Citizens’ Participation and Gamification – Lessons Learnt from Previous
and Recent Participation Boosts in Germany
by Dr. Kai MASSER German Research Institute for Public
Administration (GRIP) Speyer Lecturer, German University of Administrative
Sciences Speyer and Dr. Linda MORY, Project Consultant at the Integration
and Certification Center, SAP SE Lecturer, German University of Administrative
Sciences Speyer.
A year ago, a
newspaper article critiqued the citizen participation plans of two major German
cities (FAZ, 19.02.2015)[1]. Its
critique involved the following major conclusions: Damage of social capital.
Opposing positions appear to be irreconcilable. Decisions are leaving deep
wounds because of aggressive campaigns and non-objective discussions; Limited
legitimacy of decisions because of low participation rates that include only
special social groups. Minorities are dominating the majority of the people; Many
present-day citizen groups consist of resentful people who only accept their
own opinion; Elected representative bodies like the city council are
disempowered
The article
gives a focused summary of recent discussions regarding citizen participation
in Germany. The advocates of direct democracy and citizen participation are
using the same arguments, but achieving opposite results. Greater involvement
of all parts of society could be achieved and problems could be solved in a
more objective oriented manner (by deliberative mechanisms). Who is right and
who is wrong?
The first
paragraph of this paper deals with this issue. The second paragraph analyzes,
how “gamification” can help overcome the “participation dilemma”.
§ 1 – Citizens’ Participation
A)
The Participation Dilemma (in Germany): The More Possibilities There
Are, the More the People Demand and Stay Absent
Nearly all
German empirical surveys regarding attitudes towards democracy and
participation agree in one respect: people want greater influence over the
political decision-making. For instance, a nation-wide survey in 2011, based on
a representative random sample. determined that 81% of the German Population
desires greater political participation opportunities. Moreover, 60% declared
their willingness to take part in participative processes outside of elections.
(Nanz / Kamlage 2013[2],
12).
On the one
hand, there are requests for more participation opportunities even though
participation opportunities in Germany have become significantly larger over
the last forty years.
1)
Participation
Boosts in Germany Since “1968”
In response to
“1968,” a first “participation boost” took place in West Germany. All over the
country, protest campaigns and citizens’ group movements increased after
“1968”. More and more decisions of parliaments and municipality councils were
called into question, and citizens requested more participation and
involvement! Consequently, various hearing and consultation procedures and
rights have been incorporated into the conventional political and
administrative procedures (for example planning approvals and authorizations).
It felt like a “participatory revolution” at that time (Geißel
2008, Vetter 2008, Masser 2010). Recent developments
in the field include:
Freedom of
Information Acts on the federal level and in 11 of the 16 federal states
(2006ff.). By law, every person can demand official information (documents)
without presuppositions.
The most
recent amendment of the administrative procedure act (2013). Whenever a plan or
a project might have a considerable impact on third parties, the responsible
authority must inform the affected members of the public, non-conventional
(deliberative) participatory mechanisms are required, and the affected public
must be given the opportunity to react and respond to the plans before any
decision is made in order that different alternatives could be considered. (Masser / Ritter / Ziekow 2014,
1ff.)
Beginning in
the early nineties of the twentieth century, a second or “new wave” of
participation opportunities arose that focused on the co-determination of
citizens. (Very similar in many OECD-Countries):
Citizens’ initiatives and referendums
at the municipal level, but also in federal states but with different quorums
(petitioner and voter participation levels) and permitted issues, for example
budget issues(!) are not allowed.
Direct ballot
(sometimes recall as well) of mayors (in all federal states) and county
commissioners (district administrators) (all non-city states except
Baden-Württemberg).
In some
federal states the opportunity to influence persons in the councils by choosing
specific candidates from tickets (at the bottom the attempt to have electoral
lists / the proportional voting sys-tem and the majority election system of
single persons at the same time; very sophisticated).
In addition to
those legally structured participation opportunities, there are extended
possibilities for informal participation on all levels (Gabriel / Kersting 2014, 44). These aim to enhance citizen’s
participation by involving citizens into political decision-making.
The direct ballot of mayors and county commissioners did not yield the
expected success. Turnout rates were poor, very often below 50%; especially the
turnout rates of second ballots are very low[3].
