1

Planning Participation in the German Energiewende – on the relevance of a context- and process-oriented perspective

Giulia Molinengo, Ina Richter, Patrizia Nanz, Mathis Danelzik

(++ preliminary version – not for further distribution ++)

Abstract:

Public participation never takes place in a vacuum. The German Energiewende serves as a

volatile political field for practicing and testing participation in transformative energy

infrastructure contexts. Factors such as intense conflicts and limited space for informal

participatory processes require a context specific planning of participatory processes that reacts

to timely dynamics.

Social-science research has mostly described and evaluated participatory processes in a rather

static manner while placing attention on the analysis of formats and methods. Based on

empirical findings of the project DEMOENERGY – The transformation of the energy system as

engine for democratic innovations, we argue for a context- and process-oriented perspective,

which centers on a temporal analysis that bears methodological consequences, too.

The paper discusses what such an analytic perspective comprises and what can be learned

from it, demonstrated on the phase of planning public participation in electricity grid expansion

projects in Bavaria, Germany. Using the example of challenges and changes in defining the

participatory space, we outline the benefits of a context- and process-oriented perspective.

1. Introduction: Offering another analytical lens

The transformation of the German energy system called ‘Energiewende’ proves to be a great

challenge that is accompanied by conflicts on various levels. These include the conflicts about

visions of the Energiewende, which technologies to employ, the specifics of technologies in

infrastructural planning as well as the information, deliberation and decision making processes

regarding infrastructural projects. Forms of public participation – which have blossomed in

practice such as consensus conferences, round tables, planning cells, online-dialogues and the

like (i.e. Participedia.net lists around a 100 such processes) – have entered this field as

mechanisms that are supposed to avoid or cope with such conflicts. Different actors see it as a

means for increased legitimacy of planning, political processes and outcomes, others mainly

hope for increased acceptance of projects and smoother implementation. Meanwhile, factors

such as the technical complexity of issues, intense protests, incongruences on various political

levels and continual changes in regulatory frameworks are challenging such processes

(Kamlage et al. forthcoming).

2

The research project “DEMOENERGY – The transformation of the energy system as engine for

democratic innovations,”1 (www.demoenergie.de) co-initiated two dialogue-oriented participation

processes to include citizens in the planning of energy infrastructure projects. Engaging in action

research (Gergen 2003; Reason/Bradbury 2008) the team of researchers designed and

implemented two local participatory processes in the German state of Bavaria in

transdisciplinary cooperation with a transmission system operator (TSO). Objective of the

participatory processes was to plan the course of a high voltage transmission line in two

locations with the respective local citizens and other stakeholders.

Based on empirical findings of the research project DEMOENERGY we convey in the following

that empirical findings are calling for an expansion of the theoretical lenses used to understand

public participation processes. We argue for the importance of examining the planning of public

participation as a social process. Specifically, this applies for the relevance of an analytical

perspective that takes into account the temporal dynamics of this process, with a focus on how

interactions of actors as well as changing contexts shape the participation process in time.

Research on participation has early started to analyze the processes and outputs of individual

participatory actions. A variety of single case studies was conducted such as on public mediation

(Geis 2005, Weidner/Fietkau 1995), planning cells (Dienel 1986, Ortweil 2001), consensus

conferences (Schicktanz/Naumann 2003), participatory budget (Esterling et al. 2010, Schneider

2011, Taubert et al. 2011), future councils, wisdom councils and participatory processes in

context of the Local Agenda 21 (Behringer 2002, Strele 2012). Today there is a large body of

literature regarding the various methods and formats such as planning cells.

For the purpose of evaluating participatory interventions, research practice has established a

heuristic that divides participatory processes into the phases input, process and outcome (also

output and impact) (i.e. Kamlage 2013; Mandarano 2008; Warburton et al. 2006). Evaluation

studies so far mainly concentrated on the process element or aspects of it such as inclusivity of

the process (Abelson/Gauvin 2006, p. 12). The focus of process evaluation lies on the phase of

a participatory program being in progress, i.e. it relates to the implementation of the program

(ibid.; Gastil et al. 2007, p. 207). More recently research focus shifted to studying the

performance of participatory interventions. Studies evaluating outcomes center on the analysis

of the consequences of public participation, the results and long-term effects of the process

(Abelson/Gauvin 2006, p. 12). Referring to the third phase of the applied heuristic – context -

there is increasing evidence that aspects of context matter for the positive as well as negative

benefits and success of the participatory intervention (Delli Carpini et al. 2004; Rowe/Frewer

2004). Yet, literature on categories and details about contextual factors still remains scarce. First

meta-analysis studies that aim at gaining insights into the interplay of contextual and design

factors and how they influence outcomes of participatory processes point to the type of issue,

the pre-existing level of conflict and mistrust as well as differences across local, state and

national decision-making processes or agencies (Beierle/Cayford 2002), but also interests of

participants (Newig/Fritsch 2009, p. 495) as being worthwhile for further evaluation. However,

1 The project was funded by the German Ministry for Education and Science from June 2013 to March

2016.

3

especially insights in interests and motives of participants and how these influence the

participatory process from the period of planning on, still remain an empirical gap in participatory

studies.

Figure 1: Prominent focus of evaluation research

Heuristics that divide participatory processes into rather distinct and fixed phases have their

merits, but have also – together with the long existing focus on formats and methods – lead to a

rather ’static’ view of participation processes within participation research. Seldom, process

analysis takes the entire process of initiating, planning and implementing public participation

intervention and its results into account.

In light of our empirical findings, we find that - in order to give a satisfactory explanation for any

aspect of the participatory processes in context of infrastructure planning that we worked on - we

need to take into account, that 1) contextual factors are relevant to the planning of the process,

that they are shaped by various dynamics over time and become relevant to the participatory

process at different points in time; 2) that those dynamics span all phases of the processes from

their early planning to the interpretation of their results in the aftermath of the last event and

therefore cut across the phases of the mentioned heuristic; 3) that participatory processes are

social phenomena that involve actors with different belief systems, interests, constraints for

action and whose interactions are influencing the course of the participatory process.

