Para Cortar

Chapter 5
Promises and Limits of Participatory

Urban Greens Development: Experience
from Maribor, Budapest, and Krakow
Martin Pogačar, Jasna Fakin Bajec, Katarina Polajnar Horvat,

Aleš Smrekar and Jernej Tiran
Abstract The chapter discusses the integration of civil society into planning, devel-
opment, and governance of urban green spaces (UGS). The principles of partic-
ipatory democracy and sustainable development inevitably require a more inte-
grated approach to collaboration and networking among different sectors and actors.
Until recently, the citizens/communities were only sporadically involved in decision-
making and planning processes of UGS, which led to practices of urban development
that failed to account for their needs. The crucial question is: What are the potentials
and limits of engaging and involving people and communities in planning and play-
ing an active part in the development of UGS? Specifically, the chapter discusses
how theoretical concepts that often work well in strategies or development programs
are only slowly implemented in practice. This raises the question of the obstacles and
benefits faced by municipalities when trying to involve local communities in plan-
ning activities. First, the authors discuss the theory and practice of participation and
community involvement in urban planning and management. Second, they present
an overview of the local cases of UGS development in three Central and Eastern
European cities (Maribor, Krakow, and Budapest), and thirdly, linking practice and
theory, they discuss the intrinsic issues with community formation and sustainability.
M. Pogačar (B) · J. Fakin Bajec

Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Institute of Culture and
Memory Studies, Ljubljana, Slovenia
e-mail: martin.pogacar@zrc-sazu.si
J. Fakin Bajec
e-mail: jasna.fakin@zrc-sazu.si
K. Polajnar Horvat · A. Smrekar · J. Tiran
Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Anton Melik Geographical
Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia
e-mail: katarina.polajnar@zrc-sazu.si
A. Smrekar
e-mail: ales.smrekar@zrc-sazu.si
J. Tiran
e-mail: jernej.tiran@zrc-sazu.si
© The Author(s) 2020 75

J. Nared and D. Bole (eds.), Participatory Research and Planning in Practice,
The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28014-7_5
76 M. Pogačar et al.
Keywords Urban green spaces · Participation · Community · Sustainability ·

Central Europe
5.1 Introduction
It is no longer a groundbreaking statement that urban green spaces (UGS) can improve
people’s well-being (Kothencz et al. 2017) and public health (Richardson et al. 2013),
enhance social interaction, and provide the space for leisure or recreational activities
(see Akpinar and Cankurt 2017). In densely populated areas, UGS can reduce air
pollution and improve climate, contribute to keeping ecological balance, promote
biodiversity, reduce noise, and improve urban economy (Kothencz et al. 2017; Lee
and Maheswaran 2011). Moreover, UGS can foster cohesion between cities and
countryside, and strengthen territorial cohesion (Toledo Informal Ministerial Meeting
on Urban Development Declaration 2010).
The development of UGS plays a central part in sustainable urban development,
as does wider societal awareness about the importance of greens. If the UGS are
poorly planned and used, they can easily turn into a burden and a constant “bat-
tlefield” between inhabitants and responsible authorities (Anguelovski et al. 2018).
Successful sustainable and inclusive development, as well as management of UGS,
thus inevitably require integrated or collaborative planning and maintenance, i.e., the
involvement of decision-making bodies, experts, property owners, and civil society.
Until recently, civil society (e.g., residents) has often been insufficiently involved
in the development of UGS. This led to unbalanced urban development, notably
in post-socialist settings: during the post–socialist transformation, the history of
participatory practices has been downplayed or actively forgotten, if to different
extents in different countries (Simoneti 2016). The main consequences have been
poor identification of relevant actors, exclusion of various marginal communities
(Anguelovski et al. 2017) from the UGS development, as well as power imbalance
in the investor–authority–expert–citizen relations (Kucina 2016; Diener and Hagen
2013). The situation was exacerbated by the recent economic crisis that necessitated
the dampening of collaborative approaches (Davies and Pill 2012; Durose and Rees
2012). In this light, the United Nations (UN) and its New Urban Agenda emphasize
the importance of citizen and civil society participation in shaping public interest, as
well as promote social inclusion in urban management (see UN 2017). Consequently,
a number of bottom-up practices emerged, actively seeking and testing approaches
to engaging with urban greens. Aiming at bypassing the slow implementation of
participatory practices on policy levels, civil pressure exposed systemic inertia, as
well as the wider political and economic motives behind the development of urban
greens. Community voices emphasized the issues of why (not) to engage citizens
and how (not) to do so, forcing communities to seek sustainability and durability
in action and enticing the authorities to respond to such initiatives and engage in
cooperative relationship (see Javaid and Habeeb 2018).
5 Promises and Limits of Participatory … 77
This chapter departs from the understanding that the public has the right to know
about what is happening in their surrounding green spaces and should be encouraged
to take an active part in activities which affect them in the places where they live and
work (Bahrain Shuib et al. 2015). For example, dialog between managers or planners
and representatives from various community groups helps detect their needs and
ideas. Simultaneously, the community needs to analyze their own issues and voice
their thoughts and solutions (Bahrain Shuib et al. 2015), while the authorities need
to recognize their own responsibility as facilitators and partners in integrative urban
development.
The chapter, therefore, asks: What are the potentials and limits of engaging and
involving people and communities in planning and playing an active part in the
development of UGS? The discussion is based on the outcomes of the “Urban Green
Belts” project (Interreg Central Europe, 2016–2019), specifically on the pilot actions
carried out in Maribor (Slovenia), Budapest (Hungary), and Krakow (Poland), and
the adjoining FUA (Functional Urban Area, densely inhabited city and a less densely
populated commuting zone whose labor market is highly integrated with the city;
Eurostat 2018). Specifically, the authors address the phenomenon of theoretical con-
cepts that often work well in strategies or development programs (e.g., INTERREG
programs), but are only sporadically and slowly implemented in practice, partic-
ularly in specific urban areas marked by different past and present experiences,
historical backgrounds, and contemporary geopolitics that also influence the com-
munity reasoning, etc. In other words, it asks about the obstacles and benefits faced
by municipalities when trying to involve local communities in planning activities.
In the Urban Green Belts project (UGB), the authors participated in the capacity of
knowledge providers, selecting a number methods and tools to facilitate community
identification and mobilization and to promote active involvement of communities
(e.g., citizens and other stakeholders) as users and creators of UGS. Some of the
methods and tools were tested by other project partners in three pilot areas, which
provided data for the assessment of the participatory approaches in practice. The
pilot action reports and interviews with partners were qualitatively analyzed against
a theoretical background on participation approaches. The chapter first discusses the
theoretical considerations on why and how to think community involvement and then
proceeds to discuss the findings of the pilot actions. On this basis, the authors reflect
on the limits and obstacles of participation between theory and practice.
5.2 Participation in Urban Planning and Management
One of the project’s viewpoints was that empowered and active citizens more easily
articulate their problems and opinions, and contribute to elaborating solutions and
implementing plans for urban greens. As elsewhere in public matters, empowerment
here also rests on structuring the space for participation and inclusion (Cerar 2015).
This enables the detection and channeling of the attitudes of people toward UGS, as
well as the potential of collaboration between various actors involved in the devel-
opment of UGS (urbanists, architects, and decision-making bodies). The potential

