"Title","Author","Summary","Body","Date posted","Country","Ongoing","Start Date","End Date","","Staff Type","","","","","","","","","Facilitation?"
"Belo Horizonte Participatory Budgeting","DJ Air Wing","Participatory Budgeting (PB) is a process implemented in the 1990s where residents of certain regions can influence how their governments' annual budgets are allocated.

After the collapse of its authoritarian regime in the mid 1980s, Brazilians implemented reforms to bolster their economic and political futures through participatory methods. These new democratic practices drastically improved the lives and social infrastructure of its participants.","Summary Participatory Budgeting (PB) is a process implemented in the 1990s where residents of certain regions can influence how their governments' annual budgets are allocated. After the collapse of its authoritarian regime in the mid 1980s, Brazilians...","Sun, 12/09/2012 - 18:11","Brazil","Yes","","","Budgeting, Economic Development, Political Institutions (e.g. Constitutions, Legal Systems, Electoral Systems), Planning (e.g. Urban planning, Transportation, etc.)","","Discussion, Dialogue, or Deliberation","National Government, Regional Government (e.g. State, Provincial, Territorial), Local Government (e.g. Village, Town, City), Community Based Organization, Non-Governmental Organization (Non-profit)","Co-governance (i.e. to share decision making with public authorities), Make public decisions (i.e. exert direct authority), Collaborative delivery of services with public authorities, Community building (e.g. social capital)","Open to all","Participatory Budgeting","Local (e.g. Neighbourhood, City/Town, Metropolitan Area)","","Local Government (e.g. Village, Town, City), Academic Institution","Yes"
"Bicycle Activism (Bucharest, Romania)","CatincaD","In the context of the perpetual crisis of urban transportation in Bucharest, there is a growing population of city dwellers fighting for bicycle rights and advocating for a new, bicycle friendly infrastructure in Bucharest.  The bicycle fans coagulated since the mid 2000’s into different groups and NGO’s and developed into a new movement and a powerful presence in the urban landscape, adopting several strategies of public participation.","In the context of the perpetual crisis of urban transportation in Bucharest, there is a growing population of city dwellers fighting for bicycle rights and advocating for a new, bicycle friendly infrastructure in Bucharest.  The bicycle fans coagulated...","Sat, 01/28/2012 - 15:56","Romania","Yes","","","Planning (e.g. Urban planning, Transportation, etc.)","","Discussion, Dialogue, or Deliberation, Negotiate & Bargain, Formal Testimony, Informal Social Activities, Organized Demonstrations","International Organization, National Government, Local Government (e.g. Village, Town, City), Non-Governmental Organization (Non-profit), Philanthropic Organization (i.e. dedicated to making monetary grants or gifts), For Profit Business","Consultation (i.e. to advise decision makers), Co-governance (i.e. to share decision making with public authorities), Collaborative delivery of services with public authorities, Raise public awareness, Community building (e.g. social capital), Protest","Open to all","Community Organizing","Local (e.g. Neighbourhood, City/Town, Metropolitan Area)","Non-Governmental Organization (Non-profit)","International Organization, Non-Governmental Organization (Non-profit)","No"
"California Proposition 31 (2012)","mcroce3","Proposition 31 was a ballot measure created by California Forward and voted on by the people of California during the General Election held on November 6, 2012. Proposition 31 called for changes to the state budget, and for any legislation to be published three days before it was voted on, among other things. Proposition 31 was defeated by a vote of over 60% to under 40%, but was a good step in the right direction regarding budget reform in California.","DefinitionAccording to California Secretary of State’s website and voters’ guide, Proposition 31: “Establishes [a] two-year state budget; [s]ets rules for offsetting new expenditures; and Governor budget cuts in fiscal emergencies. Local governments can...","Wed, 11/07/2012 - 18:12","United States","No","","","Budgeting, Political Institutions (e.g. Constitutions, Legal Systems, Electoral Systems)","","Discussion, Dialogue, or Deliberation","Community Based Organization, Non-Governmental Organization (Non-profit)","Co-governance (i.e. to share decision making with public authorities), Make public decisions (i.e. exert direct authority), Collaborative delivery of services with public authorities, Raise public awareness, Community building (e.g. social capital)","Open to all, Appointment","Initiative Process","Regional (e.g. State, Province, Autonomous Region)","","Regional Government (e.g. State, Provincial, Territorial)","No"
