Geoparticipatory Spatial Tools (Local and Urban Governance) 3031055462, 9783031055461

Citation preview

---

Local and Urban Governance

Jiří Pánek   Editor

Geoparticipatory Spatial Tools

Local and Urban Governance Series Editor Carlos Nunes Silva, Institute of Geography and Spatial Planning University of Lisbon Lisbon, Portugal

This series contains research studies with policy relevance in the field of sub-­ national territorial governance, at the micro, local and regional levels, as well as on its connections with national and supranational tiers. The series is multidisciplinary and brings together innovative research from different areas within the Social Sciences and Humanities. The series is open for theoretical, methodological and empirical ground breaking contributions. Books included in this series explore the new modes of territorial governance, new perspectives and new research methodologies. The aim is to present advances in Governance Studies to scholars and researchers in universities and research organizations, and to policy makers worldwide. The series includes monographs, edited volumes and textbooks. Book proposals and final manuscripts are peer-reviewed. The areas covered in the series include but are not limited to the following subjects: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Local and regional government Urban and metropolitan governance Multi-level territorial governance Post-colonial local governance Municipal merger reforms Inter-municipal cooperation Decentralized cooperation Governance of spatial planning Strategic spatial planning Citizen participation in local policies Local governance, spatial justice and the right to the city Local public services Local economic development policies Entrepreneurialism and municipal public enterprises Local government finance Local government and sustainable development Anthropocene and green local governance Climate change and local governance Smart local governance

The series is intended for geographers, planners, political scientists, sociologists, lawyers, historians, urban anthropologists and economists.

Jiří Pánek Editor

Geoparticipatory Spatial Tools

Editor Jiří Pánek Department of Development and Environmental Studies Palacky University Olomouc Olomouc, Czech Republic

ISSN 2524-5449     ISSN 2524-5457 (electronic) Local and Urban Governance ISBN 978-3-031-05546-1    ISBN 978-3-031-05547-8 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05547-8 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

“Space: the final frontier” is the famous line from the Star Trek franchise. In the sci-fi world, “space” means the universe, but from the perspective of this book, “space” is related to geographical space, spatial data, and geoparticipation/e-­participation. Unlike the heroes of the starship Enterprise, we were not on a 5-year mission to “...explore strange new worlds, seek out new life and new civilizations.” We were on a 3-year project to “analyze the state-of-the-art in the use of geoparticipatory tools for citizen participation in community decision-making processes, and to recommend an effective implementation of the geoparticipatory tools available.” Similar to the starship Enterprise, where the crew came from different worlds, we also came from different scientific worlds – geography, cartography, GIScience, political science, and community development. Sometimes it was hard to understand each other, and because we did not have a universal translator, as they do on board the Enterprise, we had to learn from each other about the terms we were using and their meanings across our various disciplines. At the beginning of our project, we set the goals/project objectives to boldly go where no one has gone before and to find the answer to the question, “What are the key factors affecting the successful implementation of public participation spatial systems in participatory planning?” Our universe was the Czech Republic and we analyzed the space on a very fine level – the municipal level (n = 6,258), and we can state that this has not been done before. E-participation analyses are usually done on a country-wide level. Sometimes, we can find rankings for larger cities, or regions, but our aim was to analyze every single village in the Czech Republic. It is fair to say it took us over 18 months just to collect the data, and the Covid-19 pandemic did not really help the process. On the other hand, the landscape of geoparticipation has changed rapidly during the pandemic, and municipalities have realized that e-­participation is the future, and they have adjusted their participation strategies accordingly. The three largest providers of mobile applications for direct communication between municipalities and citizens in the Czech Republic (MobilníRozhlas. cz, HlaseniRozhlasu.cz and V Obraze) reported a cumulative 294% increase in 2020 compared to 2019 in the number of municipalities using their services. This gives a strong indication as to how serious and necessary online communication, v

vi

Preface

and the possibility of online participation, has become for the municipalities due to the Covid-19 pandemic. This book will allow you to explore the relationship between geoparticipation and democratic theory. It will also explain how data and geospatial technologies play an important role in urban governance. Furthermore, you will have the opportunity to discover how improving local democracy works, and what the determinants of civic participation are. We finish the book with case studies from the perspectives of various co-authors on how geoparticipation can look, so you will have a picture of participatory budgeting in the Czech Republic or how using computer games (Cities: Skylines) can be utilized in participatory urban planning. I would also like to acknowledge and thank the Czech Science Foundation (GAČR) for their financial support as part of the grant project no. 19-14506S  – Geoparticipatory spatial tools in the decision making processes of local administrations. Without this support, the book, our research, and all we have learned would not exist. We hope that our book will inspire you to look at the measurement of geoparticipation from a different perspective, and we are looking forward to hearing your feedback. Enjoy your reading!   Department of Development and Environmental Studies  Jiří Pánek Palacky University Olomouc Olomouc, Czech Republic

Contents

1

Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������    1 Jiří Pánek

2

Geoparticipation and Democratic Theory��������������������������������������������    9 Jakub Bakule

3

Geospatial Technologies for Geoparticipation��������������������������������������   37 Jaroslav Burian, Jiří Pánek, and Vít Pászto

4

 Open Data and Its Role in Geoparticipation����������������������������������������   59 Jaroslav Burian and Barbora Kočvarová

5

Improving Local Democracy Works: Determinants of Participatory Local Governments�����������������������������   87 Jakub Lysek

6

 Participatory Budgeting in the Czech Republic������������������������������������  111 Jiří Chovaneček

7

 GeoParticipatory Tools in Action: Case Study Jeseník, Czech Republic����������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  127 David Žichovský, Jiří Pánek, and Jiří Chovaneček

8

 The Application of City-Building Games in Spatial Planning ������������  147 Jan Piňos and Jaroslav Burian

Index������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������  187

vii

Contributors

Jakub  Bakule  Department of Politics and European Studies, Faculty of Arts, Palacky University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic Jaroslav  Burian  Department of Geoinformatics, Faculty of Science, Palacky University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic Jiří Chovaneček  Department of Development and Environmatal Studies, Faculty of Science, Palacky University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic Barbora Kočvarová  Department of Geoinformatics, Faculty of Science, Palacky University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic Jakub  Lysek  Department of Politics and European Studies, Faculty of Arts, Palacky University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic Jiří  Pánek  Department of Development and Environmatal Studies, Faculty of Science, Palacky University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic Vít Pászto  Department of Geoinformatics, Faculty of Science, Palacky University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic Jan Piňos  Department of Geoinformatics, Faculty of Science, Palacky University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic David Žichovský  Department of Development and Environmatal Studies, Faculty of Science, Palacky University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic

ix

Chapter 1

Introduction Jiří Pánek

Abstract  The introductory chapter opens the book with short description of the chapters. Furthermore, it presents the concepts of mental maps, participation and geoparticipation within the topic of local and urban planning and governance. The chapter also introduces the possibilities of measuring (e-)participation on the international level via the UN DESA E-Participation Index. It links the geoparticipation not only to democratic governance and public participation but also to the technological realm of smart cities and sustainability/green urbanism. Keywords  Mental maps · Participation · Geoparticipation · E-participation Our book is titled GeoParticipatory Spatial Tools in the Decision-Making Processes of Local Governance in the Czech Republic, and it is one of the main outcomes of our 3-year research project, Geoparticipatory Spatial Tools in the Decision-Making Processes of Local Administrations, funded by the Czech Science Foundation (GAČR). Our main premise during the project was that ever since behavioural geographers started working with place perception, and Kevin Lynch (1960) and Gould and White (1974) used mental maps to explore city visualisation and spatial preferences, participation has become an integral part of geographic research. Later, when Robert Chambers (1994) and others introduced maps into participatory rural appraisal, participatory GIS and public participation, GIS were also recognised by quantitative geographers as research methods and visualisation tools. Furthermore, with the democratisation of cartography and GIS, people have started using maps and GIS in more participatory ways than ever before. The general public became familiar with maps a long time ago, but it was only recently that non-cartographers started creating publicly available maps. Creating community maps has an empowering effect on the participating members of the community, because it gives people J. Pánek (*) Department of Development and Environmatal Studies, Faculty of Science, Palacky University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Pánek (ed.), Geoparticipatory Spatial Tools, Local and Urban Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05547-8_1

1

2

J. Pánek

the opportunity to think spatially about their environment. The process of creating a community map triggers feelings of being literally put on the map, belonging to a community and having ownership of the empowering process. The sense of ownership sparks empowerment and actuates the momentum for sustainable development – driven and run by the community – as it comes from within the community itself. This notion of digital participation combined with the era of smartphones and wireless Internet has allowed democratic innovations to penetrate deeper into our daily lives and into the ways we experience our interactions and communication with local governments. The concepts of perception (Lynch 1960) and preference (Gould and White 1974) of space are inextricably linked to mental maps, and as such, they also enter the field of participatory planning of public space. Fifty years ago, the groundbreaking article by California social worker Sherry Arnstein, A Ladder of Citizen Participation (Arnstein 1969), was published, in which she defined eight stages of citizen participation (these stages will be mentioned again in several places in this book). The issue of citizen participation in the creation of public space has also been emphasised in the Czech Republic since the regime change in 1989 (Čermák and Vobecká 2011). With the advent of modern technologies, mobile Internet, social networks and Web 2.0, concepts such as e-participation (UNDESA 2018) and geoparticipation (Pánek et  al. 2014) have appeared in our scientific landscape. These concepts, as cornerstones of participatory mapping, are the main focus of this book. We also look at terms such as open data and smart cities and highlight examples of how participatory budgeting or gamification can help increase public participation in local/urban governance. One of the first signs of participation in the study of urban/public space can be traced back to Kevin Lynch’s (1960) publication The Image of the City, but the real growth of participatory approaches in mapping can only be identified with the emergence of concepts such as participatory GIS (PGIS) in the late 1990s (Abbot et al. 1998; Casey and Pederson 2002; Dunn 2007), public participation GIS (PPGIS) at the turn of the millennium (Schlossberg and Shuford 2005; Obermeyer 1998) or volunteered geographic information (VGI) at the beginning of the twenty-first century (Goodchild 2007; Tulloch 2008). With the advent of new technologies, there have also been changes in digital cartography which, at the beginning of the new millennium, is no longer considered the science of princes (Harley 1988), and the information cult (Taylor 1990) has been gradually eroded by groups calling themselves neo-cartographers, geohackers, DIY scientists or simply active citizens. Over time, technology gained an increasingly important role in the processes of (participatory) planning and civic/public participation. Although the original ladder of participation, as introduced by Sherry Arnstein 50 years ago, has caught on in many other sectors, many academics have sought to create new, updated ladders that better take into account new technologies (Connor 1988; Roger 1992; Rocha 1997; Treseder and Smith 1997; Shier 2001; Bruns 2003; Wong et  al. 2010; Case and Zeglen 2018). However, these attempts have not yet met with the enormous success of the ladder created in 1969. Some scholars argued that two-dimensional and linear models, such as ladders or spectrums, do not depict reality well, and they suggested

1 Introduction

3

more complex, three-dimensional models (cubes) in order to describe the usage of various participatory methods (Fung 2006; Poplin et al. 2013; Thoneick 2021). The advantage of cubes is that they integrate three different ladders or spectrums into one framework. The original Democracy Cube created by Fung (2006) offered three axes: participants’ selection methods (exclusivity), modes of communication and decision (intensity) and extent of authority and power (authoritativeness). The space created by these three dimensions enabled researchers to locate various forms of citizen participation and their connections and relationships. Thoneick (2021) amended Fung’s cube by aligning the axes differently, from the lowest intensity of the feature to the highest, and by renaming it Participation Cube. This newer version allows the three-dimensional space created within the cube to grow as more characteristics are completed. The third three-dimensional model is the Participatory Cube developed by Poplin et al. (2013), where the three axes are interactive communication, access to space of participation and decision (power). Poplin’s cube is mainly focused on online participatory platforms as tools of digital democracy, and five degrees of popular participation via the Internet, as described by (Gomes 2008, 2011). The results of individual participatory mapping and the use of (geo)participatory tools often reflect the different social and cultural conditions of different communities, as well as their different understandings of space and spatial relationships (Corbett and Rambaldi 2009). Since Robert Chambers (2003, 2006) began to actively promote the “they can do it” argument in participatory mapping, the activities of local groups have gradually started to move higher and higher up the ladder of participation, thereby also strengthening the role of citizens in the process. With the advent of digital technologies, different variations and definitions of digital participation or e-participation are also increasingly emerging. According to UN DESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs 2013), e-participation is defined as the process of engaging citizens in governance and decision-making using information technology tools to make these processes participatory and inclusive and the role of citizens consultative. E-participation can be measured, among other things, at the national level by the E-Participation Index (EPI), which consists of three components: 1. E-information – availability of online information 2. E-consultation – the possibility for citizens to consult online 3. E-decision-making  – direct involvement of citizens in the online decision-­ making process. The EPI is updated every 2 years, and in the latest assessment (UNDESA 2020), the Czech Republic was ranked 65th out of 193 countries and was lower than the neighbouring countries of Germany (57th place) and Austria (6th place), but higher than Slovakia (70th place). The top three countries are Estonia, the USA and South Korea. Geoparticipation was defined by the editor of this book as “the use of spatial tools in engaging citizens in decision-making processes that affect them. Most often this involves making decisions about a space that is public, but it can also involve sharing information or feelings about the environment in which they live” (Pánek

4

J. Pánek

et al. 2014, p. 62). Alternatively, Kar et al. (2016) warned that “new forms of geoparticipation can evoke a type of social Darwinism that prioritises participants who can easily use the app. In this way, the geoweb acts as a disruptive transformation of participation, without learning the critical lessons of P/PGIS”. Zhang (2018) defines geoparticipation as “geo-enabled practices related to public participation”, and he explored (2019) the usage and definitions of geoparticipation even further in his analyses of the 25 most cited articles. In his work, Zhang (2019) goes into greater detail with his definition of geoparticipation and proposes three levels of division: • Consultative geoparticipation  – PPGIS, PGIS, facilitated VGI (f-VGI), geo-­ questionnaire, emotional maps and neogeographic mapping • Transactional geoparticipation – civic issue tracker, participatory open data and OpenStreetMap • Passive geoparticipation – social sensing, ambient VGI and passive VGI In line with their understanding in Central European research, Olszewski et al. (2017) offer a slightly different definition in the context of urban planning and regeneration. They use the concept of social participation to enable residents’ views to be taken into account when developing urban regeneration plans or planning urban development. This is also highlighted by Olszewski and Turek (2018), who argue that social geoparticipation enables the development of urban development plans. Gnat et al. (2016) elaborate on social geoparticipation and argue that urban areas that want to become smart cities must incorporate appropriate geo-­information technologies that enable social (geo)participation. However, this requires not only the use of advanced high-tech tools but also their widespread adoption by local communities. This links geoparticipation not only to democratic governance and public participation but also to the technological realm of smart cities and sustainability/green urbanism. Although there is not yet a universally accepted definition of geoparticipation, the author of this introduction understands geoparticipation to be an umbrella term for tools (digital and analogue) and practices that enable discussions and decisions about public space using spatial tools (often maps). In addition to Sherry Arnstein’s ladder of participation, in this book, the author also refers to the spectrum of public participation (SPP), defined by the International Association for Public Participation (2018) in five stages describing the role of the public in any participatory process (Fig. 1.1). Although the different steps of the ladder and spectrum cannot be fully compared and linked, there are some parallels between them, which are schematically represented in Fig. 1.1 (Babelon et al. 2021). This book is divided into nine chapters, including this introduction. As our team consists of researchers from three varied departments, Department of Development and Environmental Studies, Department of Geoinformatics and Department of Politics and European Studies, we look at the geoparticipatory spatial tools in the decision-making processes of local governance from various perspectives. In Chap. 2, you will find an approach from political science describing geoparticipation as a new democratic innovation tied mostly to the digital era, yet with roots in citizens’ participation in spatial/urban planning dating back to the 1940s. On the other hand,

1 Introduction

5

Fig. 1.1  Spectrum of public participation vs. the ladder of participation

Chaps. 3 and 4 present the geospatial technologies used in relation to geoparticipation (Chap. 3) and (open)data in their roles in geoparticipation (Chap. 4). Having covered theory, software and data, we move towards finding how improving local democracy works and how we can determine civic participation in urban governance – i.e. towards measuring geoparticipation. The following three chapters focus on practical examples of geoparticipatory tools/projects/approaches in the Czech Republic: participatory budgeting (Chap. 6), emotional maps (Chap. 7) and the application of city-building games in spatial planning – case study Olomouc (Chap. 8). The last chapter concludes with research remarks and suggestions for future research. The smart city concept and the use of GIS have been historically criticised as colonial, solutionist and technocratist (Kitchin and Dodge 2017; Krivý 2016; Pickles 1995; Wiig 2015), but recent conceptualisations of the smart city, as also stated above, put more emphasis on participation and human capital and not on algorithmic decision-making (Allam and Newman 2018; Caragliu et al. 2013). In the area of public participation, city agencies increasingly harness the potentialities of geoparticipation to collect the views and local spatial knowledge of citizens in order to improve the quality and legitimacy of planning processes and outcomes (Babelon et al. 2021). International and regional policies often emphasise the importance of multi-stakeholder inclusion in urban planning processes (Bruno 2015;

6

J. Pánek

European Commission 2016). There are promising efforts to develop new forms of engagement, participation and collaboration to shape public services (OECD 2014) based on digital technologies, such as visualisation, gamification, cloud computing, social media and mobile technologies (Ben-Attar and Campbell 2015; Magnussen and Elming 2015; Westerberg and von Heland 2015). This book provides an introduction and a few examples how geoparticipation can be defined and practically used. We hope that this will add another little piece to the vast mosaic of geoparticipation in the scholarship on local/urban governance.

References Abbot J, Chambers R, Dunn CE, Harris TM, Merode E de, Porter G, Townsend J, Weiner D (1998) Participatory GIS opportunity or oxymoron. PLA Notes 33:27–33 Allam Z, Newman P (2018) Redefining the smart city: culture, metabolism and governance. Smart Cities 1(1):4–25. https://doi.org/10.3390/SMARTCITIES1010002 Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plann 35(4):216–224. https://doi. org/10.1080/01944366908977225 Babelon I, Pánek J, Falco E, Kleinhans R, Charlton J (2021) Between consultation and collaboration: self-reported objectives for 25 web-based geoparticipation projects in urban planning. ISPRS Int J Geo Inf 10(11):783. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi10110783 Ben-Attar D, Campbell T (2015) ICT, urban governance & youth. www.unhabitat.org/ youthHSNumber:HS/011/15E Bruno E (2015) Co-deciding with citizens: towards digital democracy at EU level Bruns B (2003) Water tenure reform: developing an extended ladder of participation. http://hdl. handle.net/10535/453 Caragliu A, del Bo C, Nijkamp P (2013) Smart cities in Europe. In: Smart cities. Routledge, pp 185–207. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203076224-­20 Case RA, Zeglen L (2018) Exploring the ebbs and flows of community engagement: the pyramid of engagement and water activism in two Canadian communities. J Community Pract 26(2):184–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2018.1449044 Casey L, Pederson T (2002) Mapping Philadelphia’s neighbourhoods. In: Craig WJ, Harris TM, Weiner D (eds) Community participation and geographic information systems. Taylor & Francis, pp 65–77 Čermák D, Vobecká J (2011) Spolupráce, partnerství a participace v místní veřejné správě : význam, praxe, příslib. Sociologické nakladatelství (SLON) Chambers R (1994) The origins and practice of participatory rural appraisal. World Dev 22(7):953–969. https://doi.org/10.1016/0305-­750X(94)90141-­4 Chambers R (2003) Whose reality counts? Putting the first last. ITDG Publication Chambers R (2006) Participatory mapping and geographic information systems: whose map? Who is empowered and who disempowered? Who gains and who loses? Electron J Inf Syst Dev Ctries 25(2):1–11 European Commission (2016) EU eGovernment Action Plan 2016–2020. https://eur-­lex.europa. eu/legal-­content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52016DC0179 Connor DM (1988) A new ladder of citizen participation. Natl Civ Rev 77(3):249–257. https://doi. org/10.1002/ncr.4100770309 Corbett J, Rambaldi G (2009) Geographic information technologies, local knowledge, and change. In: Elwood S, Cope M (eds) Qualitative GIS. SAGE, pp 75–93 Dunn CE (2007) Participatory GIS a people’s GIS? Prog Hum Geogr 31(5):616–637. https://doi. org/10.1177/0309132507081493

1 Introduction

7

Fung A (2006) Varieties of participation in complex governance. Public Adm Rev 66(s1):66–75. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-­6210.2006.00667.x Gnat M, Leszek K, Olszewski R (2016) The use of geoinformation technology, augmented reality and gamification in the urban modeling process. In: Lecture nmotes in computer science (including subseries lecture notes in artificial intelligence and lecture notes in bioinformatics), vol 9787, pp 484–496. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­42108-­7_37 Gomes W (2008) Internet e participação política em sociedades democráticas. Revista FAMECOS 12(27):58. https://doi.org/10.15448/1980-­3729.2005.27.3323 Gomes W (2011) A democracia digital e o problema da participação civil na decisão política. Fronteiras – Estudos Midiáticos 7(3):214–222. http://revistas.unisinos.br/index.php/fronteiras/ article/view/6394 Goodchild MF (2007) Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal:1–15 Gould P, White R (1974) Mental maps. Pelican Books Harley JB (1988) Maps, knowledge, and power. In: Cosgrove D, Daniels S (eds) The iconography of landscape. University of Cambridge, pp 277–312 International Association for Public Participation (2018) IAP2 spectrum of public participation. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.iap2.org/resource/resmgr/pillars/Spectrum_8.5x11_Print.pdf Kar B, Sieber R, Haklay M, Ghose R (2016) Public participation GIS and participatory GIS in the era of GeoWeb. Cartogr J 53(4):296–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/00087041.2016.1256963 Kitchin R, Dodge M (2017) The (in)security of smart cities: vulnerabilities, risks, mitigation, and prevention. J Urban Technol 26(2):47–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2017.1408002 Krivý M (2016) Towards a critique of cybernetic urbanism: the smart city and the society of control. Plan Theory 17(1):8–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095216645631 Lynch K (1960) The image of the city, vol 1. MIT Press Magnussen R, Elming AL (2015) Cities at play: children’s redesign of deprived neighbourhoods in minecraft. In: European conference on games based learning, pp  331–337. https://www. proquest.com/docview/1728409682?pq-­origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true Obermeyer N (1998) PPGIS: the evolution of public participation GIS.  Cartogr Geogr Inf Sci 25:65–66. http://dusk.geo.orst.edu/ucgis/web/oregon/ppgis.pdf OECD (2014) Engaging with the public 12 lessons from DAC peer reviews and the network of DAC development communicators. oecd.org/dac/peer-­reviews/12%20Lessons%20Engaging%20 with%20the%20public.pdf Olszewski R, Turek A (2018) Using fuzzy Geoparticipation methods to optimize the spatial development process in a smart city. In: 2018 IEEE 4th international conference on Collaboration and Internet Computing (CIC), pp 430–437. https://doi.org/10.1109/CIC.2018.00065 Olszewski R, Trojanowska H, Turek A, Kietlinska B (2017) Solving smart city revitalisation problems with geoparticipation process and fuzzy methods. In: ICNC-FSKD 2017  – 13th international conference on natural computation, fuzzy systems and knowledge discovery, pp 2497–2503. https://doi.org/10.1109/FSKD.2017.8393168 Pánek J, Hrubeš M, Kubásek M, Valůch J, Zahumenská V (2014) GeoParticipace – jak používat prostorové nástroje v rozhodování o lokalitách ve kterých žijeme? Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci Pickles J (1995) Ground truth: the social implications of geographic information systems, 1st edn. The Guilford Press Poplin A, Pereira GC, Rocha MCF (2013) The participatory cube: a framework for analysis of online participation platforms. Lect Notes Geoinf Cartogr 199649:395–414. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­642-­37533-­0_23 Rocha EM (1997) A ladder of empowerment. J Plan Educ Res 17(1):31–44. https://doi.org/10.117 7/0739456X9701700104 Roger H (1992) Children’s participation: from tokenism to citizenship. Unicef International Child Development Centre, Florence Schlossberg M, Shuford E (2005) Delineating “public” and “participation” in PPGIS.  Urisa J 16(2):15–26

8

J. Pánek

Shier H (2001) Pathways to participation: openings, opportunities and obligations. Child Soc 15(2):107–117. https://doi.org/10.1002/chi.617 Taylor P (1990) Editorial comment: GKS. Polit Geogr Q 9(3):211–212 Thoneick R (2021) Integrating online and onsite participation in urban planning: assessment of a digital participation system. Int J E-Plan Res 10(1):1–20. https://doi.org/10.4018/ IJEPR.2021010101 Treseder P, Smith PG (1997) Empowering children & young people: training manual. Save the Children London Tulloch DL (2008) Is VGI participation? From vernal pools to video games. GeoJournal 72(3–4):161–171. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-­008-­9185-­1 UNDESA (2018) United Nations E-Government Survey 2018. https://publicadministration. un.org/egovkb/Portals/egovkb/Documents/un/2018-­S urvey/E-­G overnmentSurvey2018_ FINALforweb.pdf UNDESA (2020) United Nations E-Government Survey 2020. https://publicadministration.un.org/ egovkb/en-us/Reports/UN-E-Government-Survey-2020 United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2013) Developing capacity for e-Participation: engaging citizens in development policy and decision-making processes through Information Communication Technologies (ICTs). http://www.slideshare.net/undesa/ realizing-­the-­future-­we-­want-­for-­all Westerberg P, von Heland F (2015) Using minecraft for youth participation in urban design and governance Wiig A (2015) The empty rhetoric of the smart city: from digital inclusion to economic promotion in Philadelphia. Urban Geogr 37(4):535–553. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638. 2015.1065686 Wong NT, Zimmerman MA, Parker EA (2010) A typology of youth participation and empowerment for child and adolescent health promotion. Am J Community Psychol 46(1–2):100–114. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-­010-­9330-­0 Zhang S (2018) Public participation in the Geoweb era: geosocial media use in local government Zhang S (2019) Public participation in the Geoweb era: defining a typology for geo-participation in local governments. Cities 85:38–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CITIES.2018.12.004

Chapter 2

Geoparticipation and Democratic Theory Jakub Bakule

Abstract  The chapter provides a wide-ranging review of the relationship between democracy and non-electoral participation. Geoparticipation specifically is one the best examples of such activities that aim on influencing politics in between the elections. For almost a century, political theorists have had a mixed view on the role of non-electoral participation in the theory of democracy. There are some who advocate for new tools of citizens’ engagement, and there are also others who are rather sceptical about the benefits of non-electoral participation. The main goal of this chapter is to position Geoparticipation within a broader framework of the theory of democracy. Understanding the role of Geoparticipation within contemporary democracy is the first step in the analysis as it shapes the research agenda itself. Keywords  Democracy · Non-electoral participation · Geoparticipation Geoparticipation represents a new democratic innovation tied mostly to the digital era, yet with roots in citizens’ participation in spatial planning dating back to the 1940s. It provides a great example of non-electoral participation (NEP), which has become a key distinguishing characteristic among various theories of democracy. The debate about the role of NEP started in the first half of the twentieth century, and it is not over yet. Theories built between 1940 and 1970 still live on in various forms. A broader theoretical background remains to be crucial. It sets the research agenda and shapes expectations and the interpretation of results. Without a unified theory, authors often come up with preconceived ideas of the effects of NEP that influence the interpretations ex ante. This chapter sets Geoparticipation within the broader theory of democracy. A proper understanding of the relationship between democracy and Geoparticipation is the first steppingstone for the analysis. With it we are able to understand the role J. Bakule (*) Department of Politics and European Studies, Faculty of Arts, Palacky University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Pánek (ed.), Geoparticipatory Spatial Tools, Local and Urban Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05547-8_2

9

10

J. Bakule

of Geoparticipation in modern democracy, the benefits Geoparticipation provides and the perils it faces. The text summarises the core theory and the expectations about participation held by two competing concepts: the empirical theory of democracy and the more participation-based theory of a strong democracy. The chapter describes the evolution of thinking regarding the role of participation in democratic theory. It analyses the historical origins of the division of theories that still have not converged into one theory. The totalitarian experience of the 1930s and 1940s gave birth to the minimalist or Schumpeterian theory of democracy, followed by the empirical theory of democracy. Both view democracy as a set of rules which allow them to democratically select and control leaders and leave a little room for NEP. Accountability and representativeness are the key outputs of the democratic system. The social revolution of the 1960s and 1970s represented a turn towards the quality of democracy and new tools for citizen engagement. The discussion among students in cafés and university clubs was matched by the academic disputation and resulted in a critique of the empirical theory of democracy.1 The theory of strong democracy  stressed the responsiveness of a government as the third key output. The quarrel about the effects of NEP remains unresolved. As a result, the NEP is now the key differentiating factor among theories of democracy (Teorell 2006). This chapter utilises the unique characteristic of Geoparticipation to demonstrate the main differences between two main schools of thought. They vary mainly in the reasoning if and why the NEP is needed (see Dahl 1956, 1971; Habermas 1987; Pateman 1970, 2012). Some consider it as a possible threat to the stability of the democratic system and focus solely on the electoral process (Dahl 1956; Sartori 1987; Huntington 1975). Others rather see it as an opportunity for a better democracy (Arnstein 1969; Pateman 1970; MacPherson 1977; Barber 1984). Nevertheless, for both, the inequality in political participation has always been of concern, and it is becoming ever more important in the new digital age (Schlozman et al. 2012). The specific nature of the Geoparticipation makes it an ideal example of NEP uniquely suited for the demonstration of the main differences between the two main schools of thought. Geoparticipation adheres to the formal definition of NEP:

 The debate is best summarised in the 1966 second issue of the American Political Science Review between R.A. Dahl (1966) and Walker (1966) who criticised Dahl’s approach  originally termed as the elitist theory of democracy. He admitted the term elitist carries negative and anti-democratic connotations and Dahl (1966) is correct in saying that the elitists do not represent a coherent school of thought. Still, his critique of the prescriptive implication of these theories remained unchanged. Throughout the rest of the text, we also divide the competing notions of democracy into two, notably incoherent, schools of thought, that is the empirical theory and the participatory theory. The advantage of this grouping is that it allows for the generalisation of similar patterns while contrasting these views with the other approach. Furthermore, most of the contemporary empirical literature on participation also turns to the more general and abstract theory. It takes this generalisation as a starting point for exploring more specific topics. The pieces of the underlying theory are often chosen ad hoc without resolving the fundamental division on the role of participation in contemporary representative democracy. 1

2  Geoparticipation and Democratic Theory

11

“Those legal activities by private citizens that are more or less directly aimed at influencing the selection of governmental personnel and/or the actions they take” (Verba et al. 1978: 46). Yet, Geoparticipation is not directly tied to the voting process, such as campaigning, donating money, etc. It is not too activist-like, for example participation in demonstrations, and it is not too cut off from the political arena, like other examples of the ever-expanding concept of NEP, such as boycotting of certain products or guerrilla gardening. Lastly, its growing popularity is driven by the digital age, and thus, it represents an ideal opportunity to explore the growing concern about the inequality in modern-day NEP.

