Suggest a Case, Method or Organization

Help grow the Participedia community by suggesting a potential Case, Method or Organization that you think should be added to the site. 

In the forum comment box below, please provide a name, brief description and preferably a link to the Case, Method or Organization you would like to suggest. 

Definitions

CASE: Articles about Cases include examples of participatory politics and governance of all shapes and sizes. Cases can be contemporary or historical, completed or ongoing.

METHOD: Articles about Methods provide information on the many processes used to guide innovations in participatory politics and governance, such as citizen juries, deliberative polling and participatory budgeting.

ORGANIZATION: Articles about Organizations provide profiles of formal and informal groups that design, implement or support innovations in participatory politics and governance.

Original message from Mark Warren:

The importance of this use of deliberative polling, it appears, is that its sponsored by a national government, as advisory to a national government. We don't have many cases with this kind of scope.  It's interesting that the article notes that "town meetings" have lost the trust of the people... I wonder if there's any research to back up this claim.  Read the article here: http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ201206200046

Original message from Iain Walker, NewDemocracy Foundation (http://www.newdemocracy.com.au): 

City of Canada Bay Council: on Saturday May 5th, we delivered the first of five meetings of the Citizens’ Panel which will agree the range and level of services, and how they should be funded. This spans the Council’s entire $74m annual budget for a four year period commencing mid 2013. The panel of randomly selected citizens have full access to not only the cost of all current services, but the ability to request staff and other experts to come along to answer their questions. We secured a 9-0 vote at Council to deliver this process and the commitment that their recommendations will be enacted in full pending a final vote of the Council.

More information can be found here:

http://www.newdemocracy.com.au/docs/City%20of%20Canada%20Bay_newDemocrac...

Original message from Iain Walker, NewDemocracy Foundation (http://www.newdemocracy.com.au): 

NSW Parliament Public Accounts Committee: commencing June 16th, 2012 we will run a similar process to the council process as part of an Inquiry into the Economics of Electricity Generation in NSW. This project was driven by a State MP, Jonathan O’Dea, actively seeking new options to build trust in public decisions. The Australian Financial Review will be covering the story which will likely run this Friday or Saturday.

More information can be found here:

http://www.newdemocracy.com.au/docs/Public%20Accounts%20Committee_newDem...

Found this article online "Ensuring Constitution Amendment and Participatory Democracy"

 http://dailyindependentnig.com/2012/07/ensuring-constitution-amendment-a...

Greetings:

I'd like to suggest the following case for Participedia:

 Citizens' Dialogue on the Long-term Management of Used Nuclear Fuel in Canada (2004), http://www.cprn.org/doc.cfm?doc=1050 

This was a CPRN dialogue which used the Choicework Dialogue method.

 

Greetings:

I'd like to suggest a case on the following:

Citizens' Dialogue on Canada’s Future (2002), http://www.cprn.org/doc.cfm?l=en&doc=359

This was a CPRN dialogue.

Greetings:

I'd like to suggest a case on the following:

Citizens' Dialogue on Sharing Public Funds for a Better Canada (2005-2006),  http://www.cprn.org/doc.cfm?doc=1422

This was a CPRN dialogue.

Greetings:

I'd like to suggest a case on the following:

Canada. Parliament. House of Commons Sub-Committee on Persons with Disabilities Public Consultations (2002-2003), http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/Committee/372/HUMA/Reports/RP1032289/h...

Greetings:

I'd like to suggest a case on the following:

Canada. Parliament. Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, Public Consultations on Mental Health, Mental Illness and Addiction Services in Canada (2003-2005).

Report: Part 1: http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/391/soci/rep/pdf/rep02may06p...

Report: Part 2: http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/SEN/Committee/391/soci/rep/pdf/rep02may06p...

