Citizen participation and acceptance in the context of urban events. An investigation on regional garden shows in Germany

ABSTRACT

Citizen participation and acceptance play an increasingly relevant role in urban and regional development. This also applies to the success and sustainability of urban events. While research on participation is growing rapidly, participation in the context of events is underrepresented. Therefore, I investigate the role of participation and acceptance conditions regarding German regional garden shows using a mixed-methods research design (quantitative survey, multiple case studies). Citizen participation is a central factor for public acceptance. The active participation of volunteers is highly relevant before, during and after the event. Conflicts arise mainly concerning financing, environmental and monument protection.

KEYWORDS:

• Citizen participation
• public acceptance
• urban development
• event
• regional garden show

1. Introduction

The hosting of events to strategically set urban development impulses has been used by cities for several decades (Chalkley & Essex, 1999; Richards & Palmer, 2010). The support and acceptance of the population of a city or region that wants to host an event is a key success factor for the implementation and sustainability of the event and to achieve long-term effects (Gursoy & Kendall, 2006; Jago et al., 2010). The citizens are an important stakeholder group in the context of events, and their involvement is therefore crucial (Chien et al., 2012). Diverse perspectives, objectives and needs must be combined and taken into account for the event planning and urban development due to events (Häußermann & Siebel, 1993). Citizen participation enables the strengthening of a sense of social commitment and leads to an increased identification and engagement of the public in the affairs of their city (Hohn et al., 2014; Ferrari & Guala, 2015). Already in the application process for an event, citizens should be involved in the question of whether and how to implement an event in order to strive for a holistic participation process (Müller, 2015; Kassens-Noor & Lauermann, 2017). Accordingly, several event-led urban development approaches have meanwhile integrated participatory elements in the planning process (Diller, 2020). Nevertheless, the participation of citizens in event planning is often minimal in reality, which is a major concern regarding the sustainability of events (Roche, 1994; Edizel, 2014). Mega-events such as the Olympic Games are particularly criticised (Essex & Chalkley, 2004). In addition and due to problems with the lack of participation in the context of mega-events, these are often associated with unsustainability, social and environmental issues (Müller, 2017), for which reason smaller events in smaller cities are receiving more attention.

Regional garden shows (Landesgartenschauen) are therefore a popular format of event-led urban development in Germany with a focus on urban green development and are typical for small and medium-sized cities (Theokas, 2004; Nefedov, 2013). They represent a smaller counterpart to the nationally and internationally relevant federal garden shows (Bundesgartenschauen) (Holden, 1989). Although regional garden shows require less investment than mega-events (Diller, 2020), they pursue regional economic goals and provide impetus for sustainable urban development (Neufeld & Chilla, 2013; Rast & Storch, 2018). To date, over 100 regional garden shows have been organised in Germany. In their context, public participation of both the general public and specific stakeholders such as residents, associations or companies has experienced a significant increase in recent years (Diller, 2020). This is especially relevant in light of the increasingly important active involvement of the public in urban green development processes (BMUB, 2015). Although regional garden shows generally experience a high level of acceptance, citizens’ referendums against them have increased in recent years. Simultaneously, the pre-event phase and participation processes of regional garden shows and other events are still insufficiently studied, thus no transferable findings exist that explain the relevance of participation and acceptance creation.

Against this background, the aim of this paper is to analyse the role of participation in the context of urban events, respectively of regional garden shows in Germany, and to consider the importance of the urban public’s acceptance of the event for its success. Accordingly, I have formulated two leading research questions that structure the paper and which I will answer in the conclusion. Question 1 deals with the participation of citizens in the planning of regional garden shows. The focus is on the options for participation, the different phases and intensities of participation, as well as the interest of the citizens in participation. I also shed light on how participation affects the process and what problems can arise regarding participation.

RQ 1:

To what extent are citizens involved in the planning of regional garden shows, how does the participation affect the process and what problems occur?

With question 2, I address the factors that positively and negatively influence the acceptance of the citizens towards the regional garden show and which impact these acceptance conditions have on the success and sustainability of the event. In particular, I analyse specific supporting and opposing actors as well as conflicts.

RQ 2:

What are the acceptance conditions underlying the planning and implementation of regional garden shows and which triggers for conflicts can be identified?

