Problems and Purpose

Participatory budgeting in Kraków was launched in 2014 to deepen democratic engagement and give citizens a real stake in city spending. It addresses the gap between residents and officials by inviting Krakowians to co-decide on how a designated share of the municipal budget is used

The city of Kraków itself did not face any big specific issues, however, it faced certain challenges common to many large urban areas: declining trust in political institutions, low civic engagement, and a sense among citizens that public spending decisions were not transparent enough and unresponsive to local needs.

As city officials explain, participatory budgeting (PB) is “a mechanism of the highest level of citizen participation” that enables residents to “truly co-decide on the spending of part of the local budget” and fosters an open approach to addressing community needs [1]. In practice, the program’s goals include empowering citizens to propose and select local improvement projects, increasing transparency in budgeting, and ensuring that public funds reflect residents’ priorities. In sum, Kraków’s PB was designed to give everyday residents a voice in urban planning, to make city government more responsive, and to translate community ideas into tangible local improvements.

Background, History, and Context

Kraków, Poland’s second-largest city with a population of around 800,000, is the historical centre of culture and academia in Poland. Kraków has undergone significant transformations in its approach to civic engagement and urban governance. The legacy of the USSR occupation left an enduring impact on the Polish society, fostering a centralised governance model that often limited and discouraged citizen participation in decision-making processes. This historical context contributed to a post-communist environment where rebuilding trust in public institutions and encouraging civic involvement became increasingly important.

In 2013, Kraków initiated pilot participatory budgeting (PB) schemes in select districts, marking the city's first steps toward involving residents directly in budgetary decisions. These early experiments laid the groundwork for a more expansive city-wide implementation in 2014, aligning with a broader national movement toward participatory governance. Notably, Poland stands out as one of the few countries where PB has been formalized by national legislation [2]. Since January 2018, cities with county rights are mandated by law to allocate a minimum of 0.5% of their annual budgets to participatory budgeting processes. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that PB in Poland has not attracted major criticism from conservative political factions. On the contrary, the formalisation of PB at the national level in 2018, requiring cities with county rights to allocate part of their budgets to participatory processes, was enacted during the tenure of the conservative Law and Justice (PiS) party. This, to some extent, suggests that PB enjoys a degree of cross-partisan support in Poland, being recognised not only as a democratic innovation but also as a pragmatic tool for improving transparency and citizen involvement, regardless of ideological alignment

Another bit of context that is important to outline is Kraków’s evolution into a technological hub [3]. Consequently, this has significantly influenced the methods and ways in which PB happens in Kraków (See Methods and Tools Used and Participant Recruitment and Selection). The city has leveraged digital platforms to facilitate project submissions, information dissemination, and voting procedures. This digital shift became even more pronounced in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, which necessitated remote engagement strategies and accelerated the adoption of online tools for civic participation.

Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

Kraków’s PB is organised and funded by municipal authorities, with support from community partners. Key city entities include: the Department of Dialogue, Consultation and Citizen Contact (Wydział Dialogu, Konsultacji i Kontaktu Obywatelskiego), which coordinates the process; a Participatory Budget Team (Zespół ds. BO) appointed by the Mayor, responsible for ensuring the implementation of PB procedures and monitoring project execution; and the Citizens Budget Council (Rada BO), which acts as an advisory body of residents and experts that reviews appeals (for their rejected proposals for example) and advises the Mayor regarding PB matters.

Legally, the framework of PB is set annually by a City Council resolution, which determines the rules for a given edition, followed by a mayoral ordinance that sets the schedule and explains how the process will work.

Supporting the process are various civic organizations and local community groups that help promote participation and assist residents in understanding how to propose projects and vote. These groups often collaborate with the city to organise workshops, informational sessions, and outreach campaigns, helping to bridge the gap between the government and citizens.

