Involved Actors & Resources
| Governmental body: yes/no |
| ; | No, at least not directly |
| if yes, explain by filling in the name(s) of the governmental body; |
| Other public actors: yes/no; |
| Yes |
| if yes, explain by filling in the name(s) of the public actors and |
| describe which sector and explain their role, briefly |
| ; |
|
| Private for-profit actors: yes/no; |
| No |
| if yes, explain by using types of private for-profit actors such as |
| public engagement consultants, companies etc.; |
| N/A | |
| Private not-for-profit actors: yes/no; |
| Yes |
| if yes, explain by using types of private not-for-profit actors such |
| as associations, informal networks etc.; |
| |
| Civic actors: yes/no; |
| Yes |
| if yes, explain on the heterogeneity of the participants with respect |
| to gender, age, educational qualification, place of residence etc. |
age: about 1/2 of the participatns were adults of working age (20-59 years), 1/3 were elderly people (60+) and 1/5 were kids and teenagers;
place of residence: all people living in the neighborhoods of 2nd, 5th, 6th, 10th, 15th, 16th, 20th, 21st, 22nd district in Vienna
educational qualification: n.a.
| All residents living in the 15th district / Rudolfsheim-Fünfhaus | |
| Other actors: yes/ |
| no |
| Yes |
| if yes, explain |
| Public actors, for-profit, non-for-profit in joint alliances for small-scale neighbourhood projects |
| Funding/ |
| Financial resources for the particular best practice example |
| : | |
| if |
| yes, specify e.g. amount of funding/ |
| year | Yes; 100k€/ year for the duration of 4 yrs. app. 1.8 mio EUR for the duration of 3 yrs. |
| and the source(s) of funding (if more sources, please specify) | a) 50% funded by the district, 50% by the Municipality. B) through MA25 |
Type of Governance
| Participatory process: yes/no |
| Yes |
| Deliberative process: yes/no |
| Yes |
| Other forms: if yes, specify; |
| Top-down |
| No |
| Bottom-up |
| Yes |
| Others: if yes, |
| specify; | through alliances and collaboration for small-scale projects; or, as first initiative to get started larger (municipality-run) participation and/or urban delevopment process |
Specifal Features of the Best Practice which explain Practical Arrangements to Promote Inclusiveness
| Cost reimbursement (e.g., for public transport, compensation of |
| working hours): if yes, describe |
| No |
| Provision of care services: if yes, describe |
| No |
| Provision of mediators (e.g., linguistic, cultural): if yes, describe/ |
specifyyes, multipliers belonging to different target groups, linguistic translation in Turkish and Arabic during the workshops
| specify | Yes; provided by the multi-disciplinary teams in a) and b) |
| Frequency of activities within the best practice: How often and for |
| how long did participants |
| involve in best practice (e.g., in general friendly towards employed people or people with care responsibilities)? |
2018: 6 neighbourhood cafes, 20 workshops, 2 impuls workshops for Bedarfserhebung, 1 accompanied neighborhood initiative (i.e., "Grätzelinitiative"), 1 neighbourhood forum (i.e., Grätzelforum)
2019: 8 neighborhood cafes, 10 workshops, 1 accompanied neighborhood initiative (i.e., "Grätzelinitiative") 1 neighborhood forum (i.e., Grätzelforum)
| Unknown |
Target groups
| External inclusion referring to who is invited or allowed to take part from the invitation = ideal situation |
| everybody from the 15th district |
| Internal inclusion referring to the participation of all participants within = real |
| situation | Unknown |
| Internal |
| exclusion referring to certain participants who are overly |
| dominant | Unknown |
| Vulnerable groups were specified in the |
| designed plan of the best practice: yes/no |
| No |
| If yes: Who in particular, e.g. |
| migrants, people in precarious work-situation |
| etc.? Specify. |
| N/A |
| If yes: Special attention towards young people, women, elderly people: yes/no. |
| N/A |
| If yes, specify. |
| N/A |
| Did vulnerable groups participate in the best practice: yes/no |
| Unknown |
| If yes: Who in particular, e.g. |