As our example will show, decisions on the design of participatory processes highly depend on

the moment in time the decision is taken, as well as the information, interests, various contexts,

idiosyncracies, and the composition of decision takers present at this moment. For outlining this

perspective we will use the example of a crucial question regarding the design of participatory

processes that emerged in the two DEMOENERGY case studies in Bavaria, namely how to

draw the distinction between those invited to participate and those who are not. Using this

Prominent focus of analysis

INPUT PROCESS

OUTPUT/

OUTCOME/

IMPACT

4

example we intend to shed some light on elements and dynamics that apparently play a relevant

role in influencing the development and course of a participatory process. On this basis, we

identify and describe the main pillars of a context- and process-oriented perspective on public

participation. The final step of this paper will outline implications for research as well as practice

of public participation that stem from the outlined perspectives.

DEMOENERGY – a short overview of the two participatory processes

With the abandonment of nuclear energy and increasing capacity in volatile renewable energy

sources, the distribution of energy generation and supply sees remarkable changes. These

result in a political program to expand Germany’s high voltage electricity grid and to provide

more international links to other nations’ grids.2 One of the priority projects within this grid

expansion program is The ‘Ostbayernring’, a 185 km long high voltage transmission line built in

the 1970s in the North-Eastern part of Bavaria. The German state assigned one of the four

TSO’s responsible for the German high voltage grid the task to increase its capacity.

Scientists of the DEMOENERGY project planned and initiated, in collaboration with the TSO,

two participatory processes along this high voltage transmission line. The intention was to better

involve citizens and relevant stakeholders at an early stage in the planning process of such

infrastructure projects. The initiated participatory processes were informal, meaning that they

were not part of the formal regulatory process. They preceded a process, in which the regional

government determined which variants were eligible to be further assessed and pursued in

subsequent planning stages. The informal participatory processes were supposed to offer co-

design elements to citizens and thereby go beyond mere consultation opportunities provided by

formal regulation for public participation.

In order to do so, the team of DEMOENERGY3 engaged in the design of the participatory

process in cooperation with the TSO. The planning phase lasted from the beginning of 2014 until

the beginning of September of the same year. A core group of initiators – including researchers

of DEMOENERGY, management and communication staff of the TSO and external consultants

– progressively included further actors into the process: a communication agency, environmental

planners and other members of the TSO’s staff punctually provided their expertise in planning

meetings. From the end of September 2014 until June 2015 two participatory processes took

place in Windischeschenbach (around 5.000 inhabitants) and surrounding villages and in

Schwandorf (around 20.000 inhabitants). The design of each participatory process included

three public events, to which the entire population of those areas was invited. It encompassed as

well the establishment of a planning group of about 20 persons, including 8 randomly selected

local citizens, the mayors of affected municipalities, local organizations, public authorities and

the TSO staff. This planning group had the task of working out citizens’ proposals in details and

2 According to the national Power Grid Development Plan, approximately 3800 km of new lines in the

transmission grid and new power transformers will need to be built until 2020, see ÜNB 2013, p. 136. 3 With the support of external professional consultants that were additionally responsible for facilitating the

participatory meetings.

5

making sure that the process would run transparently and fairly. The public events provided

opportunity for the whole population to give feedback to the work of the planning group, to

receive information about the process and infuse new inputs to the planning. Thereby the most

important task was to suggest alternative courses of the power line.

The results of the participatory processes consisted in collecting, assessing and comparing

suggested variants, which led to the development of several alternative courses for the power

line, all of which had been proposed by citizens throughout the process. These variants are

going to be submitted by the TSO to the responsible regulatory authorities, who will determine,

which of those line are eligible to be further assessed and pursued in subsequent planning

stages.

2. Case study: the shaping of participatory spaces as social process

The distinction of whom to include in the participatory process does not necessarily involve a

spatial dimension. However, given the spatially-bound nature of adverse effects of most

infrastructural projects4 as well as common goals of infrastructural planners5, spatially-bound

notions of affliction by adverse effects or risks are commonly chosen criteria to determine whom

to involve (for a discussion of concepts of affliction see Bauriedl et al. 2013). The ideal of such a

definition would be a perfect congruence of who might suffer adverse effects by the project and

who gets to have a say in its planning. It is this geographical shape that we call ‘participatory

space’ henceforth as opposed to the specific venues, in which participatory events take place.

Participatory spaces based on spatial- and affliction-criteria also have exclusionary effects.

Spatial criteria often exclude actors whose stakes are not spatial in nature, for example

companies with a special interest in overall net stability. Because these interests do not manifest

in any one specific line project, but concern the quality of the grid as a whole, they tend to keep

latent in each discussion about any specific line.

Potential affliction is notoriously difficult to assess, both because the meaning of affliction is

subjective (Bohner 2003), and because it is difficult to anticipate how the planning will evolve

and who might become potentially afflicted later on in the process. Whichever way potential

affliction and consequently a participatory space is conceptualized, there might exist actors just

beyond its border that feel the need to be included. When a congruence of those potentially

afflicted and those included in the participatory space is aspired, the constitution of the

participatory space additionally defines the scope that proposals within the participation process

can attain. Because this scope might run counter to what participating actors consider sound

proposals, pressure to enlarge the participatory space can also emerge from within the

participatory processes. Lastly, planners’ normative concepts, understanding of the participatory

process as well as their interests are unavoidably inscribed in its genesis and constitution. For all

4 For example, loss of harvest and visual impediments in the case of transmission lines

5 For example, finding solutions to conflicting claims to land use or gaining acceptance in a specific

geographical space

6

those structural reasons, participatory spaces always carry the potential to be or become

contentious during the process. Conflicts can arise over the criteria used to define them, the

indicators with which the criteria are operationalized and/or the concrete geographical form a

participatory space takes on.