Funding for PB projects comes directly from Kraków’s municipal budget, in compliance with the legal requirement that a minimum percentage (0.5%) of the city’s annual budget is allocated for participatory budgeting. During the early years of Kraków’s PB, approximately 4,5 million złoty was allocated for projects; recently, however, the numbers are significantly bigger, with 38 million złoty in 2023 and 46 million złoty in 2024. The funding is split between citywide and district projects, with 20% of the budget going to citywide projects and 80% to district projects. Moreover, to encourage a younger voting base, even schools have been incorporated into Kraków’s PB and are funded. However, these schools receive a comparatively smaller budget of 6,000 złoty, which translates to roughly 1,000 pounds. Students themselves decide where to allocate the funds [4]. In 2024, the city even recruited “ambassadors” in schools and community groups to further mobilise young voters in Kraków.

Participant Recruitment and Selection

Considering this initiative was intended to reach as many people in Kraków as possible, it was open to all citizens regardless of age, gender, and even nationality. The only requirement is living in Kraków, even if you are not originally from there.

The city employs various communication channels, including social media campaigns on Facebook and Instagram, local media outlets, informational posters in public spaces, bus advertisements, and direct engagement through community organisations [5]. These efforts are designed to inform residents about PB timelines, how to submit project proposals, and voting procedures. Additionally, the municipal Department of Dialogue, Consultation, and Citizen Contact works closely with neighbourhood councils and civic groups to mobilise residents, especially in districts where engagement is not as high. As aforementioned, schools are also at the center of Kraków’s PB, to promote the younger population to participate. At the beginning of this process in 2014, however, there was an age requirement (16+) restricting who could participate. However, over time, the rules have evolved to be more inclusive. Now, children are allowed to participate and vote in the PB process with the help or consent of their parents or guardians. It is worth mentioning, however, that this recent change could be a strategic response to historically low participation rates in Kraków’s PB (See Influence, Outcomes, and Effects).

The city of Kraków also hosts offline workshops and informational sessions as part of its Participatory Budgeting (PB) process. These events are organized to educate residents about the PB process, assist them in developing project proposals, and encourage community engagement. The city's official PB platform regularly publishes announcements and schedules for these workshops. Furthermore, online webinars are also available for residents. For instance, in 2021, 8 webinars were organized via MS Teams, discussing how to write projects, with some examples. Moreover, one of these webinar/ online workshops was conducted in English, for internationals [6]. It is worth noting, however, that these online webinars in particular did not gather much attention.

Given the strong reliance on digital tools in Kraków's PB process, older residents, who might be less familiar with online platforms, might have faced difficulties participating fully. Notably, there is no available evidence that specific workshops or support sessions were offered to help this demographic navigate the digital aspects of the process, which might have some negative implications (See Influence, Outcomes, and Effects).

Methods and Tools Used

The overarching method used was Participatory Budgeting (PB), where citizens are tasked with deciding on how a portion of the government's budget should be distributed.

Kraków, with its technology-focused background, especially post-COVID-19, has adopted a multi-channel approach to participatory budgeting, combining both traditional and digital outreach to maximise awareness and participation [7]. The process draws inspiration from the successful implementation of PB in Porto Alegre, Brazil, known for its democratic innovation and governance [8].

Residents participating online are required to create an account on the official PB website to submit project proposals and cast their votes. The registration process includes identity verification to ensure legitimacy and transparency. For offline participation, residents can submit paper forms at municipal offices, libraries, or community centers, where similar verification procedures are in place to maintain the integrity of the process. It is important to mention, however, that in order to submit proposals, participants need to gather 15 signatures from other citizens.

Due to the open-to-all nature of this initiative, many of the proposals may have been unachievable, unrealistic, or undesirable. Consequently, after said proposals are submitted, municipal experts review them for technical feasibility and legal compliance [9]. The Citizens Budget Council also plays an advisory role in reviewing appeals or disputes. The exact percentage of positively verified proposals varies each year, however, the number stays roughly consistent each year. For instance, in 2019, the total of 57% of the submitted PB proposals were positively verified, in 2020—56%, and in 2021—53%, etc.