of participatory approaches to urban planning is their ability to provide not only
the structure for involving communities in decision-making processes but also the
opportunity for a hands-on informal education in active citizenship and transfer of
knowledge (Ličen et al. 2017). Moreover, the focus on the integration of stakeholders,
especially vulnerable and marginalized groups, can also enhance social inclusion and
equality of various groups focused on their needs, demands, and expectations, regard-
less of attributes such as income, gender, age, ethnicity, or disability (Sarmiento and
Beard 2013). Power (im)balances are critical in any discussion about or practice of
participation, Mansuri and Rao note (2013, p. 77):
Understanding local structures of inequality and local social and political relationships insu-
lates against the naïve and potentially disempowering belief that participation will necessar-
ily benefit the poor. Explicitly recognizing structures of power and dominance could result
in designs to address such inequalities with affirmative action programs, such as the man-
dated inclusion of women and minorities in village councils, the adoption of programs that
exclusively target certain groups, or the use of monitoring and audit systems to reduce the
prevalence of capture.
First ideas about a more participatory governance date back to the 1930s, when
Kurt Lewin and his students ran tests to “demonstrate the greater gains in produc-
tivity and in law and order through democratic participation rather than autocratic
coercion” (Adelman 1993, p. 7). They not only showed that “there was an effec-
tive alternative to Taylor’s ‘scientific management’ but through his action research
provided the details of how to develop social relationships of groups and between
groups to sustain communication and co-operation” (ibid.). However, more extensive
practices and definitions of participatory democracy—the backbone of participatory
approaches to urban greens development—emerged in the 1950s as a response to
the criticism of the political system deemed disconnected from the citizens. How-
ever, the trend of implementing participatory approaches in governance has been
fluctuating, “losing attention in some periods but then reliably reemerging as an
apparent panacea to the shortcomings of top-down approaches” (de Gramont 2013).
Participatory democracy requires that people be given a chance to take an active part
in decision-making processes by using different participatory paths. In this view,
normative participation is understood as “taking part in the process of formulation,
passage and implementation of public policies” (Parry et al. 1992, p. 16; cf. Müller
and Stotten 2011, p. 5). In theory, participation is thus understood as an improvement
and expansion of democratic decision-making process.
Stöger (2010) understands participation through two broad approaches: as a means
and as a goal. The former includes a process by which development can be more
effectively implemented, progress can be supported, and successful outcomes can be
ensured. Different participation methods and techniques can be used to incorporate
people’s ideas in the development plans (strategic visions) and activities. The latter,
however, focuses on empowering people through acquiring skills, knowledge, and
experience, and builds confidence to take greater responsibility for their development
and self-reliance (Stöger 2010).
Crucial elements of participatory approach relevant for this discussion are ade-
quately subsumed by Fisher (2001, p. 9; see also Gilbert 2015, p. 4):
Participation is a set of principles and an ethics, rather than an ideology or a model. It
moreover entails learning not only to acknowledge but also to listen to opinions, ideas, and
knowledge of those who in the past have been “targeted” (informed about adopted plan).
It requires high levels of transparency, favors decentralization and delegation, and rests on
responsibility.
Such practices require moving beyond internalized hierarchical structures, negoti-

ating various motives and agendas, as well as power relations, and they take time.
Therefore, the conceptualization of participation in terms of collaborative gover-
nance although “challenged not only by austerity politics but also by alternative,
innovative and/or insurgent forms of political participation” (Citizen participation in
urban green spaces, 2017, p. 6), nevertheless seems useful in its emphasis not only
on the responsibility and agency of the community but on other stakeholders as well.
In addition to necessity to encourage and enable citizen engagement, participa-
tory approaches and methods also have limits. Overall, the most obvious one is the
discrepancy between various stakeholder positions/powers, meaning that the weak-
est (financial or social capital) are often sidetracked (usually the community), while
important decisions are made among the stronger players (owners, investors, and
political decisionmakers). On the other hand, it is not unusual for a group of residents
formed around a specific problem to gain enough power to influence the decision-
making. While this is desirable, it has to be adequately managed (both from the
municipality and the community side) so as to evade the clash between often locally
based desires that may not see the wider picture, and the more top-down, systemic
view that takes into account the wider effects of decisions but lacks local insights.
For example, in Maribor, Slovenia, local initiative succeeded in pedestrianizing a
street, but failed to comprehend the effects of traffic spilling over smaller streets and
parking lots, exposing a discrepancy between systemic and particular approaches.
In this light, Mansuri and Rao (2013) emphasize two aspects: the discrepancy
between organic and induced participation and the failures of civil society. Organic
participation will often go against authorities/power, while induced participation
has to mimic the organic to, paradoxically, encourage citizens to stand up against
authorities/power. The latter is often overlooked, but the issues with collective action
and capacity deficits (see de Gramont 2013) have also become clear in the UGB
pilot actions activities. In this light, the central issue with participation is related to
implementation-related difficulties and to sustainability of such participation, which
may pose significant problems in longer-term perspective, particularly in urban areas
(sizeable fluctuations of inhabitants).
To sum up, participatory approach gained impetus in the context of theory and
practice of empowerment and sustainability, where—in addition to the environ-
ment and the economy—special emphasis is placed on societal development (global,
national, or local), predicated on transparent, accountable, responsive, equitable, and
inclusive decision-making processes (Müller and Stotten 2011). However, while the
problems related to participatory approaches can enhance the rigid and inert gov-
ernance structures, they also present an opportunity to find unexpected solutions

arising from putting together realistic, flexible, and implementable action plans.
5.3 Presentation of Pilot Actions
This chapter builds on the findings of the UGB project thematic group focusing on
community involvement. The project teams in Maribor (Slovenia), Krakow (Poland),
and Budapest (Hungary) identified in their respective locales-specific case studies to
find a solution to involving communities in green space development.
Maribor
Maribor Development Agency (MRA) has undertaken a project to regener-
ate the area around the Karantena building, the former Prison Maribor—built
before 1900. The pilot area, including the facility and its immediate surround-
ings, is classified as cultural heritage of local importance and is divided into
several plots of land with different owners or co-owners—private and public
(e.g., MRA, Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for Nature Conservation) and
users. For several years, the area around the building has been used as an illegal
parking lot for FUA commuters and citizens. The challenge was to set up a
feasible and transferable concept of community-led planning in the process
of regenerating the degraded green space, characterized by mixed ownership,
public users, and low involvement of some private owners. MRA tested con-
sultative and self-mobilized participation of the local stakeholders. To achieve
successful impacts, online survey, face-to-face interviews, online campaign,
green festivals, and workshops were implemented.
Krakow
The Krakow municipal green space authority in cooperation with the Małopol-
ska region undertook a pilot project Witkowice Green Living Lab in the
Witkowice forest on the outskirts of Krakow. The pilot included the revital-
ization and transformation of existing recreation infrastructure, the regulation
of existing green spaces, and the implementation of innovative practices of
green education (information boards, and multimedia application). The goal
was to involve the surrounding local communities (school, NGOs) into the
whole development procedure based on consultation process and participation
of other stakeholders. Moreover, the aim was also to involve the neighboring
municipality and institutions at the regional level, also showing the possibility
of cooperation on the FUA level. Several participatory methods and tools were
tested through the pilot actions (art contest, picnic, running events, educational
workshops, etc.). Krakow Municipal Green Space Authority, therefore, devel-
oped measures to increase people’s awareness of the benefits of green spaces,

