PARTICIPATORY PROCESSES: TWO CASE STUDIES FROM SERBIA

被引:0
|
作者
Priljeva, Sofija [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Novi Sad, Dept Architecture, Fac Tech Sci, Trg Dositeja Obradovica 6, Novi Sad 21000, Serbia
来源
12TH ANNUAL ON ARCHITECTURE AND URBANISM CONFERENCE 2023 | 2023年
关键词
Citizens; public interest; distrust; local government; stakeholders; urban development;
D O I
10.13164/PHD.FA2023.12
中图分类号
TU [建筑科学];
学科分类号
0813 ;
摘要
Based on citizens' critical stance towards government decisions, the concept of participation is increasingly emerging in urban discourse. Its role is to facilitate communication between citizens and stakeholders and enable collective decision-making at both the local and state levels. An expectation is that digital technologies will reestablish a connection between the two sides, thereby strengthening trust in the planning process. However, citizen responses differ across various cases. In the context of Novi Sad, citizen engagement appears weak, contrasting with their current dissatisfaction with city affairs. On the other hand, the citizens of Bor are content with their involvement in decisions that are not so significant. Consequently, this paper aims to explore the reasons behind the varying relationships between citizens and authorities in these distinct environments. It seeks to understand why, when given the opportunity to participate, citizen engagement dwindles in larger cities, leading to increased mistrust in institutions, while people in smaller cities recognize the importance of even small steps in collective action for the future development of their communities. In addition to examining the relationships between stakeholders and past urban development patterns in Serbia, the paper addresses the question of the public interest in the service of city development, along with the policies and reviews that offer guidelines for the successful implementation of participatory processes.
引用
收藏
页码:118 / 125
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Taking ownership of climate change: Participatory adaptation planning in two local case studies from California
    Moser S.C.
    Ekstrom J.A.
    Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 2011, 1 (1) : 63 - 74
  • [2] Participatory Budgeting in Serbia: Lessons Learnt from Pilot Projects
    Milosavljevic, Milos
    Spasenic, Zeljko
    Benkovic, Sladana
    Dmitrovic, Veljko
    LEX LOCALIS-JOURNAL OF LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT, 2020, 18 (04): : 999 - 1021
  • [3] Participatory research in sage-grouse local working groups: case studies from Utah
    Belton, Lorien R.
    Frey, S. Nicole
    Dahlgren, David K.
    HUMAN-WILDLIFE INTERACTIONS, 2017, 11 (03): : 287 - 301
  • [4] From the participatory turn of administrations to the bureaucratisation of participatory democracy: study based on the French case
    Gourgues, Guillaume
    Mazeaud, Alice
    Nonjon, Magali
    INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCES, 2022, 88 (04) : 1141 - 1158
  • [5] Defining stakeholder involvement in participatory design processes
    Vink, P.
    Imada, A. S.
    Zink, K. J.
    APPLIED ERGONOMICS, 2008, 39 (04) : 519 - 526
  • [6] Participatory visioning in transport backcasting studies: Methodological lessons from Andalusia (Spain)
    Soria-Lara, Julio A.
    Banister, David
    JOURNAL OF TRANSPORT GEOGRAPHY, 2017, 58 : 113 - 126
  • [7] A Typology of Stakeholders and Guidelines for Engagement in Transdisciplinary, Participatory Processes
    Newton, Alice
    Elliott, Michael
    FRONTIERS IN MARINE SCIENCE, 2016, 3
  • [8] Exploring the Potential of Groundwater Markets in Agriculture: Results of a Participatory Evaluation in Five French Case Studies
    Herivaux, Cecile
    Rinaudo, Jean-Daniel
    Montginoul, Marielle
    WATER ECONOMICS AND POLICY, 2020, 6 (01)
  • [9] A functional-dynamic reflection on participatory processes in modeling projects
    Seidl, Roman
    AMBIO, 2015, 44 (08) : 750 - 765
  • [10] Effects of Interpersonal Relationship Dimension on Locally Specific Participatory Processes
    Kulozu, Neslihan
    3RD ICPSIRS INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON POLITICAL SCIENCE, INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AND SOCIOLOGY, 2016, 10 : 36 - 49