First, we briefly define the concept of citizen participation. According to Hovik and Giannoumis (2022: 3), citizen participation in general refers to “voluntary contributions or involvement of citizens in public decision-making”, although they do not address the governance levels of participation. In the context of Germany, however, the various federal, state, regional and local levels of governance in the planning system, with the central significance of the local level, must be taken into account. Jiang, Geertman and Witte (2019: 249) refer to the local level by describing participatory planning as raising awareness for local challenges and the involvement of citizens in local decision-making processes. At the urban level, Morais (2022: 3) addresses the dimensions of participation as institutionalised and non-institutionalised participation. Institutionalised participation processes are organised top-down, such as citizen assemblies, while non-institutionalised participation describes rather bottom-up protests and events.

In this paper, we understand citizen participation as the involvement and engagement of citizens in planning and decision-making processes at different governance levels. Since the 1980s, hierarchical administrative structures of governments have increasingly evolved into agile forms of governance networks to accommodate the collective needs of the local population (Taylor 2012: 15; Silva 2020: 2). This evolution is also referred to as participatory governance within the collaborative or participatory turn (Dean 2018: 180). In Germany, this participatory governance was fostered at the local level in the 1990s through the introduction of direct elections, direct-democratic elements such as referendums, and deliberative democracy in the form of local agenda processes (Walk 2008: 21).

Participation has multiple functions and effects for cities and regions and their citizens. Silva (2020: 2) describes citizen participation as a process that improves the results of planning, reduces costs, increases transparency and builds trust. Citizens are directly affected by the developments in their city and can therefore provide specific suggestions for their environment (Bastos/Fernández-Caballero/Pereira et al. 2022: 14; Lahode/Schaumann 2022: 292). Thus, participation enables an openness to new ideas and perspectives. A kind of intermediary arena between political power and civil society emerges (Meschede 2020: 201; Sierra/Ott 2022: 45). Thus, an active commitment arises, giving the population a sense of empowerment (Kang 2014: 412). Transformative and collective ideas need to emerge for cities to address urban issues, as highlighted during the Covid-19 pandemic (Morais 2022: 1). Participation enables citizens to value the resources used in planning processes and thus new sustainable activities and planning processes can emerge (Amado/Santos/Moura et al. 2010: 102). In this way, cities and regions can take new paths towards sustainable transformation through new participatory planning processes (Amado/Santos/Moura et al. 2010: 107).

The relevance of participation and cooperative policy-making has been recognised globally and discussed through conferences and agreements (i.e. Local Agenda, Sustainable Development Goals) since the 1970s (Turken/Eyuboglu 2021: 173). In Germany, the Federal Building Code (Baugesetzbuch) currently contains guidelines for the implementation of formal participation in planning processes. These include meetings, public displays and written comments. Informal participation, such as future workshops, is not legally regulated, but can be implemented in addition to formal participation in planning (Kaczorowski 2014: 87). Nevertheless, in order to strengthen various forms of participation, the state and federal ministries have published a growing number of handbooks on institutionalisation in recent years (Sippel 2015: 32).

Over time, participation has been further enhanced by various innovations. However, challenges remain in practice. Unequal distribution of power in face-to-face participation is a central problem. Participation is often only one-way and is used to inform and legitimise finalised decisions (Evans-Cowley/Hollander 2010: 399). Moreover, it is challenging for the administration to integrate disadvantaged and less articulate population groups into the process (Ertiö 2015: 303). Citizens are thus excluded from the actual decision-making and are ascribed a spectator role (Nyseth/Ringholm/Agger 2019: 14; Carvajal Bermúdez 2022: 160). The will for more transparent and constant communication is growing (Fathejalali/Jain 2019: 217). In contrast, a lack of interest in participation and trust in politics and the administration is evident among citizens (Akmentina 2023).

