Community Engagement in Local Communities: Hearing the Voices of the Public
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Representative democracy is no longer enough for day-to-day governance as citizens demand more of their elected officials’ time and more attention paid to matters that concern them .Public hearings, open houses and other traditional means of engaging with citizens, especiallyat the municipal level, are not sufficient for true participatory democracy . Nor is going to the polls on a set date enough to satisfy citizens’ desires to interact more with elected officials . Done properly, engaging with the community can enable politicians to make better decisions . It can also broaden their perspectives on issues, offer opportunities for better communication and relationship-building with a diverse public and allow new ideas to come into play in the decision- making process . Although an Ipsos poll has revealed that just 20 per cent of Canadians have ever engaged in community engagement, those who did said they saw it as a positive experience . This paper examines the barriers to community engagement, including failure to reach people, time and place limitations, NIMBYism and the problem of strong voices dominating and making other people feel unheard . The City of Nanaimo offers a successful model of community engagement . When preparing an Affordable Housing Strategy, officials reached out to the public through pop-up events, workshops, surveys and one-on-one conversations . Follow-up included a white paper that incorporated the engagement process, public feedback and policy options . Later, a draft of the strategy was presented to the public during an open house which offered a question-and- answer period . Engaging with the public is not a small undertaking . However, this paper shows that problems such as divergent opinions, strongly vocal activists potentially hijacking the agenda, inevitable conflicts between factions and establishing the best times and places for engagement are not insurmountable . This paper offers recommendations for community engagement that can be adapted by both large and small municipalities . The key to successful engagement is advance preparation, including deciding which projects are best suited for this approach, public communication to ensure as many people as possible know about the opportunity to engage and starting the engagement process early . Taking the process to the people by going to popular local hang-outs and talking to citizens there helps mitigate the problem of inconvenient times and structured settings for many people . In smaller municipalities, officials can set up tables on Main Street, at libraries or local clubs . Combining online engagement with other efforts could help bring together ideas and perspectives from those more likely to engage online and those who prefer traditional methods of engagement, which will help to improve the quality of the whole process . Online engagement can supplement in-person connections and can help to set out rules around behaviour and enforcement of them . Municipalities can also partner with translators and cultural organizations to ensure that no one is left out of the process because of language or other barriers . Feedback and follow-up are two important parts of the engagement process as well . Citizens need to know that their input was valuable in determining final policies .
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,014 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,030 | 0,015 |
| Communication savante | 0,012 | 0,007 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,017 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,012 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».