Due to these reasons, the concept of participatory space constitutes a core element of the

design of a participatory process, especially in the context of infrastructure projects. As we will

show the participatory space is shaped by various factors – composition of actors, contextual

factors, information available and needed – that may change over time. Therefore, the genesis

of the core element ‘participatory space’ can only adequately when considering temporal

dynamics. In order to show the merit of such analysis, we will provide a rudimentary version and

give an overview of the development of the participatory spaces across time in the two empirical

cases of DEMOENERGY, from the planning phase to the closing public events of the

participatory processes.

Starting points for defining a participatory space

The German state had assigned one of the four TSO’s responsible for the German high voltage

grid the task to increase the capacity of the ‘Ostbayernring’. In this case the pylons’ statics were

not able to endure additional cable, and an one-in-one replacement of pylons would have

stressed net stability due to long deactivation phases (and been an expensive solution).

Therefore the responsible TSO (in agreement with the government regulatory authority) planned

to build a new line running parallel to the existing one. After completion, the former line would be

decommissioned and dismantled.

This arrangement diminishes certain planning challenges as it provides guidance over the

course of the planned line as well as the hope to impact few new stakeholders, landscapes,

wildlife sanctuaries and other protected areas. Switching to the least impacting flank of the old

line additionally gives the chance to alleviate negative impacts and even to create improvements

to the status quo. Nevertheless, impacts are unavoidable over the whole course of the 185 km,

begging the question whom to include in which manner in planning procedures.

Due to financial resources, manpower, time constraints and conceptual issues, both researchers

and the TSO quickly excluded the option to involve the citizens of all ca. 50 municipalities the

power line runs through. The initiators also agreed that participatory processes only made sense

where planning obstacles might make circumventions by the new line necessary, thereby

possibly leaving a course parallel to the existing line. At this point, initiators knew they would

focus resources for participatory processes on specific localities along the line, but were not

clear on what grounds to select the areas yet. The TSO saw a strong interest in a consistent

argumentation that would allow the company to justify its decision to implement participatory

processes in some spots along the course of the power line and not in others. Finally, three

communities were identified by the initiators as so-called ‘hot-spots’ and therefore eligible for a

participatory process. An initial ‘hot-spot’ definition concerned “those spots where a parallel

7

planning to the existing power line would have sensitively reduced the distance between the new

power line course and the residential areas (< 70 m)”. Once a hot-spot definition had been

articulated, initiators discussed the dimensions of the participatory space in each of the three

resulting ‘hot-spots’. The TSO’s approach to this issue was strongly influenced by advice by the

TSO’s legal counsel as well as by the regulatory body responsible for assessing the TSO’s plans

at a later stage. They both agreed that the circumvention of the hot-spots should as quickly as

possible realign with the existing line. While the legal counsel foresaw legal issues with newly

affected rights of property holders, which are seen as more sensitive by German courts than a

renewal of already existing restrictions of property rights, the regulatory body was concerned

with the feasibility of the regulation process of a project that was supposed to be oriented by the

existing line, if it veered away in a too substantial manner.

With this anchor to the existing line, the participatory space’s dimensions were at least partly

defined: participation space obtained starting and endpoints, which needed to be connected by

the citizens’ and other actors’ proposals for circumventing the bottleneck. They were supposed

to be so far apart as to allow for substantial and reasonable alternative courses, yet as close

together as possible to conform to the maxim to quickly return to the existing line. The existence

of those conflicting premises as well as their underlying rationale effected that the distance

between start and end-points was not permanently settled, but rather a point of insecurity and

contention, at first among the initiators, later on within the participatory process. Furthermore,

the participation space’s shape was not yet fully defined.

Early decisions on the shape of participatory space

Contexts and interests factoring into decisions over the scope of the participatory space among

others included:

- financial aspects: In addition to the immediate costs of planning and executing the

participatory processes, larger participatory spaces tend to produce more proposals for the

future course of the line covering a larger geographical area. Gathering the needed

information to evaluate the line’s interference with those sites involve in-field research by

environmental planners. Their work is a major cost factor, and likely to be increased by more

expansive participatory spaces.

- political aspects: If participatory spaces can be contained in one or few municipalities or

other relevant administrative units, the complexity of interests and actors involved is eased.

Given this point weight fosters less expansive participatory spaces, depending on the given

political-administrative partition of space.

- Logistics and resources: Enlarging the participatory space usually increases the complexity

of the process and its logistics such as advertising the process in a larger territory, covering

this territory with additional information events, bundling the feedback from those

interactions, and so on.

8

In addition to conceptual difficulties, those factors increased importance for initiators to prevent a

continually expanding participatory space, which in turn made consistent borders of such space

even more important.

Certain idiosyncratic occurrences and developments heavily influenced the deliberation on the

scope of participatory processes by initiators in late summer of 2014. Shortly before summer

break, a regional nature conservation authority offered a very skeptical preliminary assessment

of building the new line parallel to the existing line in yet another spot - in Schwandorf, one of the

areas where participatory processes were planned. However, the spot scrutinized by the

authority had not been discussed by the initiators as a bottleneck eligible for a participation

process. The spot lay only a few kilometers further south to one of the three original hotspots.

Map 1 is an early document that identifies the original hotspot Irlaching (which is part of the city

Schwandorf) – with the existing transmission line running in between parts of the village (within

the upper red ellipse) as well as the spot seen critical by the nature conservation authority near

Ettmannsdorf (lower red ellipse, with the most problematic part in the very upper end of the

ellipse; also part of Schwandorf). The latter also posed questions about how close a new line

would encroach on resident housing.

9

Map 1

This development raised the question among the initiators, whether to focus attention to the

latter spot. A participatory process based around the question whether and how a circumvention

of the bottleneck at Ettmannsdorf should take place seemed prudent, as it tackled what had

emerged as the most important and unresolved planning issue in this project. Additionally,

circumventions of the bottleneck in Ettmannsdorf might have rendered decisions around the

original hot-spot Irlaching meaningless anyway, as possible solutions might not even affect

Irlaching. However, as can be seen in map 2, the decision to base a participatory process

around the bottleneck in Ettmannsdorf would expand the scope of the participatory process by

several orders, as it would involve possible larger circumventions around the whole city of

Schwandorf, with every conceivable variant affecting new localities.