Fiscal crises and the associated limited governmental resources lead to a decline in citizen participation and deficits in the implementation of participation results on a local level in Germany (Holtkamp/Bathge 2012: 47). Furthermore, the results of participation are not adequately embedded in planning and thus do not directly influence the process (Morais 2022: 23–24). In addition, the intensity of participation is usually insufficient. In planning processes, the focus is mainly on providing information or allowing citizens to identify urban deficits, while the active involvement of citizens in the process is not a priority (Bastos/Fernández-Caballero/Pereira et al. 2022: 10). In this context, already in 1969, Arnstein identified different levels of participation with her “Ladder of Citizen Participation”, while criticising that only a minor part of participation is designed to actively involve citizens in the decision-making process and there is no guarantee that their opinions are taken into account (Arnstein 1969).

In light of the shortcomings of conventional participation described above, new forms of participation have developed in recent years through digitalisation. In the past two decades, the spread of information and communication technologies (ICT) and the development of new media have led to new collective narratives and public discourses in cities (Graziano 2020: 582) and a transformation of the process for developing urban spaces (Turken/Eyuboglu 2021: 171). The information and consultation process has been diversified through the introduction of digital participation. Digital participation (or e‑participation) involves the use of digital tools for the implementation of citizen participation, mediated by information and communication technologies and primarily the internet (Al-Dalou/Abu-Shanab 2013: 1; Hovik/Giannoumis 2022: 3). Macintosh (2004: 3) defines three levels of e‑participation: e‑enabling describes the provision of information such as websites or newsletters; e‑engaging refers to consultation via surveys, discussion forums and the like; and e‑empowering means the active participation of the population in order to influence planning by, for example, e‑petitions (Mandarano/Meenar 2015: 462; Martini/Fritzsche 2015: 125). This connects to Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of participation.

Meanwhile, digital participation is constantly evolving through new technologies and faster and cheaper data availability (Antoniou/Potsiou 2021: 38; Turken/Eyuboglu 2021: 169; Akmentina 2023). The use of social media by public administrations is a growing trend (Sobaci 2016: 3). Access to high-speed internet is a prerequisite. Hence, especially in highly developed countries with widespread high-speed internet and modern public administrations, digital participation and e‑government are developing rapidly (Donders/Hartmann/Kokx 2014: 58). Nevertheless, digital citizen participation has so far been used less commonly than assumed (Lebezova/Ovcharenko 2022: 79). In Germany, the demand for digital participation tools was accentuated by Stuttgart 21 and the restrictions on physical contacts during the Covid-19 pandemic. Here, the local level in particular serves as a field of experimentation (Martini/Fritzsche 2015: 123; Hovik/Giannoumis 2022: 1). Wiktorska-Swiecka (2023: 226) observes for Berlin that the pandemic developed a window of opportunity to rethink participatory formats and enabled a transformation towards new participatory governance as the “new normal”, also by means of information and communication technologies. Hanninger (2023: 99) finds that Covid-19 was a kind of “digitalisation catalyst” for some Bavarian municipalities.

In the future, digital participation processes will continue to evolve and be increasingly used. The support of and combinations with analogue formats takes centre stage (Turken/Eyuboglu 2021: 179), with digital participation viewed as a complement rather than a substitute (Freschi/Rony/Norbjerg 2009: 64). Combinations of digital and analogue formats are known as blended, hybrid or multi-channel participation and are commonly employed in planning practice, both in the development of comprehensive planning processes and in the capacity building of citizens (Akmentina 2023).

