German.

The Structure and Antecedents of Citizens’ Perceptions of Local Democracy: Findings from a Survey in Different German Cities in 2021

Abstract

Legitimacy is the voluntary recognition of political authority, which plays an important role in the stability and governance of political systems. At the system level, it is strongly conditioned by individual legitimacy attitudes at the micro level. The goal of our presentation is to illustrate and understand

  • How different objects of political support are constructed and interrelated (trust, satisfaction, and legitimacy beliefs)?
  • How strongly local and national political attitudes toward objects influence each other?
  • What individual factors ultimately influence local and national legitimacy beliefs?

To measure these relationships, we used survey data collected in the project to first operationalize the constructs of satisfaction with authority, trust in institutions, and legitimacy attitudes at the local and national levels. Methodologically, we use a confirmatory factor analysis and OLS regression.

Key Findings

  • Higher satisfaction with local than with national authorities, and greater trust in local than in national institutions, while mean differences in legitimacy attitudes vary
  • Strong correlations between the concepts of trust and satisfaction and legitimacy beliefs
  • Strong correlations between local and national levels for trust, satisfaction, and legitimacy beliefs
  • Hardly any systematic influences by individual factors on legitimacy beliefs when controlling for satisfaction and trust as influences on legitimacy

CAIS Working Group: AI in digital public participation

As participants in a workshop organised by the Center for Advanced Internet Studies (CAIS) in Bochum, Julia Romberg and Tobias Escher presented results of the CIMT research on AI-supported evaluation of participation contributions and discussed further possibilities for using artificial intelligence to support public participation with experts from research as well as participation practice. It became clear that the practitioners see potential not only in the evaluation (output), but also in the activation of participants (input) and in the support of interactions (throughput) in participation processes. Nevertheless, these potentials face challenges and risks, including the adequate technical implementation and ensuring data protection and non-discrimination.

The workshop was organised by Dr Dennis Frieß and Anke Stoll and took place from 8 to 10 February 2023 in Bochum. Further information can be found on the website of the Düsseldorf Institute for Internet and Democracy.

Socio-spatial justice through public participation?

In this presentation at the AESOP (Assosiation of European Schools of Planning) annual Congress in 2022, Laura Mark, Katharina Huseljić and Tobias Escher introduced a framework of distributive socio-spatial justice and the way consultation procedures can contribute, before evaluating the case study Elbchaussee in Hamburg regarding socio-spatial justice, using qualitative and quantitative results. 

Abstract

Our current transport system exhibits significant socio-spatial injustices as it has both major negative environmental effects and structurally disadvantages certain socio-economic groups. Planning processes increasingly include elements of public participation, often linked to the hope of better understanding and integrating different mobility needs into the planning process. However, so far there is little knowledge on whether public participation results indeed in more socio-spatial justice.

To approach this question, we focus on socio-spatial justice as distributive justice and investigate how well consultative planning procedures do actually lead to measures that both contribute to sustainability (i.e. reduce or redistribute negative external effects) and cater for the needs of disadvantaged groups (e.g. those with low income or education, women and disabled people). To this end, we have investigated in detail the case study of the reconstruction of the Elbchaussee, a representative main road of citywide importance in the district of Altona in Hamburg, Germany. We are drawing on both qualitative and quantitative data including expert interviews and public surveys.  

We first show that the process did result in planning measures that contribute slightly to ecological sustainability. Second, in particular through improving the situation for pedestrians and cyclists as well as the quality of stay, the measures should contribute to more justice for some groups but this is recognized only by non-male groups. Beyond this there are no effects for people with low income, low education, those with mobility restrictions or with particular mobility needs often associated with these groups. Overall, we conclude that the consultative planning process provides only a small contribution to socio-spatial justice and we discuss potential explanations.

Key Findings

  • The consultative planning process as a whole resulted in measures that contribute slightly to socio-spatial justice, since they support the transition to more sustainable mobility and will benefit some disadvantages groups, though both to a limited degree.
  • We find that the consultation procedure had no significant influence on the policy. In terms of socio-spatial justice, no positive effects can be traced back to the consultation procedure. Notably, those that participated in the consultation did indeed report less satisfaction with the measures.
  • We trace those limited contributions back to some general features of consultation and the current planning system, but also find that in the case study the scope of possible influence was very limited due to external restrictions and power imbalances.

Publication

We are working on a publication for a peer-reviewed journal. The publication will be linked here as soon as it is published.

New working group on mobility, accessibility and social inclusion at the ARL – Academy for Territorial Development in the Leibniz Association

We are pleased that Laura Mark is part of the aforementioned working group and can discuss our research with colleagues. Practitioners and researchers meet regularly in the working group to discuss various topics related to mobility and social inclusion. The working group started in the middle of 2021 and the content-related work is now taking more and more shape: Areas of interface with our research include the question of procedural justice in planning processes for the mobility transition – who participates and whose voices are heard? How should planning and participation processes for a sustainable mobility transition be designed in the future in order to include everyone? Here we will report on the further work and publications and events that develop within the context of this working group!

Kick-Off Conference of Junior Research Groups in Bonn

On 9 & 10 March 2020 the kick-off conference of all junior research groups took place that are funded by the BMBF programme on Research for Sustainable Development (FONA). At the moment there are about 20 junior research group that receive funding and that reported during the two-day conference.

As part of the latest funding round of 2019 we presented our group in the form of a presentation and a poster.

For an overview of all junior research group see the BMBF website.