Participatory Budgeting for the Management of Children’s Green Areas in Valencia: DecidimVLC and Its Impact on Citizen Participation

Abstract

Citizen participation has been fundamental in the design and management of public spaces in Valencia over the last decade, promoting spatial justice. Models such as co-creation through participatory budgeting, self-management and social mobilisation have proven their effectiveness. This article focuses on the study of Valencia’s DecidimVLC digital platform, analysing its influence on participatory budgeting over ten years, since its launch in 2015. The research delves into a participatory project with high media coverage focused on the children’s area of Plaza del Cedro, a neighbourhood park with high community involvement. The results are structured in two sections. On the one hand, a general analysis of the DecidimVLC platform is carried out, examining the types of projects it has promoted. On the other, it provides a specific assessment of the results through the case study of the children’s green area, evaluating the impact of direct interaction with the administration on spatial justice and social cohesion. The study confirms that digital tools such as DecidimVLC are a key vehicle for citizen ‘empowerment’, promoting a more equitable and participatory vision of the city.

1. Introduction

There is currently no doubt about the need to design more liveable, healthy and equitable cities, in clear alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the principles of the Urban Agendas [1]. In this context, the quality and accessibility of local public green spaces, as well as citizen involvement in governance, are clearly at the heart of the strategies being promoted [2]. The promotion of health and the reduction of inequalities are cross-cutting objectives of these agendas and premises to be considered in the design and planning of these urban interventions.

From the perspective of governance and citizen participation, urban planning has traditionally been marked by a vertical, top-down model of governance that has been questioned and debated for decades. Decisions made far from the spaces inhabited by residents often perpetuate spatial injustice [3], which directly affects quality of life and the sense of belonging in the urban environment. One model of citizen participation in governance is participatory budgeting, which allows decisions to be made based on the management of part of the municipal budget. The initiatives managed by this type of platform respond to needs and, in many cases, problems detected in their immediate urban environment. In general terms, transparency in participatory processes is guaranteed by a series of technical, administrative and communication mechanisms that seek to ensure traceability, equity and accountability [4]. This is based on principles such as deliberative democracy, which seeks to ensure transparent, inclusive and debate-based processes; technopolitics, which combines technology and politics to empower citizens; and technical characteristics such as modularity (which allows participatory processes to be configured through proposals, votes, surveys and debates), and scalability focused on use by both small organisations and large public institutions.

Research focused on participatory budgeting currently has a long history and a solid base of scientific literature. It is well known that participatory budgeting originated in Brazil (Porto Alegre) in 1989 [5]. Porto Alegre’s pioneering experience focused on actions in disadvantaged neighbourhoods with public resources managed by citizens and marked a milestone as Brazil’s contribution to democracy. This pilot practice of participatory governance, which emerged from left-wing political ideology, has proliferated worldwide and been widely replicated in different countries and languages (Figure 1), as well as in very heterogeneous contexts and political realities. As Payà, P. [6] points out, ‘left-wing political parties, social movements, international institutions (EU, Central Bank, etc.), city networks and experts have led the process of spreading participatory budgeting in Europe’, and in 2010 there were more than 1400 participatory budgeting experiences around the world, which have grown exponentially in recent years. Thus, the proliferation of new mechanisms for citizen participation is part of an environment of political, economic and cultural changes experienced by contemporary societies since the 1980s [7]. Participatory budgeting is now a widely used democratic tool in different contexts that allows citizens to decide directly on the allocation of part of public spending, reversing the traditional logic of power [8].

In the Spanish context, these mechanisms have followed an upward trajectory since their first applications at the beginning of the century. As Pineda Nebot [9] points out, participatory budgeting in Spain has gone through various phases of assessment and readjustment, consolidating itself not only as a tool for deepening democracy, but also as a local management instrument that seeks to improve efficiency and transparency in the administration of municipal resources.

This trend has materialised with the widespread adoption of digital participatory budgeting platforms in numerous Spanish cities, extending extensively to small municipalities. Among them, Decide Madrid, Decidim Barcelona and DecidimVLC (currently VLCParticipa)1 have implemented these processes in a significant way, demonstrating the ability of citizens to directly decide on the investment of public funds. However, despite their undoubted democratic value, it is worth mentioning that these tools generate great media interest from the political sphere, occupying large spaces in the press (announcements, processes, inaugurations, etc.). Below (

Table 1. Most notable platforms and processes in different Spanish cities.

City	Plataform	Year Established/ Operating Since	Link
Barcelona	Decidim Barcelona	2016/operational	https://www.decidim.barcelona/ (URL accessed on 25 November 2025)
Madrid	Decide Madrid	2016/operational	https://decide.madrid.es/ (URL accessed on 25 November 2025)
Valencia	DecidimVLC	2015/operational	https://decidimvlc.valencia.es/ (URL accessed on 25 November 2025)
A Coruña	A Porta Aberta	2016/operational	https://coruna.gal/movilidad/es/planes-y-programas/presupuestos-participativos?argIdioma=es (URL accessed on 25 November 2025)
Sevilla	Decide Sevilla	2017/operational	https://www.sevilla.org/DecideSevilla/ (URL accessed on 25 November 2025)
Zaragoza	ideaZaragoza	2017/operational	https://www.zaragoza.es/sede/ (URL accessed on 25 November 2025)

Source: Own elaboration.

) are some of the most notable platforms and processes in different Spanish cities.

