Who likes construction? An exploratory inquiry on the advantages and challenges of E-participation tools to the public participation process in construction projects in Amsterdam.

(1)

Who likes construction?

An exploratory inquiry on the advantages and challenges of E-participation tools to the public

participation process in construction projects in Amsterdam.

Ruben Cardol s1727060

Master thesis public administration

(2)

Abstract

In Dutch policy the emphasis has shifted from the government as caretaker to a government as facilitator. Web 2.0 applications, in which citizens can engage in mutual interaction and interaction with their local government, offer opportunities for transferring responsibilities to citizens. In this explorative research is investigated what goals civil servants have with the participation process, and which online tools they deploy to acquire these goals. This thesis combines policy analysis with ten semi-structured interviews with civil servants responsible for the participation process in large scale urban construction projects in Amsterdam. The findings indicate that in larger projects online tools are predominantly deployed for information and service provision. There exists a gap between the younger and hasty online citizen and those participating in traditional participation events. Opportunities to participate in decision-making are only offered in the latter. It is argued that both civil servants and the scientific community should look for means to make sure the digital divide does not result in two separate participation processes.

(3)

Preface

The desire for a better understanding of the situation in Amsterdam construction projects comes from a personal interest. I live in this city, see continuous change, and hear and read a mix of content and discontent on construction practices. My apartment is located close to the Amsterdam Zuidas, an area in which I also work my part time job. In the two years that I have worked my shifts here as a night guard, I have witnessed the rise of more than a dozen new office and apartment buildings.

This interest in my own living environment I combined with an interest in public participation. Being part of a politically active family living on the countryside, I grew up with small-town politics. Where politics is less political, yet it is constantly present in everyday life. The replacement of the town’s sheepcote dominated the public debate for weeks. Upon arrival in my new hometown Amsterdam, I missed this active engagement. I therefore decided to dig into the question: why is it so hard to get myself engaged in the projects that take place on my doorstep?

This initial question led me into the world of PPGIS, the long promised future for participatory planning. Several experiments with these map-based participation tools have been conducted, but so far low participation rates undermine their success. Social media on the other hand, does not suffer from low participation. This online public sphere has for many replaced the local square as the source of the town’s gossip. Thus at first sight social media is the ideal place to discuss either the construction of apartments or otherwise the displacement of a sheep cote. The question is where civil servants position themselves in this new town square.

I started the project with an open mindset and learned a lot. Not just on public participation in Amsterdam, but also that the thesis traps, warned for by so many, are to be taken seriously. The gathering of data has proved to be problematic. However, I have met openness and friendliness in every interview conducted for this study. I therefore want to thank my interviewees for their helpfulness and their insightful suggestions. I also would like to thank Joris van der Voet, who guided me in the struggle to clarify and structure this thesis. Special thanks go to my parents, a great source of moral support and critical feedback on my writing.

(4)

1. Introduction

Local government advocates citizen participation as an effective method to reduce the level of citizen distrust and as a tool to educate citizens about governmental activities (Berner, 2010). To what extent citizen participation is wished for, and what constitutes a viable level of participation has been a topic of academic investigation since the sixties. Sherry R Arnstein coined ‘the ladder of citizen participation’ a typology still widely referred to when citizen participation at the level of the municipality is discussed (1969). The typology ranks participation in different levels based on the power citizens have to influence government decision making (1969: 216).

45 years later, the question of participation is still relevant, but the tools of influence have expanded and citizen participation is, especially in the Netherlands, widely incorporated in all levels of (urban) planning. Though participation is organized and encouraged, the question remains which interests are served by these practices. Within the scientific community advocates of citizen participation emphasize the added value for both civil servants and civil society. They claim It fosters citizenship values, enhances accountability, improves trust in government, creates legitimacy, better decision making and builds consensus (Yang & Pandey, 2011: 880). However, opponents state that it is often a facade with the potential to delay decision making without adding to the actual influence of citizens in planning practices which creates distrust (Yang & Pandey, 2011: 880).

E-government tools have the potential to lessen these delays (Bonson e.a, 2012). The first, and forerunner of the wide array of tools that are now considered part of the E-government toolbox, were the PPGIS. In 1996 the term Public Participation Geographic Information System (PPGIS) was coined by the “National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis.” It catered to the demand of local civil servants for more geographical information and the wish to stimulate and empower marginalized groups to participate in the policy making and planning process of their municipalities (Brown & Kyttä, 2014). PPGIS allows citizens to contribute to- and view maps with- geographical information of their neighborhood or municipality. Initially it was thought that these and other E-government tools would lead to better understanding and thus could lead to increased participation. However, research up to the mid 00’s still points to higher response rates when traditional methods such as public meetings, surveys and advisory committees, are used (Gil-Garcia & Pardo, 2005) (Vonk, Geertman & Schot: 2007). Drawing attention to the PPGIS platforms has proven to be problematic. Many government agencies have therefore limited the online part of public participation to the cheap and approachable social media platforms already popular with the public (Poorazizi, Steiniger & Hunter, 2015).

Though the potential of internet for public participation was recognized in an early stage of the internet’s proliferation to individual households, the potential of the internet for involving the public made a big leap in 2007. This was the year that Apple introduced Smartphone’s with multi-touch interface and Facebook and Twitter became widely-used social media. Especially the younger generation of North America and Europe is now online most of the day with an array of user friendly devices communicating through multiple social networks. They are familiar with the idea of constant interaction and maintain and create online communities to organize themselves and their activities. So the question arises: how do civil servants experience these new opportunities to involve the online

(8)

2 population in decision making?

In this thesis the focus is on those tools that allow for interaction between the local government and the end users of large scale urban construction projects. This online interaction with the public, irrespectively if it is one-way or two-way communication, is considered ‘E-participation.’ This thesis investigates how civil servants, or those being responsible for involving the public in construction, experience the use of online tools and the goals and forms of participation that are aspired with the deployment of these tools. In doing so this thesis aims to answer a two folded research question:

What is the relationship between the goals that civil servants pursue and the type of online participation tools that are used?

&

What do civil servants experience as the advantages and challenges of this online participation process?

