Participation can increase acceptance of the mobility transition. However, in order to be effective, planning and administration must also want and implement good participation.
The mobility transition brings with it profound changes and is closely linked to our everyday lives. The debates surrounding it are emotional, and various reservations, fears, and desires clash.
There are numerous visions for a better coexistence on streets and squares, for example, through less car traffic and more space for climate-friendly means of transport, green spaces, and places to stay. However, many people are concerned about being told how to get around or being pressured to “give up” their own car.
The fact is, progress is slow. Compared to other – equally challenging – areas of action such as the energy transition, the building stock, or waste management, the mobility sector is the only area where CO2 emissions have continued to rise since 1990, despite all the efficiency gains and innovations.
Therefore, the mobility transition is probably the most difficult transformation process towards sustainability.
How can change succeed?
The transformation can only succeed with the greatest possible social consensus – citizen participation and local exchange must become the foundation of the mobility transition. Precisely because the mobility transition can only be implemented with and through the people, participation during the transformation processes is a key prerequisite – not a possible add-on option.
The municipal level faces particular challenges in the mobility transition. It is the cities and municipalities, districts, and regions that must develop a viable path to new mobility and implement it step by step – together with their citizens. Therefore, there is now a wide range of citizen participation in shaping concepts, plans, and projects. This also repeatedly leads to moments of frustration and disappointed expectations – on all sides.
What should a formative citizen participation look like that does not confirm traditional reservations, but rather initiates a constructive process? A process that ensures that
- … not “only” the usual suspects are heard?
- … planning processes are not made even longer and more complicated?
- … added value is created and administrative resources are not placed under greater strain?
- … no false expectations are raised?
- … fronts do not harden?
Central to this is a very well-designed process that focuses on and answers the most important, so-called W-questions.
- WHY should we be involved?
- WHO should be reached?
- WHEN should participation take place?
- WHAT function should citizen participation fulfill?
- HOW should we participate?
- Who should accompany the participation process?
- WHAT happens with the results?
If these questions are answered in depth, the necessary process clarity and legitimacy are created for all involved.
Citizen participation, understood and practiced in this way, represents a new way of working for planning and administration. It’s not just about internal consultation, decision-making, announcing the results, and ultimately defending them externally. Instead, the goal is early, cooperative exchange in which ideas and solutions are developed through dialogue. This leads to results that expand the intersection of interests and thus enable broader consensus.
This requires clear rules and a neutral person to ensure that they are adhered to.
What is particularly important? Our experience from many participation processes has repeatedly shown us the crucial factors that we pay particular attention to in our process design. It requires:
- … a clear understanding and commitment to the investment object.
- …early involvement. The key is to have the courage to leave gaps. Not all questions need to be answered in advance. Otherwise, the involvement would no longer provide any added value.
- … openness to results within the scope of the investment object.
- … the representation of all interests.
- … a heterogeneous composition (with the help of multipliers it is possible to significantly expand the circle of people who feel addressed).
- … Spaces, technology and physical well-being contribute decisively to success.
- …realistic expectations. A comprehensive consensus will rarely be possible. But in any case, the process will increase the overlap between the various interests and the mutual understanding of the positions and underlying concerns.
- …the understanding that public participation in no way replaces sectoral planning. Rather, sectoral planning must be more transparent, consider alternatives, and make them visible. Thus, it is in greater demand, not less.
- … clarity about what happens with the participation results and how they impact the political process.
If these points are taken into account, political decisions and priorities can be based on a broader experience and knowledge base. Furthermore, processes and compromises become more transparent – even if effective participation can never avoid all conflicts or solve all challenges. Expert planners benefit from citizens’ everyday experiences and the public resolution of conflicting objectives. Citizens gain a deeper understanding of the necessity of transformation, the regulatory framework, and the administrative opportunities that structure the implementation of the mobility transition.
With well-executed participation, we increase mutual understanding: the basis for a successful and sustainable mobility transition.