"Community Planning Toolkit ","CommunityPlaces","Introduction of an on-line Community Planning Toolkit for the Community and Voluntary Sector www.communityplanningtoolkit.org","Problems and PurposeThe Community Planning Toolkit www.communityplanningtoolkit.org was developed by Community Places through the support of the BIG Lottery Fund to help the Community and Voluntray Sector in Northern Ireland to prepare for the planned...","Tue, 06/12/2012 - 04:14","United Kingdom","Yes","","","Planning (e.g. Urban planning, Transportation, etc.)","","","Non-Governmental Organization (Non-profit), Philanthropic Organization (i.e. dedicated to making monetary grants or gifts)","Consultation (i.e. to advise decision makers), Co-governance (i.e. to share decision making with public authorities), Make public decisions (i.e. exert direct authority), Direct delivery of public services (i.e. by entities other than government), Collaborative delivery of services with public authorities, Raise public awareness, Community building (e.g. social capital), Develop individual capacities (e.g. skills, learning)","Open to all","Community-based participatory research","Regional (e.g. State, Province, Autonomous Region)","Community Based Organization, Non-Governmental Organization (Non-profit)","National Government, Local Government (e.g. Village, Town, City), Community Based Organization","No"
"Food for Health - Building a Healthy Food System in NYC","Plscully","In October of 2010, the Food, Faith, and Health Disparities Summit brought together 150 faith leaders and community members from all five boroughs of New York City to discuss problems and solutions to food access. Six food justice working groups were formed at the summit to address the key strategies identified and remain active. Learn more on the New York Faith and Justice blog.","Note:  This article is a stub and is in need of assistance with editing and content, especially with the inclusion material relevant to participatory-democratic processes. Please help us complete it...","Thu, 12/08/2011 - 11:01","United States","Yes","","","Community Development, Health, Gender & Racial Equality, Other","","Discussion, Dialogue, or Deliberation, Informal Social Activities","","Consultation (i.e. to advise decision makers), Collaborative delivery of services with public authorities, Raise public awareness, Community building (e.g. social capital), Develop individual capacities (e.g. skills, learning)","","Study Circles","Local (e.g. Neighbourhood, City/Town, Metropolitan Area)","Other","","Yes"
"Leefbaarheidsbudget Participatory Budgeting (Utrecht, Netherlands)","HABORN","","Problems and Purpose ‘Leefbaarheidsbudget’ is the name of a participatory process, launched by the municipality of Utrecht in 1987. Literally translated, it would mean ‘budget of livability’, being ‘livability’ defined by the municipality of Utrecht, as...","Fri, 01/20/2012 - 11:13","Netherlands","Yes","","","Budgeting, Community Development, Political Institutions (e.g. Constitutions, Legal Systems, Electoral Systems), Planning (e.g. Urban planning, Transportation, etc.)","","Express opinions/preferences only","Regional Government (e.g. State, Provincial, Territorial), Local Government (e.g. Village, Town, City)","Consultation (i.e. to advise decision makers), Collaborative delivery of services with public authorities, Raise public awareness, Community building (e.g. social capital)","Open to all","Participatory Budgeting","Local (e.g. Neighbourhood, City/Town, Metropolitan Area)","Regional Government (e.g. State, Provincial, Territorial)","Local Government (e.g. Village, Town, City)","No"
"Nueva línea ferroviaria de Alta Velocidad (LGV) París - Lyon ","Jorge Luis Colombo Ansaldi","Esquela para Participedia.net
Autor:			Ing. Jorge L. COLOMBO ANSALDI
Lugar y fecha:		Bologna, ITALIA, Diciembre 14 de 2011.-
_________________________________________________________________________________
PROYECTO DE LINEA FERROVIARIA DE ALTA VELOCIDAD
PARIS – ORLEANS - CLERMONT-FERRAND – LYON
FRANCIA

1.- Propósito y problema		
El propósito es la construcción de una línea ferroviaria de alta velocidad que una las ciudades de París, Orlèans, Clermont-Ferrand y Lyon. El problema consiste en facilitar el transporte y disminuir el tiempo de viaje entre esas ciudades importantes de Francia disminuyendo a un mínimo los impactos ambientales y territoriales.