Moreover, in
the state of Brandenburg, some elections of county commissioners were void due
to low voter participation, less than 15%[4].
Thus, especially in respect to district commissioners, direct ballots are
called into question[5].
It seems that people decide whether to vote according to the (personal)
importance that they attach to the election. (Lückemeier,
12).
2)
The
Gap between Important Issues and Influence on the Decision-Making: “Were have
all the Voters Gone”?
Klages and Vetter (2013) observe a widening
gap between politics and the people (in Germany). If we look at turnout rates
in Germany since 1945, there is a remarkable decreasing voter turnout,
especially at the municipal level. At the state and in particular at the
federal level, voter turnouts have cyclical fluctuations but have remained
relatively stable. The turnout levels since the 1990 match the delineated order
of importance (of the different hierarchical political levels) above (Figure 1)
perfectly. Elections at the federal state level have the highest voter turnouts
followed by the state level. Voter turnouts at the local and municipal level
experienced a dramatic decline. (This concerns the elections for the European
Parliament on a larger scale).
Figure 1: Election Turnout at Different
Levels of Government in Hessen 1946-2010[6],
percentages
Municipal elections
State elections
Federal elections
European elections
Is it
coincidence that voter turnouts at the municipal level dropped dramatically at
the very time participation opportunities were expanded, especially at the
municipal level and partly at the state level, but not at the federal level
(second participatory boost)?
Since people
had the opportunity for direct ballots (directly elect their mayor) and,
pre-eminently, had the ability to decide by referendum (in Hessen at the
municipal level since 1992) election turnouts declined dramatically. It appears
that the more the people can immediately influence (political) decision making,
the less important are the governing parties. On the other hand, federal
elections have great importance, but people have no immediate influence on
those elections (other than through the vote). In Germany, the people cannot
directly elect persons at the state and federal level. Furthermore, at the
federal state level referendums are not permitted.
Much of the approximately 80% of the German population who wish to have
greater political participation opportunities (chap. 1) do not take part in
elections, especially at the municipal level. Moreover, many of the 60% of the
people, who declared their willingness to take part in participative processes
outside of elections, do not take part in municipal elections. (We return to
this very interesting issue later). Are elections just not enough in the sense
that people want to have more influence on community issues?
There has been
a recent “movement” towards participatory budgeting (PB) in many towns and
cities in Germany.[7]
The underlying idea behind the PB is that the budget determines the municipal
agenda (Bertelsmann-Stiftung 2004). Therefore, a PB
seems to be a silver bullet that produces greater political participation which
benefits administration and the citizens of communities. However, the bullet
did not hit the target the first time. About twelve years ago, there was an
attempt to introduce PB at the local government level. Six (relatively small)
cities introduced PB on a pilot basis. The moment the state funding ended, four
of the six cities stopped the pilot projects immediately. The reasons given by
the municipal officials for terminating the project are significant:
Only twenty
people attended the PB informational town meetings which is a poor ratio of
(much) effort to (few) results.
The success of
the PB was short-lived. Very quickly only the “usual suspects” (professional
activists, “policy nerds”) were participating.
“No money: You
should not ask citizens about their wishes and demands if there are no
opportunities to put them into practice”. There was not enough financial scope
for PB.
Retrospectively
it looks like most of the PB1.0 approaches focused upon the delivery of
information. Politicians and civil servants (concerned with budget matters)
took the chance to comment and interpret the complicated matters of a public
budget (together with the hardship of the day to day work of a civil servant)
to the public. Supposedly, people did not want to receive lessons about the municipal
budget in their leisure time. Moreover, the influence of citizens on the budget
was very unclear or non-existent. The following chart indicates that something
changed starting around the year 2010:
Figure 2: Number of municipalities
introducing and continuing a PB in Germany, 2008-2013. Data Source: Status
Report on Participatory Budgeting in Germany[8]
From 2008 to
2011 all municipalities which introduced a PB did not continue it the following
year or, if they did, a corresponding number of municipalities quit the same
year. Only about 10 municipalities continued their PB for a significant length
of time. Since 2011, the number of municipalities to continue the PB has risen
from 10 (2011) to 26 (2013). Although the number of municipalities (up to 70 in
2012/13) which discontinued PB rose at the same time (Due to a higher number of
municipalities that introduced / tried the PB) there is a small but visible
trend toward more municipalities using PB as a regular feature of city
planning. (Nevertheless, compared with the approximately 2.000 cities in
Germany, 26 is a rather small number).