10

Map 2: Existing transmission line in black. The here blue colored ellipses approximate the ellipses from map 1 in the context of

greater Schwandorf; the new line had to have the same southern arrival point, a transformer station that needed to be connected to

the new line.

The timing of the skeptical assessment by the natural conservation authority together with the

envisioned proceeding of the planning by the TSO put considerable time pressure on the

initiators to make a decision. According to the plans of the TSO at that time, participation

processes were supposed to be finished in March of 2015, so that the next formal regulatory

11

procedure could start shortly after. The need for additional information, vacation time of

important decision makers as well a complex project structure left initiators with the undesirable

situation to decide this issue only in mid-September, while first public information events – where

binding statements to the public about the object of the planning and participation processes had

to be made – were scheduled for the end of September.

When the decision had to be taken in mid-September, not all information required was at hand –

which would prove consequential later. Uncertainties pertained technical issues (if and where it

would be possible to place pylons regarding the nature reserve, the river, characteristics of the

ground and a face just South of the problematic area) and whether the preliminary skeptical

assessment by the nature conservatory authority would persist after a more detailed

assessment. The researchers and the TSO made the joint decision to define the whole citizenry

of Schwandorf as the subjects in the participatory process, with the bottleneck in Ettmannsdorf

as the new hot-spot, and the issue of Irlaching as part of that new broader process.

This significant ‘last-minute’ expansion under suboptimal circumstances in Schwandorf

increased concern about the feasibility of the participatory processes, which in turn led to a

preference by the TSO to handle other aspects of the scope of the participatory spaces in the

different localities more restrictive. It meant that aspects of the participatory space in Schwandorf

had effects on the participatory space in the other location (Windischeschenbach). Question

about the shape of the participatory space were handled more restrictively partly due to

circumstances that had nothing to do with the local case, but with the overall participatory

structure (limited resources and impressions initiators had at the time).

At this point, different approaches to participatory spaces emerged among the initiators. The

researchers of DEMOENERGY argued from a normative, deliberative democratic perspective

and called for rather broad and therefore inclusive participatory spaces, which would maximize

the chance for a congruency of potential affliction and participation. The researchers argued that

if cases of potential affliction of non-participants would occur later on in the process, this issue

could only be solved in dissatisfying ways. One way could entail to broaden the participatory

space at a later stage within the process, which would pose challenges and potentially court

resentments. Another way could be to accept the potential affliction of non-participants, which

would probably cause even more intense upset. Resentments and potential protests by affected

citizens were of concern for the TSO. However, the proposal by the researchers traded off the

maximized chance for congruency of those potentially afflicted and those participating against

potentially more difficult logistics, increased time pressure, higher costs, and more complex

political structures to accommodate. As the issue of affliction of non-participants was just a

potential at this point, and as this proposal occurred in a time where all initiators where working

over capacity on this issue, these trade-offs were considerable, but ultimately not convincing for

the TSO, who differed on the assessment of the respective risks of the mentioned factors.

As we will see in details in the next paragraphs, the issue of actors, who felt potentially afflicted

but were not given satisfying participation opportunities, immediately arose as soon as local

actors made proposals for the course of the line to be built.

12

Participants shaping the participatory space

Local actors influenced the development and interpretation of the participatory space throughout

the duration of the participatory process from the moment they engaged with it (the first

opportunity was an early information event preceding the kick-off of the actual participation

process). Again, beliefs, roles, interests, constraints and resources (knowledge, power, financial

resources) of those actors mattered. The two maps below indicate the initial and final stage of

the participatory space in Windischeschenbach, one of the two localities where DEMOENERGY

collaborated with the TSO to conduct a participation processes:

Map 3: early proposal by the TSO framing the subject of participation

Map 3 stems from 6th of August 2014. It shows a very early draft by the TSO prepared for the

regulatory authority and it was used to describe one of the defined hot-spots (close to the yellow

inscription). It includes a first idea by the TSO of how to possibly circumvent that bottleneck in

Windischeschenbach. This proposal involved only the urban parts of Windischeschenbach

(instead of the whole municipality) and suggested two possible alternative courses, going around

the main center of the city with either a northern or a southern alternative. Even though the TSO

had prepared the map just as a first point for discussion with the regulatory body, the map does

demonstrate how the TSO conceived of the issue at the time. This framing is based on

prioritizing the maxim to realign the circumventions as early as possible with the existing line.

The TSO thought of the issue at the time in rather narrow terms - at least when compared to

how participants later on would see the issue at hand.

13

Map 4: final participation space spans in between the three red circles.

Map 4 entails the collection of all variants proposed by citizen and other actors within the

participation process that made it to the final stages of the process (25th of June 2015). The

participatory space in its final form spans in between the three red circles. The turquoise ellipse

approximates the initial framing depicted in Map 3. Clearly, the participatory space has

expanded considerably. This expansion occurred in different steps after citizens and affected

mayors got involved:

14

1. The first public informative event6 was held at the end of September 2014. Attendees were

given the opportunity to draw their first proposals for alternative lines into provided maps, which

intentionally were showing not only the municipality of Windischeschenbach but also its

surrounding areas. A number of citizens proposed alternative courses going beyond the borders

of the participatory space at the time, immediately creating a possible situation of potential

affliction of non-participants at the event. As a result, the initiators agreed to extend the

participatory space to villages in the north, south-west and south-east of the city center of

Windischeschenbach, namely Püllersreuth, Pfaffenreuth and Seidlersreuth, because it was

foreseeable at the time that citizens’ proposals would likely affect them. However, each of those

villages belongs to a different municipality. Thereby, the inclusion of rather few additional

citizens raised the political complexity of the process from one municipality to four municipalities

involved. Among the initiators was also doubt whether this criterion for inclusion would prove

consistent enough as the inclusion of those specific villages was rather an effect of the

idiosyncratic information present at the time (some proposals already appeared during the first

information event, while others entered later). It was not due to an unambiguous criterion.