These Spanish models bear similarities to processes in Mediterranean cities such as Montpellier (France) and Turin (Italy) [10], where the management of public space and green areas are pillars of citizen participation. All these cases consolidate a system of digital participation that was implemented in Spain almost a decade ago with the aim of making administrations more transparent and accessible. There are some recent studies that have addressed digital models of municipal participation in Spain [11]. Regarding the city of Valencia, we find recent studies focused on the participatory dimension in urban policy design [12]. For its part, the DecidimVLC platform has also been analysed in the period 2018–2019 [13] and in 2016–2020 [14]. However, the present research significantly broadens the scope by taking as its sample the results of ten years of operation. Furthermore, the study goes beyond an exhaustive analysis of the platform, as it delves into the analysis of a specific case of improvement of a local park, allowing for a more comprehensive assessment by analysing specific results derived from the participatory process.

In summary, based on the importance of active citizen participation for effective local governance, this article aims to critically analyse the experience of Valencia. The research focuses on the study of the DecidimVLC digital platform (2015–2023) and its implementation in a representative case of action on a neighbourhood park in the city of Valencia: Plaza del Cedro. This approach will provide insight into how citizen participation has been channelled into the management of a specific case, analysing the results in terms of scope, design and evaluation.

To this end, the following specific objectives are proposed:

• Evaluate the use of the platform. Analyse the citizen participation process through the DecidimVLC participatory budgets.
• Identify and categorise the types of initiatives promoted through the platform.
• Study the selected case. Conduct a detailed analysis of the participatory process in the urban environment of Plaza del Cedro.
• Assess the effectiveness of the objectives stated by the DecidimVLC platform with regard to spatial justice and social cohesion.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Methodology and Data Sources Used

The study begins with an initial literature review to establish the framework and context of the research. A mixed methodology (quantitative and qualitative) structured in two phases is used for the study of the platform and the case study:

The first phase takes a quantitative-descriptive approach with the aim of addressing specific objectives 1 and 2, relating to the evaluation of the use of the platform, as well as the identification and categorisation of the types of projects it has promoted. Consequently, data extracted directly from the DecidimVLC digital platform since its launch in 2015 is used, including the following key variables:

• Total number of proposals submitted by citizens in each participatory budgeting call.
• Classification of the thematic categories of the projects to identify citizens’ priorities.
• Participation rates per call for proposals, in order to measure the evolution of citizen involvement over time.
• Geographical distribution of proposals and votes to identify the intensity of participation in the different neighbourhoods of the city.

The second methodological phase focuses on the contextualised interpretation of the results, addressing specific objectives 3 and 4, centred on the case study. To this end, an analysis of the Plaza del Cedro is carried out before and after the actions taken to establish a balance between the programme, design, citizens’ demands and subsequent assessments of the results.

Various techniques were used to collect data:

• Data extraction from the DecidimVLC platform: All content from 2015 to 2023 was extracted, taking into account all calls for proposals.
• Documentary analysis of various sources: The content of press publications, relevant municipal records and information available on the DecidimVLC website has been reviewed and analysed. In addition, data analysis from the valenciaparcsdebarri.es website has been incorporated.
• Field study: Photographic field studies have been carried out to directly and objectively document the current state of the park after the intervention (2 November 2025). The findings of this study have been compared with the data collected by the team in 2016.
• Interviews and consultations with neighbourhood associations: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives of neighbourhood associations and direct users of the renovated spaces. Specifically, the neighbourhood association ‘Veïns de Ciutat Jardí’ was contacted in order to gather their opinions and qualitative assessments of the final result and their perception of the interaction with the administration.

2.2. Analysis Materials

2.2.1. DecidimVLC Platform

• Description

The DecidimVLC Platform has been the operational support for participatory budgeting in the city of Valencia since its first edition in 2015–2016. It consists of a website, known since 2025 as VLCParticipa, located on the Valencia City Council’s Citizen Participation Portal, with the URL https://vlcparticipa.valencia.es/ (accessed on 25 November 2025).

Its content is essentially informative, as it includes a presentation and detailed description of all the processes involved in participatory budgeting campaigns. It is aimed at all citizens, so it uses clear and direct display options supported by graphics and short messages with the use of imperatives (Figure 2). The use of resources such as highlighting the most important messages with larger font sizes, emphasising important ideas in bold and using phrases such as ‘participatory budgeting in 2 minutes’ to emphasise the simplicity of the procedure are intended to bring interaction with the platform to as many people as possible.

The information provided is structured, on the one hand, as a general description of the participatory process but, in the case of any ongoing campaigns, it also presents their progress in real time, indicating which process is currently underway, with an indication of the dates that define the deadlines for participation in each of the corresponding phases, highlighting which agent is acting or has to act at each stage of the participatory process.

Finally, the portal includes a section that serves as a record of all the editions that have taken place to date, starting with 2015–2016. Each edition contains a list of the investment proposals that have been selected in each case, providing, among other things, their identification, their classification by type of intervention, their description, their geographical location by district and georeferenced position, the budget allocated to them, the number of votes received and a follow-up of the processing and implementation phases of the intervention.

The availability on the platform of all this data for each of the investment proposals developed throughout the entire period in which municipal participatory budgeting campaigns have been carried out has enabled descriptive statistical analysis of the key variables described in the section on methodology.

2.

The DecidimVLC participatory process

DecidimVLC is a participatory tool that allows registered residents of the city to propose, support and vote on investment projects to be carried out in different neighbourhoods of the city. It is designed to allow citizens to directly decide how a small portion of the municipal budget, quantified in each case by the city council, is allocated.

