Feature matrix of relevant Participatory Budgeting IT tools

Version 5.5.1.
Release date: 21/12/2020
Export matrix data here

The following table contains an overview of possible Participatory Budgeting (PB) capabilities. It acts as a repository of implantable features. Further, over 50 PB-initiatives around the world were analyzed regarding the implemented functions.

This repository and analysis shall enable interested municipalities to:
1. Learn from other PB-initiatives around the world
2. Select capabilities they are interested in
3. Build a PB-process based on the selected capabilities
4. Compare their implementations & planned processes with different PB-initiatives

Compare Cities

Reset Remove cities without a tick
Cities
  • Informing: Informing residents about the availability of participatory budgeting opportunities and their rules
  • Informing on PB-participation
    IT/Non-IT: Non-IT
    Description: Gives a location where citizens can find information on how to participate in the PB-process.
  • Informing on PB-rules
    IT/Non-IT: Non-IT
    Description: Indicates if and where the citizens can find further information on the rules for participating in the PB.
  • Goals for PB are available
    IT/Non-IT: Non-IT
    Description: There are several possible goals/desired outcomes for a PB-implementation. This item captures wheter they are available on the webpage or not
  • Examples of (successful) development of participatory budgeting
    IT/Non-IT: Non-IT
    Description: The webpages gives examples for success-stories of other municipalities
  • Request for Proposals: Enabling Citicens to introduce proposals
  • A registration is mandatory
    IT/Non-IT: Non-IT
    Description: To participate, one needs to register themselves to hand in and vote for ideas.
  • Registration requirements
    IT/Non-IT: Non-IT
    Description: The PB has formal requirements for the registration to the initiative.
  • Pre-defined categories are available
    IT/Non-IT: Non-IT
    Description: To further structure the submitted proposals, they are categorized (e.g. in "playground" or "landscaping")
  • Upload a File
    IT/Non-IT: IT
    Description: The PB-iniative Object Storage. It is possible to upload a picture, smaller than 5 MB
  • Locational Data (Locational data has to be provided. The place can be choosen on a Map. Favored here is a free Service likeOpenStreetMap)
    IT/Non-IT: IT
    Description: The submitted proposal can be accompanied by an information on the exact location (E.g. through showing a Map)
  • Validating Proposals: Ensuring the proposals are serious and not potentially harmful nor contain e.g. hatespeech.
  • Status management
    IT/Non-IT: IT
    Description: Every submitted proposal is associated with a status representing the current state of the processing (e.g. "waiting for validation", "ready for voting")
  • Pre-moderation
    IT/Non-IT: Non-IT
    Description: The administration has to validate the given cost-estimate. If the estimated costs are above the spending limit, the proposal has to be cancelled. If the costs in the proposal and the one calculated by the administration differ, but they are still
  • Type(s) of discussion forums
    IT/Non-IT: IT
    Description: Assesses where the decisions regarding feasability of the submitted proposals are handled
  • Administration's commenting/reasoning
    IT/Non-IT: Non-IT
    Description: The administration writes short statement to the proposal, especially if it's getting declined.
  • Notification
    IT/Non-IT: IT
    Description: Submitters are updated regarding comments and status updates of their proposals by E-Mail
  • Presentation: Listing all accepted proposals
  • List of Proposal on Webpage
    IT/Non-IT: IT
    Description: The list of published proposals is shown on the web-page.
  • Search-Engine
    IT/Non-IT: IT
    Description: The Webpage has a function to search the published list of proposals.
  • List Filtering
    IT/Non-IT: IT
    Description: The List can be filtered using predefined categories (e.g. implemention status, rating).
  • Export functionality
    IT/Non-IT: IT
    Description: The list of published proposals can be downloaded (e.g. in an Excel or PowerPoint File).
  • Comments in Reviewing process
    IT/Non-IT: IT
    Description: Users of the plattform can comment on each others submitted and published proposals.
  • Financial feasability audit: Ensuring the proposals are realistic and within the given limit of money spending
  • Estimate Costs. Altering Costs of Proposals Declining Proposals.
    IT/Non-IT: Non-IT
    Description:
  • Public discussion: Providing the opportunity to present arguments to all stakeholders
  • Debate tool (Discussion tool convenient for online use)
    IT/Non-IT: Non-It
    Description: Users of the plattform can comment on each others submitted and published proposals.
  • Vote: Provisioning an online and offline plattform for voting on proposals. Ensuring authentification.
  • Kind of voting implementation
    IT/Non-IT: Non-IT
    Description: Captures the different styles of voting, e.g. printed ballots or via the PB-website
  • Issue Codes (Create Code for every eligible voter, Link Codes to names). Code created and used
    IT/Non-IT: Non-IT
    Description: Identifies if the identificaiton of voter eligibility is caputred through the issue of a
  • Realisation: Accepted Proposals are getting implemented
  • Media Accompany (Updating Citizens on progress on the implementation). Informing options.
    IT/Non-IT: IT
    Description: The PB-website informs the citizen on the progress of the implementation of the accepted proposals
  • Navigation: Using the Web-Page is easy and comprehensive
  • Navigation Consistency
    IT/Non-IT: IT
    Description: The Acessing throughout the web-page stays the same for all categories
  • Internal Links - Open in the same tab
    IT/Non-IT: IT
    Description: The user is not disturbed in the browsing experience by leaving the curent web site
  • Internal Links - "Back" - button works
    IT/Non-IT: IT
    Description: The back-button works within the navigation of the web-page. Users get to the ressource they visited before, not e.g. the main-page
  • External Links - Open in a new Window/Tab
    IT/Non-IT: IT
    Description: Before the new external ressource is opened in a new window/tab, the user gets a warning
  • External Links - Warn before opening new Tab
    IT/Non-IT: IT
    Description: Before the new external ressource is opened in a new window/tab, the user gets a warning.
  • Functional Links
    IT/Non-IT: IT
    Description: All links are working properly.
  • Color Change - Visited Links change the color
    IT/Non-IT: IT
    Description: By changing the color of visisted links, users do not junintentionally revisit the same pages
  • Location is visible
    IT/Non-IT: IT
    Description: The user knows at all time where his location is on the webpage. Possiblities for doing so is breadcrumb-navigation or a clear navigational item.
  • Search: Searching provides an easy way to find information
  • Search exists
    IT/Non-IT: IT
    Description: The Web-Page provides a search functionality that enables the search of the whole PB-website, not only specific items like the published list of proposals.
  • Easy to find
    IT/Non-IT: IT
    Description: The Web-Search is easy to find and in a location where user expect it do be (e.g. top right)
  • The size of the search box is sufficient
    IT/Non-IT: IT
    Description: The size of the search box is sufficient. The user does not need to use short, imprecise queries because longer ones would be inconvenient to read
  • Always visible - The search box is on every page
    IT/Non-IT: IT
    Description: If the user does not find the ressource he is looking for, he wants to search regardless of the current location
  • Content Design: The content is well structured and easy to read
  • No Information Overload
    IT/Non-IT: IT
    Description: To much information prevents users from making decisions, especially if they are asked for information (e.g. forms). In these cases, the web-page gets split up in smaller chunks.
  • No capitaliziting
    IT/Non-IT: IT
    Description: All cap texts are hard to read. While this is feasable for small chunks of information, longer parts like headings should not be capitalized
  • Prioritze Content
    IT/Non-IT: IT
    Description: Important elements like "log-in" or navigation options stand out in comparison the rest of the website
  • Picture have a suffficent resolution
    IT/Non-IT: IT
    Description: The images on the webpage are not blurry and pixelated
  • Mobile Enablement: The web-page supports mobile users
  • Resize properly for mobile devices
    IT/Non-IT: IT
    Description: Depending on the device the website is accessed with, the layout and elements changes for the propper screen size.
  • Button Size for mobile devices
    IT/Non-IT: IT
    Description: The button size in the mobile design is sufficent, at least 10 x 10 milimeters wide.
  • Accessibility: Citizens with disabilities can use the provided service without restrictions
  • Optimized for poor eyesight.
    IT/Non-IT: IT
    Description: The design has a high contrast, thus is readabile also for people with bad eyesight. Designs with e.g. light-gray text on dark-grey background are not used
  • Visual feedback is not limited to colors
    IT/Non-IT: IT
    Description: Colorblind person can e.g. not distinguish the difference between green and red. If an input field is marked, this has to happen not only with color, but e.g. with an icon as well.
  • The website provides meaningful alternative text
    IT/Non-IT: IT
    Description: Information is not only understandable with corresponding impages, but the text alone provides enough information to use the web-page
  • All important elements of the web-page are accessible by keyboard
    IT/Non-IT: IT
    Description: People with motor impairments are not able to use a mouse. The elements therefore must be usable with a keyboard as well
  • Availiability: The service is reliable and fast
  • Pages are opened within a reasonable amount of time
    IT/Non-IT: IT
    Description: The User-Interface does not feel slow but responses naturally.