As aforementioned in the previous section, there are numerous workshops and online webinars for residents, both promoting and explaining how the system works.

Ultimately, projects are selected based on community votes, reflecting the preferences of a wide and diverse participant base. The initiative employs a ranking system, rather than a first-past-the-post (FPTP) or multiple-choice voting system. Voters do not strictly vote for one proposal; they vote for up to 3 city-wide projects, and 3 district projects. Residents have to allocate ‘points’ for their choices, from 1 to 3, with 3 being the maximum number of points you can give to a proposal. Needless to mention, voters cannot assign the same number of points to different proposals. The top-voted projects in the city and each district are selected for implementation.

All submitted proposals and voting results are publicly accessible through the official PB website, allowing residents to track the progress of projects and understand community priorities [10].

What Went On: Deliberation, Decisions, and Public Interaction

Each PB cycle in Kraków follows a structured timeline of stages, combining staff review with public voting. The 2025 schedule serves as an example, as previous years followed a similar structure.

(1) Consultation meetings with residents: late winter, in February

(2) Project submission: February 7 – March 9

(3) Publication of verification results: by June 9

(4) Submission of objections to legal assessment results: June 9–19

(5) Preparation and announcement of the list of projects to be voted on: by July 18

(6) Voting: September 19 – October 3

(7) Announcement of voting results: by October 30

(8) Approval of projects for implementation: by November 14

The participatory budgeting process in Kraków is highly structured and unfolds over several months. Each stage is clearly defined and carefully scheduled. This showcases that participatory budgeting in Kraków is not a quick process, but rather a well-organized and time-intensive democratic exercise [11]. Proposals are reviewed and either positively verified or rejected. Consequently, disappointed applicants may submit an appeal. Kraków holds formal appeal hearings (by late June) where the applicant, representatives of the reviewing unit, members of the Citizens Budget Council, and a district councilor discuss the project.

Before the main phases, however, preliminary workshops (and online webinars) are held for participants to foster broad inclusion and explain the upcoming process. In these workshops, residents can ask questions and facilitators answer them. Participants are informed of every step of the process, how to get involved, the requirements asked of the proposals, the budget allocated for projects (which changes every year), and the general aim of the process.

However, there was no information available, whether Kraków’s PB did workshops with the older generation on how to use the internet. It can be reasonably inferred that Kraków’s participatory budgeting process did not include workshops specifically aimed at teaching older participants how to use the internet. This absence may have negatively affected the participation of older residents, who tend to be less technologically savvy and might have faced challenges navigating the online platforms used for project submission and voting. This could partially explain the reasoning why older residents do not participate as much, compared to other groups. For instance, in 2024, older age groups, for instance those in the range (56-65), participated less in the voting process, constituting only roughly 7% of all voters. In contrast, younger groups, especially those aged 26–35, showed much higher engagement, making up 20% of voters [12]. This disparity suggests that digital barriers likely limited older residents’ ability to participate fully in Kraków’s participatory budgeting. However, it also suggests that whilst Kraków PB’s organisation side includes a lot of advertisement and information campaigns, they are not successful enough. This is because, whilst the older generation might be less technologically savvy in the use of the internet, Kraków still employed multiple in-person locations to cast a vote.

Moreover, whilst there were informational workshops informing residents, there isn’t strong evidence of formal deliberation mechanisms like in-person or online citizen discussion forums or deliberative panels where participants engage in deep discussions or debates about proposals before voting. However, in order to submit proposals, 15 signatures were required; this might have encouraged some informal community deliberation between citizens. So, in short, Kraków’s PB prioritses participation and proposal refinement but lacks formal deliberative stages.

