IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v14y2025i2p305-d1582323.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Changes in Nature Conservation-Relevant Public Participation Processes Through Digitalization: The Case of Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Stefan Heiland

    (Chair of Landscape Planning and Development, Technische Universität Berlin, Sekr. EB 5, Straße des 17. Juni 145, 10623 Berlin, Germany)

  • Markus Günther

    (Chair of Landscape Planning and Development, Technische Universität Berlin, Sekr. EB 5, Straße des 17. Juni 145, 10623 Berlin, Germany)

  • Brigitte Holzhauer

    (Holzhauerei-Forschung und Beratung, Uhlandstraße 20, 68167 Mannheim, Germany)

  • Florian Kern

    (Institute for Ecological Economy Research (IÖW), Potsdamer Str. 105, 10785 Berlin, Germany)

  • Josephin Wagner

    (Institute for Ecological Economy Research (IÖW), Potsdamer Str. 105, 10785 Berlin, Germany)

Abstract

The literature shows that limited research has been conducted on the changes induced by digital means in public participation processes on plans whose implementation could have an impact on nature conservation and landscape development. To contribute to closing this research gap, 15 expert interviews were conducted to shed light on the use of digital tools in public participation processes in Germany. The analysis examined potential changes in the quantity and diversity of participants, timing and duration of involvement, tone and content, and the influence of participation on decision-making. The experts’ experiences vary widely, and knowledge must still be consolidated. The findings suggest that using digital instruments can increase the number of participants and the variety of social groups they represent. Other factors, such as personal interest and implications or potential for conflict, are more crucial to participating. However, digital tools allow for easier participation at various stages of participation if all necessary information is provided online. The tone of the discussion appears to be significantly influenced by the specific digital tool used for participation; for example, a plenary video session may unfold in an orderly manner, but the concurrent chat discussion can become chaotic or even insulting without strict facilitation. Digital tools might increase public interest in planning processes and lead to a higher relevance of citizens’ opinions in decision-making. However, this does not necessarily impact its outcome, as various opinions can neutralize each other. Observing this development more intensively seems necessary to take advantage of opportunities and counteract digitalization risks. Nonetheless, it can be concluded that digital formats cannot and should not replace analog forms of participation; rather, both should be combined in hybrid forms.