Civil servants are interviewed on the goals they aspire with the participation process in the construction projects they coordinate. By combining these goals with the E-participation tools they deploy, a vision is constructed on the function of E-participation tools in the participation process. Interviews are conducted in a variety of cases: the cases differ on the amount and type of stakeholders, the type of project and the phase of construction.

1.1Relevance

At Prinsjesdag 2013, the opening of the Dutch parliamentary year, the Dutch king stated that the welfare state is changing: the Netherlands is moving towards a participation society (in Dutch:

participatiesamenleving). A society in which: “people shape their own future and in doing so they do

not only add value to their own lives, they add value to society as a whole.”1_{This notion, introduced} and propagated by a government composed of a coalition of the liberal and the labor party, states that the government should take the role of a facilitator instead of a care taker.

Whether this statement stems from a sincere believe in the responsibility of the individual or is motivated by the desire to constrain government spending on welfare has since been a matter of debate (Tonkens, 2014). However, ‘active citizenship’ (In Dutch: actief burgerschap), should not solely be perceived as a tool to cut budgets. Active citizenship does offer opportunities for more involvement in decision making (Tonkens, 2014). Yet, if citizens do not believe in these possibilities, and they withdraw from the newly created opportunities for participation, the democratic deficit that arises makes the participation society an empty promise that only serves those capable of self-organization.

The use of E-government tools carries both the promise of lean-government and involving groups that are hard to reach (Jansen & Estevez, 2013). Process standardization, providing online services, open data, social media and participative innovations can lower costs and thus holds the promise of transforming the desired participation society independent of the motives that underlies the introduction of these policies. By exploring the experiences of civil servants on the use of

(9)

3 participation tools in construction projects, understanding is created on the advantages and challenges of E-participation tools to the participation process.

The scientific relevance of the study of public participation stems from a long tradition. There has been an ongoing discussion on the added value of public participation over elected officials who already serve the public interest. The critique of those opposing public participation is focused on the delays, extra costs and the inability of governments to appeal to all citizens. The last argument is made to underpin that participation can also spawn undemocratic outcomes.

The new emergent technologies have the ability to change social structures, but their use has to be studied in order to be deployed with success. This thesis is an explorative inquiry in the dilemma’s that civil servants face in the use of different E-participation tools. By clarifying the advantages and challenges they incur in their use of tools, understanding is created on the aspects that need improvement.

The public administration specialization ‘Governing Markets: Regulation and Competition’ has a special interest in new means to regulate society. Lodge and Wegrich state that western countries have witnessed the rise of a regulatory state (2012). There is a shift in goals and objectives of public policy and administration. The priority now lays on the use of legal means as a tool of public policy in order to regulate third parties that comply and take responsibility for parts of the operational tasks that used to be carried out by governments (2012: 3). Tools that foster ‘direct’ democracy fit in this trend of governments as regulator instead of executer. In a globalizing world of intra- and international institutions the municipality can enhance its relevance as administrative entity, because of its ability to listen and respond to the needs of its citizens. New technologies have the potential to improve this capability, but pros and cons have to be explored.

1.2 Research question

This research aims to explore how civil servants experience the deployment of E-participation tools. By mapping the goals that civil servants have in different construction projects, and the E-participation tools they deploy to achieve these goals, best practices can be discovered.

What is the relationship between the goals that civil servants pursue and the type of online participation tools that are used?

&

what do civil servants experience as the advantages and challenges of this online participation process?

1.2.1 Sub-questions

To come to an answer to these research questions, several sub-questions have to be answered. Answers to these sub questions are found through research of literature and policy documents and by conducting interviews. These methods built on each other but will also provide feedback to each other. The policy documents and literature review, guide the interviews. Early interview outcomes also spawned new topics of interest which demanded new theoretical investigations.

(10)

4 The following sub-questions are formulated:

(i) How has the perspective on public participation evolved over time? (ii) What forms of public participation are there?

(iii) What are considered advantages and challenges of a public participation process?

(iv) What goals do civil servants aspire with the public participation process in large scale urban construction projects?

(v) What tools do civil servants deploy to achieve their goals in large scale urban construction projects? (vi) What advantages do civil servants experience in the deployment of E-participation tools in large scale urban construction projects?

(vii) What challenges do civil servants experience in the deployment of E-participation tools in large scale urban construction projects?

1.2.2 Research objectives

This thesis has an explorative research approach. The goal is to contribute to the debate on how the public participation process can be designed effectively. It only highlights one side of the story, an effective participation process design from the perspective of those burdened with its execution. The perspective offered by this study therefore offers results applicable to and by civil servants. This thesis aims to achieve three objectives:

(i) Provide an overview of the use of E-participation tools in large scale urban construction projects in Amsterdam.

(ii) Provide an overview of the goals and levels of participation that Amsterdam civil servants pursue with the deployment of e-participation tools large scale urban construction projects.

(iii) Highlight differences in the experience of civil servants and discuss possible explanations for these differences.

1.3 Reading guide

E-participation through the use of social media is an underdeveloped research subject. The study is thus firmly rooted in two research topics that have been studied extensively: public participation and E-government.

The second chapter gives an overview of the history of state of the art literature, from which forms and goals of E-participation will be deduced. This is followed by a study on the contemporary policy on public participation. The study of policy on participation starts at the level of the EU and the United States and is narrowed down to the Netherlands and policy in Amsterdam. This last paragraph provides insight in the organizations involved, the distribution of responsibilities and the goals of participation in large scale urban construction projects in Amsterdam.

The third chapter reviews scientific literature on E-government. This topic will be narrowed down to E-participation: the exploitation of ICT to engage citizens to participate in democratic processes. By doing so definitions are established and an overview is given on the different

(11)

E-5 participation tools that are used to involve the public in decision making.

The fourth chapter synthesizes the findings from academic literature, with findings from policy in order to generate expectations on E-participation in large scale urban construction projects in Amsterdam. This synthesis suggests advantages and challenges that civil servants might incur in the use of online tools for participation.

The fifth chapter explains the methodology. It elaborates on the case study design, the selection of cases and the research methods that were used for inquiry. The chapter will end with an overview of the pitfalls that come with the chosen research design.