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

Kraków’s PB has produced concrete projects and energised the community. In terms of budget allocations, each year sees a fixed (0.5%) multi-million-złoty investment decided by citizens. By the 11th edition (2024), a record 46 million złoty was spent on PB projects in contrast to 2014, where the budget was 4.5 million złoty. In 2024, for instance, there were 1,100 task proposals submitted, of which 690 projects were put to a vote, including 119 city-wide and 571 district-level projects. In total, in 2024, 72942 residents voted. It is worth noting that in 2024, voter turnout increased significantly compared to previous years. To demonstrate, 69,490 in 2023, 46,095 in 2022, 51,229 in 2021, and 53,647 in 2020 [13]. This growing engagement could be due to several factors, such as improved outreach and communication by the city authorities, increased public trust in the effectiveness of participatory budgeting, and a rising interest among residents in having a direct impact on local development and community projects.

In terms of categories of projects that have won, Green-space projects consistently topped the list: in 2024, 36% of selected projects were environmental/greening initiatives. Other popular themes included infrastructure, culture, and sports. In general, projects focused on improving the quality of life consistently tend to be more popular among participants in Kraków’s participatory budgeting process. However, whilst these initiatives did enhance the overall well-being and liveability of neighbourhoods, they might not always prioritise the needs of the least advantaged. Essential services like health care access and public security, though crucial for vulnerable populations, often received less direct attention in PB projects, potentially reinforcing middle-class preferences. On the other hand, it is crucial to mention the context, which could potentially explain the strong interest in green politics (apart from contemporary trends). To elaborate, according to the report Air Quality in Europe 2018, published on 29 October and based on data collected up to 2016 from around 2,500 cities across 41 countries, Kraków ranks as one of the most polluted cities in Europe [14]. This severe air pollution likely increases public support for environmental and green initiatives in the participatory budgeting process.

In understanding whether Kraków’s participatory budget outcomes can be deemed successful, it is significant to remember the initiative’s original purpose: to increase citizen inclusion and engagement in local politics as outlined in the Problems and Purpose section. Whilst the process has indeed promoted some level of community involvement and dialogue, a closer look at the participation figures reveals a more complicated picture. Although tens of thousands of citizens have participated in the scheme each year, ranging from 50,000 to 70,000, this number must be understood relative to the city’s overall population of approximately 800,000 residents. This means that less than 10% of Kraków’s citizens actually engage in the PB process.

Moreover, certain demographic groups, particularly older residents, participate less actively, as outlined in the previous section. This lower engagement among seniors may be linked to challenges around digital literacy and limited access to the online platforms central to the PB process [15]

Furthermore, the deliberative aspect of the participatory budgeting process faced challenges in achieving its full potential. Opportunities for in-depth discussion and dialogue among participants were relatively limited, which may have constrained the richness of public engagement and the exchange of diverse perspectives. Enhancing these deliberative elements could strengthen the inclusiveness and quality of decision-making in future cycles.

Analysis and Lessons Learned

Whilst Kraków’s participatory budgeting initiative has, to some extent, achieved its stated aims, particularly in fostering civic engagement and integrating residents into local decision-making, there remain certain aspects where further development could enhance its overall effectiveness. To support a critical evaluation of its performance, Graham Smith’s analytical framework of six “democratic goods” will be employed [16]. These criteria are: (1) inclusiveness, (2) popular control, (3) considered judgment, (4) transparency, (5) efficiency, and (6) transferability.

In terms of inclusivity, the initiative made considerable efforts to include groups from all backgrounds. Information and tools are provided in multiple languages–the official PB site even has pages in English, Russian, and Ukrainian, with voting being open to all residents, regardless of age, gender, or nationality. Furthermore, the initiative employed workshops both in person and online, which helped inform the public on how the process works (voting, proposals, etc). However, whilst the city employed various methods with the hopes of elevating participation, the initiative was not as successful as its organizers had hoped it would be. In 2016, voter turnout was 6.8%, in 2017, 4.9%, in 2018, 5.3%, in 2019, 7%, in 2022, 5.9%, and in 2023, 8% [17]. Overall, turnout during the years of the initiative remained consistently below 10%. Whilst the process has indeed promoted some level of community involvement and dialogue, a closer look at the participation figures reveals a more complicated picture. In addition, it is interesting to mention that participation from women in the years 2023 and 2024 was higher compared to men, 56% in both years. However, men were still submitting more proposals for projects.