2.1 The Big Question: How Much Participation? The idea of democracy is more than two thousand years old. No democratic theory was therefore created in a vacuum since ancient Greece. They have all borrowed from their predecessors or directly challenged them. On the other hand, the proliferation and sheer amount of political participation observed in the last century are unprecedented. Geoparticipation represents well the new tools for citizens’ engagement in the digital era. The classical theorists of democracy surely could not have anticipated the complexity of modern democratic society, the communicational change brought by the internet and the variety of popular involvement in daily politics. As a result, “[T]here is little consensus on how much participation, and in which forms, is beneficial for democracy. There is even less agreement on how much participation actually occurs today” (Dalton 2008: 22–23). In general, political theorists agree that democracy is the government of the people, by the people and for the people. However, there is disagreement on the meaning of the “by the people” part, especially when it comes to the practical aspects of democracy, based on empirical experience. There is a clear gap between the preference for electoral participation and for NEP. While voting is universally accepted as a cornerstone of modern democracy, there is a striking disagreement on the effects of NEP (see Schumpeter 1943/2013; Dahl 1956; Almond and Verba 1963; Sartori 1987; cf. Arnstein 1969; Pateman 1970; Barber 1984; Putnam 1993, 2000; Fishkin and Luskin 2005). The quarrel is based on a different understanding of political participation. Teorell (2006) identifies three different approaches: participation as influencing attempts, participation as political discussion, and participation as direct decision-­ making. Each of these types is linked to a separate theory of democracy with diverging normative assumptions. Methodological approaches also vary. Participation as influencing attempts corresponds to the pluralism within the empirical theory of democracy, which above all stresses the role of representation. Therefore, the main goal is representativeness and not the highest amount of participation as possible. Participation as political discussion is linked to the deliberative theory, and participation as direct decision-making is based on the theory of participatory democracy. The latter two approaches can be combined into the theory of strong democracy (see

12

J. Bakule

Barber 1984).2 Both stress the inherent value of political participation (Putnam 1993) and perceive the higher involvement of citizens as a positive phenomenon. It might seem that the two participatory approaches pose an alternative to representative democracy by stressing the direct involvement of citizens in decision-­ making. Yet, their proponents believe that they are complementary to representative democracy. They add the participatory mechanisms to the already pre-existing system, for example participatory democracy in the workplace (Pateman 1970), local participatory budgeting (de Sousa Santos 1998), deliberative polling (Fishkin and Luskin 2005) and Geoparticipation (Pánek 2016). Although seemingly complementary, the two main theories have not converged. Both have strong and weak sides, and the disagreement between them has not yet been resolved. The following sections explain in depth the rationale behind the individual views on the role of NEP. We show that the historical circumstances of the theory’s origins matter. Any research into Geoparticipation must be aware of both theories mentioned above.

2.1.1 A Fragile Democracy? The following section summarises the reservations about mass participation in public affairs. Although the empirical theory of democracy originates from the Second World War, it is also part of contemporary thinking. The original arguments about the potentially destructive impacts of mass participation were later applied not only to the modernising societies and transforming regimes but also to the developed democracies. The key thinkers, that is Dahl, Almond, Verba, Huntington and Sartori, shaped the field of democratic theory, and they still have an impact today. The empirical theory provides an ideal framework for comparisons and insights into the role of leadership. However, the question of effective participation remains underexplored.3 First, we introduce the individual views of the key figures on the role of participation in democracy. Second, we summarise the contemporary approaches to participation based on these individual theories. The sceptical view of mass participation originates from the fragility of young interwar democracies. In the turbulent times of the 1930s, universal suffrage was often overshadowed by mass mobilisation and high amounts of NEP. Demonstrations, strikes and public activism were on the rise. In the eyes of the researchers, democracy fell victim to the mass participation that side-lined the electoral process. Most notably in the Weimar republic, the NSDAP party never gained an electoral

 To provide clarity throughout the text, we are using the term strong democracy to refer both to the deliberative and participatory democracy and to differentiate between them when needed. 3  Effective participation is one of the five key elements of polyarchy; the others are equality in voting, gaining enlightened understanding, exercising final control over the agenda and the inclusion of adults (Dahl 2015: 34). 2

2  Geoparticipation and Democratic Theory

13

majority.4 Yet Hitler used mass participation and violence to establish political dominance over the young democracy. As a result, the democratic ideals of enlightenment became heavily criticised with the rise of totalitarian regimes and the start of Second World War. It seemed that there is no common good to be found in mass decisions, and instead, citizens are easily manipulated. The main focus of research, thus, turned to the stability of democratic regimes. The general will of the people was replaced by the process of how the best leaders are selected and how it is possible to get rid of the bad ones. Instead of exploring the normative ideas and qualities of democracy, the post-war period focused on the institution’s democracy needs to function (Dahl 1956) or to survive (Almond and Verba 1963). The improvements to democracy were explored mainly through the different institutional settings, for example Lijphart’s (1989) consociational democracy. Schumpeter (1943/2013) was the first to comprehensively criticise the ideals of the normative democratic theory that were developed in the eighteenth century. He bundled a large body of historical arguments together and named the normative approach to democracy as a classical doctrine. Subsequently, he condemned the classical doctrine as a dangerous and unattainable ideal. The model of citizens’ active involvement in public affairs suffered severely, first with the Russian civil war, and then with the emergence of totalitarian states. The Weimar republic was especially known for its mass participation during the interwar period. Lipset (1960: 189–190), among many others, notes that the electoral turnout also peaked in 1932–1933 Germany, just before the destruction of democracy. Based on the observation of the nature of capitalism at that time, Schumpeter renounced the existence of the general will of the people. Instead, he perceived people as being easily influenced by advertising and propaganda. These ideas circle back to the worry of Greek thinkers about the influence of demagogues, yet with different prescriptions for the cure. The greater involvement of citizens as a better expression of volonté générale lost its appeal when the general will of the people seemed to demand crimes against humanity. Therefore, the equality of citizens in public affairs was criticised as an illusion (see Schumpeter 1943/2013: 244–245) and paved the way for arguments stressing a small amount of citizen involvement between elections. The totalitarian experience tipped the weights of democratic theory towards individual liberty instead of the best approximation of the will of the people. Democracy was deemed to be only a method for the selection of leaders, not an ideal for society. Rational scepticism is best expressed by Churchill: “Democracy is the worst form of government except all those others that have been tried from time to time.” This Churchillian definition of democracy is still used as a basis for the design of survey questions on the support for democracy all over the world. Moreover, the procedural thinking led some scholars to believe that there could be an excess of democracy,

 In July 1932, the NSDAP received 37,3% and dropped to 33,1% in November 1932.

4

14

J. Bakule

with some even going so far as to claim that democracy kills itself this way (see Huntington 1975: 113). These ideas tap into a much older tradition taking inspiration from Plato’s fear of an uneducated mob. Plato was born a year after Pericles, the steadfast advocate of democracy, died. Yet, his view on the role of citizens and democracy overall is strikingly different. Although Plato spoke about ideals, his theory was shaped by his own experience. Democracy sentenced his mentor Socrates to death, and Plato’s family members were part of the bloody oligarchic rule. As a result, both regimes seemed to be less than desirable. Plato viewed democracy as a rule by people overcome by their desires and led by men with few virtues. Thus, only the virtuous, the philosophers, should be politically involved. Plato expected that the excessive involvement of the poor in democracy would eventually lead to tyranny. In other words, the ones without virtues, the masses, cannot rule effectively.5 Schumpeter’s (1943/2013) minimal definition of democracy follows similar logic. It is a modern foundation for the competitive elitist approach. The main premise is the competition of elites among themselves for the popular vote. Elections are based on the principle of the free market. Schumpeter’s theory focuses solely on the electoral process and mass participation in the form of voting. Democracy is then government for the people instead of government by the people (ibid.: 256). Held (2006: 126–141) reminds us that before Schumpeter, Max Weber already stressed the crucial role of leaders in contemporary democracy. The people, the demos, play only the role of supporting actor in the theory of both authors, and their role is to legitimise the regime through elections and support for the leaders; for Schumpeter and Weber, people do not lead themselves. Both Schumpeter and Weber paved the way for the empirical approach to democracy, which its proponents saw as the antithesis to the normative approach of the classical doctrine. The empirical studies into political sociology after the Second World War provided further ammunition for the criticism of mass participation (see Skinner 1973). These studies shaped the theory of Dahl (1956) when he tried to reconcile democratic ideals and practice. Madison’s ideas represented the normative part, and the political system in the USA represented the empirical one. When Dahl analyses the difficult relationship between participation and democracy, he turns to contemporary data from the USA. Although he was aware that the assumptions are data driven and there is need for future re-evaluation, Dahl (1956: 89) concludes that the “[…] current evidence suggests that in the United States the lower one’s socioeconomic class, the more authoritarian one’s predispositions and the less active politically one is likely to be. Thus if an increase in political activity brings the authoritarian-minded into the political arena, consensus on the basic norms among the politically active certainly must be declining. To the extent that consensus declines, we would expect […] that, alter some lag, polyarchy would also decline.”  In contrast to Weber, Schumpeter (1943/2013) bases democracy on the capitalist model of the free market and also stresses the division of labour in politics. Anything not resembling the hierarchical organisation of companies is deemed ineffective. 5

2  Geoparticipation and Democratic Theory

15

Dahl (1971) later coined the new term “polyarchy” to distinguish between democratic ideals and the democratic regimes we observe. Polyarchy is a system of political equals with checks against both minority and majority rule and oppression. It constitutes a system of constant negotiation of organised minorities within an uninterested majority and follows the thinking of Madison and Schumpeter. Institutions and leadership are key (see Dahl 1966). The main difference between classical doctrine and empirical theory of polyarchy is the latter’s emphasis on empirical evidence as the main principle of theory building. This corresponds to Walker’s (1966) point when he criticises empirical theory on the grounds that it solely describes the recent system and disregards how it could be improved. It thus perpetuates the status quo. The role of institutions and processes enabling real-world democracy is crucial for the empirical theory of democracy. However, the result is a thin perception of participation and democracy with the sole focus on voting. As Krouse (1982: 443) noted, in contrast to thick theories, the early empirical models of democracy left the NEP on the periphery of interest. Instead of focusing on the amount of participation, Dahl (1966) stressed equality of representation as the centre-point of modern democracy at the level of nation states. As such, the empirical theory of democracy opened the door for a later compelling critique of mass participation (see Sartori 1987; Huntington 1973, 1975). The empirical approach focusing on the stability of the democratic system was a cornerstone of comparative research into democracy. Although different institutional settings played a key role, scholars also focused on the role of the people and their norms. Civic culture research explored which set of psychological qualities and attitudes was necessary for the stability of the democratic system by comparing many states. Almond and Verba (1963) enriched the democratic theory by not being dependent upon a single case study. They were the first to utilise cross-national public opinion data to analyse the differences in The Civic Culture. Although the original selection of states was criticised, the publication provides a thorough examination of citizens’ attitudes and values. Nevertheless, the necessary proportion of the population with these values, the means by which these attitudes could be promoted, and the mechanism connecting the values and systems were less clear (see Pateman 2003: 43). Overall, the focus was more on the challenges that totalitarian thinking poses to the normative assumptions of classical democracy  (see Arendt 1951). The theoretical background of The Civic Culture comes from the structural functionalist approach, which views society as one organism where various parts of that society work together to ensure the stability of the whole system. As such, structural functionalists focus on the constituting blocks of society, namely norms and institutions. The groups that did not endorse such norms, or felt affection for the institutions, represented a potential threat.6 The orientations to political objects are thus

 The broad school of the empirical theory of democracy is no more coherent than the participatory approach. For example, the structural functionalism utilised by Almond and Verba was later criti6

16

J. Bakule

key for Almond and Verba (1963). Without proper norms, the relationship between citizens and democracy would be based solely on the benefits provided through the outputs of the system. Correspondingly, the main role of citizens’ inputs is also the legitimisation of the system. Almond and Verba expect citizens to be the allegiant participants, that is to be positively oriented towards the political structure and its inputs. However, allegiance itself is not enough to shield the system from instability. The balance between apathy and activity is then a cornerstone of a stable democratic system. It helps to overcome the tension raised by contradictory demands being placed on the democratic system (ibid. 343). The citizens just take turns in participation. The ideal civic culture is thus a mixed culture. It is based on the examples of the UK and the USA (Almond and Verba 1963: 366), and it resembles Aristotle’s preference for a mixed government (Almond and Verba 1989: 3). Furthermore, it shares some common ground with the  rationality-activist  model, where citizens are expected to be active, involved in politics and guided by reason. Yet, Almond and Verba also appreciate the role of non-participation. Participatory behaviour in civic culture is mixed with other norms, namely the subjects and their parochial orientations (ibid.: 29–30). Such a theory is partly based on the empirical evidence that not all citizens are active, and yet the British and American democracies prosper (ibid. 338). There, structural functionalism shows its rationale. Inactivity is present so it must have some role. Ultimately, the empirical evidence dictates the direction of analysis. Thus, the civic culture is a counterpoint to the normative text-book approaches (ibid. 30). The subject and parochial cultures within the civic culture serve as insurance. They modify the intensity of participation (ibid. 339). However, under these assumptions, Almond and Verba face the question of democratic legitimacy, which ought to be based on the inputs rather than the outputs. Yet, the voice of one citizen is often negligible and would not be sufficient for legitimisation. The authors find the solution in the citizens’ conviction that their voices matter more than they actually do. High levels of subjective political competence7 sustain civic culture. This democratic myth of civic competence leads citizens to believe themselves to be effective participants. However, in practice, they rarely participate enough to match the level of their perceived competence. A similar pattern emerges for the obligation to participate and in participation itself (ibid. 344–345). More citizens believe that they are obliged to participate than actually do. Almond and Verba’s citizens are not active citizens; instead, they are potentially active. Since the 1960s, research into civic culture has made headway. Nevertheless, Almond and Verba’s views changed little. The Civic Culture Revisited, almost 20 years after their publication of The Civic Culture, offers similar recipes for stability. Lijphart (1989: 51) is still troubled by possible government immobility in the cised by Sartori (1970), who disagreed that every part of the system must have a function and often criticised the conceptual stretching which is the case with civic culture. 7  Subjective political competence is currently represented by the concept of internal political efficacy.

2  Geoparticipation and Democratic Theory

17

event of increased mass participation. If everyone participated, the system might collapse under the sheer number of varying demands. The function of apathy would be lost, and the democratic myth of civic competence would end. Similarly, Dahl also still defines effective participation as mainly the opportunity to participate, not the level of participation itself (Dahl 2015). The efforts of Almond and Verba (1963) to find a balance between the power and the responsiveness of the democratic system have inspired others. The idea that participation and apathy are the key mechanisms to do so took on a life of its own. The apathy of some citizens became normal and desirable. Still, Almond and Verba (1963) are only mildly sceptical about the role of participation. They consider some amount to be necessary in order to force elite responsiveness, as a non-responsive system quickly loses legitimacy and collapses. However, they do not provide a guide to the necessary levels of participation, and the empirical evidence is culturally driven by the Anglo-Saxon example. Huntington (1975) took the ideas represented by The Civic Culture further. He stresses the role of culture throughout his work. Participation plays a substantial role mostly when he focuses on the role of government. Huntington (1975: 114) assumes that “the effective operation of a democratic political system usually requires some measure of apathy and non-involvement on the part of some individuals and groups.” As such, Huntington (1973: 1) comes to the surprising conclusion that in fact the governments of Western democracies and communist countries are similar in terms of institutional setting. He argues that the USA, the UK and the Soviet Union all have “a high degree of popular participation in public affairs” and they serve as a benchmark for the Asian and African states (ibid.). The amount of participation plays a key role. The quality of participation and the conditions under which it occurs do not concern him. The disregard for the differences in participation between democratic states and the Soviet Union was certainly not caused by the lack of information. The book was first published in 1968, and Huntington had to be aware of the mechanisms of politics in the Soviet Union. The lack of differences is more due to the fact that participation is understood solely as a legitimisation mechanism for both systems. Huntington’s (1973) reasoning is driven by his focus on modernisation and the stability of modern societies. Such an analytical framework nevertheless gives little consideration to the type of regime. To some extent, the distinction also again corresponds with Plato’s fear of an uneducated mob and is directly linked to the theories of mass society (Arendt 1951). For Huntington (1973: 88): “In the mass society political participation is unstructured, inconstant, anomic and variegated. Each social force attempts to secure its objectives through the resources and tactics in which it is strongest.” It combines “[…] violent and nonviolent, legal and illegal, coercive and persuasive actions. Mass society lacks organised structures which can relate the political desires and activities of the populace to the goals and decisions of their leaders. As a result, a direct relationship exists between leaders and masses.” The organised structure Huntington refers to is the political parties. Voting is again the desired type of participation.

18

J. Bakule

In modern and highly institutionalised societies, participation is structured around the electoral cycle. In the praetorian society, it revolves around non-electoral events, such as strikes, demonstrations, etc. (ibid. 211–212). This distinction corresponds with the recent classification of the NEP into a conventional type, mostly tied to the electoral process, and an unconventional type, with actions not directly connected to elections. In these terms, Geoparticipation is unconventional, and thus, it would be a sign of a praetorian society. The local-based Geoparticipation and community building is not structured, and Huntington would not consider it as an institution on its own. For Huntington, the process of modernisation changes the type of participation. Nevertheless, its main impact is the broadening of participation when more people enter the political arena on a state level. Huntington (1973) argues that the main threat to stability is broader participation not accompanied by the appropriate political organisation and institutionalisation. Without them, some groups might get involved outside the traditional institutions and be disruptive to the whole system (ibid. 21–22). The non-institutionalised protest participation is a sign of mass society. An increase in participation under these conditions could undermine the traditional institutions and result in political instability, disorder and, potentially, violence (ibid. 47). Such an argument corresponds to Almond and Verba’s (1963) fear of decreasing consensus on civic norms. In short, there is a linear relationship between institutionalisation and participation (see Fig.  2.1). Non-institutionalised participation is characteristic of less-­ developed societies. If a developing state is not able to develop the institutions corresponding to an increase in participation in order to accommodate new demands and changes are not accompanied by improvements in economic well-being, the result is political instability (ibid. 56–57). Participation, therefore, needs moderation. It often undermines traditional institutions without developing new ones. The result is the decay of the old order and the prevention of a new one. (ibid. 85–86).Figure 2.1 does not sufficiently capture Huntington’s (1975: 53–56) causal chain linking participation to instability. Political institutions are just one of the two intervening variables which influence the stability of a regime. The second is the lack of opportunities for social and economic mobility.8 Modernisation causes social mobilisation, that is changes in citizens’ aspirations. Social mobilisation leads to social frustration if it is not accompanied by the appropriate economic advances. The opportunities for social mobility then determine whether any tensions can be eased or will result in participation. Citizens’ participation in order to advance their goals is based on social frustration. And ultimately, participation leads to instability if it is not accompanied by appropriate institutionalisation. Although the Political Order in Changing Societies was written almost 50 years ago, its premises became more relevant due to the authoritarian backlash.

 Socioeconomic inequality is a driving force behind participatory theory. Yet participatory democrats see mass participation as a solution for inequality, whereas Huntington sees socioeconomic inequality as a cause of mass participation. 8

2  Geoparticipation and Democratic Theory

19

Fig. 2.1  Political institutionalisation and political participation. (Source: Huntington 1975: 79; edited by the author)

Huntington’s focus on changing societies and the role of modernisation leads him to focus on the stability rather than the quality of a system. Stability is a fusion of legitimacy and effectiveness, the instability of frustration and participation. As a result, Huntington is less concerned with responsiveness and accountability. (ibid. 10).9 This division is best expressed by his preference for the type of participant. Huntington (1973: 49) states: “Political participation by illiterates, however, may well, as in India, be less dangerous to democratic political institutions than participation by literates. The latter typically have higher aspirations and make more demands on government. Political participation by illiterates, moreover, is likely to remain limited, while participation by literates is more likely to snowball with potentially disastrous effects on political stability.” As such, Huntington disregards the potential benefits of NEP in order to ease tensions in society. Furthermore, Huntington’s preference for less-educated participants is a striking contrast to the participatory theory, which expects educated citizens to further educate themselves through participation. Huntington instead focuses on the  Huntington admits that the broadening of participation in democracies might “enhance control of the government by the people” and vice versa in totalitarian states. However, this argument is not about the increase in participation as much as about broadening the base of possible participants. Therefore, it speaks about the inclusion of other groups, for example expansion of the electoral suffrage to all citizens. That is how Huntington distinguishes modern democracy from older regimes. In contrast to traditional societies, participation goes beyond the village or town and thus needs new institutions such as political parties to aggregate and channel people’s interests (ibid. 34–36). Again, participation is only potential, not done in practice. 9

20

J. Bakule

aggregation of interests. Too many demands can overload a government and decrease its effectiveness (Huntington 1975: 114; see also Lijphart 1989: 51). Thus, Huntington’s key insight is that protest participation decreases the stability and quality of a government. However, through this assumption, he disregards the positive impact of mass democratisation movements in non-democratic regimes and emancipatory movements in democratic systems. Governability and adequate institutions also continued to be essential for the theory of democracy in the 1980s. Giovanni Sartori (1976) was no less interested in the stability of democracy. He was also inspired by Schumpeter and stressed the need for pluralism and political elites (see Sartori 1987). His theory of polarised pluralism deals with the issue of instability when there are two anti-system oppositions present. In many ways, it corresponds to the calls by other authors for an underlying agreement on democratic norms. Yet, the experience from his own country made it clear that the stability of a regime is not enough. The stability of Italian democracy was achieved through negligible alternation in power throughout the Italian first republic, which can be seen as over-institutionalised and over-structured political participation. Sartori, therefore, adds that elite competition is a second necessary component for a healthy democracy. Being concerned with the practical application of political science, Sartori then turns to the party systems specifically. Although Sartori (1987) provides the recipe for an ideal theory of democracy, both in theory and in practice, he again leaves the NEP largely aside. Instead, Sartori (1987: 280) states that “In present democracies, there are those who govern and those who are governed; there is the state on one side, and the citizens on the other; there are those who deal with politics professionally and those who forget about it, except at rare intervals.” The question remains as to how largely apathetic citizens can produce good representatives. Nevertheless, Sartori does not limit participation solely to elections. He clearly states that electoral participation is not sufficient and “[t]o speak of the sheer act of voting as participation is little more than a manner of speech and certainly leaves us with a weak and overly diluted meaning of the term” (Sartori 1987: 113). As such he strays further from the Schumpeterian tradition. Sartori is not sceptical about individual participation per se and agrees that there are benefits to be gained from personal involvement. He supports normative ideas of beneficial participation. However, he is convinced that this cannot be implemented on the level of nation states. Therefore, the forms of participation he considers are in smaller groups, that is, voluntary associations, unions or parties (ibid.). The applicability of participation is based on Sartori’s assumption (1987: 111) that the “[participation’s] intensity  – namely, authenticity and effectiveness  – is inversely related to the number of participants.”10 As such, it cannot be implemented on a mass scale. The question of participation is therefore a question of feasibility, respectively, a question of levels. Sartori argues against direct participation and says that “the democracy of the ancients is not the democracy of the moderns” (ibid.

 This assumption shares some similarities and logic with the problem of collective action (Olson 2009). 10

2  Geoparticipation and Democratic Theory

21

113). It is ineffective and impossible in practice. Although he agrees that in principle it would be better to govern than to be governed, direct democracy is impossible on a larger scale. Moreover, the historical examples of lower-scale direct democracies were quite unstable (ibid. 280–283). This view corresponds to Huntington’s idea that the NEP is largely a thing of the past and belongs to pre-modern societies. In comparison to Huntington, Sartori would most likely welcome the broadening of opportunities for citizens through Geoparticipation. It provides new, locally based opportunities with a practical application. Geoparticipation is effective and feasible. Moreover, Geoparticipation does not threaten the stability of democracy, nor does it decrease the effectiveness of government, even if activists and educated citizens take part. Furthermore, it is not based on mass participation of all citizens, and thus, it leaves space for the non-participation of more apathetic citizens. Nevertheless, Sartori’s sceptical view of participation is not solely based on the feasibility of mass participation. It is largely driven by his opposition to participatory democracy as a school of thought and as an activist movement. He defends the elite theory of democracy against the criticism of participatory democrats. For the most part, Sartori is vexed by the poor clarity of the concept of participatory democracy. This corresponds to his broader criticism of vague concepts (Sartori 1970). Participatory theory cannot be traced to a coherent school of thought. And the classical democracy it often refers to is also incoherent. Furthermore, participatory democrats do not clearly state their understanding of participation. It also does not represent an alternative to elite democracy, as it assumes the existence of participatory elites. He summarises his rebuke by stating: “Therefore, if the indictment of the participationist is that prior to the 1960s, participation was a neglected part of the overall theory of democracy, this indictment is, as a matter of record, incorrect. If his argument is, instead, that participation plays no important role in the specific theory of the democratic state, this is correct  – but is this a fault?” (ibid. 114). Nevertheless, the main problem with Sartori’s argument lies within the narrow definition of participatory democracy as direct democracy. Sartori’s relationship to participation is thus threefold. First, he agrees that it is desirable in small and intense groups. Second, he limits the groups to the electoral arena, work and leisure. Political participation is then mostly tied to the representative institutions, and as such it could threaten stability. Last, he specifically deals with participation under the theory of direct democracy. He deems direct democracy to be impossible on the scale of nation states. The question is, to what extent is Sartori electing a straw man based on direct democracy, instead of dealing with the vague concept of participatory democracy. Nevertheless, NEP does not get much credit in Sartori’s theory of democracy. Correspondingly, the best civic culture does not consist of active citizens but rather of potentially active citizens (Almond and Verba 1963: 346–347). They should react to the competing political elite, not act on their own (Sartori 1987 Inactivity is considered to be a permanent characteristic of most citizens and, thus, does not present a problem. Moreover, it is a prerequisite for a functioning system (Walker 1966; Huntington 1975). Hibbing and Theiss-Morse (2002) argue that most

22

J. Bakule

citizens prefer to be inactive anyway. They want their government to be largely invisible and to pursue the course of politics they prefer without them being involved. Participation in this sense does not contribute to the polity in Aristotelian logic of homo politicus and has only some value in possible self-development (Krouse 1982: 448–449; 458) with no further specified connection to the civic virtues of Greek political thought (Almond and Verba 1963: vii, cf. Putnam 2000). Citizens are mostly seen through the analytical lenses of Hobbes, as people mainly concerned with their private goals. Such assumptions are based on the rational theory of cost and benefits, which is directly linked to the most prevalent analytical tool of the resource model of political participation (Brady et al. 1995). Avritzer (2012) reminds us that the difference between Hobbes’s representative democracy and the popular involvement as espoused by Rousseau still lives on in the aggregative democracy centred around elections and in the more deliberative approaches which stress the crucial role of discussion and broad NEP (Perrot-Peña and Piggins 2015). Ultimately, scholars following in Schumpeter’s footsteps still have a hard time resolving the issue of what to do with the activity of citizens. The NEP has the especially peculiar position of being an expected outcome of potentially active citizens and, at the same time, being feared as a source of instability. It seems as if there should not be too few people participating, nor too many. On the one hand, academics saw participatory culture as a crucial part of US democracy (Almond and Verba 1963, see also Putnam 2000) and praised high levels of political activity in America (Verba and Nie 1972). Dahl (1971: 4–16), thus, argues that contestation and opposition are necessary for democracy; the more opportunities citizens have to participate, the healthier the democracy. On the other hand, many others fear that excessive participation will lead to governments’ immobility (see Dahl 1956; Huntington 1975; Sartori 1987; Lijphart 1989). The empirical theory of democracy remains a driving force for the research into comparative politics (Biegelbauer and Hansen 2011: 591; Achen and Bartels 2016: xiii; see also McAllister 2017). The debate on the disparity between normative ideals and practice continues (see Parvin 2017). Most of the proponents of the empirical theory of democracy still argue that participatory and deliberative democracy have too demanding expectations about participation, and these are not met in practice. Instead, they claim that researchers should focus on Democracy for Realists, and some authors even go so far as to claim that even electoral participation performs poorly in practice (see Achen and Bartels 2016).11 Not all authors focusing on real-world democracy are as sceptical as the “founding fathers” of the empirical theory of democracy. However, the criticism of mass participation has set NEP aside as the core of democratic principles. The best example is the well-known article “What Democracy Is…and Is Not” by Phillipe Schmitter and Terry Karl (1991). They define democracy as: “[…] a system of governance in which rulers are held accountable for their actions in the public realm by citizens,

 An important note is that Achen and Bartles (2016) focus on the criticism of direct democracy (populist model) in line with the path Sartori (1987) took. 11

2  Geoparticipation and Democratic Theory

23

acting indirectly through the competition and cooperation of their elected representatives” (ibid. 4). Participation is mostly limited to elections and is generally understood, in terms of Almond and Verba (1963), as potential rather than actual involvement. It is only an indicator of a specific type of democracy or one of many factors by which to evaluate the performance of a regime (ibid. 12–13). Schmitter and Karl disregard various types of NEP and conclude that “To include them as part of the generic definition of democracy itself would be a mistake” (ibid. 13). Correspondingly, the main indices of democracy, for example the Freedom House, focus either on the potential right to participate or on the amount of people actually participating. The Varieties of Democracy project emphasises five different principles of democracy, and participatory democracy is one of them.12 However, the definition of participation is akin to the classification by Sartori (1987), that is civil society, direct popular vote and local government. NEP is not directly included. Participation in the empirical theory of democracy is therefore mainly considered to be a means of eliminating corrupt or ineffective leaders, not as a means of achieving a better policy. At least high electoral participation has legitimising effects that limit the amount of necessary coercion from the government. However, NEP does not provide legitimisation, and its possible role remains unclear. As a result, for a long time, scholars were less oriented on the impact of participation and more on its predictors. The representativeness of participation attracts much of the attention, while the aggregate effects of NEP receive less. The underlying principle remains the equal representation of citizens (Dahl 2006; Verba and Nie 1987; Schlozman et  al. 2012). The actual number of citizens participating is not important as long as they constitute a representative sample of society. The absence of a clear normative theory reduces participation to a function of a system. It simply provides an input to the system and has no added benefit. So, participation does not constitute the core of the empirical theory of democracy, but it has been side-lined. The proponents of the empirical theory of democracy would have a hard time explaining the function of Geoparticipation, apart from some minor benefits for greater legitimacy.

