Art Budgeting Participatory budgeting is a process of democratic deliberation and decision-making, in which ordinary city residents decide how to allocate part of a municipal or public budget. Participatory budgeting is usually characterized by several basic design features: identification of spending priorities by community members, election of budget delegates to represent different communities, facilitation and technical assistance by public employees, local and higher level assemblies to deliberate and vote on spending priorities, and the implementation of local direct-impact community projects. Participatory budgeting may be used by towns and cities around the world, and has been widely publicised in
Porto Alegre,
Brazil, were the first full participatory budgeting process was developed starting in 1989.
Development In economic development theory, there is a school of
participatory development. The desire to increase public participation in humanitarian aid and development has led to the establishment of a numerous context-specific, formal methodologies, matrices, pedagogies and ad hoc approaches. These include conscientization and praxis;
Participatory action research (PAR),
rapid rural appraisal (RRA) and participatory rural appraisal (PRA); appreciation influence control analysis (AIC); "open space" approaches;
Objectives Oriented Project Planning (ZOPP);
vulnerability analysis and capacity analysis. Participation in environmental decision-making can link the public more directly to environmental governance. By involving the public, who are at the root of both causes and solutions of environmental problems, in environmental discussions, transparency and accountability are more likely to be achieved, thus securing the democratic legitimacy of decision-making that good environmental governance depends on. Arguably, a strong public participation in environmental governance could increase the commitment among stockholders, which strengthens the compliance and enforcement of environmental laws. GIS can provide a valuable tool for such work (see
GIS and environmental governance). In addition, some opponents argue that the right to participate in environmental decision-making is a procedural right that "can be seen as part of the fundamental right to environmental protection". From this ethical perspective, environmental governance is expected to operate within a framework coinciding the "constitutional principle of fairness (inclusive of equality)", which inevitably requires the fulfillment of "environmental rights" and ultimately calls for the engagement of public. Through joint effort of the government and scientists in collaboration with the public, better governance of environment is expected to be achieved by making the most appropriate decision possible. Although broad agreements exist, the notion of public participation in environmental decision-making has been subject to a sustained critique concerning the real outcome of participatory environmental governance. Critics argue that public participation tends to focus on reaching a consensus between actors who share the same values and seek the same outcomes. However, the uncertain nature of many of the environmental issues would undermine the validity of public participation, given that in many cases the actors come to the table of discussion hold very different perceptions of the problem and solution which are unlikely to be welded into a consensus due to the incommensurability of different positions. This may run the risk of expert bias, which generates further exclusion as those who are antagonistic to the consensus would be marginalised in the environmental decision-making process, which violates the assumed advantage of participatory approach to produce democratic environmental decisions. This raises the further question of whether consensus should be the measure of a successful outcome of participation. As Davies suggests, participative democracy could not guarantee the substantive environmental benefits 'if there are competing views of what the environment should be like and what it is valuable for'. Consequently, who should be involved at what points in the process of environmental decision-making and what is the goal of this kind of participation become central to the debates on public participation as a key issue in environmental governance. Consultation with local communities is acknowledged formally in cultural management processes. They are necessary for defining the significance of a cultural place/site, otherwise you run the risk of overseeing many values, focusing on "experts'" views. This has been the case in heritage management until the end of the 20th century. A paradigm shift started with the Burra Charter by ICOMOS Australia in 1979 and was later developed by the work of the GCI around 2000. Today, so called "value-led conservation" is at the base of heritage management for WH sites: establishing stakeholders and associated values is a fundamental step in creating a Management Plan for such sites. The concept of stakeholders has widened to include local communities. Various levels of
local government,
research institutions, enterprises,
charitable organisations, and communities are all important parties. Activities such as knowledge exchange , education, consultation, exhibitions, academic events, publicity campaigns, among others are all effective means for local participation. For instance, local charities in
Homs,
Syria have been undertaking several projects with local communities to protect their heritage. A conservation programme in Dangeil, Sudan, has used social and economic relationship with the community to make the project sustainable over the long term. In Australia, Indigenous communities increasingly have stewardship of conservation and management programs to care for, monitor and maintain their cultural heritage places and landscapes, particularly those containing rock art.
Media Public policy In some countries public participation has become a central principle of
public policy making within democratic bodies, policies are rendered legitimate when citizens have the opportunity to influence the politicians and parties involved. In the UK and Canada it has been observed that all levels of
government have started to build
citizen and
stakeholder engagement into their policy-making processes. Situating citizens as active actors in policy-making can work to offset government failures by allowing for reform that will better emulate the needs of citizens. By incorporating citizens, policies will reflect everyday needs and realities, and not the machinations of politicians and political parties. This may involve large-scale
consultations,
focus group research, online discussion forums, or deliberative citizens' juries. There are many different public participation mechanisms, although these often share common features (for a list over 100, and a typology of mechanisms, see Rowe and Frewer, 2005). Public participation is viewed as a tool, intended to inform planning, organising or funding of activities. Public participation may also be used to measure attainable objectives, evaluate impact, and identify lessons for future practice. In Brazil's housing councils, mandated in 2005, citizen engagement in policy drafting increased effectiveness and responsiveness of government public service delivery. In the United States, public participation in administrative rulemaking refers to the process by which proposed rules are subject to public comment for a specified period of time. Public participation is typically mandatory for rules promulgated by executive agencies of the US government. Statutes or agency policies may mandate
public hearings during this period.
Science Citizen science is a coined term commonly used to describe the participation of non-scientists in scientific research. Greater inclusion of non-professional scientists in policy research and "democratization of policy research" can be important. Several benefits are claimed: having citizens involved in not just the contribution of data, but also the framing and development of research itself. The key to success in applying citizen science to policy development is data which is "suitable, robust, and of a known quality for evidence-based policy making". == See also ==