Crowdsourcing platforms – where people can report non-emergency issues about where they live – are becoming an increasingly important way for US local government to engage with their residents. In new research using the City of Omaha’s Omaha Hotline as a case study, Danbee Lee, Jooho Lee, and Yeonkyung Kim look at what incentives are most effective in encouraging residents to engage with these crowdsourcing platforms. They find that both money incentives and those which emphasize community benefits and collective well-being were effective in encouraging residents to engage with Omaha Hotline.
Local governments, including in US towns and cities, are increasingly turning to crowdsourcing platforms, such as Omaha Hotline, to engage citizens in public services and how they are delivered. Omaha Hotline, the City of Omaha’s platform, encourages residents to report non-emergency concerns in their neighborhoods, functioning similarly to 311 systems across the US. This initiative seeks to increase civic engagement by empowering the public to play an active role in addressing community issues. The success of such initiatives is largely dependent on the government’s ability to effectively incentivize citizen engagement. Our new research examines the influence of various incentive strategies on citizens’ willingness to participate in government crowdsourcing platforms.
The power of incentives
In our study on citizen engagement in Omaha Hotline, we investigated the effectiveness of non-monetary incentives compared to traditional monetary rewards. To do this, we showed residents short texts – or vignettes – about different incentives to examine their effects on residents’ participation. Our research suggests that tapping into citizens’ territorial motivations can be as influential as monetary incentives in fostering engagement.
Our vignette started with three fictitious non-emergency community issues that are commonly reported on Omaha Hotline: potholes, an abandoned car, and litter. Photos of these problems were added (shown in Figure 1), and respondents were asked to imagine encountering such issues in their own community. After this, residents were presented with a government advertisement vignette featuring three different types of incentives: monetary (or material), solidary (about having a better neighborhood), and expressive (about improving values in society). For the vignette, we utilized the legitimate City of Omaha website by modifying the actual site to create fictitious government posts aimed at engaging citizens with the crowdsourcing platform.
Figure 1 – Vignette scenario of the issues (ex. potholes)

We presented the following different incentives: First, the ‘material’ incentive condition states that for taking part (shown in Figure 2 below), “…you will be rewarded with a $5 Amazon.com gift card that you can use for your purchase.” Second, the ‘solidary’ incentive condition describes, “You will benefit from an improved and safer neighborhood environment.” Third, the ‘expressive’ incentive condition is articulated as, “You will contribute to a society with strengthened constitutional and democratic values.” The last condition had no mention of any incentives.
Figure 2 – Vignette scenario of the incentive (ex. Material incentive)

Figure 3 below shows our findings: both material and solidary incentives are crucial in encouraging residents to engage with the Omaha Hotline platform. Material rewards, such as a $5 Amazon gift card, were found to effectively motivate participation, corroborating the findings of previous research on the influence of material rewards on the public as customers. Surprisingly, solidary incentives, which emphasize community benefits and collective well-being, were equally effective. This supports previous work on the public’s role as partners in public service delivery.
Figure 3 – Residents’ willingness to participate percentage among the control, material incentive, solidary, and expressive groups

There are three major implications for local governments aiming to enhance citizen engagement on government crowdsourcing platforms.
First, local government should prioritize clear communication about the benefits citizens will gain from engaging in government crowdsourcing platforms. This strategy will motivate citizens to participate by recognizing and rewarding their contributions, whether through tangible incentives or positive community developments.
Second, local governments should play a pivotal role in encouraging citizen engagement through the strategic selection of language to promote civic engagement on crowdsourcing platforms. By showcasing the tangible impact of citizen reports, such as a citizen reporting a pothole leading to quicker repairs, improving community safety, local authorities can effectively drive participation and collaboration. It is important to communicate these outcomes in a SMART way: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound.

Third, local governments should consider integrating both material and solidary incentives when promoting citizen engagement in government crowdsourcing platforms. By highlighting the benefits for individuals and the community, governments can create a compelling case for citizen engagement. This approach can broaden the range of citizens to participate in the crowdsourcing platform initiatives, fostering a stronger sense of community involvement and ownership.
Getting the incentives right
Our research underscores the critical role of using appropriate incentives to encourage citizen participation in government crowdsourcing platforms. Both material (i.e. money) and solidary incentives are essential in motivating residents to engage in public service provision. By effectively communicating and strategically combining these incentives, local governments can significantly enhance citizen involvement and improve community outcomes. As crowdsourcing becomes an increasingly integral component of public administration, understanding and leveraging these motivational factors will be pivotal to its success.
- This article is based on the paper, “Do monetary or nonmonetary incentives promote citizens’ use of a government crowdsourcing: A case of the City of Omaha’s 311-type of crowdsourcing platform”, in Public Administration.
- Subscribe to LSE USAPP’s email newsletter to receive a weekly article roundup.
- Please read our comments policy before commenting.
- Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USAPP – American Politics and Policy, nor the London School of Economics.
- Shortened URL for this post: https://wp.me/p3I2YF-eSN