2.1.2 A Strong Democracy? In the previous section, the idea was stressed that unwarranted participation can represent an excess of democracy and that can threaten the function of liberal institutions (Barber 1984: xxxi). The authors in this next section share the counterview to this claim. They argue that the “solution to the problem of disenchantment with politics is deceptively simple. It is to expand the opportunities for citizens to have a say in the issues they care about” (Stoker 2006:190). The expected outcomes are a higher quality of democracy and more competent citizens. The role of a strong

12

 The V-Dem project also includes deliberative democracy.

24

J. Bakule

democracy is to supplement, not supplant, democratic institutions (Pateman 1970: 42; Goodin 2008: 5–7). This section summarises the optimistic expectations concerning the role of political participation in contrast to the pessimistic views of the authors introduced in the previous section. It starts with a brief overview of the historical roots of strong democracy. It continues with an introduction to participatory and deliberative democracy, two of the main contemporary streams of strong democracy, and concludes with the implications political participation has for the quality of government. Geoparticipation fits well into this theoretical framework. It expands the opportunities for citizens to participate and deliberate and provides inputs for local government. It provides a great example of the evolution of practical tools for greater citizens’ involvement in public affairs. Nevertheless, the main idea has changed little in more than two thousand years. Active citizenship is necessary for a healthy democracy. To properly grasp the role of Geoparticipation in a modern nation state, it is necessary to understand the intellectual heritage of strong democracy. Inspired by Rousseau and Mill, the participatory theory started as an academic critique of empirical theory, corresponding to the progressive movements of the 1960s. Participatory theory stressed a sovereignty which is not fully transferable through the elected representatives. Without direct involvement, citizens are, as Rousseau put it, enchained by the government. Participatory democrats stressed the educative function of participation, which is seen as a tool to actively promote democratic culture (Pateman 1970). Instead of limiting the negative effects of non-­ democratic attitudes, as in the empirical theory of democracy, participatory democracy expects to teach democratic values through involvement in public affairs. However, the popularity of participatory democracy slowly faded away through the 1970s and 1980s. This was mostly because it criticised the connection of capitalism and liberal democracy from a left-wing point of view, and the 1980s were a time when conservatism and neoliberalism dominated. The participatory theory then passed the torch to the more popular deliberative theory. (Pateman 2012) The deliberative theory arose between 1980 and 1983 and slowly evolved into a full-fledged theory of its own (Floridia 2018). It builds upon the critical theory of the Frankfurt school and Rawls’ theory of justice. These ideas helped theorists to better grasp the idea of deliberation as a tool for societal consensus. The legitimacy of democracy then comes directly from the deliberation. Using similar logic to Dahl, the authors then started a search for the practical instruments of deliberation in contemporary democracy (see, e.g., Fishkin and Luskin 2005). Together, participatory democracy and deliberative democracy form a strong democracy; a term we have borrowed from Barber in order to distinguish from the thin empirical theory of democracy that presents a system without mass participation. However, the effort to distinguish two clear streams of democratic theory comes at the cost of overgeneralisation. Similarly, Schumpeter (1943/2013) coined the term classical doctrine of democracy as a placeholder for the vast intellectual heritage of the normative theorists of democracy that has been around since the enlightenment. The term served mostly to distinguish the old normative approach to democracy from Schumpeter’s procedural approach. If Schumpeter developed his

2  Geoparticipation and Democratic Theory

25

theory through the critique of the classical doctrine of democracy the participatory theory of democracy subsequently emerged as a response to the empirical theory of democracy. However, Pateman (1970: 16–21) argues that the existence of the classical doctrine  is a myth and believes Schumpeter is using a straw man to attack the participatory practices. According to Pateman, the classical doctrine  does not represent a unified theory and the writings of individual authors differ. This claim represents a rare moment of agreement between Pateman and Sartori, with the latter stressing that there is no canon of a classical theory of democracy (see Sartori 1987: 157–159). He (1987: 113) stressed conceptual clarity and summarises his frustration by saying that: “Having outlined the map of the well-identifiable and definable species of democracy, where should we place on such map a participatory democracy? It is fair to reply: nowhere in particular and, to differing extents, everywhere.”13 Thus, one must understand the limits of such broadly used terminology. Deliberative and participatory democracy today involve a broad range of topics, and it is difficult to pinpoint an exact overarching theory. For example, Menser (2018: 11) recently identified six different streams within participatory democracy. Nevertheless, it is possible to identify the main sources of inspiration. In contrast to the empirical theory of democracy, strong democracy takes plenty from the previous theories of democracy and has a much longer tradition. It is influenced by the ancient Greeks and classical theorists of democracy, such as Mill and Rousseau. The participatory theory and the deliberative theory are both successor theories to Athenian democracy and the classical doctrine. They stress the need for the employment of various democratic innovations, such as Geoparticipation, using reasoning that is little different from that of the ancient Greeks. The active involvement of citizens in public affairs dates back to ancient Athens. Although they are not the only classical exemplar of direct democracy (see Menser 2018: 11–65), ancient Athens is certainly the best-known example of a system dependent on popular participation. Therefore, it is a typical point of departure for deliberative and participatory theories. Active citizenship was sine qua non of the Athenian democracy. Thucydides summarised the Athenian stance on the role of citizens with Pericles’ funeral oration: “Our public men have, besides politics, their private affairs to attend to, and our ordinary citizens, though occupied with the pursuits of industry, are still fair judges of public matters; for, unlike any other nation, regarding him who takes no part in these duties not as unambitious but as useless, we Athenians are able to judge at all events if we cannot originate, and, instead of looking on discussion as a stumbling-block in the way of action, we think it an indispensable preliminary to any wise action at all” (in Hallsal 2000, see also Harris 1992; Bosworth 2000). Two crucial topics emerge from this short excerpt: the necessity of effective participation and of deliberation. Both subsequently form the core of contemporary

 Instead, Sartori focused on direct democracy as a specific form of participatory practice. However, such an approach resulted in another straw man fallacy. 13

26

J. Bakule

critiques of empirical democracy. The mass of Athenian citizens was a safeguard against the threat of oligarchy. However, these checks and balances of Athenian democracy were dependent upon mass participation. Deliberation was necessary to prevent demagoguery and to build the virtues of individual citizens. Therefore, poverty was not considered to be an obstacle to a citizen’s duty to serve the community. Participation had not only an individual virtue, but it was also necessary for the functioning of the whole system. Under these circumstances, participation is inevitably seen as an obligation. The apathetic public is one of the biggest threats to the quality of democracy, as it could lead to the dominance of the privileged classes. All these assumptions are the antithesis of Plato’s ideas and of the empirical theory of democracy, which assumes that there are striking differences in citizens’ capabilities and apathy is welcomed. Athenian democracy survived for a mere two centuries, and except for a few occasions, democratic ideas did not appear again until the Enlightenment. By that time the government had moved from a local scale to nation states, and the direct involvement of most citizens was no longer needed to run a state. Although deliberative democracy acknowledges the heritage of Athenian democracy and finds some deliberative elements in Aristotle’s theory, the Greek example belongs more to the core of the participatory theory (Chambers 2018: 55). The primacy of Athenian democracy is given by the fact that there were a few practical examples of democracy around when the idea of direct democracy emerged again in the writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Together with John Stewart Mill and George Douglas Howard Cole, these philosophers built upon the Greek idea and provided a key theoretical background for the participatory theory. Nevertheless, Rousseau and Mill are influential thinkers concerning deliberative democracy. Rousseau’s emphasis on human interaction and the formation of a general will is akin to the arguments of deliberative democrats. The interest in Mill comes from the defence of free speech and discussion in his thinking. Both authors assume the existence of consensus, and they move in the same direction on how to reach it. Most historical figures are inevitably tied to both participatory and deliberative democracy, only ascribing to them varying degrees of importance. Simone Chambers (2018: 55–64) adds that some of these authors have an ambiguous role in the theory of deliberative democracy, and different deliberative theorists have subsequently stressed different aspects of their thinking. Rousseau’s work shows the multiple layers of the ideas of classical philosophers. It offers the theory of a general will to the deliberative democrats. The participatory democrats appreciate the individual sovereignty achieved through participation and the establishment of the whole participatory system. Mill interests participatory democrats when he takes participatory practices to the state level and stresses the educatory function of participation, which prepares citizens for effective participation in government.14 For the deliberative democrats, Mill is the advocate of

 For the overview of Rousseau, Mill and Cole in the theory of participatory democracy, see Pateman (1970: 22–44). 14

2  Geoparticipation and Democratic Theory

27

government by discussion. Although he defended plural voting and the role of experts, he also firmly believed that all citizens can be educated and the interests of every citizen should be equally voiced (see Chambers 2018: 59–60). Therefore, participation pertained to an important educational function in both theories, as seen not only in the writings of Mill, Rousseau and, to some extent Tocqueville but also in their followers, such as Pateman (1970) and Putnam (1993). Their understanding of participation goes beyond the pursuit of personal interest. It also enriches citizens personally, and the amount of political participation signals the health of a democracy (Putnam 2000). Hence, democracy is improved as citizens become educated through their involvement in public affairs. This is quite different from the pluralist democracy of individual interests, apathetic citizens and grim expectations about citizens’ sophistication. The different expectations of citizens’ roles are at the core of the conflict between strong democracy and empirical theory. Empirical theory works with contemporary data. It generalises the findings to be due to the natural lack of interest or, conversely, to the virtues of citizens, that is their natural lack of psychological or socioeconomic resources (Brady et al. 1995). In these terms, it follows the homo homini lupus of Hobbes and emphasises the need for representation instead. Participatory and deliberative theory work with normative assumptions instead and focus on how the world could be. Their theorists assume that a lack of opportunity and proper institutions are the main obstacles preventing a better democracy. Voting is not enough to encompass full participation. Over the years, there have been plenty of models of different variations for both approaches. Still, Barber’s (2003) distinction between thin and strong democracy summarises the difference the best. Barber understands the thin variation of democracy to be based on conflict and checks and balances. Therefore, it produces passive and distrustful citizens. Their involvement in politics is delimited by the social contract and legality. Therefore, it stresses the potential for participation (de iure), not the actual participation (de facto). On the other hand, a strong democracy is based on active citizens. Their sovereignty is given through their participation, which, in turn, defines citizenship. Citizens are not bound by a contract but by their search for common solutions through participation (ibid. 218–219; see also Figure  3 on pp. 219 for a detailed comparison of models). Insufficient institutions for participation result in manipulation rather than a democratic process. Arnstein (1969) explains that there is a hierarchy of citizens’ participation. For illustrative purposes, Arnstein (1969) organises the levels of participation (see Fig. 2.2). Citizens become increasingly involved in decision-making with each rung of the ladder. The low levels represent non-participation, and they are a form of participation without real power; the result of which is an empty ritual of participation. Such a notion corresponds to the potentially active citizens, not the effectively active ones. In the mid-level, the voices of citizens can at least be heard, and this is akin to representative democracy. The top rung of the ladder is strong democracy. The ladder of participation can also be understood through Rousseau’s distinction between sovereignty and government. People can be sovereign and still be governed on the basis of the general will. However, the lower the rung on the

28

J. Bakule

Fig. 2.2  Eight rungs on the ladder of citizens’ participation. (Source: Arnstein 1969: 217, edited by the author)

ladder, the lower the sovereignty and the more illegitimate “chains” are wrapped around citizens. Overall, the main argument for a strong democracy can be summarised as: “The existence of representative institutions at a national level is not sufficient for democracy; for maximum participation by all the people at that level, socialisation, or ‘social training’ for democracy must take place in other spheres in order that the necessary individual attitudes and psychological qualities can be developed. This development takes place through the process of participation itself” (Pateman 1970: 42). This excerpt shows three crucial points of the participatory democrats: sole representation is not enough; maximum participation is needed; and the necessary resources for participation are obtained through participation itself. The main role of participation is its function as a Tocquevillian school of democracy. For Barber (2003), the key mechanism of strong democracy is deliberation. He (2003:173) declares that: “At the heart of strong democracy is talk”. Deliberation builds virtues and political knowledge (see also Pateman 2012: 8–10). Talking is central to resolving conflicts. It leads to consensus instead of eternal competition in

2  Geoparticipation and Democratic Theory

29

pluralism (Barber 2003: 174–178). The broader concept of participatory democracy is therefore closely connected to participation as a political discussion. In these terms, the deliberative theory emancipated itself from the broader participation within a strong democracy. The foundations of deliberative theory also utilise the democratic tradition. It can be traced as far back as ancient Greece, mainly to the work of Aristotle, who dealt foremost with practical questions concerning rhetoric, decision-making and rationality (Yack 2006). The current theory of deliberative democracy is based on John Rawls’ concept of justice and the theory of communicative action of Jürgen Habermas (1987). Furthermore, participation as political discussion is set within the larger framework of the public sphere, civil society and the state, reaching beyond simply casting a vote in elections. This fact ensures the legitimacy of a democratic system, especially regarding its outputs. The deliberative mechanisms, such as deliberative polling, bring consensus and equal participation. Nevertheless, they are part of participatory democracy (see Pateman 2012: 8) and form the core of a strong democracy (Barber 2003). Although both theories are strongly related, Pateman (2012: 7–8) notes that the now popular deliberative democracy has little interest in other participatory practices, and thus, it is replacing the participatory theory overall with its narrower definition of a strong democracy. Still, deliberative democracy is more of a working theory (see Chambers 2003), although the same to some extent can be said about participatory theory as well. Therefore, it does not come as a surprise when Goodin (2008: 263–266 especially pp. 266) argues that deliberative democrats are also participatory democrats (cf. Mutz 2006). And Elstub (2018) calls for unification in participatory deliberative democracy. The heyday of participatory theory in the 1960s and 1970s transformed into the deliberative era of the 1980s. With the third wave of democratisation and the fall of communism, it seemed for a brief moment that the historical development of the democratic theory was over. Democracy had won, and the threat of destabilisation and degeneration to non-democratic regimes seemed to be over (Fukuyama 1989, 2006). It seemed that democracy had become a universally accepted value (Schedler and Sarsfield 2007: 638–639) and that everyone would soon build the same democratic institutions and citizens would utilise the opportunity given by democracy to participate. However, quite soon it became clear that many only paid lip service to democracy (Inglehart and Welzel 2003). Instead of getting rid of the authoritarian pole of the democratic-authoritarian continuum, many regimes turned to subtle manipulation and different shades of non-democratic institutions (Schedler 2002). Post-­ communist Europe in particular is observing a decline in consensus on liberal values (Dawson and Hanley 2016). The institution of free and fair elections has ceased to be a panacea for the accountability and responsiveness of government; a fact that many democratic theorists noticed soon after the spread of electoral democracy throughout the world (see, e.g., Levitsky and Way 2002; Zakaria 2007). The failure to build a democracy in Afghanistan after 20 years of effort again raises the question of what kind of democracy are we trying to build.

30

J. Bakule

As a result, there has been a revival in strong democracy (see Pateman 2012). It seems that thin democracy is not enough. In the best case, for new democracies, it might result in the delegative democracy of a powerful leader (see O’Donnell 1994); however, in the worst case, it could result in a non-democratic regime. Therefore, Pateman (2012: 41) argues that the democratic polity can exist only in a participatory society, and his claim that “The existence of representative institutions at a national level is not sufficient for democracy” seems self-evident nowadays. In practice, participation can improve the quality of government, especially its responsiveness and accountability. The crucial role of elections and the influence of liberalism made accountability the main concern of the empirical theory of democracy. The goal is to limit the tyrannical tendencies of a government. (O’Donnell 1998) However, in the last 30 years, the idea that there are additional relevant tools of control other than the competition of elites in elections has grown (Schmitter and Karl 1991; see especially note 3 on pp. 15). The NEP has also become the cornerstone of the debate on the health of modern democracy. Many people perceive decreasing civil participation as a threat (Putnam 2000), others point to the changing nature of participation (Inglehart and Welzel 2003; Dalton 2004, 2008). Nevertheless, the continuing responsiveness of a government to its own citizens is a key characteristic of democracy (Dahl 1971: 1). Simply put, elections are not enough to ensure responsive and accountable government. The difference between these two aspects is that accountability checks that the rules are not broken and responsiveness checks that political decisions are not made by a powerful minority. Even Sartori (1987: 152–170), who is often taken as the champion of elite theory, acknowledges the necessity for the responsiveness of a government in between elections. The officials should pay attention to the voters over their full period in office. However, as O’Donnell (1998: 113) notes, elections occur only periodically. Their effectiveness in securing accountability is unclear, based on the variation in party systems and party volatility. New democracies in particular provide an example of the limited nature of accountability through elections. After the transition to democracy, post-communist Europe was known for its chronic over-accountability in elections, and ruling parties were often ousted. Yet, the quality of institutions and government did not improve immediately. Neither did the control of corruption. Evidence shows that corruption is not easily punished through the process of elections (Choi and Woo 2010; Ferraz and Finan 2011, cf. Grzymała-Busse 2006). Similarly, Mechkova et al. (2018) argue that elections provide the lowest level of accountability and are less constraining for politicians. Accountability is a chameleon-like term synonymous with oversight, control, check, restraint and even punishment, and it is a means of preventing and correcting the abuse of political power (Schedler 1999; Mulgan 2000). It is one of the constraints on government (Lindberg et al. 2017; Mechkova et al. 2018). Yet again, the tradition of empirical democracy originally shifted the focus onto formal institutions. However, there are both formal and informal dimensions of accountability. Since the official institutional arrangement of democracy became universally

2  Geoparticipation and Democratic Theory

31

accepted (see Inglehart, Welzel 2003; Schedler and Sarsfield 2007: 638–639), the informal institutions matter more, as they make it possible to manipulate and twist the formal institutions (Schedler 2002). Lindberg et al. (2017) define these areas as the de jure and de facto dimensions of accountability. They can be thought of as institutional provisions for accountability and accountability in practice, for example the freedom of assembly and the actual use of that freedom by citizens. Therefore, there are multiple dimensions of accountability. Vertical accountability represents the relationship between citizens and their representatives (O’Donnell 1998; Schedler 1999). Horizontal accountability focuses on checks and balances within the system and on the relationships and oversight among political institutions.(O’Donnell 1998). These correspond to the empirical theory of democracy. However, in the last 20  years, there has been increased interest in non-electoral democracy as a tool for accountability. It belongs to the diagonal accountability, which, through the media and civil society, enables better control of governments between elections (Lindberg et al. 2017; Mechkova et al. 2018). Notably, the first two dimensions in post-communist Europe have been put in place in reality and in practice.15 The major difference lies within the third dimension of diagonal accountability, which includes the NEP. Mechkova et al. (2018) show that the development of effective horizontal accountability is dependent upon both vertical and diagonal accountability. After the transition to democracy, there was a surge in mass participation in most of the post-communist states. In some, the level of NEP remained high and in others, it faded. Then, individual states went on different paths and the quality of their governments differs (Schmitter 2004). The individual actors often try to overstep their constitutionally demarcated boundaries, for example when Czech president Miloš Zeman appointed his own non-partisan government, not approved by the parliament despite there being a new majority after the previous prime minister resigned.16 This example shows that the checks and balances, for example the constitutional division of powers, are also dependent on diagonal accountability. The responsiveness in between elections is often lower due to the insufficient vertical accountability of elections and low diagonal accountability due to low NEP. New democracies especially need these schools of democracy. Responsiveness as a stand-alone concept is mostly tied to strong democracy. The articulation of interests and agenda setting are crucial (Barber 2003: 178–198). Responsiveness differentiates the democratic process from manipulation (Arnstein 1969) and represents a major area of institutional performance (Putnam 1993). In these terms, Geoparticipation is a tool for a more responsive government. It enables us to articulate specific issues which otherwise might not be offered by the electoral supply. Responsiveness is also part of empirical theory (Dahl 1971; Sartori 1987).  Although the surge of illiberal tendencies in post-communist areas threatens to reverse this process (Greskovits 2015; Merkel and Scholl 2018). 16  The president overstepped his powers by abusing his de facto accountability by appointing nonpartisan figures of his choosing instead of allowing the new government to be formed. The government lost the vote of confidence and still ruled for 7 months until the snap election. 15

32

J. Bakule

Yet, the empirical theory of democracy fails to link responsiveness with the NEP and focuses only on the broader concept of accountability (see Mulgan 2000, especially pp. 556). To summarise, strong democracy is not a coherent theory as presented in this text. It continues a tradition which is older than two millennia and which necessarily creates a space for multiple interpretations. However, at its core, a strong democracy shares multiple axioms. Proponents of strong democracy assume that contemporary representative democracy can be easily improved by introducing participatory mechanisms. Pateman (1970) originally focused on participation in the workplace. Barber (2003) also focused on national referenda or the lower-level communities, for example local assemblies able to deliberate. Some more recent democratic innovations are participatory budgeting (de Sousa Santos 1998, 2005), deliberative polls (Fishkin and Luskin 2005) and Geoparticipation (Pánek 2016). In summary, the participatory theorists expect that NEP delivers better outputs than sole representative democracy. Electoral participation is not sufficient for a strong democracy. NEP produces better citizens and an overall better democratic community. Deliberative mechanisms serve as an exercise in democracy. They produce more knowledgeable and tolerant citizens. Deliberation tames conflicts within society and helps people to reach a consensus. This idea is a counter-argument to Huntington’s (1973) theory of potential government overload. Instead, deliberation serves as an intermediary between citizens and government. Civic engagement helps to mitigate conflict. Overall, political participation leads to more democratic politics. The mass involvement of citizens should create overall better policy outcomes and a more responsive government. It empowers citizens, and as a result, they can participate more effectively in the future and thus increase their capacity to influence governments. So in a strong democracy, the assumption is that the more participation, the better.

2.2 Conclusion The quarrel between the two theories of democracy has not yet been resolved. While the proponents of a strong democracy blame the lack of participation in preventing the emergence of a better system, the empirical theorists see some level of political apathy as a precondition for the stability of current systems. The main area of conflict concerns the quality of the status quo; whether contemporary representative democracy is the best system, one which cannot be improved, and so any changes can only pose a threat, or representative democracy, which can be improved, and attempts should be made to make it more participatory. Geoparticipation sits in between the two concepts. On one hand, Geoparticipation represents a great opportunity to demonstrate the upside of the participatory processes of a strong democracy. It might improve the responsiveness of a government and increase its legitimacy. On the other hand, Geoparticipation cannot ignore equality representation, which is a key topic for the empirical theory of democracy.

2  Geoparticipation and Democratic Theory

33

The threat of the digital divide is especially relevant, both on an individual and a structural level. Geoparticipation might produce more civically educated and democratic citizens, or it might reproduce inequality, which would result in distrustful citizens. It is thus crucial to analyse the relationship between Geoparticipation and government and to answer the key questions: Are there differences among municipalities? Do the tools of Geoparticipation carry the idea of strong democracy by empowering citizens? The following chapters of this book thus explore the relationship between Geoparticipation and democracy in practice. Chapters 3 and 4 stress the key role of technological development as an opportunity to use new participatory tools. Technological development is accompanied by the growth of open data, which is key to a more transparent and participatory society. Chapter 8 provides a case study exploring the use of gamification in the Geoparticipatory process. These chapters clearly show that there is a long journey ahead for democratic theory, as its proponents need to reconcile the tools of the twenty-first century with the theoretical framework that was mostly built between the 1950s and 1970s. Nevertheless, one key topic from the past century remains: the equality of participation in practice and the obstacles citizens face in order to increase their participation. Chapter 5 analyses the differences in Geoparticipation in over six thousand Czech municipalities. It provides evidence that inequality is not based solely on socioeconomic factors. Political factors also play a key role, and the mayors shape the opportunities for citizens to participate in Czech municipalities. Political decisions then can lead to a more participatory society, and there is an increasing demand for new participatory tools, as shown by the rapid growth in the use of participatory budgeting (see Chap. 6). While in 2015, only one town used this practice, in 2020, there were 83 participatory budgeting events. Chapter 7 presents a case study of the Czech town Jeseník to show how practitioners can use various Geoparticipatory tools in practice. Altogether, the chapters show that Geoparticipation is the democratic practice for the future. However, its proliferation must be accompanied by equal access for all citizens. The accumulation of knowledge and sharing best practices will be key in the following years, and we hope that this book will be the first of many to stress the value of Geoparticipation.

References Achen CH, Bartels L (2016) Democracy for realists. Princeton University Press Almond G, Verba S (1963) The civic culture: political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton University Press, Princeton Almond G, Verba S (eds) (1989) The civic culture Revisited. Sage Publications, London Arendt H (1951) The origins of totalitarianism. Harcourt, Brace and Co., New York Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plann 35(4):216–224 Avritzer L (2012) Democracy beyond aggregation: the participatory dimension of public deliberation. J Public Deliberation 8(2). https://delibdemjournal.org/article/id/412/

34

J. Bakule

Barber BR (1984) Strong democracy. Participatory politics for a New Age. University of California Press Biegelbauer P, Hansen J (2011) Democratic theory and citizen participation: democracy models in the evaluation of public participation in science and technology. Sci Public Policy 38(8):589–597 Bosworth AB (2000) The historical context of Thucydides’ funeral oration. J Hell Stud 120:1–16 Brady HE, Verba S, Schlozman KL (1995) Beyond SES: a resource model of political participation. Am Polit Sci Rev 89(2):271–294 Chambers S (2003) Deliberative democratic theory. Annu Rev Polit Sci 6:307–326 Chambers S (2018) The philosophic origins of deliberative ideals. In: Bächtiger A, Dryzek JS, Mansbridge J, Warren ME (eds) The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy. Oxford University Press Choi E, Woo J (2010) Political corruption, economic performance, and electoral outcomes: a cross-national analysis. Contemp Polit 16(3):249–262 Dahl RA (1956) A preface to democratic theory. University of Chicago Press Dahl RA (1966) Further reflections on “the elitist theory of democracy”. Am Polit Sci Rev 60(2): 296–305 Dahl RA (1971) Polyarchy: participation and opposition. Yale University Press, New Haven Dahl RA (2006) On political equality. Yale University Press Dahl RA (2015) On Democracy. With two chapters by Ian Shapiro Dalton RJ (2004) Democratic challenges, democratic choices: the erosion of political support in advanced industrial democracies. Oxford University Press, Oxford Dalton RJ (2008) Citizenship norms and the expansion of political participation. Pol Stud 56(1):76–98 Dawson J, Hanley S (2016) What’s wrong with east-Central Europe?: the fading mirage of the “Liberal consensus”. J Democr 27(1):20–34 de Sousa Santos B (1998) Participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre: toward a redistributive democracy. Polit Soc 26(4):461–510 de Sousa Santos B (2005) Participatory budgeting in Porto Alegre: toward a redistributive democracy. In: de Sousa Santos B (ed) Democratizing democracy: beyond the Liberal democratic canon. Verso, New York Elstub S (2018) Deliberative and participatory democracy. In: Bächtiger A, Dryzek JS, Mansbridge J, Warren ME (eds) The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy. Oxford University Press Ferraz C, Finan F (2011) Electoral accountability and corruption: evidence from the audits of local governments. Am Econ Rev 101(4):1274–1311 Fishkin JS, Luskin RC (2005) Experimenting with a democratic ideal: deliberative polling and public opinion. Acta politica 40(3):284–298 Floridia A (2018) The origins of the deliberative turn. In: Bächtiger A, Dryzek JS, Mansbridge J, Warren ME (eds) The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy. Oxford University Press Fukuyama F (1989) The end of history? Natl Interest 16:3–18 Fukuyama F (2006) The end of history and the last man. Simon and Schuster Goodin R (2008) Innovating democracy: democratic theory and practice after the deliberative turn. Oxford University Press, Oxford Greskovits B (2015) The hollowing and backsliding of democracy in east Central Europe. Global Pol 6: 28–37 Grzymała-Busse A (2006) The discreet charm of formal institutions: Postcommunist party competition and state oversight. Comp Pol Stud 39(3):271–300 Habermas J (1987) The theory of communicative action. Beacon, Boston Halsall P (2000) Ancient history sourcebook: thucydides (c. 460/455–c. 399 BCE): Pericles’ Funeral Oration from the Peloponnesian War (Book 2.34-46). Available at: https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/ancient/pericles-­funeralspeech.asp. Retrieved December 12, 2019 Harris EM (1992) Pericles’ praise of Athenian democracy Thucydides 2.37.1. Harv Stud Class Philol 94:157–167

