Problems and Purpose

In the spring of 2025, the municipality of Sint-Michielsgestel was thrust into a state of significant social unrest following the leak of preliminary plans for a large-scale asylum seekers' centre (AZC). The public reaction was immediate and intense, revealing deep-seated divisions within the community and a profound lack of institutional trust in the local government. In a swift political response to the mounting tension, the municipal council passed a motion requesting that the executive board halt the AZC process, which ultimately led to the revocation of the earlier decision to establish the centre. However, this cancellation did not resolve the underlying problem: the municipality remains legally bound by the national Distribution Act (Spreidingswet) to house 388 asylum seekers.

The primary problem identified by Alderman Theo Geldens was a widening "gap between government and society"[1]. This gap was exacerbated by a historical perception among residents, particularly in village centres like Berlicum, that they were being used as a "dumping ground" for municipal burdens, such as solar farms, while their own needs for housing and social services were ignored [2]. The initial AZC proposal was perceived as a fait accompli delivered via backroom politics, which left residents feeling caught off guard and unrepresented in decisions that fundamentally affected their daily lives. Socially, the village atmosphere became toxic; residents reported self-censoring in public spaces like supermarkets and schoolyards to avoid conflict, while the public debate became trapped in a binary pro vs anti-spectrum that stifled nuanced discussion.

The specific objectives of the trajectory were fourfold:

1. To guide future administrative choices regarding the modalities of refugee reception (size, duration, and distribution).
2. To facilitate a learning process where residents could understand the complexity of policy trade-offs by sitting in the policymaker's chair.
3. To foster mutual empathy through group dialogues, allowing residents with differing views to listen to one another without the pressure of reaching a consensus.
4. To identify shared values and priorities that could serve as a foundation for a village-wide recovery, ensuring that future migration policies are aligned with local concerns regarding safety, integration, and transparency.

Background History and Context

The administrative challenge facing Sint-Michielsgestel is situated within a broader national framework regarding the annual arrival of refugees in the Netherlands. Under the national Distribution Act (Spreidingswet), the municipality is legally mandated to provide housing for 388 asylum seekers [3]. This legal obligation is non-negotiable; municipal governments must comply with the law and additional regional agreements regardless of local sentiment. Consequently, the local government found itself in a precarious position, tasked with fulfilling a mandatory national quota while navigating a complex landscape of local village identities and historical grievances.

A defining feature of the local context is the presence of "Old Pain" (Oud Zeer)[4], a term used by residents to describe long-standing friction between the village centres and the central municipal administration. This is particularly acute in the village of Berlicum, where residents feel they have historically been used as the municipality's "drain" or "dumping ground"[5]. Community members pointed to previous decisions, such as the placement of two solar farms in their vicinity, while their own needs, such as the renovation of a dilapidated indoor sports facility and housing for local youth, remained unaddressed. This perceived imbalance of burdens and benefits created a deep-seated sense of distance from the town hall, a sentiment reinforced by historical municipal reorganisations that many felt had further alienated the outlying villages from the seat of local power.

This fragile social equilibrium was shattered in the spring of 2025 when preliminary plans for a large-scale asylum seekers' centre (AZC) were leaked to the public. The leak transformed a technical administrative task into a flashpoint for a community crisis. Residents described feeling "assaulted" by a process that appeared to treat a life-altering decision as a fait accompli [6]. The lack of early, transparent communication led to widespread assumptions of backroom politics, which provided fertile ground for escalation. The ensuing protests were characterised by an intensity that shocked many in the community; banners and slogans at village entrances were described as intimidating and threatening, leaving some residents "stunned into silence" [7].

The social consequences of this escalation were immediate and profound. The village atmosphere became heavily polarised, forcing residents into a binary pro vs. anti camp where nuanced discussion was impossible. This division extended into the most mundane aspects of daily life: residents reported avoiding eye contact in supermarkets and schoolyards, and the topic of migration was frequently avoided in public spaces for fear of social friction or labelling. Even those with moderate or positive views on refugee reception often withdrew from the debate to avoid conflict. Recognising that the community was "scarred" and that trust in municipal politics had reached a critical low, the municipal council revoked the AZC decision and shifted its focus toward a process of community recovery and connection. This background of damaged trust and social silence formed the essential starting point for the 2025 Participation Trajectory.

Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

The 2025 Participation Trajectory was a collaborative effort led by the Municipality of Sint-Michielsgestel, designed to ensure a robust, objective, and multi-channel approach to public engagement. Recognising the high levels of local friction, the municipal executive board (College van B&W) deliberately structured the project around independent partiesto ensure the findings remained "unfiltered and unadorned" [8].

The Municipality of Sint-Michielsgestel acted as the primary convener and mandate-holder for the project. Under the leadership of Alderman Theo Geldens (Councillor for Migration), the municipality initiated the trajectory to provide "advice and background information" [9] for future administrative choices regarding refugee reception. While municipal employees and external stakeholders participated in initial design sessions on August 15, 2025, to map the policy dilemmas and ensure the research aligned with administrative needs, the municipality maintained a strict policy of non-interference once data collection began.

The municipality commissioned Populytics, an Amsterdam-based research agency specialising in participatory governance, to design and execute the quantitative phase of the trajectory. Populytics utilised the Participatory Value Evaluation (PWE) methodology, a scientifically validated approach developed in collaboration with researchers from Delft University of Technology [10]. Their role was to put residents in the policymaker's chair through a controlled survey, ensuring that the resulting data was statistically representative of the entire municipality. Populytics remained ultimately responsible for the reporting and analysis to protect the integrity of the findings.

To address the historical village scars and facilitate face-to-face deliberation, the municipality engaged Public Mediation. This independent organisation was responsible for guiding the group dialogues across all village centres. To ensure a safe environment where residents could speak freely without fear of administrative pressure or judgment, a deliberate choice was made to exclude municipal civil servants from these sessions. Public Mediation’s role was to act as a neutral moderator, focusing on sharing experiences and mutual understanding rather than driving the group toward a forced consensus.

The project was funded entirely by the Municipality of Sint-Michielsgestel using public resources. The administration emphasised the responsible use of these funds, which informed certain methodological choices, such as sending 12,300 invitations to households rather than to every individual resident [11]. Despite being the funding body, the municipality maintained substantive independence from the independent partners to ensure that the results were seen by the public as a credible, honest reflection of community sentiment rather than a government-controlled narrative.

Participant Recruitment, selection and Methods used

To address the deep-seated polarisation within the community, the 2025 Participation Trajectory employed a multi-channel recruitment strategy designed to balance statistical representativeness with radical inclusivity. Unlike the Maputo case, which relied on traditional ‘Block Chiefs’ to mobilise residents, Sint-Michielsgestel utilised a modern, data-driven approach to ensure that the "silent majority" was heard alongside more vocal interest groups. A total of 2,066 residentscompleted the digital survey, representing a significant portion of the municipal population aged 16 and older [12].

The Dual-Track Survey Model

The municipality implemented a dual-track participation model to navigate the tension between scientific rigour and the democratic need for openness:

1. The "Closed" Representative Survey: To ensure a controlled and reliable sample, the municipality sent physical mail invitations to all 12,300 residential addresses within Sint-Michielsgestel [13]. Each invitation contained a unique code that could only be used once. To further maximise demographic diversity, the invitation requested that the survey be completed by the next birthday person in the household—a technique designed to prevent the results from being skewed toward the oldest family members who typically handle municipal mail. This track resulted in 1,114 unique participants [14].
2. The "Open" Inclusive Survey: Recognising that multiple residents in a single household might wish to participate, or that some might misplace their unique codes, an open link (DenkMeeOverMigratie.nl) was also provided. This ensured that no resident felt excluded from the process. This track gathered input from an additional 952 residents [15].

Recruitment for Group Dialogues

While the survey captured broad municipal sentiments, the intensive group dialogues required a more focused recruitment effort. Participants were recruited through the online survey platform and through physical posters displayed in community centres. From a pool of 110 registrations, 81 residents ultimately participated in the six deliberative sessions held across the five village centres [16]. Each session was capped at 16 participants to preserve the quality of the deliberation and ensure a "safe environment" for sharing sensitive personal experiences.

