Involving local communities in political decisions is essential for transparent governance. This involvement is especially important in controversial issues, such as the siting of infrastructure, where a balance must be struck between the collective benefits of projects and the personal costs for nearby residents. However, despite efforts to engage communities, participation processes often lead to protests, loss of trust, and project blockades. This is where e-participation tools can play a significant role. As digital transformation reshapes governance, an increasing number of online platforms are being integrated into traditional participation processes. These platforms aim to make participation more inclusive and transparent by allowing individuals to engage regardless of their location or the time and by fostering a space for clear knowledge exchange. Nonetheless, how effective are communities in accessing these tools, particularly when conflicts are already intense? Can e-participation improve policy processes, or do existing conflicts hinder its potential?

Our recent article published in Policy & Internet, titled “Digital Citizen Participation in Policy Conflict and Concord: Evaluation of a Web-Based Planning Tool for Railroad Infrastructure” by Ilana Schröder and Nils C. Bandelow, explores these questions. The research examines the performance of e-participation in both low- and high-conflict settings by focusing on a web-based tool that allows citizens to propose alternative railroad routes. Study participants were asked to use the online tool in a hypothetical scenario characterized as either conflictual or consensual. They then assessed the tool’s ability to promote inclusion, transparency, conflict resolution, and efficiency in the decision-making process. Here are the key findings:

E-Participation Can Enhance Transparency and Mutual Understanding: Participants in both low- and high-conflict scenarios indicated that digital participation tools help enhance transparency in decision-making processes. When used effectively, these tools clarify planning criteria, include local knowledge, and improve mutual understanding among stakeholders. Therefore, e-participation tools can help reduce conflict escalation and facilitate creative solutions to complex issues.
Digital Tools Aren’t a One-Size-Fits-All Solution: While digital platforms have the potential to create more inclusive and transparent decision-making processes, they are not a panacea. For e-participation to succeed, it must extend beyond merely gathering opinions—it requires genuine dialogue, trust-building, and a real commitment from policymakers to seriously consider and act on citizens’ input. In high-conflict scenarios, this trust is particularly fragile.
Conflict Can Impact Effectiveness: One key finding of the study is that the intensity of conflict affects how individuals perceive digital participation tools. In low-conflict situations, these tools are viewed as beneficial for increasing transparency and mutual understanding. However, their effectiveness may decrease in more heated situations, where trust is low and tensions are high. People may fear that their input won’t be taken seriously or that the process is merely a formality rather than a genuine opportunity for dialogue.

These insights provide valuable lessons for policymakers on the strategic use of e-participation. Digital tools offer significant potential to enhance transparency and inclusion, but they must be accompanied by efforts to build trust, especially in environments marked by high conflict and skepticism. By fostering spaces for open and honest dialogue and demonstrating a genuine commitment to considering public input, e-participation can contribute to more democratic and transparent decision-making, benefiting both communities and policymakers.

Note: the above draws on the author’s work recently published in Policy & Internet.

All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of Policy & Internet, nor the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at the University of Sydney.