Participatory Planning in Post-socialist Cities: A Case Study of Riga

Lita Akmentiņa

doi:10.2478/aup-2020-0004

.blurhash-client-img { display: none !important; }

Participatory Planning in Post-socialist Cities: A Case Study of Riga

Architecture and Urban Planning

Volume 16 (2020): Issue 1 (January 2020)

By: Lita Akmentiņa

Open Access

|Dec 2020

Abstract

After three decades of socio-economic and political changes, participation in urban planning is still an emerging practice in post-socialist countries. Using Riga as a case study, the research aims to explore participatory planning practices in a post-socialist urban context since 1990. Employing meta-analysis as a methodological approach to combine information from various sources, the study identifies three phases of participatory planning in Riga characterized by changes in government-led participatory planning approaches, level of participation, outcomes as well as changes in the civic sector.

References

1. Huxley, M. Historicizing Planning, Problematizing Participation. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Vol. 37, Issue 5, 2013, pp. 1527–1541. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.1204510.1111/1468-2427.12045
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
2. McTague, C., Jakubowski, S. Marching to the beat of a silent drum: Wasted consensus-building and failed neighborhood participatory planning. Applied Geography, Vol. 44, 2013, pp. 182–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.07.01910.1016/j.apgeog.2013.07.019
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
3. Brannan, T., John, P., Stoker, G. Active Citizenship and Effective Public Services and Programmes: How Can We Know What Really Works? Urban Studies, Vol. 43, Issue 5–6, 2006, pp. 993–1008. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098060067662610.1080/00420980600676626
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
4. Aitken, M., Haggett, C., Rudolph, D. Practices and rationales of community engagement with wind farms: awareness raising, consultation, empowerment. Planning Theory & Practice, Vol. 17, Issue 4, 2016, pp. 557–576. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2016.121891910.1080/14649357.2016.1218919
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
5. Anggraeni, M., Gupta, J., Verrest, H. J. L. M. Cost and value of stake-holders participation: A systematic literature review. Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 101, 2019, pp. 364–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.07.01210.1016/j.envsci.2019.07.012
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
6. Karrasch, L., Klenke, T., Woltjer, J. Linking the ecosystem services approach to social preferences and needs in integrated coastal land use management – A planning approach. Land Use Policy, Vol. 38, 2014, pp. 522–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.12.01010.1016/j.landusepol.2013.12.010
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
7. Conroy, M. M., Jun, H.-J. Planning process influences on sustainability in Ohio township plans. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Vol. 59, Issue 11, 2016, pp. 2007–2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2015.110370910.1080/09640568.2015.1103709
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
8. Geissel, B. Participatory Governance: Hope or Danger for Democracy? A Case Study of Local Agenda 21. Local Government Studies, Vol. 35, Issue 4, 2009, pp. 401–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/0300393090299952210.1080/03003930902999522
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
9. Legacy, C. Is there a crisis of participatory planning? Planning Theory, Vol. 16, Issue 4, 2017, pp. 425–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/147309521666743310.1177/1473095216667433
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
10. Arnstein, S. R. A Ladder Of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, Vol. 35, Issue 4, 1969, pp. 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/0194436690897722510.1080/01944366908977225
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
11. IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation, 2018 [online]. IAP2 International Federation [cited 20.08.2020]. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.iap2.org/resource/resmgr/pillars/Spectrum_8.5x11_Print.pdf
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
12. Tsenkova, S. Planning trajectories in post-socialist cities: patterns of divergence and change. Urban Research & Practice, Vol. 7, Issue 3, 2014, pp. 278–301. https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2014.96651310.1080/17535069.2014.966513
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
13. Auziņš, A. Key trends and aspects influencing changes into spatial planning systems and practices in Europe. Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference “ECONOMIC SCIENCE FOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT”, 2018, pp. 26–35. http://doi.org/10.22616/ESRD.2018.06510.22616/ESRD.2018.065
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
14. Nedović-Budić, Z. Adjustment of Planning Practice to the New Eastern and Central European Context. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 67, Issue 1, 2001, pp. 38–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/0194436010897635410.1080/01944360108976354
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
15. Tsenkova, S. Reinventing Strategic Planning in Post-socialist Cities: Experiences from Sofia. European Planning Studies, Vol. 15, Issue 3, 2007, pp. 295–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/0965431060101713310.1080/09654310601017133
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
16. Grazuleviciute-Vileniske, I., Urbonas, V. Urban regeneration in the context of post-Soviet transformation: Lithuanian experience. Journal of Cultural Heritage, Vol. 15, Issue 6, 2014, pp. 637–643. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.culher.2014.01.00210.1016/j.culher.2014.01.002
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
17. Kotus, J. Position of the Polish city on the ladder of public participation: Are we going the right way? The case of Poznań. Cities, Vol. 35, 2013, pp. 226–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2013.08.00110.1016/j.cities.2013.08.001
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
