"Title","Author","Summary","Body","Date posted","Country","Ongoing","Start Date","End Date","","Staff Type","","","","","","","","","Facilitation?"
"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"
"Brownfield Cleanup Program, Kips Bay Fuel Terminal Site (New York City, New York, USA)","jeatala","","Problems and PurposeNew York’s Brownfield Cleanup Program was designed as an initiative to encourage the citizens to investigate, clean up and help redevelop brownfields in the area. A brownfield is any real property where redevelopment or reuse may be...","Wed, 01/18/2012 - 14:31","United States","No","","","Community Development, Environment","","Other","Regional Government (e.g. State, Provincial, Territorial)","Consultation (i.e. to advise decision makers), Raise public awareness","Open to all","Community Organizing","Local (e.g. Neighbourhood, City/Town, Metropolitan Area)","Regional Government (e.g. State, Provincial, Territorial)","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"
"Citizen Councils of Grenoble, France","Paulinecescau","","SummarySince 2002, the city of Grenoble, France, has engaged citizens in public decision-making through participatory committees and town meetings. Residents have been able to express their opinions and make recommendations on city planning, education,...","Tue, 06/14/2011 - 11:47","France","Yes","Thursday, January 31, 2002 - 16:00","","Arts & Culture, Education & Schools, Community Development, Environment, Planning (e.g. Urban planning, Transportation, etc.)","","Discussion, Dialogue, or Deliberation, Express opinions/preferences only","Local Government (e.g. Village, Town, City)","Consultation (i.e. to advise decision makers), Raise public awareness","Open to all","21st Century Town Meeting","Local (e.g. Neighbourhood, City/Town, Metropolitan Area)","Local Government (e.g. Village, Town, City)","Local Government (e.g. Village, Town, City)","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"
"Countywide Community Forums (of King County)","Jspady","","The Countywide Community Forum’s mission states its three main reasons for creating themselves: engage, educate, and inform public officials. For the engagement mission, King County officials want to know the main issues that citizens of the King County...","Tue, 12/08/2009 - 22:00","United States","Yes","Thursday, September 6, 2007 - 17:00","","Other","primarily public volunteers but one paid government employee is highly recommended","Discussion, Dialogue, or Deliberation","Philanthropic Organization (i.e. dedicated to making monetary grants or gifts), Individual","Raise public awareness","Open to all","Deliberation","Local (e.g. Neighbourhood, City/Town, Metropolitan Area)","Regional Government (e.g. State, Provincial, Territorial)","Regional Government (e.g. State, Provincial, Territorial)","No"
"European Citizens' Initiative","Gsmith","The European Citizens' Initiative (ECI) will become active from April 2012 at which point a citizens committee (compromising at least 7 members from different Member States) will be able to launch an initiative. If the committee is able to collect 1 million signatures with minimum numbers from across at least 7 member states in support of its proposition, then they will be able to meet formally with the European Commission, hold a formal hearing in the European Parliament and expect a formal response from the Commission. ","SummaryThis case study features a new initiative that aims to promote a whole new form of participatory democracy across the European Union (EU). Citizen initiatives that garner 1 million signatures across a wide range of Member States will be considered...","Wed, 11/30/2011 - 09:16","Belgium","Yes","","","Political Institutions (e.g. Constitutions, Legal Systems, Electoral Systems), Other","","Express opinions/preferences only","","Raise public awareness, Other","Open to all","Petition, Initiative Process","International","International Organization","International Organization","No"
"FORMOSA - Bosque Modelo Formoseño","Josefina","Bosque Modelo Formoseño – Desarrollo Forestal Sustentable en Argentina es una iniciativa en el norte de Argentina inaugurada en 1998 para incorporar un modelo de participación ciudadana en la toma de decisiones relacionadas al desarrollo del Bosque Formoseño.
