Limits and promises of participatory urban planning: Experience from civic advisory boards and urban activists in Tbilisi

Natia Kekenadze

doi:10.4312/RYOY9078

Avtorji

Natia Kekenadze Državna univerza Ivaneja Javakišvilija v Tbilisiju, Gruzija

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.4312/RYOY9078

Ključne besede:

participativno načrtovanje, mestno upravljanje, civilni svetovalni odbori, urbana gibanja, Tbilisi, Gruzija

Povzetek

Kljub prizadevanjem za decentralizacijo upravljanja in vzpostavitev civilnih svetovalnih odborov (CSO) kot obveznega participativnega mehanizma v Tbilisiju so člani CSO-jev in urbani aktivisti še vedno nezadovoljni s procesi upravljanja in urbanističnega načrtovanja. Študija s pomočjo kvalitativnih metod, vključno s 34 polstrukturiranimi intervjuji, analizo upravnih podatkov ter pregledom zakonodaje in dokumentov o načrtovanju, raziskuje participativne urbane izkušnje, ocenjuje učinkovitost CSO-jev in vlogo urbanih gibanj. Ugotovitve razkrivajo izzive pri komuniciranju, omejeno ozaveščenost javnosti in minimalen vpliv na sprejemanje odločitev. Člani CSO-jev in aktivisti poročajo o šibkem sodelovanju z županovim uradom in neupoštevanju njihovega prispevka, kar vodi v nenehne proteste, ki jih oblasti zavračajo. Krepitev CSO-jev je ključna za zagotavljanje udeležbe državljanov in premostitev vrzeli med javnostjo in oblikovalci politik ter za zmanjšanje vpliva politične in gospodarske elite na sprejemanje odločitev v mestih.

Prenosi

Podatki o prenosih še niso na voljo.

Literatura

Anand, N. (2012). Municipal disconnect: On abject water and its urban infrastructures. Ethnography, 13(4), 487–509. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138111435743

Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225

Bardauskienė, D. (2007). Miesto bendrasis planas ir ekspertiniai vertinimai. Town Planning and Architecture, 31(3), 119–130. https://doi.org/10.3846/13921630.2007.10697098

Chitishvili, E. (2018). The impact of smart city tools on citizens’ participation (Tbilisi and Amsterdam). Tbilisi [Master thesis, Ivane Javakhishvili Tbilisi State University, Faculty of Social and Political Sciences]. Open Science Georgia Repository. https://openscience.ge/entities/publication/f45c64b1-cbaa-4a2d-a7c2-cc3a2638791f

Dundua, S., Karaia, T., & Tabatadze, S. (2022). Tbilisi urban social movements: On the verge of success/failure. European Journal of Transformation Studies, 10(2), 21–39. https://czasopisma.bg.ug.edu.pl/index.php/journal-transformation/article/view/8206

Gentile, M. (2015). The post-Soviet urban poor and where they live: Khrushchev-era blocks, “bad” areas, and the vertical dimension in Luhansk, Ukraine. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 105(3), 583–603. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2015.1018783

Georgian News Agency. (2023, May 17). Fix Tbilisi’s application reports over 180 complaints – Kakha Kaladze. https://ghn.ge/news/296386-fix-tbilisi-s-aplikatsiashi-ukve-180-ze-meti-shetqobinebaa-shemosuli-kakha-kaladze

Geostat [National Statistics Office of Georgia]. (2014). 2014 general population census. https://www.geostat.ge/en

Glass, J. J. (1979). Citizen participation in Planning: The relationship between objectives and techniques. Journal of the American Planning Association, 45(2), 180–189. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944367908976956

Gogishvili, D., & Harris-Brandts, S. (2019). Coinciding practices of exception in urban development: Mega-events and special economic zones in Tbilisi, Georgia. European Planning Studies, 28(10), 1999–2019. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1701995

Harvey, D. (2003). The right to the city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(4), 939–941. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0309-1317.2003.00492.x