In the sixth chapter the results of the research are presented; The conclusion, research implications and a reflection on the research will be presented in the last chapter.

(12)

6

2. The body of knowledge

The study of the body of knowledge is the foundation on which this thesis is built. It serves several purposes. First and foremost it creates a framework, both in time and context, in which the emergences of- and the practices in, public participation processes should be understood. This provides insight in how the perspective on public participation in government affairs has evolved over time. It does so by explaining how more direct forms of democracy came about and it shows the more general trend of changing government styles of the Western-European and American administrations. These changes are also translated to the context of Dutch policy making, by studying literature on new public participation initiatives in Dutch municipalities (SEV, 2008) (Geurtz & van de Wijdeven, 2010) (Michels & de Graaf, 2010).

The second purpose is to create understanding of the publics’ view on participation. In the empirical part of this thesis the focus is on the vision of civil servants burdened with public participation in construction projects, because their perspective on why to deploy certain methods of participation is considered to be underexposed in the Dutch context. Advice on the use of E-participation tools in Amsterdam is based on the perspective of citizens, but the experience of those utilizing them is not presented. There is much literature that makes claims on why public participation processes are installed, but the view of street-level administrators2_{is often presumed to be instrumental (Berner,} 2010): they are assumed to ‘just’ execute the plans and therefore serve the powerholders. Because this study follows the case study design, it is important to compare the experiences of civil servants with perspectives of those outside the case study (Babbie, 2010: 308).Therefore the body of knowledge is used to highlight the perspective of end users on public participation. To get a grasp of the perspectives of citizens on (increased) participation, scientific inquiries in the Netherlands on this subject are studied (SEV, 2008) (Michels & de Graaf, 2010) (Geurtz & van de Wijdeven, 2010) (Edelenbos, Klijn, Korthagen & Meerkerk, 2011).

The third goal is to clarify the institutional context in which public participation takes place. This inquiry serves as a case description. The organizational hierarchy, the accountability structure, the policy guidelines and the municipality vision are described since they all influence the experiences of civil servants working in public construction projects.

The last goal is to distill concepts on public participation that can be used to guide the interviews. A complete exploratory or inductive approach is impossible, theoretical knowledge is needed to give meaning and direction to observations. Standing on the shoulders of giants so to say. The literature is used to formulate: (1) different forms (or levels) of public participation, (2) goals of public participation and (3) an overview of the different methods that are currently suggested for public participation. The first part of this chapter will elaborate on the history of (the study of) public participation in academics, followed by contemporary practices in international and Dutch policy. Thereafter an analysis of Amsterdam policy will be made to give a case description and distill the goals and forms of participation. These findings and the findings on E-government literature presented in the following

2_{street-level bureaucrats are workers who provide benefits and sanction directly to citizens, they possess}

common traits such as discretionary decision-making, and have relative autonomy from management. It is through their discretionary powers that they are able to shape public policy on the spot (Lipsky, 2010).

(13)

7 chapter, will be synthesized in chapter 4. In chapter 4 hypothesized advantages and challenges of E-participation will be presented. These hypotheses serve as the guidelines for the analysis of the semi-structured interviews.

2.1 Historic overview

The extent to which public participation is desirable, is strongly debated. In the middle of the twentieth century, mainstream academics considered some forms of direct democracy even dangerous. There is a long branch of literature that emphasizes that increasing the opportunities for direct democracy in political decision making can lead to totalitarianism (Dahl, 1956)(Sartori,1987). The general public was considered unable to inform itself on complex matters that need expertise and policy experience to be addressed adequately. In the 70’s this vision was opposed and new modes of cooperation were introduced.

There is increased attention for the need for new forms of representation from the middle of the sixties onwards. Political processes grow increasingly ad hoc by nature and the public increasingly organizes itself along issues instead of party affiliations (Leino & Laine, 2012: 90). Party representatives voicing the concerns of their supporters have to share the political arena with opinion leaders and organizations that dominate the debate on one specific part of the political agenda (Leino & Laine, 2012: 90). The term ‘governance’ emerged, typifying new modes of government that adapt to these changing power structures. Governments create horizontal arrangements that aim to connect with social organizations and citizens. This governance setting became a popular object of scientific inquiry. The traditional view on power distribution was challenged and governments were forced to share power with other actors (Geurtz & Wijdeven: 2010, 532). Though already posed in 1961, the question posed by Dahl on governance still remains relevant: “who actually governs?” Some actors are better connected in social networks and direct influence does contain the risk of only voicing the concerns of the well-connected or well-resourced (Leino & Laine, 2012: 92). The connectedness is a problem that seems even more relevant, though it takes different forms, with the introduction of online social networks.

The work of Sherry R Arnstein has for decades been the standard for evaluating participatory decision making. It forms the basis for a long research tradition in public participation and it provides a framework that helps to answer the question: “what forms of participation are there?”

Arnstein created a typology to determine to what extent the public is ‘allowed’ to govern. Each step corresponds to the level of power that citizens have in influencing a plan or program (1969: 216). Arnstein states that there is a critical difference between going through the empty ritual of participation and having the real power that is needed to affect outcomes (1969: 216). The first two steps are participation rituals

(14)

8 Participation is ‘used’ to educate citizens and generate support for plans created by administrators. Participant processes are part of the public relations strategy and are aimed at increasing legitimacy for plans already made.

Real participation starts at the level of informing, when citizens are informed on their rights, responsibilities and options (Arnstein, 1969: 219). However, if informing, consultation or placation is not combined with other modes of participation, Arnstein still considers this as window-dressing: it offers no assurance that citizen concerns and ideas are actually taken into account (1969: 219). Only at the level of partnership, power is really redistributed between citizens and powerholders. Planning and decision-making responsibilities are shared through structures as joint policy boards, planning committees and mechanisms for resolving impasses.

Arnstein takes the point of view of citizens with the assumption that they need and want more influence. In this thesis a more mild approach is applied: collaboration and public participation is considered valuable when it creates value for the public (Reyes & Chun, 2012: 78). This vision on participation encompasses both indirect and direct democracy, who’s definitions was derived from the work by Geurtz and Wijdeven (2010: 532):

Direct democracy: Governments use the governance setting to share power with many other actors

by creating horizontal arrangements aimed at connecting with social organizations and citizens.