2.- Historia
La voluntad de hacer una línea ferroviaria de alta velocidad a fin de reducir el tiempo de viaje entre París y Lyon y las principales ciudades intermedias, exige atravesar con un nuevo trazado, otras áreas del territorio distintas de las ocupadas por la red ferroviaria existente, a raíz de las condiciones más exigentes de diseño de una línea de alta velocidad, fundamentalmente debido a grandes radios de curvatura y nuevos diseños de las estaciones.   
También se encuentran problemas de impacto ambiental tanto visual como sonoro, y por todo ello se pone a disposición de las personas afectadas y las autoridades locales (por ejemplo intendentes y las fuerzas vivas), el anteproyecto y las variantes de traza diseñadas por la empresa ferroviaria francesa a fin de que se puedan emitir opiniones y reparos a su construcción.
3.- Entidades originarias y financiamiento
La entidad originaria del proyecto es Reséau Ferré de France, y en cuanto a lo concerniente a la participación de los ciudadanos, la institución responsable y financiadora es la Commision Nationale du Débat Publique -CNDP- quien actúa en cada ámbito a través de delegaciones, cada una de ellas denominadas Commision Particulier du Débat Publique – CPDP. 

4.- Selección de los participantes	
La participación de la ciudadanía fue promovida por esta comisión en primer lugar creando un sitio web especial para el debate público (www.lgv-pocl.fr) y paralelamente a través de medios de difusión pública, tales como un newsletter del proyecto (Le Journal du débat publique) y un vehículo con carteles que recorría las ciudades cercanas a la traza informando e invitando a participar. Ello se puede ver en el propio sito web. 
Por otra parte a fin de garantizar el pluralismo, la participación del público es libre y en el sitio se encuentran los lugares y horarios de reunión accesibles a todos.
4.1- Esquema del proceso participativo
1.	El presidente de la Comisión Nacional de Debate Público - CNDP – vista la relevancia e importancia de los bienes que puedan verse afectados por el trazado, decide que el proyecto debe ser sometido a debate público.
2.	Con ese motivo designó al presidente de la comisión particular –CPDP- cuya nominación recayó en un ingeniero con el rol fundamental de garantizar la participación y ser neutral. No obstante ello su formación académica permite que aclare ante el público conceptos útiles cuando hacen falta ciertas explicaciones técnicas o traducción de especificaciones a lenguaje comprensible por todos.
3.	Con la propuesta de dicho presidente de la Comisión Particular, la Comisión Nacional designó a los seis (6) integrantes de la CPDP.
4.	También decidió el plazo en que se desarrollará el debate público: 3 de octubre de 2011 a 31 de enero de 2012. (A la fecha todavía no finalizado).
4.2.- Temas tratados
Los temas tratados son: 
	  La conducción del proyecto 
	  La economia del proyecto 
	  El contexto y la situación actual
	  Los escenarios presentes en el debate 
	  El trazado de la línea LAV Paris-Lyon
	  El servicio de transporte 
	  La planificación del territorio 
	  La explotación de la ferrovía 
	  Los efectos sobre el ambiente 
	  La articulación con las demás trazas ferroviarias 
5.- Deliberaciones, decisiones e interacción pública
5.1.- La fase de aprendizaje
Se inauguró el debate público el 3 de octubre de 2011 y la CPDP puso a disposición del público en primer lugar los documentos de diseño de la línea ferroviaria, fundamentalmente su anteproyecto, una síntesis de la obra, el dossier, la cartografía de la zona de vía y estudios del territorio.
Asimismo la CPDP presentó las herramientas y normativas para que el público se exprese, los lugares y fechas de las reuniones y el sitio de internet interactivo. 
5.2.- La fase de escucha pública
En esta fase la CPDP pone a disposición del público hasta la finalización del debate (el 31 de enero de 2012), no sólo los lugares de reunión (con su organización correspondiente) a fin de que los diferentes participantes se escuchen entre sí, con infraestructura y mediante moderadores, sino que también publica sobre el Journal du débat publique ya mencionado, las propuestas del público (a la fecha ya han salido cuatro números del mismo), incluye videos de las intervenciones en el sitio web, las contribuciones escritas y orales y finalmente las preguntas.
Una contribución particularmente extensa fue presentada por el Consejo Regional de Auvernia sobre la estrategia de desarrollo y gestión del territorio en la zona de ubicación de la ferrovia. 
5.3.- La fase deliberativa
El presidente de la CPDP realizará un informe del debate público, en un lapso no superior a los dos meses de finalización del debate público. Asimismo el presidente de la CNDP (de nivel nacional) realizará un balance del proceso y sus resultados. 