At first
sight, the reason for the turnaround can be attributed to Web2.0.[9]
More and more municipalities use Web2.0 applications to run their PB. On the
other hand, Web2.0 was already being used by very ambitious citieslike
Freiburg and Hamburg that use complicated PB approaches (see Figure 4). The use of Web2.0 appears not to be sufficient, by
itself, to make PB flourish. In fact, the
simplification and gamification of the concept seems to be the key to success.
This goes without saying, that Web2.0 technologies support gamification
greatly. A prominent and the most successful example of the new type of PB2.0
exists in the City of Potsdam (the capitol of the federal State of
Brandenburg). PB Citizens can make and choose proposals that capture all kinds
of projects and ideas. Every year (or now every two years due to the new
bi-annual budget period), twenty proposals are selected for implementation. The concept is reminiscent of TV shows like
“American Idol”[10]: In the
first step, proposals can be discussed and rated (for example by a “like-scale”
from 1=very good to 5=very poor). From this a given number of the highest rated
proposals remain, for example 100.
The second
step is to have the highest rated proposals reviewed by the municipal
administration and sometimes also by parliamentary groups (which have shown
interest in the PB).
The proposals
that “survive” the review process during the second step then occasionally go
through another selection process: The short-list of proposals is rated a third
time via the Internet (accompanied with mailed surveys), with every citizen
able to vote on the proposals.
Then, finally, the city or town council must decide among the final remaining
(20) proposals. If a PB-proposal is rejected by a municipal council, the
reasons should be explained to the PB participants.
However, still
only small groups of citizens take an interest in the PBs. Potsdam, the capitol
of Brandenburg, attained the best result, 5% of the eligible voters took part.
Figure 3: Turn-Out-Rates of PBs,
Participation-Method Differentiated (Source: Masser /
Pistoia / Nitzsche (2013)
|
Number of
Participants |
Absolute
Numbers |
% of the Electorate |
||||||
|
City |
Year |
"Face-to-Face" Online
Interview |
"Face-to-Face" Online
Interview |
|||||
|
Freiburg |
2009/10 |
206 |
1,861 |
2,575 |
0.13 |
1.22 |
1.68 |
|
|
Hamburg |
2009 |
- |
552 |
- |
- |
0.04 |
- |
|
|
Marzahn-Hd. |
2007 |
50 |
- |
- |
0.02 |
- |
- |
|
|
Potsdam |
2011 |
195 |
1,720 |
3,455 |
0.16 |
1.38 |
2.76 |
|
|
Trier |
2011 |
- |
2,322 |
- |
- |
2.90 |
- |
|
If we look at
the turnout rates for municipal referendums in Hessen, participation has been
very volatile but sometimes reaches as high as 80%.
Figure 4: Turnout Rates of Municipal
Referendums in Hessen, 1993-2013[11],
percentages
The average turnout rate is about 50%, which is more or less in line with the
turnout rates for municipal elections in Hessen. In 1994, the highest turnout
was above 75% and the lowest near 25%. In 2002, participation was very high, in
1999, 2005 and 2013, it was rather low. In 2013, there were 431 municipalities
in Hessen. Referendums were held in less than ten of the municipalities since
1995. To prevent low participation in Switzerland, all referendums are jointly
executed (at four fixed) dates. In Germany, it is exception that referenda are
executed on the same date as elections or other referenda. Therefore,
participation is more volatile than in Switzerland because, when there is just
a single referendum (and not a few at all levels of government), participation
depends much more upon whether people are interested in the subject. (Masser / Mory 2014, 11). Turnout
Rates for (scarce) state referendums in Hessen demonstrate the same pattern. A
participation of 81% seems to be the upper limit. [12]
The following
conclusions can be reached regarding participation in Germany: Approximately
20% of the people want to participate at all.
The majority
of people only become active and take action if it seems significant or they
are personally concerned (e.g., their property is affected).