Addressing Selection Bias and Overrepresentation

A critical challenge in the recruitment phase was the disproportionate engagement from certain demographics. Initial data revealed that residents from Berlicum, those with theoretical training, and individuals aged 35 to 64 were significantly overrepresented. Conversely, residents with practical training were underrepresented.

To ensure the final findings were representative of the entire municipality, Populytics applied a standard statistical procedure known as "raking" or multiplicative weighting. By assigning a weighting factor based on age, gender, education level, and village centre, the researchers were able to correct these imbalances. This allowed the municipality to make reliable, municipal-wide statements based on the "closed" survey data while still honouring the unfiltered qualitative feedback from the open survey and village dialogues.

Integrity and Privacy

To maintain the integrity of the recruitment process, the research team manually verified codes to eliminate duplicate entries and used fraud-detection software to log anonymised device data, preventing cyberattacks or large-scale manipulation of the open survey. All participation was conducted under strict anonymity, a factor the report notes was essential for encouraging residents to speak honestly about the sensitive topic of migration in a highly charged local environment.

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

The 2025 participation trajectory was executed through a dual-track deliberative process designed to move the community from a state of social paralysis to active advisory engagement. The first phase consisted of a digital Participatory Value Evaluation (PWE) survey, which ran from September 8 to October 5, 2025, engaging 2,066 residents [17]. Unlike traditional polling, this method required participants to "sit in the policymaker's chair," tasking them with allocating 45 points across nine competing policy goals [18]. This experimental design forced residents to confront the historical pain, the recognition that prioritising one goal, such as dispersal of shelters, necessitated trade-offs in other areas like municipal investment or speed of implementation. While the ‘whether’ of refugee reception was non-negotiable due to the Distribution Act, the digital interaction allowed residents to voice unfiltered concerns in open-ended fields, which were ultimately processed using AI language models to identify dominant themes of safety and transparency [19].

The second phase transitioned to intensive face-to-face deliberation through six group dialogues held between November 3 and November 12, 2025, across all village centres. These three-hour sessions were meticulously structured to prioritise community recovery over forced consensus. The evenings began with an informal meal of soup and sandwiches to lower social barriers, followed by a systematic sharing of experiences and scars from the spring protests. A defining procedural decision was the deliberate exclusion of civil servants from these dialogues; this ensured a safe and stable environment where residents could speak freely about their fears of stigmatisation and self-censorship without administrative interference.

Public interaction during these sessions revealed a community struggling with silence in public spaces like supermarkets and schoolyards, where the migration topic had become a social minefield. Facilitators from Public Mediation guided participants through a brainstorming phase focused on "what next," shifting the narrative from past grievances to future frameworks. Residents in Berlicum, for instance, used the forum to link migration policy to the resolution of "Old Pain"regarding dilapidated local facilities, while participants in Gemonde expressed a sense of alienation from the central municipal administration [20].

The trajectory culminated in a set of concrete findings that now serve as a binding source of information for the municipal council. The deliberative process successfully identified a "middle ground" majority preference for several small-scale shelters spread across the municipality for a maximum of five years [21]. Most significantly, the public interaction created a new bubble where residents from polarised camps listened respectfully to one another for the first time in months. This deliberative innovation transformed a period of "backroom politics" into a transparent, human-centred roadmap for local migration policy.

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

The 2025 Participation Trajectory was designed to serve as both a data-driven advisory tool for the municipal executive and a mechanism for community healing. The success of the Sint-Michielsgestel trajectory is measured by its ability to generate clear policy modalities and rebuild institutional trust. The findings from this process now form a foundational source of information for the municipal council's future choices regarding refugee reception.

The trajectory produced a clear, statistically representative preference regarding the modalities of future asylum seeker housing. When presented with the scenario of complying with the Distribution Act, a 59% majority of residents preferred a model of several smaller shelters spread across the villages and towns rather than one large-scale facility [22]. Regarding duration, 50% of residents supported a maximum stay of five years, while those in the positive attitude groups were more open to longer-term or permanent arrangements [23].