The findings contribute to the international debate on participation, acceptance and effects in the context of event-led urban development formats and are the basis for further actions. The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 gives a general overview of the theoretical considerations on event-led urban development. In addition, I will take a more specific look at the event format of regional garden shows in Germany and their urban context. I then give an insight into the terminology and the current state of research on citizen participation in urban development. In Section 3, I explain the research design of the paper before presenting the results of the investigation in Section 4. Section 5 serves as a discussion of the results and Chapter 6 finally summarises the results of the paper and gives an outlook on research perspectives.

2. Theoretical considerations

2.1. Event-led urban development

Cities are facing increasing competition due to globalisation (Smith, 2012). This interurban competition challenges cities to raise their profile and attract investments and visitors (Richards & Wilson, 2004; Shin, 2014). In this context, the development of neoliberal urbanism is also central, as cities become entrepreneurial to increase their competitiveness, and deregulation as well as public-private partnerships are at the centre of operations (Waitt, 2008; Smith, 2012). Cities also have to face development trends such as structural and demographic change as well as shrinking processes (Häußermann & Siebel, 1993).

In this context, the staging of events has been used as a solution to wide-ranging urban problems since the 1960s (Richards & Palmer, 2010). In the understanding of this paper, events in the urban setting are defined as follows: They are used, on the one hand, to mobilise attention and re-stage urban politics (festivalisation) and, on the other hand, as a tool for urban development and urban planning (event-led urban development) (Häußermann & Siebel, 1993; Ibert, 2018). The interest of cities to compete in a bidding process for an event is high, based on the immense popularity of events among policy makers (Stewart & Rayner, 2016; Azzali, 2017; Busetti & Dente, 2017). Events enable the development of tourism in a city or region and potentially lead to an image shift of the host city (Gratton et al., 2005). From the urban planning perspective, events are integrated into strategies in planning and policy making (Smith & Fox, 2007) and are strategically used to implement urban development policy objectives (Smith, 2010). High levels of public and private investment are triggered, providing a unique opportunity for urban development and accelerating processes (Smith, 2012). Moreover, events have established as elements of new planning cultures and point to a change in planning practices (Hohn et al., 2014). For example, events are used to redevelop brownfield sites, improve or create new residential environments and develop or renew transport infrastructure. The direct financial ‘success’ of an event can be assessed and evaluated by means of cost-benefit relations (Jago et al., 2010). In this paper, I consider the success and sustainability broader and refer to Richards and Palmer (2010) who discuss the linkage of development strategies and objectives of the city or region with the event and the achievement of positive effects that have a long-term and sustainable urban and regional impact.

Nevertheless, events are also drivers of problems, as they may convey problematic ideals and cause negative ecological effects (Armstrong et al., 2011). The extent to which short-term event planning can be combined with long-term urban planning and therefore the sustainability of events is critically questioned (Smith & Fox, 2007). In addition, there is a risk that event planning may exclude disadvantaged groups (Getz & Page, 2016). This is primarily due an often minimal participation of the population in the context of events in reality and only limited possible input from the population, which leads to a lack of social sustainability (Roche, 1994; Gursoy & Kendall, 2006; Edizel, 2014). Mega-events such as the Olympic Games are particularly criticised in this regard whose plans are often cancelled due to lack of support (Essex & Chalkley, 2004; Kassens-Noor & Lauermann, 2017).

The study of urban events is an interdisciplinary field of research. Accordingly, multiple disciplines contribute to the understanding of the meaning and effects of planned events for cities and the urban society (Getz & Page, 2016). Nevertheless, the field is relatively young, as the effects of events on cities have only been studied more intensively since the late 1990s. The research is mostly limited to individual case studies, hence the lack of comparative analyses between cities, events and countries (Müller & Gaffney, 2018). In the recent past, negative effects of events in particular have received greater scientific interest (Peric, 2018). Nonetheless, events often have positive connotations, so that non-economic disadvantages and risks continue to be insufficiently addressed (Stewart & Rayner, 2016). In addition, (mega-sporting-) events such as the Olympics or the Football World Cup in metropolises and major cities are still in focus to date (Richards & Wilson, 2004; Diller, 2020). Accordingly, there is a lack of scientific understanding of smaller event formats and their effects on smaller cities although in practice these can have a more sustainable impact on urban development due to the better suitability to the urban needs (Smith, 2010; Hall, 2012). What needs to be investigated here is whether they also have a stronger focus on participation.