Dicho informe y balance serán girados a la Dirección de Obra, es decir Reséau Ferré de France, la cual en un lapso no mayor de tres meses, debe tomar una decisión sobre lo decidido respecto de modificaciones o no al proyecto, informando de ello a la CNDP y hecho público.       
6.- Influencia, resultados y efectos  			
El proceso se encuentra todavía en desarrollo y a la fecha falta un mes y medio para terminar los debates. No obstante es de destacar la intervención de la intendente (Maire) de Roanne que ha subrayado que la reunión de ciudadanos en esa ciudad, ha constituído un punto de referencia importante en diversas facetas: en primer lugar que tuvo en este debate el primero en su tipo en la ciudad, en segundo lugar que ha favorecido el intercambio de ideas y propuestas, en tercero que involucró al público en el proyecto, que acercó la gente entre sí como un valor a destacar en sí mismo y finalmente – y asimismo  muy importante - que permite a una generación debatir lo que le van a dejar a las generaciones futuras.
7.- Análisis y críticas		
La principal crítica que se le puede hacer al proceso descripto es que la CNDP ha decidido designar motu propio tanto al presidente como a los integrantes de la CPDP, sin la participación del público. Las autoridades del debate son muy importantes en cuanto a su capacidad de gestionar la reunión y también en cuanto a ser neutrales. La nominación por parte del estado excluye entonces un proceso meta-participativo para estas nominaciones, que sería deseable -por coherente- con la participación pública que se busca. 
Por otro lado también fue fijada manu militari por la CNDP tanto la fecha de inicio como de finalización. 
Se comprende que el lapso de discusión del proyecto no puede ser sine die pero el tiempo instituído (cuatro meses) para discutir un proyecto de la magnitud y las implicancias que éste posee, parece a todas luces escaso, especialmente si se deben estudiar  propuestas técnicas, valorarlas en sus diversos aspectos, discutir impactos ambientales complejos y a la vez con todo ello construir un feedback con las razones por las cuáles se elige una y no otra de las soluciones.
8.- Fuentes secundarias
Dossier de obra:   http://www.debatpublic-lgv-pocl.org/informer/dossier-mo.html
Síntesis de la obra:  http://www.debatpublic-lgv-pocl.org/informer/synthese- mo.html
Forma de uso:  http://www.debatpublic-lgv-pocl.org/informer/le-debat-public-mode-d-emploi.html
Calendario de sesiones: http://www.debatpublic-lgv-pocl.org/informer/le-calendrier-du-debat-public.html
Prensa:	 http://www.debatpublic-lgv-pocl.org/presse/index.html
Normativa:  http://www.debatpublic-lgv-pocl.org/mentions.html
Contacto:  http://www.debatpublic-lgv-pocl.org/contact.html
9.- Links externos
Commission Nationale du Debat Publique – CNDP – www.debatpublique.fr
Wikipedia Train Paris-Lyon – www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGV_Sud-Est
Association TGV Provence – Côte d’Azur - www.lgvazur.net/sp/reuniones.htm
10.- Notas
Es de destacar que este caso se encuentra actualmente (Diciembre de 2011) en proceso deliberativo que finaliza el 31 de enero de 2012.- 
","Esquela para Participedia.netAutor:   Ing. Jorge L. Colombo AnsaldiLugar y fecha:  Bologna, ITALIA, Diciembre 14 de 2011.-_________________________________________________________________________________ PROYECTO DE LINEA FERROVIARIA DE ALTA...","Wed, 12/21/2011 - 14:24","Italy","No","","","Planning (e.g. Urban planning, Transportation, etc.)","","Discussion, Dialogue, or Deliberation","Regional Government (e.g. State, Provincial, Territorial), Government-Owned Corporation","Collaborative delivery of services with public authorities, Raise public awareness, Community building (e.g. social capital)","Open to all","Deliberation","Regional (e.g. State, Province, Autonomous Region)","","National Government, Other","No"
"Oregon Citizen's Initiative Review - Measure 82","nikamar5","The Oregon Citizen’s Initiative Review is a panel of ordinary registered voters who receive information from opponents and proponents of statewide legislative initiatives. Using these partisan sources, their own values and third party research, the panel members deliberate on the pros and cons of these propositions and equally communicate every viewpoint on the matter. When they conclude deliberations, they issue a Citizen’s Statement, their personal recommendation for course of action, which is printed into the Voter’s Guide that is sent out just prior to each election. The OCIR is funded entirely through charitable grants and doesn’t accept any money from corporations and the like. Measure 82 would amend the Oregon state constitution to allow privately-owned, non-tribal casinos to exist, under certain regulations. It proposes that 25% of all revenue gathered in these casinos will go to state funds with specific purposes in mind. It goes hand-in-hand with Measure 83, which specifically instates a private casino on