EUROCORES_ECRP_Comparative assessment of use and effects of eParticipation

This collaborative project with a multidisciplinary approach aims at closing the "evaluation gap" in the field of eParticipation by comparatively assessing the quality and effects of eParticipation in the context of citizen involvement in local sustainable development in five EU countries, namely Austria, Denmark, Germany, Spain and UK. The key research questions are: (1) What use is made of e-participation in local policies for sustainable development? (2) What are the effects and impacts of e-participation in terms of attitudinal, behavioural and policy changes towards sustainable development at local level? (3) Which factors account for commonalities and differences in use, effects and impacts of e-participation within and across countries? To answer these questions, electronically supported participation processes will be studied in altogether fifteen municipalities in the five countries in the same policy field of sustainable development / climate change. The project will provide an empirical assessment of the role and effects of electronic support for civic participation, and on wider impacts for local democracy and sustainable development. A comprehensive mix of methods will combine content analysis of online tools, telephone and online surveys, website-inspection and logfile analysis as well as focus groups and expert interviews. The cross-national comparison will allow for taking account of the relevance of context factors such as key polity characteristics, public administration styles, legal systems and cultural factors.

The project studied the impact of citizen panel participation in local climate policy based on identically organised participation processes in seven European cities and regions. The aim was to determine the extent to which the participants changed their everyday behaviour to minimise greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and the role played by two different forms of participation: traditional formats (direct personal contact, mail, telephone) as compared to electronic or e-participation (PC plus Internet). Having free choice between the two options, participants documented their consumption behaviour bi-monthly over up to two years (online using CO calculator or offline using paper, telephone and mail) with the aim of reducing emissions, and receiving individual balances in return. Additional information and opportunities for exchange within the group at various meetings and events were also provided. A basic research hypothesis was that collective local involvement in combination with individual information would lead to sensitisation and pro-climate behaviour change. The Austrian sub-project contributed to applying for the first time a collaboratively developed set of research instruments to assess similar participation processes in three countries and to compare the results. The participation process improved the understanding of GHG emissions as a consequence of individual behaviour and supported the participants efforts to change to a pro-climate lifestyle. Overall, impacts were ambivalent: two out of three participants in Austria and Germany improved their personal balance by at least 2% per year compared to only every second participant in Spain. This is only partly explained by factors such as differences in community forming, social control, feedback quality and incentives. Providing feedback information on energy consumption, mobility behaviour, etc. is not enough to effect lasting changes to pro-climate behaviour. Supporting context conditions and incentives are required to overcome the manifold barriers (e.g. social practices such as holiday-making are deeply rooted, and one flight can ruin the energy saving efforts of a whole year). A big gap between citizens verbal commitments to GHG reduction and actual behaviour became apparent in the recruitment phase. Registration for active participation was largely confined to environmentally concerned citizens. Smaller municipalities were comparatively more successful in recruiting participants, but widening participation remains a key challenge. The e-participation option proved to be a basic prerequisite for higher participation (two thirds chose this form). However, while no systematic difference was discernible with respect to the reduction of GHG emissions, the group of e-participants showed a much higher drop-out rate during the process. These results suggest that the use of the Internet is only an enabler but not the solution for ensuring citizens' lasting commitment to participation processes. It seems that the combination of e-participation with traditional offline channels for public participation in implementing policies is more appropriate.