Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Nutzerorientierte Gestaltung von interaktiver E-Partizipation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Digitale Bürgerbeteiligung

Zusammenfassung

In den letzten Jahren wurde die Literatur rund um Bürgerbeteiligung von der Aussage dominiert, die Besorgnis erregend hohe Nichtbeteiligung an öffentlichen Vorgängen und Entscheidungen läge einerseits an den Zugangsbeschränkungen traditioneller Beteiligungsprozesse und anderseits am generellen Nichtinteresse von BürgerInnen an Politik. Um dem entgegenzuwirken, wurden digitale (meist webbasierte) Beteiligungsplattformen geschaffen. Bisherige Erfahrungen mit herkömmlichen webbasierten Plattformen zeigen aber in der Regel, dass sie noch nicht genügend Aktivität unter BürgerInnen stimulieren, um maßgeblichen Einfluss auf Politik und politische Prozesse nehmen zu können. Daher wird nun versucht, neue Wege in Sachen digitaler Bürgerbeteiligung zu gehen sowie auch neuartige Medien und Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologien (IKT) und Konzepte (wie z. B. offene Daten) zu nutzen. Um den Trend aufzugreifen, dass immer mehr Menschen sich in sozialen Netzwerken politisch engagieren und ihre Meinung äußern, wird nun versucht, Eigenschaften von diesen Medien auf Bürgerbeteiligungsplattformen zu übertragen. Dieses Kapitel gibt einen Überblick über aktuelle Ansätze IKT-Lösungen sowie unterschiedliche Medien und Geräte zur Förderung der Bürgerbeteiligung einzusetzen. Diese Ansätze werden kritisch im Hinblick auf eine Reihe bekannter Herausforderungen digitaler Bürgerbeteiligung beleuchtet. Darauf aufbauend erfolgt ein Überblick über Ansätze, die bisherige Schwachpunkte digitaler Bürgerbeteiligung zu adressieren versprechen (z. B. persuasive Strategien und automatisches Feedback).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Eine Push-Benachrichtigung ist eine Nachricht, welche auf einem mobilen Gerät (zumeist Smartphone) erscheint. Herausgeber von mobilen Applikationen („Apps“ genannt) können diese meist sehr kurzen Nachrichten jederzeit versenden. Um eine solche Nachricht zu empfangen, ist es nicht notwendig die App, welche die Nachricht betrifft, zum Zeitpunkt des Empfangens geöffnet zu haben. Push-Benachrichtigungen sehen aus wie SMS Textnachrichten, sind meistens sehr kurz gehalten und dienen zum Beispiel dazu, NutzerInnen über etwas zu informieren (z. B. über den Erhalt einer neuen Chatnachricht) oder zu einer bestimmten Aktion zu ermutigen (z. B. Herunterladen eines Coupons).

  2. 2.

    Heise-Online. „Audi-Händler installieren Virtual-Reality-Stationen“. http://heise.de/-3054946. Zugegriffen im Dez. 2017.

  3. 3.

    FixMyStreet. https://www.fixmystreet.com/. Zugegriffen im April 2018.

  4. 4.

    Genau genommen handelt es sich auch bei der Kamera um einen Sensor. Im Beispiel von FixMyStreet geht es allerdings vor allem um die Möglichkeit, Beiträge selbstständig zu erstellen und anzupassen.

  5. 5.

    Bürgerhaushalt Lichtenberg. https://www.buergerhaushalt-lichtenberg.de/. Zugegriffen im April 2018.

  6. 6.

    Streetmix. https://streetmix.net/. Zugegriffen im April 2018.

  7. 7.

    IBM CityOne. http://www-01.ibm.com/software/solutions/soa/innov8/cityone/index.html. Zugegriffen im April 2018.

  8. 8.

    Blockhood. https://www.plethora-project.com/blockhood/. Zugegriffen im April 2018.

  9. 9.