  • Norderstedt (Germany)

    https://www.buergerhaushalt-norderstedt.de/
    • Informing
    • Website . There is information on the Webpage of the municipality
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . The goals are on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • Yes . Registration
    • Yes . e-mail
    • Yes . Categorities: levies and taxes, energy, education, economy and tourism, children and young people, ...
    • No . Information is available only during the filing period
    • No . You can't select a place on the map
    • Validating Proposals
    • Yes . The status is linked
    • Yes . The moderator corrects obvious typing errors and writes out abbreviations so that all proposals...
    • Administration . Committee, online discussion
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • Yes . There is a published List of Proposal
    • Yes . The Webpage allows the search within the proposals
    • Yes . There is filtering by different topics and categories: spending, income, cost-neutral, savings...
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . An opportunity to comment on each proposal
    • Financial feasability audit
    • No . There is no information on the site
    • Public discussion
    • Yes . The opportunity to discuss applications on the site
    • Vote
    • No . Voting in electronic form
    • Yes . Each voter receives an individual code
    • Realisation
    • Yes . Can check the status of the project and its realisation at the moment
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy search
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . The site has a version for the visually impaired (black and white version)
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Bologna (Italy)

    http://partecipa.comune.bologna.it/bilancio-partecipativo
    • Informing
    • Website . There is information on the Webpage of the municipality
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . The goals are on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Yes . Each region has its own categories
    • No . Information is available only during the filing period
    • No . Information is available only during the filing period
    • Validating Proposals
    • Yes . The status is linked
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Administration, committee, open face-to-face discussion
    • Yes . Each project is tested for compliance with certain criteria
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • Yes . There is a published List of Proposal
    • No . Currently (March 30, 2020) projects are presented as a table
    • No . Currently (March 30, 2020) projects are presented as a table
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Financial feasability audit
    • Yes . There is a financial expertise of each project
    • Public discussion
    • Yes . Discussion at meetings
    • Vote
    • Yes . Voting by printed bulletins
    • Yes . Each voter receives an individual code
    • Realisation
    • Yes . Can check the status of the project and its realisation at the moment
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy search
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • San Isidro Lima (Peru)

    http://msi.gob.pe/portal/participacion-vecinal/presupuesto-participativo
    • Informing
    • Website . There is information on the Webpage of the municipality
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . The goals are on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • Yes . Proposals are submitted only by delegates
    • Yes . Proposals are submitted only by delegates
    • No . Proposals are not categorized
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Validating Proposals
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Administration, committee, open face-to-face discussion
    • Yes . Each project is tested for compliance with certain criteria
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • Yes . There is a published List of Proposal
    • No . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . PDF
    • No . There is no discussion on the site
    • Financial feasability audit
    • Yes . There is a financial expertise of each project
    • Public discussion
    • Yes . Discussion at meetings
    • Vote
    • No . No voting
    • No . No voting
    • Realisation
    • Yes . There is information about realisaited proposal
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy search
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Kiev (Ukraine)

    https://gb.kyivcity.gov.ua/about
    • Informing
    • Website . There is information on the Webpage of the municipality
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . The goals are on the site
    • Yes . There are examples and links to sites of the budget of participation in New York, Paris, Berlin,...
    • Request for Proposals
    • Yes . Registration
    • Yes . Mobile ID or Bank ID
    • Yes . Categories: roads, transport, culture, tourism, ecology, health, social protection, information...
    • Yes . It is possible to upload a picture
    • Yes . The place can be choosen on a Map
    • Validating Proposals
    • Yes . The status is linked
    • Yes . Preliminary check
    • Administration . Committee, online discussion
    • Yes . Each project is tested for compliance with certain criteria
    • On the Website . The reason for the refusal is on the site
    • Presentation
    • Yes . There is a published List of Proposal
    • Yes . The Webpage allows the search within the proposals
    • Yes . There is filtering by categories: status, type, implementation topics, localization, budget
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Yes . An opportunity to comment on each proposal
    • Financial feasability audit
    • Yes . There is a financial expertise of each project
    • Public discussion
    • Yes . The opportunity to discuss applications on the site
    • Vote
    • Yes . Voting by printed bulletins
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Realisation
    • Yes . Can check the status of the project and its realisation at the moment
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • No . Search does not exist
    • No . Search does not exist
    • No . Search does not exist
    • No . Search does not exist
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • 9 communes (France)

    https://www.paysmorcenais.fr/Communaute-de-Communes/Actualites/Toute-l-actu/Reunions-publiques-Budget-Participatif-Citoyen
    • Informing
    • Yes . Global information is in the section "Budget Participatif Citoyen " on the official site ...
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . The goals are on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • Yes . Registration
    • Yes . e-mail or sms
    • Yes . Categories: social ties, education, sports, environment and lifestyle, culture, digitalization
    • Yes . It is possible to upload a picture
    • Yes . The place can be choosen on a Map
    • Validating Proposals
    • Yes . The status is linked
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Administration, committee, open face-to-face discussion
    • Yes . Each project is tested for compliance with certain criteria
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • Yes . There is a published List of Proposal
    • Yes . On the site https://budgetparticipatif
    • Yes . There is filtering by categories: project status, theme, district
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . There is no discussion on the site
    • Financial feasability audit
    • Yes . There is a financial expertise of each project
    • Public discussion
    • Yes . Discussion at meetings
    • Vote
    • Yes . Voting by printed bulletins
    • Yes . Registration on the portal for online voting, identification card for voting on the ballot
    • Realisation
    • Yes . There is information about realisaited proposal
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is medium
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • No . Text in the form of an image is not clear enough
    • Yes . The site has a version for the visually
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Rosario (Argentina)

