Problems and motivations
In the Free Hanseatic City of Bremen, a process for citizen participation took place in connection with the renovation of the Stadionbad, the largest public swimming pool in Bremen.
Over time it had been shown that the operating costs for the stadium pool were too high. In addition, it had to be renovated urgently. The political parties in the City Council of Bremen agreed on this. However, they were at odds over whether the stadium swimming pool would be renovated in such a way that it should be a traditional swimming pool just like before (using chlorine) or whether a more ecological chlorine-free approach would be more valuable. Since no decision could be made due to the differing opinions among the parties, the decision was made to let the citizens decide.
history
In 2001 an election was held in Bremen, so that a new state and city parliament came together. It was decided to start a citizen participation process, the goal of which would be agreement, i.e. a decision whether one would like to have a traditional or ecological swimming pool. This was also recorded in the coalition agreement between the two government parties.
The Senate of the city of Bremen, the city and the state pledged 2.5 million euros for the project. Aside from that, it was noted that the results of civic participation would actually be taken into account when it comes to renovation. Nevertheless, the institutions established by the constitution were not simply overlooked. In the end, the municipal parliament still had the right to decide what to do. However, the two ruling parties promised to base the outcome of the citizen participation process on their decision if an agreement was reached as part of the process.
Entities and funding
The process of renovating the stadium pool was started strictly according to the rules of the decision-making process between the city and the district governments: "The Bath company running the swimming pool had to submit a formal proposal for a renewal to the Senator of the Interior and Sports, the responsible government branch. He had to submit the proposal and a budget request to the Sports Deputation, a joint body formed by the city and state governements and members of the sports committee of the city and state parliament. The Sports Deputation would then approve the proposal and madate the Senate, the City Government, to include this project in the next annual budget, which has to be approved by the State Parliament. After budget approval within the city and State Governments, the Senator of Construction, Transport and Environment responsible for public contrustion takes over and opens the tendering process for construction plans ". (Kubicek & Westholm, p. 326, 2010)
Here the process differed from what is common in that the city and state parliament granted the district government, the district in which the swimming pool was, a greater right to make decisions about the design of the swimming pool and agreed to conduct a public citizens' survey. It was contractually stipulated that the district would recommend the type of renovation that was worked out by a broad public participation and that this recommendation would be adopted if it also met the contractual requirements and the participation process was fair, neutral and consensus and Was results-oriented.
The prerequisites were that the private planning institute, which was commissioned with the case, first had to submit very simple technical plans so that everyone involved (including retirees, school children, etc.) could understand what it was about. Apart from that, when making a decision within the public participation, it would have to be taken into account that the capacity of the swimming pool of 4000 people per day is guaranteed, that no more than the guaranteed 2.5 million euros are spent on the project that the swimming pool is used for sports and competitions that the water quality can meet certain standards and that the swimming pool must fit into the landscape by the river.
Participant selection
The district government decided that in addition to the official government and administrative offices, representatives of sports clubs, teachers and students from schools in the district, children and adolescents, families with young children, pensioners, leisure users of the swimming pool and organizations in the neighborhood are eligible.
In order to integrate these beneficiaries into the citizen participation process, the district council initially set up a "small management team consisting of the City District Manager, the civil servant in charge of work with the youth and an external facilitator hired to coordinate the process" (Kubicek & Westholm, S . 328, 2010). In addition, the committee, godfather circle, was created. This committee consisted of 25 representatives of the various decision-making bodies and other beneficiaries, such as swimming pools and schools. The sponsorship group, which met non-publicly every 3-4 weeks, served both as an adviser and as a guide. "It was the seismograph for all the developments in the process, prepared and finished other sub-processes, thought about which target groups could be reichet by which measures, identified the issues not dealt with, collected ideas from other participation methodes and presented the results to the political bodies ”(Kubicek & Westholm, p. 328, 2010). The sponsorship group was therefore a very important instance for the process.
The sponsorship group invited more than a hundred organizations or individuals who were identified as eligible to participate in a one-day workshop on stadium pool renovation. A total of 65 people took part in the workshop. However, with this first workshop it was not possible to sufficiently integrate all of the beneficiaries into the process. That's why it was decided to pick people up where they already were. For example, a day care center, a primary school and ninth and eleventh grade students were interviewed with their age-appropriate methods. In addition, two excursions were offered (one to the stadium pool itself in its current state, and to an ecological swimming pool). A public discussion was held on the pros and cons of traditional and ecological water purification. A special meeting for women was organized after it was found that women and girls had different ideas about clean changing rooms, anti-gaffer devices, and softball instead of soccer fields. Athletes also had a separate meeting to express their interests. It turned out that they especially wanted a 50 meter track and clear water that was at least 20 degrees warm. Since the bathroom should also be usable for people with a disability, i.e. suitable for the disabled, organizations for the disabled were included in the process. In addition, the renovation plans were presented again after many participants were unclear.