2  Geoparticipation and Democratic Theory

35

Held D (2006). Models of democracy. Polity Hibbing JR, Theiss-Morse E (2002) Stealth democracy: Americans’ beliefs about how government should work. Cambridge University Press Huntington SP (1973) Political order in changing societies. Yale University, New Heaven Huntington SP (1975) Chapter III: The United States. In: Crozier M, Huntington SP, Watanuki J (eds) The crisis of democracy. New York University Press. Available at: http://www.trilateral. org/download/doc/crisis_of_democracy.pdf Inglehart R, Welzel C (2003) Political culture and democracy: analyzing cross-level linkages. Comp Polit 36:61–79 Krouse RW (1982) Polyarchy and participation: the changing democratic theory of Robert Dahl. Polity 14(3):441–463 Lipset SM (1960) Political man: the social bases of politics. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore Levitsky S, Way LA (2002) Elections without democracy: the rise of competitive authoritarianism. J Democr 13(2):51–65 Lijphart A (1989) The structure of inference. In: Almond G, Verba D (eds) The civic culture revisited. Sage Publications, London Lindberg SI, Lührmann A, Mechkova V (2017) From de-jure to de-facto: mapping dimensions and sequences of accountability. World Development Report Macpherson CB (1977) The life and times of Liberal democracy. Oxford University Press, Oxford McAllister I (2017) Democratic theory and electoral beahvior. In: Fisher J, Fieldhouse E, Franklin MN, Gibson R, Cantijoch M, Wlezien C (eds) The Routledge handbook of elections, voting behaviour and public opinion. Routledge Mechkova V, Lührmann A, Lindberg SI (2018) The accountability sequence: from De-Jure to De-Facto constraints on governments. Stud Comp Int Dev 54(1):40–70 Menser M (2018) We decide! Theories and cases in participatory democracy. Temple University Press. Education in the North Merkel W, Scholl F (2018) Illiberalism, populism and democracy in east and west. Politologicky Casopis 25(1) Mulgan R (2000) ‘Accountability’: an ever-expanding concept? Public Adm 78(3):555–573 Mutz DC (2006) Hearing the other side. Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge O’Donell GA (1994) Delegative democracy. J Democr 5(1):55–69 O’Donnell GA (1998) Horizontal accountability in new democracies. J Democr 9(3):112–126 Olson M (2009) The logic of collective action: public goods and the theory of groups, Second Printing with a New Preface and Appendix. Harvard University Press Pánek J (2016) From mental maps to GeoParticipation. Cartogr J 53(4):300–307 Parvin P (2017) Democracy without participation: a new politics for a disengaged era. Res Publica 24(1):31–52 Pateman C (1970) Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge University Press Pateman C (2003) Participation and democratic theory. In: Dahl RA, Shapiro I, Cheibub JA (eds) The democracy sourcebook. Mit Press Pateman C (2012) Participatory democracy revisited. Perspect Polit 10(1):7–19 Perote-Peña J, Piggins A (2015) A model of deliberative and aggregative democracy. Econ Philos 31(1):93–121 Putnam RD (1993) Making democracy work: civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton University Press Putnam RD (2000) Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community. Simon and Schuster Sartori G (1970) Concept misformation in comparative politics. Am Polit Sci Rev 64(4):1033–1053 Sartori G (1976) Parties and party systems. A framework for analysis. Cambridge University Press, New York Sartori G (1987) The theory of democracy revisited. Columbia University Press

36

J. Bakule

Schedler A (1999) Conceptualizing accountability. The self-restraining state: power and accountability in new democracies 14 Schedler A (2002) Elections without democracy: the menu of manipulation. J Democr 13(2):36–50 Schedler A, Sarsfield R (2007) Democrats with adjectives: linking direct indirect measures of democratic support. Eur J Polit Res 46(5):637–659 Schlozman KL, Verba S, Brady HE (2012) The unheavenly chorus: unequal political voice and the broken promise of American democracy. Princeton University Press Schmitter P, Karl T (1991) What democracy is…and is not. J Democr 2:75–88 Schmitter PC (2004) The quality of democracy: the ambiguous virtues of accountability. J Democr 15(4):47–60 Schumpeter JA (1943/2013) Capitalism, socialism and democracy. Routledge Skinner Q (1973) The empirical theorists of democracy and their critics: a plague on both their houses. Political Theory 1(3): 287–306 Stoker G (2006) Explaining political disenchantment: finding pathways to democratic renewal. Polit Q 77(2):184–194 Teorell J (2006) Political participation and three theories of democracy: a research inventory and agenda. Eur J Polit Res 45(5):787–810 Verba S, Nie N (1972) Participation in America: political democracy and social equality. Harper and Row, New York Verba S, Nie NH (1987). Participation in America: political democracy and social equality. University of Chicago Press Verba S, Nie NH, Kim JO (1978) Participation and political equality: a seven-nation comparison. CUP Archive Walker JL (1966) A reply to “further reflections on ‘the elitist theory of democracy’”. Am Polit Sci Rev 60(2):391–392 Yack B (2006) Rhetoric and public reasoning: an Aristotelian understanding of political deliberation. Political Theory 34(4):417–438 Zakaria F (2007) The future of freedom: illiberal democracy at home and abroad. WW Norton and company

Chapter 3

Geospatial Technologies for Geoparticipation Jaroslav Burian, Jiří Pánek, and Vít Pászto

Abstract  The aim of this chapter is to provide the reader with a basic overview of the use of geospatial technologies for geoparticipation of citizens. In the first part, the whole issue is set within the broader concept of traditional spatial planning, followed by an overview of new approaches, i.e. participation, smart city, geodesign and spatial analysis (and simulations and models). In the second part, the reader is offered an overview of selected technologies (tools, applications and programs) used for data collection and further for their analytical processing, modelling and visualisation within the geodesign method. The chapter does not aim to provide a complete list of tools, but rather to show the great diversity of possible applications and solutions. Keywords  Geoparticipation · Geodesign · Spatial analysis · GIS · Urban planning

3.1 Introduction Urban development in the developed countries of the world is, currently, mostly influenced by various spatial planning instruments (documents). These are defined in individual countries primarily by the relevant legislation, but also by the degree of citizen involvement in the process of their creation. A common feature of most of them is the use of many sources of geographical data and their processing into maps (plans). These maps visualise, in addition to a current situation, any specific new proposals for development in an area, which should mostly be based on the needs of J. Burian (*) · V. Pászto Department of Geoinformatics, Faculty of Science, Palacky University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic e-mail: [email protected] J. Pánek Department of Development and Environmatal Studies, Faculty of Science, Palacky University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Pánek (ed.), Geoparticipatory Spatial Tools, Local and Urban Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05547-8_3

37

38

J. Burian et al.

its inhabitants and on the potential of the area, i.e. its suitability for further development. However, other aspects of the production of planning documents are highly variable, in terms of the data used, methods, technologies and approaches to community involvement. While, in traditional spatial planning, GIS and other geoinformation technologies were mainly used for the production of map outputs, modern approaches also use their analytical functions to a much greater extent, as well as tools for collaboration across all subjects. In the context of new approaches to urban planning, such as smart cities, geodesign and public participation GIS, the application of related modern information technologies such as sensor networks, Internet of Things (IoT), mobile and web applications, etc. is becoming increasingly important.

3.2 Traditional Approaches to Urban Planning Especially in the last two centuries, there have been significant changes in the spatial layout of cities, where not only the cities themselves are changing but also their surroundings and the way we understand and “use” urban space. Institutions at different levels of government, including local government, are involved in guiding spatial development through strategic, spatial and, at a practical level, strategic spatial planning. Strategic planning of territorial development is one of the tools used for the administration and development of a given territory (state, region, municipality), just like spatial planning. It is primarily the formulation of a vision of the future, i.e. a shared idea of the ideal state of the relevant spatial unit (e.g. strategic city plans or strategic plans for sustainable transport). Spatial planning is a field that is now an absolutely essential part of the management and organisation of public administration in developed countries. Its aim is to create the conditions for construction and for the sustainable development of the territory, i.e. development that meets the needs of the present generation without endangering the living conditions of future generations, consisting of a balanced relationship between the conditions for a favourable environment, for economic development and for the cohesion of the community of inhabitants of the territory (Gro Harlem Brundtland 1987). The most common planning document that a citizen can influence is the master plan, sometimes called a local plan, urban plan or spatial plan. The spatial plan is the basic conceptual document of a municipality to guide its development. The spatial plan sets out the basic concept of the development of the municipality’s territory, the protection of the territory’s values, the spatial and area layout (urban concept), the layout of the landscape and the concept of public infrastructure. The spatial plan defines the built-up area, areas and corridors, buildable areas in particular, areas designated for changes to an existing built-up area, areas for the restoration or reuse of degraded land, areas for publicly useful buildings and areas for

3  Geospatial Technologies for Geoparticipation

39

publicly useful measures and for territorial reserves. It also sets out the conditions for the use of these areas and corridors. However, the definition of a spatial plan is far from uniform (urban plan, spatial plan, master plan, local plan), as well as its exact content, scope, objectives and method of preparation. The involvement of citizens in the process of drafting planning documents is usually dealt with by means of comments on the sub-phases of drafting and also through public hearings, where citizens have the opportunity to express their positions or any other opinions. However, this most common form of participation has a number of limitations (e.g. limited opportunity to express views at public hearings or limited accessibility of published information). Above all, it leads to relatively little involvement of citizens. The majority of comments come especially from informed people, who tend to comment on plans under discussion in a negative way, and only when they are directly affected by a plan. Thus, many citizens do not find out about planned urban development activities at all or only at later stages when the possibilities for change are very limited. Positive evaluations are thus very uncommon; moreover, citizens are mostly confronted with an evaluation of the situation proposed by the architect and thus have no opportunity to make their own suggestions.

3.3 Modern Approaches to Urban Planning Traditional planning methods are based primarily on the professional work of spatial planners (mostly architects) who create the relevant spatial planning documents on the basis of which changes are implemented in the territory. The public enters into the process through comments or objections and also in public hearings on land-use plans and thus has virtually no opportunity to express its views before the planning processes begin. In contrast, modern approaches to urban planning make much greater use of various geoinformation technologies (especially GIS, mapping applications and various analytical and simulation models), leading to greater citizen participation and more efficient and accurate urban planning. However, the issue of implementing modern technologies (especially GIS) in urban planning is not new and has been addressed by a number of authors in the past (e.g. Yeh 2005; Masser and Ottens 1999; Stillwell et al. 1999; Scholten and Stillwell 1990 or LeGates 2005).

3.3.1 Participation of Residents Geoinformation technologies are also applied in the commenting process in addition to the acquisition of land-use plans. In view of the large number of comments that need to be processed (in the case of large cities, it is thousands), some cities

40

J. Burian et al.

have implemented online commenting (Fig.  3.1) on master plans (e.g. Prague, Český Krumlov, Liberec, Plzeň Region and Jihlava). Although these are relatively simple applications that link a map with the data collection service, this is a significant shift in spatial planning. The application called PUPík (Planning Plan Comment) used in Jihlava even won the IT Project of the Year award in 2014. The application is intended for the citizens of the city to get acquainted with the emerging draft of the master plan. Citizens could raise questions directly through the application; they could also give warnings and make comments or objections to the text and map part of the draft before the official public hearing. The involvement of the public (referred to as participation) in the process of developing land-use plans is evident, not only in the context of commenting but also in the process of initial plan development and data collection (e.g. VGI – volunteered geographic information  – or participatory mapping, e.g. Brabham 2009). This issue is already quite widespread abroad (e.g. Klosterman 1990; Caldeira and Holston 2015; McCall and Dunn 2012; Jankowski 2017), e.g. in the USA and the Netherlands. Participatory mapping can be used, for example, to identify spatial conflicts (Brown and Raymond 2014) or, conversely, values in a territory (Maier 2015). In the Czech Republic, the issue has been addressed by Plíhal (Plíhal 2013) and most frequently by Pánek (e.g. Pánek and Pászto 2017; Pánek et al. 2017a, b). Much of Pánek’s research has focused on the application of so-called emotional maps (“Pocitovemapy.cz” 2017), which have been deployed in several dozen Czech cities, especially in collaboration with the Healthy Cities Network. The mapping outputs have been used to identify many different types of locations (evoking a range of different feelings), e.g. dangerous or positive places, which serve as a basis for decision-making in urban development planning. All these sub-outputs can be used to identify the development potential of municipalities (e.g. Pánek and Benediktsson 2017).

Fig. 3.1  Example of online commenting on the Liberec master plan

3  Geospatial Technologies for Geoparticipation

41

3.3.2 Smart City The involvement of citizens in the functioning of the city (and also in the creation of spatial plans) is often associated with a significant current trend, namely, the issue of smart cities (so-called smart cities or smart city). The issue of smart cities is currently being addressed by a number of authors, of whom the geographers’ perspective is the closest to the connection with land-use planning and citizen participation (e.g. Batty 2013a, 2016a; Laurini 2017). Definitions of smart city are not clear-cut and settled (see, e.g. Guerra 2017, for a closer look), but the descriptions of most authors correspond to the definition given by Bárta (Bárta 2014): “Smart Cities are communities of people communicating and using flows of energy, materials, services, finance, data and information to accelerate sustainable economic development, stability and a high quality of life. These flows and interactions become smart through the strategic use of information and communication infrastructures and services in a process of transparent spatial planning and management that is sensitive to the social and economic needs of society”. The smart cities concept is most applicable in the transport (e.g. Lingli 2016) and energy sectors (e.g. Calvillo et al. 2016) and in the deployment of modern information and communications technologies in general (Bárta et al. 2015). From a geoinformatics perspective, the implementation of smart city is characterised by the use of spatial data, big data (e.g. Pool 2013; Rathore et al. 2016; Batty 2013a), cloud computing, spatial analysis, modelling (for more details, see, e.g. Bárta et al. 2015; Geertman et  al. 2015), simulations, facility management (e.g. Yamamura et  al. 2017), advanced 3D, AR/VR (e.g. Alonso et  al. 2018; Orii et  al. 2020) and web visualisations (e.g. Esri India 2015). In the area of public administration, we can mention the activities taking place in the Czech Republic, where a working group has been established under the Ministry of Regional Development to guide cities that subscribe to the smart city concept. Currently, most large cities already have or are developing their own strategic documents focused on this area. It is mainly the larger ones (e.g. Prague, Brno, Plzeň, Olomouc, Ostrava) that have sufficient financial resources for implementation. It is also evident that these cities are linked to the already existing highquality spatial data infrastructure, which is essential for building the smart city concept. Examples include the cities of Brno (“SmartCityBrno.cz” 2017) and Prague (“Smart Prague” 2017), the latter of which has been involved in several projects with foreign partners (e.g. “Morgenstadt – City Labs” 2017; “Triangulum – The Three Point Project” 2017) and is currently implementing two projects focused on the creation of a large-­scale data platform and 3D visualisation of Prague (“Smart Prague” 2017).

42

J. Burian et al.

3.3.3 Geodesign Another concept that is significantly related to the involvement of residents in the functioning of the city is geodesign. This is used in conjunction with spatial planning to refer to a set of methods and concepts that are used to engage the public, planners and investors in the design and implementation of optimal solutions for spatial change (Steinitz 2012). Although geodesign has only been used in practice in the last few years, the method itself is not new. The well-known publication by Ian McHarg Design with Nature (McHarg 1969) can be referred to as its origins. At the same time, the most widespread concept of the method was first introduced by Carl Steinitz (1990), but there are a number of other authors dealing with design in land use (e.g. Batty et al. 1998; Dangermond 2010 or Jorgensen 2012). The greatest spread of the method occurred after 2012, when Carl Steinitz formulated his concepts in a book A Framework for Geodesign: Changing Geography by Design published by Esri Press (Steinitz 2012). This was followed by other publications from Esri Press (e.g. McElvaney 2012) and by the organisation of geodesign Summit conferences, which made the method more widely known to the public. The basic principle of geodesign can be divided into evaluation and design. In both, models are created that answer six basic questions about the suitability of the current or possibly the proposed land use. An important part of the method is the generation of different scenarios (e.g. Ming Chun Lee 2016) or predictions (e.g. Ervin 2012) and the involvement of multiple stakeholders in the planning process (e.g. Slotterback et al. 2016). A number of publications describing the deployment of the method in practical and research tasks can now be found in the literature (e.g. Lee et al. 2014). The urban planner model used in Czech spatial planning (Fig. 3.2) also fits into this concept (Burian et al. 2015, 2018).

Fig. 3.2  Example of land suitability maps (urban planner model) as the result of different scenarios of city development

3  Geospatial Technologies for Geoparticipation

43

3.3.4 Analysis, Modelling and Simulation In the first half of the twentieth century, a number of theoretical models were developed, both in the field of spatial planning (e.g. Hoyt 1939; Harris and Ullman 1945; Burgess 1967; Lynch 1960) and in the field of geography (e.g. Christaller 1933). These and other models laid the theoretical foundations for the analysis and modelling of the urban environment that began to develop a few years later. The early years of spatial modelling are seen as the 1950s and 1960s, when a significant number of practitioners in the USA, Canada and the UK began to focus on urban modelling and analysis, particularly in the 1960s in conjunction with the development of computers. British geographers have continued to focus on urban issues in subsequent years, particularly in relation to individual car transport. A second important factor in the emergence of computer-based models was the increasing development of computer technology. Initially, most models focused on the allocation of housing and jobs; these models were usually static and ignored some other important mechanisms that affect the distribution of activities in an area (e.g. transportation and market). Later, more complex models started to emerge, mainly due to the increasing power of computers and also due to the increasing amount of geodata available. Among the most important authors of the 1970s were Wilson (e.g. Wilson 1974) and, especially, Batty (e.g. Batty 1971; Batty and March 1976 or Batty 1983), who are still active in the field of urban modelling and simulation today (e.g. Wilson 2012 or Batty 2016b). Batty in particular is considered through both scholarship and publications as one of the key figures in urban modelling, setting the main research directions for many years (for a closer look, e.g. Longley and Batty 1996). In the 1990s, Batty’s main focus was on the use of GIS (e.g. Batty and Xie 1994a, b), fractal geometry (Batty and Longley 1994) and cellular automata (e.g. Batty et al. 1999). More recently, he has devoted his attention to the use of big data (e.g. Batty 2016a), smart city issues (e.g. Batty 2018) and summarising monographs on city modelling (e.g. Batty 2008, 2010 or 2013b). In addition to the UK, urban modelling has also been developed in Germany and the USA in the past. Among the German experts, Wegener (2001), Landis (e.g. 1994) and more recently Waddell (e.g. Waddell and Ulfarsson 2004) can be highlighted. Waddell’s micro-simulation model, UrbanSIM (e.g. Waddell 2002), and its later modifications are considered to be among the most sophisticated and successfully deployed models in practice.

3.4 Selected Models, Applications and Tools In the field of geoparticipation, the most important role is played by tools designed for data collection in the field, their analysis and, last but not least, their visualisation. These are mainly models, applications and tools linked to the GIS

44

J. Burian et al.

environment, especially their web and mobile versions. A very detailed overview of the various tools for data collection and citizen engagement is provided, for example, by Babelon (2019), Haltofová (2017) and Sieber (2006). In the past, a considerable number of computer models and programs have been developed and have found, more or less, some application in the fields of spatial planning and urban geography. There are therefore a considerable number of publications describing these models. The classification, description and analysis of urban models have been dealt with by a number of authors in the past. Among the older publications, we can again mention the works of Batty, who describes dynamic models (Batty and March 1976) and linear models (Batty 1983), and Putman (Putman 1983), who deals with integrated models. In subsequent years, the literature described large-scale models (Klosterman 1994), operational models (Wegener 1994), land-use models (Oryani et al. 1997), GIS-based models (Fotheringham and Wegener 2000; Brail and Klosterman 2001; Wegener 2001), land-use and transport integrated (LUTI) models (Lee-GosselinGosselin and Doherty 2005; Wegener 2004; Acheampong and Silva 2015; Cordera et  al. 2017), agent-based models (Heppenstall 2012), dynamic models (Silva and Wu 2012) and static equilibrium models (Simmonds et al. 2011). The following text provides an overview of selected technical solutions that are currently used for urban planning in the context of possible citizen (geo)participation. The tools are divided into several categories, namely, those for data collection, analytical processing (and modelling) and geodesign.

3.4.1 Data Collection Tools 3.4.1.1 ArcGIS Survey123 According to the product description on Esri’s website (2021), the ArcGIS Survey123 is a complete, form-centric solution for creating, sharing and analysing surveys. It is a spatial and non-spatial data collection platform from the Esri family of products primarily designed for mobile devices. The multilingual application allows for both online and offline data collection and can create different types of (spatial) forms and questions. At the same time, the application allows to work dynamically with the map base and to collect or insert multimedia content (images, videos, audio). If working in online mode, it is possible to instantly analyse and visualise the results of the field survey. In addition, survey results are stored in an environment that is integrated with other Esri applications such as ArcGIS Online, ArcGIS Pro, etc. This makes it possible to analyse the data in these other specialised products too (Fig. 3.3). Of course, it is also possible to export the collected data and work with it in other GIS products or any other tools for data analysis. The breadth of the tool’s use can be demonstrated by its deployment in, for example, citizen science and geoparticipation (e.g. Tiede 2020). As the tool is generic enough to be

3  Geospatial Technologies for Geoparticipation

45

Fig. 3.3  Example of results from Survey123 application

applied in various fields, it has recently been used in tourism research (e.g. Jordan et al. 2021), education (e.g. Phantuwongraj et al. 2021) and even COVID-19 management (Wray 2020). 3.4.1.2 Pocitovemapy.cz // EmotionalMaps.eu The application is co-developed by Jiri Panek and is based on Leaflet library. It allows users to collect and store spatial data as GeoJSONs. Unlike Ushahidi, ArcGIS Online and many others, the app does not require registration, installation or any special plug-ins; hence, it can be used freely in any available browser. The only limitation is the connection to the Internet, as it does not operate offline. The application runs with MySQL database in the backend, and it uses PHP to operate the frontend. Through the web app, the respondents can be asked spatial questions about the city/neighbourhood/studied area using various spatial features (points, lines, polygons) with additional comments. Furthermore, non-spatial questions (regarding various preferences) or demographic questionnaires can be added at the end of the mapping. This helps with further analysis of the data (Fig. 3.4) and with the filtering of the results based on the respondents’ gender, age, education, economic status and neighbourhood. 3.4.1.3 Ushahidi Ushahidi is a Kenyan non-profit company that develops free and open-source software for information collection, visualisation and interactive mapping. The platform uses the concept of crowdsourcing for social activism and public accountability,

46

J. Burian et al.

Fig. 3.4  Example of the results from Pocitovemapy.cz

serving as an initial model for what has been coined as “activist mapping” – the combination of citizen journalism, geospatial information and social activism (Patrick Meier 2011a). Ushahidi, meaning “testimony” or “witness” in Swahili, started as a website in the aftermath of Kenya’s disputed 2007 presidential election, collecting eyewitness accounts of violence reported by e-mail and short message service (SMS) and placing them on Google Maps. Shortly afterwards, the platform was made available to the general public for download (Okolloh 2009). Ushahidi’s team established a non-profit company, and they continue to develop the platform (Warren 2010). To date, Ushahidi is used on all five continents for crisis mapping, but also for purely community-based projects (Achi 2014). Ushahidi offers products that enable local observers to submit reports using their mobile telephones or the Internet while simultaneously creating a temporal and geospatial archive of events (Patrick Meier 2011b). The Ushahidi mapping platform, along with its plug-ins, can serve as a tool for the collection, aggregation and visualisation of data and reports, and it can provide a user-friendly environment for interested members of the public and system administrators. Thanks to its open-source origin, the platform can be customised easily according to users’ needs or the demands of the situation (Pánek et al. 2017a, b). In Czechia, Ushahidi was largely used during the floods in 2013 as part of the crisis map of the Czech Republic. In 2021, the city of Zlín (2021) used Ushahidi as a participatory mapping platform for collecting data concerning their sustainable transport plan. 3.4.1.4 KoBoToolbox (https://www.kobotoolbox.org/) The KoBoToolbox is an open-source set of tools allowing the creation and design of interfaces for community data collection, mainly to be used in various natural and humanitarian crises. It was developed at Harvard University (MA, USA) by the

3  Geospatial Technologies for Geoparticipation

47

Harvard Humanitarian Initiative around the team of Phuong Pham and Patrick Vinck. The final version of the platform was released in 2014. The application suite serves as a platform not only for data collection but also for data management and visualisation. The main features of the platform cover designing forms module (complex forms, 20+ question types, skip logic, etc.), data collection module (online/offline, KoBoCollect, SSL protocol, etc.) and analysis and data management module (summary reports, graphs, maps, tables, export options, etc.). It has already been deployed in several humanitarian crises, especially those following some kind of natural disaster. However, as an open source, it could be used in any data collection campaigns. The KoBoToolbox is also suitable for various organisations and researchers working with communities in both developing and developed countries. Examples of the application’s use are testing the quality of services for Syrian refugees, tracking vaccination campaigns, conducting large digitised surveys and COVID-19 tracking. 3.4.1.5 ZmapujTo (zmapujto.cz) ZmapujTo app was launched in May 2012 as an ecological project with the aim of combating illegal landfills in the Czech Republic and thus contributing to solving the problem of black dumps. The aim was to enable the general public to report such transgressions against ecology (and often the law). In addition to being a tool for citizens, ZmapujTo is also a useful tool for municipalities (Fig.  3.5). Currently, ZmapujTo is part of a MUNIPOLIS app that is designed as a two-way communication platform between citizens and municipalities. Currently, over 1300 local governments in Europe (mainly in Czechia) are using this app to communicate with their residents. 3.4.1.6 ArcGIS Collector and ArcGIS Field Maps ArcGIS Collector used to be a stand-alone Esri mobile application available for use with iOS, Android and Windows. The tool has been recently rebranded as ArcGIS Field Maps; however, the whole functionality has been transferred to and enhanced in the new ArcGIS Field Maps app. The user needs an ArcGIS organisational account to make full use of the application. Previous studies note the utility of Collector for educational applications, including geography classrooms (Kolvoord et al. 2017; Peirce 2016) and field trips (Cho and Kang 2017), where typical topics include mapping ecosystem services (Edsall et  al. 2015) and cadastral mapping (Apostolopoulos et  al. 2018, Mourafetis et  al. 2015). Collector is used less frequently for social and cultural applications, despite its possibilities for aggregating data on social and physical phenomena from multiple active field researchers. Its usage in participatory planning is limited, but there are examples (Jihlava) where Collector was also used in this scenario. According to the ArcGIS Field Maps

48

J. Burian et al.

Fig. 3.5  Example of ZmapujTo application

product website (Esri Field Maps), the application helps mobile workers to collect and edit data directly in the field and is the go-to field app supported by maps. The application is designed to support the preparation of a field survey by creating specific field workflows (both online/offline and outdoors/indoors).

3.4.2 Tools for Geodesign 3.4.2.1 Phoenix+ (“Phoenix – Geodan” 2017) Phoenix+ is a web-based application used primarily for the purpose of multi-person participation in the planning process, using a touchscreen. The main component of the tool is a map window that integrates dozens of maps and other data sources and allows their analytical processing and advanced visualisation (2D and 3D) for scenario generation.

3  Geospatial Technologies for Geoparticipation

49

3.4.2.2 CommunityViz (Lieske and Hamerlinck 2015; Pelzer et al. 2015) CommunityViz is an extension of ArcGIS that allows users to assess the potential of a territory using multi-criteria analysis. The tool includes two modules – Scenario 360, which is used for analytical calculations, and Scenario 3D, in which it is possible to visualise the created scenarios in three-dimensional space. 3.4.2.3 UPlan (Walker et al. 2007) UPlan is an ArcGIS extension that allows the creation of urban development scenarios. The basis of the model is a multi-criteria analysis evaluating the suitability of an area for further development in several categories of areas. The model fits into the geodesign concept and has been practically deployed in several dozen cities in the USA. 3.4.2.4 GeoPlanner (“GeoPlannerfor ArcGIS” 2017) GeoPlanner is a web application developed by Esri. The basis of the application is multi-criteria analysis, which can be used to create scenarios regarding the suitability of an area for a selected activity. The application also includes the possibility of comparing individual scenarios, including automatic statistical calculations. The results can also be visualised in 3D and can be further shared via Esri technologies. 3.4.2.5 Priority Places (McElvaney 2012) Priority Places is a free, interactive mapping tool that makes it easier to locate stores, redevelop neighbourhoods and develop properties, by identifying optimal locations for these activities. The user is instructed to select the most important criteria and then enter the weight of importance for each factor, and a priority map is created based on these choices. The program uses weighted overlays of different layers and then creates so-called heat maps of the locations that best meet the selected criteria. For example, a family looking for a house to buy can use this website and specify criteria such as middle class, close to schools, good transport accessibility and close to shops. The combinations and number of layers that go into the calculation are unlimited. Priority Places can be used to plan any number of alternative scenarios (which is one of the main principles of geodesign) to support planning and decision-making.

50

J. Burian et al.

3.4.3 Tools for Analytical Processing and Modelling 3.4.3.1 CityScope (Baeza et al. 2021; MIT CityScope 2021) CityScope is a project managed by the MIT Media Lab City Science group. CityScope includes a slew of tangible and digital platforms focused on solving spatial design and urban planning challenges. The tools range from simulations that quantify the impact of disruptive interventions in cities to community engagement systems. A key part of CityScope is the CityScopeJS – an online tool with a web interface or tangible user interface (TUI). Using this tool, users can input land uses, buildings, open spaces or transport routes, categorise them and enrich their description with details on usability, density and other parameters. These inputs are used as the basis for calculating the various analyses and indicators. Analytical modules include traffic simulation, noise modelling, agent-based modelling, storm-water modelling and others. 3.4.3.2 Mestometer (Velebný 2021) Mestometer is a collective interactive game, a computer simulation with an interactive physical interface. Its aim is to present in a simplified and popular form the importance of spatial planning in Košice (Slovakia), the connections between different strategic decisions and their consequences for the face of the city. Mestometer uses a playful form of interactive design to introduce citizens to key aspects of urban planning, especially the distribution of different functions in the city. The app allows everyone to experience the role and responsibility of urban planners and to follow in real time the changes that in reality often take decades. The aim of the app is to stimulate civic engagement and interest in urban development planning in a fun way. The user interface is designed as an analogue haptic game with wooden dice on a large table. These are then, thanks to camera capture, the source of animations and visualisations on a large format projection. Mestometer is an experimental data visualisation based on existing data on housing, traffic, industry, environment and other parameters of urban life. 3.4.3.3 iCity – Irregular City (Stevens et al. 2007) iCity is an ArcGIS extension modifying the traditional concept of cellular automata to include irregular spatial structures, asynchronous growth and high temporal and spatial resolution. Calculations are handled at the level of individual parcels, which are assigned a functional use, the degree of development of that category and other additional information (e.g. population). Using the tool, it is possible to create scenarios for the development of the territory and to compare them with each other.