The investment proposals that receive the most votes are finally selected and become the projects that Valencia City Council undertakes to implement. It is possible to follow the progress of the approved projects on the platform itself, as this information is shown in the report on the corresponding participatory process.

The budget allocation has increased from €7 million in the 2015–2016, 2016–2017 and 2017–2018 editions to €8 million in the 2018–2019, 2019–2020 and 2020–2021 editions, and €16 million for the 2022–2023 and 2025–2026 editions. The budget allocation among the participatory proposals is based on an initial equal distribution among districts. The rest of the budget to be allocated is an amount per district that is added to the previous one, which is weighted according to two criteria: proportionality according to the registered population aged 16 or over and inverse proportionality to the average income of the district. In all editions held to date, the process has generally been divided into four phases:

Phase 1: Proposal. This first phase is aimed at anyone over the age of 16 who is registered as a resident of Valencia and is free to submit investment project proposals, either individually or collectively2.

Phase 2: Prioritisation. This is the phase in which the investment project proposals submitted are supported. Citizens support the proposals electronically via the platform. In order to be evaluated by the Municipal Technical Services and move forward in the process, in the last edition it was necessary to receive at least 30 votes of support in the districts and 15 in the dependant villages.

Phase 3: Analysis. The City Council’s technical services evaluate the proposals with the support of the citizens required in the previous phase, in a single process divided into a validation phase and a technical feasibility phase3.

Phase 4: Voting. This is carried out through a process open to all persons over the age of 16 who are registered in the city of Valencia, either online via the web platform or in person at ‘voting points’ set up by the city council in locations distributed throughout the districts.

Once voting has ended, the final result of the process is obtained by ranking all the proposals from each district according to the number of votes obtained. The budget is allocated by district, starting with the selection of the most voted proposal until the last available one before it is exhausted. Thus, the proposals that pass the four previous phases are selected for implementation through technical projects.

3.

Structure of the data contained on the platform

The website, as a chronological record, contains a series of links that provide access to the list of proposals that have been selected in all editions of participatory budgeting that have taken place to date. Each proposal is accompanied by a series of identifying and descriptive data, as well as an indication of its current state of development, indicating the stage of monitoring it is at (drafting of project 25%, processing 50%, in execution 75%, already executed 100%). The information provided for each proposal includes the name and code of the initiative, an explanation of it, its geographical location, the number of votes received and the budget that was finally allocated.

The presence of this content allows for the examination of a series of key variables in order to provide an essential overview, quantifying the scope and distribution of citizen participation.

A first reading of the data, taking into account the number of proposals that have passed all stages of the process, the budget allocation and the number of votes received, allows the data from the eight years of citizen consultation projects on investments to be concentrated in the

Table 2. Basic data on participatory budgeting campaigns in the city of Valencia since 2015.

Edition	Budget Allocation	Number of Proposals	Geographical Scope	Votes Cast
2015–2016	€7,000,000	110	By district	N.A.
2016–2017	€7,000,000	71	By district	19,647
2017–2018	€7,000,000	11	The whole city	34,306
2018–2019	€8,000,000	103	By district	26,830
2019–2020	€8,000,000	21	The whole city	75,387
2020–2021	€8,000,000	139	By district	44,090
2022–2023	€16,000,000	161	By district	50,892
2025–2026	€16,000,000	458	By district	110,402
2015–2023	€61,000,000	616		250,863

Source: Own elaboration based on data from the DecidimVLC platform. The data corresponding to the 2025–2026 edition have been provisionally included in the table in italics, as they have been available for consultation since 27 November 2025, meaning that they have not been incorporated in detail into this study.

.

Thus, up to the 2022–2023 edition, 616 proposals have been selected, receiving a total of 250,863 votes, with a total budget allocation of €61,000,000. There is a clear trend towards a gradual increase in the municipal budget allocated to the participatory process. Leaving aside the data for the 2017–2018 and 2019–2020 editions, when the initiatives originated from the city council, there has been a steady increase in the number of proposals that have passed through the four stages of the process and in the total number of votes received. This growing level of participation is considerably reinforced by the most recent provisional data for the 2025–2026 edition, where there are almost three times as many proposals and twice as many votes as in the previous edition.

4.

Types of investment proposals

During the period studied, covering the first seven editions (from 2015–2016 to 2022–2023), the name and description of each proposal has been taken into account to determine the nature of the projects proposed by citizens, which gives a clear indication of their priorities with regard to improving the common good and public spaces in the city. The proposals have been classified into ten main groups, which are identified below, together with the characteristics of the type of intervention included in each of them:

• Urbanisation—Repaving, resurfacing, sidewalk repairs, dog parks, etc.
• Parks—Partial or complete renovation of neighborhood parks.
• Mobility—Cycling, public transportation.
• Sports facilities—Basic sports facilities, sports areas or courts, swimming pools, etc.
• Energy/technology—Photovoltaic energy, solar energy, environmental information, public Wi-Fi, etc.
• Street furniture/lighting—Streetlights, benches, fountains, trash cans, pergolas, etc.
• Gardening—Reforestation, trees, landscaping.
• Waste—Containers, underground waste collection, recycling.
• Equipment/Facilities—Building installations and renovations, vegetable gardens, equipment, cat colonies, etc.
• Signage—Pedestrian crossings, road safety, information posts and panels, routes, etc.