    Charaktere in einem digitalen System (z. B. Computerspiel), welche nicht von NutzerInnen, sondern dem System oder einer künstlichen Intelligenz gesteuert werden. NutzerInnen können in den meisten Fällen mit diesen Charakteren interagieren.

  10. 10.

    Forschungsprojekt smarticipate. https://www.smarticipate.eu/. Zugegriffen im Dez. 2017.

Literatur

  1. Putnam R (2000) Bowling alone, the collapse and revival of American community. Simon and Schuster, New York

    Google Scholar 

  2. Vigoda E (2002) From responsiveness to collaboration: governance, citizens, and the next generation of public administration. Public Adm Rev 62(5):527–540

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Linders D (2012) From e-government to we-government: defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Gov Inf Q 29(4):446–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Dalton RJ (2004) Democratic challenges, democratic choices – the erosion of political support in advanced industrial democracies. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  5. Baldauf M, Schnädelbach H (2013) How to raise the voice anytime anywhere: technological fundamentals for enabling pervasive participation. In: Proceedings of the 1st international workshop on pervasive participation, München

    Google Scholar 

  6. Adenskog, M. et al. (2017)  Balancing potential and risks : the living lab approach in mobile participation research. Proceedings of 9th IFIP International Conference on eParticipation – ePart ’17, St. Petersburg, Russia. Springer, 12–23. 

    Google Scholar 

  7. Åström J et al (2015) Potentials and challenges of a living lab approach in research on mobile participation. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing and proceedings of the 2015 ACM international symposium on wearable computers, Osaka, S 795–800

    Google Scholar 

  8. Adenskog M et al (2017) Balancing potential and risks: the living lab approach in mobile participation research. In: Proceedings of 9th IFIP international conference on eParticipation – ePart ’17, St. Petersburg, S 12–23

    Google Scholar 

  9. Korn M (2013) Situating engagement: ubiquitous infrastructures for in-situ civic engagement. Aarhus Universitet

    Google Scholar 

  10. Schröder C (2015) Through space and time: using mobile apps for urban participation. Proceedings of CeDEM15: conference for e-democracy and open government, S 134–142

    Google Scholar 

  11. Thiel S-K, Lehner U (2015) Exploring the effects of game elements in m-participation. In: Proceedings of the 2015 British HCI conference, Lincoln, Lincolnshire, Krems, S 65–73

    Google Scholar 

  12. Brovelli MA et al (2016) Public participation in GIS via mobile applications. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 114 306–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ISPRSJPRS.2015.04.002

  13. Baker M et al (2007) Achieving successful participation in the new UK spatial planning system. Plan Pract Res 22(1):79–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. McAleer SR et al (2016) Augmenting social talk: the #ask project. In: Conference for e-democracy and open government, Krems, S 61

    Google Scholar 

  15. Tscharn R et al (2015) Senior, follower and busy grumbler: user needs for pervasive participation. In: Adjunct Proceedings of the 2015 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing and proceedings of the 2015 ACM international symposium on wearable computers, Osaka, S 801–806. https://doi.org/10.1145/2800835.2804400

  16. Graeff E (2014) Crowdsourcing as reflective political practice: building a location-based tool for civic learning and engagement. In: Internet, politics, and policy 2014: crowdsourcing for politics and policy. Oxford Internet Institute, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  17. Garzon SR, Deva B (2015) Infrastructure-assisted geofencing: proactive location-based services with thin mobile clients and smart servers. In: 2015 3rd IEEE international conference on mobile cloud computing, services, and engineering, San Francisco, S 61–70

    Google Scholar 

  18. Nicolson S (2012) A user-centered theoretical framework for meaningful gamification. In: Games + Learning + Society 8.0, Madison

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ertiö T-P (2015) Participatory apps for urban planning – space for improvement. Plan Pract Res 30(3):303–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Abelson J (2001) Understanding the role of contextual influences on local health-care decision making : case study results from Ontario, Canada. Soc Sci Med 53:777–793. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00386-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Krek A (2005) Rational ignorance of the citizens in public participatory planning. In: 10th symposium on information-and communication technologies (ICT) in urban planning and spatial development and impacts of ICT on physical space, CORP, Vienna, S 420