Multnomah Greyhound Park in Wood Village, a smaller community east of Portland. "," The Oregon Citizen’s Initiative Review is a panel of ordinary registered voters who receive information from opponents and proponents of statewide legislative initiatives. Using these partisan sources, their own values and third party research, the...","Wed, 11/14/2012 - 13:03","United States","No","","","Education & Schools, Budgeting, Economic Development, Community Development","","Discussion, Dialogue, or Deliberation, Formal Testimony, Story-Telling","Regional Government (e.g. State, Provincial, Territorial)","Co-governance (i.e. to share decision making with public authorities), Collaborative delivery of services with public authorities, Raise public awareness","","Citizens' Initiative Review","Regional (e.g. State, Province, Autonomous Region)","","Individual, Union, For Profit Business","Yes"
"Participatory Decentralization in Montevideo","wenger1989","Participatory decentralization is the process of handing out legitimate political authority to the citizens. It contributes to democratization by bringing the government ‘closer to the people’, imparting the citizens with political knowledge through their participation in local management, and making the government more accountable. [1] 

Frente Amplio-Encuentro Progresista (FA-EP), the ruling political party in Montevideo, Uruguay, implemented this program in 1990 after winning the 1989 election. The program entails the transference and distribution of social, political and economic power, allowing citizens to make decisions on matters of interest to the community. The idea is to “transform the state-society relationship, creating a new public space where issues crucial to the quality of the lives of the great majorities, are discussed”. [4] Participatory decentralization remains a key element of Montevideo’s political system today.
","OverviewParticipatory decentralization is the process of handing out legitimate political authority to the citizens. It contributes to democratization by bringing the government ‘closer to the people’, imparting the citizens with political knowledge...","Thu, 03/01/2012 - 10:44","Uruguay","No","","","Budgeting, Political Institutions (e.g. Constitutions, Legal Systems, Electoral Systems)","","Discussion, Dialogue, or Deliberation, Listen/watch as spectator","National Government","Consultation (i.e. to advise decision makers), Co-governance (i.e. to share decision making with public authorities), Collaborative delivery of services with public authorities","Open to all, Election","Deliberative Democracy, Representative Democracy","Local (e.g. Neighbourhood, City/Town, Metropolitan Area)","National Government, Regional Government (e.g. State, Provincial, Territorial), Local Government (e.g. Village, Town, City)","National Government, Community Based Organization","No"
"Shaping America's Youth (United States)","hristovm","","Problems and PurposeObesity is still a prevailing problem in the United States. It is also the second leading cause of preventable death. Statistics show that about 33.8% of American adults are obese. The percentage of children who are considered...","Tue, 12/27/2011 - 17:37","United States","No","","","Children & Youth, Health","","Discussion, Dialogue, or Deliberation","Non-Governmental Organization (Non-profit), For Profit Business","Consultation (i.e. to advise decision makers), Direct delivery of public services (i.e. by entities other than government), Collaborative delivery of services with public authorities, Raise public awareness","Open to all with targeted recruitment","21st Century Town Meeting","National","Non-Governmental Organization (Non-profit)","Non-Governmental Organization (Non-profit), Individual, For Profit Business","Yes"
"South East Local Health Integration Network Clinical Services Roadmap Community Engagement Project","sfulton","As required by the government of Ontario to involve residents in the decision making process concerning their health care systems after the passing of the Local Health System Integration Act in 2006, the South East Local Health Integration Network (SE LHIN) launched the community engagement phase of their Clinical Services Roadmap project in March of 2011.  The project was initiated to gain community feedback and strengthen the health care system in South East Ontario.  Residents submitted their opinions concerning seven central focus areas of clinical services in the form on a workbook over an eight week period.  The results from the project were incorporated in to the South East LHIN decisions involving services and allocations.","BackgroundThe South East Local Health Integration Network (SE LHIN) is one of the fourteen networks established across the province of Ontario.  The networks serve to plan, manage, and fund the health care systems at their local and regional level.  The...","Sun, 12/02/2012 - 20:00","Canada","No","","","Budgeting, Health, Planning (e.g. Urban planning, Transportation, etc.)","","No interaction among participants","Regional Government (e.g. State, Provincial, Territorial)","Collaborative delivery of services with public authorities, Raise public awareness, Community building (e.g. social capital)","Open to all","Citizen Dialogue","Regional (e.g. State, Province, Autonomous Region)","Regional Government (e.g. State, Provincial, Territorial), For Profit Business","Regional Government (e.g. State, Provincial, Territorial)","Yes"