"," 1. Propuesta Temática: Bosque Modelo Formoseño – Desarrollo Forestal Sustentable en ArgentinaLugar: Norte de Argentina         Inicio: 1998 El Bosque Modelo Formoseño (BMF) tiene un área de influencia cercana a las 800.000 hectáreas en el extremo oeste...","Tue, 01/10/2012 - 13:40","Argentina","Yes","","","Economic Development, Community Development, Environment","","Discussion, Dialogue, or Deliberation","","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), Raise public awareness","Open to all","Collaborative Governance","","","National Government, Regional Government (e.g. State, Provincial, Territorial), Academic Institution, Non-Governmental Organization (Non-profit)","No"
"Laboratorio Mercato - Bologna","Enrica.pinca","","MUNICIPALITY OF BOLOGNA – NAVILE DISTRICT: LABORATORIO PER LA RIPROGETTAZIONE DELL'AREA EX-MERCATO ORTOFRUTTICOLOProblem and PurposeIn 2005 the participatory process named ""Laboratorio Mercato"" was a sequence of meetings and activities aimed at...","Wed, 07/13/2011 - 10:44","Italy","No","Monday, February 28, 2005 - 16:00","Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - 16:00","Planning (e.g. Urban planning, Transportation, etc.)","City staff","Express opinions/preferences only","International Organization","Consultation (i.e. to advise decision makers), Raise public awareness","Open to all","Deliberation","Local (e.g. Neighbourhood, City/Town, Metropolitan Area)","Local Government (e.g. Village, Town, City)","Local Government (e.g. Village, Town, City)","No"
"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"
"Mazara del Vallo- Strategic Plan","Emanuela.greco","","Note:  This article is in need of assistance with editing and content.  Please help us complete it.SummaryThis case study features the formation of a municipal stragetic plan in Italy through a very participatory process. Several different phases of...","Mon, 10/31/2011 - 11:02","Italy","No","Tuesday, April 1, 2008 - 16:00","Monday, November 30, 2009 - 16:00","Community Development, Planning (e.g. Urban planning, Transportation, etc.)","","Express opinions/preferences only","Local Government (e.g. Village, Town, City)","Consultation (i.e. to advise decision makers), Raise public awareness","Open to all","Citizen Dialogue, Online Consultations","Local (e.g. Neighbourhood, City/Town, Metropolitan Area)","Local Government (e.g. Village, Town, City)","Local Government (e.g. Village, Town, City)","No"
"New Hampshire Community Conversations on Expanded Gambling (2010)","kgl5000","This case study features the 2010 New Hampshire Community Conversations on Expanded Gambling.  The study involved several hundred New Hampshire citizens from around the state participating in facilitated small-group dialogues on 13 Feb 2010, in 11 cities and towns statewide.  The event was lead by faculty of the University of New Hampshire and its findings were presented to the Governor’s Study Commission on Expanded Gaming on 18 May 2010. ","Problems and PurposeNew Hampshire has an established history of legalized gambling, with poker events, bingo nights, Lucky-7 ticket sales, and wagering at the state‘s race tracks bringing in a total of $615 million in 2008.  However, though New Hampshire...","Sat, 12/08/2012 - 17:31","United States","No","Saturday, February 13, 2010 - 08:30","Saturday, February 13, 2010 - 15:30","Budgeting, Economic Development, Community Development, Planning (e.g. Urban planning, Transportation, etc.), Other","","","","Consultation (i.e. to advise decision makers), Raise public awareness, Community building (e.g. social capital)","Open to all, Open to all with targeted recruitment","Citizen Dialogue","Regional (e.g. State, Province, Autonomous Region)","","Academic Institution, Non-Governmental Organization (Non-profit), Philanthropic Organization (i.e. dedicated to making monetary grants or gifts)","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"
"October 15 movement","shens2","October 15, aka the 15o, is a global demonstration movement intertwined with the Spanish May 15 movement and Occupy movement.","Written by Hoonmee Chung and Samuel Shen DefinitionThe October 15 protests were a series of protests inspired mainly by the Arab Spring, the Spanish/Portuguese “Indignants” aka the May 15 movement, the Greek Protests and the Occupy movement. All these...","Tue, 02/28/2012 - 15:58","United States","No","","","Economic Development, Political Institutions (e.g. Constitutions, Legal Systems, Electoral Systems)","","Discussion, Dialogue, or Deliberation, Express opinions/preferences only","","Raise public awareness, Develop individual capacities (e.g. skills, learning), Protest","Open to all","Community Organizing","International","Individual","Individual","No"
"Participación ciudadana en la revisión del PRC de Estación Central","Pmelendez","","Summary/Resumen.In this paper it will be presented and analyzed the process of citizen participation that took place for the revision and study of the Plan Regulador Comunal of the commune of Estación Central in Santiago, Chili. It's a case with a high...","Sun, 05/29/2011 - 22:05","Chile","No","Wednesday, December 31, 1969 - 16:00","Wednesday, December 31, 1969 - 16:00","Planning (e.g. Urban planning, Transportation, etc.)","Expertos y consultores","Listen/watch as spectator","Local Government (e.g. Village, Town, City)","Raise public awareness","Open to all with targeted recruitment","Collaborative Governance, Citizen Dialogue","","Local Government (e.g. Village, Town, City), Academic Institution","Local Government (e.g. Village, Town, City)","No"
"Participatory Budgeting with SMS (Jarabacoa, Dominican Republic) ","Hrgilman","January 13th - 20th 2011, a pilot program using Short Message Service
(SMS) for communication and participation with Participatory Budgeting (PB) took 
place in Jarabacoa, Dominican Republic administered by the World Bank Institute ICT4Gov division.  SMS, approved by the Jarabacoa Municipal 
Council, conveyed information regarding dates, times, and locations for meetings as 
well as a platform for citizens to vote directly for projects via SMS. A total of 4,223 
SMS were sent to 726 unique contacts.  World Bank Institute survey results show that SMS is a 
uniquely effective two-way communication and participation tool for enhancing PB. 