2.2. Regional garden shows

In the context of event-led urban development, garden shows are a typical event format for small and medium-sized cities in Germany. They have a long tradition dating back to the 19th century (Metzler & Job, 2007). The concept of garden shows as an event as it is known today originates from large-scale events such as the International Horticultural Exhibition in Hamburg in 1896 (Theokas, 2004). After the Second World War, federal garden shows (Bundesgartenschauen) were established, which still exist today. They are held every two years and have already been hosted by most major cities (Metzler & Job, 2007). This large-scale format of garden shows had the original task of minimising the negative effects of WWII, rebuilding and redeveloping parks and producing a sense of belonging among the citizens. Later, they underwent a functional change and followed diverse strategies (Holden, 1989; Theokas, 2004; Richards & Palmer, 2010). In addition to ventilation in densely populated urban areas, trends in local recreation, nature and environmental protection, urban development and tourism are pursued (Preisler-Holl, 2003). The concept of garden shows, based on the German model, has been implemented in many countries so far. In the 1980s, for example, Great Britain had a similar format. In addition, events inspired by the German and European model take place in Asia, Australia and North America today (Holden, 1989; Theokas, 2004; Smith, 2012; Edizel, 2014).

From the 1980s on, most German federal states gradually introduced regional garden shows (Landesgartenschauen, hereafter referred to as garden shows) as a smaller counterpart to the federal garden shows in response to the ‘monopolisation’ of the format in large cities (Holden, 1989; Theokas, 2004). They are particularly crucial for small and medium-sized cities to provide impetus for urban and open space development, although they feature smaller investment volumes, sites and visitors (Theokas, 2004; Nefedov, 2013; Diller, 2020). With the decentralisation and regionalisation of the shows in the federal states, more than 100 garden shows have already been held since their introduction, the majority in small and medium-sized cities. The event will remain popular in the future, as is evident from the further tendering processes of the federal states and numerous applications by cities. Nevertheless, in recent years garden shows have faced challenges of low acceptance and resistance to the project, which in some cities resulted in citizen referendums and cancellation of the application or planning for the events. This is due to doubts on relevance and effectiveness, long-term impacts, biodiversity deficits, heavy commercialisation and traffic problems associated with garden shows (Smith, 2014; Müller et al., 2014; CO CONCEPT & Heu schneider Landschaftsarchitekten, 2020).

Yet, scientific research on garden shows is limited and comparative studies on the urban development potential of the format are lacking (Diller, 2020). Accordingly, there is no comprehensive understanding of the system, the processes and structures and how garden shows can be classified in comparison to other event formats and in the research on small and medium-sized cities.

2.3. Participation in urban development

The acceptance of the public, i.e. the consent or tolerance of the urban society – citizens, residents, associations, initiatives or local businesses – for a project, a measure or a political decision is the central basis for the legitimacy of the implementation of planning processes. In this light, participation is an acceptance driver in planning processes, so that the understanding and acceptance among citizens and actors for planning and decisions increases through the participation of the entire urban society and the transparency of the processes. Creating participation also fosters the willingness to sustainably engage in urban development processes (BBSR, 2019) and enables efficient urban planning as well as new paths to sustainable transition by identifying specific problems and priorities of citizens and implementing innovative processes (Amado et al., 2010). Citizen participation is also considered a success factor for events (Gursoy & Kendall, 2006; Jago et al., 2010). It ensures that citizens have an impact on the event planning and that it forms a consensus rather than an opposition (Müller, 2015). At the same time, the acceptance of an event is based on its expected success, meaning that there is a reciprocal relationship. Acceptance of events in particular is defined by the positive and negative impact on the citizens and associated concerns and expectations, which imply consent or rejection (Gursoy & Kendall, 2006).

Hordijk et al. (2015) define participation as the consideration of the community’s voices as part of civil society or specific stakeholder groups at each stage of the planning and decision-making process. In general, participation is a collective term for a wide variety of formats that involve citizens in different dimensions. Accordingly, they differentiate according to different levels of intensity. The ‘Ladder of citizen participation’ by Arnstein (1969) is a first attempt. She initiated the scientific approach to citizen participation and critically described the intensity in which citizens are involved in planning by means of the stages non-participation, degrees of tokenism and degrees of citizen power. The analysis in this paper is based on the four stages of participation defined by the IEMA (2002): The first stage comprises one-way information, e.g. through newsletters. At the information with feedback stage, dialogue takes place by providing information with a request for feedback. Workshops and focus groups are examples of the consultation stage, where a smaller number of participants engage in active discussion. The level of active participation describes the possibility to have an active influence on the process. In addition to top-down participation offerings, bottom-up initiatives from the citizens are also relevant elements of a successful participation. In this context, Morais (2022) refers to institutionalized (top-down) participation such as citizens’ assemblies and non-institutionalized (bottom-up) participation like initiated protests and occupations. Bottom-up participation also plays a central role in the planning and organisation of events, to ensure that they are widely accepted and supported by the population (GIZ, 2014). This paper takes institutionalised top-down participation as well as bottom-up participation through citizens’ initiatives into account.