2.2.2. Case Study of the DecidimVLC Platform

Among the different types of interventions that have been developed through the participatory budgeting platform, we focus on those related to “PARKS.” It is interesting to analyze the process and the results obtained through a case study because of its importance as a local green space and its relevance from a socio-environmental and health perspective. The selected environment is the “Plaza del Cedro,” a neighborhood park in the city of Valencia where the project presented through the platform for the improvement of a children’s green area included in this square is located.

This space meets multiple characteristics to be considered an environment that promotes the physical and mental health of citizens, especially in childhood, as it counterbalances the habits of generations of digital natives. As Pretty et al. [15] point out, neighborhood green spaces are ideal places for various daily activities such as recreation, play, socialization, rest, or physical activity, which help combat growing health problems such as sedentary lifestyles and stress. For their part, local green spaces, such as Plaza del Cedro, directly contribute to the three key lines of action set out in the Guide to Designing Healthy Cities [16]: they promote a walkable city, are essential for coexistence and reducing inequalities, and help to bring nature into the city.

Furthermore, as Obando and Salcedo [17] point out, ‘parks and green spaces reinforce a sense of community… they have an impact on people’s physical well-being and increase their subjective sense of well-being’. All in all, Plaza del Cedro offers an environment for social interaction and protection for physical and mental health [18], promoting physical activity and reducing the risk of isolation.

The suitability of this park as a case study is reinforced by the following factors:

• High community involvement: The project has been supported by neighbourhood associations, generating significant social mobilisation.
• Comprehensive use of DecidimVLC: The project has used the participatory budgeting platform in all its phases and throughout different calls for proposals.
• Public dissemination and visibility: The media coverage and public debate generated around its design and implementation confirm its wide visibility.
• Nature of the project: This is a project to remodel a public space that is heavily used by local residents.
• Implementation phase completed: The project has been implemented or is at a very advanced stage of implementation, allowing for a specific assessment of tangible results and their social impact.

A combination of qualitative and quantitative data relating to the project has been used to analyse the Plaza del Cedro. This information was obtained directly from Valencia’s participatory budgeting platform and supplemented by reviewing numerous press and digital media publications that documented the entire process4.

This data collection not only allows for the evaluation of the project’s process and implementation, but also highlights its fundamental role in the administration’s political dissemination and communication, emphasising the interest and impact of initiatives promoted directly by citizens.

3. Results

3.1. Results Extracted from the DecidimVLC Platform

3.1.1. General Analysis: 2015–2023 Period

Of the total of 616 investment proposals that have passed all the selection phases throughout the historical period of participatory budgeting analysed, urbanisation proposals are the most numerous. Interventions in neighbourhood parks, both partial and comprehensive, account for more than 15% of all proposals. Other types of projects that exceed 10% are those relating to improvements or replacement of street furniture and lighting installations, equipment and sports facilities. The distribution of initiatives by type of proposal is summarised in

Table 3. Types of projects and initiatives approved by DecidimVLC.

Period 2015–2023	Number of Initiatives Approved	%
Urbanisation	164	26.62%
Signage	52	8.44%
Waste	18	2.92%
Parks	93	15.10%
Mobility	54	8.77%
Street furniture/lighting	69	11.20%
Gardening	13	2.11%
Equipment/Facilities	62	10.06%
Energy/technology	29	4.71%
Sports facilities	62	10.06%
TOTAL	616	100%

Source: Own elaboration based on data from the DecidimVLC platform. Parks type project is highlighted in bold because it corresponds to the case study analyzed in this article.

.

The sum of the budgets allocated after the voting period by type of proposal in the seven editions analysed reveals that urbanisation proposals, with a total of €14,206,904 (23.29%), received the largest allocation, followed by those for parks, with €11,115,837 (18.22%), also above €10,000,000. The average budget allocated to neighbourhood park interventions, with a total of 93, is set at around €120,000. In this context, the largest average budgets by type of project correspond to gardening, with €302,859.46 per initiative, although this average is distorted by the inclusion of €2,100,000 for planting trees, palm trees and shrubs in tree pits and medians on avenues throughout the city in the 2017–2018 edition, in a proposal made by the municipal technical services. These statements are reflected in Figure 3.

Citizen support in terms of total votes (250,863) during the reference period (except for the 2015–2016 edition, as no data is available on the platform) has also been channelled, to a large extent, towards urbanisation projects, with a total of 55,125 votes (21.97%). Figure 4 shows that initiatives related to equipment-facilities (29,632 votes, 11.81%), energy-technology (27,967 votes, 11.15%), parks (27,547 votes, 10.98%) and mobility (25,391 votes, 10.12%) are, together with the above, those that have received a total of more than 25,000 votes.

Overall, combining the number of initiatives, number of votes and budget allocation, neighbourhood park improvement initiatives have received the most support, after the urbanisation projects. Citizens’ interest in improving neighbourhood parks as a fundamental part of urban green space has led us to select the case of Plaza del Cedro as emblematic for analysis and determination of its impact on spatial justice and social cohesion.

3.1.2. Proposals for Interventions to Improve Neighbourhood Parks

The improvement of neighbourhood parks includes both partial and comprehensive interventions. The former are located in existing parks and cover proposals for the specific renovation of some of the existing elements in them, generally the replacement, improvement or expansion of children’s play facilities, but also the location of new specific areas, such as sports, bio-healthy, dog or landscaping areas, which did not previously exist in the park. The renovation approach is partial, as the interventions are limited to very specific areas and do not affect the overall layout of the park. In this case, the budgets allocated are more limited and the process is faster because they do not involve substantial modifications and the mechanisms for their implementation are simpler.