    https://www.rosario.gob.ar/web/gobierno/presupuestos/presupuesto-participativo
    • Informing
    • Webpage and Media . There is information on the Webpage and in the media
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . The goals are on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • Yes . Registration
    • Yes . E-mail, social network
    • No . Information is available after registration
    • No . Information is available after registration
    • No . Information is available after registration
    • Validating Proposals
    • Yes . The status is linked
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Administration, committee, open face-to-face discussion, online discussion
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • Yes . There is a published List of Proposal
    • Yes . The Webpage allows the search within the proposals
    • Yes . There is filtering by categories: new, popular, district
    • No . No additional information
    • No . There is no discussion on the site
    • Financial feasability audit
    • No . There is no information on the site
    • Public discussion
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Vote
    • Yes . Voting by printed bulletins
    • Yes . Each voter receives an individual code
    • Realisation
    • Yes . Can check the status of the project and its realisation at the moment
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy search
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Helsinki (Finland)

    https://omastadi.hel.fi/?locale=en
    • Informing
    • Webpage and Media . There is information on the Webpage and in the media
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . The goals are on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • Yes . Registration
    • Yes . Bank ID or mobail ID
    • Yes . Categories: built environment, community, culture, ecofriendliness, health and wellbeing, learning ...
    • Yes . It is possible to upload a picture
    • No . Now (27/03/2020) there is information about the location (address)
    • Validating Proposals
    • Yes . The status is linked
    • Yes . The administrative department checks the projects for feasibility
    • Administration, committee, open face-to-face discussion, online discussion
    • Yes . Each project is tested for compliance with certain criteria
    • E-Mail . Additonally, all submitted proposals are constantly published on the portal
    • Presentation
    • Yes . There is a published List of Proposal
    • Yes . The Webpage allows the search within the proposals
    • Yes . There is filtering by category: district
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . An opportunity to comment on each proposal
    • Financial feasability audit
    • Yes . There is a financial expertise of each project
    • Public discussion
    • Yes . An opportunity to comment on each proposal and face-to-face discussions at meetings
    • Vote
    • Yes . Voting by printed bulletins
    • Yes . Each voter receives an individual code
    • Realisation
    • Yes . Can check the status of the project and its realisation at the moment
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy search
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . AA level of access as defined by WCAG 2
    • Yes . AA level of access as defined by WCAG 2
    • Yes . AA level of access as defined by WCAG 2
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Jena (Germany)

    https://beteiligung.jena.de/de/buergerhaushalt-ab-2019
    • Informing
    • Yes . Global information can be found in the section "Sitizen participation" on the official...
    • Yes . Rules in PDF
    • Yes . The goals are on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • No . No registration
    • No . No registration
    • Yes . Category can be chosen from the list in the "All proposals" section: leisure offers,...
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Validating Proposals
    • Yes . The status is linked
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Administration . Committee
    • Yes . Each project is tested for compliance with certain criteria
    • E-Mail . Additonally, all submitted proposals are constantly published on the portal
    • Presentation
    • Yes . There is a published List of Proposal
    • Yes . The Webpage allows the search within the proposals
    • Yes . There is filtering by categories: different topics, validity(valid or invalid proposal) and title...
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Financial feasability audit
    • Yes . Limit
    • Public discussion
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Vote
    • Yes . Voting by printed bulletins
    • Yes . Registration on the portal for online voting, identification card for voting on the ballot
    • Realisation
    • Yes . There is information about realisaited proposal
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is low to medium
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . The site has a version for the visually impaired (black and white version)
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Ornienburg (Germany)

    https://oranienburg.de/Politik-Beteiligung/B%C3%BCrgerbeteiligung/B%C3%Bcrgerhaushalt
    • Informing
    • Yes . Global information is in the section "Politics and participation" on the official site...
    • Yes . Rules in PDF
    • Yes . The goals are on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • No . No registration
    • No . No registration
    • Yes . Category can be chosen from the list in the "All proposals" section: children and youth, ...
    • No . It is not possible to upload a picture
    • No . You can't select a place on the map
    • Validating Proposals
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Administration . Committee
    • Yes . Each project is tested for compliance with certain criteria
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • Yes . There is a published List of Proposal
    • No . The poposals are published in an PDF, which can be searched
    • No . Currently (March 23, 2020) projects are presented as a PDF file
    • Yes . PDF
    • No . There is no discussion on the site
    • Financial feasability audit
    • Yes . There is a financial expertise of each project
    • Public discussion
    • Yes . Discussion at meetings
    • Vote
    • No . Voting in electronic form and fax
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Realisation
    • Yes . There is information about realisaited proposal
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Saint-Denis (France)

    http://ville-saint-denis.fr/le-budget-citoyen
    • Informing
    • Website . There is information on the Webpage of the municipality
    • Yes . Rules in PDF
    • Yes . The goals are on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • No . No registration
    • No . No registration
    • Yes . Categories: sports, social ties, nature, solidarity, culture, art, digitalization
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Validating Proposals
    • Yes . The status is linked
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Administration, committee, open face-to-face discussion
    • Yes . Each project is tested for compliance with certain criteria
    • E-Mail . The User is updated by an E-Mail notification
    • Presentation
    • Yes . Approved projects are in the "Project Journal" on the site
    • No . Currently (April 1, 2020) projects are presented as a text
    • No . Currently (April 1, 2020) projects are presented as a text
    • Yes . PDF
    • No . There is no discussion on the site
    • Financial feasability audit
    • Yes . There is a financial expertise of each project
    • Public discussion
    • Yes . Discussion at meetings
    • Vote
    • Yes . Voting by printed bulletins
    • Yes . Each voter receives an individual code
    • Realisation
    • Yes . There is information about realisaited proposal
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Neunburg (Germany)

    https://www.neunburgvormwald.de/rathaus-buerger/rathaus/buergerhaushalt/
    • Informing
    • Website . There is information on the Webpage of the municipality
    • Yes . Rules in PDF
    • Yes . The goals are on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • No . No registration
    • No . No registration
    • No . Proposals are not categorized
    • No . It is not possible to upload a picture
    • No . You can't select a place on the map
    • Validating Proposals
    • Yes . The status is linked
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Administration . Committee
    • Yes . Each project is tested for compliance with certain criteria
    • E-Mail . The User is updated by an E-Mail notification
    • Presentation
    • No . At the moment of researching there no list of proposals
    • No . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No . There is no discussion on the site
    • Financial feasability audit
    • Yes . There is a financial expertise of each project
    • Public discussion
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Vote
    • No . No voting
    • No . No voting
    • Realisation
    • Yes . Can check the status of the project and its realisation at the moment
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Silesian Voivodeship (Poland)

    https://bo.slaskie.pl/
    • Informing
    • Website . There is information on the Webpage of the municipality
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . The goals are on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • No . No registration
    • No . No registration
    • No . Information is available only only during the filing period
    • Yes . It is possible to upload a picture
    • Yes . The ability to attach a card to the application
    • Validating Proposals
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Administration, committee, open face-to-face discussion
    • Yes . Each project is tested for compliance with certain criteria
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • No . At the moment of researching there no list of proposals
    • No . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . PDF
    • No . There is no discussion on the site
    • Financial feasability audit
    • Yes . There is a financial expertise of each project
    • Public discussion
    • Yes . Discussion at meetings
    • Vote
    • No . Voting in electronic form
    • Yes . Each voter receives an individual code
    • Realisation
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy search
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Lisbon (Portugal)