 

"The World Wide Views on Global Warming."You can read about it here http://www.wwviews.org/

 

There is a book written about WWV with the title Citizen Participation in Global Environmental Governance. It is available for purchase athttp://www.amazon.com/Citizen-Participation-Global-Environmental-Governance/dp/1849713782

 

Excerpt from a 2008 Honors thesis by Karen Fung: 

"Among many of its effects, information and communication technologies (ICTs) are being examined for their effects on the world's democratic practices and governments. Att he same time, the impacts of ICTs are not felt simply in one area our lives in isolation -as they bring changes to several areas of our life at once, the effects interact with each other in altering our expectations, norms, relationships and daily practices. As changes occur in one part of our life, more individuals are exploring both the potential benefits and drawbacks of applying the logic associated with processes that have been altered by ICTs, in the pursuit of social innovation, to other fields and areas. I will illustrate this through an examination of Toronto Transit Camp – a self-organizing collaborative face-to-face event organized by a Toronto area technology community – exploring its outcomes as expressed by participants of the event, and the event itself as an example of the evolving relationship between technology, citizenship and civic engagement."

See: http://ubc.academia.edu/KarenFung/Papers/110832/Social_Change_New_Media_and_Everyday_Makers_A_Case_Study_of_Toronto_Transit_Camp

 

This initiative was organized in 2012 by New Hampshire Listens for the NH Water Sustainability Commission. It involved approximately 250 participants.

See http://www.carseyinstitute.unh.edu/nhlistens/water.htm

The staff of New Hampshire Listens would be happy to share information with anyone who would like to prepare a case study of this project. You can reach them at NH.Listens@unh.edu .

New Hampshire Listens works at the local and state level to facilitate and support civil, public deliberation of complex, polarizing issues. 

In 2010, New Hampshire Listens worked with the New Hampshire Gaming Study Commission to gather board citizen input to inform the policy question of whether or not to expand legalized gambling in NH. In February, eighteen small group conversations were held in ten different locations across the state. There was a relatively wide range of views held by those who participated. The project involved approximately 270 residents.

The final report can be found at http://www.carseyinstitute.unh.edu/docs/WAS-Final-Report-April-20-2010.pdf

The staff of New Hampshire Listens would be happy to share information with anyone who would like to prepare a case study of this project. You can reach them at NH.Listens@unh.edu .

New Hampshire Listens works at the local and state level to facilitate and support civil, public deliberation of complex, polarizing issues. 

 

In 2011,  New Hampshire Listens worked with the NH Office of Energy and Planning (OEP) and the NH Department of Resources and Economic Development (DRED) to learn more about citizens’ views on opportunities for outdoor recreation at the local and state level. The citizen input from our sessions will be used by OEP and DRED to develop priorities for the NH Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) currently under revision. In October, over 170 residents met in small group conversations that were held in seven different locations across the state. The final report has been submitted to NH OEP and the NH DRED and will be available soon on the NH Listens website. The project involved approximately 225 residents

The staff of New Hampshire Listens would be happy to share information with anyone who would like to prepare a case study of this project. You can reach them at NH.Listens@unh.edu .

New Hampshire Listens works at the local and state level to facilitate and support civil, public deliberation of complex, polarizing issues.

 

In 2011, New Hampshire Listens was asked to provide technical assistance for a multi-year project connecting schools and community school redesign that promotes student=centered learning. NH Listens worked with the Pittsfield Youth Workshop (PYW), a community partner to the Pittsfield School District seeking to engage Pittsfield residents about a District Level Systems Change proposal to the Nellie Mae Education Foundation. The PYW has been working to involve all community members, especially youth, in the betterment of the community as a whole and has been leading a process where everyone is invited to share their experiences, challenge what isn’t working, and offer support.

PYW is building a foundation of community engagement and input for future planning (Pittsfield Listens) and convening community conversations to inform big changes, create action steps, and provide recommendations for long-term change. Reports on this project are forthcoming.

The project involved approximately 300 residents.

The staff of New Hampshire Listens would be happy to share information with anyone who would like to prepare a case study of this project. You can reach them at NH.Listens@unh.edu .