Digital participation offers many advantages over traditional participation. Cheaper and more efficient methods and platforms can be used, thus saving time and costs for governments and administrations (Kubicek/Aichholzer 2016: 16; Sobaci 2016: 11). Moreover, new forms of participation through interactive methods on the internet can potentially address and activate new population groups that are otherwise reluctant to participate, such as young people (Nyseth/Ringholm/Agger 2019: 14). It can also overcome barriers to participation, as digital approaches are more flexible and easier to access (Kubicek/Aichholzer 2016: 16). Due to time-space independencies, more people can be reached (Martini/Fritzsche 2015: 124; Turken/Eyuboglu 2021: 169; Lahode/Schaumann 2022: 291). In this way, citizens are better integrated in political decision-making processes because they are also better connected to politics, and information and communication technologies enable a better understanding of the processes (Al-Dalou/Abu-Shanab 2013: 1). The inclusivity of planning processes can thus be increased and previously excluded population groups can be mobilised (Legard/Hovik 2022: 169). Overall, digital participation can promote social cohesion (Damurski 2012: 40). In addition, more diverse forms of feedback opportunities and data have emerged, including public geoinformation systems (Akmentina 2023). With visual tools, language is not a general barrier (Evans-Cowley/Hollander 2010: 400). New possibilities such as gamification enable a playful engagement with planning topics and urban problems and increase motivation to participate (Muehlhaus/Eghtebas/Seifert et al. 2023: 345). Moreover, digital technologies are increasingly being used to optimise participation in urban design (Turken/Eyuboglu 2021: 179). So-called digital co-design or co-creation is characterised by design concepts being created by non-experts through gaming setups and virtual reality, with support from experts and planners. One example of a holistic digital co-design system is U_CODE (Stelzle/Naumann/Holmer et al. 2020: 85). This creates a larger knowledge base by crowdsourcing local knowledge, ideas and the creativity of citizens or non-experts, allowing urban design to become an iterative, agile process (Münster/Georgi/Heijne et al. 2017: 2396–2397). Mobile apps allow constant participation over a long duration, thus covering an entire decision-making process (Fathejalali/Jain 2019: 216).

In contrast, digital participation is also associated with various new challenges that cannot be solved and that do not affect analogue participation. Research findings indicate that citizens who already engage in participation are more likely to use digital participation offerings (Carvajal Bermúdez 2022: 162). A study by Legard and Hovik (2022: 178) shows that while the age and gender of participants represent the entire population well, people with low income and education levels and a migration background are underrepresented. In addition, the problem of the digital divide has to be mentioned on several levels. Firstly, cities and regions must have sufficient broadband internet available for implementation (Sobaci 2016: 13). Accordingly, the synergy of citizen participation and digitalisation is limited in rural areas, as a lack of internet connectivity is an obstacle in these regions (Stein/Pentzold/Peter et al. 2022: 259). Secondly, users rely on sufficient internet access. This can create a division between population groups with internet access and those without (Evans-Cowley/Hollander 2010: 406; Donders/Hartmann/Kokx 2014: 58). Disparities can be assumed regarding age and other social, cultural and financial conditions. A lack of political interest among citizens also has a negative impact on the use of digital participation, meaning that the “democratic divide” does not dissolve and may even intensify (Brake 2008: 65). In addition, digital participation is associated not only with cost-efficiencies but also with a high level of effort. Establishing the platforms is time-consuming and costly (Turken/Eyuboglu 2021: 177). Besides time resources, human resources also flow into digital participation, especially with initial costs. Specific staff must be hired or trained for this purpose (Sobaci 2016: 13–14). Therefore, digital participation is potentially a problem for municipalities and districts with limited financial and human resources. A key social and political hurdle to the implementation of digital participation in Germany is scepticism towards the digitisation strategies of local governments due to concerns and fears about privacy and digital automation; this requires solutions such as educational work (Wirtz/Kubin 2021: 289–290). Great care is also needed to ensure security and privacy in digital participation processes (Antoniou/Potsiou 2021: 42), and to prevent fake news, cyber-attacks and discrimination (Sobaci 2016: 14).