On the other hand, comprehensive reforms involve either the complete remodelling of existing parks or the creation of a new neighbourhood park in areas that are currently undeveloped (building plots, urban voids, informal parking areas). However, they do not involve any modification of the planning, as the land use classifications usually provide for their development as green areas. These are interventions that require the drafting of projects and larger budget allocations, which are resolved over longer periods of time and involve more complex procedures.

Table 4. Park-focused initiatives.

Period 2015–2023
PARKS	93 proposals	€11,115,837	27,547 votes
	15.10%	18.22%	10.98%
Partial renovations
	68 proposals	€5,873,011	20,543 votes
	11.04%	9.63%	8.19%
Comprehensive renovations
	25 proposals	€5,242,826	7004 votes
	4.06%	8.59%	2.79%

Source: Own elaboration based on data from the DecidimVLC platform.

details the number of proposals, allocations and votes received during the period analysed. It can be seen that proposals for partial renovations tripled those for comprehensive renovations, with an average budget allocation of €86,367.81 per project, compared to an average of €209,713.04 allocated for each of the comprehensive renovations approved.

The selected proposals, which include interventions in neighbourhood parks, are distributed geographically according to the constellation model of neighbourhood park distribution in the city of Valencia [19]. Partial renovations are shown in ochre and comprehensive renovations in green in all the participatory budgeting calls analysed (Figure 5). It can be seen that the locations are concentrated in the consolidated peripheral districts. An overview of the entire participatory budgeting process over the last ten years, brought together in a single map, reveals that the districts of Patraix and Algiròs have the highest number of approved proposals, suggesting that they are the ones with the highest level of citizen mobilisation in the initiatives proposed by the city council in this regard.

Finally, in order to identify the most active locations in terms of demand for improvements to public spaces in neighbourhood parks within the participatory budgeting process over the last decade, a list has been compiled of those parks where more than one intervention initiative has been approved (

Table 5. Neighbourhood parks where more than one proposal has been approved 2015–2026.

Park Name	District	Number of Proposals	Comprehensive Renovation	Partial Renovation	2025–2026
Parque Enrique Granados	Patraix	4	-	3	1
Plaza del Cedro	Algiròs	2	1	1	-
Plaza Manuel Granero	Eixample	2	1	1	-
Parque de la Estacioneta	Jesús	2	1	1	-
Plaza Emilio Lluch	Patraix	2	-	2	-
Calle Polo y Peyrolón	Algiròs	2	-	2	-
Plaza Edifici Alcaldia	Poble Nou	2	-	2	-
Plaza Centenar de la Ploma	Ciutat Vella	2	-	1	1
Plaza de Roma	Olivereta	2	-	1	1
Parque calle Pío XI	Patraix	2	-	1	1

Source: Own elaboration based on data from the DecidimVLC platform.

). Plaza del Cedro, located in the Algiròs district, has been chosen as study case due to its representativeness as a high-use urban space with potential for conflict, providing a clear ‘laboratory’ for the participatory process. It can be seen that the case study is among those with the highest number of approved initiatives, which implies a broad mobilisation of citizens throughout the development of the phases into which the processes are divided. Significant social mobilisation is required at the moments when the proposal is formulated, supported and endorsed by voting, and this has effectively taken place in order to translate the project initiatives into executive actions through the use of the platform.

3.2. Case Study: Plaza del Cedro

3.2.1. Situation Prior to the Intervention of the DecidimVLC Platform (2016)

Plaza del Cedro is a neighborhood park located in the Ciudad Jardín neighborhood of Valencia, within the Algiròs district (Figure 6). It is located in a high-density urban environment and has an area of 5052 m² [20].

Based on the study carried out in 2016, we can determine the state of the park before the interventions resulting from participatory budgeting. The Plaza del Cedro, characterized at that time as a place for university nightlife in Valencia where young people would gather to drink alcohol, was fenced off in 2015 in response to neighborhood conflicts.

This use was complemented by its use as a passageway, recreation area, and playground during the day. The layout of the square, which is still in place today, is centered around an underused central space, which is accessed via diagonal axes. The square had only a small children’s play area (basically equipped with a swing, slide, and seesaws) located in a side area, which was small and had no functional or visual connection to the central space. In addition, this children’s equipment was in poor condition. Added to this was the fact that the park’s cobblestone pavement was unsuitable for children’s play (Figure 7).

The square also had a sports area with a basketball hoop and a single football goal, as well as a drinking fountain. Street furniture included benches, lampposts, litter bins and a bicycle parking area. One positive aspect worth mentioning was the vegetation, consisting of trees, shrubs and monumental specimens, which provided essential climatic comfort to the environment.

3.2.2. Plaza del Cedro: The Participation Process Through DecidimVLC

In this urban space, the association ‘Veïns de Ciutat Jardí’ promoted the initiative to create a large children’s play area in the southern part of the square, channelling the project through the DecidimVLC 2020–2021 participatory budgeting process.

The proposal put forward by the association can be seen in Figure 8 published on the Valencia City Council website (19 December 2022). According to the accompanying text: ‘The project envisages the creation of a large recreational area for children, with versatile and eye-catching games, simulating three trees at different levels where the scenery of animals, oversized natural elements and colourful safety flooring are the common thread of the imaginative story that the children of the neighbourhood will develop’. According to the then Deputy Mayor and Councillor for Urban Ecology, Sergi Campillo, ‘the proposal was agreed upon and redesigned with the involvement of the Cedro Neighbourhood Association and the person proposing the initiative in order to meet the real needs of the population and promote constant dialogue’ [21].