    https://www.lisboaparticipa.pt/
    • Informing
    • Website . There is information on the Webpage of the municipality
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . The goals are on the site
    • No . As a positive example, the Portuguese experience
    • Request for Proposals
    • Yes . Registration
    • Yes . E-mail, social network
    • Yes . Categories: culture, social ties, climate and energy, tourism and others
    • Yes . It is possible to upload a picture
    • Yes . The place can be choosen on a Map
    • Validating Proposals
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Yes . Preliminary check
    • Administration, committee, open face-to-face discussion, online discussion
    • Yes . Each project is tested for compliance with certain criteria
    • No . The administrator publishes on the website a preliminary list of excluded projects and proposals...
    • Presentation
    • Yes . There is a published List of Proposal
    • Yes . The Webpage allows the search within the proposals
    • Yes . There is filtering by categories: project number, status, area, territorial unit
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . An opportunity to comment on each proposal
    • Financial feasability audit
    • Yes . There is a financial expertise of each project
    • Public discussion
    • Yes . The opportunity to discuss applications on the site
    • Vote
    • No . Voting on sites and via SMS
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Realisation
    • Yes . Can check the status of the project and its realisation at the moment
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Bloomington Indiana (USA)

    https://bloomington.in.gov/boards/status-of-children/ypb
    • Informing
    • Website . There is information on the Webpage of the municipality
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . The goals are on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Yes . Categories: art, culture, education, environment and others
    • No . Information is available only during the filing period
    • No . Information is available only during the filing period
    • Validating Proposals
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Yes . The administrative department checks the projects for feasibility
    • Administration, committee, open face-to-face discussion
    • Yes . Each project is tested for compliance with certain criteria
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • Yes . There is a published List of Proposal
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No . There is no discussion on the site
    • Financial feasability audit
    • No . All proposal are within the limit
    • Public discussion
    • Yes . Discussion at meetings
    • Vote
    • Yes . Voting by printed bulletins
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Realisation
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy search
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Porto Alegre (Brazil)

    http://www2.portoalegre.rs.gov.br/op/ https://opdigital.prefeitura.poa.br/proposals
    • Informing
    • Webpage and Media . There is information on the Webpage and in the media
    • Yes . Rules in PDF
    • Yes . The goals are on the site
    • Yes . Positive example, there is Madrid Spain in the file "investment plans"
    • Request for Proposals
    • Yes . Registration
    • Yes . e-mail
    • Yes . In 2019, there was a vote on priorities within the 6 topics of the participation budget
    • Yes . It is possible to upload a picture
    • Yes . The place can be choosen on a Map
    • Validating Proposals
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Administration, committee, open face-to-face discussion, online discussion
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • Yes . There is a published List of Proposal
    • Yes . The Webpage allows the search within the proposals
    • Yes . There is filtering by date, category, popularity
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . An opportunity to comment on each proposal
    • Financial feasability audit
    • Yes . There is a financial expertise of each project
    • Public discussion
    • Yes . The opportunity to discuss applications on the site
    • Vote
    • Yes . Voting in electronic form or personal participation in assemblies
    • Yes . Each voter receives an individual code
    • Realisation
    • Yes . There is information about realisaited proposal
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy search
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • Yes . Group of shortcut keys has been programmed(https://opdigital
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Arkhangelsk (Russia)

    https://www.arhcity.ru/?page=2371/0
    • Informing
    • Webpage and Media . There is information on the Webpage and in the media
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . The goals are on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • No . Citizens submit applications by e-mail or on the municipality's portal
    • Yes . e-mail
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . It is possible to upload a picture
    • No . There is information about the location (address), you can't select a place on the map
    • Validating Proposals
    • Yes . The status is linked
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Administration and committee
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • Yes . There is a list of approved initiatives (in the "voting" section)
    • Yes . The Webpage allows the search within the proposals
    • Yes . There is filtering by categories: price and district ( in the "voting" section)
    • No . No additional information
    • No . There is no discussion on the site
    • Financial feasability audit
    • No . All proposal are within the limit
    • Public discussion
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Vote
    • No . Voting in electronic form
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Realisation
    • Yes . There is information about realisaited proposal
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . The site has a version for the visually impaired (black and white version)
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Vologda (Russia)

    http://vologda-portal.ru/oficialnaya_vologda/index.php?SECTION_ID=8722
    • Informing
    • Webpage and Media . There is information on the Webpage and in the media
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . The goals are on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • No . Bodies of territorial public self-government submit a collective application
    • Yes . Signature
    • Yes . Category: roads, healthcare, ecology, landscape design, land liberation from unauthorized...
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No . You can't select a place on the map
    • Validating Proposals
    • Yes . There is information about the selection of applications
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Administration, committee, open face-to-face discussion, online discussion
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • Yes . There is a list of proposals recommended for realisation
    • No . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . An opportunity to comment on each proposal
    • Financial feasability audit
    • No . All proposal are within the limit
    • Public discussion
    • Yes . The opportunity to discuss applications on the site
    • Vote
    • Yes . Voting by printed bulletins
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Realisation
    • Yes . There is information about realisaited proposal
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Sortavala (Russia)

    https://xn--80aaagdg6ctabtdlq.xn--p1ai/3442154890/9093889473/
    • Informing
    • Website . There is information on the Webpage of the municipality
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • Yes . It is possible to submit a collective application in paper form
    • Yes . e-mail
    • Yes . One category in 2019: restoration of the arboretum
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Validating Proposals
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Administration, committee, open face-to-face discussion
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • Yes . In 2019, only one initiative was selected (restoration of the arboretum)
    • No . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Word document
    • No . There is no discussion on the site
    • Financial feasability audit
    • No . All proposal are within the limit
    • Public discussion
    • Yes . Discussion at meetings
    • Vote
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Realisation
    • Yes . There is information about realisaited proposal
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Usinsk (Russia)

    http://xn----7sbapuabbsnmf8anecjw8c5k.xn--p1ai/?page_id=114524
    • Informing
    • Website . There is information on the Webpage of the municipality
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • Yes . It is possible to submit a collective application in paper form
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Yes . Categories are proposed: entrepreneurship, culture, roads, sports, employment, improvement,...
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Validating Proposals
    • Yes . There is information about the selection of applications
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Administration, committee, open face-to-face discussion
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • Yes . There is a published List of Proposal
    • No . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . PDF
    • No . There is no discussion on the site
    • Financial feasability audit
    • No . All proposal are within the limit
    • Public discussion
    • Yes . Discussion at meetings
    • Vote
    • No . Hand voting
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Realisation
    • Yes . There is information about realisaited proposal
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • No . Not good enough
    • No . The search button is located at the bottom of the page
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Vorkuta (Russia)

    http://xn--80adypkng.xn--p1ai/regulatory/the-people-s-budget/
    • Informing
    • Website . There is information on the Webpage of the municipality
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • Yes . It is possible to submit a collective application in paper form
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Yes . It is possible to upload a picture
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Validating Proposals
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Administration, committee, open face-to-face discussion
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • Yes . There is a published List of Proposal
    • No . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . PDF
    • No . There is no discussion on the site
    • Financial feasability audit
    • No . All proposal are within the limit
    • Public discussion
    • Yes . Discussion at meetings
    • Vote
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Realisation
    • Yes . There is information about realisaited proposal
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Baia Mare (Rumania)