3  Geospatial Technologies for Geoparticipation

51

3.4.3.4 UrbanSIM (e.g. Waddell 2002; Waddell et al. 2008) UrbanSIM (currently called UrbanCanvas) is the most sophisticated simulation model for integrating planning tools with urban development analysis. The model is composed of several sub-models (e.g. regression, allocation, sampling, location sampling) and is designed to model urban development, traffic, population and environmental conditions, in the form of different scenarios. UrbanSIM was developed as open source, and in the later years of its development, it became part of the OPUS (Open Platform for Urban Simulation – Waddell et al. 2006) modelling toolkit and later also the UrbanCanvas visualisation tool. In 2016, the model was incorporated into Autodesk products, but its development continues under the GNU GPL license. Other versions of the model, in particular the UrbanCanvas model, build on the model. 3.4.3.5 Index Online and SPARC (“SPARC” 2017) Index Online is a web-based application designed to create real-time scenarios based on weighting and evaluating input indicators. All calculations and data handling are done in a cloud environment, and the tool includes the SPARC application that performs data processing as well as data checks, corrections and conversions. The main interface of the application is a map window with editing and analysis functionality. 3.4.3.6 Envision Tomorrow (Geertman et al. 2015; “Envision Tomorrow” 2017) Envision Tomorrow is an open-source tool created as an extension of ArcGIS. By linking with Excel, the tool allows for a multi-criteria analysis method to generate alternative scenarios of the potential of an area. The evaluation takes place at the level of detail of individual buildings. 3.4.3.7 UrbanAPI – Urban Agile Policy Implementation (Gebetsroither-­Geringer 2014; Khan et al. 2014; “urbanAPI” 2017) UrbanAPI is a suite of three software applications (3D Scenario Creator, Mobility Explorer, Urban Development Simulator) to simulate urban growth and evaluate land-use changes within urban environments. The model includes advanced visualisation tools linked to a GIS environment.

52

J. Burian et al.

References Acheampong RA, Silva EA (2015) Land use – transport interaction modeling: a review of the literature and future research directions. J Transp Land Use 8(3):11–38. https://doi.org/10.5198/ jtlu.2015.806 Achi FG (2014) Behind the map: crises and crisis collectives in high-tech actions. Univ West Ont J Anthropol 22(1) Alonso L, Zhang YR, Grignard A, Noyman A, Larson K (2018) CityScope: a data-driven interactive simulation tool for urban design. In: Use Case Volpe. Springer proceedings in complexity, pp 253–261 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­96661-­8_27 Apostolopoulos K, Geli M, Petrelli P, Potsiou C, Ioannidis C (2018) A new model for cadastral surveying using crowdsourcing. Surv Rev 50(359):122–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/0039626 5.2016.1253522 Babelon I (2019) Digital participatory platforms in urban planning. Doctoral thesis, Northumbria University Baeza JL, Sievert JL, Landwehr A, Luft J et al (2021) CityScope platform for real-time analysis and decision-support in urban design competitions. Int J E-Plan Res (IJEPR) 10(4):121–137 Bárta D (2014) Informační dopravní systém versus otevřená data. Available from https://www. cityone.cz/strategicky-­provadeci-­plan-­sip-­chytrych-­mest/t6163 Bárta D, Martínek J, Dostál I, Mynařík J, …, Suk P (2015) Metodika Konceptu inteligentních měst Batty M (1971) Modelling cities as dynamic systems. Nature 231(5303):425–428. https://doi. org/10.1038/231425a0 Batty M (1983) Linear urban models. Papers Regional Sci Assoc 53(1):5–25. https://doi. org/10.1007/BF01939916 Batty M (2008) Cities as complex systems (June 2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­0-­387-­30440-­3 Batty M (2010) Urban modelling: algorithms, calibrations, predictions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Batty M (2013a) Big data, smart cities and city planning. Dialog Hum Geogr 3(3):274–279. https:// doi.org/10.1177/2043820613513390 Batty M (2013b) The new science of cities. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Batty M (2016a) Big data and the city. Built Environ 42(3):321–337. https://doi.org/10.2148/ benv.42.3.321 Batty M (2016b) Urban modeling in computer-graphic and geographic information system environments. Environ Plan B Urban Analyt City Sci. https://doi.org/10.1068/B190663 Batty M (2018) Artificial intelligence and smart cities. Environ Plan B Urban Analyt City Sci 45(1):3–6. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808317751169 Batty M, Longley P (1994) Fractal cities: a geometry of form and function. Academic, New York Batty M, March L (1976) Dynamic urban models based on information-minimising. Department of Geography, University of Reading, Reading Batty M, Xie Y (1994a) Modelling inside GIS: Part 2. Selecting and calibrating urban models using ARC-INFO.  Int J Geogr Inf Syst 8(5):451–470. https://doi. org/10.1080/02693799408902013 Batty M, Xie Y (1994b) Research article. Modelling inside GIS: Part 1. Model structures, exploratory spatial data analysis and aggregation. Int J Geogr Inf Syst 8(3):291–307. https://doi. org/10.1080/02693799408902001 Batty M, Dodge M, Jiang B, Smith A (1998) GIS and urban design. In: Center of Advanced Spatial Analysis (CASA), p 3131 Batty M, Xie Y, Sun Z (1999) Modeling urban dynamics through GIS-based cellular automata. Comput Environ Urban Syst 23(3):205–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0198-­9715(99)00015-­0

3  Geospatial Technologies for Geoparticipation

53

Brabham DC (2009) Crowdsourcing the public participation process for planning projects. Plan Theory 8(3):242–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095209104824 Brail R, Klosterman R (2001) Planning support systems: integrating geographic information systems, models, and visualization tools. ESRI Press, Redlands Brown G, Raymond CM (2014) Methods for identifying land use conflict potential using participatory mapping. Landsc Urban Plan 122:196–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landurbplan.2013.11.007 Burgess E (1967) The growth of the city. An introduction for a research project. In: The city, pp 47–62. https://doi.org/10.2307/3004850 Burian J, Šťastný S, Brus J, Pechanec V, Voženílek V (2015) Urban Planner: Model for optimal land use scenario modelling. GEOGRAFIE 120(3):330–353 Burian J, Stachova M, Vondrakova A (2018) Land suitability assessment of the Olomouc region: an application of an Urban Planner model. J Maps 14(1):73–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/1744564 7.2018.1493407 Caldeira T, Holston J (2015) Participatory urban planning in Brazil. Urban Stud 52(11):2001–2017. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098014524461 Calvillo CF, Sánchez-Miralles A, Villar J (2016) Energy management and planning in smart cities. Renew Sust Energ Rev 55:273–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.10.133 Cho N, Kang Y (2017) Space-time density of field trip trajectory: exploring spatio-temporal patterns in movement data. Spat Inf Res 25(1):141–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/S41324-­016-­0079-­X Christaller W (1933) Die zentralen Orte in Süddeutschland: Eine ökonomisch-geographische Untersuchung über die Gesetzmässigkeit der Verbreitung und Entwicklung der Siedlungen mit städtischen Funktionen. University Microfilms Cordera R, Ibeas A, Dell’Olio L (2017) Land use-transport interaction models Dangermond J (2010) GeoDesign and GIS – designing our future. In: Proceedings of digital landscape architecture, (July 2015), pp 502–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475681003700831 Edsall RM, Barbour L, Hoffman J (2015) Complementary methods for citizen mapping of ecosystem services: comparing digital and analog representations. Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography, pp 295–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­17738-­0_20 Envision Tomorrow (2017) Available from http://envisiontomorrow.org/ envision-­tomorrow-­overview/ Ervin SM (2012) Geodesign futures – nearly 50 predictions In: 2012 geodesign summit Esri (2021) ArcGIS Survey123. Available from https://www.esri.com/en-­us/arcgis/products/ arcgis-­survey123/overview?rsource=%2Fen-­us%2Farcgis%2Fproducts%2Fsurvey123%2Fov erview Esri India (2015) GIS for smart cities build smart cities with Esri CityEngine. Arc India News 9(1):44 Fotheringham AS, Wegener M (2000) Spatial models and GIS: new potential and new models. Taylor & Francis, New York Gebetsroither-Geringer E (2014) Multimethod modeling and simulation supporting urban planning decisions, pp 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­02996-­2_2 Geertman S, Ferreira J, Goodspeed R, Stillwell J (2015) Planning support systems and smart cities. Springer, Cham GeoPlanner for ArcGIS (2017) Available from http://doc.arcgis.com/en/geoplanner/ Gro Harlem Brundtland (1987) Our common future: the report of the world commission on environment and development. cambridge.org. Oxford/New York. Retrieved from https:// www.cambridge.org/core/journals/environmental-­c onservation/article/our-­c ommon-­ future-­t he-­r eport-­o f-­t he-­world-­c ommission-­o n-­e nvironment-­a nd-­d evelopment-­o xford-­ university-­p ress-­o xford-­n ew-­y ork-­x v-­3 47-­3 5-­p p-­2 025-­1 325-­1 75-­c m-­o xford-­p aperback595-­net-­i Guerra M (2017) What exactly is a SMART CITY? Electron Des 65(2):20–35. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­06160-­3

54

J. Burian et al.

Haltofová B (2017) Implementation of geo-crowdsourcing mobile applications in e-government of V4 countries: a state-of-the-art survey. World Acad Sci Eng Technol 11(5):568–572 Harris CD, Ullman EL (1945) The nature of cities. Ann Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 242(1):7–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/000271624524200103 Heppenstall AJ (2012) Agent-based models of geographical systems. Springer, Dordrecht Hoyt H (1939) The structure and growth of residential neighborhoods in American cities. Am Sociol Rev 6(3):445. https://doi.org/10.2307/2086238 Jankowski P (2017) Geo-questionnaire in urban planning – preliminary results of the experimental application in Poland preliminary results of the experimental. Rozwój Regionalny i Polityka Regionalna 35:37–54 Jordan EJ, Moran C, Godwyll JM (2021) Does tourism really cause stress? A natural experiment utilizing ArcGIS Survey123. Curr Issue Tour 24(1):1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/1368350 0.2019.1702001 Jorgensen K (2012) A framework for geodesign: changing geography by design. J Landsc Architect 7(2):87. https://doi.org/10.1080/18626033.2012.749602 Khan Z, Ludlow D, Loibl W, Soomro K (2014) ICT enabled participatory urban planning and policy development: the Urbanapi project. Transf Govern People Process Policy 8(2):205–229. https://doi.org/10.1108/TG-­09-­2013-­0030 Klosterman R (1990) Community analysis and planning techniques. Rowman & Littlefield, Savage Klosterman R (1994) Large-scale urban models retrospect and prospect. J Am Plan Assoc 60(1):3–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369408975545 Kolvoord R, Keranen K, Rittenhouse P (2017) Applications of location-based services and mobile technologies in K-12 classrooms. ISPRS Int J Geo-Inf 6(7):209. https://doi.org/10.3390/ IJGI6070209 Landis J (1994) The California Urban Futures Model: a new generation of metropolitan simulation models. Environ Plan B Plan Des 21(4):399–420. https://doi.org/10.1068/b210399 Laurini, R. (2017) Geographic knowledge infrastructure: applications to territorial intelligence and smart cities. Elsevier, London Lee MC (2016) Geodesign scenarios. Landsc Urban Plan 156:9–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landurbplan.2016.11.009 Lee D, Dias E, Scholten H (eds) (2014) Geodesign by integrating design and geospatial sciences, 111. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­08299-­8 Lee-Gosselin MEH, Doherty ST (eds) (2005) Integrated land-use and transportation models. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/9781786359520 LeGates RT (2005) Think globally, act regionally: GIS and data visualization for social science and public policy research. ESRI Press, Redlands Lieske SN, Hamerlinck JD (2015) Integrating planning support systems and multicriteria evaluation for energy facility site suitability evaluation. URISA J 26(1):13–24 Lingli J (2016) Smart city, smart transportation – recommendations of the logistics platform construction In: Proceedings – 2015 international conference on intelligent transportation, big data and smart city, ICITBS 2015. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICITBS.2015.184 Longley P, Batty M (1996) Spatial analysis: modelling in a GIS environment. GeoInformation International, Cambridge Lynch K (1960) The city image and its elements. In: The image of the city. Birkhauser, Boston, pp 46–90. https://doi.org/10.1525/sp.1960.8.3.03a00190 Maier K (2015) Metodická pomůcka pro zapojení veřejnosti do identifikace, sběru a analýzy hodnot a problémů v území při pořízení úplné aktualizace územně analytických podkladů obcí. Česká zemědělská univerzita v Praze Katedra Masser I, Ottens H (1999) Urban planning and geographic information systems. Springer, Berlin/ Heidelberg, pp 25–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­662-­03954-­0_2 McCall MK, Dunn CE (2012) Geo-information tools for participatory spatial planning: fulfilling the criteria for “good” governance? Geoforum 43(1):81–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. geoforum.2011.07.007

3  Geospatial Technologies for Geoparticipation

55

McElvaney S (2012) Geodesign: case studies in regional and urban planning. Environmental Systems Research Institute, Redlands McHarg IL (1969) Design with nature. Wiley, New York MIT CityScope (2021) CityScope. Available from https://cityscope.media.mit.edu/ Morgenstadt  – City Labs (2017) Available from https://www.morgenstadt.de/en/projects/city_ labs.html Mourafetis G, Apostolopoulos K, Potsiou C, Ioannidis C (2015) Enhancing cadastral surveys by facilitating the participation of owners. Surv Rev 47(344):316–324. https://doi.org/10.117 9/1752270615Y.0000000009 Okolloh O (2009) Ushahidi, or ‘Testimony’ Web 2.0 tools for crowdsourcing crisis information. Available from https://www.scirp.org/(S(vtj3fa45qm1ean45wffcz55))/reference/referencespapers.aspx?referenceid=528143 Orii L, Alonso L, Larson K (2020) Methodology for establishing well-being urban indicators at the district level to be used on the cityscope platform. Sustainability 12(22):9458. https://doi. org/10.3390/SU12229458 Oryani K, Greiner U, Harris B (1997) Review of land use models: theory and application. In: Sixth TRB conference on the application of transportation planning methods, pp 80–91 Pánek J, Benediktsson K (2017) Emotional mapping and its participatory potential: opinions about cycling conditions in Reykjavík, Iceland. Cities 61:65–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. cities.2016.11.005 Pánek J, Pászto V (2017) Emotional mapping in local neighbourhood planning. Int J E-Plan Res 6(1):1–22. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJEPR.2017010101 Pánek J, Marek L, Pászto V, Valůch J (2017a) The crisis map of the Czech Republic: the nationwide deployment of an Ushahidi application for disasters. Disasters 41(4):649–671. https://doi. org/10.1111/DISA.12221 Pánek J, Pászto V, Marek L (2017b) Mapping emotions: spatial distribution of safety perception in the city of Olomouc Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­319-­45123-­7_16 Patrick Meier (2011a) Changing the world one map at a time | iRevolutions. Available from https:// irevolutions.org/2011/03/06/changing-­world-­map/ Patrick Meier (2011b) Maps, activism and technology: check-in’s with a purpose | iRevolutions. Available from https://irevolutions.org/2011/02/05/check-­ins-­with-­a-­purpose/ Peirce S (2016) Making learning mobile: using mobile technologies to bring gis into the geography classroom. Teach Innov Projects 6(1) Pelzer P, Arciniegas G, Geertman S, Lenferink S (2015) Planning support systems and task-­ technology fit: a comparative case study. Appl Spat Analysis Policy 8(2):155–175. https://doi. org/10.1007/s12061-­015-­9135-­5 Phantuwongraj S, Chenrai P, Assawincharoenkij T (2021) Pilot study using ArcGIS online to enhance students’ learning experience in fieldwork. Geosciences 11(9):357. https://doi. org/10.3390/GEOSCIENCES11090357 Phoenix – Geodan (2017) Available from https://www.geodan.com/solutions/phoenix/ Plíhal V (2013) Participativní GIS v krajinném a územním plánování. Retrieved from http://gisak. vsb.cz/GISacek/GISacek_2013/referaty/plihal.pdf Pocitové mapy (2017) Available from http://www.pocitovemapy.cz/ Pool R (2013) Smart cities: big data, civic hackers and the quest for a new Utopia. Eng Technol 17509637:91. https://doi.org/10.1365/s40702-­015-­0156-­y Putman S (1983) Integrated urban models. Pion, New York Rathore MM, Ahmad A, Paul A, Rho S (2016) Urban planning and building smart cities based on the Internet of Things using Big Data analytics. Comput Netw 101:63–80. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.comnet.2015.12.023 Scholten HJ, Stillwell JCH (1990) Geographical information systems for urban and regional planning. Springer, Dordrecht

56

J. Burian et al.

Sieber R (2006) Public participation geographic information systems: a literature review and framework. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 96(3):491–507. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-­8306.2006.00702.x Silva E, Wu N (2012) Surveying models in urban land studies. J Plan Lit. https://doi. org/10.1177/0885412211430477 Simmonds D, Waddell P, Wegener M (2011) Equilibrium v. dynamics in urban modelling, pp 23–24 Slotterback CS, Runck B, Pitt DG, Kne L, Reichenbach M (2016) Collaborative geodesign to advance multifunctional landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 156:71–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. landurbplan.2016.05.011 Smart Prague (2017) Available from https://www.smartprague.eu/ SmartCityBrno.cz (2017) Available from https://www.smartcitybrno.cz/ SPARC (2017) Available from http://www.crit.com/sparc/ Steinitz C (1990) A framework for theory applicable to the education of landscape architects (and other environmental design professionals). Landsc J 9(2):136–143. https://doi.org/10.3368/ lj.9.2.136 Steinitz C (2012) A framework for geodesign: changing geography by design. ESRI Press, Redlands Stevens D, Dragicevic S, Rothley K (2007) iCity: a GIS-CA modelling tool for urban planning and decision making. Environ Model Softw 22(6):761–773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. envsoft.2006.02.004 Stillwell J, Geertman S, Openshaw S (1999) Geographical information and planning. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg Tiede SH-LADHD (2020) Implementing geo citizen science solutions: experiences from the citizenMorph project. GI_Forum 2020 8(1) Triangulum – The Three Point Project (2017) Available from http://triangulum-­project.eu/ urbanAPI (2017) Available from http://www.urbanapi.eu/ Velebný S (2021) MESTOMETER – simulation of urban economy. Available from https://www. samuelvelebny.com/home/mestometer Waddell P (2002) UrbanSim: modeling urban development for land use, transportation, and environmental planning. J Am Plan Assoc 68(3):297–314. https://doi. org/10.1080/01944360208976274 Waddell P, Ulfarsson GF (2004) Introduction to urban simulation: design and development of operational models the context and objectives for urban simulation Waddell P, Borning A, Ševčíková H, Socha D (2006) Opus (the Open Platform for Urban Simulation) and UrbanSim 4. Book:1–296. https://doi.org/10.1145/1146598.1146702 Waddell P, Wang L, Liu X (2008) UrbanSim: an evolving planning support system for evolving communities. In: Planning support systems, pp 103–138 Walker W, Gao S, Johnston R (2007) UPlan: geographic information system as framework for integrated land use planning model. Transport Res Record 1994:117–127. https://doi. org/10.3141/1994-­16 Warren JY (2010) Grassroots mapping: tools for participatory and activist cartography Wegener M (1994) Operational urban models state of the art. J Am Plan Assoc 60(1):17–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369408975547 Wegener M (2001) New spatial planning models. Int J Appl Earth Obs Geoinf 3(3):224–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0303-­2434(01)85030-­3 Wegener M (2004) Overview of land-use transport models. In: Transport geography and spatial systems, pp 127–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-­011-­9614-­1 Wilson A (1974) Urban and regional models in geography and planning. Wiley, London Wilson A (2012) The science of cities and regions. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­94-­007-­2266-­8

3  Geospatial Technologies for Geoparticipation

57

Wray A (2020) Using Survey123 and portal for ArcGIS to manage a large team related to COVID-19 economic recovery research  – Esri Canada GIS Centres of Excellence. Available from https://ecce.esri.ca/western-­blog/2020/12/03/using-­ survey123-­and-­portal-­to-­manage-­covid-­19-­economic-­recovery-­research/ Yamamura S, Fan L, Suzuki Y (2017) Assessment of urban energy performance through integration of BIM and GIS for smart city planning. Proc Eng. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. proeng.2017.04.309 Yeh A (2005) Urban planning and GIS. In: Geographical information systems: principles, techniques, management and applications, p 404 Zlín (2021) Ushahidi – Mapa problémů v dopravě města Zlín. Available from https://zlin.ushahidi. io/views/map

Chapter 4

Open Data and Its Role in Geoparticipation Jaroslav Burian and Barbora Kočvarová

Abstract  This chapter is devoted to the characteristics of open data and the related technical and licensing aspects of its creation and use. The most common data formats and approaches to opening data are presented, which have a major impact on their subsequent use by the professional community. To give you a better idea, the chapter also describes several concrete examples of good practice in open data publishing in the Czech Republic. In addition to open data, the chapter also describes the technical options for publishing data, i.e. data catalogues and metadata, and the legal aspects of open data publishing, in particular copyright and licensing. Keywords  Open data · Metadata · Data formats · Licenses This chapter is devoted to the characteristics of open data and the related technical and licensing aspects of its creation and use. In addition to open data, the chapter also describes the technical options for publishing data, i.e. data catalogues and metadata, and the legal aspects of open data publishing, in particular copyright and licensing.

4.1 Open Data and the Publishing Process 4.1.1 Introduction In recent years, many institutions, government organisations and other entities have been trying to make their data available to the public in a form that can be freely used for any purpose. Opening up data is an important phenomenon of our time, J. Burian (*) · B. Kočvarová Department of Geoinformatics, Faculty of Science, Palacky University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Panek (ed.), Geoparticipatory Spatial Tools, Local and Urban Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05547-8_4

59

60

J. Burian and B. Kočvarová

which helps transparency and the transmission of information in society. The private and public sectors produce large amounts of data on a daily basis which, in most cases, is of no further use after some time, because there is no one to examine and use the data for other purposes. According to Vickery (2011), geographic data is one of the largest areas of published open data. As the sources of geographic data grow to include distributed sensor networks, satellites, aerial imagery and many others, including mobile phones, there is a concomitant emphasis on improving the verification, storage and distribution of these data. Vickery sees that the biggest advantage of making this data available to the public is that other expert users can further analyse the data and create innovative applications on top of it. Chlapek et al. (2012) describe such additional benefits of opening up access to geographic and other data to be an increase in the transparency of public administration, making it possible to control its functioning, and as support for research and science. Besides, open data are one of the cornerstones of the Smart City concept, which is why large and small cities are moving towards opening up access to them.

4.1.2 Open Data 4.1.2.1 Definition There are several definitions for open data, but the most widely used is the one by the non-profit organisation Open Knowledge Foundation, which defines open data as “data published on the Internet in a way that does not restrict any user in the way of its use (technically or legally) and authorises all users to redistribute it, provided that the author of the data is named in the use and redistribution, and that other users have the same permissions to deal with the redistributed data (i.e. The redistribution does not restrict these rights, for example, by restricting the user redistributing the open data to non-commercial use only” (Open Data 2018). Another widely used definition of open data characteristics was provided in 2010 by the Sunlight Foundation, which identified ten characteristics that open government data should have. These characteristics are: • Completeness – data should be published to the maximum extent possible. All raw data should be published, unless a breach of the law is committed by the publication of personal data, including its metadata describing the raw data together with an explanation of how the derived data was calculated. • Primary – data published by the government should be original from a primary source, and information about its collection and storage should also be published. • Timeliness – data should be published with as little time lag as possible to maintain its up-to-date status. Preference should be given to data that are time-limited, ideally real-time updates. • Easy availability in physical or electronic form. • Machine readable – data should be in machine-readable form.

4  Open Data and Its Role in Geoparticipation

61

• Non-discrimination – data should not be available after registration or membership and should be accessible to anyone, so no conditions are given to restrict certain groups or individuals. • Use of open standards – data must be shared in an open format or in a format that can be processed in at least one open software. • Open license – data has clearly defined terms of use with a minimum of restrictions so that it can be used for non-commercial and commercial purposes. • Permanently traceable – open data should be permanently available, and once the latest versions of the data are inserted, the original data should still be available and archived appropriately. • Minimum cost of use – data should be available to users at a minimum cost of use that does not exceed the cost incurred to make it available (Sunlight Foundation 2017). 4.1.2.2 Five Levels of Data Openness In 2006, web inventor Tim Berners-Lee proposed a five-level scale for open data, where each level is indicated by a number of stars from one to five, according to the degree of openness. These grades are distinguished by the format in which the data is published. According to Berners-Lee, data is open if it meets the requirements for at least the first level of openness. 1 star – data is accessible on the web in any format that may not be machine readable. The condition is that the data must be published under an open license and therefore have clearly defined terms of use. An example of such a format is a PDF document. 2 stars – data in this level of openness is again accessible on the web with an open license, but is conditional on a machine-readable format. The machine-readable format allows easy access to the information using freely available programming tools. This means that the data is directly readable by programming tools without the need for any preprocessing. For example, data stored as a table meets this condition if the format in which it is stored is XLS or XLSX. An XLS file containing multiple tables, a table embedded as a

element in an HTML file or a DOC file in which a table is contained cannot be considered as open level 2 data because of the need for preprocessing. This level of openness does not impose restrictions on the openness of the format itself, so it is possible to publish data in proprietary or commercial formats. 3 stars – to be considered 3 stars, data must meet the requirements of the previous two levels of openness, i.e. it must be freely available on the web in a machine-­ readable format. It is also required that the format in which the data is published is open, i.e. it must be processable in at least one open-source software. Typical representatives of this group are XML or CSV formats. For spatial data, formats such as GeoJSON, GML or GeoPackage can be used. Esri Shapefile, which is a commercial product, although Esri does not restrict its use with any license

62

J. Burian and B. Kočvarová

requirements, is not exempt from the requirements. For open government data, at least this level of openness is required (Klímek 2019a, b). 4 stars – data with an openness level of 4 differs from the previous ones by using a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) as an object identifier. All relevant entities that are contained in the dataset are identified and thus become linkable (not linked). Objects are given a unique identifier that allows them to be referenced in a similar way to HTML pages. A typical representative of the fourth level of openness is the Resource Description Framework (RDF) format. 5 stars – this is the highest level of openness that must meet Linked Data standards. They make it possible to express relationships between data in the form of links that are machine processable. Data in the fifth level of openness not only contains a unique URI that can be used to refer to it but also links to other related data, giving it the additional context it needs (Opedata.gov 2018). 4.1.2.3 Open Data in the European Union Open data has gained support in the European Union with the issuance of Directive 2003/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the European Council on the reuse of public sector information, which was amended in 2013 to become Directive 2013/37/EU of the European Parliament and of the European Council. Due to the rapid development of the information society and the increasing need to have access to data from a wide variety of domains, these directives have been revised, and Directive (EU) 2019/1024 of the European Parliament and of the European Council on open data and the reuse of public sector information was issued on 20 June 2019. The term public sector information (PSI) has been introduced in the context of open government data. This is information that public bodies create or pay to create. The aforementioned directives focus on the reuse of this information, which can lead to innovation, economic growth and increased efficiency of public administration (Ec.europa.eu 2019). The EU has two official portals for sharing open data – the EU Open Data Portal and the European Data Portal. The EU Public Data Portal is available under the domain Data.europa.eu, established in 2012 by the European Commission and based on the CKAN platform. It contains geographic, political, financial and statistical information, as well as election results, legal acts and other data. This data is provided by the EU institutions and bodies and is provided free of charge without copyright restrictions. The portal has a decentralised structure, so it collects data from the websites of the providers, who are responsible for the availability and quality of the data. The license for the use of data shared on this portal is CC BY 4.0, unless otherwise stated (EU Public Data Portal 2020). The European Data Portal, available at europeandataportal.eu, collects metadata information collected by governments and public institutions in European countries and shared on their public data portals. This includes EU member states, EFTA countries and countries included in the European Neighbourhood Policy. In

4  Open Data and Its Role in Geoparticipation

63

addition to these sources, metadata is also collected from other catalogues whose owners can request to share their data in the European Data Portal. Only the metadata of the datasets is stored in the portal, and when the data itself is downloaded, a link is then provided to the original page of the source where the data is stored. Currently (September 2021), more than 1,400,000 dataset metadata from Europe are on the portal, with the Czech Republic having the largest share (27.7%) with almost 350,000 datasets. To facilitate data discovery in the portal, categories have been created according to the DCAT-AP (Data Catalogue application profile), which is used to describe public sector data in Europe. The European Data Portal was also developed by the European Commission in collaboration with a consortium led by Capgemini Invent, and its first version has been available since 2016. The licenses determining the terms of use of datasets are given by the owners of the datasets, and users should check the license terms before using the data (The European Data Portal 2016, 2020). 4.1.2.4 Open Access, Open Science and Open Research Data Open Access The open availability of scientific information was already in place in the seventeenth century, when the UK created a scientific journal that was distributed to well-­ known scientists (Marek 2018). Until relatively recently, most scientific journals were only available on a subscription basis, and their biggest problems, apart from cost, were insufficient speed of communication to effectively keep pace with the developments of science, as well as the deteriorating availability of journals. These shortcomings led to the emergence of the open access movement, which makes demands for the publication of scientific literature in electronic form so that it is freely available to professionals and the lay public. The movement was officially launched in Budapest at a conference of the Open Society Institute in 2001. This foundation published the Budapest Open Access Initiative document the following year, which gave direction to the development of open access (Dědičová et al. 2016). Open access is defined as “Online access to scholarly information, especially to the full text of peer-reviewed scholarly articles, but also to the text of preprints, conference proceedings, etc., free of charge and to anyone. Its main goal is to achieve greater (‘unlimited’) opportunities for dissemination and access to scientific knowledge for professionals and the lay public, in accordance with the opportunities provided by the current state of information technology” (Database of the National Library of the Czech Republic 2014). There are two basic ways of publishing publications, namely, the gold and green open access pathways. Gold route publication takes advantage of the option of publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals that have immediate open access. Payment of the costs associated with the publication passes from the reader to the author/the author’s employer. When choosing the green approach, the author publishes the article in an open digital archive, in addition to the scientific journal (Office of the Government of the Czech Republic 2017).