The importance of citizen participation and co-creation in spatial planning and development has been widely discussed internationally since the 1960s (Brownill & Parker, 2010) and acknowledged in important agreements such as the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (Türken & Eyuboglu, 2021). Lane (2005) describes that the function of participation, and thus the role of citizens, has evolved from an add-on to a central element of planning and decision-making. Over the past decades, as the practical relevance of citizen participation has evolved, so has the academic interest. Consequently, a broad spectrum of contributions exist that increasingly take a critical view of participation. However, there is a need for greater attention to the framework conditions e.g. democracy and governance in international comparative studies, where a local or micro perspective is important (Brownill & Parker, 2010).

Despite the communicative turn since the 1980s and the anchoring of formal participation in the Building Code (BauGB), active participation in planning processes in Germany is still not sufficiently established and new formats and a rethinking of planning processes for co-creation are needed (Lahode & Schaumann, 2022). Internationally, there are multiple challenges and limitations to citizen participation (Brownill & Parker, 2010). One of the central challenges of citizen participation is the phenomenon of the participation paradox, which affects urban planning processes. The term was introduced by Reinert and Sinnig (1997) and has been used in the academic debate ever since. It describes that the interest of citizens to participate in planning processes is generally low at the beginning and at the same time the possibilities to influence the plans are considerable high. In the further course of the planning process, the options for influence continue to decrease until the implementation, the interest in participation increases and thus a conflict arises (Wolf et al., 2020). In addition, the phenomenon also generally describes a declining political interest in elections at all levels with a simultaneous sharp increase in citizen protests and conflicts. The paradox is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Participation paradox in planning processes. Source: Netzwerk Bürgerbeteiligung (2013), slightly modified.

Moreover, due to the strong formalisation of citizen participation, unequal power relations as well as time and financial restrictions, marginalised groups remain underrepresented and unheard (Beebeejaun & Vanderhoven, 2010; Evans-Cowley & Hollander, 2010; Ertiö, 2015). The impact of participation is also limited if the results are insufficiently embedded in the planning process. In addition, these problems lead to a lacking citizen trust in politics and administration (Morais, 2022).

Against the background of the fundamental challenges of traditional citizen participation, the development of new participation forms through digitalisation represents a central vehicle for democratic decision-making processes. This e-participation is constantly evolving and becoming practically established through innovations and technological advance (Evans-Cowley & Hollander, 2010). This and other approaches to overcoming participation barriers and problems need to be explored (Morais, 2022). Generally, given the evolving complexity as well as innovations in policy and practice regarding participation, additional studies are needed to investigate these aspects (Brownill & Parker, 2010). Furthermore, we are still dealing with a fuzziness of terminology in the context of participation, also in the translation into various languages, which needs clarity (Inch et al., 2019).

3. Research design and data

In the context of the research project, I analysed garden shows using a mixed-methods approach. First, I created a database of all garden shows in Germany since 1990 by an online survey and secondary data research. The database includes information on the host cities, such as the population and location, as well as various information on the events. This encompasses the size and location of the garden show site, the volume of investments and funding, visitor numbers, effects, after-use concepts, knowledge transfer as well as, in particular, the implementation, formats and methods used for citizen participation.

I then examined the database and used it as the basis for a typology of garden shows by a cluster analysis. I selected case studies based on the different types and conducted a total of nine ex-post case studies in which various factors of the garden shows were examined in detail. In addition to site visits and analyses of relevant process documents, I conducted semi-structured qualitative expert interviews during research visits. In total, this led to 41 interviews with 8 political actors, 20 persons from the municipal administrations, 8 private-sector actors and 5 members of the support associations representing the civil society. Table 1 provides an overview of the examined case studies and the analysed material. I subsequently computer-assisted analysed them using a content-structuring qualitative content analysis (see Kuckartz, 2019). The fundamental structure of the study is based on the different phases that an event passes through. Accordingly, I investigated factors such as the application concepts, the implemented measures and focused areas as well as, in particular, the citizen participation, acceptance factors and conflicts in the application and planning phase, short-term effects and visitors in the event phase and after-use concepts, medium- and long-term effects as well as knowledge transfer in the post-event phase.