Participation among older adults, who are generally less familiar with digital technologies, was noticeably lower compared to other age groups. In 2023, for example, residents aged 46–55 (11.8%), 56–65 (7.3%), and 65+ (10.6%) together accounted for just under 30% of total participants, a figure comparable to the 36–45 age group alone (28%). At first glance, this disparity may not seem alarming, yet it highlights a potential barrier: the reliance on digital tools in the participatory budgeting process may have unintentionally excluded some older residents [18]. Whilst informational workshops were offered both online and in person to explain how to submit and vote on proposals, there is no clear evidence that dedicated efforts were made to help older individuals develop the digital skills necessary for participation, which could serve as one of the potential explanatory reason for their, arguably, lower participation.

Furthermore, Kraków’s limited outreach to the most disadvantaged is significant to highlight, particularly given that participatory budgeting was originally conceived as a tool to empower the poor and address their needs directly [19]. Kraków’s own PB model was partially inspired by the pioneering example of Porto Alegre, where the initiative was explicitly aimed at reversing social inequalities and ensuring that public spending reflected the priorities of lower-income communities. In light of this, the lack of deliberate targeted inclusion strategies towards the least advantaged in Kraków may be seen as a significant shortcoming that undermines one of the core principles upon which participatory budgeting was founded. Consequently, this could partially explain why (together with Kraków’s context as a polluted city) green-themed projects consistently receive high amounts of votes. Whilst the city does formally incorporate methods to promote inclusion of ‘’all’’, there are no quotas to ensure that at least the least advantaged are included. Therefore, whilst Kraków’s participatory budgeting process has made strides in expanding citizen involvement, challenges remain in ensuring that participants fully reflect the city’s diverse population; descriptive participation (or descriptive inclusivity) could benefit from further enhancement.

In addition, there are also opportunities to strengthen substantive participation and the quality of considered judgment within the process. To elaborate, participation in Kraków’s PB is often limited to voting on pre-submitted projects, with less emphasis on citizen deliberation, co-creation, or shared learning. Whilst some form of informal deliberation is encouraged, as citizens still need 15 signatures in order to propose projects, there is no formal body where citizens can sit, discuss, and persuade other residents. Consequently, both the capacity to make informed decisions and the process of learning information from other residents are lessened. However, the initiative still provided extensive information and expert help for proposers, and as aforementioned, residents were able to ask questions. Overall, there was little formal deliberation, which greatly hampered considered judgment.

On the other hand, however, the initiative was successful, to a great extent, in fostering popular control. Most of the design choices and agenda setting were purely in the hands of the participants. The city itself describes PB as a process that gives residents decision-making power, since they know their needs best. This description is not far from the truth. In the end, residents control the agenda, submit and choose proposals, with the help of officials who explain how the process works. On the other hand, whilst popular control is relatively significant, there are few nuances. Whilst 0.5% of the budget is not insignificant, the vast majority of Kraków’s public spending still lies outside direct citizen influence. Consequently, this means that ultimately, the implementation of the project lies within the government officials. Furthermore, because proposals must adhere to technical and legal feasibility criteria (e.g., ownership of land, budget caps, alignment with city development plans), many ideas submitted by citizens are filtered or reshaped by municipal departments before reaching the ballot. As mentioned previously, in 2021, for instance, 53% of proposals were positively verified. This means that almost half of the ideas get rejected, or at best, amended, reducing, to some extent, popular control for practical and efficiency-related reasons. Ultimately, during the implementation process, residents can digitally track the progress of projects on PB’s official website, enhancing transparency. Graham Smith [20] argues that implementing PB alone would not be sustainable, as it would result in lists of projects that the governing body cannot execute, thus decreasing trust in the process. Therefore, it can be argued that it is a reasonable trade-off to reduce, to an extent, popular control, particularly in the implementation stage, for efficiency and transparency-related reasons.

