In Metz: online citizen participation in the train station district activates the winning combination of digital and in-person interaction!
In Metz, the City, the Metropolis and the Grand Est Region have placed users and residents at the heart of the urban project of the station , in order to respond to the challenges of mobility, intermodality and urban planning by 2030, based on experience and analysis of the user journey.
During the consultation process conducted with the support of Res publica , online citizen participation played a fundamental role. On the Jenparle consultation platform , residents and users of the station area learned about the project and gave their opinions, immersing themselves in the local context through digital technology . The two consultation tools offered made it possible to connect users with the local context and to broaden citizen involvement:
- The interactive urban walk is designed to help you discover a project via an online application. From home or out in the field using a smartphone and geolocation, participants can submit their contributions on Jenparle at each stop along the walk…
- The Jenparle questionnaire allows you to conduct a survey, poll, or study via a simple online form or one with conditional branching. It can also be administered from home or during field meetings.
The responses gathered on the platform come from participants who experienced participation both on-site and remotely. While awaiting the synthesis of all contributions, we asked Micaël Daval, Head of the Mobility and Transport Department for the Metz Eurometropolis, to share his experience combining in-person and digital elements through Jenparle.
What was your project? Why did you consult your citizens?
MD: Metz Urban Mobility project is to co-create an action plan for 2030 to revitalize the train station area through actions related to mobility, public spaces, urban planning, wayfinding and signage, green spaces, businesses, security, and more.
The consultation process initiated by the City, the Metropolitan Area, and the Region aimed to produce a study that would break new ground, thanks to strong proposals stemming from the experience and needs of users . Within this framework, the consortium that includes Res publica proposed an ambitious approach to involve all types of stakeholders : elected officials, socio-professional representatives, but also residents, people who work in the area, and those just passing through. As with most participatory processes, the challenge was to successfully engage people who don't usually speak up .
What consultation tools did you use? Why?
MD: The consultation tools we used were proposed by the study group: field surveys ; questionnaires administered in various public squares, at markets, and online; workshops and walks with residents and elected officials, both in person and remotely.
Jenparle proposed :
- A questionnaire for all types of participants
- An urban walk, accessible via Jenparle , relayed by directional signs placed in public spaces, to advertise the approach and the interactive walk, and also to allow people to find their way around.
Why integrate online citizen participation?
MD: The starting point was the Covid crisis and the fear of not being able to hold public meetings and falling behind schedule. So we asked the candidates in the competitive dialogue to propose digital solutions . But, even beyond Covid, we were counting on innovation to reach other target audiences, such as young people and those who don't attend public meetings because they don't have the time or the inclination. The platform and the interactive tour are modern and engaging. Jenparle also allows people to express their views outside of public meeting hours, at midnight if they wish, or even in several sessions.
What about participation during the field walk? Did the public only participate on Jenparle, or could they also participate in writing?
MD: During the walks organized by elected officials and socio-professionals, in the presence of Res publica, some participants scanned QR codes installed in public spaces and responded directly on Jenparle, while others preferred to jot things down on paper. The Res publica teams then collected written feedback and noted what they could then add to the platform for the participants.
There were also people who submitted contributions without actually attending the walk , because they were already familiar with the area. It was possible to contribute to the walk without physically participating , which was very convenient for some.
Partner associations could also organize their own walks with citizens, and thus collect responses. For example, "Metz à Vélo" (Metz by Bike) collected a large amount of information during the walk they organized. Finally, passersby logged on after discovering the QR codes in front of the train station and answered the questions online.
Why combine online consultation tools with face-to-face interaction? What did digital tools bring that face-to-face interaction didn't, and vice versa?
MD: The advantage of digital technology is that it reaches a wider audience . Without Jenparle, which allowed for a significant increase in self-organized urban walks , we would have had to organize dozens of walks and require a larger team. But as a participant, when you're interacting with an interviewer or facilitator, it's also easier to respond and delve deeper into the questions: so it's beneficial to have both . Not everyone has a smartphone , and on a phone, participants sometimes tend to be less precise in their contributions. It's simpler on a computer; people type longer, more detailed answers.
I therefore think that Jenparle is a very well-designed tool that complements digital and in-person interactions , allowing us to reach a wider audience , including quieter : it allows them to express themselves without being interrupted by people who easily impose themselves.
In your opinion, which audiences are reached online and in person?
MD: I think people's availability makes all the difference. In-person participation requires more time , and it's often at times that don't suit everyone. Online participation can happen while waiting for the bus, for example, or when there's an unexpected wait. It allows us to reach people who don't usually have the time to get involved . This explains why, with digital tools, we reach a slightly different audience .
Digital tools also allow people who aren't drawn to a traditional walk to participate . In public spaces, intrigued people who passed by the walking route signs must have scanned the QR code and responded out of curiosity , even though they weren't aware of the study and consultation. This again highlights the importance of combining in-person and online participation , and we can clearly see that the two complement each other .
What advice can you offer to someone who is starting to make the platform available to their audience?
MD: For the operation to succeed, no communication channel , as not everyone is on social media. For users who frequent the station, for those who aren't connected to social networks and won't see official communications, street advertising is very effective . And even more so near a station: people take the train and may have had time to respond during their journey or while waiting in the station area.
What will happen now?
MD: We will continue to use this tool for the rest of the process because it is very useful and essential for mobilizing as many people as possible , complementing traditional field surveys. It also helps maintain contact and provides a channel for disseminating information : even if people don't participate, citizens want to be informed.
It also allows us to communicate the results of the consultation and for participants to see detailed summaries of the responses.