New Hampshire Listens works at the local and state level to facilitate and support civil, public deliberation of complex, polarizing issues.

This process seems to be quite well known for community planning processes

This appears to be a high quality process, unusual for it's comprehensiveness, across policy areas, across groups and populations, and across the State of Tasmania

We should have an overview of the use of games in citizen engagement and democratic innovation. Two quick examples can be found in the work of (1) Innovation Games (see also this article about Innovation Games in BusinessWeek); And the work of Eric Gordon and Engagement Game Lab at Emerson College.

Some of the examples cited in the Business Week article would also make for good Case entries in Participedia.

The Engagement Game Lab (EGL) is an applied research lab at Emerson College focusing on the development and study of games, technology, and new media to enhance civic life. The EGL works directly with its partner communities to innovate civic engagement processes, augment stakeholder deliberation, and broaden the diversity of participants in local decision-making.

This  may need to be written up as both a case and a method.

From the project's website: Participatory Chinatown is a 3-D immersive game designed to be part of the master planning process for Boston’s Chinatown. Residents assumed the role of one of 15 virtual residents and worked to complete their assigned quest—finding a job, housing, or place to socialize. Sometimes the language skills, income level, or other circumstances of their resident made their task more challenging. Residents were then tasked with considering the future of the neighborhood by walking through and commenting on proposed development sites. This game-style meeting is a recognized process of  the 2010 Chinatown Master Plan. This game was a partnership between the Engagement Game Lab (EGL), the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC), the non-profit Asian Community Development Corporation (ACDC), and Muzzy Lane Software (ML).

 

In 2012 a NSW Parliamentary Committee (which is composed of MPs) investigating Energy Reform undertook two citizens’ juries as part its inquiry  process.  For more details see the Committee’s report which documents the process and how the citizens’ recommendations were fed into the MPs formal deliberations http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/89C00DF09237A998CA257951000A7C66

Dr. Carolyn Hendrix is analyzing this work:

Dr Carolyn M. Hendriks

Crawford School of Public Policy

Building 132, Lennox Crossing 

The Australian National University

Canberra ACT 0200 Australia

 

Tel: +61 2 6125 7557

Email: carolyn.hendriks@anu.edu.au

Web: http://crawford.anu.edu.au/crawford_people/content/staff/chendriks.php

Tel: +61 2 6125 7557

Fax: +61 2 6125 5570

Email: carolyn.hendriks@anu.edu.au

Web: http://crawford.anu.edu.au/crawford_people/content/staff/chendriks.php

In 2012 a  local council in Sydney (Canada Bay) convened as series of citizens’ panels to consider service delivery priorities and budgets http://www.newdemocracy.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=186&Itemid=127

ORGANIZATION: Janwani meaning Voice of the people is a social initiative of MCCIA – Pune. It  was formed in 2006. The objective was to advocate and promote equitable and sustainable development in the city. Simply put, to address the issues of growth and make Pune a better place to live and work

The Pune Municipal Corporation initiated the Participatory Budgeting project in 2006 but acheived little success. Post intervention by Janwani, the participation increased by 400% -Here are the details: http://janwani.org/site/projects/e-governance-project/

The government of Estonia has teamed with nonprofit organizations to develop Rahvakogu, People's Assembly, http://www.rahvakogu.ee/  . Rahvakogu combines an online e-petition service with in-person citizen deliberation by a random or representative sample of citizens, who deliberate to choose which of several e-petitions that have received the minimum number of votes will be recommended for action by the national parliament.