","Problems, Purpose, History Originating in Puerto Alegre in 1989, Participatory Budgeting (PB) has been implemented throughout the world.  Jarabacoa is not a place known for its strength of civil society or citizen engagement.  This pilot program of PB...","Wed, 10/03/2012 - 13:25","Dominican Republic","No","","","Budgeting","","Express opinions/preferences only","International Organization","Make public decisions (i.e. exert direct authority), Direct delivery of public services (i.e. by entities other than government), Raise public awareness, Community building (e.g. social capital), Develop individual capacities (e.g. skills, learning)","","Participatory Budgeting","Local (e.g. Neighbourhood, City/Town, Metropolitan Area)","","International Organization, Local Government (e.g. Village, Town, City)","No"
"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"
"Policy Council of Kentucky Center for Public Issues (Kentucky, USA)","SandyHeierbacher","","This case study was written by Sandy Heierbacher, Director of the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD), in 2001 as part of a consultancy for the Center for Disease Control's National Immunization Program.Problems and PurposeThe...","Tue, 02/23/2010 - 16:53","United States","Yes","","","Political Institutions (e.g. Constitutions, Legal Systems, Electoral Systems)","","Discussion, Dialogue, or Deliberation, Listen/watch as spectator","Philanthropic Organization (i.e. dedicated to making monetary grants or gifts)","Consultation (i.e. to advise decision makers), Raise public awareness","Open to all with targeted recruitment","Citizen Dialogue, Deliberation, New England Town Meetings","Regional (e.g. State, Province, Autonomous Region)","Non-Governmental Organization (Non-profit)","Academic Institution, Community Based Organization","No"
"The ""Lange Wapper"" Project in Antwerp, Belgium","Paul Nollen","","AbstractThis case study features a referendum on a controversial viaduct in Antwerp, Belgium. The construction of this viaduct was highly troubled and costly from the beginning, attracting heavy criticism from multiple groups. A referendum ultimately...","Mon, 09/19/2011 - 06:07","Belgium","No","","","Budgeting, Planning (e.g. Urban planning, Transportation, etc.)","Professionals","No interaction among participants","National Government, Local Government (e.g. Village, Town, City), For Profit Business","Co-governance (i.e. to share decision making with public authorities), Raise public awareness","Open to all","Direct Democracy","Local (e.g. Neighbourhood, City/Town, Metropolitan Area)","National Government, Local Government (e.g. Village, Town, City), Community Based Organization","Regional Government (e.g. State, Provincial, Territorial)","No"
"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"
"Transportation Priorities Project","Waltsearch","The Transportation Priorities Project (TPP) was conducted as a progressive series of community meetings, forums, and a summit to advance understanding and determine transportation system development and funding priorities for the Clark County region.  In August through November 2002, just under 500 individuals  participated in TPP’s keypad polling system which was meant to engage, inform and record the opinions, preferences , and concerns of participants at 40 culturally, economically, and geographically diverse meetings.
","SummaryInterACT’s Transportation Priorities Project Dream It, Fund It, Build It InterACT, a subsidiary of Identity Clark County (a private, non-profit organization focused on community and economic development), recognized an impending implosion of voter...","Tue, 12/08/2009 - 03:55","United States","No","Friday, July 31, 2009 - 17:00","Thursday, November 19, 2009 - 16:00","Economic Development, Planning (e.g. Urban planning, Transportation, etc.)","","Discussion, Dialogue, or Deliberation","Non-Governmental Organization (Non-profit)","Raise public awareness, Community building (e.g. social capital)","Open to all","Community-based participatory research","Local (e.g. Neighbourhood, City/Town, Metropolitan Area)","Non-Governmental Organization (Non-profit), Other","Other","No"
"What's Next California? Deliberative Poll (Torrance, California)","sidotij","“What’s Next California?” was a Deliberative Poll that took place in Torrance, California from June 24th to June 26th, 2011. It was California’s first ever statewide Deliberative Poll, and was conducted by the inventor of the Deliberative Poll itself, Dr. James Fishkin, and his team of collaborators. The turnout was outstanding, with the participation of 412 registered voters gathered from around the state through a scientifically selected random sample. The idea for this Deliberative Poll stems from the mountain of controversy surrounding California’s governance, at both state and local levels. The intention was to engage Californians and introduce them to the deliberative process, as well as to produce substantive results that can be used by reform groups to potentially impact the future of California. The Poll involved three waves of questionnaires – one via telephone, one upon arrival in Torrance, and one upon departure – touching on four key issues: The statewide initiative process, legislative representation, local government, and tax and fiscal policy. ","Introduction“What’s Next California?” was a Deliberative Poll that took place in Torrance, California from June 24th to June 26th, 2011. It was California’s first ever statewide Deliberative Poll, and was conducted by the inventor of the Deliberative...","Thu, 12/22/2011 - 11:09","United States","No","","","Budgeting, Political Institutions (e.g. Constitutions, Legal Systems, Electoral Systems)","","Discussion, Dialogue, or Deliberation, Listen/watch as spectator","","Consultation (i.e. to advise decision makers), Raise public awareness","Random Selection","Deliberative Polling","Regional (e.g. State, Province, Autonomous Region)","Academic Institution","Academic Institution, Non-Governmental Organization (Non-profit)","No"