| migrants, people in precarious work-situation |
| etc.? Specify. |
| Unknown |
| If yes: |
| Participation of young people, women, elderly people: yes/no. |
| Unknown |
| If yes, specify. |
| N/A | |
| If yes: Did special training and empowerment activities support these groups within the participatory process? |
| Unknown |
Public Information Activities on the Best Practice
| Means of Information |
| Provided | mostly on Website, Newsletter, Social Media |
| Information documents (e.g., flyer, brochures, invitation letters): yes/no |
| ; | sometimes for specific initiatives |
| If yes: multiple |
| languages available: yes/no |
| depends |
| If yes: non-technical language used: yes/ |
| no |
| Yes |
| Social |
| Media (e.g., |
| facebook, |
| Instagram, WhatsApp, websites, blog): yes/no |
| Yes |
| If yes: please specify |
| N/A |
| Way of Communication |
| Website and social media postings: yes/no |
| Yes |
| Information documents distributed in the post box: yes/no |
| Unknown |
| Information documents distributed on streets and |
| public spaces (during events): yes/no |
| Depends |
| Press releases in |
| “traditional” public media (e.g. |
| linear TV, daily newspapers etc.): yes/no |
| Yes |
| Special-target activities (e.g. |
| through gate-openers, |
| community workers etc.): yes/no |
| Unknown |
| Monitoring | |
| Monitoring process on the best practice available |
| ? Yes/no |
| Yesfor a) and b); however: for internal purpose, only |
| If yes: Continuous information on monitoring results provided to the participants: yes/no |
| No |
| If yes: How? How often? |
| yearly + at the end of funding period | |
| Integration of participants in the monitoring |
| process? Yes/no |
| No |
| If yes: Did they have the opportunity to suggest changes to the process |
| ? Yes/no |
| No |
| Continuous information on monitoring results provided to network partners (public and non-public actors) |
| ? | No |
| If yes: How? How often? | No |
Impact Assessment/Evaluation
| Impact Assessment / Evaluation | |
| Did an impact assessment (e.g., achievements, challenges) or evaluation (standardized success measurement) take place: yes/no |
| Unknown |
| If yes: |
| Who evaluates? What? How? |
| At which point of process? |
an external evalutation expert (prosect reserach & solution)
| Unknown |
Citizen Empowerment & Representation
| Structured Decision-Making | No |
| Explanation of objectives and methods, at the beginning of the process |
| ? Yes/no |
| No |
| Do the |
| participants make final decisions? |
| Unknown |
| If no: Why? Who decides instead? |
| alliance of municipal dep. + urban renewal office + other actors involved |
| If yes: What |
| kinds of decisions? |
| Unknown | |
| If yes: Is there a veto right by the citizens (i.e. |
| if they are against a specific option this is not implemented?) |
| ? yes/no |
| No |
| At the end of the participation process: Final document on the |
| decisions that were taken? Yes/no |
| Yes |
| If yes: publication of this document available? Yes/no |
| Yes |
| If yes: publication of this document sent to participants and/or affected community? Yes/no. |
| No |
| Tools to Enhance |
| Citizens’ Empowerment | |
| Clear definition and communication of mutual commitments, decision-making |
| roles and any limits on the decisions |
| ? Yes/ |
| No |
| No |
| Are specific tools available to participants (e.g., regular meetings or trainings, apps) |
| ? | Unknown |
| If yes: What kind of? |
| N/A | |
| If not: Why not? |
| N/A |
| Integration of empowerment tools in multi-level- |
| governance-system? |
| Unknown |
| If yes: Where |
| [in the sense of at which level in the multilevel-governance (vertical)]? |
| N/A | |
| If yes: For whom in particular (horizontal)? |
| N/A | |
| If not: Why not? What results from that (e.g., disconnection etc.) | N/A |
| Involvement and Tasks of Participating Groups |
| Which groups are involved |
| at which stage of the participatory process |
| ? | Unknown |
| What are the tasks of the groups? Describe for each group |
| . | Unknown |
| Which groups are underrepresented among the participants? Why? |
| Unknown |