in order to speak out and become part of the decision-making process.
Budapest
The central challenge of the 12th district, Hegyvidék Municipality team was to
find a way to use UGS as a tool to change residents’ mind-sets about the impor-
tance of green spaces, as well as about the crucial contribution that the commu-
nities can make to their planning and maintenance. The pilot action aimed at
creating a community of volunteers through a newly initiated stewardship pro-
gram, thus also promoting pro-environmental attitudes. The main stakeholders
were the stewards and the wider community. Stewards were fine-tuning and
partly implementing pilot activities (workshops, social events, thematic ses-
sions, and communication campaigns) to build up trust and community spirit.
In addition, stewards would give feedback to the municipality regarding the
pilot and share ideas related to the planned activities.
Before the start of the project, the three pilots emphasized several crucial elements of
sustainable greens development: community, participation, and cooperation between
the authorities (given their FUA level focus), residents, experts and private owners,
which proved difficult to implement. Below, we discuss in more detail the concept
of community and related issues in the context of the three pilot actions.
5.4 Involving the Community
Decisionmakers are often reluctant to involve communities or are simply lacking the
necessary expertise, skills, and know-how to approach this important path. Often,
participation is understood as a means rather than an end, blurring the distinction
between organic and induced participation (see Mansuri and Rao 2013), thus posit-
ing participation both as a want and an obstacle, an ideal and a funding requirement
(e.g., projects or strategies). This is one of the aspects detectable and, to some extent,
implicitly reported by the municipalities or regional development agencies in author-
ity–community relations during the course of the UGB project. This leads to a three-
fold problem: (1) the issue with involving (detecting and mobilizing) a community;
(2) the issue of management and flexibility of community, and the related question
of sustainability and durability of such actions, particularly where longer-term coop-
eration is essential for the maintenance of UGS; and (3) the issues arising from the
project funding requirements and the applicability of such project work, including
the very practical issue of adapting participatory methods to various transnational
locales, i.e., adjusting approaches to specific (legal, social, and historical) situations
(which is only addressed marginally).
5.4.1 Detecting and Mobilizing the Community
When working with citizens or communities engaged in participatory approaches,

the starting question is: Who (or what) is a community? According to the UGB pilot
actions findings, a community in UGS management can be a heterogenous and ad
hoc group. It implies more longevity than a civil initiative, which forms primarily
around short-term goals. A community can be a group of people—of local or non-
local residents, FUA commuters, but also visitors, the elderly, property owners or
investors, depending on the context and situation—potentially (but not necessarily)
bound by shared interests, motives, and values, who come together around a spe-
cific problem or project for longer periods of time. At the same time, factors such
as income, gender, cultural and social capital, individual traits, etc., also expose the
inherent differences/incompatibilities in the community that may lead to internal
power disbalance and informal hierarchies. This plays out most clearly in involv-
ing vulnerable groups/individuals, often failing to improve their position but rather
reinforcing and replicating existing societal hierarchies:
Greater inequality contributes greatly to asymmetric information; richer and more powerful
people are likely to have better-connected networks, better access to powerful people in
government, more education (and therefore, greater awareness), and greater capacity to
influence decision-making. (Mansuri and Rao 2013, p. 79)
A community may already have a legal status within a municipality (e.g., NGOs,
institutes), while in some cases, such status still needs to be obtained. For example, in
the case of FUA, there is usually no immediate (“organic”) community. This may pose
problems in planning and management, particularly from the perspective of taking
care of infrastructure, as was the case in Krakow where they were having difficulties
in finding/organizing people to take on the responsibility of the infrastructure; or in
areas where there are no nearby residents with vested interest to improve the area,
as was the case in Maribor, where the immediate potential community is property
owners and users of the illegal parking lot, with no explicit interest in ending the status
quo. Or, in the case of Budapest, where the community (e.g., group of volunteers from
different neighborhoods) was formed using a top-down approach: the idea and its
implementation were conceived by the Green Office of the 12th district, Hegyvidék
Municipality (local authorities) and then delegated to stewards. All three cases fall
in the category of induced participation, which is understandable given the specific
characteristics of each pilot action.
Krakow faced the problem of geo-administrative configuration of the pilot action.
Stretching across municipality borders, Witkowice project had difficulties in finding a
community willing to take on maintenance. Three potential caretakers were identified
(e.g., runners, visitors, and nearby youth correction school), but the sporadic nature
of their engagement could not guarantee a longer-term commitment. The team had
no problems in attracting visitors to the forest; they organized a free bus service
from the city and back, picnics, running events, and arts competitions. Reportedly,
the turnout was satisfactory, but mobilizing users/visitors as caretakers remained
unrealized. Clearly, the configuration hardly made things easier: distance is a factor
(see Akpinar and Cankurt 2017). One promising option was the involvement of the
nearby school: the inclusion of vulnerable young population could have a positive
social effect by delegating teenagers’ responsibility to take care of their immediate
surroundings and to (re)connect to the wider social space. The teachers from the
school showed interest to participate, but failed to engage the pupils, so the task of
maintaining the forest path intact now lies with the Municipal Green Space Authority.
In this respect, we would like to reiterate the potential of semiformalization of
communities, to which the Maribor team came closest: they adapted and tested the
Community Consultative Assembly (CCA), a semi-formal entity that can participate
in UGS planning and management. To test the CCA in practice, MRA organized a
Wellness Festival, a thematic social event dealing with green issues, where they were
able to detect, define, and map the interested community. While the Krakow team
attempted a similar approach, it didn’t work due to the administrative configuration
and possibly the specific nature of the school (delinquent youth). In Maribor, on the
other hand, the CCA facilitated the conditions where student projects—visualizations
of improvement of the existing situation that followed the needs and wishes of the
ever-broader group of people involved—were commissioned and put up for voting.
Thus, it was possible to reach consensus and provide suggestions for areas of direct interest
for each groups (for example, the general community of the city district was only involved
with the overall arrangements of the pilot area, while the owners and users of the cultural
hub were involved in the overall and specific area of the joint parking). The owners and users
were involved in public consultations, while indirect users were invited to provide their own
ideas; they were given an opportunity to submit their ideas through the suggestion box and
online survey. (Pilot Action Report from UGB project 2018, p. 3)
The Maribor situation, however, lacked an organic community. In comparison to