Indirect Democracy: Governments (re)emphasize the legitimacy of representative institutions and the

power attributed to them, for instance through more authoritative styles of political action.

Both ends of the spectrum have their merits, but in practice a balance is sought between indirect (or representative) and direct democracy. The legitimacy of political processes depends on their ability to both reflect the will of its citizens and handle demands of governance in a timely and cost efficient manner (Geurtz & van de Wijdeven, 2010: 534). Yet, combining direct and indirect democracy has so far seemed troublesome. The two modes of government have different, or even opposing, types of accountability, sources of legitimacy, and tools for exerting influence. (Geurtz & van de Wijdeven, 2010: 534).

In this thesis the position is taken that the defining character of public participation is that it

can lead to the alteration of decisions. To include both indirect and direct democracy, participation is

defined according to Coopers’ definition of civic engagement:

Public participation: “people participating together for deliberative and collective action within an array of interest, institutions and networks, developing civic identity and involving people in the governance processes (Cooper, 2005).”

This is a broad definition of public participation, alternative definitions speak of participation when it is active and placed within the confinements of a government framework. However, the upper and lower end of the spectrum are then missed. On the lower end, citizens can see their government as the sole organization able to represent the collective

(15)

9 will. The passive participation of citizens3_{can still be meaningful if they are provided with the means} to publicly criticize the process. Legitimacy is derived from output, if transparency is provided citizens can hold government agencies accountable if they do not fulfill the promised efficiency and effectiveness.

On the other hand is the highest level of public participation: citizen control. In the ladder of participation introduced in the following paragraph, this last level is termed empowerment. At this level public participation does no longer take place with government guidance. Institutions operate individually with a government mandate. The government does not coordinate; it takes the role as a facilitator. These civil society organizations used to be the product of citizens own initiative but (in policy) they are now also actively promoted. It is seen as a solution for a democratic deficit. A deficit that is deemed problematic because it creates citizen dissatisfaction and distrust (Geurtz & Wijdeven, 2010).

The efforts to integrate direct government styles are well advanced within spatial planning. Public participation in planning is received with less distrust than other topics on the political agenda, because it is seen as a practical less ideologically motivated part of policy making (Leino & Laine, 2012: 92). Both indirect and direct democracy can take different forms.

2.2 Forms of (E)-participation

There are thus several forms in which citizens and local business can be involved in policy making. Five stages of public participation used in this thesis were proposed by Al-Dalou and Abu-Shanab on the 6th_{international conference for information technologies (2012). They deducted this framework from} the works of of Wimmer and Macintosh, who both build on the ladder developed by Arnstein (Wimmer, 2007)(Macintosh, 2004)(Arnstein, 1969). This typology was chosen, because it translates earlier public participation research into a framework for E-participation that incorporates the direction of communication.

One additional level, based on the work of Sherry R. Arnstein is added to this scale: The level of non-participation. Forms of non-participatory communication are promotional materials or outings that postulate facts about the contemplated end-product.

0. Non-participation: One way communication that provides citizen with online information on construction activities and the contemplated end-product.

1. E-informing: One way communication that provides citizens with online information concerning policies and citizenship.

2. E-consulting: Limited two-way channel that has the objective of collecting public feedback and alternatives for policy.

3. E-involving: Working online with the public throughout a process to ensure that public concerns are understood and taken into consideration.

4. E-collaborating: Enhanced two-way communication between citizens and government, and a full partnership that enables citizens to actively participate in the development of alternatives and the identification of preferred solutions.

5. E-empowerment: The delegation of final decision-making rights to the public, and implementing or facilitating the will of the citizens.

3_{Citizens who passively read about the construction project, are still able to hold civil servants (or the}

(16)

10

(Framework by: Al-dalou & Abu-Shanab, 2013: 5)

E-informing is a one way relationship in which citizens can gather information on the projects specifications in terms of time, costs and design, have insights in the decision-making process and can acquire information on their rights and obligations within this process. E-Consultation is a two way relationship between citizens and decision makers. The distinguishing characteristic is that citizens provide feedback to the information made available to them by the decision makers (Ergazakis, Metaviotis, Tisitsanis, 2012: 5) The citizens role in this process is to provide decision makers with their opinions and comments on the issue set for consultation. Citizens can respond interactively, submit online comments and they also have the opportunity to contribute to the consultation with arguments supported by information using online resources like data repositories (Ergazakis e.a, 2012: 5). Citizens do not take part in the decision-making process, but insufficient outcomes contradictory to the consultation can lead to decreased legitimacy.

E-involvement means that citizens and civil society have a direct say in the decision-making, and thus constitutes a form of direct democracy (Al-dalou & Abu-Shanab, 2013).In the case of Amsterdam this would mean that citizens are able to participate in the creation of the plans that are proposed to the city council and have a say in the execution during the construction phase. In this thesis participation is termed (E) involvement, if the public has say in the design of the public space: The spatial plans are in most cases already approved by the city council and have a separate participation trajectory. E-collaboration offers citizens the possibility to propose alternatives themselves (Al-dalou & Abu-Shanab, 2013). These solutions are treated equally in a decision-making procedure in which the public participates. The implementation is a responsibility to both citizens and municipality. The municipality serves as a facilitator and coordinates the activities initiated by citizens. The level of empowerment is an outlier on the scale, because one could argue that in cases where public money is transferred to citizen associations an extra governmental layer or institution is created.

2.3 Goals of (E)-participation

The goals that can be aspired with E-participation are considered the same as those for non-electronic participation. Literature on general goals of participation is studied to generate expectations on the use of E-participation tools, which will be presented in chapter 4.

Two underlying motives for enhancing public participation can be distinguished, either called authentic versus conventional or - the definitions used in this thesis - instrumental versus democratic. In the instrumental motive, public participation is propagated in order to generate better output, enhance legitimacy of decision-making and activate citizen expertise4_{. The second motive is} democratic. It is a normative vision on democracy which appeals to the thick democratic ideals. In the democratic motive participation processes aims to enhance the democratic value of outcomes, foster citizenship and increase the skills and virtues of citizens (Michels & de Graaf, 2010: 479)(Shipley & Utz, 2012)(Berner e.a., 2011).