However, the survey also revealed a significant segment of unyielding resistance. Approximately 270 participants used open-ended questions to explicitly state they wanted no shelters at all, and about half of those with a negative attitude toward refugees refused to answer the "suppose" questions, viewing them as a "fait accompli" [24]. This group also placed strict conditions on any potential housing, most notably the exclusion of single men and "fortune seekers" from safe countries.

A transformative outcome of the Participatory Value Evaluation (PWE) was the identification of four shared goals that transcended demographic and ideological divides. Regardless of whether a resident viewed migration positively or negatively, there was universal agreement that the municipality must prioritise:

1. Refugees learning the Dutch language and culture.
2. Refugees finding work or education to contribute to society.
3. Ensuring that both refugees and residents feel safe.
4. Ensuring residents are well-informed about municipal plans.

Furthermore, respect and honesty emerged as the two most critical shared norms for the community. By moving the discussion away from "whether" to house refugees and toward these shared functional goals, the trajectory effectively identified a "middle ground" for future policy.

The most profound effect of the trajectory was the creation of a new bubble, a safe deliberative space where residents could break their self-imposed silence. For many participants, the group dialogues were the first time in months they had engaged in a meaningful, respectful conversation with "different thinkers" [25]. Residents reported that hearing the personal stories of their neighbours helped them understand why others held differing views, fostering mutual empathythat had been absent during the spring protests.

Despite this progress, the trajectory revealed that the community "wound" was deeper than initially anticipated. The concept of "Old Pain" in villages like Berlicum remains a significant barrier to trust. Participants explicitly stated that the municipality must now move beyond data collection to actively "heal the village" by showing how it has learned from past communication failures.

Administrative Influence

The process concluded with five specific points of administrative advice for the follow-up phase. These include the necessity of establishing clear, non-negotiable frameworks before beginning new location discussions, the preference for small-scale dialogue formats over large "loudest voice" information evenings, and the need for the municipal council to speak with a joint narrative [26]. Ultimately, the trajectory influenced a shift in municipal governance from a top-down administrative task to a collaborative recovery process.

Analysis and Lessons Learned

The Sint-Michielsgestel Migration Trajectory project combined elements seen in Porto Alegre with more modern styles of democratic innovation, which saw the use of an independent and multi-channel trajectory in the hopes of community recovery and connection. To evaluate the strengths and limitations of this project, Graham Smith’s analytical framework of ‘democratic goods’ will be employed [27] (reference; gh smith). Smith’s framework examines 6 key democratic goods: inclusiveness, popular control, considered judgment, transparency, efficiency, and transferability.

Regarding inclusiveness, the SMG trajectory was particularly successful and achieved a high level of formal inclusion by using a dual-track survey model: stage one sent out 12,300 invitations to every household with unique codes for the closed survey. To increase inclusiveness, stage 2 allowed residents without a code to participate in the open survey. Furthermore, to ensure presence reflected the municipal concerns, researchers used the next birthday person technique to avoid age bias and applied ranking, which used multiplicative weighting to correct. This allowed for better representation for lower socio-economic groups and reduced gender and age bias, with a 49.7% woman to 50.3% men ratio on average [28]. Regarding the invitations used for selection, citizens could take part in a short 20-minute digital survey. To supplement the digital survey, 6 in-person intensive group dialogues were held in each village centre. Therefore, the risk of a “digital divide” [29][10], which reinforces participation differentials, was reduced. Incentive mechanisms, such as dialogues having free meals of soup and sandwiches, therefore facilitate the participation of individuals of lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Additionally, the PWE was designed to be completed in just 20-minutes and was rated by 79% of participants as easy to understand [30]. This means that the survey overcame differences in education and allowed for an equal understanding of the issues and provided high levels of inclusion during the case study.