18. Poljak Istenič, S., Kozina, J. Participatory Planning in a Post-socialist Urban Context: Experience from Five Cities in Central and Eastern Europe. In: Nared, J., Bole, D. (eds.) Participatory Research and Planning in Practice. The Urban book series. Springer, Cham. 2020, pp. 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28014-7_310.1007/978-3-030-28014-7_3
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
19. Lorens, P., Kamrowska-Zaluska, D. Spurring the community involvement in planning - lessons from post-socialist cities. 49th ISOCARP Congress : Frontier of planning – evolving and declining models of city planning practice, 2013, pp. 1–6.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
20. Guasti, P. Development of citizen participation in Central and Eastern Europe after the EU enlargement and economic crises. Communist and Post-Communist Studies, Vol. 49, Issue 3, 2016, pp. 219–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.postcomstud.2016.06.00610.1016/j.postcomstud.2016.06.006
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
21. Kotus, J., Sowada, T., Rzeszewski, M., Mańkowska, P. Anatomy of Place-Making in the Context of the Communication Processes: A Story of one Community and one Square in a Post-Socialist City. Quaestiones Geographicae, Vol. 38, Issue 2, 2019, pp. 51–66. https://doi.org/10.2478/quageo-2019-001510.2478/quageo-2019-0015
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
22. Prilenska, V., Liias, R. Challenges of Recent Participatory Urban Design Practices in Riga. Procedia Economics and Finance, Vol. 21, 2015, pp. 88–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00154-910.1016/S2212-5671(15)00154-9
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
23. Holvandus, J., Leetmaa, K. The Views of Neighbourhood Associations on Collaborative Urban Governance in Tallinn, Estonia. plaNext - Next Generation Planning, Vol. 3, 2016, pp. 49–66. https://doi.org/10.24306/plnxt.2016.03.00410.24306/plnxt.2016.03.004
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
24. Koroļova, A., Treija, S. Participatory Budgeting in Urban Regeneration: Defining the Gap Between Formal and Informal Citizen Activism. Architecture and Urban Planning, Vol. 15, Issue 1, 2019, pp. 131–137. https://doi.org/10.2478/aup-2019-001810.2478/aup-2019-0018
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
25. Treija, S., Bratuškins, U. Participatory Planning: The Role of NGOs in Neighbourhood Regeneration in Riga. Spaces of Dialog for Places of Dignity: Fostering the European Dimension of Planning: Lisbon AESOP Annual Congress 2017: Book of Proceedings, 2017, pp. 609–616.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
26. Miķelsone, I. The Role of Social Engagement in the Development of Significant Architectural Objects. Architecture and Urban Planning, Vol. 13, Issue 1, 2017, pp. 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1515/aup-2017-000110.1515/aup-2017-0001
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
27. Gaber, J. Qualitative Analysis for Planning & Policy : Beyond the Numbers. Oxon: Routledge, 2020. 212 p.10.4324/9780429290190
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
28. Rīgas attīstības plāns 1995.–2005. gadam. I sējums. Riga: Apgāds Jāņa sēta, 1995.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
29. Liepa-Zemeša, M. Jaunā Rīgas teritorijas plānojuma izstrādes metodika. Latvijas architektūra, Vol. 108, 2013, pp. 78–80.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
30. Liepa-Zemeša, M. Pilsēttelpas attīstība Rīgā. Riga: Riga Technical University, 2011. 204 p.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
31. Dripe, J. Rīgas attīstības plāns – iespējas, problēmas un risinājumi, 2011 [online]. Goethe-Institut Riga [cited 19.09.2019]. https://www.goethe.de/ins/lv/lv/kul/mag/20490788.html
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
32. Sabiedrības aktivitāte Teritorijas plānojuma izstrādē, 2005. Riga City Council, City Development Department.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
33. Pilnveidotās redakcijas publiskās apspriešanas laikā (no 13.03.2019. līdz 10.04.2019.) saņemto priekšlikumu izvērtējums, 2019 [online]. Riga City Council, City Development Department [cited 09.09.2020]. https://www.rdpad.lv/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/4_Zinojuma_pielikums_nr2_RTP2030_Publiskas_apspriesanas_priekslikumi_2019.xlsx
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
34. Ziņojums par Rīgas teritorijas plānojuma līdz 2030. gadam publiskās apspriešanas norisi, saņemtajiem priekšlikumiem un institūciju atzinumiem, 2018. Riga City Council, City Development Department.
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
35. Ziņojums par Rīgas teritorijas plānojuma līdz 2030. gadam pilnveidotās redakcijas publisko apspriešanu, 2019 [online]. Riga City Council, City Development Department [cited 09.09.2020]. https://www.rdpad.lv/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Zinojums11022020.pdf
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
36. Gaugere, K. Pārskats par nevalstisko organizāciju sektoru Latvijā: 2004. gads, 2005 [online, cited 4.09.2020]. http://providus.lv/article_files/1469/original/parskatsNVO2004.pdf?1331652402
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
37. Indriksone, A. Nevalstiskās organizācijas - pašvaldību partneri attīstības plānošanā, 2003 [online, cited 4.09.2020]. http://providus.lv/article_files/1446/original/nvopasvpartn_LV.pdf?1331625050
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
38. Rīgas iedzīvotāju aptaujas par dažādiem Rīgas domi interesējošiem jautājumiem rezultāti, 2007 [online]. Tirgus un sabiedriskās domas pētījumu centrs SKDS [cited 4.09.2020]. http://www.sus.lv/sites/default/files/media/faili/isaa_atskaite_rd_082007_0.pdf
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
39. Rīgas iedzīvotāju apmierinātība ar pašvaldības darbību un pilsētā notiekošajiem procesiem, 2019. [online]. Tirgus un sabiedriskās domas pētījumu centrs SKDS [cited 4.09.2020]. http://www.sus.lv/sites/default/files/media/faili/rd_pad_atskaite_2019.pdf
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
40. Rīgas iedzīvotāju apmierinātība ar pašvaldības darbību un pilsētā notiekošajiem procesiem, 2018. [online]. Tirgus un sabiedriskās domas pētījumu centrs SKDS [cited 4.09.2020]. http://www.sus.lv/sites/default/files/rd_pad_skds_aptaujas_atskaite_2018.pdf
Search in Google Scholar Back to article