Table 1. Overview of the examined case studies.

	City	Year of event	Planning period	Population (31.12.2021)	Analysed material
A1*	Schwäbisch Gmünd	2014	11	61 333	4 interviews, 13 documents
A2	Gießen	2014	6	91 255	5 interviews, 19 documents
A3	Lahr	2018	8,5	47 891	4 interviews, 20 documents
A4	Bayreuth	2016	7	73 909	5 interviews, 16 documents
A5	Bamberg	2012	10	77 749	6 interviews, 50 documents
A6	Prenzlau	2013	5	18 706	4 interviews, 8 documents
A7	Eutin	2016	4	16 948	4 interviews, 32 documents
A8	Burg	2018	6	22 254	5 interviews, 26 documents
A9	Bad Essen	2010	1	15 738	4 interviews, 18 documents
B1	Kamp-Lintfort	2020	4,5	37 847	5 interviews, 19 documents
B2	Frankenberg/Sa.	2019	4,5	13 724	5 interviews, 25 documents
B3	Fulda	2023	7	68 462	4 interviews, 19 documents
B4	Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler	(2023)	(6)	26 550	6 interviews, 24 documents

*A: ex-post case studies, B: on-going case studies.

Source: Own compilation, data base: Federal Statistical Office of Germany (2021).

In addition, I complemented the study with four on-going case studies with garden shows that were still in the planning phase. Here, I placed the focus on the actors’ expectations, the context of the application and implementation, as well as explicitly on citizen participation. In addition to 20 interviews, site visits and document analyses, I continuously accompanied the progress of the planning process through media and dialogue with actors. The following table presents the case studies examined. All case studies marked with the abbreviation A are ex-post case studies. The on-going case studies have the abbreviation B. The garden show of case study B4 Bad Neuenahr-Ahrweiler could not take place due to the devastating flood disaster in the Ahr valley in 2021 and accordingly I only considered the previous planning phase.

I explicitly examined public participation and acceptance conditions using the following analyses: As part of the database generation, I assessed whether or not participation formats were used for the garden shows. I took a more detailed look at which formats were used and then analysed the intensity of the participation. As part of the case study analyses, I evaluated documentations of participation processes and media articles. In addition, I primarily asked a series of questions on participation and acceptance in the interviews. The specific questions were:

Were citizens involved in the planning? What methods were used for participation? How can the participation process, the interest and the influence opportunities be described? How can the public’s acceptance of the garden show be described in the run-up to and in retrospect? What were the expressed fears? Who are the supporters and opponents? Were there specific conflicts? Which parties to the conflict were involved? Were there solutions or approaches to dealing with conflicts or acceptance issues?

4. Results

4.1. Citizen participation in the context of regional garden shows

This section deals with the participation of citizens in the context of the application, planning and implementation of garden shows. According to the quantitative survey conducted, 89% of the host cities had involved citizens in the planning of the garden show. This subject is examined more closely in the following based on the case study results. Accordingly, I analyse in which phases citizens are involved in the planning, the intensity of the participation and methods used, how the interest in participation is to be defined, how this affects the planning process and what problems arise.

The phases of citizen participation in a garden show can be divided into the application phase, the planning phase and the construction phase. Citizens are also involved during the event and, more broadly, after the garden show in the post-event phase. However, the focus of this paper is on the phases prior to the garden show. Basically, citizens are involved in the planning of the garden show in all of these phases, but with varying degrees of intensity.

Figure 2 illustrates the methods used according to their intensity (see Section 2.3). At the lowest level we find participation formats to solely inform citizens (information). Information with feedback are methods that enable citizens to express questions and comments in addition to information. Participation methods that generate a specific dialogue with citizens and tend to form smaller groups are assigned to the level of consultation. At the highest level, citizens can actually influence planning through active participation. In addition, the methods are differentiated according to the phases.

Figure 2. Participation methods at the different levels in the process of regional garden shows (case studies). Source: Own illustration.