2. Before starting the participatory process, the communication department of the TSO

conducted a series of meetings with groups of all the mayors whose municipality was potentially

affected by the new infrastructure project. The purpose of the meetings was to inform them

about the plans to build a new line. During one of the meetings, the mayor of

Kirchendemenreuth, a municipality located to the South of Windischeschenbach, suggested an

alternative course of the power line by following a highway that cuts through the same area in a

North-South direction.7 The TSO staff and the researchers had not considered that solution to

this point, having being influenced by other planning logics, mainly the maxim of realignment.

The mayor proposed this solution employing his local knowledge, and perceiving an interest to

have the new line not run through Kirchendemenreuth just as central as the existing line does.

Even though he was aware that such a course would also create new adversary effects on some

citizens of his municipality. His proposal was met with the promise to keep in conversation about

the proposal by the TSO. However, an inclusion of his whole municipality into the participatory

process was not offered by the initiators of the process. The absence of such offer needs to be

understood against the backdrop of the maxim of realignment with the existing line (to the TSO it

seemed quite possible to return to a parallel course much sooner), the fear of ever expanding

participatory spaces that would endanger feasibility present among the initiators at the time.

3. During the first proper public event of the participation process, the mayor of

Kirchendemenreuth expressed outrage over this fact and demanded to be included in a planning

group that constituted an important element of the participation process. As mentioned earlier,

the planning group consisted of about 20 people, including eight randomly selected citizens

living in the participatory space, the mayor of Windischeschenbach, local organizations, public

6 Main purpose of the event was to inform about the plan to replace the line as well as the public

participation that would begin in Windischeschenbach at the end of October. 7 The end result of this proposal can be seen in map 4. There are two black lines extending south from the Southern

red circles. The Western line represents the new line parallel to the existing line. The eastern black line represents a

later version of the idea to – for a while – have the transmission line run parallel to the freeway and let it return to the

existing line further south (at the very bottom of the map).

15

authorities and TSO staff. The planning group had the task of working through citizens’

proposals in detail and making sure that the process would run in a transparent and fair way.

The eight seats for citizen were distributed to five citizen of Windischeschenbach, and one each

to a citizen of the aforementioned villages of Püllersreuth, Pfaffenreuth and Seidlersreuth.

Therefore, a citizen of the mayor’s municipality but not him as the mayor of Kirchendemenreuth

was allowed involvement. The initiators had estimated that the interest of mayors in having a

seat in the planning group would be minimal. However, that assumption rested on a narrow

framing in which municipalities other than Windischeschenbach would only be marginally

affected by finding a solution to the hot-spot. But the mayor’s interest was in pushing another

course of the new line in his municipality. It was independent from finding a solution to a hot-spot

as well as the definition of a hot-spot that was not of concern to him.

The participation processes offered the mayor an opportunity to push for this goal in a public

forum, which he might otherwise have struggled to pursue effectively. He was joined by two

other mayors, to which the villages Seidlersreuth and Pfaffenreuth belong to. The initiators

spontaneously conceded having made a mistake and offered those seats within the planning

group. However, the initiators insisted on not expanding the participatory space to his whole

municipality, mostly because the composition of the planning group would have had to be done

from scratch, with excluding already invited members in order to make room for new members8.

From the perspective of the initiators, the departure point for such a fundamental change in

participatory space had passed. As the citizenry of the southern municipality as a whole would

not be included in the participatory process, the proposals concerning the course of the line to

the South of Windischeschenbach would also not be object of this participatory process (due to

the principle to avoid potential affliction of non-participants). It was agreed that discussion about

Southern options would continue between the TSO and the mayor in parallel to the participation

process in which the mayor also participated as member of the planning group. The mayor

obtained a publicly renewed promise by the TSO in this regard.

4. The issue kept being a source of contention that posed challenges for all actors involved. The

mayor and the initiators went back to this issue several times, with fluctuating discontentment by

the mayor. This dispute had other effects as well:

- Within the participatory process in Windischeschenbach-Püllersreuth-Pfaffenreuth-

Seidlersreuth, planning occurred with two potential Southern end-points (both southern red

dots in map 4) that made both southern connections possible (see footnote 7).

- An additional informative event was organized by the TSO in the Southern municipality to

inform the population about the intermediary results of the planning process.

- The results of the alternative courses in Kirchendemenreuth were presented during the last

meeting of the planning group, as they are interconnected in certain respects, and were

presented at the final public event, to which (also a new feature) the population of

Kirchendemenreuth was invited as well.

8 Along with considerable other conceptual and practical problems.

16

In June 2015, in order to avoid that the process in Windischeschenbach-Püllersreuth-

Pfaffenreuth- Seidlersreuth would determine the course of the line in Kirchendemenreuth, or the

other way round, both variants in Kirchendemenreuth were merged with the variants that

resulted from the process in Windischeschenbach-Püllersreuth-Pfaffenreuth- Seidlersreuth. That

happened in agreement with the planning group. The results were six main alternative courses

of the power line to be. These are considerably more variants than the TSO initially envisioned

as a result of the participatory process. Six variants are also more than the regulatory body

reviewing these variants in the subsequent regulatory procedure had hoped to have to review.

However, after having observed the public participation process, the responsible government

agency accepted the additional work as a result of more deeply involving citizens and other

actors than usual.

The impact of the participatory space on the participatory process as a whole

The detailed description of the processes that shaped the participatory space demonstrates how

actors exert different types of influence on this core element of participatory processes. The next

step consists of discussing how these influences significantly impacted, in turn, the participatory

process as a whole. More examples could be found, but two of them may offer an idea:

1. Citizens were encouraged in various events to pencil in proposals for variants they preferred.

As already described, the participatory space was adapted in parts accordingly to these

proposals. This adaptation had an important effect. Some citizens drew new alternative courses

that went beyond the borders of the space the TSO had anticipated for examination by

environmental planners. Those proposals could not have been compared properly to variants

running through pre-examined areas without the collection of additional data by the

environmental planners. Initially, the TSO planned to have the participation processes end in

March of 2015, in order to stay in schedule with the planning of the project overall. However, the

collection of additional data became necessary to secure a proper participation process. At the

beginning of 2015, the environmental planners were assigned to collect the necessary data.