In conclusion,
the participation dilemma is apparent. On the one hand, there seems to be a
disparity between which matters people want to decide and whether it is
permissible. The political elites (parties) are not willing to give people more
influence at the (federal) state level. However, most of the people consider
that the most significant decisions are being made at the federal government
level. Furthermore, most participation offers concern the area of local
planning. Without the power to decide, it is therefore not paradoxical that
people do not use the existing participation offers even though they demand
more participation opportunities.
B)
The Participation Dilemma (in Germany) 2: “You Can't Always Get What You
Want … But Do You Get What You Need”?
A societal
value change occurred in all OECD countries over the last century. Klages (2001) sums up the societal value change by the
formula “a shift from the performance of one’s duty and obedience to
self-expression and development”.
Figure 5: Change of Educational Goals
in the German Population, 1951-2001[13]
Educational Goals
1951-2001
What is most important
in education? (Only Western German States)
authonomy / free decisions
orderliness / diligence
obedience / subordination
However, the general thrust of the societal value change is grounded in a need
for personal independence and individual opportunities of action which result
in a need to (co-)decide on matters concerning one’s
own affairs (see Klages/Vetter
2013, 18). The taking-over of tasks, commitment and motivation is based upon
own views, thoughts, values and belief.
1)
The
Economy of Citizens’ Participation: Political Participation is Not the First
Choice (of Self-Actualization)
The city of
Mannheim (MA) complied a “democracy audit” in 2013 based on a representative
survey among citizens (Van Deth / Schmitt-Beck / Odrakiewicz, 2013). We, the German research institute for
public administration (FöV) did a similar survey in
2014 on behalf of the city of Gießen (GI). [14]
Both surveys contained a question about civic virtues. The respondents could
grade their judgement of a list of virtues on a scale from “very important” to
“totally unimportant”.
Figure 6: Judgement of Civic Virtues
(Two Democracy Audits in German Cities), average (arithmetic mean)
Apparently,
people view political activity or involvement as much less important than
participation in elections. This is in line with our findings in chapter 2.2. (see also Ewen
/ Gabriel / Ziekow, 2013, 102) People participate in
elections or referenda in large numbers, but do not participate in significant
numbers in other, more intensive and time consuming participation measures.
Many studies on volunteer involvement have shown that very few citizens do
volunteer work in the political arena (Klages / Masser 2009, 38ff.). Compared to areas like religion or
sports, political volunteering can often be very time consuming.
According to
the findings of our empirical surveys (citizens’ surveys), there are two (in
fact, three) major determinants of citizen participation:
– The
effectiveness of a participation mechanism, that is how binding are the results
and how much influence do participants have.
– The cost of
involvement, especially the time requirement, and the inconvenience which
includes peer pressure and the uncertainties involved in dealing with political
activists.
There is a big
gap between the rather high estimates regarding the effectiveness of
involvement in political parties and planning processes, and the low numbers of
people who actually become members or contribute. (The percentage of Germans
who are members of political parties is below 3% (Masser
2013, 317)). Participation increases when a mechanism catches the attention of
the media, but his often does not happen.
Figure 7: Turnout and Effectiveness of
Participation Instruments, Democracy Audit Gießen
2014, percentages
The most
popular forms of citizen participation involve surveys, signature collection,
boycott of products and voting which can be very effective, but do not require much
time or higher education. Referendums are very popular as well. (Klages / Masser 2009, 51). The
success of citizen participation, that is the number of citizens who
participate, is dependent on how citizens evaluate the cost-benefit of
participation.
2)
Selective
Utilitarianism and Political Activism: Different Behavior and Different
Expectations
Citizen
surveys carried out by the German Research Institute for Public Administration
(GRIP) Speyer consist of two independent components: a random sample of
personally addressed people and an online survey that is open to everyone. The
latter group self-recruits based on its interest in the subject matter of the
survey.[15]
There are big differences between the two groups. Participants in the open
survey group tend to be older, male dominated, have a higher level of
education, and tend to be more voluntarily active and more interested in
politics. (Klages / Masser
2009).
Figure 8: Citizen Participation
Involvement of Representative and Politically Active (open survey) Groups,
Democracy Audit Gießen 2014, percentages
The higher
participation that results from the open survey involves people who are more
active in online consultations, more likely to contact politicians and the
administration, engage in citizens’ initiatives, and involve themselves in
signature collection campaigns.