The citizens in all cases studied were informed about the project in the application, planning and construction phases. In the application phase, only in some cities a more intensive participation of the citizens occurred by means of workshops. The planning phase is based on participation at all levels of intensity in the cities studied: One-way information, two-way information with feedback, consultation and active participation. Information on the garden show was provided through guided tours, exhibitions, flyers and newsletters. Two-way information took place in the planning phase through citizens’ meetings and information events as well as surveys and question tools. Workshops, round tables, working groups and idea collection are participation methods at the level of consultation in the planning phase. In addition, citizens were able to actively participate bottom-up within supporting associations or citizens’ projects for the design of the garden show. Supporting associations are usually founded on the spontaneous initiative of individual citizens. Occasionally, the founding is also encouraged by urban political and administrative bodies. The commitment of the associations relates both to donations of local private persons or businesses and to the self-contained implementation of projects which are independent but in dialogue with the official planning. In the construction phase, explicit progress was the integral parts of citizen participation tours of the construction sites. Furthermore, those responsible published newsletters, flyers and magazines in all cases. In addition to general information events for information with feedback, residents in particular were able to find out about specific projects and point out problems. Workshops, working groups and round tables continued in smaller groups in some cities to consult citizens. During the construction phase, the focus was also on active participation through support associations, voluntary groups, the implementation of citizens’ projects and, in some cities, the training of citizens as guides.

The methods used in the context of participation for the garden show can similarly be classified according to their intensity. It is apparent that the formats primarily address the level of information and information with feedback, and only very few of the respondents indicated that they used methods of active participation. A lack of active participation leads to the potential of citizen involvement not being fully utilized. In addition, this less intensive form of participation can lead to conflicts and a lack of citizen trust in the planning, which can result in initiatives against the garden show (see Section 4.2).

I asked whether citizens had the opportunity to participate in the course of the planning process of the garden shows and whether it is true that the interest in participation has increased in the course of decreasing opportunities to exert influence. Accordingly, I asked to what extent the participation paradox (see. Figure 1) applies. A total of 36% of the respondents stated that it is applicable that the public intended to participate in the garden show only late in the planning process, when there was little scope of action. On this basis, I also analysed the participation paradox in the context of the case studies. The results of the case study analysis are summarised in Figure 3. The cases can be divided into two groups: (a) cities that showed a high level of participation and engagement from the beginning and that remained high throughout the planning process, and (b) cities that experienced low levels of citizen interest in the application and initial planning phase, which then gradually increased later in the planning process and construction phase.

Figure 3. Engagement and participation interest in the process of regional garden shows (case studies). Source: Own illustration.

In the field of active participation, an increasing interest can be assessed positively as planning becomes more specific, since voluntary activities or projects initiated by citizens can be realised specifically in the final phase of the process, leaving room for action there. However, in other participation formats, an increased interest in participation collides with significantly reduced options to participate. As long as no tangible measures are realised and the planning seems too abstract, the interest in participation is low. Meanwhile, suggestions that citizens express later in the process may be excluded because measures have already been implemented and are no longer modifiable. Accordingly, the problem arises that measures do not always emerge fully based on the citizens’ needs, which can have negative effects on the planning process and the sustainability of the event. This participation paradox observed in the cases of group (b) usually leads to conflicts.

4.2. Acceptance towards regional garden shows

In addition to public participation, I analysed how public acceptance of garden shows develops and changes during the process, which actors and citizens are particular supporters and opponents, what fears underlie this position and what specific triggers for conflicts exist. I examined how the acceptance developed in the course of the process based on the results of the expert interviews and the document analysis, including media reporting.

A total of 3 case study groups can be distinguished, whose course of acceptance differs: (a) Garden shows with positive acceptance throughout the entire process with a high level of acceptance based on a positive fundamental attitude and the view of the garden show as a community project of the society. (b) Cities where the acceptance has developed positively in the process. This development was particularly because the citizens recognised the benefit of the garden show for the city increasingly clearly with a more precise planning. Above all, public relations and participation played a central role in the development of acceptance. (c) Case studies that experienced a rapid decline in acceptance of the garden show as the planning became more tangible and the construction phase began. Here, the focus of the negative acceptance tendency of the case studies investigated was on negatively viewed sub-projects of the garden show with negative impact on citizens or residents. In particular, road closures and inaccessible recreational areas during the construction phase triggered acceptance problems. Through public communication, participation and guided tours of the construction sites, the cities enabled a positive development of acceptance up to the event. In addition to the outlined three paths of participation, further two pathways are conceivable, even if they could not be observed in the case study analysis. In scenarios of a steadily decreasing acceptance of the citizens (d) or a low acceptance from the beginning (e) towards the garden show, the likelihood of petitions or an actually executed referendum against the garden show is high, thus possibly not leading to a planning or implementation phase. This has been observed in the recent past in some (non-case study) cities. The described acceptance processes in the context of garden show planning are visualised in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Different acceptance paths for regional garden shows (case studies). Source: Own illustration.