Hirt, S. A. (2015). Planning during Post-Socialism. In International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences (2nd Edition). (pp. 187–192). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-097086-8.74028-1

IDFI [Institute for Development of Freedom of Information]. (2019). Local governance index 2019. http://www.lsgindex.org/

IDFI. (2021). Local governance index 2021. http://www.lsgindex.org/ge/analysis/

Kattel, R., Cepilovs, A., Lember, V., & Tõnurist, P. (2018). Indicators for public sector innovations: Theoretical frameworks and practical applications. Halduskultuur: The Estonian Journal of Administrative Culture and Digital Governance, 19(1), 77–104. https://doi.org/10.32994/ac.v19i1.208

Lazega, E., & Pattison, P. E. (2001). Social capital as social mechanisms and collective assets: The example of status auctions among colleagues. In N. Lin, K. S. Cook, R. S. Burt et al (Eds.), Social capital: Theory and research (pp. 185–208). Aldine de Gruyter.

Lefebvre, H. (1996). The right to the city. In E. Kofman & E. Lebas (Trans.), Writings on cities (pp. 147–159). Blackwell. [Original work published 1968]

Linkous, E. (2024). From chaotic construction to coevolution: Tbilisi’s 2019 master plan and the right to the city. Journal of Urbanism International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2024.2324804

Mansuri, G., & Rao, V. (2013). Localizing development: Does participation work? World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-8256-1

Municipal Government of the City of Tbilisi. (2018). Tbilisi Municipal Development Strategy and Governance Report. Tbilisi City Hall.

Organic Law of Georgia: Local Self-Government Code. (2014). Legislative Herald of Georgia. https://matsne.gov.ge/en/document/view/2244429?publication=40

Pickvance, C. (2003). From urban social movements to urban movements: A review and introduction to a symposium on urban movements. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(1), 102–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.00434

Rekhviashvili, L., Sichinava, D., & Berikishvili, E. (2020). Urban protest movements in Tbilisi: Social movements are strong, but big capital is stronger. In T. Dariyeva & C. S. Neugebauer (Eds.), Urban Activism in Eastern Europe and Eurasia, (pp. 89–97). DOM Publishers. https://www.sichinava.ge/papers/rekhviashvili_et_al_2020.pdf

Salukvadze, J., & Golubchikov, O. (2016). City as a geopolitics: Tbilisi, Georgia — A globalizing metropolis in a turbulent region. Cities, 52, 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.11.013

Salukvadze, J., & Van Assche, K. (2022). Multiple transformations, coordination and public goods. Tbilisi and the search for planning as collective strategy. European Planning Studies, 31(4), 719–737. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2022.2065878

Sassen, S. (1996). Whose city is it? Globalization and the formation of new claims. Public Culture, 8(2), 205–223. https://doi.org/10.1215/08992363-8-2-205

Shuib, K. B., Hashim, H., & Nasir, N. A. M. (2015). Community participation strategies in planning for urban parks. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 168, 311–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.236

Swyngedouw, E. (2010). Impossible sustainability and the post-political condition. In M. Cerreta, G. Concilio, V. Monno (Eds.), Making Strategies in Spatial Planning. (pp. 185–205). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-3106-8_11

Sýkora, L., & Bouzarovski, S. (2011). Multiple transformations. Urban Studies, 49(1), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098010397402

Urbanlab. (2021). Alt_urban: Urban research publication. Urbanlab. https://www.urbanlab.am/file_manager/Alt_urban_research_publication.pdf

Van Assche, K., & Salukvadze, J. (2011). Tbilisi reinvented: Planning, development and the unfinished project of democracy in Georgia. Planning Perspectives, 27(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/02665433.2011.601611

White, S. C. (1996). Depoliticising development: The uses and abuses of participation. Development in Practice, 6(1), 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/0961452961000157564

Zheltovskyy, V. (2019). Civil society as an actor in the political processes of local governance reform in Ukraine. Środkowoeuropejskie Studia Polityczne, 2, 83–104. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssp.2019.2.5