The design of the children’s facility included, among other things, climbing structures, bridges and slides, meeting the association’s demand to expand the children’s play area.

Table 6. Basic data on the proposal initiative in Plaza del Cedro. 2020–2021 edition.

Concept	Data	Source/Context
Proposal No. 4843 2020–2021 Edition-Creation of a Playground in Plaza del Cedro
Votes obtained by the proposal	208 votes	Participatory budgeting DecidimVLC
Initial budget for the proposal	€100,000.00	Initial allocation for the proposal voted on.
Tender budget (August 2022)	€92,416.00	Tender for the works.
Award budget (December 2022/March 2023)	€73,847.76	Budget for the award of the works.
Final overall budget (March 2023)	More than €100,000.00	Includes the play area, benches, ischial supports and ramp.
Works completion period	49 days	Estimated time for the remodelling of the play area.
Capacity of the new playground	74 children	Maximum capacity for children of different ages.
Accessibility improvements	1 of 4 staircases converted into a ramp	To improve access to the space.
Comfort facilities	5 double-length benches with backrests and armrests, 2 ischial supports.	For accompanying persons.

Source: Own elaboration.

and

Table 7. Basic data on the proposal initiative in Plaza del Cedro. 2022–2023 edition.

Concept	Data	Source/Context
Proposal No. 5469 2022–2023 Edition- Renovation of Plaza del Cedro
Votes obtained by the proposal	255 votes	Participatory budgeting DecidimVLC
Initial budget for the proposal	€69,000.00	Initial allocation for the proposal voted on.

Source: Own elaboration.

show significant data on the actions taken in Plaza del Cedro, from the initial support in votes to the costs incurred in the different stages of the contracting process (tendering and awarding).

3.2.3. Condition of the Park After the DecidimVLC Proposal (2025)

(a)

Analysis of recent field visit (2 November 2025)

A recent field visit was conducted to evaluate the results of the proposal implemented in 2023. It was found that this is a partial intervention located on one side of the park that provides a temporary solution to the need for a larger children’s area (Figure 9). However, the layout of the park remains the same: the central space is still underused and the overall layout suffers from a lack of connection between areas, as well as retaining the cobblestone paving, which is unsuitable for play.

The most significant and recent change focuses on a partial intervention aimed exclusively at children: the installation of a new children’s play area in one of the side areas. This new equipment corresponds to that approved in the participatory budgets, replacing the small and deteriorated play area from 2016.

However, this specific improvement is not without its problems; according to users, the design and operation of the new facility causes numerous problems with children falling (Figure 10). In addition, in the immediate vicinity of this new area, there is a lack of suitable benches for adults accompanying children. As the intervention is partial and concentrated on a single side, it has not modified the central structure or resolved the general deterioration of the park.

(b)

Assessments by users and neighbourhood associations

At the inauguration of the works resulting from the neighbourhood participation of DecidimVLC in March 2023, the Ciutat Jardí Neighbourhood Association already referred to the need for a complete remodelling of the park (Figure 11): “Part of the garden in Plaza del Cedro has been remodelled with a new children’s playground. Sergi Campillo, Councillor for Urban Ecology, visited us on 8 March. We explained the neighbourhood’s needs and the poor condition of the park’s paving to him, and he promised to present us with a comprehensive design for its complete refurbishment…” (Neighbourhood Association)

In a recent interview open to users U_01 and U_025 (2 November 2025), they expressed their dissatisfaction with the work carried out.

U_01 reports:

‘The work was incomplete and was inaugurated just before the municipal elections.’

‘The children’s facilities are not safe. All the children have fallen through the gap in the walkway.’

‘There are not enough benches to sit on.’

‘There is no specific area for dogs, and they run around the flower beds.’

‘The fencing is very positive, as the park is closed every night.’

U_02 reports:

‘There are not enough benches to sit on.’

‘The rest of the park’s problems were not fixed and there are unsafe areas.’

‘Children play in the flower beds, where there is dog excrement and areas with stones where they climb.’

The following general ideas were conveyed to us by the Ciutat Jardí neighbourhood association in Valencia through an interview with a member of the executive board (MEB):

• With regard to the use and operation of DecidimVLC, two major challenges stand out: the existence of a significant digital divide and access barriers for users over the age of 60, and the need for the association to carry out intensive promotion and dissemination work to ensure that residents are informed and participate in voting on proposals.
• ‘The platform requires computer skills that the older population does not possess. In our neighbourhood of Ciudad Jardín, many people over the age of 60 use WhatsApp but are unable to register on the platform to vote.’ (MEB)
• ‘Right now, the projects that go ahead are those that are well promoted by those who suggest them and have a population with the computer skills to vote for them.’ (MEB)

Although Valencia City Council provides in-person support points (district councils, youth centres) to assist those who have technological difficulties, with guarantees of inclusive participation and for the most vulnerable groups [22], extensive work is needed to disseminate information about the options and mechanisms for exercising their right to participate.

As for the assessment of the result (Figure 12), it is indicated that the action was partial and that a comprehensive proposal would have been required.