"Strong Starts for Children (Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA)","haningtm","This case study features a citizens' deliberation using the Dialogue Cirlces method to address inequities in the educational system derived from racism and poverty. This deliberation produced action ideas for various community groups, the successfully-enacted Early Childhood Care and Education Act, and efforts to pass amendment to the New Mexico constitution that would increase state funding for early childhood education."," This case study features a citizens' deliberation using the Dialogue Circles method to address inequities in the educational system derived from racism and poverty. This deliberation produced action ideas for various community groups, the successfully-...","Fri, 12/23/2011 - 10:14","United States","No","","","Children & Youth, Education & Schools, Budgeting, Planning (e.g. Urban planning, Transportation, etc.)","","Discussion, Dialogue, or Deliberation","Regional Government (e.g. State, Provincial, Territorial), Academic Institution, Philanthropic Organization (i.e. dedicated to making monetary grants or gifts)","Consultation (i.e. to advise decision makers), Co-governance (i.e. to share decision making with public authorities), Direct delivery of public services (i.e. by entities other than government), Collaborative delivery of services with public authorities, Raise public awareness, Community building (e.g. social capital), Develop individual capacities (e.g. skills, learning)","Open to all with targeted recruitment","Study Circles, Choicework Dialogue","Local (e.g. Neighbourhood, City/Town, Metropolitan Area)","Non-Governmental Organization (Non-profit)","Academic Institution, Community Based Organization, Non-Governmental Organization (Non-profit)","Yes"
"The Use of Machizukuri After the 1995 Earthquake (Kobe, Japan)","JoyousTerra","In January of 1995, greater Kobe, Japan experienced a high intensity earthquake called the Great Hanshin Awaji Earthquake.  In March of 1995, the City of Kobe local government issued plans for “Designation of Land Readjustment and Redevelopment Areas.”  These plans created controversy between the residents and the local government because the government made their decisions for rehabilitation without negotiating or consulting with the residents that the plans would impact.  Machizukuri citizen groups were used as part of the Kobe rehabilitation process, such as in Rokko, Japan in the North District.  Machizukuri has existed in Japan since the 1960s and was used to engage residents in bettering their own communities, and to engage in dialogue with the local government in order to create accountability.  The Japanese term Machizukuri translates to mean ""town or community building process.""  The essential pillars of Machizukuri were to bond, bridge, and link social capital; in other words, to create community unity, a multi- social sector network, and to get involved in government decision-making.  Within this structure, the concept of a town meeting, deliberation, consensus building, negotiation, information and opinion sharing, and local leadership are also fundamental aspects of the best functioning citizen participation examples.  This case study discusses how the North District (Rokko) used Machizukuri to impact the local government’s community plans and establish their own initiative in the 1990s. ","Background:In January of 1995, greater Kobe, Japan experienced a high intensity earthquake called the Great Hanshin Awaji Earthquake.  The damage extended into Kyoto, Osaka, and Hyogo.  Just in Hyogo alone, over 240,000 homes burned or collapsed as a...","Mon, 01/02/2012 - 12:23","Japan","No","","","Community Development, Environment, Planning (e.g. Urban planning, Transportation, etc.)","","Discussion, Dialogue, or Deliberation, Negotiate & Bargain, Express opinions/preferences only","Regional Government (e.g. State, Provincial, Territorial)","Consultation (i.e. to advise decision makers), Co-governance (i.e. to share decision making with public authorities), Collaborative delivery of services with public authorities, Raise public awareness, Community building (e.g. social capital)","Other","Deliberation","Local (e.g. Neighbourhood, City/Town, Metropolitan Area)","Community Based Organization, Individual","Local Government (e.g. Village, Town, City), Community Based Organization, Individual","No"