In a
representative democracy, the economy of citizen participation by political activists
does not seem to be advantageous. These people spend lots of time and efforts
for example on online forums, citizen initiatives and so on, but do not have
significantly more power than any other citizen. This is nor desirable because
the benefits (decisions) are not in line with the costs. In other words,
political volunteer involvement has a poor cost-efficiency ratio except for
those who have power. This may explain why political activists are dissatisfied
with the political system, particularly in Germany. On the hand, the majority
of people benefit. The division of labor between government and administration,
and the citizen, together with the opportunity to have significant influence in
elections and referendums, seem to be very attractive because of a very good
cost-benefit ratio (less time and effort, but rather high influence).
Therefore, the German political system seems to be in line with the needs of
the majority of the people. Without doubt, most of the people would appreciate
more influence without significantly more effort.
§ 2 – Gamification
A)
Engaging People by Letting Them have Fun
In recent
years, the term “gamification” has been used more frequently. Gamification is a
concept that applies to the participation of customers, employees or even
citizens. As with many new concepts, the meaning and content of the term is
unclear in the beginning. (see Shah
(2012), p. 1). In our understanding, gamification focuses on engaging people
and examining what motivates and interests them, and providing them with
playful experiences that benefit the players, as well as everyone else such as
companies, customers, co-workers, administrations and government – depending on
how gamification is used.
A formal and
widely used definition of the term is provided by Deterding
et al. (2011) who defines gamification as “the use of game design elements in
non-game contexts” (p. 1). There are other definitions, as well, including one
from Shah (2012) who defines the term as “[…] a way of using game mechanics
(namely competitive challenges, recognition and rewards) to improve a business
process, with the goal of fulfilling business objectives” (p. 1). All of the
definitions have in common the basic idea of using game thinking and game
mechanics to engage users in solving problems. Gamification can be used to
improve user engagement, return on investment, data quality, timeliness and
learning. The techniques of gamification include giving rewards to users who
complete certain tasks, foster competition and fundamentally make tasks feel
like games.
As Shah (2012)
points out there are four main elements of gamification systems (p. 1):
– Objective: First, it is crucial to
identify the business objective in order to know what the organization is
trying to achieve. For example, the goal may be to improve adoption rates, to
encourage employee learning, to improve brand awareness, to shorten processes
and so on
– Mission: The mission breaks down the
business objective and provides a set of related task designed to achieve the
business objective. It can have different levels, and players can be rewarded
for completion of each level or mission
– Gaming Components: The gaming component can involve badges,
levels, challenges, leader boards and players
– Well-thought-out design: An effective
and well-suited design is one of the most important part of the gamification
process. In this regard, ease of use and an intuitive design are crucial for
the overall success of the process
In order to be
successful with gamification a player-centered design requires knowledge of the
players, identification of the business objective and mission, an understanding
of human motivation, and application of mechanics among other themes. In the
private sector (sometimes as well as in the public sector) good examples can be
found.
1)
How
the Private Sector is Playing Games
Gamification
is inspired by the video game industry. This industry serves as the thought
leaders in discussions regarding gamification in the private sector,especially the software industry. There is one rule
for game developers at EA Games, the makers of the popular Madden NFL video
game series among others: Game software must produce visible joy for the user
within seven minutes or it will be a flop.
When SAP
started to re-think its approach to software development a couple of years ago,
the company looked at the video game industry for inspiration. In this regard
the question from employees was raised: Does this mean we can all look forward
to using a “Killzone 3″-like interface to enter our travel expenses? The
answer is “not exactly”, but the general idea behind video game mechanism and
intrinsic motivation is very similar. Video games mean big business and SAP
came to the conclusion that enterprise software developers can learn a lot from
the emotional connection gamers make with the likes of the Killzone
3, which sold over 500,000 copies in its first week of release in North
America.
In chapter 2.2
we explained how a game show concept (e.g., American Idol) re-animated and
saved the participatory budgeting (PB) process in Germany. The mentioned
company SAP uses exactly the same concept to improve its products (software).
There are striking similarities between the goals of the two approaches: to
improve existing software and enhance the functionality of a program named
“Customer Connection”[16].