More research is needed to understand how technological developments and digitalisation in cities affect organisational structures and citizens (Mello Rose 2022: 21) and what the contextual factors are where citizens participate digitally (Hovik/Giannoumis 2022: 4). Furthermore, barriers to the use of digital participation on the user and supplier sides are rarely considered in research. Kubicek and Aichholzer (2016: 11) identify a twofold evaluation gap of missing success criteria and comparable empirical studies. In addition to the local level, other levels such as the regional level should also be considered. Here, transdisciplinary, empirical research projects can bring new insights (Freschi/Rony/Norbjerg 2009: 66).

In order to describe the digital participation landscape in Germany and to analyse the determinants for the implementation of digital participation, we applied both data-exploring and hypothesis-testing quantitative analyses. In a first step, the aim was to collect data on digital participation processes at different governance levels in order to examine participatory elements at different scales and to address the German planning system accordingly. For this purpose, we consulted the websites of all federal states, regional planning authorities, districts and administratively independent cities or those with over 5,000 inhabitants to assess whether and, if so, which and how many, digital participation processes have been offered by the respective administrative bodies. The basis of the study therefore comprised 2,437 cases (16 federal states, 69 regional planning authorities, 294 districts and 2,058 cities). In this paper, we focus on the processes in districts and cities in order to examine local types of digital participation in the context of spatial planning and development. We utilised the websites of the urban and district administrations as a database, as they are an important source of information regarding policy priorities and the services provided (Neumann/Linder/Desmarais 2022). We assume that relevant information must be freely and easily accessible for citizens via the websites. Citizens are able to access information or to directly participate online. Accordingly, we use the free availability of information through an internet search to study digital participation.

The research was divided into a preliminary search, in-depth research of the processes by means of the websites of the respective administrations, and follow-up research and examination of missing data between June and September 2022. In order to ensure consistent data collection across all investigated units, we defined a standardised procedure with a limited in-depth research period of 10 minutes per unit. In a first step, we checked the landing page of the administration’s website for ongoing participation processes. In a second step, we examined the drop-down menu of the website for relevant topics, such as participation or urban development. In a third central step, research focused on keywords like (digital/online) (citizen) participation, workshop, information event, assembly, survey, reporting of shortcomings and other methods in the German language. We also examined external participation portals. The federal states are predominantly responsible for these portals and publish the various participation processes of different administration levels. After the follow-up, we collected the results in a dataset to determine duration, affected area, planning field, stage in the planning process, participants, methods used, participation intensity, channel, contact person and URL. By categorising the planning area, we wanted to examine whether specific sectoral planning or administrative units are affected (transport, environment, integration, digitalisation, finance, tourism, sport and culture, economy, education), whether participation takes place within integrated concepts (e.g. urban development concepts), or whether the reconstruction or new construction of specific areas is addressed (urban planning), which also includes formal land-use planning processes. In addition, the classification by variables helped to analyse which stakeholder groups were specifically involved (participants). By using the variables ‘stage in the planning process’ and ‘methods’, we were able to examine the intensity of participation (whether only information is provided, whether citizens are consulted in processes or whether they can actively influence the process).

Furthermore, we consulted secondary data to consider the structure of the cities and regions. Finally, the collected data were first analysed descriptively and then presented visually. We identified a total of 3,828 digital participation processes. Figure 1 illustrates the approach.

Figure 1 Flow-chart of search approach

---

Besides the descriptive analysis of the content and spatial distribution of digital participation processes, we investigated determinants of the number of processes per 100,000 inhabitants, and the participation density in the districts and administratively independent cities (cities that by definition do not belong to a district and act independently). The analysis of cities is limited to a descriptive presentation, as data for a regression at this level are not comprehensively available, which would limit the satisfactory explanatory power of the models. We derived the following hypotheses from the conceptual framework of this paper:

This first hypothesis refers to the problem of the digital divide, which addresses the crucial factor of sufficient broadband access for digital participation (Sobaci 2016: 13). This depends on both regional location (Stein/Pentzold/Peter et al. 2022: 260) and individual internet access (Evans-Cowley/Hollander 2010: 406).