64

J. Burian and B. Kočvarová

Open Science Nowadays, open access is no longer sufficient for the rapid development of science, so the term open science, which is the successor to, and also a superior concept of, open access, is becoming more widely used. The principle is to publish not only the research article but also the underlying data and processes. Open science can be defined as “practice of science in such a way that others can collaborate and contribute, where research data, lab notes and other research processes are freely available, under terms that enable reuse, redistribution and reproduction of the research and its underlying data and methods” (National Programme Open Science). Open Research Data Open research data (ORD) is an integral part of open science and a subset of open data. In the National Strategy for Open Access to Scientific Information, ORD is defined as “data, mainly in digital form, originating from research projects (from experiments, surveys and measurements, including ‘metadata’ [data that provide information about other data] and details of data processing) available without restriction to all potential users. Open access to research data includes the ability for anyone to freely use, modify and share data for any purpose”. Furthermore, the strategy requires that data be technically and legally accessible, can be used entirely free of charge and meet the conditions of open data. ORD is one of the characteristics of modern scientific society, but its development is still lagging behind the others due to the conservative environment of the scientific world (Marek 2018). In the EU, the Horizon 2020 programme is the main driver for progress in this area. 4.1.2.5 Open Data Publishing Process The process of publishing open data can be divided into two phases. The first phase involves the analysis of datasets in order to select data suitable for publication, and this should result in a publication plan. The second phase is the actual publication of the data. The publication plan contains a list of datasets to be published, the conditions for their use and the publication schedule. First, a list of datasets recommended for opening is created and further analysed. In deciding whether these datasets are suitable for publication, the benefits and risks of publication need to be determined. The benefits that are usually recommended to be considered are enhancing transparency, promoting economic growth, improving public services and the quality of life, promoting data reuse, improving public perception of public administration, improving public administration processes and data, improving public administration communication and collaboration, avoiding errors arising from data handling, reducing the number of queries, putting the data itself in order and increasing the value of the data. On the other hand, the risks to be identified are publication of data in violation of the law, violation of trade secret protection, violation of personal data protection, publication of inappropriate data or information, misinterpretation of data, absence

4  Open Data and Its Role in Geoparticipation

65

of data consumers, overlapping data and threats to the security of (the) state/property/people. If the analysis does not find significant benefits for opening up access to the data, or serious risks are found, the decision to publish the data should be reconsidered. Once the list of datasets is complete, conditions for their use must be established to avoid violation of copyright and database rights. This will ensure the selection of an appropriate license. Due to the complexity of opening the data, it is recommended that people publish the datasets sequentially according to their priorities (low workload, highest benefits, lowest risks). Therefore, a dataset publication schedule should be established, which will specify the date of opening of each dataset. Once the publication plan is approved, it is determined whether the data will be catalogued in one of the national catalogues or in a local catalogue. If a local catalogue is chosen, the public administration usually has to register its catalogue in the national catalogue in order to facilitate searching. This is followed by the publication of the datasets in open form, which involves not only the publication of the data itself but also an analysis of the data, on the basis of which the degree of openness and structure of the data is selected, along with the determination of the technical form and the preparation of the data. 4.1.2.6 Open Data Formats As already mentioned, one of the main requirements for open data in openness level 3 and above is for it to be in an open format that is machine readable and does not place demands on the software used. The ideal is to use open formats standardised by the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC) or the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). In terms of geographic data, vector and raster formats are most commonly considered. Vector Formats OGC GML (Geography Markup Language) is one of the most commonly used vector formats for writing geographic data. It is a standardised format based on XML, which is defined by ISO standard 19136 (OpenGeoLabs s.r.o. 2015). All data with attributes are stored in a single GML file to which an XSD (XML Schema Definition) document is attached (OGC 2020). GML is the default format for the WFS web service. Several other formats are based on XML, such as CityGML and OGC KML (Keyhole Markup Language). KML is a format developed by Google that focuses on the visualisation of geographic data. Other formats for writing vector data are JSON-based formats – GeoJSON and TopoJSON. Both of these formats are advantageous for their simplicity and have shorter write times compared to the above-mentioned formats, which makes them suitable for use on the web (OpenGeoLabs s.r.o. 2015). Compared to the GeoJSON format, TopoJSON includes a topology that reduces data redundancy, and geometry recorded as arcs is stored in a single topology file (Nétek and Burian 2018).

66

J. Burian and B. Kočvarová

Another standard for storing geographic data is GeoPackage. Unlike the above-­ mentioned formats, it can store both vector and raster data in an SQLite database. Open data can also be in a format developed by a commercial company, but companies do not restrict such a format by license, and they release their technical documentation which can be opened in non-proprietary software. A typical example of such a format is Shapefile from Esri. Although the format has many shortcomings, it is still one of the most widely used vector formats for geospatial data today. Data in the SHP format is stored in several files, at least three of which are necessary for its functionality (.SHP, .SHX, .DBF). The size of the files is a maximum of 2 GB, and each file can store only one type of geometry – point, line and polygon – without topographic information (OpenGeoLabs Ltd. 2015). Raster Formats When using raster formats for spatial data, the images need to be georeferenced in a given coordinate system and with sufficient description in the metadata. When multiple image files are contained in one dataset, it is necessary that all files have the same coordinate system (Spatial Data 2019). GeoTIFF is the most widely used open raster format for geospatial data. This standardised format is based on the TIFF format, to which metadata has been added to describe geographic image data (OGC 2020). Descriptive information such as the coordinate system or the coordinate location of the image is stored in the file header. Another, although not very suitable, format used for raster data is JPEG. This is a compression format that cannot be used for further processing in GIS due to the lossy nature of the data. However, due to the relatively small file size, it is often used for the underlying layers and is often the result of a WMS call. In order to preserve the geographic location information of an image, it needs to be written to the .jwp metadata file and associated with the JPEG file. The PNG format may be slightly more suitable because, due to the compression method, it does not degrade the image information, but due to the limitation in its range of colours, when it is used for geographic data, like JPEG, it is only for base maps and WMS (OpenGeoLabs s.r.o. 2015). It is also possible to use the JPEG 2000 format, for which the OGC consortium has specified a metadata standard for georeferencing JPEG 2000 in GML format. In addition, the already mentioned OGC GeoPackage can be used, which is designed to store both vector and raster data (Spatial Data 2019). Web Services Geographic data can also be shared via web services. These are based on the communication between two machines that pass information and instructions based on standardised protocols such as SOAP (Simple Object Access Protocol), WSDL (Web Service Description Language) and UDDI (Universal Description, Discovery and Integration) (Nétek and Burian 2018). The most widely used web services are OGC standards OWS (Open Web Services), which include WMS, WMTS, WFS, WCS and others. OGC WMS (Web Map Service) is a service providing data in the form of a raster image. The image is automatically generated from both raster and vector data. It is

4  Open Data and Its Role in Geoparticipation

67

therefore only a visualisation of this data; the user does not have access to the data itself, which is why, in the case of data publishing using WMS, it is not open data because the output is not in a machine-readable format (Mráček et al. 2014). Typical formats for WMS output are JPEG, PNG or GIF (Nétek and Burian 2018). OGC WMTS (Web Map Tile Service) is used mostly for large volume data that only changes slightly. On the server side, tiles are prepared for different scales, and these are gradually loaded as users work with the map. The formats used for WMTS are the same as for WMS – JPEG, PNG, GIF and others. OGC WFS (Web Feature Service) is a service for vector data distribution. It allows data to be filtered, so only selected elements of a dataset can be retrieved, and the data can also be manipulated and edited. The format for WFS outputs is OGC GML (OpenGeoLabs Ltd. 2015). The OGC WCS (Web Coverage Service) is a service suitable for sharing contiguous spatial data that is variable in space and time, so it can also work with the fourth dimension. Such data can be, for example, weather data, digital terrain models, vegetation cover images, etc. (Nétek and Burian 2018; OpenGeoLabs s.r.o. 2015). 4.1.2.7 Examples of Open Data Open data can be published by cities, public administrations and any private company, organisation or individual. An example of open data from NGOs and companies is OpenStreetMap, which is data created by a community of users around the world. OpenStreetMap data is distributed under the ODbL license and can be downloaded in several ways, for example, at https://download.geofabrik.de. As an example of a private company’s open data, Esri’s Open Data can be found at https://hub.arcgis.com/search. Other examples of open data from private companies, individuals or organisations are WorldClim, Corine Land Cover and FAOSTAT data. The following are examples of open data from the public administration of the Czech Republic as well as Czech and foreign universities. Public Sector in the Czech Republic The City of Prague has been providing open data since 2015 (see Fig. 4.1). The local portal is based on the CKAN platform and can be accessed at http://opendata. praha.eu. Currently (September 2021), 335 datasets are published here, contributed by 21 organisations, including the Prague City Transport Company, the Institute of Planning and Development of the City of Prague, Prague City Hall, the Technical Administration of Communications, ROPID and others. Datasets can be filtered based on the organisation providing the data, data category, format and license. Currently (September 2021), new data are being processed from the emotional mapping which was carried out throughout the whole territory of Prague in individual city districts (https://www.pocitovemapy.cz/praha/#). This is one of the largest projects involving citizen participation.

68

J. Burian and B. Kočvarová

Fig. 4.1  Open Data catalogue of the City of Prague

The Brno City Council has been managing the Open Data Portal since 2018. Open data can be accessed via the Brno City Data Portal at https://datahub.brno.cz. The portal contains almost 106 datasets from 16 organisations (September 2021). Another example of open data in the Czech Republic is the catalogue of the Ministry of the Environment. This catalogue is also based on the CKAN platform and currently (September 2021) contains 89 datasets. Twelve organisations contribute, including the Agency for Nature and Landscape Protection of the Czech Republic, the Czech Geological Service, the National Parks Administration and others. The catalogue can be accessed at https://opendata.mzp.cz (Table 4.1). Open Data Universities Data is also opened by academic departments. Most of the time, however, it is only data directly related to the university, i.e. data related to university buildings, libraries, classrooms, information about students or staff, etc., for example, the following departments: • Southampton (https://data.southampton.ac.uk) • North Texas (http://data-­untgis.opendata.arcgis.com) • Alicante (https://datos.ua.es/es/busqueda-­de-­datos.html)

4  Open Data and Its Role in Geoparticipation

69

Table 4.1  Other examples of open data in the Czech Republic Ostrava Olomouc Pilsen Opava Hradec Kralove Přerov Jihlava Zlín Decin Bohumín Czech Telecommunications Office Ministry of Finance Ministry of Health Czech justice Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection of the Czech Republic Czech Statistical Office

https://opendata.ostrava.cz https://data.olomouc.eu https://opendata.plzen.eu http://kod.opava-­city.cz http://opendata.mmhk.cz https://www.prerov.eu/cs/magistrat/otevrena-­ data/geograficka-­prostorova-­data-­gis.html https://opendata.kr-­vysocina.cz/index.php https://www.zlin.eu/otevrena-­data-­cl-­3246.html https://opendata.mmdecin.cz https://www.mesto-­bohumin.cz/cz/radnice/web/ otevrena-­data http://data.ctu.cz https://data.mfcr.cz https://opendata.mzcr.cz https://data.justice.cz/SitePages/ DomovskaStranka.aspx http://gis-­aopkcr.opendata.arcgis.com https://www.czso.cz/csu/czso/otevrena_data

Far fewer universities provide open data of a different scope than those mentioned above. For example, the University of Virginia operates an open data portal, built on ArcGIS OpenData, where it shares not only its own GIS data but also data from other providers such as Fairfax County and the City of Charlottesville. The University of Virginia’s data portal is available at http://data-­uvalibrary. opendata.arcgis.com. Another example is the University of Calgary which, along with other non-profit organisations, shares open data on the CKAN portal: https://yycdatacollective.ucalgary.ca/dataset. Historical data in GIS is an example of open geographic data that has been developed at a university in the Czech Republic. This data was created at the Department of Social Geography and Regional Development at the Faculty of Science, Charles University in Prague as part of the project Making Historical Spatial and Statistical Data Available in GIS. The aim of the project was to make available data that are difficult to trace, so the data was digitised. A data portal based on the ArcGIS OpenData platform was created, which contains historical spatial and statistical data. This includes data from population censuses conducted up to 2011, with data available for the whole Czech Republic and for Prague. The use of the layers is conditional on mentioning the project and citing the authors (Historical Data in GIS 2013). The data portal is available at http://historickygis-­ cuni.opendata.arcgis.com.

70

J. Burian and B. Kočvarová

A relatively large portal with open data was also created in the Czech Republic at the Department of Geoinformatics of Palacký University in Olomouc as part of the master thesis of Barbora Kočvarová (2020). The ArcGIS Enterprise Sites solution was used to create the portal. For the purpose of data selection, an inventory of all qualification theses defended at the Department of Geoinformatics of UP since 2013 was created. From this inventory, suitable datasets were then selected in several steps which met the conditions of timeliness, content correctness and, in particular, the possibility of publishing these data from a legislative point of view. In addition to the data produced as part of the qualification work, some datasets produced by academic staff as part of projects, or as the independent works, were selected. The portal currently (September 2021) displays a total of 53 datasets. A large part of the published data is regionally focused and covers the city of Olomouc and its surroundings (e.g. data on spatial potential, public transport and university buildings). However, some datasets have a nationwide coverage and can thus be of interest to a wider range of potential users. It is worth mentioning, for example, point layers of post offices, healthcare and school facilities and the latest dataset called the geoparticipation index, which has a large number of attributes concerning all municipalities in the Czech Republic that are not available anywhere else (Pászto et al. 2021). The created portal (Fig. 4.2) is available at https://gislib.upol.cz/portal/ apps/sites/#/opendata and the index of geoparticipation is available at http://tinyurl. com/geoparticipation.

Fig. 4.2  Open Data Portal of the Department of Geoinformatics of Palacký University in Olomouc

4  Open Data and Its Role in Geoparticipation

71

4.2 Technical Options for Publishing Open Data There are a number of tools for publishing open data. Among the most widely used are the open-source portals CKAN and DKAN; other open-source platforms include Plenar.io, Dataverse Project, Swirrl, JKAN and the Open Data Catalog. According to a study by Xiao et al. (2019), in which they surveyed 112 portals in the USA, the most used commercial portals are ArcGIS and Socrata, and other less used commercial open data portals include Junar, OpenDataSoft and OpenGov.

4.2.1 CKAN The Comprehensive Knowledge Archive Network (CKAN) is an open-source data portal designed for publishing, sharing and serving datasets. It is one of the most widely used tools and is used by a large number of government organisations, governments and members of the public around the world. The development of the CKAN catalogue was started by Rufus Pollock, founder of the Open Knowledge Foundation, which released the first version of the software in 2007. The software is distributed under the Affero GNU GPL 3.0 license, which is a “copyleft” license that allows the product to be distributed and to be built on, under the same license (Winn 2013). CKAN provides a large number of functionalities. In addition to the basics, you can use more than 200 open-source extensions created by the community, and you can create your own. One of the main extensions is CKAN DataStore, which provides a database for storing structured data. If the DataExplorer extension is also added to the DataStore, a preview of the data is automatically displayed on the page. The authors of the CKAN platform have also created the CKAN API, which provides users with almost all the functionality of the CKAN catalogue. Using the API, it is possible to retrieve lists and full JSON representations of datasets, resources and other objects. Users can search for packages and resources based on a query and update and retrieve the change history of datasets on the web (CKAN). Data publishing is enabled in several ways, either through the website, through the CKAN API built on JSON or using import mechanisms. These can be the Geospatial CSW (Catalog Service for the Web) server, existing web directories, simple indexes of HTML pages or folders available on the web, ArcGIS servers, Geoportal and databases available through the Z39.50 protocol. When the dataset is located on an external resource (URL), the data is sent to the CKAN server through the creation of a copy on the CKAN platform (Legierski 2018). Geospatial data is also supported, and, among other things, a preview of data can be seen. If spatial data is stored in the DataStore, it can be displayed on an interactive map which, when clicked on, shows individual features, including detailed information. The spatial extension ckanext-spatial allows users to search the catalogue based on geospatial information (e.g. using a bounding box).

72

J. Burian and B. Kočvarová

CKAN allows you to create a network of CKAN portals that share data with each other or combine data from different CKAN portals into one. Thanks to the support of the DCAT standard for metadata, it is possible to retrieve data from other catalogues that use DCAT.  Each dataset, together with its metadata and list of data sources, is assigned one separate page. Datasets can be published as public or private. In the latter case, only logged-in users can view the data. This platform is user-friendly, thanks to its easy and fast search. Searching can be based on all attributes listed in the metadata, using full-text search or searching for related words instead of exact words, and all these methods can be used via the API (CKAN). The data can be accessed by the user through downloads, previews, graphs or the API. Several other data sharing platforms are based on the CKAN platform. DKAN is the most widely used; others are the Fraunhofer FOKUS Open Data Platform, CKAN + Wordpress or CKAN + OpenCMS (Legierski 2018) (Table 4.2). 4.2.1.1 DKAN DKAN is Drupal’s implementation of the CKAN platform. Drupal is an open-­ source web-based content management system developed in PHP. Its latest version is 8, and it currently has more than 40,000 extensions (Drupal.cz). DKAN is an open-source portal for publishing, cataloguing and visualising open data, managed by CivicActions. It is distributed under the GNU GPL version 2 license. The technologies used to create the DKAN platform are the Drupal framework, the PHP programming environment, the Apache web server, the Recline.js library for building JavaScript and html-based applications. The supported databases are MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQL Server and Oracle. One great advantage is that it is possible to install a large number of plugins and extensions (Legierski 2018). DKAN supports a large number of formats, including CSV, JSON, GeoJSON, PNG, XML and GIF.  It has a CKAN-based API that is only for reading dataset, catalogue or update information. The platform supports the standard for metadata of catalogues published on the web, DCAT, but you can also define your own metadata (DKAN Docs 2019).

Table 4.2  Examples of using the CKAN data catalogue Prague Berlin Government of Slovakia EU Public Data Portal UK government US government Africa

http://opendata.praha.eu https://daten.berlin.de https://data.gov.sk http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/home https://data.gov.uk https://www.data.gov https://open.africa

4  Open Data and Its Role in Geoparticipation

73

Data publishing is possible via a website or API, and data can be stored in the DKAN system or in external repositories. The platform has built-in analytical tools and automatically saves changes (GitHub 2020). Data can be visualised in DKAN in the form of a table, graph or image, and it allows users to visualise information from spatial data on a map (Legierski 2018) (Table 4.3). 4.2.1.2 Socrata Socrata Open Data is a data catalogue for open data publishing. The platform is developed by Tyler Technologies and is used primarily in the USA. It allows publishing, collating, browsing, analysing and visualising data. According to the company’s official website, there are several APIs based on Socrata software. These are primarily the Socrata Open Data API (SODA), which runs on the REST specification with dynamic SDK libraries; the Socrata Data Platform API, which allows automation of the processes of inserting and receiving datasets from multiple sources; and the Socrata Publisher API, which is a programming interface that allows users to sync data into a custom application. Based on Socrata, the Citizen Connect mapping application suitable for mobile devices was created to display public data useful for citizens (Tyler Technologies). The Socrata DataSync tool is also provided; it is a Java-based application designed to automate the update process. Socrata allows you to set data access rights at the level of each file (private data, selectively shared, publicly available). Users can view data as charts, tables or maps, and various data formats are supported, such as CSV, JSON/GEOJSON, Shapefile (in .zip), KML, XML and more. When searching, data can be automatically sorted and filtered, and there are also contextual search, advanced filtering and analytical functions (Legierski 2018) (Table 4.4). Table 4.3  Examples of using the DKAN data catalogue United Nations (UN) Healthcare USA Government of Italy Ministry of Finance of the Czech Republic Opava Ministry of Defence of the Czech Republic

http://data.un.org https://healthdata.gov https://www.dati.gov.it http://data.mfcr.cz http://kod.opava-­city.cz https://data.army.cz/cs

Table 4.4  Examples of using the Socrata data catalogue Chicago New York Colorado

https://data.cityofchicago.org https://opendata.cityofnewyork.us https://data.colorado.gov

74

J. Burian and B. Kočvarová

4.2.1.3 Junar Junar is another platform for sharing open data on the Internet and is mainly used in South America. Datasets can be uploaded to the Junar platform or hosted on the Internet, in CSV, XLS, ODF, DOC, KML/KMZ, JSON and XML formats. Data is displayed to users in the form of maps, tables or charts; it can be filtered, and basic statistics can be retrieved. The Junar platform also has an API that allows the creation of applications that can, for example, be used by authorised users to collect data. As with previous platforms, Junar allows users to set roles and permissions. It is possible to create a central catalogue that collects data from different portals (Junar 2014) (Table 4.5). Plenary.io Launched in 2014, Plenar.io is a data sharing platform developed primarily by the University of Chicago and the National Science Foundation Computer and Information Science and Engineering directorate. It is designed for finding and working with open data based on spatial and temporal data. That is, it is enabled to query for location and time and then filter, or download, selected datasets. It is a centralised open data sharing system to which anyone can contribute their open data, which will be searchable on a single map and timeline in Plenar.io Explorer. Data can be added in zipped Esri Shapefile format or CSV format, and data retrieval is then possible in CSV or JSON (Plenar.io) formats. If a user would like to use the Plenar.io platform for their own website or application, it is possible to use the API, which can be obtained on GitHub at https://github.com/UrbanCCD-­UChicago/ plenario. 4.2.1.4 ArcGIS Hub ArcGIS Hub is a community platform designed by Esri to share open data with the general public. ArcGIS Hub was launched in 2018, replacing the ArcGIS Open Data platform used since 2014 (Turner 2017). It is a commercial solution that is bundled with ArcGIS Online. It uses the Esri Geospatial Cloud and all the pages created and all the data are stored, which is an advantage for organisations that do not want to manage data on their own servers. The platform allows you to create websites without the need for coding. The pages are created using preset components that the user can freely rearrange to change their visual parameters. ArcGIS Hub is designed to share spatial and non-­ spatial data that can be visualised directly on the platform using maps, tables, Table 4.5  Examples of using the Junar data catalogue Government of Chile Government of Peru Government of Costa Rica

https://datos.gob.cl http://datosabiertos.mef.gob.pe http://datosabiertos.presidencia.go.cr/home

4  Open Data and Its Role in Geoparticipation

75

charts, etc. It allows you to search using the categories that are assigned to the data or by using a semantic search, which can find data based on the meaning of the search term. The public can download datasets or filtered parts of datasets in different data formats (Esri 2020). All vector data is automatically available for download in CSV, KML and SHP formats after uploading to the portal and is also accessible in GeoJSON and GeoService API. Furthermore, data can be shared via OGC WMS, WFS and WCS web services. ArcGIS Hub allows you to set rights for workgroup members. If an organisation has paid for a basic license, only members of that organisation can manage ArcGIS Hub sites. If it has a paid Premium license, people outside the organisation, such as volunteers or business partners, can also manage content, but they must have publisher rights set (ArcGIS 2019) (Table 4.6). 4.2.1.5 ArcGIS Enterprise Sites An alternative to ArcGIS Hub is ArcGIS Enterprise Sites. This is an interface for creating web pages to share data from ArcGIS Enterprise Portal. ArcGIS Enterprise is a platform designed for the use and management of spatial data within an organisation. It can run on Windows and Linux platforms and also supports cloud solutions such as Amazon Web Services or Microsoft Azure. It consists of four software components. These are ArcGIS Server, ArcGIS Enterprise Portal, ArcGIS Data Store and ArcGIS Web Adaptor (ArcGIS Enterprise 2019). Currently (as of 28 February 2020), the latest version is 10.8; however, version 10.7 will be used and described in this paper. ArcGIS Server is a component that allows access to geographic information via web services. It can be used in two ways. The first is to use it as part of ArcGIS Enterprise, where the server is linked to the ArcGIS Enterprise Portal, allowing you to access data through layers and web maps in the portal and then build various web and mobile applications from them. The second way is to deploy ArcGIS Server as standalone software that can be used by sites to share core content and services. However, this method is only minimally used (ArcGIS Enterprise 2019). With ArcGIS Enterprise Portal, it is possible to create and store data, create maps and web applications, search ArcGIS platform content and share content with other members of your organisation. The portal primarily includes a portal website where users log in to use the content. It also includes a map viewer where web maps can Table 4.6  Examples of using the ArcGIS Hub data catalogue Agency for Nature Conservation and Landscape Protection of the Czech Republic Los Angeles Johns Creek City of Arlington Brampton

http://gis-­aopkcr.opendata.arcgis.com http://geohub.lacity.org https://datahub.johnscreekga.gov https://pm-­arlingtontx.opendata.arcgis.com https://geohub.brampton.ca

76

J. Burian and B. Kočvarová

be created, saved and viewed. These can be used in another tool, Web AppBuilder for ArcGIS, which is an interactive application for creating custom web applications without the need for programming. In addition to Web AppBuilder, applications can be created using configurable templates. The portal also includes a scene viewer that allows viewing of 3D content. The portal can be linked to ArcGIS Living Atlas of the World. Portal administrators can use several tools to manage users, groups and content and can use the app to track content usage statistics or user and group activity, among other things (ArcGIS enterprise 2019). A component of ArcGIS Enterprise Portal that can be used to share data more easily is ArcGIS Enterprise Sites, which is a website creation interface. ArcGIS Data Store provides different types of data stores for the host server used with ArcGIS Enterprise. These are the Relational data stores that store hosted layers from the portal, the Tile cache data store for hosted scene layers, the Spatiotemporal big data store for archiving real-time observational data, locations recorded with Tracker for ArcGIS and results from GeoAnalytics Tools (ArcGIS enterprise 2019). ArcGIS Web Adaptor is an application that runs on a web page and forwards and secures requests to an ArcGIS server (ArcGIS enterprise 2019). 4.2.1.6 National Open Data Catalogue Individual countries are now also coming up with national catalogues where data, mainly of a national scope and produced by public administration bodies, are published. In the Czech Republic, this is the National Catalogue of Open Data (NKOD), which was created in 2015 and is managed by the Ministry of the Interior of the Czech Republic. It is based on the Act 106/1999 Coll., on free access to information, where it is defined as a public administration information system that serves to record information published as open data and allows remote access. Anyone can publish their data through the National Catalogue. Publication is made possible in two ways, either by direct registration of the dataset in the NKOD or by connecting their own local catalogue, which is then linked to the National Catalogue. Currently (September 2021), more than 144,000 datasets from 45 providers are registered in the National Catalogue (see Fig.  4.3). The NKOD can be accessed at https:// data.gov.cz.

4.2.2 Metadata When publishing open data, it is essential to pay close attention to its metadata. Metadata is structured information that is used to characterise, identify and interpret other data (Dobešová 2004). In a simplified way, they can be defined as data about data that can be sorted and searched. Particularly in the field of spatial data,

4  Open Data and Its Role in Geoparticipation

77

Fig. 4.3  National Open Data catalogue

metadata is extremely important in enabling users to be able to use the relevant data correctly. Metadata should be part of every dataset and web service. In the context of open data, well-developed metadata is essential for the proper functioning of the highest level of open data, i.e. linked open data (OpenGeoLabs Ltd. 2015). Incorrect or missing metadata can increase the time taken to find data or even prevent it from being found (Neumaier et al. 2016). 4.2.2.1 Dublin Core and ISO 191** It is advisable to use one of the internationally recognised standards for creating metadata. One of the best known and most widely used standards is Dublin Core. It is “a standard for metadata description of digital objects and as such can apply to all users of the Internet, digital libraries and databases, and electronic documents” (Kresta 2008). Dublin Core consists of 15 elements describing data, which the user can combine freely, but must preserve their semantics. Dublin Core metadata can be expressed using XML (eXtensible Markup Language), RDF (Resource Description Framework) or meta elements in HTML (HyperText Markup Language) and XHTML (eXtensible HyperText Markup Language) (Kresta 2008).

78

J. Burian and B. Kočvarová

An important organisation for the development of norms and standards is ISO (International Organization for Standardization). ISO technical standards with the prefix 191**, which are standards for geospatial data metadata, are central to GIS. The three basic standards are: • ISO 19115:2003, Geographic information – Metadata • ISO 19119:2005, Geographic information – Services • ISO/TC 19139:2007, Geographic information  – Metadata  – XML schema implementation 4.2.2.2 Metadata and Data Catalogues Data catalogues use different metadata schemes. Previously, there was a significant interoperability problem between the metadata of different catalogues (Lisowska 2016). Therefore, the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) proposed the Data Catalog Vocabulary (DCAT) for publishing data on the web, which is defined in the Resource Description Framework (RDF) and based on the Dublin Core metadata vocabulary (Neumaier et al. 2016). DCAT was designed to allow datasets and services in a catalogue to be described using a standard model in a way that makes it possible to search metadata from several different data catalogues (W3C 2020). A key role in the Europe plays INSPIRE (Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe) Directive, and INSPIRE Geoportal (https://inspire-­geoportal.ec.europa. eu/) was developed within this activity.

4.2.3 License A very important question that every data creator must ask before publishing data concerns the licensing policy related to legislation and copyright work. Copyright is non-transferable and cannot be waived by the author. However, if the author would like to allow another person to use his work, a licensing agreement must be concluded. A license agreement is an authorisation to use the work for all or particular uses that the author grants to the acquirer (Kačírek 2018). It is not possible to grant a license for exclusive personality rights, but only for the exclusive property right to use the work (Telec and Tůma 2007). Usually, a distinction is made between exclusive and non-exclusive licenses, and if exclusivity is not specified in the contract, it is usually a non-exclusive license. An exclusive license is one that is addressed to a specific person; the author may not grant the license to another person and always requires a written form. In the case of an exclusive license, the author should also generally refrain from exercising the right to use the work in the manner licensed. On the other hand, in the case of a

4  Open Data and Its Role in Geoparticipation

79

non-­exclusive license, the author retains the right to use the work in any way and may grant a license to a third party (Telec and Tůma 2007). A license can be granted in various ways, through either legal texts or verbal agreements (Iure.org 2015). The license can be limited, for example, to place, time or quantity (Kačírek 2018). In the case of qualifying work at a university, such a restriction most often concerns providers who will only make their resources or data available for the purposes of the qualifying work. The Copyright Act also allows for the granting of a license to a third party, where the acquirer may assign the license to another person, but always with the written consent of the author, or grant a sub-license (Telec and Tůma 2007). 4.2.3.1 Licenses and Open Data A specific area and current trends are the so-called opening of data and open data publishing. This is a case of entering into a license agreement with an undefined number of users of a work. One of the basic features of open data is the so-called open license, which gives data clearly defined terms of use with a minimum of restrictions so that it can be used, for example, for non-commercial and commercial purposes. A wide range of licenses can be found, but for maximum efficiency, it is advisable to choose internationally recognised and widely used standards that avoid inconsistencies (European Data Portal 2020). The correct choice and setting of rights within the chosen license are also important because it is very difficult to change a chosen license in the future. Choosing the wrong license can result in financial or other difficulties and prevent further development (Mehmood et al. 2020). According to Vondráková (2018), licenses are most commonly used in the technological part of geographic information systems: Public domain  – a free work that can be interfered with, distributed and altered without any restrictions. Cardware – the copyright remains with the author, who can determine the level of restrictions on the use of the product, the software cannot be interfered with, and distribution is conditional on sending a postcard to the author. Freeware – the copyright remains with the author, the source code of the software is not made available, so it is not possible to interfere with it, but it is distributed free of charge (Nétek and Burian 2018). Shareware – the copyright remains with the author; for a limited period of time, the software can be used and distributed freely without interference. Commercially licensed software – the copyright remains with the author; distribution of the software is prohibited, as is interference with it; and restrictions are imposed by the license agreement.