Users (customers) are encouraged to post improvement requests and other
suggestions on the SAP Customer Influence Platform. Requests and suggestions
are discussed in customer groups or special interest groups in an effort to
“collaborate with as many customers as possible and retrieve a ranked backlog
(the idea is passed to SAP Development to be evaluated) based upon customer
needs”. The “players” act in different roles: 1) “Request Owners” submit and describe
their idea. 2) Subscribers “vote” for the idea and thus help prioritize an idea
to qualify it for the backlog analysis by the company (minimum of 5
subscriptions per request); 3) Followers become informed about the progress of
the “idea” and make comments on it. (Customers receive feedback about whether
and how the idea will be implemented or the reasons why the idea cannot be
realized in the current project. Selected improvements are provided as Service
Packs & Enhancement Packages). Customers can therefore use “Customer
Connection” specifically to:
– Submit
improvement requests,
– Discuss and
subscribe to submitted improvement requests,
– Track the
status of the improvement requests relevant to them
– State
whether they want to implement improvements, and if so, which ones.
The company
reports that customer requests triggered almost 400 product improvements and
that more than 6,500 customers worldwide have made use of the process.
Customers and citizens perform the same function: the improvement of software
products they use, and evaluation and development of public policies and
projects. In both cases, we see the same process of obtaining feedback about a
system from its environment. In evolutionary terms, we could speak of smart
adaption. What is really amazing, however, is that there are three identical
roles: 1) The facilitator who is in charge of establishing the “setup defaults”
and the rules of the game. 2) The (small group of) active users, customers or
citizens, who make requests and proposals and participate in the discussions.
3) The “interested audiences” who vote for or against “the stuff” (thumbs up,
thumbs down). It almost seems that these three same groups are an eternal part
of both democracy and client orientation. We find them in ancient Greece in
Athens which had: 1) Facilitating official bodies. 2) Particular
citizen-prosecutors who take the initiative. 3) The polity: Thumbs up / thumbs
down. (Literally used in the “panem et circenses” games in ancient Rome).
However, what
we learn from the Customer Relation strategy of SAP and the evolution of PB in
Germany is, that people are not interested in being involved in complicated
details like the drawing up of a budget or the development of a software
(programming of code), but rather in outputs and outcomes. Moreover, the
different groups of users/citizens have different demands regarding how they
want to be addressed. However, we see that customer involvement and citizen
participation seems to be more successful if the procedures imply entertainment,
suspense and kick. Free democratic elections are not only fair and just, they
provide entertainment and suspense to the civil audience. The primary elections
in the USA are a good example: Who will be the candidates? There are a series
of TV-debates in both major parties and a lot of other media attention even if
it is just the primaries.
Another way to
produce gamification is through (group) challenges.
During the “Bankathon,” awards are given for the best new developed and
designed financial products.[17]
Within thirty hours, teams must develop new creative ideas for digitalization
in the financial industry. The best solutions get an award, inter alia start-up
coaching hosted by SAP.
2)
How
the Public Sector is Playing Games
Whereas the private sector is already using gamification for business
purposes, the public sector is only beginning to exploit gamification for their
own purposes and needs. However, there are also some good examples from the
public sector which show how gamification can be used to stimulate citizen
participation. One is in the municipality Ludwigshafen in Germany where we
started a project on renovation of the elevated highway “north”. The elevated
highway “north” in Ludwigshafen (at the Rhine) was built between 1970 and 1980
and needs complete renovation now. It is a national road which begins as a
freeway, goes through the centre of the city, and crosses the Rhine (see Figure 1 below).
Figure 9: Elevated highway “north” in
Ludwigshafen am Rhein, Joystick to drive through the 4 scenarios
The building project will have a major impact on the city and the
region. [18]
The construction will take approximately 10 years and cost approximately
300.000.000 Euro. The city decided to involve the population at an early stage
of the process. Like in another similar case in Germany, renovation of the A 6,
four alternative planning variants were developed. The solutions varied from a
complete re-establishment of the elevated road, two half-elevated versions, and
a completely new “ordinary” road at ground level. During town hall meetings and
on the web, the variants were presented and the specifications were explained: How
long will the construction last (eight to twelve years)? How much will it cost
( € 270 Mill. to € 330 Mill.)? How much noise and exhaust emissions will be
created? What possibilities exist for future development of the city under each
of the scenarios?