Krakow and Budapest, it lacked “motivational content” to address and engage people
in the process. If Krakow had a sort of organically convincing and motivating content
(the forest path), and Budapest small plots of land to be used as gardens, the Maribor
team wanted to regenerate an illegal parking lot (effectively eliminating the free
parking option for FUA commuters) and transform it into a useful and safe public
space. As various plots around the building are publicly or privately owned, this
added an element of negotiating public and private interests. So, when it came to a
community that could or would take part in the planning of regeneration actions, the
potential community of owners and users only shared disinterest or at least ambiguity
about what to do with the pilot area. Given the often unstable nature and potentially
low levels of interaction and interests in such communities, it is often difficult to detect
or mobilize one. This may pose a problem both for the authorities and for interested
members of a community, particularly when the proposed plans or changes do not
affect them immediately.
5.4.2 Managing and Sustaining a Community
The already formed community, or one in the making, should reasonably expect
that their involvement will not only be acknowledged, but that the necessary legal
mechanisms be put in place and integrated into a dynamic process of finding a
consensual solution. It is therefore crucial to facilitate empowering by providing
a legal frame and appointing competent interlocutors: “Local development moves
from being ‘participatory’ to ‘empowered’ when decisions made by ordinary people
through deliberation are tied to policy decisions and actions” (Mansuri and Rao 2013,
p. 87), which ideally should lead to participatory governance (Fung and Wright 2003).
Although several studies have shown that the best way for a successful urban greens
participatory process is to link top-down and bottom-up approaches, i.e., negotiate
between the systemic and the particular, this is difficult to translate into practice for
various reasons. For example, one of the challenges faced by Maribor’s MRA was
to find the suitable time to ensure all relevant stakeholders could attend meeting or
workshop:
/…/If an event is organized in the morning, people are at work and it is very difficult to get
anybody who is not present as part of their working obligations. In the afternoon, people
who would come as part of their working obligations do not attend as they have other private
obligations … Also, the interested public has very varied obligations and is difficult to find
a suitable date. As it was organized on Saturday morning, the interested and general public
were present, but no public officials attended. (3rd Stakeholder meeting report 2017, p. 5)
However, as one of the partners from Maribor’s MRA concluded their partner’s
report.
Including stakeholders in the process instead of just consulting them to confirm a proposed
solution has proven to be a good strategy to gain consensus for what has to be achieved.
(Pilot Action Report from UGB project 2018, p. 8)
For better stakeholder interaction, the emphasis should be on “soft” methods for
facilitating and enhancing participation connected to informal ways of community
building (Ličen et al. 2017). Soft methods make use of specific locally recognized
locations and venues (schools, religious centers, open-air locations, i.e., parks, botan-
ical gardens, and municipal woods) and adequately conceptualized and localized
content (e.g., thematic walks, community picnics, sport events, art workshops, etc.).
Venue plays an important role in structuring the event as it can contribute to defor-
malizing the space of interaction, opening ways to a more relaxed environment. The
Budapest partner organized several social events in their green areas and pointed out
that:
Celebrating [e.g., a community picnic] is a core part of community building. Celebration
is a big part of common culture that creates an opportunity for bonding and trust building.
Celebration and connection are key. Community actions linked to UGS might be a very
important step for the involved municipalities and communities to rethink not only UGS but
also our joint role in the maintenance and improvement of local ecosystems. (Hamza et al.
2018, p. 10)
This, in the end, can result in an ad hoc space of interaction where the hierarchies
and power play can be readily monitored and, if necessary, neutralized. Structuring
the environment so that various stakeholders can “meet softly” may thus lead to
relaxed conversations, generation of ideas, while solution building processes can in
fact become more open and flexible (not forgetting the internal power imbalances).
Importantly, not only will ideas proliferate in such an environment but also trust will
be built and the community will flourish, having realized its power to improve their
greens. Or will it?
This is not an easy question and certainly a multilayered one. Our experience
shows that FUA-related disinterest and issues of timing are, in addition to the missing
organic participation element, among the main reasons impeding convergence around
a specific cause, let alone the development of a community. These uneasy conditions
may lead the initiator (e.g., the municipality) to disregard or exclude the community
for very practical reasons. At the same time, it is critical not to see the community as
a passive actor that has yet to be found and externally empowered; instead, in order to
connect various ideas and points of view, it is crucial for the authorities to understand
the systemic inertia and inherent community drawbacks (see Sect. 2) and use this
understanding to provide the necessary legal provisions, competent personnel, and
the environment for a community to grow as organically as possible.
During the systematization of the pilot reports, several other topics relevant for
this discussion emerged: the role and relevance of socialist history and transition and
practical issues regarding the involvement of communities. The former issue was
most explicitly emphasized by the Budapest team, who has located the absence of
pro-environmental collective action in the legacies of communism:
[Community involvement in UGS] is a very ambitious goal in a post-socialist country where
self-organizing was blocked for decades, since community development takes time and
changing mind-sets needs even more time. (Hamza et al. 2018, p. 2)
Krakow and Maribor, however, did not attach much importance to it. While this may
be the consequence of different experiences under various modalities of socialism
and of contemporary politics of memory, it is also related to the characteristics and
contexts of the specific pilot actions. It was the Budapest team who had applied the
most decidedly top-down approach to the implementation of their planned steward-
ship program. When discussing these issues with the partners, it was clear that they
did not at all refuse to use participatory approaches in practice. Yet, there was a clear
expectation that the situation might slip out of control when not in a tight grip. In the
case of Budapest, the team genuinely attempted to involve the residents of the 12th
district in stewardship of the designated area. At the beginning of the pilot action, the
Hegyvidék Green Office tried to define appropriate “greening spots,” to advertise the
opportunity locally by putting up information signs, to find stewards, and to estab-
lish a communication channel with them. It soon became clear that people are not
necessarily skilled enough to select adequate plants, so the team organized several
workshops with a horticulturalist who was then tasked with drawing up a plant-
ing plan. The Green Office organized several awareness-raising events for different
generations. In their report, they highlighted:
Generally speaking, stewards were satisfied with the program, but they need more “freedom”
and ownership. On the other hand, Green Office emphasized difficulties mediating between
the stewards and the gardening company, as well as regarding the maintenance levels of
some stewarded spots. They conducted in-depth interviews that revealed their satisfaction
with the spots, which showed different expectations. The interviewees also emphasized the
importance of having a contact with a professional gardener, noting that contact with her was
only possible through the Green Office. This proved inefficient and generated unnecessary
work for the office. Therefore, less control from the municipality would be beneficial for
both parties. They would welcome more thematic workshops to improve their knowledge.
(Hamza et al. 2018, p. 5)
This suggests that the Budapest partner actively sought contact with residents. Crucial
in this context is the realization that some form of management is necessary, while too
heavily induced participation may fail: less top-down control would give stewards
more autonomy. However, people expressed the need for specialist guidance, which
corroborates the above argument that it is essential to negotiate not only between the
stakeholders but also between various internal community dynamics.
Having acknowledged the issues with top-down approach and having taken action
to alleviate its effects, the Green Office of Municipality Hegyvidék introduced major
changes to the structure of the program. Two are particularly relevant for this discus-
sion: (1) stewards can propose places themselves, which may lead to more motivated,
if perhaps fewer stewards and (2) stewards will have to sign a document—a legal
provision that fosters participation and regulates inactivity (no penalization). This
suggests a certain need for and usefulness of community formalization (e.g., NGO,
association) in order to ensure accountability and contribute to sustainability. The
Budapest case made clear the importance of sharing responsibilities and ownership,
