With the obligation for participation with residents in projects from the (local) government, an important step has been taken in the Netherlands in actively involving residents in the design and maintenance of their own living environment. The Dutch Environmental Law (Omgevingswet), which took effect on 1 January 2024, makes citizen participation in spatial planning a fixed, integral part of the physical living environment. Henceforth, authorities must explicitly account for how they have involved citizens and other stakeholders in their plans (environmental visions, plans, and programmes) and what the result of that involvement is (‘duty to state reasons’).
This is valuable because shared responsibility for the living environment contributes to greater ownership and a more equal relationship between government and citizens. The operationalisation of citizen participation differs significantly per administrative layer. Where the national government focuses on large-scale transitions, in municipalities, we see experiments with direct democratic forms. This document will therefore primarily focus on the municipal practice of participation.
Quality over quantity: the struggle with ‘sufficient’
This leads to needs and wishes being collected and discussions being held by civil servants with citizens and (local) entrepreneurs about the design of the living environment in all sorts of places across the country. There are also special participation teams active in municipalities that help civil servants set up and implement participation effectively. Through participation plans, thought is given to the manner and level of input at which participation is carried out within projects.
We see this as a very positive development, because it ensures people are taken seriously and that policy better aligns with people’s daily lives. We have even experienced that participation can lead to greater social cohesion in a neighbourhood, because people who normally do not talk to each other can gain understanding for each other in this way. We previously wrote about this in this article.
In short, participation is here to stay. However, we hear and read how civil servants struggle with the question of when participation is ‘sufficient’. Capacity in municipalities is also a structural problem, which complicates the qualitative guidance of participation processes, especially when emotions run high in the neighbourhood.
Shift from practical to fundamental
It is therefore relevant to reflect and enter into a dialogue about how we can make participation an integral part of the work of civil servants. For this, it is important to identify new needs and challenges for both civil servants and citizens that have arisen since the law took effect and to discuss them. In this document, we mention three.
Firstly, by doing it, civil servants and citizens experience that some methods do not yield the desired results in practice and sometimes even cause frustration. That the interaction between the government and the citizen is sometimes experienced as a formal step, where the citizen may feel heard but has insufficient influence. And where civil servants also experience that valuable participation requires time and money, which is not always available within projects. The need for civil servants with knowledge and experience with different methodologies to conduct participation in a valuable way is thereby growing. As is a need to continue learning, sharing, and reflecting on how and when participation works best.
Secondly, we see that not everyone finds the path to the current participation opportunities offered equally easy. Some residents are better at making their voices heard than others. Some citizens are not accustomed to being asked for their opinion and may be sceptical about the intentions or consequences of expressing their opinion. This is sometimes called the participation paradox. Participation instruments often attract those who already have a strong voice, which can increase inequality in influence if there is no specific attention to inclusivity. It is then necessary to go to the people and hold conversations in places where they already gather in active neighbourhood initiatives, such as cooking together, having breakfast, or playing sports. The municipality must not only know what is being organised and which key figures play a role, but also be allowed access to these places. This requires time, patience, and flexibility in the participation approach because you connect with what already exists.
Finally, a challenge is securing the contacts made in individual participation processes and maintaining the relationships that have started even after the specific project and independent of the civil servant who established the contacts. In doing so, our focus shifts from the practical question of how best to participate to the more fundamental questions of why and from what reciprocal relationship we do so. Especially if there is more participation and the municipality therefore more often asks citizens to share their ideas, feelings, and needs, it is important that this is not a one-off event. This leads to problems such as participation fatigue and a lack of reciprocity, causing citizens to no longer want to take part in participation. So, there is certainly something to lose. We discussed this internally in this podcast.
The courage to look inward
As stakeholders in this field, we want to actively contribute and participate in deepening participation. To make participation more inclusive and therefore more valuable for all involved, an extra step is necessary, namely a fundamental investment in sustainable relationships, instead of a focus on isolated projects. This requires a broad participatory vision and policy and a learning environment within the municipalities to not seek contact only once but to build long-term relationships with citizens.
Sustainable participation requires relationships where integrity, goodwill, and responsiveness are central. A relationship where citizens feel that they are truly being listened to and that the municipality acts on it. A relationship where regular contact is a given. Where civil servants are also proactively informed by citizens when they have a need for participation, even without a project-related request for participation from the municipality. So, this requires an authentic interest in what drives citizens and local entrepreneurs. It also requires actively listening to what is happening (even if there is no request from the municipality) and being prepared to put it on the agenda in the right places within the municipality.
We would therefore like to mention a fourth challenge here. The future of participation not only requires the willingness of the (local) government to reach out and see what is happening, but it also requires the courage to look inward. At the consequences for the organisation itself. What does it mean if citizens and civil servants enter into a relationship and want to maintain it? How do you facilitate it when citizens proactively approach civil servants? This leads to all sorts of interesting and relevant questions about the values underlying this collaboration.
Is there an understanding of how civil servants think about citizens and vice versa? Do they see citizens as independent and responsible or more as complaining and fault-finding individuals? Do citizens see civil servants as authentic and involved or more as merely executing and uninterested? Or is the gap smaller than we might suspect? And what do all those involved expect from participation? What should we do together to form and maintain a reciprocal relationship? To what extent do we involve residents in setting up and choosing the participation methodology? Where it does not remain just a few inspiring examples, but becomes the new standard for the cooperation between (local) government and citizens.
From our involvement, we want to actively contribute to the ongoing development of participation, so that it continues to create lasting value for everyone. We see participation as something dynamic that must constantly evolve to remain relevant. This document is not a plea against the current value of participation, but an invitation to continue pioneering together in a constantly changing field. To view participation as a profession, which requires certain skills. To understand what is needed to support the people who carry out participation.
We are convinced that understanding what drives people, what they hope for, and what they are afraid of not only informs policymakers to make decisions and policies that better align with people’s daily lives but also contributes to greater trust in and appreciation for the (local) government. Continuing to question each other out of genuine interest, accepting that participation also brings uncertainty, and the shared intention of making our living environment better are central to this. Something that both citizens and civil servants work very hard on every day.
By Paulien Kreutzer