While digital participation is discussed as a more cost-efficient method on the one hand (Kubicek/Aichholzer 2016: 6), on the other hand the implementation of digital participation processes is associated with considerable effort and especially high initial costs (Sobaci 2016: 13–14; Turken/Eyuboglu 2021: 177). Since public financial problems can be considered a negative determinant for participation in general (Holtkamp/Bathge 2012: 47) and specifically for digital participation, this is tested for districts with Hypothesis 2.

Hypothesis 3 addresses the democratic divide and solutions due to digital participation. Since citizens with a generally low level of political interest participate less in spatial planning and development (Brake 2008: 65), new digital interaction and presentation tools create the potential to better involve less active citizens (Nyseth/Ringholm/Agger 2019: 14), which could motivate those responsible to offer more digital participation.

While Legard and Hovik (2022: 178) showed that low-income, less educated and migrant populations are underrepresented in digital as well as in traditional participation, the assumption is that new ways of participation through interactive forms and opportunities of providing information via the internet can reach and activate citizens who have not participated before (Nyseth/Ringholm/Agger 2019: 14). Accordingly, with Hypothesis 4 we aim to test whether digital participation has the motivation and potential to reduce social selectivity.

A central question is how the availability of appropriate internet affects digital participation; hence, we included the variable Highspeed_int based on H1. To test whether public debt has a negative impact on the use of digital participation (H2), we integrated Pub_dept. In addition, the variable Turnout is included to account for the influence of political interest (H3). Leavers_without_qual, Graduates_highschool, Stud, i.e. the shares of educational levels in the population are found in the model to test digital participation for social selectivity in H4, as well as the variables Foreign, Migration, Employ, Unemploy and GDP. In addition, we add several control variables to better represent the districts in addition to the variables for testing the hypotheses, and to increase the significance of the model. Due to the variables of the vote shares of the different political parties and in order to test the robustness of the analysis, we conducted six models with one party in each model, keeping the other variables constant. We present the results and discussion of the models in the following section to give an overview of the determinants of digital citizen participation at district level.

Initially, we provide an overview of the participation contents. For this purpose, we first look at the planning areas related to the participation. Figure 2 shows the different fields descending by their relative importance.

Figure 2 Share of the related planning areas of the digital and multi-channel participation processes

---

It appears that over 25 % of the digital participation formats identified cannot be clearly categorised, but deal with rather general matters. This is because many cities, especially small ones, have a central contact point for citizen suggestions or criticism, which are then forwarded to the appropriate departments. Many cities refer to such tools as problem-reporting with a central web page tab. Beyond general aspects, many participation processes relate to urban development, urban planning and urban renewal. Here, the focus is predominantly on urban development concepts and formal participation in the context of land-use and development plans. Furthermore, participation takes place in the context of master plans, conversions, inner city redevelopment, village development, etc. Specific contents of sectoral planning that are also dealt with are transport, environmental issues, social topics, digitalisation and financial aspects. While transport is often associated with cycling concepts, public transport, concepts for e‑mobility or holistic mobility concepts for cities, in the area of digitalisation citizens are involved in digital strategies, broadband supply or smart city concepts. Other rather subordinate topics are tourism, the economy and education, whereby specific actors (tourists, entrepreneurs, children and parents) are addressed in particular and no broad participation is usually sought.

In addition, we determine which methods are used to implement digital participation and what intensity can be achieved with these methods. Accordingly, Fig. 3 shows the frequency of the use of certain methods and the intensity level (information only or information with the opportunity of giving feedback, more specific consultation and active participation that allows citizens to directly influence the planning) to which they can be assigned. We also distinguished whether the methods were carried out exclusively digitally or also in combination with analogue elements, which is described as multi-channel in the legend.