especially within the stewardship program, where the limited formalization would
facilitate the negotiation between the fluidity of community and the rigidity of the
system.
5.5 Conclusion
The UGB project was an opportunity to see how the promises and limits of community
participation play out in practice. The studied pilot cases reveal that public spaces
“remodeled” through participatory planning and management initiatives are seen
as an opportunity to cocreate or at least contribute to creating livable spaces and
responsible citizens. However, the case studies also demonstrated that when subjected
to strict deadlines and project requirements, certain activities which appear to work
in theory demand much more time than three years in practice (typical duration of
such projects). This brings us back to the discrepancy between induced and organic
participation: to expect that a community will form “organically on demand” is
illusory and misleading. It can potentially be “induced on demand” but in such
cases, it is questionable whether such a community has any relevance outside the
immediate instrumentalization of residents/communities for short-term purposes.
Communities should act as equal partners in the process, which cannot be realized
when overambitious goals are set for short periods of time. This simply does not allow
enough time for comprehensive community transformative processes to take place.
Any work with humans takes time and patience, and “soft” methods can stimulate,
encourage, and raise awareness in citizens, which can—in due time—support com-
munity building, sustainability, and participation in urban green development. Time
and “organics” proved to be the biggest obstacle to participation, often steering the
authorities to return to rather top-down, nonparticipatory, but in the short-term more
pragmatic approaches. Finally, this confirms the importance of continually assessing
both top-down (induced participation) and bottom-up (organic growth vs. potential
failure) approaches as a basis for future action. Importantly, it takes into account
the continually shifting and changing societal, cultural, political, and economic con-
ditions and environments. What is more, a thorough assessment of participatory
democracy in practice is also essential for problematizing over-bureaucratization of
project funding bodies and schemes that latch on promoting a certain approach or
concept (e.g., smart, intelligent, participation, community, etc.). It is at the same time
easy to forget that empty concepts obscure the nature of the problem and its solution.
What is worse, sometimes similar, if differently named, practices of participation
may already be in place, but are either neglected or forgotten through such schemes
(as, for example, the legacies of socialist workers’ actions, self-management, etc.). In
such cases, top-down imposition masks considerable political, social, and historical
diversities with a false aim to ensure a sort of conceptual commonality across the
EU as the basis for building a more commonly accepted and recognizable union.
In reality, things are not so easy; in addition to the emphasis on sufficient time for
social changes, such projects also hardly make room for organic innovation and the
localization/applicability of the project results.
Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge the financial support from the Slovenian Research
Agency research core funding Geography of Slovenia (P6-0101) and from the European Regional
Development Fund funding UGB (Interreg Central Europe).
References
3rd Stakeholder meeting report (2017) Internal documentation of UGB project. MRA, Maribor
Adelman C (1993) Kurt Lewin and the origins of action research. Educ Action Res 1(1):7–24.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0965079930010102
Akpinar A, Cankurt M (2017) How are characteristics of urban green space related to levels of
physical activity: examining the links. Indoor Built Environ 26(8):1091–1101. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1420326x16663289
Anguelovski I, Connolly JJT, Masip L, Pearsall H (2017) Assessing green gentrification in histor-
ically disenfranchised neighbourhoods: a longitudinal and spatial analysis of Barcelona Spain.
Urban Geogr 39(3):458–491. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2017.1349987
Anguelovski I, Connolly JJT, Garcia Lamarca M, Cole H, Pearsall H (2018) New scholarly pathways
on green gentrification: what does the urban “green turn” mean and where is it going? Prog Hum
Geogr. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132518803799
Bahrain Shuib K, Hashim H, Nasir NAM (2015) Community participation strategies in planning
for urban parks. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 168:311–320
Cerar A (2015) Vključevanje prebivalcev v urejanje prostora na lokalni ravni: primer regeneracije
izbranih ljubljanskih stanovanjskih sosesk. Dissertation, University of Ljubljana
Citizen participation in urban green spaces (2017) Re-thinking urban green commons. Professional
training programme on urban green space management, Barcelona, Spain
Davies J, Pill M (2012) Empowerment or abandonment? Prospects for neighbourhood revitalization
under the big society. Public Money Manag 32(3):193–200. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.
2012.676276
De Gramont D (2013) Rethinking participatory development, From critique to bet-
ter practice. https://carnegieendowment.org/2013/08/21/rethinking-participatory-development-
from-critique-to-better-practice-pub-52860. Accessed 16 Mar 2019
Diener AC, Hagen J (2013) From socialist to post-socialist cities: narrating the nation through urban
space. Nationalities Papers 41(4):487–514. https://doi.org/10.1080/00905992.2013.768217
Durose C, Rees J (2012) The rise and fall of neighbourhood in the New Labour era. Policy and
Politics 40(1):38–54. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557310x550079
Eurostat, Statistics explained. Glossary: Functional urban area. Luxembourg https://ec.europa.eu/
eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Glossary:Functional_urban_area. Accessed 6 Dec 2018
Fisher F (2001) Part 1: concepts and strategies. In: Building bridges between citizens and local
governments to work more effectively together through participatory planning. UN Habitat doc-
ument
Fung A, Wright EO (2003) Thinking about empowered participatory governance. In: Fung A,
Wright EO (eds) Deepening democracy, institutional innovations in empowered participatory
governance. Verso, New York
Gilbert P (2015) Participatory urban planning. Planning the city with and for citizens, Montréal
Urban Ecology Centre, Montréal
Hamza Z, Hamza V, Szigeti A, Ferenc B (2018) Pilot evaluation report—Building up pro-
environmental communities based on a stewardship programme in Budapest (internal documen-
tation of UGB project). Municipality of 12th District of Budapest (Hegyvidék), Budapest
Javaid S, Habeeb R (2018) Participatory planning in urban green spaces: a step towards environ-
mental and social equity. Paper presented at the 6th national seminar on architecture for masses
on the theme of “Environmental Remediation & Rejuvenation”, Jamia Milia Islamia, New Delhi,
22–23 Feb 2018
Kothencz G, Kolcsar R, Cabrera Barona P, Szilassi P (2017) Urban green space perception and its
contribution to well-being. Int J Environ Res Public Health 14(7):766–779. https://doi.org/10.
3390/ijerph14070766
Kucina I (2016) Commoning of the uncommonness: developing urban commons in post socialist
city. Rivista di Storia delle Idee 5(2):106–116. https://doi.org/10.4474/dps/05/02/lss239/11
Lee A, Maheswaran R (2011) The health benefits of urban green spaces: a review of the evidence.
J Public Health 33(2):212–222. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdq068
Ličen N, Findeisen D, Fakin Bajec, J (2017) Communities of practice as a methodology for grass-
roots innovation in sustainable adult education. AS. Andragoška spoznanja: prva slovenska revija
za izobraževanje odraslih 23(1):23–39
Mansuri G, Rao V (2013) Localizing development. Does participation work? The World Bank,
Washington
Müller E, Stotten R (2011) Handbuch Mirtwirkung, Materiallen. http://www.demochange.org/de/
ergebnisse/transnational-results.html. Accessed 6 Dec 2018
Parry G, Noyser M, Day N (1992) Political participation and democracy in Britain. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge
Pilot Action Report from UGB project (2018) Internal documentation of UGB project. MRA,
Maribor
Richardson EA, Pearce J, Mitchell R, Kingham S (2013) Role of physical activity in the relationship
between urban green space and health. Public Health 127(4):318–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
puhe.2013.01.004
Sarmiento CS, Beard VA (2013) Traversing the border: community-based planning and transnational
migrants. J Plan Educ Res 33(3):336–347. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x13499934
Simoneti M (2016) Celovit sistem ukrepov za urejanje javnih zelenih površin v slovenskih naseljih.
Dissertation, University of Ljubljana
Stöger G (2010) Participation as basic principle. In: Stoger G, Cerwenka J (eds) weReurope: how
to design intercultural conferences to promote dialogue and participation. Ibv, Vienna, pp 41–43
Toledo Informal Ministerial Meeting on Urban Development Declaration (2010) http://www.mdrap.
ro/userfiles/declaratie_Toledo_en.pdf. Accessed 6 Dec 2018
UN (2017) New Urban Agenda. Habitat III Secretariat. http://habitat3.org/wp-content/uploads/
NUA-English.pdf. Accessed 26 Mar 2019
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.
Chapter 6
Review of the Participatory
and Community-Based Approach
in the Housing Cooperative Sector
Danaja Visković Rojs, Maša Hawlina, Brigita Gračner and Rok Ramšak
Abstract The chapter presents a theoretical overview of the participatory practice