The first deliberation day was held 6 April 2013, and was organized by Hille Hinsberg of Praxis   http://www.praxis.ee/index.php?id=47&tx_comtool_pi1%5BemployeeId%5D=120   and Urmo Kübar of the Network of Estonian Nonprofit Organizations, Hea Kodanik,   http://www.ngo.ee/kontor

Here are articles and posts about Rahvakogu:  

 

 

 

 Song Of A Citizen -- is a non-profit, non-partisan collaboration of prominent thinkers and artists producing innovative films and videos designed to spark a much-needed upgrade in how we-the-people view our role as citizens -- and to showcase proven methods for transforming ourselves from passive civic spectators into hands-on political problem-solvers.

 

Timeline to Victory - An Agitator's Perspective on How a Community Beat Goliath

Entire aricle with embedded video of news coverage, press links, and photos go to Backbone Campaign version of this article 

Nov. 10, Mine to Park PressOn a beautiful Wednesday, Nov. 10th (2010) King County Executive Dow Constantine hosted a 1pm press conference on the shores of West Seattle with the waves clapping against the bulkhead. Amongst tears and hollers of joy, historic words were spoken. The deserving stars of the day Dow Constantine, Sharon Nelson, Peter Goldmark and many others stepped up to the podium. Even the conflicted Jan Drago had some quaint though somewhat vague remarks that sounded more like a farewell address. CalPortland's Ron Summers, who less than two years ago claimed that nothing would keep the mine from expanding struck a sportsmanlike tone. Of course - $36 million is not $65 million, but it's not chump change.

It was fascinating to see everyone come together. It was also typical that the only folks not actually invited were the rabble (us). Luckily, I found out about it by chance, fetched the puppet and headed in. I have discussed and speculated about only a tiny part of a thirteen year struggle. This fight had so many chapters, fronts, and flanks. Many others have been engaged in the fight longer than I and can tell their version of the story better than I. Though the various flanks in this fight did not always work in perfect harmony, they did in my opinion (and some more politically minded would disagree) never work at cross purposes. It is already an amazing case study of the inter-relationship between legislative, litigation, acquisition, and direct action flanks; and how each has a vital role in delivering victory.

As a reporter confidentially said to me two days before the Martinez decision against Glacier in August of 2009 - "this battle will be decided in the court of public opinion. And we both know where that is going." I wasn't so sure. But in hindsight - I can see that he was right. 

I have compiled, in chronological order (top to bottom) description of the grassroots direct action campaign and how it interwove with political and legal developments. I've included articles of the last couple years and a sampling of the earned media received since the Sutherland quid pro quo lease was granted. I believe it is an inspiring and instructive outline of how the direct action campaign can turn the tide for community interest over corporate power.

I hope you enjoy the journey - and figuratively or literally see yourself in the pictures.

Congratulations all!

Bill Moyer
E.D. Backbone Campaign and proud member of the Mosquito Fleet.

Almost "chronological" - For fun, let's start with last news footage of the Wednesday, Nov. 10 Press Conference announcing Purchase Agreement: Begiining with the End.  FYI - The land in question is now a Publicly Owned PARK!

WATCH NEWS COVERAGE of Final Press Conference Announcing Deal HERE

King 5 News, Nov. 10, 2010

Now for a look at what was happening approximately 2 years prior to our direct action campaign, and a step by step transformation of momentum from defeat to victory from the perspective of Backbone Campaign & Mosquito Fleet:

Anti-bills appear doomed
Vashon Beachcomber, March 28, 2008
Glacier gets OK for Maury Island dock, opponents vow to keep fighting
Vashon Beachcomber, July 9, 2008.
(Permit from Army Corps of Engineers)
State OKs dock for Maury Island gravel mine
Seattle Times, Dec. 2, 2008
"Maury Island mine expansion OK'd"
Seattle PI, Dec. 2, 2008. 
Lease clears way for Maury Island mining project
Seattle Times, Dec. 4, 2008
Glacier gets lease, begins work on Maury pier
Vashon Beachcomber, Dec. 6, 2008
It looked like they had us licked. Legislation to protect Maury Island and failed. Glacier received their Permits from Feds. And then outgoing State Lands Commissioner Doug Sutherland approved a lease of State aquatic lands. Ultimately, long-time community ally County Executive Ron Sims felt he had no choice but to capitulate and grant Glacier a permit for construction, as they had obtained all other permissions and failing to do so would only trigger another lawsuit that the County could not afford. 