An outstanding feature of the process involves the fact that the city
created virtual 3D-videos for all four scenarios, and these videos were
presented at town hall meetings and on the web.[19]
Thus, every citizen could drive through the virtual new roads,[20]
balance the pros and cons, and state his/her preferences regarding the
alternatives. Within an online-consultation platform, citizens could make
comments on the project and discuss issues with each other. Finally,
participants could vote for one of the four options. In most respects (costs,
possibilities for city development, and so on) about three out of four of the participants
opted for the new road at ground level. In principle, the city council bears
responsibility for the decision.
However, it seems nearly impossible for the council to decide against
the clear intention of a majority of citizens. More than 10.000 people took
part in the town hall meetings and particularly the online-consultation. Even
if a group of citizens still prefers an elevated highway (especially if traffic
flow and parking space are preferred goals), the majority has chosen in favour
of the ground level road. Resistance by a citizens’ initiative will stand no
chance.
The example of the elevated highway “north” in Ludwigshafen shows that,
when there are (potentially) conflicting goals, early stage citizen involvement
is insufficient.
It is important to encourage broad involvement of a large number of
(relevant) citizens which was achieved through a gamification approach in the
case of Ludwigshafen. The case shows that a simple participation method and
procedure with clear elements and a defined outcome are very helpful in
reaching the overall goal. Additionally, visualization (3D animation) helps
translate complicated planning for laymen. Today, various kinds of planning
software are available. Regardless of whether one wants to plan a new house or
a garden,.3D simulation makes it possible to depict everything
in a “game scenario”.
Figure 10: Example planning software
“traffic simulation by PTV vissim”
With the help an appropriate software, it might be possible to integrate
citizens into the planning of large-scale projects through multiplayer online
games. The task of planning is to determine the right setting for the game. It
is necessary, for example, to define possible courses of a road, possible
locations for a plant, minimum or expected capacity and so on. Gamification
changes the way information is presented. The classical form of (long) written
texts, extensive tables (with figures), and construction drawings are not
appropriate ways to give citizens understandable information. For example,
administrative information should be translated by (digital) visualization and
compression into pictures/videos and significant indicators. This transformed
information is the basis for the development of games.
One of the favourable features of the winning scenario in Ludwigshafen
was the enhancement of city-development opportunities, in particular free
spaces for new buildings or green corridors. On other hand, in the
3D-animation, there were only vague cubes and potential solutions. What the future
will bring is still open. Many cases of city development planning in the past
(for example of the 60ies and 70ies) did not provide the desired results.
Instead of modern and vital neighbourhood’s social flashpoints developed. To
determine the risks and potentials of different approaches, future development
can rely on gamification. Like for example in the marshmallow challenge[21],
different groups could virtually develop the city. Every group gets the same
set of resources and restrictions.
Browsergames like “Forge of
Empires”[22]
already take an interesting approach. The course and outputs of the games
(challenges) could deliver valuable information about mistakes to avoid and
factors to encourage.
Another example of how games can be used in the public sector is that of
the “Forest Echo”, a pilot
project of the forest administration of the state of Rhineland-Palatinate.
(Rhineland-Palatinate is – with 42% of forest area – the German state with the
most trees as a percentage of total landmass.) “Forrest Echo” is the adaptation
of a very common system of citizens’ management concerns in Germany called the
“defect reporter” which is quite similar to the British “FixMyStreet”
Web-Platform[23].
Responsible administrations receive information in the form of complaints. By
the use of geographical data, it is possible to visualize the location of a
problem and thus, present it to the (internet) public. Moreover, it is possible
to monitor the resolution of the problem. In the “Forest Echo”, digitization entered
the woods, revealing typical complaint such as fallen trees / branches, animal
carcasses and illegal dumping (besides the usual “off-topic” overall political
stuff).
Figure 11: Typical issues “Forrest
Echo”, reported by citizens
Soon after the
launch of the project, the project was a huge success in one of the four pilot
areas. The four pilot areas were Trier (northwest), Mainz (northeast),
Kaiserslautern (central) and “Haardt” (central/east).