(17)

11 In this thesis the four goals of public participation distinguished by Michels & de Graaf are used (2010: 481).

1- Inclusion: Allows individual voices to be heard and takes diversity of opinion into account. The outcomes of public participation should reflect the interest of all citizens.

2- Skills and virtues: Citizens enhance civic skills (debating public issues, running meetings) and civic virtues (public engagement, feeling responsible for the living environment, reciprocity and an active participation in public life).

3- Deliberation: Create an open space for information exchange and stimulate people’s ability to listen to each other’s arguments and to shift preferences.

4-Legitimacy: The extent to which participants and other key actors support the procedure and its outcomes.

Based on the work of Daran Brabham and Maureen Berner e.a., two more goals are added: crowdsourcing and cost-efficiency (2009) (2011).

5- Crowdsourcing: The public is used to access expertise and as an emerging problem-solving model that leverages the collective intelligence of online communities for specific purposes (Brabham, 2009: 307).

6- Cost-efficiency: Participation of the public helps to speed up the political decision-making processes and can lower costs by supporting construction processes.

This thesis explores what tools are considered important by planners, and what tools are deployed to accomplish these different goals.

(18)

12

2.4 Public participation in policy

Both the administrations of the European Union and the United states emphasize the importance of more public involvement. In December 2009 Barack Obama started the initiative for open government.5_{Open government has the following aims:}

 Government should be transparent. Transparency promotes accountability and provides information for citizens about what their government is doing.

 Government should be participatory. Public engagement enhances the government's effectiveness and improves the quality of its decisions. Knowledge is widely dispersed in society, and public officials benefit from having access to that dispersed knowledge.

 Government should be collaborative. Collaboration actively engages Americans in the work of their government. Executive departments and agencies should use innovative tools, methods and systems to cooperate among themselves, across all levels of government, and with nonprofit organizations, businesses, and individuals in the private sector.

(from: www.whitehouse.gov)

The first two motives express an instrumental perspective through indirect democratic means, on participation. The focus on collaboration, mentioned under the third bullet expresses the desire for more direct forms of democracy. It promotes the use of (innovative) tools to foster this democratization.

The European Union started several comparable initiatives in the last 7 years. With the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty in 2007 room was made for more participatory practices on the EU-level. A subject not central to this thesis, but important because it made funds available for research in and stimulated the use of E-participation mechanisms in member states. The European Participation Report states the following: “there is a surge of mainly bottom-up activity which some are calling a

step change in the way we think about politics and policy making. One of the pressing challenges, therefore, is to align this with formal structures and processes at all levels of government, without attempting to take it over (ICT for government and public service, 2009: 4).”

The interaction between local and central governments is important to notice in this respect. On the one hand local governments already started experimenting with this new form of government. Yet, it lacked the backing of central government which formalizes practice. Based on international policy recommendations the following assumption on the experience with E-participation tools is postulated:

Assumption 1: Online tools are deployed to enhance public participation.

(19)

13

2.4.1 Public participation in Dutch policy

The former Ministry for environmental planning (VROM, 2010) listed 5 steps for public participation in social and public construction projects:

Step 1: What are the advantages of participation?

Step 2: How viable is receiving and using public input on this project?

step 3: Which phase is your project in? Every phase has different demands from the public: 1. Agenda setting 4. Policy execution

2. Policy preparation 5. Enforcement

3. Decision making 6. Policy evaluation . Step 4: Which methods to use? Does the method fit the objective and target group?

Step 5: How much capacity is available for public participation, it determines the viability of methods.

The methods suggested are:

- focus groups -debate

- citizen panel - opinion poll - citizen platform - questionnaire - citizen jury - coproduction - interviews

Important factors for determining the form of public participation are thus the size of the project, the phase of the project, the goal of the project, the target group and the capacity to both gather and use input received from the public.

In the Netherlands it is mostly the local government that initiates and leads the process of urban planning (Michels & De Graaf, 2010). Therefore it is expected that civil servants give

primacy to methods directed at easing or improving the construction project as they envisioned. The position of Dutch local government as efficient caretaker has been take for granted and is said to hinder more bottom-up initiatives (Ministerie van binnenlandse zaken, 2013: 3). That a leading role of local government is expect might be contributed to the considerable resources and administrative strength of Dutch municipalities combined with relatively stringent regulation on spatial planning.

In a report of the Dutch Scientific Council for Government Policy6_{, from now on referred to as WRR, is} noted that though many structures were tried, initiatives to increase public participation have not delivered the desired results (2012). They suggest a reform of public participation initiatives and suggest three, broadly defined, improvements in which mutual trust between citizens and civil servants is deemed the most important factor.

6_{In Dutch: Wetenschappelijke Raad voor Regeringsbeleid}

(20)

14 The three steps suggested by the WRR are:

1. Think from the perspective of citizens (WRR, 2012: 11) 2. Invest in trust (WRR, 2012: 12):

- Make all relevant information freely available and easy to access. - Reinforce existing systems of influence.

- Stimulate the civil society by making citizens the owners of public goods7_. - Create connections with social entrepreneurs and NGO’s that represent different backgrounds and communities.

3. Incite change (WRR, 2012: 16). Policy makers have to actively stimulate citizens and need to be willing to, sometimes drastically, change government structure and culture.

In need for legitimacy there is thus an increasing demand by the government for more public participation. In an attempt to facilitate more direct democracy several initiatives were initiated in the Netherlands. In some cases citizens were put in direct control over the budget, other municipalities choose to give citizens a more direct say in decision making. Neighborhood resident groups and local organizations who had formulated concrete proposals for improving their particular neighborhood, were allowed to participate, to allocate a designated budget or to budget themselves (Michels & de Graaf, 2010) (Geurtz & van de Wijdeven,2010) (Edelenbos, Klijn, Korthagen & Meerkerk: 2011) (SEV, 2008). Three studies of these initiatives have been investigated to give an insight in the publics perspective on their participation in political decision-making.