    Google Scholar 

  22. Rawassizadeh R et al (2015) Wearables: has the age of smartwatches finally arrived? Commun ACM 58(1):45–47. https://doi.org/10.1145/2629633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Raghunath MT, Narayanaswami C (2002) User interfaces for applications on a wrist watch. Pers Ubiquit Comput 6(1):17–30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Wilson A et al (2017) Urban planning, public participation and digital technology: app development as a method of generating citizen involvement in local planning processes. Environ Plann B Urban Anal City Sci 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808317712515

  25. Thiel S-K et al (2018) Why so serious? The role of gamification on motivation and engagement in e-participation. Interact Des Archit – IxD&A J 35 (im Druck)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Sanoff H (2000) Community participation methods in design and planning. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  27. Parra G et al (2014) Understanding engagement with interactive public displays: an awareness campaign in the wild. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on pervasive displays, Copenhagen, S 180

    Google Scholar 

  28. Valkanova N et al (2014) MyPosition: sparking civic discourse by a public interactive poll visualization. In: Proceedings of the 17th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work & social computing – CSCW ’14, Baltimore, S 1323–1332

    Google Scholar 

  29. Schiavo G et al (2013) Agora2.0: enhancing civic participation through a public display. C&T 2013. https://doi.org/10.1145/2482991.2483005

  30. Müller J et al (2012) Looking glass: a field study on noticing interactivity of a shop window 05-10, ACM. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Austin, S 297–306

    Google Scholar 

  31. The Hello Wall (2010) http://thehellowall.com/. Accessed 04.27.2015

  32. Chet PN et al (2017) When smart devices interact with pervasive screens: a survey. ACM Trans Multimed Comput Commun Appl 13:23. https://doi.org/10.1145/3115933

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Du G et al (2017) Public displays for public participation in urban settings: a survey. In: Proceedings of the 6th ACM international symposium on pervasive displays (PerDis ’17), New York

    Google Scholar 

  34. Schroeter R (2012) Engaging new digital locals with interactive urban screens to collaboratively improve the city. In: Proceedings of the conference on computer supported cooperative work (CSCW ’12), Seattle, S 227–236. https://doi.org/10.1145/2145204.2145239

  35. Fredericks J et al (2015) Digital pop-up: investigating bespoke community engagement in public spaces. In: Proceedings of the annual meeting of the Australian Special Interest Group for Computer Human Interaction on – OzCHI ’15, October 2015, S 634–642. https://doi.org/10.1145/2838739.2838759

  36. Baldauf M et al (2013) The screen is yours – comparing handheld pairing techniques for public displays. In: 4th international joint conference on Ambient Intelligence (AmI), Dublin, S 32–47

    Google Scholar 

  37. Steinberger F et al (2014) Vote with your feet: local community polling on urban screens. In: Proceedings of the 3th international symposium on pervasive displays (PerDis ’14), Copenhagen, S 44

    Google Scholar 

  38. Goncalves J et al (2014) Eliciting situated feedback: a comparison of paper, web forms and public displays. Displays 35:1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.displa.2013.12.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Hosio S et al (2015) Crowdsourcing public opinion using urban pervasive technologies: lessons from real-life experiments in Oulu. Policy Internet 7(2):203–222. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hosio S et al (2012) From school food to skate parks in a few clicks: using public displays to bootstrap civic engagement of the young. Lecture notes in computer science (including subseries Lecture notes in artificial intelligence and Lecture notes in bioinformatics). 7319 LNCS, S 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31205-2_26

  41. Ojala T et al (2012) Multipurpose interactive public displays in the wild: three years later. Computer 45(5):42–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Chun W et al (2008) Virtual-reality based integrated traffic simulation for urban planning. In: Proceedings of international conference on computer science and software engineering, Hubei, S 1137–1140