Glacier had all the momentum in the courts and in the press. Governor Gregoire wouldn't lift a finger and David Dicks (son of Congressman Norm Dicks) head of Puget Sound Partnership thought it was not a priority, ad a "fait accompli."

THEN (Video Links Only):

Dec. 8, 2008:

VIDEO: Glacier Beach & Flotilla Protest 12-8-08 - KIRO 7 News

IMPORTANT to watch in order to understand the evolution of the coverage.

Jan. 2, 2009 Road Blockades:

VIDEO: Protestors block access to Maury Island mine - 1/02/09 King 5 News

Jan. 4, 2009:

VIDEO: "Poster Child in the Fight to Save Puget Sound" King 5 News

July 16, 2009

VIDEO "Showdown at the Shore" King 5 News

Again - King 5 News, Nov. 10, 2010

VIDEO: FINAL VICTORY - Maury Island will host a Park, NOT an Industrial Gravel Mine

FYI - the land is now a publicly owned park...  David beats Goliath! (again)

 

For the entire commentary, links, photos and analysis, and even a Master's Thesis go HERE

CUorganizer.org has a podcast describing process, editable files for download and a compelling story about how Vashon Island, WA organizers brought a credit union to their community and moved $20 million out of Wall street banks.

See Participatory Budgeting Advances in Lima, But Stalls Elsewhere in Peru, JULY 8, 2013

“A novel political endeavor took place earlier last month in Lima, as just over 17,000 citizens participated in the city’s first consulta ciudadana virtual (virtual citizen consultation) as part of the municipality’s participatory budgeting (PB) process. Across the city, residents used a new online system to vote in the consulta. Although those who participated represent a tiny proportion of the sprawling capital’s population, the consulta is still an impressive innovation with the potential to strengthen public accountability.”

(A Participedia User submitted the following message on September 29, 2013)

The Municipality of Parma have organized a day event where 500 participants
selected partly randomly partly by registration met at a covered stadium to
discuss town issue that must be addressed by the Municipality.
An internet web based platform has being setup for the decision making
process.

David Brinker of Penn State University tells us of this recent environmental public deliberation project in the U.S. state of Oregon: 

Oregon Sea Grant (2008). Listening and learning: Marine reserves coastal community forums. Corvallis, OR: Oregon Sea Grant. Here are some related documents:

 

The People’s Assembly is a deliberative democracy tool, designed to encourage input from citizens on the government’s legislative agenda. This web-based platform allows ordinary citizens to propose policy solutions to problems including fighting corruption. Within 3 weeks, 1,800 registered users posted nearly 6,000 ideas and comments. Parliament has since set a timetable for the most popular proposals to be introduced in the formal proceedings.

https://www.rahvakogu.ee

The Health Parliament, held in Israel in 2003, is described in Guttman (2007). Bringing the Mountain to the Public: Dilemmas and Contradictions in the Procedures of Public Deliberation Initiatives That Aim to Get ‘‘Ordinary Citizens’’ to Deliberate Policy Issues. Communication Theory, 17, 411-438. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00305.x

Summary, from Guttman, p. 418:

'An Israeli initiative called the Health Parliament was launched in 2003; it was a new collaborative venture between the Gertner Institute for Epidemiology and Health Policy Research, which initiated the project, the Israel Ministry of Health, the Zippori Community Education Center, and the Department of Communication and the Cohen Institute of Public Opinion at Tel Aviv University to create a nationwide forum in which citizens would discuss policy issues and present them to policy makers. Over a period of 5 months, participants met in six regional groups, with about 20 participants per group. Participants were asked to consider four healthcare policy questions. All groups met in a final assembly, attended by the minister of health and senior healthcare officials. As in other public deliberation initiatives, the Health Parliament employed various practices and procedures aimed to meet normative participative ideals. The difficulties in adopting procedures to meet participative ideals were evident in the extensive discussions among the team members who designed and implemented the Health Parliament.'