In addition, everyone was able to get information on the website of the project www.stadionbad.bremen.de (now deactivated) and participate in a discussion in the forum that there was over six weeks on the website. During this period, four questions were discussed in the forum that still seemed unclear after the first workshop. In contrast to the website, the forum was used only minimally. However, the fifty articles that were actually published were mostly constructive and valid. This, and the arguments from the public discussion on the water purification method were given, indicates that the forum was primarily used by people who had already worked intensively on the topic or were already involved in the process. There were no real discussions in the forum.
Considerations, decisions, and dealing with the public
After the first phase of the project provided very open information and discussion, the second phase focused on building consensus and analyzing discrepancies. In order to discuss the results and problems from the different areas or different events, a second one-day workshop was called together. The number of participants was overestimated at 100 by a sleek 60 people. The sponsorship group had designed boards with the ten most important topics that also appeared in the online forum during the previous process. These tables were divided into consensus and non-consensus, which had to be discussed within small groups. After that, each group had the right to give the topics up to three points if they agreed and considered them important. If a topic had five points or more, it was discussed in the general assembly. Final decisions were made here.
The decision was made because simply no majority could be found for either traditional or ecological water purification, because there are convincing arguments for both of them to compromise. The decision was made "one large pool with chlorinated water and 50-m-lanes, a second one also with chlorinated water and the jumping tower, and a third pool with a maximum depth of 1.40 m and a large" water landscape "with biologically cleaned water - suitable both for swimmers and for small kids and non-swimmers ”(Kubicek & Westholm, p. 335, 2010).
In order to heat the water, especially in the 50m pool and in the showers, solar panels should be installed. Instead of using drinking water, the decision was made to take water from the neighboring Weser. The decision was made to offer venues for soft ball instead of football, since the risk of accidents is lower. An uncovered grandstand should be used for resting or sunbathing or for use in sports competitions.
The most important way to find out about the project was certainly the website, where the whole process was documented. This was visited on average one hundred times a week. It was also possible to subscribe to a newsletter that was sent six times during the project and three times afterwards. Approximately one hundred people use this email offer and another 30 had the newsletter sent to them by post. So there was always a source when you wanted to find out more about the project.
The participation project was also reported in the media. Local television reports twice, albeit very briefly. 32 articles on the subject were printed in the two local newspapers. 14 articles could also be found in an advertising sheet. Most of these articles were provided with photos, which ensured them a lot of attention. All this media coverage creates a picture of transparency, which increases acceptance for the process and the result. As a negative consequence, it can only be stated that the motivation to participate was diminished, because the impression was created that everything would be treated correctly.
Influence, results and effects
After there was an election in the district, in which the results of the second workshop were approved, the sponsorship group checked again whether the details match their results and then finally handed the concept over to the district council in July 2004, which without further ado Discussions took over the results of the election. The smallest changes by urban authorities occurred again before they were implemented. "In December 2004, the Sports Deputation took the final decision on the submitted plan. The construction took one and a half years and in August 2006, the Stadionbad was reopened according to plan ”(Kubicek & Westholm, p. 336, 2010).
Analysis and criticism
For this participation project in which people who probably do not have internet access (such as pensioners through the digital devide) should also be reached, a two-pronged implementation with the possibility of face-to-face and online also seems very correct. Despite their affinity for the Internet, young people did not use the opportunity to participate through the forum on the website, but had to be brought to their schools with a face-to-face method tailored to their needs. What is also certain to be noted is that this project took place in 2001 and accordingly fewer people in the total population generally had internet access. Viewed from this page, the number of visitors to the website appears to be relatively high. The attempt to integrate online participation into the participation process is already quite progressive for 2001 and must therefore be mentioned with great praise.
Despite everything, it seems as if it was very difficult to reach people who are not organized through associations, such as pensioners or families with young children. It is possible that the sponsorship group has thought of their interest, but often these interests are simply not recognizable to outsiders. There is no participation of important beneficiaries. I also think that the whole process was focused too much on the district, so the largest swimming pool that Bremen has to offer will surely be used beyond the district boundaries.
Unfortunately, you could not get a particularly high level of interest in the project if you compare the actual number of participants with the expected number of participants in the two workshops, which can be seen as very negative. One could criticize that the two workshops were given too much importance compared to the other possibilities of participation, but I do not agree, because during the first workshop in the form of discussion only the beginning of the project was made and the more important one Second workshop decisions were made, but (as you can see from the result) the intermediate results and wishes of the groups with special wishes were taken into account. So it was decided according to the wishes, which became clear in the discussion with the women, that they would rather have a softball field than a soccer field, and the wishes of the athletes for a 50m track and a grandstand for competitions were met.
However, it also has to be said that it is quite controversial whether the solution that was found is actually a real compromise. If all pools are cleaned with the chemical variant and only a water landscape without chlorine, then the traditional cleaning method obviously has a greater impact. In conclusion, however, this was the solution that was found within the participation options.
Secondary sources
Kubicek, Herbert & Westholm, Hilmar (2010). Consensus Building by Blended Participation in a Local Planning Process: The Case of the Public Stadium Swimming Pool in Bremen. In Rios Insua, David & French, Simon (ed.): E-democracy. A group decision and negotiation perspective. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 323-341