Figure 3 Channel and intensity of the participation methods used

---

Firstly, the aforementioned problem-reporting is a very low-threshold method of digital citizen participation, which by its nature is classified as the lowest intensity level of information. In a very large share of the cities and districts studied, this takes place exclusively digitally. Citizens’ meetings or information events take place purely online and as multi-channel on-site formats with live streaming. In addition, we identified a few digital or multi-channel public consultation hours of mayors or administrations. Overall, most formats took place at the consultation level, where citizens can actively contribute their ideas. Here, the survey method plays the most important role.

Almost 40 % of all methods recorded are surveys – a predominant number exclusively online. However, there are surveys that can also be answered postally or face-to-face. Other methods of consultation are idea collections, dialogue forums and workshops. In the case of written comments, which are mainly used for formal participation, there is a large percentage of hybrid options, because written comments are a well-established tool and have been carried out offline for decades, thus the offline version will continue to exist. Methods of active participation are generally very rare, as was also reflected in digital participation. Only very few processes gave citizens the digital option of actively shaping the planning process, e.g. through voting, petitions or taking part in the design process via 3D-models, Artificial Intelligence, interactive maps or gamified elements. One example of active participation is participatory budgeting, whereby citizens can shape parts of the municipal budget with their own project ideas and a subsequent voting process.

In addition, we focus on methods used in the fields of urban development, planning and renewal to analyse whether there are variations in the use and intensity of the methods between the fields. The clear difference between urban development/renewal and urban planning is striking. Urban development and urban renewal show a very similar use of methods, with surveys making up the largest share and about a quarter of both being idea collections. However, in urban planning the share is two-thirds written comments, i.e. predominantly formal participation while surveys account for only two percent. Although urban development and urban renewal are very similar in their use of methods, more information events take place in urban renewal, so the overall intensity of participation is slightly lower here.

Figure 4 illustrates the distribution of the processes at the different governance levels in Germany. It is evident that 40 % of all identified participation processes were carried out by medium-sized cities with between 50,000 and 100,000 inhabitants. This corresponds with the high share of medium-sized cities of 28.5 % in the German urban system.

Figure 4 Shares of the digital and multi-channel participation processes per territorial level

---

While 67.7 % of all German cities are small towns with less than 20,000 inhabitants, their share of all processes was below average at 27.8 %. In addition, it is apparent that only 2.7 % of all processes surveyed were initiated by states and regions.

In the following, we discuss the processes initiated at the district level and by the independent cities. Note that the district level does not represent the cumulative values of the municipalities in the district, but refers to processes that are conducted by the district administrations or with regard to specific district developments. Figure 5 (left) visualises the spatial distribution of the participation density in the districts and independent cities (hereinafter referred to as district level). In the lightest colour, we show the cases at district level that do not perform any processes. This is a total of 84 out of 399, i.e. 21.1 % of the cases examined. In addition, high densities with three or more processes per 100,000 inhabitants are predominantly located in independent cities.

Figure 5 Spatial distribution of digital and multi-channel participation processes (left: district level, right: urban level).

Source: authors’ illustration; Geobasis-DE/BKG (2022)

---

To further test the variance in the digital participation density between the different spatial location types of German districts and independent cities, examining the concentration of population and employment, we conducted a Kruskal-Wallis test. The results confirm that significantly more digital processes per 100,000 inhabitants were carried out in very central districts and independent cities than in peripheral and very peripheral locations. There are no significant differences between other location types. In addition, significantly more digital participation processes were conducted in urban districts (independent large cities and urban districts with high population densities and high shares of population in large and medium-sized cities, see BBSR 2023) than in rural districts.

We also checked how the processes are distributed across the states. The share of districts and independent cities that conducted at least one digital participation process is highest in Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia, Hesse and Baden-Wuerttemberg, at over 80 %. In contrast, the coverage in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania is the lowest at 37.5 %. In comparison, the district level participation density is highest in Rhineland-Palatinate (2.9). Schleswig-Holstein (2.5), Lower Saxony (2.7), Bavaria (2.5) and Brandenburg (2.3) also have an above-average density. The lowest density is evident in Hamburg, Berlin and Saarland. However, a Kruskal-Wallis test found no significant differences between the states.