Transparency in Kraków’s participatory budgeting process is reasonably strong, particularly in terms of access to information. Apart from the aforementioned website, which allows residents to track progress, Kraków publishes annual reports on PB participation rates and winning projects. These are publicly available and often broken down by district and theme, which contributes to a relatively high degree of institutional openness. However, as Graham Smith has argued, transparency also requires participants to understand the conditions under which they are which, and whether initiatives can be effectively scrutinised by participants and also the wider public. Whilst the rules on submission and voting are explained using multiple methods, it can be reasonably inferred that it is not without reason that almost half of the proposals get consistently rejected. This could suggest that participants, at least a noticeable number of them, do not fully understand the conditions under which they operate. Consequently, this can create confusion or mistrust, particularly among first-time participants who may not be familiar with municipal administrative procedures [21].

In terms of efficiency, Kraków’s PB system has grown considerably since its inception. From an initial 4.5 million złoty budget in 2014 to a record 46 million złoty in 2024, the scaling-up of the programme suggests a functional and maturing institutional process. The process itself is efficient and does not fail to allocate funds to designated projects. However, the growing volume of submissions, over 1,100 in 2024, can place strain on administrative capacities, especially during the verification phase. Some delays and bureaucratic hurdles in project implementation have been reported (as citizens can track the progress of projects), which can weaken citizens’ confidence in the process.

Lastly, Kraków’s participatory budgeting model demonstrates a moderate to high level of transferability. Its digital-first approach and combination of district-level and city-wide voting categories could offer a useful template for other cities, especially considering the fast-paced growth of technology and the internet.

For the purposes of improving this initiative, it is recommended that certain aspects be further refined. Firstly, to support a more inclusive and reflective participatory budgeting process, it would be beneficial to offer digital literacy workshops specifically aimed at older residents, helping them navigate online platforms and participate more confidently. Secondly, deliberate efforts at including the worst off in society, which could be achieved through quota sampling. Finally, adding more space for open discussion and exchange of views could improve the quality of participation, and thus, considered judgment, as there is currently very little deliberation in the process. Overall, increasing the perceived accessibility and improving the inclusion of mass membership groups in PB might help to create a more progressive, effective, and trustworthy participation [22].

See also

Main method - Participatory Budgeting https://participedia.net/method/146

References:

[1] KRKnews. (2023) ‘Budżet Obywatelski Miasta Krakowa ma 10 lat’, KRKnews, 20 March. Available at: https://krknews.pl/budzet-obywatelski-miasta-krakowa-ma-10-lat/ (Accessed: 12 May 2025).

[2] Zawadzka-Pąk, U.K. (2022) ‘Participatory Budgeting as the Instrument of Technologically Supported Dialogue in Cracow, Poland’, TalTech Journal of European Studies, 12(2). Available at: https://doi.org/10.2478/bjes-2022-0009

[3] Zawadzka-Pąk, U.K. (2022) ‘Participatory Budgeting as the Instrument of Technologically Supported Dialogue in Cracow, Poland’, TalTech Journal of European Studies, 12(2). Available at: https://doi.org/10.2478/bjes-2022-0009

[4] KRKnews. (2023) ‘Budżet Obywatelski Miasta Krakowa ma 10 lat’, KRKnews, 20 March. Available at: https://krknews.pl/budzet-obywatelski-miasta-krakowa-ma-10-lat/ (Accessed: 12 May 2025).