In Eindhoven citizens, often organized in residents associations, were involved. Also professional organization such as housing associations and welfare services and (organizations of) entrepreneurs and civil servants were part of cooperative decision-making body. The tool used was a digipanel in which a permanent group of citizens were regularly consulted on different policy issues. However, most citizens still felt as information providers and stated that they perceived civil servants to be still the dominant actors (Michels & de Graaf, 2010: 484).

In Groningen €20 mln. was allocated to 14 neighborhood teams. The local authorities set the terms within which the community teams could formulate their plans. Yet, professionals such as representatives from the housing associations and the social workers took over most responsibilities. Michels and de Graaf conclude that in both cities citizen participation in policy making has not led to a fundamental new division of roles between citizens and professionals. Politicians consult citizens (2010). The role of citizens is mainly to provide information and ideas and it is doubtful if the partnership level is really achieved. However, citizens participating do feel empowered and have a better attitude towards the legitimacy of decisions (Michels & de Graaf, 2010).

In Hoogeveen, a middle-sized Dutch city with 55.000 inhabitants, the city council chose to embrace direct democracy more radically (Geurtz & Wijdeven, 2010: 534). Citizens get a direct say in annual neighborhood budgets and are also closely involved in the long-term planning and development of their neighborhoods. The success in long-term projects is still to be seen, but in short term projects citizens determine all the spending options. The residents satisfaction on decision making increased as did the political engagement (Geurtz & Wijdeven, 2010). Critical to this success are: (1) political

7_{“The market thinking, dominant in privatized organizations, made passive customers of citizens, with less}

(21)

15 support for the redistribution of power, (2) professional connectors that connect area directors and project leaders, and (3) an active civil society (housing associations, neighborhood teams and social workers)that facilitate connecting arrangements (Geurtz & Wijdeven, 2010).

From this short analysis of Dutch practice can be concluded that there is a demand for more participation, but how to achieve this is still a matter of debate. The former ministry of environment stresses the importance of: weighing the advantages and goals of participation against the budget and the viability that contributions are used. Two years later the WRR nuances this view by stating the importance of thinking from the perspective of the citizen. From the analysis two things can be concluded. First, that there is an assumed tension between achieving project goals and public participation, and second that there is a demand for more direct democracy, because people feel insufficient represented by the powerholders. Based on the analysis of Dutch policy the following assumption is postulated:

Assumption 2: In public participation in construction projects civil servants give primacy to instrumental goals over democratic goals.

2.5 Public participation in Amsterdam

The following chapter elaborates on the municipality agencies that are involved in the decision-making process in Amsterdam construction projects. The coordination of these different agencies influences the extent to which citizens can be involved and it determines the accountability structure. It is a short document analysis: A study of recorded human communication (Babbie, 2010: 333).

The first aim of the document analysis is to establish the organizational structure in large construction projects in Amsterdam. Different organizations involved means there is a variety of communication channels used simultaneously and therefore less coherent interaction with stakeholders. The second aim is to assess what level of citizen participation the local government propagates in its policy documents.

By studying “Public participation” and the “(policy) goals of public participation” an assessment can be made on the advantages and challenges that civil servants incur in designing and executing participation processes. The second part of this document analysis helps to answer the third sub-question:

(22)

16

2.5.1 Organizational structure

The decision-making process in Amsterdam on public planning is complex. Responsibilities are divided between seven different bodies, all part of the overarching municipality structure. Firstly there are the mayor and alderman (in Dutch: Burgermeester & Wethouders), who are responsible for the execution of policy made within the municipality. Proposals for large-scale construction projects and its budget have to be approved by the city council. The second organizational layer involved is composed of the seven boroughs (in Dutch: stadsdelen). The boroughs have their own policy committee that is responsible for the maintenance and design of the public space and are considered the eyes and ears of the city council. They have no executive power in construction practices, but must be heard by the bodies responsible for the execution of projects.

The policy committees and the city council are supported by four clusters, each composed of

specialized departments. The cluster space and economy is involved in construction activities and contains, among others, five departments directly involved in urban construction projects. To summarize, the city council is the legislative body, ultimately responsible for the decision-making, while the policy committees function as the councils eyes and ears. The executive responsibility lies with several departments of the cluster space and economy: The cluster that contains the five remaining bodies to be discussed.

The first of these departments and thus the third party involved is the department for land and development (Grond & ontwikkeling). They are responsible for initiating large scale urban (renewal) projects. They develop new urban concepts, check the status of the soil in the municipality and they manage and exploit the land owned by the municipality. They commission and bear responsibility for large scale construction projects in Amsterdam.

(23)

17 The fourth party involved is the coordination system (coördinatie stelsel). This inter-organizational council is responsible for the functioning of the utilities and infrastructure in Amsterdam (local public transport, roads, telecommunication, water, gas and electricity), and can block or amend proposals if they cause unacceptable hindrance for the public infrastructure.

The fifth party involved is the bureau of engineering (Ingenieursbureau), who is responsible for the technical aspects of construction and setting out the tenders for new initiated construction projects. The sixth party involved is the department for space & sustainability. In large scale construction projects they are responsible for the creative process of urban planning. Both the design of elements in public space and drawing the landscape architecture.

The last party involved is the Projectmanagementbureau. In case of complex construction projects8_, the department of land and development is mandated to hire professional project management advice to coordinate the participation process and the activities of the different bodies that are involved within the project. They manage the preparation, communication and the consultation of stakeholders and make the social analysis of the impact of construction projects. The Projectmanagementbureau is responsible for both implementing policy and providing advice and information for the creation of policy. There is a feedback loop, in which the city council formulates its vision on public participation. A vision that has to be carried out by the employees of the Projectmanagementbureau, who are then dependent on the city council for following up on the outcomes of the participation process.

2.5.2 Spatial decision-making in Amsterdam

In Amsterdam there are four documents leading in the coordination of construction projects and its additional responsibilities.

The plan for infrastructural decision-making (from now on referred to as PBI) and the plan and decision-making process for spatial measures (from now on referred to as Plaberum) cover both the urban design and the impact of a project on the rest of the city (PBI, 2004). The guidance for project communication and for the coordination of spatial projects elaborates on the standards for involving governmental and non-governmental stakeholders.

