New frameworks and experiences in local planning: Luhansk region and the state of main instruments
Abstract
Aim. Post-communist planning in Ukraine was essentially transformed over the last years with new approaches, instruments and practices changing the very idea of planning at the local level. As a result, local planning is becoming a mix of multiple usual planning instruments, new optional tools, which have appeared with imported conceptions and widespread participatory practices. This article uses the context of Luhansk region to address the question how this variety of instruments transform the planning processes at the local level in post-transitional perspective. We examine how planning and participatory instruments are developed and combined in the territorial communities of Luhansk region, what are the outcomes and how the main actors evaluate the planning process.
Methodology. In this article, we consider how territorial communities use the planning and participation instruments from the standpoints of spatial transformations and place-making, using the experience of the region with a severe planning crisis in recent decades. In order to analyze the state of use of planning and participation instruments at the local level, we focus on planning documents and participatory tools in 26 territorial communities of the government controlled areas in Luhansk region (as of the end of 2021). Additional data for contextualizing empirical information on the planning process, its outcomes and particular instruments were obtained from two focus groups, which involved 35 persons, including local officials, local activists and residents from different territorial communities of Luhansk region.
Results. We argue that territorial communities rely on quite diverse planning documents and participatory practices with insufficient focus on planning instruments for balancing the spatial development. Active introduction of the new public participation tools that have become available in recent years had a paradoxical effect in the region, when implementing without reliance on planning instruments. At the same time, many territorial communities are adapting various instruments to specific local context, thus contributing significantly to developing the local institutional environment, creating local success stories and strengthening democratic decision-making. We show that planning instruments, their implementations and outcomes of planning activity in most cases are perceived and evaluated differently by the main actors, however many of them are becoming increasingly aware about planning process and interested in developing the planning culture.
Novelty and practical significance. This paper contributes to the discussion on the evolution of local planning instruments, the role and effectiveness of certain instruments in the post-transitional perspective. Understanding the state of affairs with local planning and participatory instruments, their interplay and ability to provide expected outcomes contributes to strengthening of the local planning policy and making it more effective.
Downloads
References
Durnová, A. (2021). Czech postcommunist trouble with participatory governance. Toward an analysis of the cultural agency of policy discourses. Policy Studies, 42(1), 80-97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2019.1581155
Fainstein, S. S. (2005). Planning theory and the city. Journal of planning education and research, 25(2), 121-130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X05279275
Friedmann, J. (2005). Globalization and the emerging culture of planning. Progress in Planning, 64(3), 183-234. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2005.05.001
Golubchikov, O. (2004). Urban planning in Russia: towards the market. European Planning Studies, 12(2), 229-247. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0965431042000183950
Gualini, E., Bianchi, I. (2015). Space, politics and conflicts: A review of contemporary debates in urban research and planning theory in Planning and conflict: Critical perspectives on contentious urban developments. Routledge, 37-55.
Healey, P. (1998). Collaborative planning in a stakeholder society. The Town Planning Review, 1-21.
Hirt, S. (2015). Planning during Post-socialism. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Scienc-es, 2nd Edition, Volume 18. Elsevier.
Hirt, S. A. (2005). Planning the post-communist city: Experiences from Sofia. International Planning Studies, 10(3-4), 219-240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13563470500378572
Hirt, S., & Stanilov, K. (2009). Revisiting urban planning in the transitional countries. Regional study prepared for Planning sustainable cities: Global Report on Human Settlements 2009. URL: https://staging.unhabitat.org/downloads/docs/GRHS2009RegionalTransitionalCountries.pdf
Huxley, M., & Yiftachel, O. (2000). New paradigm or old myopia? Unsettling the communicative turn in planning theory. Journal of planning education and research, 19(4), 333-342. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X0001900402
Istenič, S. P., & Kozina, J. (2020). Participatory Planning in a Post-socialist Urban Context: Experience from Five Cities in Central and Eastern Europe. In: J. Nared, D. Bole (Eds.) Participatory Research and Planning in Prac-tice, 31-50.
Maier, K. (2012). Europeanization and changing planning in East-Central Europe: An Easterner's view. Planning Practice and Research, 27(1), 137-154. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2012.661596
Marunyak, Ye. (2014). Territorial (spatial) planning: content and evolution of major modern trends. Ukrainian Geographical Journal, 2, 22-31. [In Ukrainian].
Melnychuk, A., Denysenko, O., Ostapenko, P. (2021). New tools for new urban spaces? Analyses of planning and participation tools and their performance in (post)transitional perspective. Ekonomichna ta Sotsialna Geografiya, 85, 11–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17721/2413-7154/2021.85.11-22
Melnychuk, A., Hnatiuk, S. (2021) Practices and tools for feedback in amalgamated territorial communities: pro-motion of GIS as services of interaction. In: L. Niemets (ed.) Region-2021. Kharkiv, V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, pp. 152-154. [In Ukrainian].
Nedović-Budić, Z. (2001). Adjustment of planning practice to the new Eastern and Central European context. Journal of the American Planning Association, 67(1), 38-52. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360108976354
Palekha, Yu. M., Oleshchenko, A.V. (2016). Urban planning documentation in EU states and Ukraine: comparative analysis. Experiences and perspective on urban development. 30, 50-57. [In Ukrainian].
Peck, J., Theodore, N., & Brenner, N. (2009). Neoliberal urbanism: Models, moments, mutations. SAIS Review of International Affairs, 29(1), 49-66.
Raco, M., Durrant, D., & Livingstone, N. (2018). Slow cities, urban politics and the temporalities of planning: Les-sons from London. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 36(7), 1176-1194. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2399654418775105
Roy, A. (2011). Urbanisms, worlding practices and the theory of planning. Planning Theory, 10(1), 6-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095210386065
Salukvadze, J., & Van Assche, K. (2022). Multiple transformations, coordination and public goods. Tbilisi and the search for planning as collective strategy. European Planning Studies, 1-19. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2022.2065878
Sýkora, L. (2006). Urban development, policy and planning in the Czech Republic and Prague. In Spatial plan-ning and urban development in the new EU member states: from adjustment to reinvention, 113-140.
Sýkora, L. (2015). Cities Under Postsocialism. In James D. Wright (editor-in-chief), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Vol 3. Oxford: Elsevier, 605-611.
Tasan-Kok, T. (2019). Exploring Critical Constructive Thinking in Planning Studies. plaNext – next generation planning, 8, 40-44. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24306/plnxt/45
Tsenkova, S. (2014). Planning trajectories in post-socialist cities: patterns of divergence and change. Urban Re-search & Practice, 7(3), 278-301. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2014.966513
Van Assche, K., Verschraegen, G., & Salukvadze, J. (2010). Changing frames: Citizen and expert participation in Georgian planning. Planning Practice & Research, 25(3), 377-395. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2010.503431
Web platform “e-Consultations” (E-DEM). URL: https://consult.e-dem.ua/
Web platform “Local petitions” (E-DEM). URL: https://petition.e-dem.ua.
Web platform “Single Platform for Local e-Democracy” (E-DEM). URL: https://opencity.e-dem.ua/.
Web-platform Diia. Digital hromada. URL: https://toolkit.in.ua/chatbot
Yargina Z.N. (1984). Urban planning analysis. Moscow, Stroyizdat, 244 [In Russian].