80

J. Burian and B. Kočvarová

OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer)  – a type of license where software is distributed as part of a number of products (e.g. when you buy a new computer that includes an operating system license, etc.). This type of license has strict rules where the software cannot be tampered with and the license ends with the termination of the hardware (Softwarekeep). Open source – copyright remains with the author, and distribution of the software is allowed even in modified form and usually without restrictions. The most commonly used open-source licenses include the GNU GPL (General Public License), BSD (Berkeley Software Distribution), MIT and the Mozilla Public License (MPL). Using the GNU GPL, software can be distributed as a free work, the BSD only requires attribution of the author along with the license information for free distribution, and the MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) license conditions the distribution of the software on attribution of the license (Vondráková 2018). Mehmood et  al. (2020) divide open-source software licenses into permissive, weak copyleft and strong copyleft. Permissive licenses (also referred to by the authors as non-copyleft) are the most free and do not impose any restrictions on the use of the software, only requiring attribution. These licenses include the Apache, BSD and MIT licenses. Weak copyleft licenses allow users to combine distributed software with proprietary software (closed source), but it is conditional to the distribution of any modifications to the software being again under an open-source license. Examples of these types of licenses include the GNU Lesser General Public License and the Mozilla Public License. The third type, strong copyleft licenses, requires any software modification to be redistributed under a strong copyleft license. The most commonly used license of this type is the GNU Lesser General Public License (Mehmood et al. 2020). According to Vondráková (2018), Copyright and Creative Commons licenses are most commonly used for non-technological parts of GIS and cartographic products. Copyright is a set of rights that are automatically acquired by the author when an original work is created. The term can be translated as “all rights reserved”, which means that only the copyright holder can grant some of their rights to another person (Copyright Alliance). If a person other than the author or copyright holder needs to use the work, that person must obtain permission from the author. It is not necessary to use the copyright symbol, as the copyright arises immediately after the creation of the work. However, its use is recommended in order to indicate that the work is subject to copyright protection (Vondráková, 2015). A separate chapter will be devoted to Creative Commons licenses. Mehmood et al. divide open data licenses into three categories according to the constraints placed on users. These are public domain (the author waives copyright and places no restrictions), Attribution (allows any use with attribution) and ShareAlike (requires sharing of derived data under the same license). A further classification of licenses is based on the origin of the license (see Fig. 4.4). Selected licenses are described below.

4  Open Data and Its Role in Geoparticipation

81

Fig. 4.4  Licenses by their origin. (Source: Mehmood et al. 2020)

4.2.3.2 Creative Commons Creative Commons is a set of public licenses from an international non-profit organisation of the same name, which are associated with the slogan “Some rights reserved” (Myška et al. 2014). This means that an author who distributes his or her work under a Creative Commons license grants some of his or her rights to the work to a wide range of users and reserves others (Creative Commons 2020). Restrictions on use tend to be minimal and are determined by so-called licensing elements, which are usually indicated by internationally used pictograms for better illustration: The right to distribute the work is included in any Creative Commons license. It includes reproducing and distributing the work and communicating it to the public. Attribution (BY) is also part of all Creative Commons licenses. In order to comply with this obligation, you must include the title of the work, the author’s name, the source of the work, the license used and a link to the license. The ShareAlike (SA) prohibits the user from redistributing the work, or a derivative thereof, under another license. The NonCommercial (NC) license element prohibits distribution of the work for financial gain or economic benefit. The No Derivatives (ND) license element prohibits the user from creating derivative content, i.e. from modifying or altering the original work in any way.

82

J. Burian and B. Kočvarová

These pictograms (or abbreviations of their meaning) can be combined in various ways (Creative Commons 2020). There are two more licensing elements, which are CC0 (CC Zero) and Public Domain Mark. By using CC0 Public Domain, the author waives all copyright in the work. However, this is not allowed in Czech legislation, and this type of license is therefore not used in the Czech Republic (it automatically switches to a CC BY 4.0 license). The Public Domain Mark is a designation for a free work under AZ and is for informational purposes only (Myška et al. 2014).

The latest version of Creative Commons is CC 4.0, which includes some improvements and solutions to problems in previous versions. Among other things, version 4.0 supports database protection for the first time, which is essential for open data and GIS-related works (Vondráková 2018). This version includes a provision that makes it possible to license the right to extract, reuse, reproduce and share a database, provided that the database is subject to the specific rights of the database acquirer (Myška et  al. 2014). In addition to the international version, Creative Commons licenses up to and including version 3.0 also have individual national versions that are compatible with national laws. In the case of the international version CC 4.0, only translations into individual languages have been made, but it is still applicable and effective worldwide (Crháková 2014), but always taking into account territorial specificities. 4.2.3.3 Open Data Commons Open Data Commons is a project under the umbrella of the Open Knowledge Foundation that aims to provide a legal solution for open data (Mehmood et  al. 2020). Three global public licenses have been created under the project, which are mainly focused on the special rights of the database acquirer and the copyright of the database (Myška et  al. 2014). These licenses are the PDDL (Open Data Commons Public Domain Dedication and License), ODC-By (Open Data Commons Attribution License) and ODbL (Open Data Commons Open Database License). The most liberal license is the PDDL, under which there is no restriction on the use of a work, so it is free to distribute, modify and use the work for any purpose. The license covers the databases and their contents, separately or together. By choosing this license, the author grants a license to the property rights and special rights of the database provider to an unlimited number of users (Open Data Commons 2020). ODC-By is a license that applies only to a database as a whole, not to its individual contents. With the use of this license, the user may distribute, modify and use the database for any purpose, provided that the name of the database and a reference to the text of the license are included. An example of the text might be:

4  Open Data and Its Role in Geoparticipation

83

“Contains information from the NAME DATABASE, which is available under the OCD Attribution License: https://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ index.html” (Open Data Commons 2020). ODbL, as with ODC-By, applies only to the database as a whole and not to its individual contents. The license allows the database to be redistributed, modified and used for any purpose, subject to redistribution of the database or its derivatives under the same license or a compatible ShareAlike license, and with text referencing the name of the original database and the text of the license, as with ODC-By (Open Data Commons 2020). This license is used for OpenStreetMap data offered by the OpenStreetMap Foundation (OpenStreetMap 2020). 4.2.3.4 Custom Licenses Another often-used option to license a copyright work is to create your own license. In this case, the author can define specific terms of use or use a standard license that he or she adapts for his or her own needs (European Data Portal 2020). The problem with such licenses may be that they are less easy to understand and have too many restrictions which means they will not meet the basic requirements for open data (Mehmood et al. 2020).

References About ArcGIS Web Adaptor. ArcGIS Enterprise. 2019 [cited 2020-03-03]. Available from https:// enterprise.arcgis.com/en/server/latest/install/windows/about-­the-­arcgis-­web-­adaptor.htm About Drupal [O Drupalu]. Drupal.cz. [cit. 2020-03-03]. Available from: https://www.drupal. cz/o-­drupalu About Plenario. Plenar.io. [cited 2020-03-03]. Available from http://plenar.io/about#mission Act No. 89/2012 Coll. – Civil Code (new) [Zákon č. 89/2012 Sb. – Občanský zákoník (nový)] Act No. 106/1999 Coll., on free access to information [Zákon č. 106/1999 Sb., o svobodném přístupu k informacím] Act No. 121/2000 Coll., on Copyright, on Rights Related to Copyright and on Amendments to Certain Acts, as amended [Zákon č. 121/2000 Sb., o právu autorském, o právech souvisejících s právem autorským a o změně některých zákonů, ve znění pozdějších předpisů] ArcGIS Hub. Esri. [cited 2020-03-03]. Available from https://www.esri.com/en-­us/arcgis/products/ arcgis-­hub/overview Chlapek D, Kučera J, Nečaský M (2012) Open data of public administration. Seminar “Digital challenges 2012” [Otevřená data veřejné správy. Seminář „Digitální výzvy 2012“]. Prague. Available from https://www.mpo.cz/assets/cz/e-­komunikace-­a-­posta/Internet/2012/11/Open_ Data_Du_an_Chlapek_V_E.PDF CKAN Features. CKAN. [cited 2020-03-03]. Available from https://ckan.org/features/ Comparing DKAN and CKAN.  DKAN Docs. 2019 [cited 2020-03-03]. Available from https:// docs.getdkan.com/en/latest/introduction/dkan-­ckan.html Copyright and Licenses. OpenStreetMap. 2020 [cit. 2020-03-03]. Available from https://www. openstreetmap.org/copyright/cs Crháková E (2014) Licensing of public sector information and open data [Licencování informací veřejného sektoru a otevřená data]. Diploma thesis. Faculty of Law, Masaryk University, Brno

84

J. Burian and B. Kočvarová

Data Catalog Vocabulary (DCAT)  – Version 2. W3C. 2020 [cited 2020-03-02]. Available from: https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-­dcat-­2/ Dědičová P, Rygelová P, Marek J et al (2016) Open access to scientific information: current status in the Czech Republic and worldwide [Otevřený přístup k vědeckým informacím: současný stav v České republice a ve světě]. VUTIUM Publishing House [cited 2020-03-02]. https:// doi.org/10.13164/book.oa. ISBN 978-80-214-5359-3 (PDF). Available from http://hdl.handle. net/11012/61751 DKAN Open Data Portal. GitHub. 2020 [cited 2020-03-26]. Available from https://github.com/ GetDKAN/dkan Dobešová Z (2004) Database systems in GIS [Databázové systémy v GIS]. Palacký University, Olomouc. ISBN 80-244-0891-0 EU Public Data Portal. 2020 [cit. 2020-03-02]. Available from https://data.europa.eu/ euodp/cs/home European Commission (2007) Relation between ISO 19115 and ISO 19119 and the elements of the INSPIRE draft metadata implementing rules (informative). INSPIRE. [cited 2020-03-28]. Available from https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/reports/ImplementingRules/metadata/MD_IR_ and_ISO_20071210.pdf European Data Portal. 2020 [cit. 2020-03-02]. Available from https://www.europeandataportal.eu/ cs/homepage Frequently Asked Questions. Creative Commons. 2020 [cited 2020-03-26]. Available from https:// creativecommons.org/faq/#what-­is-­creative-­commons-­and-­what-­do-­you-­do Geography Markup Language. OGC. 2020 [cited 2020-03-02]. Available from https://www.ogc. org/standards/gml Historical data in GIS [• Historická data v GIS]. Prague, 2013 [cit. 2020-03-02]. Available from http://www.historickygis.cz/ Introduction to CC [Úvod do CC]. Creative Commons: Czech Republic. 2020 [cit. 2020-03-03]. Available from http://www.creativecommons.cz/uvod/ Introduction to open data [Úvod k otevřeným datům]. Opendata.gov.cz. Prague, 2018 [cited 2020-03-02]. Available from https://opendata.gov.cz/_media/edu:sk0_uvod_k_ otev%C5%99en%C3%BDm_dat%C5%AFm_praha_27_09_2018_web.pdf Junar Open Data Platform (2014) Junar. [cited 2020-03-03]. Available from http://junar-­cdn-­ brandings.s3.amazonaws.com/reference-­material/Product-­sheet-­Open-­Data-­Portal-­N0515.pdf Kačírek M (2018) License. Copyright.Info. [cited 2020-03-03]. Available from https://autorske-­ pravo.info/license/ Klímek J (2019a) Degrees of openness of open data and Czech legislation. Open Data [Stupně otevřenosti otevřených dat a česká legislativa]. [cit. 2020-03-02]. Available from https://opendata.gov.cz/informace:stupn%C4%9B-­otev%C5%99enosti-­datov%C3%BDch-­sad Klímek J (2019b) Technical standards for datasets at openness level [Technické standardy pro datové sady na stupni otevřenosti]. [cited 2020-03-02]. Available from https://opendata.gov.cz/ informace:stupn%C4%9B-­otev%C5%99enosti-­datov%C3%BDch-­sad Kresta J (2008) Dublin Core metadata standard: characteristics and survey of its use by selected websites in the Czech Republic. [Metadatový standard Dublin Core: charakteristika a průzkum jeho využívání u vybraných web stránek v ČR] Inflow Inf J 1(8) [cited 2020-01-26]. Available from http://www.inflow.cz/metadatovy-­standard-­dublin-­core-­charakteristika-­pruzkum-­jeho-­ vyuzivani-­u-­vybranych-­web-­stranek-­v-­cr. ISSN 1802-9736 Legierski J (2018) A review of systems exposing Open Data. Data in Warsaw Lisowska B (2016) Metadata for the open data portals. Development Initiatives. [cited 2020-03-02]. Available from http://www.devinit.org/wp-­content/uploads/2018/01/Metadata-­for-­open-­data-­ portals.pdf Marek J (2018) Open data in academic practice [Otevřená data v akademické praxi] Brno. Diploma thesis. Masaryk University

4  Open Data and Its Role in Geoparticipation

85

Mehmood R, et  al (2020) Smart infrastructure and applications, EAI/Springer innovations in communication and computing. Springer, Cham [cited 2020-03-03]. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­13705-­2. ISBN 978-3-030-13704-5 Myška M et al (2014) Public licenses in the Czech Republic: version 2.0. [Veřejné license v České republice: verze 2.0.]. Masaryk University, Brno. ISBN 978-80-210-7192-6 Nétek R, Burian T (2018) Free and open source in geoinformatics [Free and open source v geoinformatice]. Palacký University in Olomouc, Olomouc. ISBN 978-80-244-5291-3 Neumaier S, Umbrich J, Polleres A (2016) Automated quality assessment of metadata across open data portals. J Data Inf Qual 8(1):1–29 [cited 2020-03-02]. https://doi.org/10.1145/2964909. ISSN 19361955. Available from http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=3012403.2964909 ODC Public Domain Dedication and License (PDDL). Open Data Commons. 2020 [cited 2020-03-03]. Available from https://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/pddl/1.0/index.html Office of the Government of the Czech Republic (2017) National strategy for open access to scientific information for 2017–2020. [Národní strategie otevřeného přístupu čr k vědeckým informacím na léta 2017–2020] [cited 2020-03-02]. Available from https://www.dataplan.info/ img_upload/7bdb1584e3b8a53d337518d988763f8d/narodni-­strategie-­otevreneho-­pristupu-­k-­ vedeckym-­informacim.pdf OGC GeoTIFF Standard. OGC. 2020 [cited 2020-03-02]. Available from https://www.ogc.org/ standards/geotiff Open access (to scientific information) [Otevřený přístup (k vědeckým informacím)]. Database of the National Library of the Czech Republic. 2014 [cit. 2020-03-02]. Available from https:// aleph.nkp.cz/F/?func=direct&doc_number=000015817&local_base=KTD Open data. Ec.europa.eu. 2019 [cited 2020-03-02]. Available from https://ec.europa.eu/ digital-­single-­market/en/open-­data Open data closer. Open Data [Otevřená data blíže. Otevřená data]. 2018 [cited 2020-03-02]. Available from https://opendata.gov.cz/ informace:otev%C5%99en%C3%A1-­data-­bl%C3%AD%C5%BEe Open Data Commons Attribution License (ODC-By) v1.0. Open Data Commons. 2020 [cited 2020-03-03]. Available from https://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/index.html Open Database License (ODbL) v1.0. Open Data Commons. 2020 [cited 2020-03-03]. Available from https://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/index.html Opengeolabs S.R.O. Opening geographic data. [Otevírání geografických dat] 2015. [cited 2020-03-02]. Available from http://geo102.fsv.cvut.cz/user/landa/otevirani-­geografickych-­dat-­2.2.2.pdf Pászto V, Pánek J, Burian J (2021) Geodatabase of publicly available information about Czech municipalities. Local Administration Data 6(89):1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/data6080089 Raster formats. Spatial data [Rastrové formáty. Prostorová data]. 2019 [cited 2020-03-02]. Available from https://ofn.gov.cz/prostorov%C3%A1-­data/2019-­08-­22/#rastrov %C3%A9-­form%C3%A1ty Server configuration details. ArcGIS. 2019 [cited 2020-03-03]. Available from https://www.esri. com/en-­us/arcgis/products/arcgis-­hub/overview Socrata Open Data & Citizen Engagement Cloud. Tyler Technologies. [cited 2020-03-03]. Available from https://www.tylertech.com/products/socrata/open-­data-­citizen-­engagement Standards for publication and cataloguing of open data of the Czech Government. [Standardy publikace a katalogizace otevřených dat VS ČR] Ministry of the Interior of the Czech Republic. 2015 [cit. 2020-03-02]. Available from https://opendata.gov.cz/_media/ standardy_publikace_a_katalogizace_otevrenych_dat_vs_cr.pdf Telec I, Tůma P (2007) Copyright Act: commentary [Autorský zákon: komentář], 1st edn. C.H. Beck, Prague. Large commentaries. ISBN 978-80-7179-608-4 Ten Principles for Opening up Government Information. Sunlight Foundation. 2017 [cited 2020-03-02]. Available from https://sunlightfoundation.com/policy/documents/ ten-­open-­data-­principles/

86

J. Burian and B. Kočvarová

The European Data Portal: Opening up Europe’s public data. The European Data Portal. 2016 [cited 2020-03-02]. Available from https://www.europeandataportal.eu/sites/default/files/edp_ brochure_what_is_edp_project_online.pdf Turner A (2017) Welcome to ArcGIS Hub. Esri. [cited 2020-03-03]. Available from https:// www.esri.com/arcgis-­b log/products/constituent-­e ngagement/constituent-­e ngagement/ welcome-­to-­arcgis-­hub/ Vickery G (2011) Review of recent studies on PSI re-use and related market development. Paris Vondráková A (2018) Selected legislative aspects in cartography and geoinformatics [Vybrané legislativní aspekty v kartografii a geoinformatice]. Palacký University in Olomouc, Olomouc. ISBN 978-80-244-5293-7 Using Creative Commons Licenses as a Way to Share Information More Effectively. Iure.org. 2015 [cited 2020-03-03]. Available from http://www.iure.org/sites/default/files/article/downloads/cc_tisk_7_7.pdf What is ArcGIS Data Store? ArcGIS Enterprise. 2019 [cited 2020-03-03]. Available from https:// enterprise.arcgis.com/en/portal/latest/administer/windows/what-­is-­arcgis-­data-­store.htm What is ArcGIS Enterprise? ArcGIS Enterprise. 2019 [cited 2020-03-03]. Available from https:// enterprise.arcgis.com/en/get-­started/10.7/windows/what-­is-­arcgis-­enterprise-­.htm What is ArcGIS Server. ArcGIS Enterprise. 2019 [cited 2020-03-03]. Available from https://enterprise.arcgis.com/en/server/latest/get-­started/windows/what-­is-­arcgis-­for-­server-­.htm What is copyright? Copyright Alliance. [cited 2020-01-03]. Available from https://copyrightalliance.org/ca_faq_post/what-­is-­copyright/ What is Creative Commons and what do you do? Creative Commons. 2020 [cited 2020-03-03]. Available from http://www.creativecommons.cz/uvod/ What is open science? National Programma Open Science. [cited 2020-03-02]. Available from https://www.openscience.nl/en/open-­science/what-­is-­open-­science Why do we need to license? European Data Portal. 2020 [cit. 2020-03-03]. Available from https:// www.europeandataportal.eu/elearning/en/module4/#/id/co-­01 Winn J (2013) Open data and the academy: An evaluation of CKAN for research data management. International Association for Social Science Information Services and Technology Xiao F, Jeng W, He D (2019) Investigating metadata adoptions for open government data portals in US cities. Proc Assoc Inf Sci Technol 55(1):573–582 [cited 2020-03-02]. https://doi. org/10.1002/pra2.2018.14505501062. ISSN 2373-9231. Available from https://onlinelibrary. wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/pra2.2018.14505501062

Chapter 5

Improving Local Democracy Works: Determinants of Participatory Local Governments Jakub Lysek

Abstract  The chapter explores to what degree local governments in the Czech Republic involve citizens in decision-making processes and what factors can explain the differences on the cases of all the Czech municipalities. In general, the larger municipalities with highly educated citizens and a higher proportion of self-­ employed people are associated with higher scores in participation and citizen involvement. Additionally, the greater age of a mayor is an indication that a municipality is less likely to include citizens in decision-making, while the municipalities with female mayors tend to be associated with a higher frequency of participatory techniques. The analysis based on the real policy data suggests that the opinions of councillors and mayors and their positions towards participatory and representative democracy not only are proclamations but also have real policy consequences, because municipalities governed by older councillors and mayors tend to implement less democratic reforms. Keywords  Political participation · Municipal politics · Mayors · Citizens in decision-making

5.1 Introduction There is growing evidence of public disillusionment with the institutions of advanced industrial democracies. The decline in electoral turnout, and in membership of traditional mobilising organisations, and low levels of trust in politicians and political institutions are just some of the expressions of the growing disconnection between citizens and decision-makers. What is more, in the newly democratised countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), the level of trust has never reached J. Lysek (*) Department of Politics and European Studies, Faculty of Arts, Palacky University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2022 J. Pánek (ed.), Geoparticipatory Spatial Tools, Local and Urban Governance, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-05547-8_5

87

88

J. Lysek

that of the advanced industrial nations (ESS 2018). So how can the citizens’ trust in government be increased, how can their political participation be boosted, and how can the transparency and accountability standards of governance be raised? One of the proposed solutions is through the democratic innovations (Smith 2009; Geissel and Newton 2012) that are being implemented on the subnational level of governance, in regions, towns and municipalities. Democratic innovations – their use and implementation  – can be thought of as indirect measures of good governance because of their key criterion of “responsiveness to the citizens’ needs” (Keefer 2004). Thus, democratic innovation may be a crucial tool in improving the level of citizen participation in CEE countries and in improving their low scores in the quality of governance (see Kaufmann et al. 2003; Charron et al. 2012; Rothstein and Teorell 2008, Holmberg and Rothstein 2017). In this regard, much attention has been paid to certain new participatory and deliberative techniques and their effects. Mostly qualitative studies emerged on participatory budgeting, on deliberative mini-publics and on democratic innovation in general. Most democratic innovations occurred in specific contexts, such as Porto Alegre participatory budgeting, New England town meetings, Chicago community policing and Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform in British Columbia (Fishkin and Luskin 2005; Smith 2009; Fishkin 2012). The current literature is mainly directed at the effect of participation on citizens’ beliefs and trust, or it seeks to identify conditional factors that improve the functions of democratic innovations, such as the role of the mediator in mini-publics, or it is concerned with how to secure inclusivity and solving the issue of participation of citizens with low socioeconomic status (SES) (Geissel and Newton 2012; Geissel 2019; Elstub and Escobar 2019a, b). Despite that, we know surprisingly little regarding the degree and extent to which democratic innovations are used. Additionally, we do not know which factors can explain why some governments are more willing to employ these innovative techniques, while others are not. Therefore, this chapter explores to what degree local governments in the Czech Republic involve citizens in decision-making processes and what factors can explain the differences. We will use the large N analysis of 6253 Czech municipalities. This is the first study on such a scale. Although Hurtikova and Soukop (2019) have analysed 205 large Czech cities, and Sousa et al. (2021) analysed 278 municipalities on mainland Portugal, we are still missing a comprehensive data analysis of the democratic innovations and other tools that empower citizens on the local level. Here, we focus not only on democratic innovations (classic techniques such as participatory budgeting and mini-publics) but on various kinds of participatory techniques or approaches used by municipal government to enhance participation and citizen involvement. This approach is inductive as we have selected all the possible instruments that either are available or have been already implemented by Czech municipalities. We admit this approach is not theoretically rigorous, because it mixes, to some degree, divergent “democratic innovation” tools, yet the main goal of the empirical analysis here is descriptive and exploratory. We distinguish between three types or clusters of techniques or instruments implemented by Czech municipalities: communication, participation and transparency. Those clusters or dimensions

5  Improving Local Democracy Works: Determinants of Participatory Local…

89

are somehow connected with citizens’ involvement in the decision-making process and their participation. Why is it important to study the determinants of participatory governance? First, if there are patterns that can explain the spread of democratic innovation across Czech municipal governments, that would mean there are inequalities in access to decision-making for Czech citizens based on systematic factors. This could further strengthen divergencies across Czech regions, not only in socioeconomic development but also in terms of citizens’ trust, protest voting and the inclination towards populist parties, because democratic innovations are believed not only to positively affect the citizens trust in democracy and their perceived political efficacy (Spada 2019) but also to improve the quality of governance across a range of dimensions. Second, finding the determinants of democratic innovations would further suggest that democratic innovations are most likely feasible in a specific environment, one with an enlightened political elite or one concerned with the socioeconomic development of a municipality. On the other hand, if no such pattern is discovered, that would arguably mean that democratic innovations have been implemented regardless of an unfavourable environment, and the subsequent research should study the effect of the democratic innovations in those regions. Third, we are at time of shifting from a governmental to a governance system, and this is characterised by an intangible and fluid legitimacy (Denters and Rose 2005), because the provision of services is divided among many actors, on not only central, regional and sub-­ municipal levels but also private companies and NGOs. In such a system, democratic innovations may secure democratic control and legitimacy and enhance the legitimacy of the governance system. What factors may influence the incidence of democratic innovations and participatory and deliberative techniques on the local level? Generally, there are three main factors in political studies that may explain the various degrees of citizen involvement: socioeconomic factors, politics and institutions. Since we are comparing municipalities that differ only in size and not in institutional setting, the main remaining factors are socioeconomic and political. Intuitively, we can theorise that municipalities located in socially and economically well-developed regions with a high standard of living will be more likely to implement democratic innovations to satisfy citizens’ demands. For example, the existing research indicates that cities located in regions rich in social capital perform better in terms of good governance (Putnam 1993; Rice 2001; Knack 2002; Coffé and Gayes 2005; see Andrews 2012 for review). Furthermore, the implementation of democratic innovations may depend on the local political competition or on the leadership of the local councillors and mayors. This chapter proceeds as follows. First, the context of Czech local governance is explained. Second, the relationship between participation, deliberation and transparency is conceptualised. The third section theorises on the associations between socioeconomic factors, political factors and democratic innovations. The next part describes the data and research design, which is followed by analyses. The final section contains a discussion of the results.

90

J. Lysek

5.2 The Context of Local Democratic Politics in the Czech Republic The Czech Republic has experienced its own specific path in democratic local reform. The initial efforts were aimed at the renewal of democratic local governments as such. This was subsequently accompanied by the fragmentation of local governments as new municipalities were created through secession from larger municipalities that had been forcefully amalgamated in the past (Lysek 2021). As a result, the Czech Republic has one of the most fragmented municipal structures in Europe (Illner 2011). In the year 2020, there were 6258 municipalities with an average population of 1497 and a median population of 438. Municipal fragmentation is thus the main factor that shapes local politics; hence, all analyses at the local level must take the municipal structure into account with care. Nevertheless, all municipalities in the Czech Republic have the same scope of independent powers, although they differ in terms of state-delegated powers (see Illner 2011). There are municipalities with extended scope (N = 205) that conduct state-delegated powers directly financed by the state. Their populations vary from 4158 (Králíky) to those of large cities such as Brno with a population of 376,526. The most important revenue source is taxes (approximately 58% of total revenues in 2020; Ministry of Finance 2020), which are fixed by a shared tax formula that, among other criteria, takes municipal and cadastral size into account. The other sources are direct payments (state or EU funds) and fees. Generally, the Czech municipal level is relatively autonomous and decentralised, as measured by the Local Autonomy Index (see Ladner et  al. 2016). To describe the local democracy, the municipal council is directly elected using the proportional single-district electoral system. The council elects, among its members, a mayor and municipal board members (yet, in one fifth of municipalities, the board consists only of the mayor) (see Ryšavý & Bernard 2013). Voter turnout is highest in smaller municipalities and decreases with growth in municipal size. In the recent election in 2018, the total turnout was 47.3%, which is a higher figure than recent regional (37.9%) and European elections, but lower than the national elections for the parliament (60.8%) and the presidential elections (66.6%). Regarding the local-state society relationship, municipal law does not prescribe any compulsory networks or institutions as in some neighbouring countries, such as with participatory budgeting in Poland (see Teles et al. 2020). The communist heritage has negatively influenced the level of participation in all CEE countries, including the Czech Republic. The communist regime did not allow the free and authentic growth of civil society, and that has subsequently fundamentally affected citizens’ participatory and deliberative competencies, as well as their willingness to voluntarily participate in the political process (Howard 2003). The main reasons stem from lack of participatory experience and persistent antipathy to the compulsory participation that was typical of the communist regime (Vrablikova 2009). In the 1990s, the political environment was also not favourable to participation and deliberation. Yet Czech society has changed dramatically after 30 years of democratic development. While still not reaching the level of participation typical of Western European countries, participatory skills have been enhanced, the number of NGOs has mushroomed, and voluntary associations have enlarged their

5  Improving Local Democracy Works: Determinants of Participatory Local…

91

memberships. The change is also visible at the institutional level. Local government frequently uses expressions such as partnership, participation, deliberation, discussion with relevant partners or stakeholders and inclusiveness in official documents (Vajdová 2011). In some municipalities, this is not only a formal language that could be attributed to Europeanisation and to EU regional policy, which plays a crucial role in CEE countries, but is part of an actual and practical policy.

5.3 Participation, Deliberation and Transparency: Key Concepts of Democratic Innovations In the literature on democratic theory, there are distinct concepts, such as participatory and deliberative democracy, but in practice, the participatory and deliberative characteristics overlap as various democratic instruments and tools are effectively used to enhance citizens’ participation in policy making. In empirical studies such as this, it is more convenient to speak of democratic innovations (Geissel and Newton et al. 2012), because we intend to measure to what degree municipalities are using tools such as participatory budgeting, geoparticipation, participatory planning, mini-publics, open data, ICT participation, etc. Democratic innovations are both participatory and deliberative in nature. Nevertheless, in assessing democratic innovations and new tools of citizen empowerment, we can still distinguish between the two theories, both concerned with the concept of a democratic ideal. Participation relates to citizens being involved in the decision-making process, either in an institutionalised form or through spontaneous actions. In the institutionalised form, people have a say in or can decide about policy outcomes. So participation can also be viewed as the degree to which citizens are involved and have decision-making power (Sherry Arnstein’s (1969) famous “Ladder of Citizen Participation”). On the other hand, deliberation could be linked to the quality of the decision-making process. “Deliberation, or deliberative democracy, broadly defined, is any one of a family of views, according to which the public deliberation of free and equal citizens is the core of legitimate political decision-making and self-government” (Bohman 1998: 401). Deliberative democracy highlights the importance of considering how democratic innovations enable citizens to make considered judgments. Both the participatory and the deliberative dimensions of democratic practice are not mutually exclusive; it is rather that a particular democratic innovation may be assessed by those dimensions. As Smith argues, the danger of leaning too heavily on one theoretical position is that significant elements of democratic practice and institutional design can be overlooked (Smith 2009: 11). The main concern of scholars is the feasibility of deliberative and participatory modes of governance. How can ideal “philosophical” concepts operate in reality? Do they always lead to better outcomes? Some critics argue that there are many weaknesses in the theories of deliberative and participatory democracy. For example, it is argued that as a theory, deliberative democracy fails to provide a satisfactory account of how decisions should be made. If deliberation does not lead to consensus (a rare occurrence), how is conflict to be dealt with? (Smith 2009: 11).