We subsequently discuss the urban level, i.e. all German cities above 5,000 inhabitants or that are administratively independent, as illustrated in Fig. 5 (right). All other municipalities are shown in grey. A total of 1,156 of 2,057 cities (56.2 %) carried out at least one digital participation process. Thus, the lightest colour shows 43.8 % of all cities surveyed that have no digital participation. Looking at the differences between the states, a low coverage with digital participation processes at the urban level is evident in Rhineland-Palatinate, Bavaria and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, quantified with shares of less than 50 %. Apart from the city-states Berlin, Hamburg and Bremen, we found particularly high digital participation coverage in Lower Saxony, North Rhine-Westphalia and Brandenburg with over 70 %. Schleswig-Holstein (11.27), Lower Saxony (11.88), North Rhine-Westphalia (11.44), Hesse (10.98), Brandenburg (15.02) and Saxony (12.91) show the highest average values above 10 processes per 100,000 inhabitants in the state comparison. Beside the city-states and Saarland, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania and Thuringia have the lowest digital participation densities below five.

Using a Kruskal-Wallis test for group differences regarding digital participation density, significant differences between the states emerge. Furthermore, there are significant disparities between the spatial location types. Thus, cities in very peripheral locations have significantly lower digital participation densities than very central or central cities. We also identified significant group differences with regard to the spatial structure type. Cities with an urban settlement structure with at least 50 % urban surroundings have significantly higher densities of digital participation than only partly urban and rural cities. At the urban level, we additionally tested the variance between the different city size types (small city under 20,000 inhabitants, small medium-sized city with 20,000 to 50,000 inhabitants, large medium-sized city with a population between 50,000 and 100,000, major city with 100,000 or more inhabitants), which again confirms significant differences in the digital participation density. Here, small towns have a higher digital participation density than medium-sized cities. In addition, small medium-sized cities present significantly more processes per 100,000 inhabitants than major cities.

The variable Highspeed_int is not significant across all six models. The partial lack of broadband availability in more rural districts therefore does not represent an obstacle to digital participation according to the analysis. We can reject Hypothesis 1 and state that the availability of broadband internet does not increase the digital participation density in the districts. The same applies to Hypothesis 2 and the variable Pub_dept. We expected that indebted districts are less likely to offer digital participation. However, the analysis shows non-significant results for all models. Thus, it can be emphasised that the level of debt of a district does not significantly restrict digital participation and leads us to reject Hypothesis 2.

Models 1 and 4‑6 show that low turnouts (in the federal election 2021) have a significant positive impact on digital participation offerings. We therefore found that Hypothesis 3 can be accepted at least partially for 4 out of 6 models with a high significance level. This shows that voter turnout may be a determinant of digital participation intensity. Furthermore, in districts with higher shares of the vote for the conservative party CDU/CSU, increased opportunities for digital citizen participation can be observed. The shares of the vote for the liberal party FDP have the contrary effect. Here, high vote shares are associated with lower participation densities.

Referring to H4, the education indicators are negligible. The density of digital participation is not significantly explained by the density of students (Stud), the share of unqualified persons (Leavers_without_qual) or the share of high school graduates (Graduates_highschool). It can thus be stated that digital participation is offered independently of the educational level of the population. Weak but significant effects exist between the target variable and the predictor Migration. Higher migration rates are associated with more pronounced digital participation (models 1‑4 and 6). In addition, the variable Foreign is significant across all 6 models. While the GDP has a significant positive effect on the density of digital participation offerings, high employment rates (Employ) have a significant negative effect on the target variable. Digital participation processes are therefore used largely in districts with a high share of population with no German citizenship, high migration and low employment rates, and can therefore reach population groups that are underrepresented in traditional citizen participation. We can thus partly confirm H4.