Digital citizen participation in policy conflict and concord: Evaluation of a web-based planning tool for railroad infrastructure

Abstract

Infrastructure siting has been shown to lead to high contestation across political systems. To counteract this, policymaking has introduced participatory instruments that were recently supplemented by web-based tools. Drawing on theoretical perspectives on policy conflict, this paper investigates how different conflict intensities reflected in public discourses can shape citizens' perceptions on the potential and limitations of digital participation tools. To this end, we conducted a survey experiment with students who evaluated the potential functions of a web-based tool considering criteria, such as transparency, efficiency, and inclusion of new expertise. Participants were randomly assigned fictitious project descriptions that used either conflict or concord words. The results show that while users see several positive influences of digital tools on increased transparency and inclusivity in participation processes, this perception is negatively influenced by a supposedly high level of conflict. Furthermore, digital public participation in railroad planning is perceived as contributing to decreasing escalation and strengthening the democratic quality of policy processes. However, digital participation can only develop its strengths if there are accompanying measures and discourses to secure trust. In addition, the tool's potential seems to be higher in less escalated conflict situations and fully escalated situations than in asymmetrically escalated conflicts.