However, as important in-field research information was unattainable in winter, the expansion of

the participatory and planning space together with the timing of the data collection resulted in

considerable delay in the process of three months. The new end of the participatory process was

set for June 2015 by the initiators. This schedule was set due to a number of time pressures

existing for the TSO and for the researchers, but imposed immense pressure on the

environmental planners, on the preparation of the results of the participatory process and on the

submission of the documentation to the regulatory authority. It also affected a quick succession

of planning group workshops and public events in both participatory processes, with four events

in 18 days in two different cities. This posed a risk to the quality of the participation process. The

tight schedule resulting from this delay also diminished the amount of influence citizens were

able to exert in the public closing events. Due to time constraints, the mechanism for feedback

on the results had to be more restrictive than initially planned. While the initial plan was to

include the multitude of feedback in an appendix to the documents presented to the regulatory

body, under these new conditions the feedback mechanism became reserved for comments that

17

fundamentally challenged the feasibility of a variant. Instead the closing event focused on

informing participants how to insert their comments and requests in the subsequent formal

regulation procedure. Even though the results were already thoroughly vetted by the process

overall, this example shows how changes within the participatory space, lack of specific

information at a certain point in time and resulting time pressure reduced the citizens’ ability to

have an active say on the final results.

2. Since the second participation process in Schwandorf had started, the participation space – or

rather the planning space - was contested. Due to preliminary assessments about infeasibility of

an Eastern circumvention of the urban center of Schwandorf, the TSO decided to restrict the

participatory space to the Western part of the city areal including all Western villages in the

municipality. However starting with the first event of the participatory process, some participants

questioned this decision and argued for an inclusion of the Eastern side of the city into the

planning and participation space. The TSO didn’t comply with this request, with the

argumentation that there were clear hindrances in this part of the city that would have not

allowed creating competitive variants for the new course of the power line. After the mid-point of

the participatory process, a citizen initiative established itself centering on the goal to lobby for a

course to the East of the city. The TSO reacted to this development by inviting the members of

the citizen initiative to partake in the participatory process. The TSO also assigned its

environmental planners to assess an alternative course in the east and to evaluate its feasibility.

However, being almost at the end of the process, these steps had to happen very quickly,

including coming up with an Eastern variant. Therefore, the variant assessed was not a result of

critical citizens’ local knowledge, but a proposal by the environmental planners contracted by the

TSO without the involvement of citizens. Additionally, the evaluation of this alternative course

had to happen on the basis of the available data, which were incomplete. The variant used to

demonstrate the problems of an Eastern circumvention consequently never was accepted by the

members of the citizen initiative or, ostensibly during the closing public event, a large number of

other citizens. Nor was the assessment by the environmental planners on the disadvantages of

an Eastern variant. Together with a couple of other topics, the issue of an Eastern alternative

took up the whole final event, with the concrete results on the other variants that had been

developed by citizenry of Schwandorf being intentionally disallowed time. A couple of weeks

after the final public event, a second citizen initiative was founded and claimed an Eastern

variant as a goal, too.

This development is in stark contrast to how the views on the work of environmental planners

contracted by the TSO developed in Windischeschenbach, where the circumstances allowed the

environmental planners to gain trust in their work despite them being contracted. In Schwandorf,

however, because Eastern variants were not vetted publicly and transparently through the

participation process, the argumentation of the TSO and the environmental planners basically

came down to an appeal to trust them. In an already heated atmosphere, this did not suffice.

The damage resulting from the dynamic unfolding over a restriction of planning and participatory

space was impossible to reel in at this point.

18

3. A context-sensitive and process-oriented perspective – cornerstone of understanding participation processes as multi-faceted social phenomena

The previous section described how the question of whom to include in the participatory process

has developed across the whole duration of the participatory process in Windischeschenbach

and Schwandorf. It also discussed how changes related to participatory spaces had relevant

influences on the course and results of the participatory processes themselves. In the present

section we intend to situate these empirical findings in the larger framework of our proposal for

examining participatory processes as multi-faceted social phenomena through a context-

sensitive and process-oriented perspective. We believe that this analytical perspective can shed

light on elements and dynamics that heavily influence the planning and the course of

participatory processes and that research so far has rarely addressed. Against the backdrop of

our experiences as co-initiators of participatory processes, we hypothesize that no core element

of those processes can fully be understood without taking into account how they emerge from

the interaction of actors and contextual factors through time. To take this into account we

describe and discuss in the following section the main pillars of such a context-sensitive and

process-oriented perspective on public participation.

Integration of temporal dynamics

A process-oriented perspective integrates temporal dynamics into the analysis of participatory

processes as social phenomena. Such analysis presupposes continuous data collection, but in

return allows a detailed tracking of developments throughout the phases of any process,

including the planning process. It helps to understand why a participation process design has

taken the shape it has, and sheds light on why interactions within the participatory process have

unfolded as they have. Considering the example of the participatory space, a process-oriented

perspective can for instance explain how actors criticizing participatory spaces have had diverse

impacts on the space due to their timing in the process or how the systemic tendency for

continuously enlarging participation spaces has been negotiated with initiators’ concerns for

feasibility throughout the process. It allows capturing how the enlargement of participatory and

planning space has – via scarcity of time available to cope with its ramification – had effects on

other core elements such as the nature of the closing public event or the quality of the

documents available to the planning group.

Additionally, a process-oriented perspective is able to capture unsuccessful attempts by actors

to exert influence, ideas not being followed through and other aspects, which are not revealed

when looking at the final form of the participatory process or its results. In our case, such

aspects proof to inform our understanding of citizen participation, its actors and their motives

and concepts nevertheless.

A process-oriented perspective helps to improve the description of why and how time is an

important factor for conceptualizing participation processes. The value of a process-oriented

19

perspective in this regard lies not merely in identifying matters of timing, contradicting time

regimes, different time horizons or strategies to take control of time as relevant for public

participation. Moreover it lies in detailing the interplay of these factors with each other and other

aspects of the phenomenon.

