Ecology Projects and Participatory Budgeting: Enhancing Citizens’ Support

Abstract

In contemporary times, a large number of ecology projects are put on the public agenda through participatory budgeting. There is variation in the support they receive from citizens, but until now we have not known what drives this support. This article aims to identify the factors that could determine the support for ecology projects in participatory budgeting. It includes all 36 projects on ecology, which passed the technical eligibility check, submitted to the participatory budgeting in Cluj-Napoca (Romania) between 2017 and 2019. We use quantitative analysis to test the extent to which five project characteristics have an effect on the public support for the ecology projects: the requested budget, the type of project, the number of arguments, the use of jargon, and images and videos in addition to text descriptions. The results show that citizens take the environmental matters seriously and do not vote for schematic projects that are limited in scope and which have limited contribution to the general welfare.

Youth participation in environmental sustainability: insights from the Lisbon participatory budget

“…While the 2021PB suggests that young citizens can make a difference as a key target group (see above), findings on environmental sustainability from the workshop also suggest that the youth can positively contrast short-term deliberations by broadening areas of intervention (see Elelman and Feldman, 2018;Stevenson and Dryzek, 2012). Evidence from other PBs shows that consensus can be built around decisions for environmental sustainability at both neighbourhood (Friant, 2019;Bernaciak et al, 2017) and city levels (Gherghina and Tap, 2021). In some cases, PBs give preference to tangible projects, whereas in others, intangible activities are funded to improve awareness and education (Cabannes, 2018;Friant, 2019).…”

“…By zooming in on European experiences, PBs in Poland have privileged projects related to green infrastructure and air protection at the neighbourhood scale, which outnumbered investment on environmental education (Bernaciak et al, 2017). In Romania, Gherghina and Tap (2021) found that the promotion of environmental sustainability in the Cluj-Napoca PB depended on the amount of allocated money, as well as the arguments advanced by proponents. In Portugal, the Lisbon PB has provided considerable advancements in the field of environmental sustainability and opened a new space of reflection and experimentation on PBs entirely dedicated to this policy field (Falanga et al, 2021).…”

“…, 2017). In Romania, Gherghina and Tap (2021) found that the promotion of environmental sustainability in the Cluj-Napoca PB depended on the amount of allocated money, as well as the arguments advanced by proponents. In Portugal, the Lisbon PB has provided considerable advancements in the field of environmental sustainability and opened a new space of reflection and experimentation on PBs entirely dedicated to this policy field (Falanga et al.…”

Participatory budgeting and the perception of collective empowerment: institutional design and limited political interference

“…In 2019, the city had a budget of 326 million € out of which the PB received 2.25 million €, which is roughly 0.70% of the total city budget. In 2020, the PB was allocated the same amount of 2.25 million €, roughly 0.65% of the total municipal budget that which was 344 million € (Gherghina and Tap 2021). The 2020 PB was not organized due to the COVID-19 pandemics, but…”

“…Data available at https:// prima riacl ujnap oca. ro/ infor matii-publi ce/ comun icate/ buget are-parti cipat ivacluj-napoca-2019/, last accessed 11 November 2020.4 Data for the 2017-2019 PB in Cluj are available inGherghina and Tap (2021).2 The platform available at https:// buget arepa rtici pativa. ro/, last accessed 18 August 2022.…”