Support associations can be identified as specific proponents of garden shows, which were founded for the majority of the cases studied during the application process or in the planning phase and see themselves as dedicated supporters of the garden show. Beside the initiation of own projects in the planning phase (see Section 4.1), they are committed to the sustainability of the parks after the event. For this purpose, they voluntary support the maintenance of the areas after the event and in some cases also organise their own events. In addition, the support associations are often involved in shaping the positive image of the garden show in the community and can be seen as a link between the administration and the voluntary sector. Additional supporters I identified are construction companies, horticultural businesses, the local gastronomy, hotel industry and retail, who awaited positive economic effects from the garden show.

On the other hand, conflicts often arise in the context of garden shows, which lead to a decline in acceptance by the citizens. These are based on various areas of conflict. First, the financing of the garden show is often a point of criticism. Excessively high costs that result in debt or that other projects cannot be realised (crowding out effect) are central fears in this area. Furthermore, conflicts often arise with regard to nature conservation and climate protection. Here, the focus is on tree felling, the destruction of habitats and nesting sites of various animal species and, in general, the nature compatibility of the event. The protection of historical monuments also plays an important role for garden shows, as protected sites or buildings are often treated or their dismantling is considered, which results in protests. In addition, during the construction and event phase, the sites are often not (freely) accessible, which leads to conflicts of use in the case of already existing sites. A central stakeholder who may adopt an adversarial perspective are local residents who are negatively affected by traffic or noise during construction and the event. In this context, no professional conflict management was established in the cities studied, but rather relied on bilateral discussions or individual solutions.

5. Discussion

In the application process, principles and guidelines for the application and implementation of garden shows are relevant, which are published by the ministries in charge. They specify the timeline, objectives, requirements, financing, required application documents, the awarding procedure, the organisation as well as the after-use. The guidelines are federal state-specific. The requirements and objectives for citizen participation for the host cities are the basis for their obligatory implementation. Accordingly, they are directly responsible for the actual implementation of citizen participation at the local level. As a recommendation for action of this paper, I therefore emphasise that early, continuous and intensive citizen participation with the possibility of consultation and active involvement of citizens is of central importance for the success of a garden show and must therefore be an obligatory element of the guidelines in all federal states. Cities must be obliged by the application guidelines to involve citizens already in the application process and later in the planning process. Participation also forms the basis for preventing and dealing with conflicts and protests and enables an increase in acceptance towards the event. All host cities need to recognise this fact and use the hosting of a garden show to implement new forms of participation and conflict management. For this purpose, flexible planning and a constant exchange with relevant stakeholders are crucial.

On this basis, cities and, superordinately, those responsible at the state or federal level can meet the challenge of the participation paradox (see Section 2.3) and the associated ‘NIMBY’ (not in my backyard) issue (Heiman, 1990). Citizens are informed comprehensively with the option of intensive and very early participation and can therefore influence the planning at the beginning by getting involved, when there is still considerable room for shaping the process. This also invests in the formation of a high level of acceptance right from the start. Müller’s (2015) call for the involvement of the population already in the application phase for an event, so that the citizens can contribute to deciding whether a city should apply to host an event at all, and if so, in which setting and with which objectives, can also be met in this way. Intensive participation in the context of garden shows goes against the criticism of Arnstein (1969) as part of the ‘Ladder of citizen participation’ (see Section 2.3) of manipulation or token participation in planning processes when citizens are only involved in a very subliminal way without the possibility of active influence. Here it was possible to elaborate that garden shows involve citizens more comprehensively than many other event planning, especially mega-events. The higher intensity with more active participation should nevertheless be promoted.