    https://baiamareactiv.ro/proiecte/index/proiectelefinantate/1
    • Informing
    • Website . There is information on the Webpage of the municipality
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . The goals are on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • Yes . Registration
    • Yes . e-mail
    • Yes . There is automatic categorization
    • Yes . It is possible to upload a picture
    • Yes . The place can be choosen on a Map
    • Validating Proposals
    • Yes . The status is linked
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Administration . Committee
    • Yes . Each project is tested for compliance with certain criteria
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • No . At the moment of researching there no list of proposals
    • No . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No . There is no discussion on the site
    • Financial feasability audit
    • Yes . There is a financial expertise of each project
    • Public discussion
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Vote
    • No . Voting in electronic form
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Realisation
    • Yes . There is information about realisaited proposal
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • No . Search does not exist
    • No . Search does not exist
    • No . Search does not exist
    • No . Search does not exist
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Tarnowskie G_ry (Poland)

    https://budzetpartycypacyjny.tarnogorski.pl/
    • Informing
    • Website . There is information on the Webpage of the municipality
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No . Information is available only only during the filing period
    • No . Information is available only during the filing period
    • No . Information is available only during the filing period
    • Validating Proposals
    • Yes . The status is linked
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Administration . Committee
    • Yes . Causes of failure in the project compliance analysis report
    • E-Mail . The User is updated by an E-Mail notification
    • Presentation
    • Yes . There is a published List of Proposal
    • No . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • No . There is no discussion on the site
    • Financial feasability audit
    • Yes . There is a financial expertise of each project
    • Public discussion
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Vote
    • Yes . Voting by printed bulletins
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Realisation
    • Yes . Can check the status of the project and its realisation at the moment
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • No . Search does not exist
    • No . Search does not exist
    • No . Search does not exist
    • No . Search does not exist
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Warsaw (Poland)

    https://twojbudzet.um.warszawa.pl/
    • Informing
    • Webpage and Media . There is information on the Webpage and in the media
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . The goals are on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • Yes . Registration
    • Yes . Personal code
    • No . Information is available only only during the filing period
    • No . Information is available only during the filing period
    • No . Information is available only during the filing period
    • Validating Proposals
    • Yes . The status is linked
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Administration . Committee
    • Yes . Causes of failure in the project compliance analysis report
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • Yes . There is a published List of Proposal
    • Yes . The Webpage allows the search within the proposals
    • Yes . There is filtering by categories: district, category, target group, status
    • No . No additional information
    • No . There is no discussion on the site
    • Financial feasability audit
    • Yes . There is a financial expertise of each project
    • Public discussion
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Vote
    • Yes . Voting by printed bulletins
    • Yes . Each voter receives an individual code
    • Realisation
    • Yes . Can check the status of the project and its realisation at the moment
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy search
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Greensboro (USA)

    https://www.greensboro-nc.gov/departments/budget-evaluation/participatory-budgeting
    • Informing
    • Website . There is information on the Webpage of the municipality
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . The goals are on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • Yes . Registration
    • Yes . e-mail
    • Yes . Categories: grant to a nonprofit organization Hire additional staff Finance Greensboro Housing...
    • No . Information is available after registration
    • No . Information is available after registration
    • Validating Proposals
    • Yes . The status is linked
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Administration . Committee
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • Yes . There is a published List of Proposal
    • Yes . Information is available to registered users
    • Yes . Information is available to registered users
    • Yes . PDF
    • No . There is no discussion on the site
    • Financial feasability audit
    • No . All proposal are within the limit
    • Public discussion
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Vote
    • No . Voting in electronic form
    • Yes . Each voter receives an individual code
    • Realisation
    • Yes . Can check the status of the project and its realisation at the moment
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy search
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . Site accessibility complies with Section 508 of the Rehab Act (US)
    • Yes . Site accessibility complies with Section 508 of the Rehab Act (US)
    • Yes . Site accessibility complies with Section 508 of the Rehab Act (US)
    • Yes . Site accessibility complies with Section 508 of the Rehab Act (US)
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Metz (France)

    https://metz.fr/jeparticipe/#!/
    • Informing
    • Website . There is information on the Webpage of the municipality
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . The goals are on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • No . No registration
    • No . No registration
    • No . Proposals are not categorized
    • Yes . It is possible to upload a picture
    • No . Now (28/03/2020) there is information about the location (address)
    • Validating Proposals
    • Yes . The status is linked
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Administration, committee, open face-to-face discussion
    • Yes . Each project is tested for compliance with certain criteria
    • On the Website . The reason for the refusal is on the site
    • Presentation
    • Yes . There is a published List of Proposal
    • Yes . The Webpage allows the search within the proposals
    • Yes . There is filtering by categories: data, area
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . There is no discussion on the site
    • Financial feasability audit
    • Yes . There is a financial expertise of each project
    • Public discussion
    • Yes . Discussion at meetings
    • Vote
    • Yes . Voting by printed bulletins
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Realisation
    • Yes . Can check the status of the project and its realisation at the moment
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • No . Search does not exist
    • No . Search does not exist
    • No . Search does not exist
    • No . Search does not exist
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Bratislava (Slovakia)

    https://bratislava.sk/sk/obciansky-rozpocet
    • Informing
    • Webpage and Media . There is information on the Webpage and in the media
    • Yes . Rules in PDF
    • Yes . The goals are on the site
    • Yes . Example Porto Alegre (Brazil)
    • Request for Proposals
    • Yes . Registration
    • Yes . e-mail
    • Yes . Categories: transport and communications, environment, culture, sports and social issues
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Validating Proposals
    • Yes . The status is linked
    • Yes . Proposals into three groups
    • Administration, committee, open face-to-face discussion
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • Yes . There is a published List of Proposal
    • No . Currently (March 24, 2020) projects are presented as a table
    • No . Currently (March 24, 2020) projects are presented as a table
    • Yes . Word document
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Financial feasability audit
    • No . There is no information on the site
    • Public discussion
    • Yes . Discussion at meetings
    • Vote
    • Yes . Voting by printed bulletins
    • Yes . Each voter receives an individual code
    • Realisation
    • Yes . There is information about realisaited proposal
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy search
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Babaevsky Municipal District Vologda Oblast (Russia)

    http://www.babaevo-adm.ru/?page_id=30966
    • Informing
    • Website . There is information on the Webpage of the municipality
    • No . The presence of a non-detailed description of the rules for citizen participation in the budget...
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Yes . Categories: playgrounds, water supply, fire reservoirs, landscaping
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Validating Proposals
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Administration, committee, open face-to-face discussion
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • Yes . There is a list of proposals recommended for realisation
    • No . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Excel file
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Financial feasability audit
    • No . All proposal are within the limit
    • Public discussion
    • Yes . Discussion at meetings
    • Vote
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Realisation
    • Yes . There is information about realisaited proposal
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Prionezhsky district Republic of Karelia (Russia)

    http://prionego.ru/news/item/6265-ppmi-2019
    • Informing
    • Website . There is information on the Webpage of the municipality
    • No . The site has no information about the rules of the project
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Yes . Categories: water supply and water treatment
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Validating Proposals
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Administration, committee, open face-to-face discussion
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • No . At the moment of researching there no list of proposals
    • No . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Financial feasability audit
    • No . All proposal are within the limit
    • Public discussion
    • Yes . Discussion at meetings
    • Vote
    • No . Hand voting
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Realisation
    • Yes . There is information about realisaited proposal
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Vytegorsky District Vologda Oblast (Russia)