Health Care Dialogue was an online deliberation that took place in the U.S. in 2004-2005. It is described in Zhang, W. (2012). Perceived procedural fairness in deliberation: Predictors and effects. Communication Research. Published online prior to print publication. doi:10.1177/0093650212469544

Summary, from Zhang (2012), pp. 6-7 :

"[...] the Health Care Dialogue project [was] a multiwave panel project lasting roughly 1 year during 2004-2005. The project employed a stratified samplingstrategy, such that the final baseline sample represents both a general population sample of adult citizens (aged 18 or older) and a purposive sample of health care policy elites with special experience, knowledge, and influence in the domain of health care policy and reform. [...]  only some of the invited respondents actually attended at least one of the discussions in one of the 80 online groups (N = 614; 123 elites, 491 citizens) [...] The online groups were designed to consist of 6 to 10 people, with participants meeting for about 1 hour to discuss health care issues. The group deliberations, which happened in an online chat room, were moderated by a trained moderator (a graduate student from the communication major) who has gone through multiple rounds of trainings. During the trainings of moderators, they were taught how to use the software to lead discussions, how to follow a standardized discussion guideline, and how to make sure equal opportunities are given to all participants (e.g., ask silent members for their opinions). All the discussionswere recorded in a text format. Respondents were asked to fill out an end-of-project survey after all the discussions finished. [...]"

Deliberative Methods Demonstration – Executive Summary of Findings Now Available!

We are pleased to announce the first posting of the findings from AHRQ’s Community Forum Deliberative Methods Demonstration. The Executive Summary of the report on this demonstration is now available at: http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/who-is-involved-in-the-effective-health-care-program1/ahrq-community-forum/#deliberative

The Community Forum Deliberative Methods Demonstration was a five-arm controlled trial examining the effectiveness of public deliberation and comparing alternative approaches. The most comprehensive evaluation of deliberative methods to date, it provides insights regarding an issue central to AHRQ’s research. The primary goals of the demonstration were to:

·        Inform AHRQ research programs on public views regarding the use of research evidence in health care decision making, and

·        Guide future work in deliberative methods by formally evaluating its effectiveness and identifying feasible choices among approaches to public deliberation.

Fielded in 2012, the Community Forum Deliberative Methods Demonstration convened 76 groups -- more than 1,000 participants -- in four locations across the country.  The groups reflected the diversity of local populations in terms of racial, ethnic, and sociodemographic background. Participants were randomly assigned to four different types of deliberative methods or a reading-materials-only control.  The deliberative methods included an exclusively online method and in-person approaches that varied in length and intensity.

Findings from the Deliberative Methods project are summarized in the Executive Summary. The full report will be available in early 2014.

Those results from a 15-nation study are described in greater detail at www.workdemoc.org

Yes, the Estonian case is critical. Here's a newer link with relevant contacts:

http://www.ngo.ee/ngo/247/article/8586

Walter and Gruber describe the Vienna Charter event, in a paper being presented at IPSA 2014:

https://www.ipsa.org/my-ipsa/events/montreal2014/paper/participatory-inn...

Participatory Innovations in Heterogeneous Societies: The Case of the “Vienna Charter”

Author: Mr. Florian Walter Co-Authors: Dr. Oliver Gruber

With the number of participatory innovations (from deliberative to more direct initiatives) increasing worldwide, one major scholarly concern regards the exclusion of deprived groups from the demanding processes of participatory democracy. In contemporary Western societies, immigrants are an embodiment of such a deprived group, oftentimes facing precarious legal situations and lacking economic, cultural and social capital – which effectively increases their likelihood of political marginalization.