    Google Scholar 

  43. Wietzel I (2006) Augmented Reality und immersive Szenarien in der Stadtplanung. In: Proceedings REAL CORP 2007, Wien, S 969

    Google Scholar 

  44. Stauskis G (2014) Development of methods and practices of virtual reality as a tool for participatory urban planning: a case study of Vilnius City as an example for improving environmental, social and energy sustainability. Energy Sustain Soc 4(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/2192-0567-4-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Lopes CV, Lindström C (2012) Virtual cities in urban planning: the Uppsala case study. J Theor Appl Electron Commer Res 7(3):88–100. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-18762012000300009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Sunesson K et al (2008) Virtual reality supporting environmental planning processes: a case study of the City Library in Gothenburg. In: Knowledge-based intelligent information and engineering systems, Berlin/Heidelberg, S 481–490

    Google Scholar 

  47. Khan Z et al (2014) ICT enabled participatory urban planning and policy development: the UrbanAPI project. Transform Gov People Process Policy 8(2):205–229. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-09-2013-0030

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Chow E et al (2011) Multi-touch screens for navigating 3D virtual environments in participatory urban planning. In: CHI’11 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, Vancouver, S 2395–2400

    Google Scholar 

  49. Allen M et al (2011) Smart-phone augmented reality for public participation in urban planning. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Australian computer-human interaction conference, Canberra, S 11–20

    Google Scholar 

  50. Macintosh A (2004) Characterizing e-participation in policy-making. In: 37th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences, Big Island, 10 S

    Google Scholar 

  51. Åström J, Grönlund Å (2012) Online consultations in local government: what works, when, and why. In: Coleman S, Shane PM (Hrsg) Connecting democracy: online consultation and the flow of political communication, The MIT Press, Cambridge, S 75–96

    Google Scholar 

  52. De Cindio F, Peraboni C (2009) Fostering e-Participation at the urban level: outcomes from a large field experiment. In: Macintosh A, Tambouris E (Hrsg) electronic participation. ePart 2009, Lecture notes in computer science. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, S 112–124

    Google Scholar 

  53. Prieto-Martín P et al (2012) A critical analysis of EU-funded eParticipation. In: Charalabidis Y, Koussouris S (Hrsg) Empowering open and collaborative governance. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg S 241–262

    Google Scholar 

  54. Schlozman KL et al (2012) The unheavenly chorus: unequal political voice and the broken promise of American democracy. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  55. Heijstek-Ziemann K (2014) Exploring the impact of mass cultural changes on the patterns of democratic reform. Democratization 21(5):888–911. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2013.769960

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Grant J et al (1996) A framework for planning sustainable residential landscapes. J Am Plan Assoc 62(3):331–344

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Potapchuk WR (1996) Building sustainable community politics: synergizing participatory, institutional, and representative democracy. Natl Civ Rev 85(3):54–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Kingston R (2007) Public participation in local policy decision-making: the role of web-based mapping. Cartogr J 44(2):138–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Nam T (2012) Suggesting frameworks of citizen-sourcing via Government 2.0. Gov Inf Q 29(1):12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2011.07.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Österreichisches Bundeskanzleramt (2017) E-Democracy Prinzipien. https://www.ag.bka.gv.at/at.gv.bka.wiki-bka/index.php/E-DEM:Prinzipien. Zugegriffen im April 2018

  61. Sackl A, Thiel SK, Fröhlich P, Tscheligi M (2018). „Thanks for Your Input. We Will Get Back to You Shortly.“ How to design automated feedback in location-based citizen participation systems. In LBS 2018: 14th international conference on location based services. Springer, Cham, S 257–268

    Google Scholar 

  62. Jimenez C et al (2016) Usability heuristics: a systematic review. In: Proceedings of 11th Colombian Computing Conference (CCC), Popayan

    Google Scholar 

  63. Deterding S et al (2011) From game design elements to gamefulness: defining gamification. In: Proceedings of the 15th international academic MindTrek conference on envisioning future media environments – MindTrek ’11, Tampere, S 9–11