    http://vytegra.munrus.ru/implementationregionalprojects/peoplesbudget/
    • Informing
    • Website . There is information on the Webpage of the municipality
    • No . The site has no information about the rules of the project
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Validating Proposals
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • Yes . There is a list of proposals recommended for realisation
    • No . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Excel file
    • No . Only registered and authorized users can add comments
    • Financial feasability audit
    • No . All proposal are within the limit
    • Public discussion
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Vote
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Realisation
    • Yes . There is information about realisaited proposal
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Ukhta (Russia)

    http://sovet.mouhta.ru/narodnyy-byudzhet/
    • Informing
    • Website . There is information on the Webpage of the municipality
    • No . The site has no information about the rules of the project
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Validating Proposals
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Administration, committee, open face-to-face discussion
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • No . At the moment of researching there no list of proposals
    • No . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Financial feasability audit
    • No . All proposal are within the limit
    • Public discussion
    • Yes . Discussion at meetings
    • Vote
    • No . Voting at the meeting
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Realisation
    • Yes . There is information about realisaited proposal
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No links to external resources
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Kauniainen (Finland)

    https://www.kauniainen.fi/sv/staden_och_beslutsfattande/delta_och_paverka/medborgarbudget
    • Informing
    • Website . There is information on the Webpage of the municipality
    • No . The site has no information about the rules of the project
    • Yes . The goals are on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • No . No registration
    • No . No registration
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No . Information is available only during the filing period
    • Validating Proposals
    • Yes . The status is linked
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Administration . Committee
    • Yes . Each project is tested for compliance with certain criteria
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • Yes . There is a published List of Proposal
    • No . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No . There is no discussion on the site
    • Financial feasability audit
    • Yes . There is a financial expertise of each project
    • Public discussion
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Vote
    • No . Voting in electronic form
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Realisation
    • Yes . There is information about realisaited proposal
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is medium
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • No . Text in the form of an image is not clear enough
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Emmerhout (Nederlands)

    http://www.wijkbelangenemmerhout.nl/wijkbelangen/h/1956/0/0/Burgerbegroting
    • Informing
    • Webpage and Media . There is information on the Webpage and in the media
    • No . The presence of a non-detailed description of the rules for citizen participation in the budget...
    • Yes . The goals are on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • No . Initiators present their ideas in person at the festival of ideas
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No . Proposals are not categorized
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No . Proposals cannot be selected on the map
    • Validating Proposals
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Administration, committee, open face-to-face discussion
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • No . At the moment of researching there no list of proposals
    • No . Currently (March 24, 2020) projects are presented as a text
    • No . Currently (March 24, 2020) projects are presented as a text
    • Yes . There is a print version
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Financial feasability audit
    • No . All proposal are within the limit
    • Public discussion
    • Yes . Discussion at meetings
    • Vote
    • Yes . Voting by printed bulletins
    • Yes . Each voter receives an individual code
    • Realisation
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy search
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Cherepovets (Russia)

    https://mayor.cherinfo.ru/nb
    • Informing
    • Website . There is information on the Webpage of the municipality
    • No . The presence of a non-detailed description of the rules for citizen participation in the budget...
    • Yes . The goals are on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Validating Proposals
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Administration . Committee
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • Yes . There is a list of proposals recommended for realisation
    • No . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Financial feasability audit
    • No . All proposal are within the limit
    • Public discussion
    • Yes . Discussion at meetings
    • Vote
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Realisation
    • Yes . There is information about realisaited proposal
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Vologda region Khorovskiy district (Russia)

    http://www.haradm.ru/narodnyi-byudzhet.html
    • Informing
    • Website . There is information on the Webpage of the municipality
    • No . The presence of a non-detailed description of the rules for citizen participation in the budget...
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Yes . Categories: playgrounds, water supply, fire reservoirs, landscaping
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Validating Proposals
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Administration, committee, open face-to-face discussion, online discussion
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • PowerPoint . There is a Microsoft power point file containing information about approved proposals
    • No . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Microsoft power point file
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Financial feasability audit
    • No . All proposal are within the limit
    • Public discussion
    • Yes . Discussion at meetings
    • Vote
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Realisation
    • Yes . There is information about realisaited proposal
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No links to external resources
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Antwerp (Belgium)

    https://www.antwerpen.be/nl/overzicht/burgerbegroting-district-antwerpen/nieuws
    • Informing
    • Webpage and Media . There is information on the Webpage and in the media
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . The goals are on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • Yes . Registration
    • Yes . e-mail
    • Yes . Categories of the current 2020: bicycle streets, for people living in poverty, climate projects,...
    • Yes . It is possible to upload a picture
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Validating Proposals
    • Yes . The status is linked
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Administration, committee, open face-to-face discussion
    • Yes . Each project is tested for compliance with certain criteria
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • Yes . There is a published List of Proposal
    • No . Currently (March 23, 2020) projects are presented as a PDF file
    • No . Currently (March 23, 2020) projects are presented as a PDF file
    • Yes . PDF
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Financial feasability audit
    • Yes . There is a financial expertise of each project
    • Public discussion
    • Yes . Residents discuss the submitted projects in small groups and on topics
    • Vote
    • Yes . Voting on printed bulletins
    • Yes . Each voter receives an individual code
    • Realisation
    • No . Currently, specialists are working on a map showing projects that are implemented every year
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy search
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Hertogenbosch (Netherlands)

    https://www.s-hertogenbosch.nl/wdbudget.html
    • Informing
    • Website . There is information on the Webpage of the municipality
    • Yes . Available as text and as infographic
    • Yes . The goals are on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • Yes . Registration
    • Yes . Personal code
    • Yes . Categories:Physical issues (example: playground)
    • No . Information is available after registration
    • No . Information is available after registration
    • Validating Proposals
    • Yes . The status is linked
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Administration . Committee
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • Yes . There is a published List of Proposal
    • No . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Financial feasability audit
    • No . All proposal are within the limit
    • Public discussion
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Vote
    • No . No voting
    • Yes . Each voter receives an individual code
    • Realisation
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy search
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Marzahn-Hellersdorf district (Germany)

    https://www.berlin.de/buergerhaushalt-marzahn-hellersdorf/
    • Informing
    • Website . There is information on the Webpage of the municipality
    • Yes . In the FAQ section
    • Yes . The goals are on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • Yes . Registration
    • Yes . Registration
    • Yes . Categorities: streets and lighting , schools and sport , economy, children, young people, family,...
    • Yes . It is possible to upload a picture
    • Yes . The place can be choosen on a Map
    • Validating Proposals
    • Yes . The status is linked
    • Yes . Each offer is verified and activated to make it public
    • Administration . Committee
    • Yes . Each project is tested for compliance with certain criteria
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • Yes . There is a published List of Proposal
    • Yes . The Webpage allows the search within the proposals
    • Yes . There is filtering by categories: part of the town, status (A,B,C), keyword search, different...
    • Yes . There is a print version
    • Yes . An opportunity to comment on each proposal
    • Financial feasability audit
    • Yes . There is a financial expertise of each project
    • Public discussion
    • Yes . The opportunity to discuss applications on the site
    • Vote
    • No . Voting in electronic form
    • Yes . Each voter receives an individual code
    • Realisation
    • Yes . Can check the status of the project and its realisation at the moment
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy search
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Poznan (Poland)