within non-profit rental housing cooperatives and the basic operational principles
behind them. It stresses the importance of the societal perspective of such practice,
with regard to individual benefits of the residents as well as the potential for a
fairer and sustainable urban development on a broader scale beyond the provision of
housing. Housing cooperatives form an integral part of housing provision systems in
various parts of the world. While their organisational models may vary considerably,
all generally abide to the organisational and normative principles of cooperatives,
which entail the basics of participatory practices on more than just one level. They
promote active citizenship through direct democratic principles in housing provision
and the formation of housing policies. Furthermore, cooperatives promote member
participation through all stages: planning, construction and later in management of the
residents. Such organisational model stresses the importance of good communication
skills that allow cooperation and consequently give rise to social capital and trust
among members.
Keywords Cooperative · Housing · Participation · Community · Barcelona ·

Zurich
D. Visković Rojs (B) · M. Hawlina · B. Gračner · R. Ramšak

Institute for Studies of Housing and Space, Ljubljana, Slovenia
e-mail: danaja.viskovic.rojs@gmail.com
M. Hawlina
e-mail: hawlinamasa@gmail.com
B. Gračner
e-mail: brigita.gracner@gmail.com
R. Ramšak
e-mail: ramsak88@gmail.com

92 D. Visković Rojs et al.
6.1 Institutional Framework of the Housing Question—The

Right to Housing or Housing as a Commodity?
The rise of alternative housing models should primarily be understood as a response

to “historically and institutionally concrete situations of need satisfaction in a certain
territory” (Moulaert and Nussbaumer in Lang and Roessl 2011, p. 8). In other words,
alternative housing models emerged from the active response to growing issues of
the housing market speculations on one hand and the possibility of active citizen-
ship practices on the other. It has become evident that most of the market-oriented
mechanisms could not meet the citizens’ demand for housing around the globe. In
opposition to the individualistically oriented solutions of the housing problem, we
are now facing the emergence and revival of the so-called alternative initiatives and
community-based approaches to housing provision. Examples of such models are
housing cooperatives, co-housing, self-development, grouped housing, etc. (Zim-
mermann 2014), which are usually related and are present in various forms. They
all nevertheless stress the importance on the empowerment of individuals through
participation in autonomous yet collective activity.
Community-based and participatory rental housing, organised in cooperative man-
ner, does not merely bring new legal and economic frames of housing provision. It
thrives on democratic principles based on inclusive participation of all stakeholders it
concerns. Such principles reflect a step beyond mere housing provision and represent
a new lifestyle with socially oriented normative frames.
(Future) residents and members of cooperatives are ideally included in all stages of
the housing provision: designing, building, managing and cohabiting. Community-
oriented cooperatives also provide social security by developing a sense of belonging
to a certain group or place. Postmodern cooperative models stress the importance of
everyday encounters and reciprocity among members, thus augmenting social cohe-
sion. They “often explicitly include weaker social groups and have inter-cooperative
resources” (Droste 2015, p. 11).
Community-based models provide a form of economic and social stability that is
based on reciprocity and strong community bonds. They come in many forms, for the
form is subjected to the members’ needs and preferences. They bring an alternative
perspective to the understanding of housing as a basic human right. Community-
oriented housing models redefine the understanding of the housing question and
enable empowerment through uniting individuals with similar ideals and interests.
6.2 The Rise of Participatory Approaches in Housing:

Impact on Citizenship Empowerment, Social Capital
and Social Cohesion
According to Shills (Iglič 2004), empowerment and civic engagement are measured
through the quality of network relationships and the citizens’ attitudes regarding
6 Review of the Participatory and Community-Based … 93
the idea of a functional society. The possibility of individuals’ civic engagement