Considered judgment requires participants to understand technical complexities and appreciate diverse social perspectives, an exercise Hannah Arendt calls "enlarged mentality". The SMG trajectory facilitated this through the PWE (Participatory Value Evaluation) methodology, which tasked residents with "sitting in the policymaker's chair" to allocate limited points across competing goals. In the face-to-face phase, SMG dialogues used an informal soup and sandwiches setting to foster empathy, allowing residents to hear the "scars" and experiences of those with opposing views without the pressure of reaching a consensus. Furthermore, civil servants were excluded, and there was no requirement for consensus at these meetings. Therefore, issues such as the “bandwagon effect” [31][11], causing polarisation, did not occur due to a lack of competition and the nature of the safe space. Each six-village dialogue began with a 1-hour systematic explanation of the participation process; information was provided by independent parties such as Populytics and Public Mediation rather than civil servants, making sure the data was perceived as objective and unfiltered. Additionally, the online section had on-demand information with each policy having ‘help’ buttons to provide information on current situations, refugee shelters and categories of refugees. Therefore, strong levels of considered judgment were shown throughout this process, and it should be used as a reference for the future.

Popular control measures the degree of citizen influence over the decision-making process. In SMG, popular control was strictly bounded: the "whether" of refugee reception was non-negotiable due to the national Distribution Act, meaning citizens were excluded from the problem-definition stage. Control was granted only over the modalities of reception, size, duration, and distribution. However, the trajectory results are formally defined as advisory background information for the executive board and municipal council. Additionally, a 59% majority preference for several smaller shelters spread across the municipality for a maximum of 5 years was deduced [32]. This lacks authority due to its informative nature not being legally binding. Therefore, there is a distinct lack of popular control, which is a common limitation in incumbent innovations and is the result of a trade-off between democratic goods, with inclusion, and considered judgment taking a greater demand in comparison to popular control.

Transparency involves the openness of proceedings to both participants and the wider public.

Internally, transparency was open with the municipality being honest on the non-negotiables due to the National Distribution Act. The survey attempted to avoid false expectations by clearly outlining the choices that could still be made, such as the size, locations and duration of stay. Furthermore, the use of independent organisations to conduct the research allowed for no substantive municipal influence over the findings. Regarding external transparency, the SMG trajectory was highly transparent in its methodology, providing a 7-part FAQ that explained the research logic and the necessity of excluding a "pro/con" question to avoid raising false expectations. Additionally, the process was highly publicised with posters and invitations going to every household. Furthermore, the findings were consolidated and reported back to the council; also, the trajectory published its findings and included the production of a film featuring the residents’ voices to visually and audibly communicate the community perspectives. Therefore, as Gastil and Knoblock argued, achieving a robust public information campaign is essential in maintaining legitimacy for democratic innovation [33]. However, internal transparency faced a "legitimacy gap," as 20% of participants felt they could not express their true opinion because they assumed the previous AZC plan was already set in motion [34]. Overall, the SMG trajectory achieved high levels of transparency.

Efficiency considers the costs and burdens placed on both citizens and authorities. SMG’s digital PWE was highly efficient, requiring only 20 minutes of a resident's time while generating statistically reliable data. The administrative cost was managed by targeting 12,300 households rather than every individual, which the municipality justified as a careful use of public funds. Furthermore, the Populytics commission for the PWE and Public Mediation for the dialogues streamlined the process and can be considered a high benefit-to-cost ratio. Additionally, the use of human-AI hybrid analysis allowed for a great reduction in data sorting [35]. The group dialogues, though time-consuming at three hours, provided a high benefit-to-cost ratio by creating a "safe environment" through the deliberate exclusion of civil servants. As Beetham argues, democratic innovation must respect the “economy of time” [36]. The SMG’s dual-track model accommodates the different levels of commitment. The PWE survey only took 20 minutes of time and was designed for simplicity by trading off complex analysis for an intuitive digital choice task. Although the group dialogues were significantly more demanding, taking up three hours of time. However, the municipality mitigated part of this burden by providing an informal meal before the sessions. Therefore, the digital survey has a very high benefit-to-cost ratio, but the group dialogue stage has less. However, the attempt to mitigate through meals and the provision of a safe discussion environment can be seen as more beneficial than the cost.