Sensitivity for contexts

Within our analysis of the participatory space, we came across several contextual factors which

considerably influenced the way this participatory process was planned and implemented. As

studies show context proves to be relevant to design, outputs and outcome of participatory

processes (i.e. Drazkiewicz et al. 2015; Beierle/Cayford 2002). In our case context factors as

well played an important role: Insecurity about specific regulation of planning criteria (i.e. how to

assess a variant bundled with the existing line vs. bundled with other infrastructure vs.

unbundled) left its mark on the early stages of the participatory process, as did its concretion and

changes to regulation later on in the process.

In our case, changing contextual factors proved to be of great relevance. Factors such as

rumors about federal plans to put another new high voltage transmission line in the same region

entered into both participatory processes at various moments. They posed repeatedly questions

to the initiators of how to accommodate such developments and thereby to preserve a fitting

between participatory process design and its surrounding conditions, but without breaching

commitments already made about the process and its design. These examples outline how

different contextual factors receive significance at different points in time, and might be changing

in nature and relevance in the course of a participatory process. They therefore cannot be

considered as merely pre-existing input-factors informing the process design before

implementation.

Focus of the analysis under a context-sensitive perspective ** ideally the analysis would cover the whole outcome phase

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT/

OUTCOME

Contextual factor 1

Contextual factor 2

Contextual factor 3

20

The interplay of actors

Various parts of the case study highlighted another significant aspect: Dynamics and contextual

factors highly depend on the presence, absence and actions of actors. Arguing for a focus on

participatory processes as multi-faceted social phenomena, the multitude of actors and how they

are positioned in regard to the participatory process is a central factor. Various actors’ belief

systems, interests and constraints for action are influencing the course of participatory

processes. In return, the interplay of actors is influenced by a participatory process and its core

elements such as the participatory space.

The description of the development of the participatory spaces’ borders has exemplified a series

of moments where different actors such as the team of researchers, the staff of the TSO, mayors

and administrative authorities significantly shaped the design and steps to be taken within the

process. As we have shown, researchers and the TSO were in constant negotiation over the

shape of the participatory space, being led by different interests, normative concepts and other

factors. Once local actors started to interact within the participatory process, they exerted

considerable influence on the design of its core elements as well.9

More examples could be provided. In all of those examples, timing as well as inclusion of the

multitude of actors (and the quality of their inclusion) demonstrated to be key. It highlights that

participatory processes are configured powerfully through those emerging dynamics as well as

through initial design.

9 Initiating round tables between the TSO and mayors, influencing the agenda of upcoming events,

deciding which steps in the assessment of the impact of proposed lines needed which intensity of scrutiny.

The interaction of actors with the context factors ** ideally the analysis would cover the whole outcome phase

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT/

OUTCOME

Contextual factor 1

Contextual factor 2

Contextual factor 3

Actor 1

Actor 2

Actor 3

21

Our described examples highlight the fact that the act of planning participatory processes relates

to various questions of power. The significance to integrate the interactions of actors in an

analysis of participatory processes as multi-faceted social phenomena, including a focus on

individual motives and interests, their belief systems and power over the process, is self-evident.

Considering everything we have been arguing, it also seems prudent to understand the act of

planning as just as integral to the phenomenon in question as the participatory process itself.

4. Implications for research and practice

Understanding participatory processes as multi-faceted social phenomena, including a context-

sensitive and process-oriented approach to participation, provides implications for research as

well as practice. Such a perspective raises sensibility for the relevance of the dynamics of public

participation.

Instead of, for example, analyzing the effectiveness and efficacy of methods and formats for a

certain theme or evaluating only a given moderated process from beginning to end, such a

context- and process-oriented approach would take a much broader view on participation: It

takes into account the phase of preparing a participatory process as well as the phase of

impacting actors (and a given community) after a certain process. It also would cautiously look at

the levels of information, motives, interests, idiosyncracies and interactions of all actors involved

and the specific composition of political actors and decision-makers.

The analysis of the role of the participatory space in a participatory process shows that

fundamental aspects such as a) questions of who is entitled to participate and who is excluded

and b) the (geographical) area of influence of the participants' proposals are constantly

negotiated during the participatory process, not only in the input phase as proposed heuristics

for evaluating participation suggest. Such negotiations are altering the criteria that define the

participatory space throughout the entire process. Without applying a process-oriented

perspective the evolution of the participatory spaces would remain opaque. For scientific

evaluations this poses a) the questions on which contextual factors to take into account and b)

how the involved actors are dealing with the given and changing contextual factors. Especially

the last point implies a more actors-centered approach that focuses more generally on the

interactions between the involved actors as well as in more detail on the actual power of certain

players, their belief systems, interests and conditions for acting (such as temporal constraints)

that implicitly and explicitly guide their actions to influence the participatory process (the TSO,

scientists and participants involved).

For the practice of planning, such a perspective draws attention to the setup of planning

procedures and constellations of initiators and the kind of setting most able to cope with the

outlined challenges. The kind of iterative planning approach seems prudent that from the

beginning envisages necessary adaptations of core elements of the process (for example,

participatory spaces) as well as the planning structures and constellations themselves. Such an

22

approach would take into account that planning does not end with the implementation of the

process, the first event of the participatory intervention, but rather accompanies it throughout.

5. References

Abelson, J. and F-P. Gauvin 2006, Assessing the Impacts of Public Participation: Concepts,

Evidence and Policy Implications. Research Report P|06, Public Involvement Network.

Bauriedl, S., Baasch, S., Rau, I., Kropp, C. and A. Knierim 2013, „Konzeptionelle Überlegungen

zum Betriff „Betroffenheit“ in der sozialwissenschaftlichen Partizipationsforschung.

Diskussionspapier, in Knierim, A., S. Baasch, M. Gottschick (eds.) Partizipation und

Klimawandel. Ansprüche, Konzepte und Umsetzung, Klimawandeln in Regionen

zukunftsfähig gestalten, 1 oekom: 121-130.