    Google Scholar 

  64. Hanzl M (2007) Information technology as a tool for public participation in urban planning: a review of experiments and potentials. Des Stud 28(3):289–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2007.02.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Deterding S (2010) Just add points? What UX can (and cannot) learn from games. UXCamp Europe, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  66. Koster R (2013) A theory of fun for game design. O’Reilly Media, Sebastopol

    Google Scholar 

  67. Gordon E, Schirra S (2011) Playing with empathy: digital role-playing games in public meetings. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on communities and technologies – C&T ’11, Brisbane, S 179

    Google Scholar 

  68. Schaffer WD et al (2005) Video games and the future of learning. Phi Delta Kappan 87(2):104–111. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/003172170508700205

  69. Gordon E, Baldwin-Philippi J (2014) Civic learning through civic gaming: community PlanIt and the development of trust and reflective participation. Int J Commun 8:759–786

    Google Scholar 

  70. Groh F (2012) Gamification: state of the art definition and utilization. Res Trends Med Inform 4:39–46. https://doi.org/10.1145/1979742.1979575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Burke M, Kraut R (2008) Mind your Ps and Qs: the impact of politeness and rudeness in online communities. In: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work, San Diego, S 281–284

    Google Scholar 

  72. Chmiel A et al (2011) Negative emotions boost user activity at BBC forum. Physica A 390:2936–2944. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2011.03.040

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Paskuda M, Lewkowicz M (2015) Anonymous Quorans are still Quorans, just anonymous. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on communities and technologies, Limerick, S 9–18

    Google Scholar 

  74. Kilner PG, Hoadley CM (2005) Anonymity options and professional participation in an online community of practice. In: Proceedings of the 2005 conference on computer support for collaborative learning: learning 2005: the next 10 years!, Taipei, S 272–280

    Google Scholar 

  75. Gordon E, Baldwin-Philippi J (2014) Playful civic learning: enabling lateral trust and reflection in game-based public participation. Int J Commun 8:28

    Google Scholar 

  76. Parent M et al (2005) Building citizen trust through e-government. Gov Inf Q 22:770–736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2005.10.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Coronado Escobar JE, Vasquez Urriago AR (2014) Gamification: an effective mechanism to promote civic engagement and generate trust? In: 8th international conference on theory and practice of electronic governance, Guimaraes, S 514–515. https://doi.org/10.1145/2691195.2691307

  78. Flanagan M (2009) Critical play: radical game design. MIT press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  79. Kapp KM (2012) The gamification of learning and instruction: game-based methods and strategies for training and education. Wiley, Hoboken

    Google Scholar 

  80. Lave J, Wenger E (1991) Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  81. Devisch O et al (2016) The gamification of civic participation: two experiments in improving the skills of citizens to reflect collectively on spatial issues. J Urban Technol 732:1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2015.1102419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Fogg BJ (2002) Persuasive technology – using computers to change what we think and do. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Burlington

    Google Scholar 

  83. Oinas-Kukkonen H, Harjumaa M (2009) Persuasive systems design: key issues, process model, and system features. Commun Assoc Inf Syst 24(1):28

    Google Scholar 

  84. Eveleigh A et al (2013) „I want to be a captain! I want to be a captain!“: gamification in the old weather citizen science project. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on gameful design, research, and applications – gamification ’13, Toronto, S 79–82

    Google Scholar 

  85. Thiel S-K et al (2016) Playing (with) democracy: a review of gamified participation approaches. J E-democr Open Gov 8(2) (im Druck)

    Google Scholar 

  86. Caillois R, Barash M (1961) Man, play, and games. University of Illinois Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  87. Gilmore JB (1971) Play: a special behavior. In: Herron RE, Sutton-Smith B (Hrsg) Child’s play. Wiley, New York, S 311–325