Responding to these exclusionary trends, in 2012 the municipal government of Vienna introduced a project named the “Vienna Charter”. Its goal was to collect the “basic principles for good neighbourly relations” in a city historically characterized by ethnic and religious diversity. The project’s innovative aspect was its participatory character: By inviting all citizens to join public discussions, the municipality intended to merge the expressed principles of coexistence into a common set of informal rules.

In our paper we examine the “Vienna Charter” as a participatory innovation. Based on four criteria (initial goals, invested resources, thematic focus and target groups), we confront the basic concept of the project with its implementation, identifying prospects and limits of municipal-level participatory initiatives. Furthermore, the findings on the input are critically contrasted to the output generated by the project. Applying a process-tracing technique, we conduct a document analysis of discussion protocols, motivation letters, etc. as well as qualitative interviews with both, project organizers and participants.

 

This article includes brief descriptions and links to more information about several sample cases and organizations that it would be good to add to Participedia.

http://iap2.site-ym.com/?CV2014  

 

 

Nominees for and recipients of the 9th Edition (March 26, 2015) of the IOPD Distinction for Best Practices in Citizens’ Participation.

The IOPD is the International Observatory on Participatory Democracy. (Or, L’Observatori Internacional de la Democràcia Participativa). Thirty-two local governments representing sixteen countries were nominated,  including: Argentina, Brazil, China, Colombia, Ecuador, Spain, France, Italy, Madagascar, Mexico, Mozambique, Niger, Peru, Portugal, Romania and Uruguay.

IOPD’s International Jury awarded the top award to Quart de Poblet (Valencia, Spain): “Open City Council.”

Initiatives offered a Special Mention were:

1. Méhanna (Niger)

2. Municipality of Alakamisy Fenoarivo (Madagascar)

3. Municipality of Cluj-Napoca (Romania)

4. Municipality of Turin (Italy).

Descriptions of the cases can be found in the this publication. Most are in Spanish, with a few in English and other languages:  http://www.oidp.net/fileadmin/documents/Distincio_Bones_Practiques/9D/9-...

The organization called The Forests Dialogue   http://theforestsdialogue.org/  organizes participatory planning events concerning forests; that organization, their methods, and their events could be added to Participedia.

I just learned about a participatory monitoring methodology called Community Score Card, developed by CARE International and their team at CARE Malawi during the 2000s:  http://governance.care2share.wikispaces.net/The+Community+Score+Card+CoP They are using this methodology in a UN Sustainable Development Goal partnership called "Everyone Counts: Using citizen-generated data to monitor progress against the SDGs", https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/partnership/?p=11910 This methodology might be suitable for a "Methods" page on Participedia, and some of the case studies located at  http://governance.care2share.wikispaces.net/CSC+Case+Studies%2C+Briefs%2C+Reports%2C+Videos   might be suitable for cases in Participedia. One article describing this methodology is: Jacobs, A. (2010). Creating the missing feedback loop. IDS Bulletin, 41(6), 56-64. Retrieved from: https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/123456789/7875

The new book by Stromseth et al. (2017) has a lot of new information about participatory governance in China:

http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/politics-international-rel...

There are likely cases and methods described in the book that are not yet in Participedia database.

The new edition of the Hertie School's Governance Report (2017) is on democratic innovations, and might describe cases or methods that are not yet in Participedia:

https://www.hertie-school.org/en/governancereport/governance-report-2017...

Hello:

The European Citizens' Initiative has both a method page and a case page. It's not a method (which means an abstract description of a set of practices or procedures), but a case (which means an implementation of one or more methods), because it is an implementation (of a method, the petition). I recommend that the method page be removed. Thanks for considering this.

The method called Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation does not seem to be represented in the Participedia database. Some sources on this method include Estrella and Gaventa (1998), https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/123456789/3388 ; World Bank (2002), http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTPCENG/214574-1116505633693/20509339/communitybased.pdf ; Villaseñor et al. (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-016-1184-9