Furthermore, the dialogue sessions were only hosted once per village centre in 2025, but there are plans for follow-up sessions in early 2026. Therefore, the efficiency will decrease as time passes due to continued demands as more rounds of discussion happen. Overall, the SMG trajectory has been an efficient process and demonstrates how E-democracy and AI can streamline democratic innovation when used correctly [37].

Transferability assesses whether a design can operate across different scales, systems, and issues. Smith states that widespread effective citizen participation is “limited by scale” [38]; the SMG trajectory challenged this through its digital-deliberative hybrid design. When applying Dolowitz and Marsh’s criteria [39][15], the SMG trajectory is an example of emulation and inspiration, with the PWE methodology already being applied in five other Dutch municipalities. Additionally, the use of human-AI hybrid data management creates an effective framework for scalability and could easily be used in larger projects. However, this method does lack qualitative information due to its simplicity and would require supporting qualitative practices like group discussions to strengthen findings. Furthermore, the SMG findings suggest that historical village-specific grievances, like those in Berlicum, act as a cultural barrier that requires contextual adaptation. Therefore, for effective transferability, the designs need to be applied to specific types of issues and manage cultural sensitivity. Ultimately, the digital-deliberative hybrid design has strong transferability with adjustments to enable effective inclusion and considered judgment in each location.

Ultimately, Sint-Michielsgestel’s trajectory demonstrates that democratic innovations must prioritise community recovery over administrative convenience. By integrating digital Participatory Value Evaluation with village dialogues, the municipality successfully balanced statistical rigour with radical inclusivity. A primary lesson is that independent facilitation is essential for creating safe environments that mitigate self-censorship in polarised climates.

Analysis through Graham Smith’s framework reveals that while the process fostered highly considered judgment, it faced inherent limits in popular control; residents influenced reception modalities to a degree but not the non-negotiable mandate of the Distribution Act. Furthermore, the persistence of cultural and historical grievances highlights that transferability requires deep contextual sensitivity to village-specific grievances. Ultimately, identifying four universal priorities: language, employment, safety, and transparency. Therefore, provides a human-centred roadmap for closing the gap between government and society, transforming social unrest into a foundation for mutual respect.

See Also

References

[1] Municipality of Sint-Michielsgestel (2025) Nota van bevindingen Participatietraject Migratie 2025 [Note of Findings Migration Participation Trajectory 2025]. Sint-Michielsgestel: Municipality of Sint-Michielsgestel: p. 2

[2] Municipality of Sint-Michielsgestel (2025) Nota van bevindingen Participatietraject Migratie 2025 [Note of Findings Migration Participation Trajectory 2025]. Sint-Michielsgestel: Municipality of Sint-Michielsgestel: p. 5

[3] Municipality of Sint-Michielsgestel (2025) Nota van bevindingen Participatietraject Migratie 2025 [Note of Findings Migration Participation Trajectory 2025]. Sint-Michielsgestel: Municipality of Sint-Michielsgestel: p. 7

[4] Public Mediation (2025) Findings from group discussions: Group discussions on migration. [online] 18 November. p.5

[5] Public Mediation (2025) Findings from group discussions: Group discussions on migration. [online] 18 November. p.8

[7] Public Mediation (2025) Findings from group discussions: Group discussions on migration. [online] 18 November. p.7

[8] Municipality of Sint-Michielsgestel (2025) Nota van bevindingen Participatietraject Migratie 2025 [Note of Findings Migration Participation Trajectory 2025]. Sint-Michielsgestel: Municipality of Sint-Michielsgestel: p. 2

[9] Populytics (2025) Results of a survey among residents on the broad theme of migration: A study for the municipality of Sint-Michielsgestel. Amsterdam: Populytics. p.5

[10] Boxebeld, Sander, Niek Mouter, and Job van Exel. “Participatory Value Evaluation (PVE): A New Preference-Elicitation Method for Decision Making in Healthcare.” Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 22, no. 2 (2023): 145–54. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-023-00859-9; p. 148

[11] Populytics (2025) Results of a survey among residents on the broad theme of migration: A study for the municipality of Sint-Michielsgestel. Amsterdam: Populytics. p.65