• ‘The action was correct, in line with the allocated budget. But of course, the residents need the park to be completely remodelled, and this is what we requested in the 2022 participatory budgets. And so it was approved, with a total of €69,000 being approved in said budget for the study.’ (MEB)

4. Discussion: Interpretation of the Findings

4.1. Democracy, Citizen Empowerment and Social Cohesion

DecidimVLC is configured as a platform that goes beyond mere consultation, where citizens participate in proposing solutions to their everyday problems in the public space. Like other participatory budgeting portals, it relies on digital infrastructures6 that function as free, open-source tools that facilitate the creation of participatory processes using free and secure technology, with all the democratic guarantees [23]. By using free software, which anyone can consult, use and even modify, the public administration seeks to build infrastructures designed for collaboration and the generation of collective knowledge between itself and citizens, thus promoting co-creation [24].

The active participation of the population translates into a greater sense of belonging among residents. Citizens not only present initial ideas, but can also comment on, debate and amend the proposals of others. Residents can feel part of the solution, which reduces political disaffection and increases trust in democratic institutions (legitimacy and trust). A resident or neighbourhood association goes from being a ‘consumer of municipal services’ to a ‘promoter or co-developer of policies and projects’, radically changing their relationship with the administration and their environment (from consumer to city producer).

For its part, Valencia City Council considers social cohesion to be a strategic priority, as reflected in its Third Plan for Inclusion and Social Cohesion (2021–2025) [25], and DecidimVLC acts as a tool to achieve these objectives. Therefore, there is a direct and widely documented relationship between active participation in public affairs and a significant increase in social cohesion and empowerment of residents in a community. The democratic framework of platforms such as DecidimVLC, based on free and open-source tools [26], transforms participation from a one-off, passive act (such as voting in an election) into a continuous, deliberative and constructive process that roots citizens in their territory and community [27].

4.2. Interconnection Between Procedural Justice and Spatial Justice in DecidimVLC

Transparency as the basis for fairness (procedural justice) is key, since, by relying on free and auditable software systems, DecidimVLC generates trust, as the ‘rules of the game’ are the same for all neighbourhoods and residents. If the process were opaque, residents of disadvantaged areas might suspect (rightly or wrongly) that their proposals are being ignored or manipulated, perpetuating spatial injustice. In this sense, transparency clearly mitigates this risk.

DecidimVLC uses mapping and georeferencing tools for proposals, which allows the specific shortcomings of each district to be ‘put on the map’ by locating the demands of initiatives requested by residents to improve their daily needs. The visibility of these imbalances (towards spatial justice), together with other indicators available from the municipal statistics office, such as population and income level, becomes tangible data and solid arguments for political action.

In terms of corrective mechanisms and ethical algorithms (active implementation), the platform allows administrations to go beyond simple ‘popular vote’ by integrating correction criteria into the evaluation phase. In fact, priority is given to initiatives located in districts with lower per capita income or in dependant villages, which are always less populated than the central city districts, thus allowing for the programming of equity7. In short, DecidimVLC is a technological mediator which, thanks to its ethical and transparent design (procedural justice), becomes an ally for the implementation of redistributive and equitable policies in the territory (spatial justice).

4.3. Propagandistic Use of Participatory Budgeting

Participatory budgeting is a key tool for democratic governance that channels citizen participation by allocating a small portion of the municipal public budget to projects and initiatives directly promoted by citizens. From a political perspective, participatory budgeting is particularly valuable for local government teams, as it addresses issues that directly connect with citizens:

• Strengthening local democracy: They promote deliberation and direct decision-making.
• Improving transparency: They make the process of allocating and using public expenditure visible.
• Aligning expenditure: They ensure that part of public investment responds to the needs perceived by residents.

This political utility often translates into propaganda and institutional communication. It is common to find reports and press releases in the media documenting the different phases of participatory budgeting projects, from the initial proposal to the inauguration of the works (Figure 13). These acts of communication, such as the report on the renovation of Plaza del Cedro, serve to project an image of efficient management and citizen participation [28,29,30].

In this context, participatory budgets not only serve as instruments of participatory governance, but also become tangible political capital for the governing team. The regular dissemination of the processes and phases, from citizen voting to inauguration (Figure 14) allows the local administration, regardless of its political affiliation, to present itself as an agent that not only listens to but also acts on neighbourhood demands.

4.4. Limitations of Actions Through Participatory Budgeting on the DecidimVLC Platform

While the benefits of introducing participatory budgeting into governance are undeniable, it is worth mentioning a number of structural and operational limitations that can be detected in the process and implementation of proposals. These include:

• Digital inclusion and participation gaps: Dependence on digital platforms hinders the effective participation of certain sectors of the population, such as older people, groups with lower digital literacy or those with limited access to technology. Since the tools are intended for all citizens, they must be easy to understand, otherwise ‘the existing digital divide, which is often economic, cultural and also age-related, will grow’ [31]. It is important to mention that online participatory budgeting suffers from the same problems as traditional or face-to-face budgeting. Lack of political will, lack of a participatory culture and inappropriate institutional design can negatively affect the processes, condemning them to failure, according to Enriquez León [32].
• Defining the scope and scale of the projects being managed: There is no clear approach to the type and scale of projects most appropriate for funding through participatory budgeting, which can lead to proposals that are unfeasible, have little impact, or compete with the regular responsibilities of the administration. In this regard, the way in which the participatory budgeting process and its regulations are designed plays a fundamental role in achieving this objective, as referenced in Enríquez León [32] since ‘the aim is to have the capacity to better redistribute public resources to benefit the most disadvantaged individuals and groups’ [33].
• Participation restricted to initial phases: Citizen involvement is usually limited to the proposal submission and voting stages. This excludes citizens from critical later phases, such as:

  ○

  Detailed co-design of projects.