8_{Projects with budgets above €5.000.000,- in which a multitude of governmental and non-governmental}

stakeholders have to cooperate. Table 2

(24)

18 Every construction project is structured in four phases, however in large scale projects these phases often coexist. Some parts are already developed, while other parts still have to be decided upon. In every phase the goal, decision-making process and the plan creation process has to be described. The latter always has to be available for perusal by the public.

1. Strategy phase: This phase leads to a strategic decision on planning. It is the phase in which the managerial accountability and responsibility is assigned.

2. Research phase: This phase leads to a project decision, in which all responsibilities are distributed. 3. Program and design phase: This phase leads to an investment decision, in which all costs are allocated.

4. Execution phase: This phase leads to the execution of the different execution decisions.

In the first two phases there is little public participation, aside from information provision and consultation. The consultation is, especially in the research phase, directed at investigating the opposing interests and the feasibility of the project.

In the strategy phase a general assessment of the costs and benefits is made, based on which the Mayor and Alderman make a strategic decision (strategiebesluit). This decision makes a budget available for more thorough research. It is not a definite go-no-go decision, this is taken in the program and design phase. The strategic decision appoints one public official responsible for the project. This public official delegates responsibilities to a project manager who involves all relevant agencies, coordinates their responsibilities in the upcoming phases and captures their input in ‘intended policy’ documents. The government is obliged to publish all information on policy intentions. When in these documents the permits for construction plans are issued, citizens have fixed terms to lodge objections to these plans (PMB, 2005). For projects with a negative balance and a cost or income level of €500.000 or more the department Grond & ontwikkeling has to be consulted. They provide a binding advice on the feasibility of a project and determine whether a project can proceed from research to the program and design phase.

For every phase is determined who the stakeholders are and who can participate in the decision-making process. Stakeholders have to be informed in a timely manner so they can voice their concerns to the relevant authorities. The strategy phase is excluded from this obligation, since this is the phase in which is determined if there is a plan/project. However, also in the strategy phase all organizations involved in the investigation have to publish information on the process. In doing so, they provide citizens with the opportunity to ask questions in the city council. For every phase of the project it has to be evident which opportunities citizens have to influence decisions, and who is responsible for the final decision-making. This transparent process is, according to the Plaberum, necessary to stimulate participation and to minimize dissatisfaction on outcomes (PMB, 2005: 6).

For public participation the program and design phase and the execution phase are most important. The design phase is combined with a participation process in which citizens can voice their ideas, concerns and objectives. The assessment of the public’s opinion is designed uniquely for every project, because it is deemed important to make tailor made plans for every project. The results of the community consultation are presented to the council and will be taken into consideration when the proposed spatial plan is discussed.

(25)

19

2.5.3 Goals of participation in Amsterdam policy

In 2013 the municipality of Amsterdam formulated a revised vision on public participation. According to the municipality this revision was needed because it should no longer be considered self-evident that local government takes the lead. Instead initiatives by citizens, entrepreneurs and civil organizations have to be stimulated and guided (Municipality of Amsterdam, 2013: 1). The municipality vision is informed by policy documents of the Dutch Council for Public Administration

(Raad voor het Openbaar Bestuur) and the Dutch Scientific Council for Government Policy (Wetenschappelijke Raad voor Regeringsbeleid).

Based on these documents the municipalities vision on public participation is that the centralized government is no longer deemed flexible enough for the demands of the ‘network society’. This is a society characterized, compared to its forerunners, by more diversity, rapid change and fluid networks and partnerships (WRR, 2012: 146) . This places new demands on local government. A governance structure in which civil society and citizen initiatives play bigger roles is advised.

Based on the two reports the city council gives the following description of desirable citizen participation: “We want to offer citizens, civil society and entrepreneurs the opportunity and tools to

(1) participate in the design and execution of policy and to (2) take initiatives, self or in cooperation with the municipality and partners, that enhance their living environment (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2012:1).”

The municipality vision also emphasizes the importance of cooperation and digital participation. Cooperation should be achieved by granting civil servants that are engaged and well connected in neighborhoods, with more freedom to bring different parts of society together. Social media are welcomed as an addition to traditional methods of public participation, but not as a replacement. Surveys issued by the municipality show that twitter and Facebook are less used by people with a non-native background, and that highly educated citizens between 21 and 50 are overrepresented. The potential dangers of unrepresentative participation are thus recognized. A panel discussion among citizens showed that social media were deemed suitable for information provision to the younger generation and information on participation events, but that it is not suited for discussions on construction projects, local politics and education. The results of the panel discussion indicate that it is too complex to determine who you are talking to online and how representative the group of online participants is (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2013: 3). Based on the historic overview and policy analysis, the assumption is made that governments are thus explicitly looking for means to enhance the quality of the participation process.

Table 3

(26)

20

3. E-government

In recent literature there are several terms used for government practices transformed by the use of IT-implementation. Terms used are E-democracy, E-governance, Democracy 2.0 and E-participation. The umbrella term that covers these practices is government. Carter & Bélanger defined E-government as: “The use of information technology to enable and improve efficiency with which government services are provided to citizens, employees, businesses and agencies (2005: 5).” This definition lays emphasis on the instrumental benefits of digitalizing governmental administration. In this thesis a broader definition, proposed by Gil-Garcia and Luna-Reyes, is used. They define E-government as:

E-government: “The selection, implementation and use of information and communication

technologies in government to provide public services, improve managerial effectiveness and promote democratic values and mechanisms, as well as the development of a regulatory framework that facilitates information-intensive initiatives and fosters the knowledge society(2006).”

3.1 The history of E-government

Though by now a settled term in public administration research, E- government was at the end of the 90’s still a niche within scientific research (Heeks & Bailur, 2007: 244). With the mass-proliferation of personal computers doubling between 1999 and 2002 and more widely available internet connections, the possibilities offered by E-government were acknowledged and adopted rapidly (Heeks & Bailur, 2007: 245). A large content analysis of the major E-government journals by Richard Heeks and Savita Bailur in 2007, showed that researchers in the public administration domain were very optimistic about the opportunities offered by moving administrative functions to the online and automated domain. Now, almost ten years later, it is considered self-evident that all information on public services is online available and that online automated forms are a necessity to make requests of (local) governments. A transition has taken place.