[12] Populytics (2025) Results of a survey among residents on the broad theme of migration: A study for the municipality of Sint-Michielsgestel. Amsterdam: Populytics. p.12

[13] Populytics (2025) Results of a survey among residents on the broad theme of migration: A study for the municipality of Sint-Michielsgestel. Amsterdam: Populytics. p.65

[14] Populytics (2025) Results of a survey among residents on the broad theme of migration: A study for the municipality of Sint-Michielsgestel. Amsterdam: Populytics. p.11

[15] Populytics (2025) Results of a survey among residents on the broad theme of migration: A study for the municipality of Sint-Michielsgestel. Amsterdam: Populytics. p.11

[16] Populytics (2025) Results of a survey among residents on the broad theme of migration: A study for the municipality of Sint-Michielsgestel. Amsterdam: Populytics. p.1

[17] Populytics (2025) Results of a survey among residents on the broad theme of migration: A study for the municipality of Sint-Michielsgestel. Amsterdam: Populytics. p.12

[18] Populytics (2025) Results of a survey among residents on the broad theme of migration: A study for the municipality of Sint-Michielsgestel. Amsterdam: Populytics. p.27

[19] BUNYULA, L., LUNGISA, S. and MATHENTAMO, Q., 2025. Municipal employee perceptions on the use of artificial intelligence to perform their work. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 28(1), p. 1

[20] Public Mediation (2025) Findings from group discussions: Group discussions on migration. [online] 18 November. p.5

[21] Public Mediation (2025) Findings from group discussions: Group discussions on migration. [online] 18 November. p.14

[22] Populytics (2025) Results of a survey among residents on the broad theme of migration: A study for the municipality of Sint-Michielsgestel. Amsterdam: Populytics. p.55

[23] Populytics (2025) Results of a survey among residents on the broad theme of migration: A study for the municipality of Sint-Michielsgestel. Amsterdam: Populytics. p.55

[24] Populytics (2025) Results of a survey among residents on the broad theme of migration: A study for the municipality of Sint-Michielsgestel. Amsterdam: Populytics. p.25

[25] Public Mediation (2025) Findings from group discussions: Group discussions on migration. [online] 18 November. p.3

[26] Public Mediation (2025) Findings from group discussions: Group discussions on migration. [online] 18 November. pp 4-5

[27] Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (Theories of Institutional Design). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[28] Populytics (2025) Results of a survey among residents on the broad theme of migration: A study for the municipality of Sint-Michielsgestel. Amsterdam: Populytics. p.12

[29] Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (Theories of Institutional Design). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p.85.

[30] Populytics (2025) Results of a survey among residents on the broad theme of migration: A study for the municipality of Sint-Michielsgestel. Amsterdam: Populytics. p.57

[31] Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (Theories of Institutional Design). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P.18

[32] Populytics (2025) Results of a survey among residents on the broad theme of migration: A study for the municipality of Sint-Michielsgestel. Amsterdam: Populytics. p.65

[33] Gastil, J. and Knobloch, K. R. (2010). Evaluation Report to the Oregon State Legislature on the 2010 Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review.

[34] Populytics (2025) Results of a survey among residents on the broad theme of migration: A study for the municipality of Sint-Michielsgestel. Amsterdam: Populytics. p.68

[35] BUNYULA, L., LUNGISA, S. and MATHENTAMO, Q. (2025). Municipal employee perceptions on the use of artificial intelligence to perform their work. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 28, p. 1

[36] Beetham, D. (1999) Democracy and Human Rights. Cambridge: Polity Press. pp 8-9

[37] BUNYULA, L., LUNGISA, S. and MATHENTAMO, Q. (2025). Municipal employee perceptions on the use of artificial intelligence to perform their work. South African Journal of Economic and Management Sciences, 28, p. 1

[38] Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (Theories of Institutional Design). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp.26

[39] Dolowitz, D. P. and Marsh, D. (2000) ‘Learning from abroad: The role of policy transfer in contemporary policy-making’, Governance, 13(1), pp. 5–6

External Links

https://denkmeeovermigratie.raadpleging.net

Notes

N/A

Contributor Positionality Statements