    Google Scholar 

  88. Huizinga J (1955) Homo Ludens: a study of the play element in culture. Beacon Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  89. Poplin A (2014) Digital serious game for urban planning: „B3 – design your marketplace!“. Environ Plann B Plann Des 41(3):493–511. https://doi.org/10.1068/b39032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Abt CC (1972) Serious games. University Press of America Boston

    Google Scholar 

  91. Vemuri K et al (2014) YouPlaceIt!: a serious digital game for achieving consensus in urban planning. In: Proceedings of the 17th AGILE conference on geographic information science, Castellón

    Google Scholar 

  92. Poplin A (2012) Playful public participation in urban planning: a case study for online serious games. Comput Environ Urban Syst 36(3):195–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Gordon E et al (2016) @Stake: a game to facilitate the process of deliberative democracy. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing companion, San Francisco, S 269–272

    Google Scholar 

  94. Thiel S-K, Ertiö TP (2017) Play it to plan it? The impact of game elements on usage of an urban planning app. In: Saeed S et al (Hrsg) User centric e-government. Integrated series in information systems. Springer, S 203–229

    Google Scholar 

  95. Bianchini D et al (2016) Promoting citizen participation through gamification. In: Proceedings of 9th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction, Gothenburg

    Google Scholar 

  96. Harding M et al (2015) HCI, civic engagement & trust. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, Seoul, S 2833–2842

    Google Scholar 

  97. Kweit MG, Kweit RW (2004) Citizen participation and citizen evaluation in disaster recovery. Am Rev Public Adm 34(4):354–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Parasuraman A et al (2005) ES-QUAL a multiple-item scale for assessing electronic service quality. J Serv Res 7(3):213–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Webler T, Tuler S (2000) Fairness and competence in citizen participation: theoretical reflections from a case study. Admin Soc 32(5):566–595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Kim S, Lee J (2012) E-participation, transparency, and trust in local government. Public Adm Rev 72(6):819–828

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Conroy MM, Evans-Cowley J (2006) E-participation in planning: an analysis of cities adopting on-line citizen participation tools. Environ Plann C Gov Policy 24(3):371–384. https://doi.org/10.1068/c1k

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Lukensmeyer CJ, Torres LH (2008) Citizensourcing: citizen participation in a networked nation. In: Civic engagement in a network society. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte S 207–233

    Google Scholar 

  103. Bohøj M et al (2011) Public deliberation in municipal planning: supporting action and reflection with mobile technology. In: Proceedings of the 5th international conference on communities and technologies – C&T ’11, Brisbane, S 88–97

    Google Scholar 

  104. Vogt M, Fröhlich P (2016) Understanding cities and citizens: developing novel participatory development methods and public service concepts. In: Proceedings of 21st international conference on urban planning, regional development and information society, Hamburg, S 991–995

    Google Scholar 

  105. Karsten J, West DM (2016) Streamlining government services with bots. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/techtank/2016/06/07/streamlining-government-services-with-bots/ Zugegriffen am 05.08.2018

  106. Phoneia – Technology & Entertainment (2016) Politibot, the first bot Telegram to follow the elections 26J. https://phoneia.com/politibot-the-first-bot-telegram-to-follow-the-elections-26j/ Zugegriffen am 05.08.2018

  107. Panopoulou E et al (2014) Success factors in designing eParticipation initiatives. Inf Organ 24(4). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2014.08.001

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Aarhus Universitet, Aarhus, Dänemark

    Sarah-Kristin Thiel

  2. Center for Technology Experience, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Wien, Österreich

    Peter Fröhlich & Andreas Sackl

Authors
  1. Sarah-Kristin Thiel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Fröhlich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andreas Sackl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sarah-Kristin Thiel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Digital Safety & Security, AIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbH, Wien, Austria

    Maria Leitner

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Thiel, SK., Fröhlich, P., Sackl, A. (2018). Nutzerorientierte Gestaltung von interaktiver E-Partizipation. In: Leitner, M. (eds) Digitale Bürgerbeteiligung. Springer Vieweg, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-21621-4_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation