Advertisement

e-Democracy pp 323-341 | Cite as

Consensus Building by Blended Participation in a Local Planning Process: The Case of the Public Stadium Swimming Pool in Bremen

  • Herbert Kubicek
  • Hilmar Westholm
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Group Decision and Negotiation book series (AGDN, volume 5)

Abstract

This chapter presents a case of “real participation” which happened in The Free Hanseatic City of Bremen, Germany. When the city government felt that the largest public swimming pool, the Stadionbad, needed renewal and different proposals for the future design were made, they decided to open a public consultation. City Government and the City Parliament, who has the final budget authority, committed themselves to adopt the outcome of this participation process, if a consensus was reached out of a process, which would be considered as inclusive and fair. A combination of online tools and face-to-face meetings was chosen in order to include as many stakeholders as possible and to reach a consensus. The chapter describes the decision-making environment and the measures taken in the formulation, the analysis and the decision phase as well as the evaluation of the process requirements, which finally led to the adoption of the outcome of this process. A particular focus lies on the combination of different online- and offline forms of communication in the participation process and the important role the traditional local mass media have played in drawing attention of the public to this participation offer and thereby contributing to increase the inclusiveness of the process. The most important lesson learnt is that for a long time to come “real participation” has to be blended participation.

Keywords

Swimming Pool Sport Club Senior Citizen Citizen Participation Online Forum 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Aichholzer, G. and H. Westholm. 2009. Evaluating eparticipation projects. Practical examples and outline of an evaluation framework. European Journal of ePractice, March 2009. http://www.epracticejournal.eu/document/5511.
  2. Arnstein, S. R. 1971. A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), 216–224.Google Scholar
  3. Coleman, S. and J. Goetze 2001. Bowling Together. Online Public Engagement in Policy Deliberation. London, Hansard Society and BT. http://bowlingtogether.net
  4. Council of Ministers. 2001. Recommendation to member states on the participation of citizens in local public life. Rec (2001)19, Council of Europe, Strasbourg, France.Google Scholar
  5. Creasy, S., K. Gavelin, H. Fisher, L. Holmes and M. Desai. 2007. Engage for Change: The Role of Public Engagement in Climate Change Policy. The Result of Research Undertaken for the Sustainable Development Commission Involve. Retrieved, from http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=618, checked 08/28/2009
  6. DEMO-net. 2007. Introducing eParticipation. DEMO-net booklet series, No. 1. Brussels, Belgium, European CommissionGoogle Scholar
  7. Dennis, A. R. and J. S. Valacich. 1999. Rethinking Media Richness. Towards a Theory of Medua Synchronicity. Paper presented at the 32nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS), Hawaii.Google Scholar
  8. Innes, J. E. and D. E. Booher. 2004. Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st century. Planning Theory and Practice, 5(4), 419–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kubicek, H. 2004. Fighting a moving target: hard lessons from Germany’s Digital Divide Programs. IT and Society, 1(6), 1–19.Google Scholar
  10. Kubicek, H., B. Lippa and H. Westholm. 2009. Medienmix in der lokalen Demokratie. Berlin, Edition sigma.Google Scholar
  11. Kubicek, H., H. Westholm and M. Wind. 2003. Stand und Perspektiven der Bürgerbeteiligung via Internet. Von verstreuten Einzelangeboten zur mandantenfähigen Beteiligungsplattform. Verwaltung und Management, 9(2), 62–71.Google Scholar
  12. Lippa, B., G. Aichholzer, D. Allhutter et al. 2008. eParticipation. Evaluation and Impact. DEMO-net Booklet 13.3 BremenGoogle Scholar
  13. Macintosh, A. and A. Whyte 2006. Evaluating how e-participation changes local democracy. eGovernment Workshop ‘06 (eGOV06), September 11, 2006. London, Brunel University.Google Scholar
  14. Pratchett, L. et al. 2005. Barriers to e-democracy. Local e-democracy national project. Retrieved May 27, 2005, http://www.dmu.ac.uk/Images/dmu3_research%20report%204-3%20_formatted__tcm 6-6306.pdf, checked 08/24/2009
  15. Rowe, G. and L. G. Frewer. 2000. Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Journal of Science, Technology and Human Values, 25(1), 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI). 2007. Guidelines on effective community involvement and consultation. RTPI Good Practice Note 1, London. Revised. Retrieved from http://www.rtpi.org.uk/download/364/RTPI-GPN1-Consultation-v1-2006.pdf, checked 08/24/2009
  17. Wiedemann, P. M. and S. Femers. 1993. Public participation in waste management decision-making. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 33(3), 355–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Information Management BremenBremenGermany

Personalised recommendations