    https://budzet.um.poznan.pl/pbo2020/
    • Informing
    • Website . There is information on the Webpage of the municipality
    • Yes . Rules in PDF
    • No . There is no clear statement
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • No . No registration
    • No . No registration
    • No . Information is available only only during the filing period
    • Yes . It is possible to upload a picture
    • No . There is information about the location (address), you can't select a place on the map
    • Validating Proposals
    • Yes . The status is linked
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Administration, committee, open face-to-face discussion
    • Yes . Each project is tested for compliance with certain criteria
    • E-Mail . The User is updated by an E-Mail notification
    • Presentation
    • Yes . There is a published List of Proposal
    • Yes . The Webpage allows the search within the proposals
    • Yes . There is filtering by category: district
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Everyone can write an opinion at the email address of the author of the proposal
    • Financial feasability audit
    • Yes . There is a financial expertise of each project
    • Public discussion
    • Yes . Everyone can write an opinion at the email address of the author of the proposal
    • Vote
    • Yes . Voting by printed bulletins
    • Yes . Each voter receives an individual code
    • Realisation
    • Yes . There is information about realisaited proposal
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy search
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Odessa (Ukraine)

    https://citizen.odessa.ua/projects/
    • Informing
    • Webpage and Media . There is information on the Webpage and in the media
    • No . The presence of a non-detailed description of the rules for citizen participation in the budget...
    • No . There is no clear statement
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • Yes . Registration
    • Yes . Register using id Bank, passport, Facebook or Google
    • Yes . Categories: security, public utilities, road transport infrastructure, health, education, sports,...
    • Yes . It is possible to upload a picture
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Validating Proposals
    • Yes . The status is linked
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Administration, committee, open face-to-face discussion, online discussion
    • Yes . Reasons for failure in the project compliance analysis report
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • Yes . There is a published List of Proposal
    • Yes . The Webpage allows the search within the proposals
    • Yes . There is filtering by categories: year, rating, in progress, implemented, rejected
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . An opportunity to comment on each proposal
    • Financial feasability audit
    • Yes . There is a financial expertise of each project
    • Public discussion
    • Yes . The opportunity to discuss applications on the site
    • Vote
    • No . Voting in electronic form
    • Yes . Each voter receives an individual code
    • Realisation
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy search
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Lichtenberg (Germany)

    https://www.buergerhaushalt-lichtenberg.de/
    • Informing
    • Website . There is information on the Webpage of the municipality
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . The goals are on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • Yes . Registration
    • Yes . e-mail
    • Yes . Categories:Libraries, health, children and youth, culture, the environment, etc
    • Yes . It is possible to upload a picture
    • Yes . The place can be choosen on a Map
    • Validating Proposals
    • Yes . The status is linked
    • Yes . Proposals are considered (in terms of content)
    • Administration, committee, open face-to-face discussion
    • Yes . There is information (reasons) on the rejected offer
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • Yes . There is a published List of Proposal
    • Yes . The Webpage allows the search within the proposals
    • Yes . There is filtering by categories: district, category, status (rejected, in progress, completed),...
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . An opportunity to comment on each proposal
    • Financial feasability audit
    • No . There is no information on the site
    • Public discussion
    • Yes . The opportunity to discuss applications on the site
    • Vote
    • No . Voting in electronic form
    • Yes . Each voter receives an individual code
    • Realisation
    • Yes . Can check the status of the project and its realisation at the moment
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy search
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Cluj-Napoca (Romania)

    https://bugetareparticipativa.ro/
    • Informing
    • Webpage and Media . There is information on the Webpage and in the media
    • Yes . In the FAQ section
    • Yes . The goals are on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • Yes . Registration
    • Yes . e-mail
    • Yes . Categories:sidewalks and pedestrian areas
    • Yes . It is possible to upload a picture
    • Yes . The place can be choosen on a Map
    • Validating Proposals
    • Yes . The status is linked
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Administration, committee, open face-to-face discussion
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • Yes . There is a published List of Proposal
    • Yes . The Webpage allows the search within the proposals
    • Yes . There is filtering by categories: year, status (accepted, rejected, etc
    • No . No additional information
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Financial feasability audit
    • Yes . Each offer must have a total value of up to 150,000 euros (including VAT)
    • Public discussion
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Vote
    • No . Voting in electronic form
    • Yes . Each voter receives an individual code
    • Realisation
    • Yes . There is information about realisaited proposal
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • No . Search does not exist
    • No . Search does not exist
    • No . Search does not exist
    • No . Search does not exist
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . The site has a version for the visually impaired (black and white version)
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • Yes . Accessibility is provided by userway
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Lodz (Poland)

    https://bo.lodzkie.pl/o-budzecie/
    • Informing
    • Webpage and Media . There is information on the Webpage and in the media
    • Yes . In the FAQ section
    • Yes . The goals are on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • Yes . Registration
    • Yes . e-mail
    • Yes . Categories: sport public safety tourism environmental education environmental protection ...
    • No . Information is available after registration
    • No . Information is available after registration
    • Validating Proposals
    • Yes . All submitted reviews and suggestions will be considered by the city administration
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Administration . Committee
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • Yes . There is a published List of Proposal
    • No . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Financial feasability audit
    • No . All proposal are within the limit
    • Public discussion
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Vote
    • Yes . Voting by printed bulletins
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Realisation
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • No . Search does not exist
    • No . Search does not exist
    • No . Search does not exist
    • No . Search does not exist
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Gdynia (Poland)

    https://bo.gdynia.pl/
    • Informing
    • Website . There is information on the Webpage of the municipality
    • Yes . In the FAQ section
    • Yes . The goals are on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • Yes . Registration
    • Yes . Personal code
    • No . Information is available after registration
    • Yes . It is possible to upload a picture
    • Yes . The place can be choosen on a Map
    • Validating Proposals
    • Yes . The status is linked
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Administration . Committee
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • Yes . There is a published List of Proposal
    • Yes . The Webpage allows the search within the proposals
    • Yes . There is filtering by categories: year, district, project status
    • Yes . PDF
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Financial feasability audit
    • No . There is no information on the site
    • Public discussion
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Vote
    • Yes . Voting by printed bulletins
    • Yes . Each voter receives an individual code
    • Realisation
    • Yes . Can check the status of the project and its realisation at the moment
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • No . Search does not exist
    • No . Search does not exist
    • No . Search does not exist
    • No . Search does not exist
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Parma (Italy)

    https://www.comune.parma.it/bilanciopartecipativo/it-IT/homepage-bp.aspx
    • Informing
    • Website . There is information on the Webpage of the municipality
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . Only in the last year section
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • Yes . Registration
    • Yes . ID number
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Validating Proposals
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • No . At the moment of researching there no list of proposals
    • Yes . The Webpage allows the search within the proposals
    • No . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Financial feasability audit
    • No . There is no information on the site
    • Public discussion
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Vote
    • No . Voting in electronic form
    • Yes . Each voter receives an individual code
    • Realisation
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • No . Search does not exist
    • No . Search does not exist
    • No . Search does not exist
    • No . Search does not exist
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Newcastle (United Kingdom)