92

J. Lysek

Similarly, the participatory theory of democracy has it limits when the capacity of citizens is taken into account. Not all people are able to participate; it has been proved that the typical participant in most democratic innovation techniques has a high socioeconomic status (Michels and De Graaf 2010: 486; Bakker et al. 2012: 408). Even when citizens are selected randomly, there could be “internal exclusion” (Young 2000). Some people may not have their voices taken seriously if their words or actions indicate that they are not well informed or not worth listening to (Fishkin 2012: 77). In general, mostly highly educated citizens without any material needs are more willing than less well-educated people to participate or take part in deliberative process and have larger say as well. A general precondition for different modes of democracy, such as deliberative or participatory democracy, is that citizens are informed as much as possible. Only then can they effectively participate and deliberate in the decision-making process. Any concept of deliberative democracy is organised around the ideal of political justification requiring the free public reasoning of citizens who are equal (Bohman 1998: 402). Access to information for all citizens is a necessary condition for such equality in the ideal concept of deliberative democracy. Therefore, the transparency of government is an integral part of any analysis when evaluating innovative democratic modes of governance. Good communication, transparency and accountability are not in themselves obvious democratic innovations; however, some of the newly established tools can be assumed to be part of the family of democratic innovation. There are new geoparticipatory instruments that require free access to information, as well as an efficient and machine-readable format of data provided by the government. It is only under this condition that there is the prospect of citizen participation. Democratic innovations and broadly referred to participatory techniques may be viewed as part of the broad concept of the quality of governance (QoG) or government (Charron et  al. 2012; Rothstein and Teorell 2008) or even the quality of democracy (QoD). Both concepts are not clearly defined, and in the literature, QoG and QoD frequently overlap. In regard to both concepts, several authors refer to three dimensions of legitimacy when assessing the QoD or QoG: input, throughput and output legitimacy (Scharpf 1997, 1999; Schmidt 2013; Risse and Kleine 2007). Democratic innovations may be subsumed under throughput legitimacy because this dimension focuses on the quality of democratic processes, simply put, on how things are being done. In this regard, democratic innovations enhance vertical accountability. As claimed by De Sousa et al. 2021, “both the direct participation of citizens and local stakeholders in the municipal assembly meetings, as well as their reporting of unsatisfactory levels of service provisions, makes local governments more accountable”. Additionally, the transparency of local government is also part of throughput legitimacy, as it is generally regarded as a key element of good governance (Tavares and da Cruz 2020). Effective and transparent communication tools make citizens and stakeholders more informed and able to intervene in local public affairs (De Sousa et al. 2021). In the theories of the QoG and QoD, the transparency of a polity is related to democratic innovations based on participatory and deliberative principles as they all increase the throughput legitimacy of local democratic polity.

5  Improving Local Democracy Works: Determinants of Participatory Local…

93

5.4 Determinants of Participatory Institutions at the Municipal Level The empirical debate on democratic innovation is mostly centred around the question of feasibility. Democratic innovations can be introduced either by the top-down decisions of a political elite or by the bottom-up initiatives of citizens. Under any circumstances, there can be obstacles in improving the workings of local democracy. First, a political elite can face demobilised and apathetic citizens, and the introduction of democratic innovations may fail for this reason. The number of participating citizens may simply be too small to justify taxpayers money being spent on, for instance, the preparation of a participatory budget. We know that some democratic innovations are indeed costly. Yet even if we secure enough participating citizens, studies show that these are people with a relatively high SES. Highly educated people with social, economic and cultural capital are more likely to participate, which brings into question the legitimacy of such procedures (Smith 2009). Alternatively, if a democratic innovation is the result of the work of a local activist group, or it is a local civic initiative, bureaucratic burdens or intentional obstacles may come from the government. This is related not only to the politicians but also to the bureaucrats that may hinder a citizens’ initiative, even though it may have the support of a municipal council or board. Finally, even if democratic innovations are enacted, there is a risk that they will be misused for the legitimisation of particular interests of the political or bureaucratic elite. If referendums can be misused for the vested interests of a ruling elite, why not democratic innovations? The crucial question is: what are the favourable conditions for participation and deliberation on the municipal level? Or analytically put, what factors can relate or explain that a municipality is using democratic innovations and is transparent in its communication with citizens? In general, determinants of participatory tools may be institutional, political and socioeconomic. Alternatively, in their study of the transparency of Portuguese local government, Tavares and Cruz (2020) refer to “supply-side determinants” as political factors and “demand-side determinants” as social, cultural and/or other local community factors. Factors are not mutually exclusive and may theoretically equally explain the differences among municipalities. Moreover, they may share the same causal links and mechanisms.

5.4.1 Institutional Factor (Municipal Size) Municipal size is the only institutional factor in the Czech Republic because all the municipalities have the same independent powers and the same institutional arrangements and they use the same electoral system. While we treat municipal size as an institutional factor, it is a variable that may affect political participation in various ways, some of them contradictory. For example, it is argued that in small municipalities, politics is closer to the citizens; it deals with everyday problems and is said to be less ideologically biased in policy making than on the national level. As Dahl (1998:

94

J. Lysek

110) claims, the smaller a democratic unit, the greater its potential for citizen participation, and the less the need for citizens to delegate government decisions to their representatives. The local level generally represents an ideal environment for the introduction and employment of participatory and deliberative techniques, most of which are simply inapplicable at the national level. Furthermore, municipal size is negatively correlated with electoral turnout because in smaller municipalities, electoral participation is highest. Also, from individual-level surveys (Šaradín et al. 2021), we know that trust in local councils is higher in smaller municipalities than in larger cities. A higher level of trust should foster the implementation of democratic innovations. But there are also arguments as to why municipal size should be positively correlated with the introduction of democratic innovations. Small municipalities generally lack financial resources. While some democratic innovations may not be costly, especially in the case of online participation and online geoparticipation, smaller municipalities may also lack personal capacity, experienced staff and knowledge. Another argument is linked with political competition, because in small municipalities, electoral competition is rather limited. In a significant number of municipalities (1605 municipalities in the last election in 2018), there were exactly the same number of candidates as there were council seats. This results in no competition at all. The competitiveness of elections (in terms of the number of candidates for one council seat) increases with municipal size (see Ryšavý and Bernard 2013).

5.4.2 Political Competition and Political Factors Political competition is theoretically a distinct factor, despite the fact that it is empirically related to municipal size and to socioeconomic factors. Political competition should increase the incidence of democratic innovations and the transparency of a municipality, as it is a factor that increases governmental accountability. A ruling party or coalition is, to some extent, controlled by and exposed to opposition parties that may be the government in power after the next elections. Therefore, there is a motivation for ruling parties to pursue good governance. Unlike the national level (Grzymala-Busse 2006; O’Dwyer 2004), the sources of competition for council seats are not clear. There are many independent candidates and local parties, and the national parties play a rather insignificant role. In large cities, the national parties that are ideologically well positioned are more visible, although we can hear the classic argument that “repairing sidewalks is neither a left-­ wing nor a right-wing policy”, whereas in smaller municipalities, ideological competition is not crucial, as it is in national politics. While this may be true, the competition in some municipalities is very fierce, but this results from factors other than ideological motivation, such as the personal animosities of local leaders and the roles of local business groups and NGOs. Unfortunately, it is difficult to conceptualise and measure political competition on the local level. An imperfect indicator of political competition is the fragmentation of a municipal council. A great deal of fragmentation may be a sign of imperfect competition as it is more difficult for fragmented councils to be held accountable by their citizens. Higher fragmentation

5  Improving Local Democracy Works: Determinants of Participatory Local…

95

also complicates government formations. And if formed, a government composed of a large number of parties – which is more likely in a fragmented council – faces the classic problem of too many veto players. Under such a government, democratic innovations are less likely to be implemented. While most arguments between politicians are developed on the level of national politics, on the municipal level, they are mitigated, to some extent. Especially in small rural municipalities, a high number of competing parties may be a sign of healthy political competition in a municipality, because this indicates that the local leaders are interested in running for office. Although the large number of parties may decrease vertical (in front of the voter) accountability, it may increase horizontal (inter-party) accountability. Another political factor is independent councillors. In recent municipal elections, they were successful in large cities, and some local movements were transformed into national parliamentary parties (Mayors and Independents). The policy practices of independent councillors are sometimes not clearly distinguishable from the roles of local activists. They are more favourable to citizen participation as, in individual surveys, they generally agree with statements such as “Residents should participate actively and directly in making important local decisions”. In contrast, members of political parties are less inclined to involve citizens in municipal participation and prefer decisions to be taken by politicians (Ryšavý and Šaradín 2010). All else being equal, a higher ratio of independent councillors or local parties should be positively associated with democratic innovations. While previous political factors are rather contextual or structural, there are also agent-based political factors, such as leadership style. Key characteristics of the different leadership styles of mayors and councillors are their age and their gender. Younger representatives are more likely to look for innovative modes of government than older mayors and councillors (see Heinelt 2013). This is especially the case in post-communist countries where the older political elite was socialised under totalitarian regimes that were hostile to civic participation. In the decade after democratic transition, the involvement of citizens in policy making was also not supported. This has changed with the growth of civic society and the advent of new computer technologies, online media, social networks, etc. This rapid change is challenging the traditional modes of government, and we can assume that the younger generation of mayors is more open to new forms of governance, including democratic innovation, online participation and transparency, while older mayors are more likely to prefer an authoritarian leadership style. Similarly, gender can also be associated with different leadership styles, as women prefer collective and participatory decisions over authoritarian decision-making. They might prefer civic participation and the involvement of multiple actors in municipal politics more.

5.4.3 Socioeconomic Development There are also factors on the supply side which determine the incidence of participatory techniques and transparency. Generally, higher social and economic development is correlated with the quality of institutions and government performance

96

J. Lysek

(Rothstein and Teorell 2008; Charron et al. 2012). Although we do not know the direction of causation, in the case of the Czech Republic, the socioeconomic development was unequal across regions during the communist regime, and it intensified after the democratic transition. Because this division was in place prior to the democratic transition, we can hypothesise that socioeconomic development may cause a higher incidence of democratic innovations. There are regions in Northern Bohemia and Moravia-Silesia that are called structurally disadvantaged, and they are eligible for special EU funding in the new programming period 2021–2028. These regions score low on the educational level of their population; they have high unemployment rates and face problems with social exclusion, high school dropouts and the divorce rate; and they have a higher ratio of their populations facing distraint. The regions also perform poorly economically as their GDP per capita is the lowest. There are several causal mechanisms that may hinder the incidence of democratic innovations. First, municipalities located in poorer regions have a lower amount of resources, not only in terms of limited budgets because the shared tax formula is derived from economic activity but also in terms of human resources, as a municipality may lack both the educated personnel of the municipal office and citizens keen to participate. In this regard, probably the most discussed theory is the role of social capital. Generally, social capital refers to connections among individuals  – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them (Putnam 2000: 19). A higher stock of social capital should lead to more effective societies as it eases collective action. Putnam considers participation in social networks and voluntary organisations to be important in relation to life satisfaction and, more importantly in this context, to democracy (Michels and De Graaf 2010: 480). Social capital is usually correlated with economic development, but not exclusively. For this reason, it is a compelling theory, because in an empirical analysis, variables of social capital may be complementary to purely economic variables. Yet the concept of social capital has been largely criticised for its vagueness (Lin and Ericsson 2008). It has also been emphasised that social capital can actually be, simultaneously, the cause and the consequence of many social outcomes (Moore and Recker 2015: 893). Some scholars (Berman 1997) even warned that not all the social networks and norms can be beneficial for society. Robert Putnam (2000: 22) partly answered some of those objections by differentiating between bonding and bridging social capital, the former being hostile and the latter being beneficial to broader society. In his book Bowling Alone, he also specified five key distinctive dimensions of social capital: community organisational life, engagement in public affairs, community volunteerism, informal sociability and social trust (Putnam 2000). The concept of social capital therefore sits well in modern democratic theories that presuppose an active and engaged citizenry. This thought could be traced back to Alexis de Tocqueville and follows modern scholars of participatory and deliberative democracy. As has already been outlined, for modern democratic theory, feasibility is the question. As Jürg Steiner argues, establishing favourable conditions for deliberation and effective participation is not a straightforward task because, empirically, deliberation is a multidimensional phenomenon (Steiner 2012: 183). Such conditions are also contextual, as participatory techniques might work better in

5  Improving Local Democracy Works: Determinants of Participatory Local…

97

societies rich on social capital and living in an economically developed region. This is because these techniques are demanding of the capacity of citizens and their resources. Simply put, in municipalities with lower socioeconomic development, it is less likely that participatory techniques will be successfully implemented, due to the low rate of participation among citizens. In their work, Boix and Posner (1998: 690) identified several models for the relationship between “the co-operative capacity of a society and the performance of its political institutions”. These are rational voters and competitive elites, rule compliance, civic virtue, bureaucratic efficiency and elite accommodation. Here, only those that are arguably the most important for enhancing participatory and deliberative methods of governance will be briefly described. In an ideal setting with a high stock of social capital, regarding the first mechanism, voters are well informed, prompt to mobilise and eager to punish underperforming elected representatives at the ballot box. Recognising this, representatives are anxious to please voters and govern according to their wishes. They work hard to implement policies preferred by a majority of their constituents and press bureaucrats to deliver the goods as efficiently as possible. Another mechanism, civic virtue, is connected to the civic skills of citizens. Social capital may indeed foster civic virtue among the citizenry, much as Tocqueville saw in democracy in America. Likewise, social capital promotes good governance by shifting community tastes from particularistic interests to more community-oriented concerns (Boix and Posner 1998: 691). Social capital is also inevitably linked to participatory democracy. As Michels and de Graaf (2010: 480) stated, participatory democrats believe that participation has several functions in a democracy. The first is the educative function: citizens can increase their civic skills and become more competent if they participate in public decision-making. A second function of participatory democracy is the integrative function. Participation contributes to people’s feelings of being public citizens, part of their community. As a consequence, they may also feel more responsible personally for public decisions. Bureaucratic effectiveness, in turn, can oil the democratic wheels of participation and deliberation. Officials in an environment rich in social capital are more responsive to citizens’ demands, and citizens are more receptive to proposed participatory projects. Moreover, many of the deliberative techniques are highly demanding of skills, not only those of the citizens but mainly the skills and capacities of the bureaucrats, officials and senior municipal managers who are responsible for carrying out projects on democratic innovations. The fifth model, elite accommodation, links social capital and good governance through social capital’s ability to foster accommodative practices among otherwise antagonistic elites. Social capital thus eases or facilitates deliberation. As Amy Gutmann argues: “the legitimate exercise of political authority requires justification for those people who are bound by it, and decision-making by deliberation among free and equal citizens is the most defensible justification anyone has to offer for provisionally settling controversial issues” (Gutmann 1998: 344). Finally, it should be stressed that social capital and good governance can mutually reinforce each other. Governments pursuing participatory and deliberative democratic innovations can, in turn, increase the participation and trust of citizens.

98

J. Lysek

5.5 Analysing the Determinants of Participatory Techniques and Transparent Government The paper builds upon an extensive dataset collected by the authors for all Czech municipalities (n = 6258). The main explained variable is a composite index composed of participatory techniques, open communication and transparency. Although not strictly according to theory, we have composed a dataset that compiled all the possible techniques that are employed on the municipal level. The methodology and visualisation of the index can be found in Pánek et al. (2021). All variables were selected in line with the Czech specific local government context. This means that some mechanisms might be unique; some are frequently used by local governments in the Czech Republic but are not common in other countries Table 5.1. The first cluster of variables are those that characterise the communication of the local government with its citizens. There are several instruments and techniques a local government may use, such as a mobile-friendly website, a mobile application with direct communication with citizens, an application tool that allows citizens to report problems and raise issues and a profile on social networks (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram). Social networks are modern tools that are deliberative in nature. They allow discussion by a large number of people and direct communication with municipal government. They ease communication and social interaction. However, they may be problematic in many regards. Social networks can create “opinion ghettos”, so they can, paradoxically, be detrimental to deliberation and to democracy as such. The quality of discussion and communication is problematic, and some people may be excluded from online deliberation with municipal governments, such as those with lower computer skills and the elderly. Nevertheless, a municipal government should directly communicate with its citizens through social networks, in order to keep them informed and to justify its decisions. While this Table 5.1  Indicators of participatory, deliberative and transparent municipal government Indicators/questions Is the municipality website mobile friendly? Does the municipality have a mobile app for communicating with citizens? Does the municipality have a tool/app/measure to report problems/issues online? Does the municipality have a profile on social network(s)? Does the municipality use participatory external participatory apps – ZmapujTo, MobilniRozhlas, PocitoveMapy.Cz, etc.? Does the municipality have participatory budgeting? Does the municipality use participatory techniques – Participatory planning, round tables, etc.? Does the municipality use opinion polls on a municipality web? Does the municipality share information about the council members? Does the municipality share protocols from council meetings? Does the municipality have a publicly open detailed budget online? Does the municipality have transparent accounting?

Dimension Communication Communication Communication Communication Participation Participation Participation Participation Transparency Transparency Transparency Transparency

5  Improving Local Democracy Works: Determinants of Participatory Local…

99

seems obvious, many municipalities achieve a low score on the communication dimensions, and we see substantial variation across municipalities. The second cluster of variables is labelled as participatory or deliberative. There is no strict line between them as some instruments are more participatory in nature and others more deliberative, or they may combine both. For example, the first indicator is whether a municipality uses external participatory apps (ZmapujTo, MobilniRozhlas, PocitoveMapy.cz) with the aim of including citizens in decision-­ making by collecting their initiatives and proposals. A particularly original and genuine way to include citizens in policy making is by means of a tool called emotional maps (Pánek and Pászto 2016). Emotional maps have the power to present spatial information in an understandable and widely accepted form for the general public. Mental maps and mental mapping are activities usually used in the first phases of community mapping and in the process of creating knowledge about common spaces and their environment. Emotional maps allow citizens to get involved in the process of collecting information related to their emotional links with their environment. The idea is grounded within GeoParticipation – using spatial tools in order to involve citizens in community participation. Emotional maps can be used in a very practical way. A municipality may need to increase the number of cycling paths, and it can use emotional maps to determine the best solutions for its citizens by asking which roads they use the most in order to get to work, school, etc. Emotional maps are thus an innovative participatory tool for improving democratic governance. While participatory budgeting may score low on the ladder of participation, it is probably the flagship of democratic innovation at the local level. This democratic innovation is slowly but gradually becoming popular among Czech municipalities. Similar instruments include participatory roundtables combined with city planning and the inclusion of citizens in participatory urban planning. These processes are usually facilitated by an architect and municipal officials. Most typically, cities consult citizens on the revitalisation of residential areas, mainly the large prefabricated tower blocks built during the Communist era. The ideal form of participatory planning is when a city sets aside municipal land for a certain project, such as a city park or a public transport stop, and invites citizens to determine the final arrangement of public space. This is all moderated by an architect and designer, because citizens are not capable of matching their desires with practical limits. An architect can also help to achieve agreement among citizens, because participatory planning typically involves many conflicting ideas and fantasies. Complementary to this flagship participatory technique, we have added a final instrument  – whether a municipality uses opinion polls on their website to guide their decision-making. While this cannot be considered as a democratic innovation per se, and also the quality of such policy making is questionable, this was a traditional technique Czech municipalities used before the first democratic innovations were implemented. The last cluster is transparency. This is not a participatory technique per se, but similar to communication, greater transparency is indirectly linked to participation, because under a transparent municipal government, citizens have information on municipal policies and hence are more empowered to participate. There are four

100

J. Lysek

variables that help open up a municipality to its citizens, based on whether it shares information on the council members, it shares protocols from council meetings electronically, it has a transparent or publicly available budget and it has transparent accounting (publicly available contracts regularly published on the internet in open data format). Municipalities are not obliged to share documents electronically, but citizens can make an official request for the municipal office to provide these documents, or they can approach the local councillors who possess them. Nevertheless, the willingness of municipalities to share documents online is a manifestation of their commitment to including citizens in decision-making. Transparent budgeting is a webpage application that allows citizens to look at municipal revenues and expenses online. The quality of applications may vary because some cities present only the necessary information, which is usually only aggregated expenses according to respective budget sections, such as expenses for administration, education, culture, sport, etc. The most transparent and open cities have their applications linked with transparent accounting and respective contracts, all easily traceable by ordinary citizens. Transparent accounting is a recent tool. After a long period of pressure from society, it was first offered during the presidential election campaign in 2013 by major as well as smaller banking institutions in the Czech Republic. Subsequently, transparent accounts became popular among pioneering municipalities. If a municipality uses transparent accounting, its citizens can view the flow of transactions online, from whom a municipality received payments and to whom a municipality is making payments, and the purpose of those transactions. This is of particular importance because citizens, NGOs, journalists and local entrepreneurs can check and monitor possible misconduct, for example, in public procurement. Ideally, the two above-mentioned applications work perfectly if they are also linked to the public contract register. This means that all contracts are published online and publicly available. According to the NGO State Reconstruction (Rekonstrukce státu), this measure is the most crucial in combating corruption in the Czech Republic. The initiative originally came from Jan Fárský, a councillor for the middle-sized city of Semily in Northern Bohemia. He is a member of the Party of the Mayors that is currently represented in the national parliament. Other councillors and mayors in the Czech Republic are not so keen on publishing contracts online, pointing to the “unreasonable bureaucratic burden” for small towns. There was fierce debate between politicians and NGOs pushing for reforms, and it leads to the approval of a bill that forces state organisations and regional and municipal governments to publish all contracts above 1900 EUR (50,000 CZK) online in the central register. The Union of Towns and Municipalities, an umbrella association of mayors, was opposed to strict rules, and, as a result, the obligation to publish contracts does not apply to small municipalities. All variables were coded as indicator binary variables and summarised as an index. Before aggregation, we conducted a factor analysis to find whether some tools or techniques are clustered (see Pánek et al. 2021). There is no clear pattern, as all the variables are correlated with the first factor above 0.3. Other extracted factors are difficult to explain. The second factor shows there are municipalities using

5  Improving Local Democracy Works: Determinants of Participatory Local…

101

modern technologies; the third is correlated with only two indicators, the mobile app for reporting problems and issues online and transparent accounting. The fourth factor correlates with only the two last items of the transparency dimensions, transparent budgeting and accounting. However, all items theoretically form three dimensions, and the respective indexes for those were also created  – Index of Communication, Index of Participation and Index of Transparency.

5.6 Measuring Institutional, Political and Socioeconomic Factors The main institutional variable is municipal size, in terms of population. This variable enters the analysis in a natural log transformation. The political variables are the council fragmentation computed as standard in the Laakso-Taagepera index (Laakso and Taagepera 1979) from the recent municipal elections of 2018. In the formula, the voting share of the “candidate list” is used. This is the title used by the Czech Statistical Office and by the electoral law. The candidate list can be a single political party, a coalition of parties or just a list of independent candidates who have decided to form a candidate list. If none of the above apply and an independent candidate does not join a candidate list with others, he/she can form a single candidate list. Another political variable is the number of partisan councillors, indicating to what degree the national parties are present on the municipal level, and it can be used as a means of finding whether these municipalities function differently to those dominated by local independent councillors. Although the Czech Republic has a collective system of municipal governance, the mayor is the key figure who sets policy strategies and is responsible for municipal development and the development of a community. Two variables measure the traits of the mayors, their age and their gender. Furthermore, the effect of gender is analysed by means of the variable that measures the proportion of female councillors. The socioeconomic variables are relatively easy to obtain from the Czech Statistical Office, but it is difficult to decide which one to employ in the final analysis. The reason is that socioeconomic variables are highly correlated; some are determined by municipal size. For example, larger municipalities have a higher share of educated people and a lower unemployment rate. More examples could be present. The final analysis employs three socioeconomic variables, college educated (%), elderly (%) and self-employed (%), and uses the indexes of social exclusion and social capital. The first three variables were obtained from the Czech Statistical Office. The index of social exclusion was developed by the state Agency for social inclusion, and it measures the degree to which a municipality has social problems, such as the number of people in distraint, the number relying on social benefits, dropouts from schools, etc. Although all the socioeconomic variables are highly correlated with social capital, it is theoretically a distinct concept. On the lowest possible level of aggregation, the municipal level, it is difficult to select variables

102

J. Lysek

that would directly measure social capital and were available for analysis. On the municipal level, we can use only electoral turnout in the latest municipal elections of 2018 and the number of NGOs per capita. The former measures traditional conventional political participation; the latter measures the density of civic organisations. Unfortunately, we cannot obtain data on their membership rate. On the district or regional level, we can use more relevant variables, for example, the membership rate in the largest Czech sport association, the membership rate of voluntary firefighters and the number of blood donors in hospitals. Moreover, we can aggregate the results of individual-level opinion surveys (e.g. European Social Survey) from district and regional levels with the traditional measures of social capital such as generalised trust, institutional trust, membership of trade unions and political parties. The final index of social capital is therefore measured on the district level and is composed of those variables, similar to the index used by Kostelecký et al. (2007). All are highly correlated and thus measure the single underlying concept. For simplicity, the index is displayed on the regional level in the Map 1 below. In the map, we can see that social capital is lowest in Northern Bohemia and in Northern Silesia. Both regions were former industrial regions during the communist regime. After political and economic transformation, these two regions have faced crises and many social problems. If we produce a map of other socioeconomic variables, the regional variation is similar (see Lysek et al. 2021). As a result, the municipalities in Northern Bohemia and Silesia would be expected to have a less open and deliberative government because of low social capital and particularly due to the low civic and political participation in these two regions (Table 5.2).

Map 1  The Social Capital Index

5  Improving Local Democracy Works: Determinants of Participatory Local…

103

Table 5.2  Descriptive statistics (unstandardised) Name Index Communication Participation Transparency Population (logged) College educated (%) Self-employed (%) Elderly (%) Index of social exclusion Social Capital Index Age of a mayor (years) Female mayor Council fragmentation Percentage of partisan councillors

n 6252 6252 6252 6252 6252 6251 6251 6251 6252 6252 6164 6163 6244 6252

mean 3.47 1.71 0.74 1.02 2.69 6.22 5.99 23.93 2.21 0.22 49.83 0.26 2.8 6.4

sd 1.97 1.03 0.84 0.92 0.53 3.29 2.23 5.59 3.42 0.84 9.82 0.44 2.17 12.35

min 0 0 0 0 1.18 0 0 2.57 0 −2.66 20 0 1 0

max 12 4 4 4 6.11 27.61 26.32 69.53 27 2.41 84 1 15 94.55

5.7 Analysis The analysis was conducted by means of standard linear regression. Table 5.3 shows the results from four models. The first model presents the results for the index, while the other three are models for each dimension of the index: communication, participation and transparency. For all models, the strongest predictor is municipal size. With a one-unit increase in a logged population, the index is higher by a value of 0.47. For other dimensions, the relationship is even stronger. Larger municipalities have arguably more capacity and resources for implementing participatory techniques. Similarly, there are positive associations with the percentage of college educated (%) and, to a lesser extent, with the share of self-employed citizens. Yet surprisingly, the index is positively associated with the number of elderly population. This finding seems to be contradictory, because there are a higher number of elderly people in municipalities in the so-called “inner peripheries” of the Czech regions and the former Sudeten borderlands. Yet similar variables have the same effect as the previous one, the index of social exclusion, that measures social problems in the municipalities such as poverty, distraint, number of pupils with discontinued studies, etc. Conversely, the index of social capital is negatively associated with the participatory dimension, while for the other dimensions, the inclusion of the main index is insignificant. Social capital measures the activities of a local community, and the possible explanation could be that municipalities in regions with high social capital might be less motivated to implement democratic innovation reforms because citizens are already active in a rather informal way. So the socioeconomic variables give us a surprising and inconsistent result. The possible explanation is that, while municipalities generally score high on all dimensions when they have a larger population, educated citizens and higher economic activity measured as the number of self-employed, some of the dimensions can be

104

J. Lysek

Table 5.3  Main regression models Statistical models Population (logged) College educated (%) Self-employed (%) Elderly (%) Index of social exclusion Social Capital Index Age of a mayor (years) Female mayor Council fragmentation Percentage of partisan councillors (Constant) R2 Adj. R2 Num. obs. RMSE

Index 0.470*** (0.015) 0.074*** (0.013) 0.033*** (0.012) 0.055*** (0.012) 0.040*** (0.012) −0.009 (0.017) −0.034*** (0.011) 0.010 (0.011) 0.008*** (0.003) 0.025* (0.013) 0.001 (0.020) 0.269 0.266 6155 0.425

Communication 0.654*** (0.032) 0.055* (0.028) 0.065** (0.027) 0.080*** (0.027) 0.018 (0.028) 0.034 (0.038) −0.099*** (0.024) 0.004 (0.024) 0.010* (0.006) 0.039 (0.029) 1.541*** (0.045) 0.151 0.148 6155 0.946

Participation 0.683*** (0.026) 0.103*** (0.022) 0.028 (0.021) 0.044** (0.021) 0.022 (0.022) −0.051* (0.030) 0.002 (0.019) 0.056*** (0.019) 0.006 (0.005) 0.024 (0.023) 0.726*** (0.035) 0.200 0.198 6155 0.749

Transparency 0.513*** (0.030) 0.133*** (0.026) 0.038 (0.024) 0.092*** (0.024) 0.116*** (0.025) −0.020 (0.035) −0.037* (0.022) −0.020 (0.022) 0.016*** (0.005) 0.036 (0.027) 1.201*** (0.041) 0.119 0.116 6155 0.861

p