  ○

  Implementation and monitoring of their execution.

  ○

  Post-hoc assessment of their impact and performance.

These aspects are supported by comments from neighbourhood associations such as Veïns de Ciutat Jardí, which is very active in this type of project. Based on reflections following all the processes in which they have participated, they understand that the main value of this tool for the council lies in its ability to identify and understand the needs ‘felt’ by citizens.

‘The usefulness for the City Council is to know what the “felt” needs of citizens are.’ (MEB)

There is a fundamental criticism regarding the type of projects that should be funded, as it is considered that most neighbourhood requests (such as replanting tree pits, installing more lighting or creating pedestrian crossings) correspond to the ordinary and mandatory functioning of the city and should not require an extraordinary or special budget to be addressed.

“The City Council must carry out most of the projects regardless of whether there is a special budget. Example: many requests are: “Replant the empty tree pits, put more lighting in the area of …, create a pedestrian crossing in …” (MEB)

‘All these issues cannot be considered extraordinary; they are part of the proper functioning of the city and must be addressed regardless of whether or not there are special budgets.’ (MEB)

The case study reveals that the results of the actions could be improved, as they are partial interventions (surely due to the limited budget) that do not comprehensively resolve the design and functional programme of the park. However, in the case of Plaza del Cedro, given the constant participation and recurrence of this association, a recent call for tenders has approved a comprehensive refurbishment costing close to €1 million, which would allow the park to be refurbished in a comprehensive manner.

5. Conclusions

The detailed study conducted over a decade (2015–2025) of the DecidimVLC platform for managing participatory budgets in Valencia yields significant conclusions that transcend the mere management of public spending. The research results are classified into two main blocks: one relating to the use and operation of the platform and the other relating to the case study.

5.1. Impact of the DecidimVLC Platform on Local Governance and Social Cohesion

The platform has established itself as an effective technological mediator that facilitates deliberative and direct democracy at the local level:

• Promotion of dialogue and social cohesion: DecidimVLC promotes online debate on specific proposals. This exchange, complemented by face-to-face interaction at municipal meetings, strengthens social networks and generates a sense of collective identity (‘we’) as residents work together for the common good of the district.
• Reducing disaffection and empowering citizens: The real impact of the most voted and viable proposals (which decide the allocation of part of the budget) demonstrates to citizens the tangible impact of their participation. This empowerment reverses political apathy and reinforces trust in democratic institutions, which is a key element for social cohesion. The proximity of the issues addressed at the local level facilitates direct collaboration and makes social dynamics more tangible.
• Inclusion and spatial justice: The platform acts as an accessible channel for less visible groups (such as young people or migrants) to present their needs. The geolocation of proposals makes the shortcomings of specific neighbourhoods visible, which actively contributes to spatial justice and prevents locational discrimination in the allocation of resources.

5.2. Final Assessment and Evaluation of the Case Study: Plaza del Cedro

The project to remodel the garden and playground in Plaza del Cedro in Valencia is a successful case study on the practical application of DecidimVLC participatory budgeting. The main conclusions drawn from the participation process are:

The participatory process was effective and binding. The citizens’ proposals (proposal no. 4843 in the 2020–2021 edition and proposal no. 5469 in the 2022–2023 edition) were among the most voted for in the Algiròs district, and the first was finally implemented by the city council. The initiative arose from a general neighbourhood need: ‘Creation of a playground in Plaza del Cedro’. Once the proposal had been processed, voted on and approved, it was evaluated and finalised by the municipal services, which put out to tender the contract for the construction of a new playground and the redesign of the space. The final result (a renovated playground that respects the existing trees) is the fruit of dialogue between neighbourhood demand and technical and budgetary feasibility [34]. This shows that the platform functions as a real channel for political influence and not just as a suggestion box.

The traceability of the project guarantees procedural fairness, ensuring that the process was transparent and fair. Management through the DecidimVLC platform allowed proponents and the rest of the public to follow the status of the proposal [35], from its creation to the tendering of the works.

The mobilisation of residents, driven by a very active neighbourhood association, reinforced the sense of community around a shared goal. Thus, Plaza del Cedro is a prime example of how a well-managed digital participatory process can transcend the screen to generate tangible improvements in the physical space and strengthen community ties.

However, areas for improvement in the implementation of the projects have been identified, relating to:

Deficits in the design phase: Interventions derived from participatory budgets tend to have a limited budget, which often prevents an intermediate phase of development of an adequate technical design and project. This causes the process to move directly from a basic design to the contract, affecting the final quality of the work.

Restricted participation: Citizen participation is restricted almost exclusively to the initial process of the platform (DecidimVLC). A more comprehensive and desirable model would require the existence of co-design and active participation mechanisms in the phases following the award of the project.

Finally, the findings of this research underscore that participatory management of green spaces is not only an administrative issue, but also a tool aimed at promoting child welfare and social cohesion. By allowing citizens to prioritize interventions in spaces such as Plaza del Cedro, it reflects the interest and need to improve local environments that promote walkability in the immediate surroundings of children. Strengthening these play hubs through DecidimVLC ensures that urban design responds to real usage needs, which is essential for quality of life in Mediterranean climates where public life takes place intensely in outdoor spaces.