In the proliferation phase research on E-government was still focused on how to win the trust of citizens to actually use the internet and how to convince them to share data online (Carter & Bélanger, 2005: 10). In the middle of the 00’s there was still a strong believe that many services could not be moved to the online domain for many years, because it was considered user unfriendly and undemocratic for those less capable in using computers (Heeks & Bailur, 2007). Already 5 years later the cost-effectiveness as argument in favor has in many instances outcompeted the opposing argument for accessibility to all.

Electronic government is seen as a strategy for administrative reform at all levels of government with federal and state governments as the main beneficiaries of this new and emergent information technologies (Sandoval & Gil-Garcia, 2012: 72).This techno-centric approach9_{‘forced’ citizens to use} online services, by discouraging off line services through extra cost barriers (Rowley, 2011). Pushing citizens to use online tools for administrative purposes, created more public and academic interest in

9_{The E-government investment wave was focused on cost-reduction and increasing administrative efficiency,}

while benefits for citizens were not taken into account in early evaluations of new e-government programs (Rowley, 2011: 53).

(27)

21 the user-friendliness of E-government and the evaluation of the investments made within this domain (Rowley, 2011:54). It also gave rise to the question: who should the technological developments serve, and for what government activities is it desirable to be transformed by these developments? The call for E-democracy was made. E-democracy is defined as:

E-democracy: “A collection of attempts to practice democracy without the limits of time, space and

other physical conditions, using ICT or CMC (Computer mediated communication) instead, as an addition, not a replacement for traditional analogue political practice (Ergazakis e.a., 2012: 13).”

E-democracy is already a form of participation, but it is built on the traditional concept of representative democracy. People can vote, but not discuss. With the introduction of social media this perception changed. In academic literature this turn is termed web 2.0. It introduced a more social vision on E-government. People started to interact more and use the internet as a public space, two-way interaction became the norm (Poorazizi e.a, 2015: 1084). Societal issues are debated, social movements started and works of creativity are shared. The success of social networking websites like Facebook, twitter and Instagram shows the publics’ enthusiasm for the online sharing of interests and establishment of relationships with others (Poorazizi e.a, 2015: 1088). It is expected that the advantages that are applicable to E-democracy over regular democratic means, will also be experienced within the domain of E-participation.

When moving towards a more democratic perspective on E-government, institutions face two key issues: how to collaborate and where to share information (Sandoval & Gil-Garcia, 2012: 73). The E-participation tools in use in construction projects in Amsterdam can be considered the tentative answers to these questions by Amsterdam’s civil servants. Before attending the experiences of those deploying these tools, the rest of this chapter first focuses on the definition of E-participation. Thereafter the different possible tools available are discussed and it theorizes how these tools can foster the goals and levels of participation described in paragraph 2.2 and 2.3.

3.2 E-participation

Brabham states that the internet is the ideal medium for facilitating participation because of its ‘speed, reach, asynchrony, anonymity and interactivity’ (Mandarano & Meenar, 2015: 459).Yet, the increased use of internet and the explosion of activity on social networks did so far not lead to an increase in participation in public decision-making (Effing, van Hillegersberg & Huibers, 2011: 25). There are known successes in the application of social networks for passive democracy. Obama’s electoral success is partially contributed to its efficient use of the mobilizing strength of twitter and Facebook(Effing e.a, 2011: 26). However, this is different from participation, it resembles Arnsteins definition of non-participation. The public delivers legitimacy and support but does not take over responsibilities from politicians, administrators or controlling bodies.

So what is electronic participation? A first condition is that it is computer mediated communication. Next to this two conditions are postulated of which at least one should be met in order to speak of meaningful10_{E-participation.}

10_{It exceeds E-democracy (based on representation), because the public is offered tools that potentially allow}

(28)

22 (1)The E-participation tools enhance participation from wider audiences for democratic debate and deliberation (Hagen e.a, 2015) and/or

(2) It increases the publics ability to influence, monitor, implement and/or create policy (Mandarano & Meenar, 2015: 459).

For an E-participation tool to be meaningful it should include the functionalities to access data that gives insight in the process of policy making. It should provide policy lifecycle data11_{and analytical} tools so debate between citizens can become more meaningful (Reyes & Chun, 2012: 78). The U.N defines E-participation as ‘the use of the digital communications media which allow citizens to participate through a more inclusive, open, responsive and deliberative process, in policy making’ (Ergazakis e.a, 2012: 3). A more elaborated definition is given by Masters, Macintosh & Smith who define e-participation as:

E-participation: “The exploitation of ICT for engaging citizens to participate as much as possible in democratic procedures, interacting among them, as well as, with politicians and decision makers and providing them with the necessary information and appropriate rights in a way that reinforces their role in the decision making process (Ergazakis, 2012: 2).”

Central to this definition is the ambiguous notion of ‘as much as possible.’ How this is defined is determined by those in charge of the participation process and depends on the forms of participation they deem desirable.

3.3 E-participation tools

Two criteria on which e-participation tools can be differentiated are so far introduced: the level of participation they foster and the goals that civil servants have in deploying them. Goals that are either democratic or instrumental. Another differentiation that has to be made for E-participation tools is the difference between (1) one-way information exchange, (2) two-way information exchange, and (3) fostering public information exchange (Mandarano & Meenar, 2015: 462). One way interaction can only be instrumental, two-way interaction can be both democratic and instrumental, fostering public exchange serves mainly democratic motives.

Figure 5

One e-participation tool (or platform) can serve multiple functions and modes of interaction simultaneously. Most tools that foster one-way communication or public exchange can also be used for two-way communication. Emails can lead to correspondence, Wikipedia allows for public

11_{Data that provides transparency on the process of decision making; which parties or people participated, what}

Who likes construction? An exploratory inquiry on the advantages and challenges of E-participation tools to the public participation process in construction projects in Amsterdam.