[5] Zawadzka-Pąk, U.K. (2022) ‘Participatory Budgeting as the Instrument of Technologically Supported Dialogue in Cracow, Poland’, TalTech Journal of European Studies, 12(2). Available at: https://doi.org/10.2478/bjes-2022-0009

[6] Zawadzka-Pąk, U.K. (2022) ‘Participatory Budgeting as the Instrument of Technologically Supported Dialogue in Cracow, Poland’, TalTech Journal of European Studies, 12(2). Available at: https://doi.org/10.2478/bjes-2022-0009

[7] Zawadzka-Pąk, U.K. (2022) ‘Participatory Budgeting as the Instrument of Technologically Supported Dialogue in Cracow, Poland’, TalTech Journal of European Studies, 12(2). Available at: https://doi.org/10.2478/bjes-2022-0009

[8] KRKnews. (2023) ‘Budżet Obywatelski Miasta Krakowa ma 10 lat’, KRKnews, 20 March. Available at: https://krknews.pl/budzet-obywatelski-miasta-krakowa-ma-10-lat/ (Accessed: 12 May 2025).

[9] Zawadzka-Pąk, U.K. (2022) ‘Participatory Budgeting as the Instrument of Technologically Supported Dialogue in Cracow, Poland’, TalTech Journal of European Studies, 12(2). Available at: https://doi.org/10.2478/bjes-2022-0009

[10] McGirr, D. (2023) Guide to Voting in the Citizens Budget 2023. Kraków Expats Directory, 20 September. Available at: https://krakowexpats.pl/community/guide-to-the-citizens-budget-2023/ (Accessed: 20 May 2025).

[11] Zawadzka-Pąk, U.K. (2022) ‘Participatory Budgeting as the Instrument of Technologically Supported Dialogue in Cracow, Poland’, TalTech Journal of European Studies, 12(2). Available at: https://doi.org/10.2478/bjes-2022-0009~

[12] - Urząd Miasta Krakowa (2024) Wyniki głosowania 2024, Budżet obywatelski miasta Krakowa, 24 October. Available at: https://budzet.krakow.pl/aktualnosci/288152,1909,komunikat,wyniki_glosowania_2024.html (Accessed: 14 May 2025).

[13] Wójkowski, G and Ginejko K. (2023) RAPORT KOŃCOWY. Available at: https://www.bip.krakow.pl/zalaczniki/dokumenty/n/435864/karta

[14] European Environment Agency (2018) Air quality in Europe — 2018 report. Available at: https://www.eea.europa.eu/en/analysis/publications/air-quality-in-europe-2018 (Accessed: 13 May 2025).

[15] Wilson-Menzfeld, G. et al. (2024) ‘Identifying and understanding digital exclusion: a mixed-methods study’, Behaviour & Information Technology, 44(8), pp. 1649–1666. doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2024.2368087.

[16] Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Theories of Institutional Design). Pages: 8-71, 151

[17] Wójkowski, G and Ginejko K. (2023) RAPORT KOŃCOWY. Available at: https://www.bip.krakow.pl/zalaczniki/dokumenty/n/435864/karta

[18] Wilson-Menzfeld, G. et al. (2024) ‘Identifying and understanding digital exclusion: a mixed-methods study’, Behaviour & Information Technology, 44(8), pp. 1649–1666. doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2024.2368087.

[19] Wampler, B. (2012) ‘Participatory Budgeting: Core Principles and Key Impacts’, Journal of Deliberative democracy, 8(2). Available at: https://doi.org/10.16997/jdd.138

.

[20] Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (Theories of Institutional Design). Pages: 8-71, 151

[21] Wilkinson, C., Briggs, J., Salt, K., Vines, J. and Flynn, E., 2019. In participatory budgeting, we trust? Fairness, tactics, and (in) accessibility in participatory governance. Local Government Studies, 45(6), pp.1001-1020. Available at: 10.1080/03003930.2019.1606798

[22] Wilkinson, C., Briggs, J., Salt, K., Vines, J. and Flynn, E., 2019. In participatory budgeting, we trust? Fairness, tactics, and (in) accessibility in participatory governance. Local Government Studies, 45(6), pp.1001-1020. Available at: 10.1080/03003930.2019.1606798

External Links

Main website for the initiative - https://budzet.krakow.pl/