Suggested Citation

  • Stefan Heiland & Markus Günther & Brigitte Holzhauer & Florian Kern & Josephin Wagner, 2025. "Changes in Nature Conservation-Relevant Public Participation Processes Through Digitalization: The Case of Germany," Land, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-16, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:14:y:2025:i:2:p:305-:d:1582323
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/2/305/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/14/2/305/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ajit Singh & Gabriela Christmann, 2020. "Citizen Participation in Digitised Environments in Berlin: Visualising Spatial Knowledge in Urban Planning," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(2), pages 71-83.
    2. Nader Afzalan & Brian Muller, 2014. "The Role of Social Media in Green Infrastructure Planning: A Case Study of Neighborhood Participation in Park Siting," Journal of Urban Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(3), pages 67-83, July.
    3. Singh, Ajit & Christmann, Gabriela, 2020. "Citizen Participation in Digitised Environments in Berlin: Visualising Spatial Knowledge in Urban Planning," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 5(2), pages 71-83.
    4. Ajit Singh & Gabriela Christmann, 2020. "Citizen Participation in Digitised Environments in Berlin: Visualising Spatial Knowledge in Urban Planning," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(2), pages 71-83.
    5. Nader Afzalan & Brian Muller, 2018. "Online Participatory Technologies: Opportunities and Challenges for Enriching Participatory Planning," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 84(2), pages 162-177, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Byron Ioannou & Gregoris Kalnis & Lora Nicolaou, 2021. "Public Space at the “Palm of a Hand”: Perceptions of Urban Projects Through Digital Media," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(4), pages 242-256.
    2. Gabriela Christmann & Ajit Singh & Jörg Stollmann & Christoph Bernhardt, 2020. "Visual Communication in Urban Design and Planning: The Impact of Mediatisation(s) on the Construction of Urban Futures," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(2), pages 1-9.
    3. Claire Daniel & Christopher Pettit, 2022. "Charting the past and possible futures of planning support systems: Results of a citation network analysis," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 49(7), pages 1875-1892, September.
    4. Griffin, Greg Phillip & Jiao, Junfeng, 2019. "The Geography and Equity of Crowdsourced Public Participation for Active Transportation Planning," SocArXiv 9ghrn_v1, Center for Open Science.
    5. Griffin, Greg Phillip & Jiao, Junfeng, 2019. "The Geography and Equity of Crowdsourced Public Participation for Active Transportation Planning," SocArXiv 9ghrn, Center for Open Science.
    6. Alattar, Mohammad Anwar & Cottrill, Caitlin & Beecroft, Mark, 2021. "Public participation geographic information system (PPGIS) as a method for active travel data acquisition," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    7. Huihui Liu & Pim Martens, 2023. "Stakeholder Participation for Nature-Based Solutions: Inspiration for Rural Area’s Sustainability in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-17, November.
    8. Martí, Pablo & García-Mayor, Clara & Nolasco-Cirugeda, Almudena & Serrano-Estrada, Leticia, 2020. "Green infrastructure planning: Unveiling meaningful spaces through Foursquare users’ preferences," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    9. Nader Afzalan & Thomas Sanchez, 2017. "Testing the Use of Crowdsourced Information: Case Study of Bike-Share Infrastructure Planning in Cincinnati, Ohio," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 2(3), pages 33-44.
    10. James Charlton & Ian Babelon & Richard Watson & Caitlin Hafferty, 2023. "Phygitally Smarter? A Critically Pragmatic Agenda for Smarter Engagement in British Planning and Beyond," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 17-31.
    11. James Charlton & Ian Babelon & Richard Watson & Caitlin Hafferty, 2023. "Phygitally Smarter? A Critically Pragmatic Agenda for Smarter Engagement in British Planning and Beyond," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 17-31.
    12. Herath Mudiyanselage Malhamige Sonali Dinesha Herath & Takeshi Fujino & Mudalige Don Hiranya Jayasanka Senavirathna, 2023. "A Review of Emerging Scientific Discussions on Green Infrastructure (GI)-Prospects towards Effective Use of Urban Flood Plains," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(2), pages 1-21, January.
    13. Vadim Voskresenskiy & Ilya Musabirov & Daniel Alexandrov, 2017. "Studying Patterns of Communication in Virtual Urban Groups with Different Modes of Privacy," HSE Working papers WP BRP 75/SOC/2017, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    14. Ruochen Ma & Katsunori Furuya, 2024. "Social Media Image and Computer Vision Method Application in Landscape Studies: A Systematic Literature Review," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-22, February.
    15. Dragana S. Nikolić & Marijana D. Pantić & Vesna T. Jokić, 2021. "Urban and Spatial Planning: Pragmatic Considerations for Plan Implementation Improvements (A Case Study of the City of Bor)," SAGE Open, , vol. 11(1), pages 21582440219, February.
    16. Gabriela Christmann & Ajit Singh & Jörg Stollmann & Christoph Bernhardt, 2020. "Visual Communication in Urban Design and Planning: The Impact of Mediatisation(s) on the Construction of Urban Futures," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(2), pages 1-9.
    17. Nathan Fox & Victoria Campbell-Arvai & Mark Lindquist & Derek Van Berkel & Ramiro Serrano-Vergel, 2022. "Gamifying Decision Support Systems to Promote Inclusive and Engaged Urban Resilience Planning," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(2), pages 239-252.
    18. Andrea Ballatore & Teun Johannes Verhagen & Zhije Li & Stefano Cucurachi, 2022. "This city is not a bin: Crowdmapping the distribution of urban litter," Journal of Industrial Ecology, Yale University, vol. 26(1), pages 197-212, February.
    19. Katherine Iles & Sya Buryn Kedzior, 2023. "Operationalizing participation: experiences and perspectives of participatory GIS program coordinators," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 25(4), pages 539-565, October.
    20. Jordi Honey-Rosés & Mitzy Canessa & Sarah Daitch & Bruno Gomes & Javier Muñoz-Blanco García & André Xavier & Oscar Zapata, 2020. "Comparing Structured and Unstructured Facilitation Approaches in Consultation Workshops: A Field Experiment," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 29(5), pages 949-967, October.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:14:y:2025:i:2:p:305-:d:1582323. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.