Behringer, J. 2002, Legitimität durch Verfahren?: Bedingungen semi-konventioneller

Partizipation: eine qualitativ-empirische Studie am Beispiel von Fokusgruppen zum Thema

"Lokaler Klimaschutz. S. Roderer Verlag, Regensburg.

Beierle, T. and J. Cayford 2002, Democracy in Practice, Public Participa-tion in Environmental

Decisions. RFF Press Book, Washington.

Bohner, G. 2003, “Einstellungen”, in Stroebe, W., K. Jonas, M. Hewstone (eds.)

Sozialpsychologie. Eine Einführung, Heidelberg, Berlin, Springer: 266-315.

Iterative planning approach

INPUT

PROCESS

OUTPUT/

OUTCOME /

IMPACT

Adaptation of

the design of

the

participatory

process

Contextual factor 2

Actor 2

23

Delli Carpini, M., F. Lomax Cook and L. R. Jacobs 2004, “Public Deliberation, Discursive

participation, and Citizen Engagement: A Review of the Empirical Literature”, in: Annu.

Review Political Science 7: 315–44.

Dienel, P. C. 1978, Die Planungszelle. Der Bürger als Chance. Verlag für Sozial-wissenschaften,

Wiesbaden

Drazkiewicz, A., Challies, E. and J. Newig 2015, “Public participation and local environmental

planning: Testing factors influencing decision quality and implementation in four case studies

from Germany”, in Land Use Policy 46: 211–222.

Esterling, K. et al 2010, The Difference that Deliberation Makes, Evaluating the »Our Budget,

Our Economy« Public Deliberation, Preliminary analysis America Speaks, Our Budget, Our

Economy. See

http://www.archonfung.net/docs/articles/2010/AmericaSpeaksPrelimAnalysis_finalAF.pdf, last

access on 31.07.215.

Gastil, J., Knobloch, K. and M. Kelly 2007, “Evaluating Deliberative Public Events and Projects”,

in Nabatchi, T., Gastil, J., G.M. Weiksner and M. Leighninger (Eds.) Democracy in Motion.

Evaluating the Practice and Impact of Deliberative Civic Engagement. University Press,

Oxford: 205-230.

Geis, A. 2005, Regieren mit Mediation: Das Beteiligungsverfahren zur zukünftigen Entwicklung

des Frankfurter Flughafens. VS Verlag, Wiesbaden.

Gergen, K. J. 2003, “Action Research and Orders of Democracy”, in Action Research 1/1: 39-56.

Kamlage, J.-H. 2013, „Dialogorientierte Verfahren der Bürgerbeteiligung in lokalen Konfliktfällen.

Wirkungen des Tunneldialogs in Schwäbisch Gmünd“, in pnd online 2/2013, see

http://www.planung-neu-59denken.de/images/stories/pnd/dokumente/2-3_2013/kamlage_jan-

hendrik.pdf, last access on 31.07.2015.

Kamlage, J.-H., Richter, I. und P. Nanz (forthcoming), „An den Grenzen der Bürgerbeteiligung.

Dialogorientierte Bürgerbeteiligung im Netzausbau“, in Ratke J. and Holstenkamp L.

(eds.) Energiewende und Partizipation - Transformationen von Gesellschaft und Technik,

Springer VS.

Mandarano, L. A. 2008, “Evaluating Collaborative Environmental Planning Outputs and

Outcomes: Restoring and Protecting Habitat and the New York-New Jersey Harbor Estuary

Program”, in Journal of planning education and research 27/4: 456-468.

Newig, J. and O. Fritsch 2009, “More Input - Better Output: Does Citizen In-volvement Improve

Environmental Governance?”, in Blühdorn, I. (ed.), In Search of Legitimacy. Policy Making in

Europe and the Challenge of Complexity. Barbara Budrich Publishers, Opladen/Farmington

Hills, 205-224.

Ortweil, W. 2001, Planungszellen - Bürgergutachten »Neuss-Innenstadt 2010« Kommunikation

und Beteiligung bei Verkehrsprojekten: Beschleunigung oder Behinderung?. Fachkongress,

28. und 29. September 2000 in Wuppertal (p. 168-183). DVWG, Bergisch Gladbach.

The participedia project, www.participedia.net.

24

Reason, P. & Bradbury, H. 2008, The Sage handbook of action research. 2. Aufl. London:

SAGE.

Rowe, G. and L. J. Frewer 2004, “Evaluating Public-Participation Exercises: A research

agenda”, in Science, Technology, and Human Values, 29/4: 512-557.

Schicktanz, S. and J. Naumann (eds.) 2003, Bürgerkonferenz: Streitfall Gendiagnostik: ein

Modellprojekt der Bürgerbeteiligung am bioethischen Diskurs. Opladen, Leske und Budrich.

Schneider, S. 2011, Bürgerhaushalt Oldenburg. Evaluationsbericht, Dokumentation, see

http://www.oldenburg.de/fileadmin/oldenburg/Benutzer/PDF/20/Buergerhaushalt/2010_Evalu

ationsbericht.pdf, last access: on 31.07.2015

ÜNB (2013): Netzentwicklungsplan Strom 2013. Zweiter Entwurf der Übertragungsnetzbetreiber.

Strele, M.K. 2012, BürgerInnen-Räte in Österreich, Gemeinsames Forschungsprojekt des

Lebensministeriums und des Büros für Zukunftsfragen, see

http://www.vorarlberg.at/pdf/endberichtforschungsproje.pdf, last access on 31.07.2015.

Taubert, N., Krohn, W. and T. Knobloch 2011, Evaluierung des Kölner Bürgerhaushalts. Kassel

University Press, Kassel. Telekommunikation und Gesellschaft 1999, Heidelberg, p, 51-61.

Warburton, D., Rainbow, E. and R. Wilson 2006, Making a Difference: A guide to evaluating

public participation in central government, see http://www.involve.org.uk/evaluation-guide/

2006, last access: 31.07.2015.

Weidner, H. and H.-J. Fietkau 1995, „Umweltmediation. Erste Ergebnisse aus der

Begleitforschung zum Mediationsverfahren im Kreis Neuss“, in Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik

und Umweltrecht 18: 451-480.