Very early in 2016, one of the project areas (Kaiserslautern (K-Town)) received
the most attention. This was unexpected. The following map from the 1.05.2016
illustrates that public attention focused upon the forestry office of K-Town
(26 of total 30 actual cases are pertaining to K-Town). Explanatory approaches
were used in the area of K-Town, showing that the forest might have a higher
significance to the people. Then, the local newspaper reported about the
“Forest Echo” and a multiplier effect resulted. Thus, even if there was no
intention to use the “Forest Echo” as a game, it transformed into one.
Figure 12: Spatial distribution of
Reports
Almost all games
depend upon suspense and a sufficient (number of) participants. The “defect
reporter” is on the publication of the reports and everyone can watch the
progress. The “Forest Echo” used four stages, marked by traffic light colors:
1) incoming / not verified (red), 2) in process (yellow) and 3) solved (green).
In K-Town, forest administration tried to solve all reported problems quickly.
They knew that there were many viewers and thus, staff was highly motivated. By
contrast, in “Haardt” there were one of two reported
problems that work did not state on for more than a month. Due to the
huge “success” of K-Town. and the very few complaints and reports, the other
three districts lost interest (in the game). It was as if one team wins all
matches in a league 10:0, year after year. The losers lose interest,
subsequently no audience can be attracted.
The question
therefore is how the responsible authority (ministry) can “restart” the
project. That is, how can it reshape the setting and the rules of the game in
order to encourage all four project areas to participate again. Many other
problems e.g. reorganization within organizations or regulatory impact analysis
could be analyzed by the help of seeing them as “games”.
Conclusion
In society,
people want to (co-)decide political matters. A vast majority of German people
demand more opportunities to influence political decisions. At the same time,
people have considerable distrust of politicians and political parties. Thus,
the majority of the (German) people do not want to get enmeshed in policymaking
processes. In general people accept the idea that a small elite of politicians
and bureaucrats are doing the complex and time consuming business of government
and administration. Most of the time, the division of labor between citizens
and government and administration works well. The majority of the people (about
65-75%) want to be informed about (all) public issues in order to interfere if
necessary (act as veto-players). Additionally, there is a group of
approximately 10-15% of the people, who want to be permanently involved in
political decision making outside of parliaments and councils. Participating
budgeting and the planning of large scale infrastructure projects serve as
examples of the ways in which gamification can serve as an instrument for
meeting the demands and requirements of different groups in a modern
pluralistic society:
– (Elected)
political bodies, public officials and professional experts: They remain in charge and responsible
as decision-makers, but their roles change. Consultation of citizens is
becoming a part of decision-making and thus is being translated into action.
Gamification is a convenient measure for involving citizens. By defining the
setting and the rules of “the game”, officials do not lose their decisive
(legal) function. On the contrary, gamification enhances control over the
implementation of political decisions by getting feedback about possible and
actual deviations of planned outcomes. If enough people take part, legitimacy
is enhanced.
– The
group of (politically) active citizens: This group includes preponderantly male
members with income and education above the average and retired persons.
Without being elected, and without any kind of appointment, these persons
demand to represent “the people”. Gamification provides an opportunity to this
group to be active and play a significant (but time-consuming) part in public affairs.
This can cover the search and discussion for public investments or budget
savings as well as (the testing of) alternative planning of infrastructure
projects. With the help of gamification, it is possible to test and elaborate
municipal policy programs. The playing out of (different) projects under
different settings and conditions, opportunities and risks become visible. As
in the case of quality management in private business, gamification has the
potential to improve public goods with the help of the “customers”
– The
majority of “the citizens”: This group does not want to become politically
active in the sense of “face-to-face meetings”. On the other hand, people do
want to have information about all significant public issues and have the authority
to co-decide if necessary. Therefore, all kinds of voting procedures are
appropriate to fulfil this need even if they only “like” or “dislike” a
proposal or an opinion. It is helpful when they provide ratings regarding the
advantages and disadvantages of alternative solutions and scenarios (public
investments, infrastructure projects, savings and so on). All in all, the
majority is involved through voting procedures even though they are not able to
make the final decisions. Additionally, people do not have to spend much of
their time
The
development of alternative scenarios and solutions is possible through the help
of a group of active citizens. The setting of goals, rules and framework is the
inevitable task of political officials and professional experts. People can,
however, provide input regarding the pros and cons of different proposed
solutions (developed by games). The decisive factor of games (and gamification)
helps administrators make decisions, but still leaves room for governmental officials
to use their judgment.