Overall, garden shows are a more sustainable alternative to many mega-events whose lack of sustainability and negative ecological effects have been criticised. This is crucial against the backdrop of an intensive networking of the event with an overall urban strategic development with a focus on open space development, taking into account intensive citizen participation (BMUB, 2015). As garden shows are already transferred to other countries (see Section 2.2), this participation in the development of green spaces within the context of events also plays a relevant role internationally. In addition, the tendering and awarding of funding explicitly links state-level goals with municipal goals, which include citizen participation. This shows a peculiarity of garden shows, which are a funding strategy of the federal states in Germany and thus publicly funded. The mega-event syndrome described by Müller (2015), which criticises, among other things, that private event organisers have control over urban development measures and that this results in a (cost) risk for the public sector, is accordingly not applicable here. In principle, therefore, further event formats should be considered internationally that have this special feature. Examples are International Building Exhibitions (IBA) or European Capitals of Culture. Moreover, a lesson learned from garden shows is that promoting the emergence of local initiatives can have a key positive effect on the development of the event, its sustainability and its acceptance. This should therefore be fundamentally promoted in all events.

6. Conclusion and research perspectives

The research objective of the paper was to emphasise the relevance of participation in the context of events, with a focus on garden shows in Germany, and to examine acceptance factors relating to event planning.

I investigated the extent to which citizens are involved in the planning of garden shows (RQ 1). Initially, the focus is on the phases and intensity of participation offerings. In the understanding of the present research, participation is relevant in all event phases for the acceptance, success and sustainability based on the representation of local needs and innovative ideas. The intensity of the participation processes can be categorised into information, information with feedback, consultation (involvement on specific topics, usually in rather small groups) and active participation (citizens can co-create specific projects). While information is given in all phases, higher intensity levels of institutionalized participation (workshops, working groups, etc.) play a more central role in the planning phase. Bottom-up participation by support associations and initiatives develops either in the application phase or after the award during planning and implementation. However, top-down participation in particular shows that the focus tends to be on lower-intensity formats. In addition, I investigated the evolution of participation interest of the citizens. While a minority of the case studies examined showed high levels of interest in participation from the beginning, and the participation formats were well attended, it can be observed in the majority of the case studies that participation interest is initially low and increases when planning becomes more precise and tangible based on individual concerns. Against this background, the participation paradox (see Section 2.3) can be confirmed for a large part of the case studies, i.e. that an increasing interest in participation contrasts with decreasing opportunities for taking action and shaping the process as planning progresses, which can lead to conflicts.

For the analysis of the public’s acceptance of garden shows (RQ 2), I integrated diverse pro- and opponents of the event in order to identify various positive and negative acceptance conditions as well as conflicts. Whereas acceptance was high right from the beginning in the case of a few garden shows, parts of the population were initially critical in many cases. However, this can be increased based on more specific planning and problem-solving due to information and acceptance-building measures in the course of planning. Nevertheless, the acceptance of individual citizens or groups for garden shows remains low if there are fears regarding high costs and the associated negative consequences for the population, nature conservation, monument protection as well as traffic and noise pollution. In addition, the acceptance can decline rapidly if negatively assessed event-associated projects are implemented. In addition, explicit proponents and supporters of garden shows enable an increase in acceptance and actively shape the event. At the majority of the cases studied, a support association is founded to implement own projects and to support maintenance. Other supporters who hope for benefits and positive regional economic effects include retail, gastronomy, tourism and construction industry.

In summary, garden shows are a convenient event format for small and medium-sized cities in Germany and, compared to many mega-events in large cities, better adapt to local conditions and needs of the citizens. Accordingly, garden shows can serve as role models for citizen participation in the context of event-led urban development. However, there is further potential for more intensive citizen participation to solve problems and conflicts that currently still exist and lead to the rejection of garden shows in some cities.

Finally, I aim to point out future research perspectives for participation in the context of events and give an outlook. The application and planning phase prior to the event is discussed insufficiently. Accordingly, there is little knowledge about how the population of a city or region is integrated into the planning and which contribution this participation can make to the success and sustainability of an event. In addition, the acceptance of the population towards the event is usually neglected. This paper contributes to the understanding of participation and acceptance in the context of event-led urban development and should be a starting point for further research on different event formats. For this purpose, further contributions can go beyond citizens organising in initiatives that were considered in this research and shed light on event acceptance and participation from the perspective of individual citizens. In practice, ex-ante and on-going evaluations should also play a more central role in the assessment of events. Furthermore, this research offers a basis to shed more light on relatively less studied smaller events in smaller or peripheral cities in order to do justice to their practical relevance.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [DI 1641/15-1].