    https://www.letstalkbudget.org.uk/
    • Informing
    • Webpage and Media . There is information on the Webpage and in the media
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . The goals are on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • Yes . Registration
    • Yes . e-mail
    • Yes . Categories: social protection, waste, education, culture, etc
    • No . It is not possible to upload a picture
    • No . No additional information
    • Validating Proposals
    • Yes . There is information about the selection of applications
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Administration . Committee
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • Yes . There is a published List of Proposal
    • No . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Financial feasability audit
    • No . All proposal are within the limit
    • Public discussion
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Vote
    • No . No voting
    • No . No voting
    • Realisation
    • No . There is no information on the site
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • No . Search does not exist
    • No . Search does not exist
    • No . Search does not exist
    • No . Search does not exist
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Paris (France)

    https://budgetparticipatif.paris.fr/bp/la-demarche-sommaire.html
    • Informing
    • Webpage and Media . There is information on the Webpage and in the media
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . The goals are on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • Yes . Registration
    • Yes . e-mail
    • Yes . Categories: habitat, culture, health, environment, etc
    • No . Information is available after registration
    • Yes . The place can be choosen on a Map
    • Validating Proposals
    • Yes . The status is linked
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Administration, committee, open face-to-face discussion, online discussion
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Yes . Each refusal is justified by a public and personalized message
    • Presentation
    • Yes . There is a published List of Proposal
    • Yes . The Webpage allows the search within the proposals
    • Yes . There is filtering by categories: location, category, year
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . An opportunity to comment on each proposal
    • Financial feasability audit
    • Yes . There is a financial expertise of each project
    • Public discussion
    • Yes . The opportunity to discuss applications on the site
    • Vote
    • Yes . Voting by printed bulletins
    • Yes . Each voter receives an individual code
    • Realisation
    • Yes . Can check the status of the project and its realisation at the moment
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • No . Search does not exist
    • No . Search does not exist
    • No . Search does not exist
    • No . Search does not exist
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Tartu (Estonia)

    https://www.tartu.ee/en/participative-budgeting#participative-budgeting-in-tartu-2019
    • Informing
    • Webpage and Media . There is information on the Webpage and in the media
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . The goals are on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • Yes . Volis
    • Yes . e-mail
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Validating Proposals
    • Yes . The status is linked
    • Yes . At the stage of technical preparation,ideas will be divided into groups by topics,and the...
    • Administration . Committee
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No . Impossible ideas will be deleted, all such decisions will be taken into account at Volis
    • Presentation
    • Yes . There is a published List of Proposal
    • No . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Financial feasability audit
    • No . There is no information on the site
    • Public discussion
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Vote
    • Yes . Voting by printed bulletins
    • Yes . Each voter receives an individual code
    • Realisation
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy search
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Wuppertal (Germany)

    https://talbeteiligung.de/topic/buergerbudget#pageid=undefined&sort=random&status=show&title=&attribute681=&attribute740=
    • Informing
    • Website . There is information on the Webpage of the municipality
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . The goals are on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • Yes . Registration
    • Yes . e-mail
    • Yes . Categories: construction, digitization, leisure and sports, youth and family, culture, education,...
    • No . Information is available only during the filing period
    • No . Information is available only during the filing period
    • Validating Proposals
    • Yes . The status is linked
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Administration . Committee, online discussion
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • Yes . There is a published List of Proposal
    • Yes . The Webpage allows the search within the proposals
    • Yes . There is filtering by categories: data, name, region, topic
    • Yes . PDF
    • Yes . An opportunity to comment on each proposal
    • Financial feasability audit
    • Yes . There is a financial expertise of each project
    • Public discussion
    • Yes . The opportunity to discuss applications on the site
    • Vote
    • Yes . Voting by printed bulletins
    • Yes . Each voter receives an individual code
    • Realisation
    • Yes . Can check the status of the project and its realisation at the moment
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy search
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Oradea (Romania)

    https://activ.oradea.ro/
    • Informing
    • Website . There is information on the Webpage of the municipality
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . The goals are on the site
    • No . There are no examples of best practices in other regions
    • Request for Proposals
    • Yes . Registration
    • Yes . E-mail, social network
    • Yes . Categories: road infrastructure, public spaces, cultural infrastructure, social infrastructure,...
    • Yes . It is possible to upload a picture
    • No . OpenStreetMap is free for implemented proposals
    • Validating Proposals
    • Yes . The status is linked
    • Yes . The administrative department checks the projects for feasibility
    • Administration, committee, open face-to-face discussion
    • Yes . Each project is tested for compliance with certain criteria
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • No . At the moment of researching there no list of proposals
    • No . Currently 25
    • No . Currently 25
    • No . Currently 25
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Financial feasability audit
    • Yes . There is a financial expertise of each project
    • Public discussion
    • Yes . Discussion at meetings
    • Vote
    • Yes . Voting by printed bulletins
    • Yes . For voting registration
    • Realisation
    • Yes . Can check the status of the project and its realisation at the moment
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • No . Search does not exist
    • No . Search does not exist
    • No . Search does not exist
    • No . Search does not exist
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • No . The text is not contrasting enough
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

  • Maastricht (Nederlands)

    https://www.burgerbegrotingmaastricht.nl/
    • Informing
    • Website . There is information on the Webpage of the municipality
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . The goals are on the site
    • Yes . In the FAQ section there is information that in 2019 the city council visited the Antwerp area...
    • Request for Proposals
    • No info . No information on the site
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Yes . Citizens pre-select five categories at meetings
    • No . Information is available only during the filing period
    • No . Information is available only during the filing period
    • Validating Proposals
    • Yes . The status is linked
    • Yes . The municipality evaluates the submitted projects
    • Administration, committee, open face-to-face discussion
    • Yes . Each project is tested for compliance with certain criteria
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Presentation
    • No . At the moment of researching there no list of proposals
    • No . At present (03/26/2020) there is no list, since it is formed after the filing of applications...
    • No . At present (03/26/2020) there is no list, since it is formed after the filing of applications...
    • No . At present (03/26/2020) there is no list, since it is formed after the filing of applications...
    • No . There is no discussion on the site
    • Financial feasability audit
    • Yes . There is a financial expertise of each project
    • Public discussion
    • Yes . Discussion at meetings
    • Vote
    • Yes . Voting by printed bulletins
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Realisation
    • No info . No information on the site
    • Navigation
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • No . No additional information
    • Yes . Easy navigation
    • Search
    • No . Search does not exist
    • No . Search does not exist
    • No . Search does not exist
    • No . Search does not exist
    • Content Design
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Picture are clear and vibrant, the image quality is high
    • Mobile Enablement
    • Yes . Layout and elements are resized to fit the screen
    • Yes . Comfortable button size
    • Accessibility
    • Yes . The design has a average contrast
    • Yes . No additional information
    • Yes . Enough textual information
    • No . No keyboard controls
    • Availiability
    • Yes . Normal user interface speed

Contact us

University of Rostock/Germany EmPaci(at)uni-rostock(dot)de
Dr. Ellen Haustein, +49 381 498 4421, ellen(dot)haustein(at)uni-rostock(dot)de
Prof. Dr. Peter C. Lorson, +49 381 498 4417, peter(dot)lorson(at)uni-rostock(dot)de

Project and finance management
Rotorwerk Project Services, Rostock/Germany
Dr. Kristina Koebe, +49 381 375 971 75, info(at)rotorwerk-project(dot)de



2020 EmPaci | GDPR privacy declaration | Website Analytics

https://www.Free-Counters.org