What potentials and pitfalls emerge through digital formats in participation processes in rural regional development? The paper discusses, focusing on six regional case studies, how digital formats are used in civic participation in regional development processes in German rural areas. Results show (1) that digital participation formats vary in terms of level of complexity, serve different objectives, are in their success highly dependent on other context factors (e.g. participation culture, socio-economic factors and digital competency) and do not automatically enable more participation by hardly represented groups. In terms of spatial relations, (2) there is a lack of specifically rural examples as urban areas are overrepresented in contexts of digitalisation. Consequently, opportunities for action remain limited by spatial structures, and the engagement of individuals remains pivotal. Regarding the impact on practices of communication and interaction, (3) the main objective of digital formats is to strengthen citizens’ identification with the region, and digital formats turn out to qualify to varying degrees for implementing participation. Municipal and regional administrations, in particular, are key drivers for digital transitions in rural areas. Regarding chances of participation, we conclude that digital formats can create easier access, especially when linked with everyday practices. Hence, they contribute to a culture of participation. Yet, reaching target groups underrepresented in participatory processes remains a challenge.
Bundesarbeitsgemeinschaft der LEADER-Aktionsgruppen Deutschlands (BAG LAG) (2023) Das ist LEADER. Available at: https://www.baglag.de/was-ist-leader/ (accessed 27 July 2024).
ChapmanRSlaymakerT (2002) ICTs and rural development. Review of the literature, current interventions and opportunities for action. ODI Working Paper 192. London: ODI Global.
Erdiaw-KwasieMOAlamK (2016) Towards understanding digital divide in rural partnerships and development: a framework and evidence from rural Australia. Journal of Rural Studies43(2016): 214–224.
FischlCLindelöfNLindgrenHNilssonI (2020) Older adults’ perceptions of contexts surrounding their social participation in a digitalized society – an exploration in rural communities in Northern Sweden. European Journal of Ageing17(3): 281–290.
16.
Fraunhofer IESE (2022) Digitale Dörfer. Fraunhofer-Institut für Experimentelles Software Engineering. Available at: www.digitale-doerfer.de (accessed 27 July 2024).
17.
Fuchs-HeinritzW (2011) Partizipation. In: Fuchs-HeinritzWKlimkeDLautmannR, et al. (eds) Lexikon zur Soziologie. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, p. 500.
Kreis LippeL (ed.) (2019b) Kreis Lippe – Digitale Zukunft gestalten. Digitalisierungsstrategie Kreis Lippe. Erstellt im Zuge des Zukunftskonzeptes Lippe 2025.
Landkreis Wunsiedel im Fichtelgebirge (2021) Freiraum Fichtelgebirge 2030. Smart. Nachhaltig. Resilient. Kreisentwicklungskonzept Für Den Landkreis Wunsiedel im Fichtelgebirge. Available at: www.freiraum-fichtelgebirge.de/app/uploads/2021/07/KEK2030.pdf
23.
LeitnerM (ed.) (2018) Digitale Bürgerbeteiligung. Forschung und Praxis – Chancen und Herausforderungen der elektronischen Partizipation. Wiesbaden: Springer Nature.
24.
MeynM (2020) Digitalization and its impact on life in rural areas: exploring the two sides of the Atlantic: USA and Germany. In: PatnaikSSenSMahmoudM (eds) Smart Village Technology: Modeling and Optimization in Science and Technologies. Cham: Springer, pp. 99–116.
NopperN (2020) Alles auf Offen – Open government im Hohen Fläming. In: SmartVILLAGE Blog. Available at: www.smart-village.net/ok-lab-flaeming (accessed 10 August 2020).
28.
NuurCLaestadiusS (2010) Development in peripheral regions: case studies in Sweden. European Urban and Regional Studies17(3): 293–307.
RehfeldDTerstriepJ (2019) Regional governance in North Rhine-Westphalia – Lessons for smart specialisation strategies?Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research32(1): 85–103.
31.
RobertsEAndersonBASkerrattSFarringtonJ (2017) A review of the rural-digital policy agenda from a community resilience perspective. Journal of Rural Studies54(2017): 372–385.
32.
SaleminkKStrijkerD (2018) The participation society and its inability to correct the failure of market players to deliver adequate service levels in rural areas. Telecommunications Policy42(9): 757–765.
33.
SaleminkKStrijkerDBosworthG (2017) The community reclaims control? Learning experiences from rural broadband initiatives in the Netherlands. Sociologia Ruralis57(1): 555–575.
34.
SchmidtSMüllerFCIbertOBrinksV (2018) Open region: creating and exploiting opportunities for innovation at the regional scale. European Urban and Regional Studies25(2): 187–205.
35.
SeptA (2020) Thinking together digitalization and social innovation in rural areas: an exploration of rural digitalization projects in Germany. European Countryside12(2): 193–208.
SteinVPentzoldCPeterS, et al. (2024): Digital political participation for rural development: Necessary conditions and cultures of participation. The Information Society41(1): 18–32.
43.
SteinVPentzoldCPeterS, et al. (2023) Sociotechnical infrastructuring for digital participation in rural development: A survey of public administrators in Germany. Communications50(1): 1–25.
44.
SteinVPentzoldCPeterS, et al. (2022) Digitalization and civic participation in rural areas. A systematic review of scientific journals, 2010-2020. Raumforschung und Raumordnung | Spatial Research and Planning80(3): 251–265.
45.
StrubeltW (2011) Partizipation. In: Fuchs-HeinritzWKlimkeDLautmannR, et al. (eds) Lexikon zur Soziologie. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, p. 500.