allows their integration into a common moral and normative frame, thus adding to
social integration and consequently a stable democratic governance with participa-
tory potential. Participation in the public sphere ideally seeks the involvement of
all stakeholders and other civic organisations according to the principles of consen-
sus. It is an integral part of the concept of governance that OECD (in Garcia 2006,
p. 750) describes as “the process by which citizens collectively solve their problems
and meet society’s needs”, using institutional tools as an instrument for achieving
common goals.
Participatory approaches to housing enable residents to integrate their own needs,
preferences and values into their future living environment. Moreover, it sets grounds
for empowerment and reflection of active citizenship by including all residents in
the later processes of building management and strengthening of direct neighbour
interactions without intermediaries. Direct resident participation in day-to-day prac-
tices represents the bottom-up culture of governance, which depends upon strong
community bonds that enable collective action (Garcia 2006).
Community-oriented participatory housing usually involves sharing space and
living costs of its residents while also offering public space and activities to broader
community on a neighbourhood level. It brings a shift from an individualistic, core
family-oriented model of housing provision to higher sociability on all levels. By
turning individuals into active members of society, participatory-based planning not
only facilitates internal processes of housing management and relations, but also con-
tributes to strengthening the sense of community and responsibility for its well-being
(Droste 2015). The feeling of belonging to a certain community triggers reflexive
and considerate behaviour towards other members (Phillips and Filipovič 2007). It
also raises social capital of individuals and their trust levels—the two main features
of civic engagement and efficient planning policy.
According to Bourdieu (1986), social capital can be defined as an aggregate of
actual and potential assets of a certain social network that individual is a part of. The
networks depend on the maintenance of acquaintanceships on different institutional
levels, reciprocity of connections and a certain level of solidarity among members.
Similarly, Coleman (1988) defines social capital as a type of a resource, available to
individuals through network connections. Furthermore, he describes social capital
as a productive capital that enables achievement of certain goals that could not be
reached without the use of common network resources. Therefore, social capital
can be defined through social networks, reciprocity and trust among members. It
is usually measured through active membership in various voluntary associations,
religious institutions, political parties and the level of trust (Schuller 2001). “Social
capital enhances the benefits of investment in physical and human capital” (Putnam
in Kearns and Forrest 2001, p. 2137). It refers to features of social organisation
such as networks, norms and trust. All of these features facilitate coordination and
cooperation of members for their mutual benefit.
Social capital offers the potential of mutual benefit that comes from the “culture
of trust”, which reduces individuals’ inclination towards egoistic opportunism. The
greater the feeling of belonging to a certain community, the higher is the moral obliga-
tion to conform to the normative rules. The obligation derives from the mutual belief
that other members do not want to endanger the relationship and long-term benefit
potential for the sake of the short-term individual benefit. “Community cooperatives
do not only focus on a member’s advantage, but act on behalf of some collective
identity” (Lang and Roessl 2011, p. 1).
Community-oriented housing initiatives’ impact on the strength of individu-
als’ social bonds could also be described through basic community versus society
(gemeinschaft and gesellschaft) dichotomy that was first introduced by Tonnies more
than a century ago. The theory explains the importance of common commodities that
are shared by the members of a community and the higher level of interdependence
they bring. Smaller social structures with a higher level of interdependence and conse-
quently stronger social bonds show a higher level of social cohesion, which manifests
on daily basis in day-to-day encounters and activities. Members of a community—in
contrary to the members of a broad notion of society—share direct ownership of basic
goods. Shared ownership of the latter seems to be a crucial factor for better coop-
eration and successful goal achievement (Filipovič 2007). The community-oriented
rental housing cooperative is a fine example of shared ownership since the members
of the cooperative never own their apartment as a whole, but they own their share
of the cooperative as a whole. Such an organisational structure demands certain par-
ticipatory and democratic approaches to building management (in all stages), which
maintains a higher level of social capital of its members. It opens a window for a direct
civic engagement in participatory processes that are otherwise limited by neoliberal,
top-down models of governance and housing provision in particular. Participatory
housing practices in their various forms always involve the “inhabitants in the pro-
duction or co-production of their living environment and in the day-to-day, routine
management of the property they occupy” (D’Orazio and Zimmermann 2014, p. 1).
However, a set of clear and universal guidelines of participatory processes within
the community need to be defined in order to grasp the participative manage-
ment potential of community-oriented housing cooperatives. According to Williams
(2006), a full and direct resident involvement in decision-making process does
not always appear to be as productive as the theories of participatory decision-
making policies may suggest. Case-to-case-based decision-making processes almost
inevitably raise conflict of interest, no matter the common normative frame of the
community members. As the study has shown (Williams 2006), the conflicts within
the community may arise from as mundane questions as one of the furniture designs in
the common area, resulting in resident’s complete withdrawal from decision-making
process or even the community as a whole. The functional community therefore needs
to set rules on what, how and where certain decisions are made, without tiring resi-
dents with never-ending meetings on the one hand or excluding them from relevant
decision-making process on the other. In other words, even participative decision-
making processes and community management have certain disadvantages. Partic-
ipative management should therefore be carefully planned, which may sometimes
be easier said than done. However, the potential for productive social interactions
usually rises with organisational maturity and higher trust level, thus through gaining
direct experience from a long-term participatory practice.
6.3 Rental Housing Cooperative Model
Cooperative is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common

economic, social and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly owned and democrat-
ically controlled enterprise. Co-operatives are businesses owned and run by and for their
members. Whether the members are the customers, employees or residents they have an
equal say in what the business does and a share in the profits. (International Co-operative
Alliance 2018)
A cooperative is an institutional form that connects individuals with certain needs

into a community with shared values. It is essentially a member-owned and demo-
cratically controlled enterprise that prioritises members’ needs over the mere busi-
ness profit of the organisation. As such, cooperatives are an important bearer of
community-oriented values originating in direct democratic participation, solidar-
ity and principles of self-help and self-responsibility. There are numerous forms of
cooperative enterprises and communities around the globe, differentiated according
to members’ specific interests and the sociopolitical milieu.
Regardless of structural and operational diversity, all cooperatives should follow
seven basic principles that frame cooperative values into practical guidelines. As it
will be seen, the principles advocate direct democracy and constant active member
participation. They furthermore encourage cooperation and integration of other non-
members. According to the International Cooperative Alliance (2018), the principles
are as follows:
1. Voluntary and open membership:
Cooperatives are voluntary organisations, open to all individuals that are willing to
accept the membership responsibilities, without gender, social, racial, political or
religious discrimination.
2. Democratic member control:
Cooperatives are democratic organisations controlled by their members, who actively
participate in decision and policy-making by the one member—one vote principle.
Members also elect representatives who are accountable to other members.
3. Member economic participation:
Members contribute equitably to the cooperative capital that is controlled democrat-
ically. Surpluses are allocated into further cooperative development, support of other
member approved activities or social justice among members.
4. Autonomy and independence:
Cooperatives are autonomous and self-help organisations, internally controlled by
members. When entering into agreements with external actors, cooperatives act in
terms that ensure democratic member control and other basic cooperative principles.
5. Education, training and information:

Cooperatives invest in further member education in order to ensure self-responsible
organisation activity. Knowledge transfer is considered as a safeguard of a future
cooperative development.
6. Cooperation among cooperatives:
By forming cooperative alliances, a certain support network is established. Alliances
strengthen cooperative movement and provide grounds for autonomous development
on local, national and regional level.
7. Concern for community:
Cooperatives should never operate in exclusive manners. Spreading cooperative val-
ues, cooperatives should aspire sustainable development of the whole community,
leaving a positive impact on a broader scale. They should never exist solely for the
benefit of their members but should seek ways of collaborating with other sectors.
Housing cooperative models are just one of the cooperative forms with the specific
goal of housing provision for its members. Just as any other form of a cooperative,
a housing cooperative is a communally oriented way of problem solving. As such, it
has been used for more than a century around different parts of the world. Nonethe-
less, it has regained popularity in recent decades as a response to the growing housing
issues that emerge from market speculations on the one hand and weak welfare state
policies on the other. The primary goal of housing cooperatives is generally the
provision of affordable housing and not making profit through the commodifica-
tion of dwellings. Considering this, housing cooperatives are crucial to the public
interest and thus present a more sustainable model of housing provision. According
to Somerville (2007), they are considered an important part of the so-called third
sector, which represents a sphere in between the private and the public. Following
the basic cooperative values and norms, housing cooperatives operate on a commu-
nity level—surpassing mere housing provision, bridging the capitals of the member
residents and encouraging participatory principles of building and cohabiting.
Residents of a rental housing cooperative are primarily members of a cooperative,
contrary to being an individual housing owners. Such model stimulates participatory
approaches—not solely to planning, but also later in management of the building.
Direct resident participation in the planning and management of a neighbourhood can be seen
as a fundamental principle of cooperative housing organisations, which distinguishes them
from the other housing providers. It is a consequence or the multiple roles of a cooperative
member as owner, manager and a client of the housing organisation. The relationship between
executive board member and ordinary member is non-hierarchical and personalised, as they
are immediate neighbours in the same housing estate. (Lang and Novy 2014, p. 1754)
6.3.1 La Borda—Introducing a Housing Cooperative Model

in Barcelona, Spain
Since the global financial crisis and the burst of the Spanish housing bubble, Spanish
economy and particularly its housing sector have been suffering grave consequences,
such as increasing pressure on households and impact on the financial, labour and
housing markets. But the crisis in 2008 also created opportunities in the housing
market for alternative housing schemes. That was also the starting point for the birth
of the housing cooperative La Borda in district Can Batlló in Barcelona in 2012. It
developed without the support of the city, although in 2015, La Borda did sign a
contract with the city of Barcelona for the lease of land. In parallel with the housing
crisis, there was an emergence of a strong social economy, particularly a cooperative
movement, and the resurgence of a strong neighbourhood movement, which aimed
to develop an alternative model that did not rely on the traditional market-driven
housing agents (Cabré and Andrés 2017). Two years after the cooperative began to
operate, it already presented drawings, a model, a preliminary study of the building
and a draft of the statutes for a future cooperative to the community. The project was
open to anyone willing to participate (Garcia 2015).
The reference model for La Borda is the Danish model, also known as the Andel
Model, which is based on a private initiative of non-profit cooperatives that develop
and manage housing for their members who pay the returnable entry fee. The mem-
bers of the cooperative participate in all decision-making processes through an assem-
bly. One of the more important characteristics of the model is its non-speculative
nature that considers housing as a basic right rather than a commodity (Cabré and
Andrés 2017).
Though the mentioned features already imply the participatory- and community-
based approach of La Borda, there are several components that are derived from
these features. Since La Borda is a non-profit housing cooperative, autonomous
and democratic, all its members govern the cooperative, define strategies, as well as
approve and monitor the projects related to the development process according to their
needs. Participation has been organised through various work groups, workshops and
discussions at the General Assembly. La Borda also has a technical support group
for proposals (Cabré and Andrés 2017).
In addition to its self-management, La Borda also relies on its members as vol-
unteers for the construction of the building, which reduces the cost of building and
enables a higher control of the project. All these features strengthen community life
(Cabré and Andrés 2017).
Furthermore, La Borda encourages community life through its communal living
model, which includes shared common facilities and spaces that encourage interac-
tion between residents. These spaces are laundry, kitchen, living room, guest flat,
multipurpose room, health and care, bicycle parking, storage, shared objects and
tools and a co-working space. The first common and most important space discussed
was the laundry service room. Its planning consisted of three phases: (1) present-
ing the service, (2) encountering the service, (3) selecting a scenario (Garcia 2015).
Only to line up three scenarios took them half a year of discussions in assemblies
and commissions, and a few more to choose which scenario to pilot. They took into
account the results of the questionnaire of the future inhabitants and two types of
management—self-managed or externalised and ecological view, etc. (Garcia 2015).
Common spaces are meant to serve as meeting rooms for Con Batlló’s neighbour-
hood movement, which involves concern for and participation of community itself.
Another characteristic of the cooperative is the focus on sustainability in both low
environmental impact of the construction project and the sustainable usage of the
building. Both promote sustainable development and reduce the potential damage
for the residents and wider community. La Borda is also based on member economic
participation, specifically social and cooperative economy (Cabré and Andrés 2017).
6.3.2 Mehr Als Wohnen—A Broad Community-Oriented

Project in a Strong Housing Cooperative Network
and Supportive Environment of the Zurich
Municipality, Switzerland
While La Borda is a younger cooperative and its single building will presumably
be built 2018, Mehr als wohnen (Eng. More than Housing; hereinafter MAW) is
a much more extensive project situated in Hunziger, north of Zurich. The project
began in 2007, when the City of Zurich and its housing cooperatives celebrated
the centenary of government support for cooperative housing construction using the
slogan “100 years of more than housing”. Intensive discussions about the future of
housing that followed the festivities led to the founding of the building cooperative
MAW, which involved the financial participation of 55 Zurich housing cooperatives
and the City of Zurich itself (Borowski 2016). Its nature of establishment therefore
already foresaw the legacy of democratic membership, environmental care, commu-
nity building, etc.
MAW is an example of an open development process that includes collaboration
between professionals from different backgrounds by engaging the public, private and
educational sector with additional involvement of the end-users. The latter assures
that the project corresponds to the citizens’ needs and new ideas. The project devel-
opment took into account the benefits of early participation processes which enable
better commitment to the project and a higher content of the actual users (Purtik et al.
2016).
The project development was based on a working group’s model that favours
an inclusive participative and democratic decision-making process. Four working
groups were established as follows:
1. Thematic groups for utilisation of the neighbourhood, economy, ecology and
technology, which had monthly meetings that involved 50 members of the found-
ing cooperatives and MAW staff;
2. so-called echo rooms which happened twice a year were open to the public, had an
external moderator and discussed sustainable construction, building technologies
and energy, use of ground floors and volunteering;
3. volunteers of informal working groups and collaborative partners working on
complementary currency, contract farming, sustainability in Hunziker Areal,
regional sourcing, urban farming and living with the elderly;
4. neighbourhood groups which met monthly and worked on complementary cur-
rency, public library, outdoor areas, swap area, regional vegetable sourcing (Pur-
tik et al. 2016). In addition to the working groups, regular public forums were
also held. This so-called echo rooms initiated dialogue with the broader public
and invited external actors, such as universities, schools and foundations (Purtik
et al. 2016).
Today, the cooperative is comprised of 13 buildings with 395 residential units
and additional various non-residential premises, community rooms and green spaces
(Purtik et al. 2016). There are 35 retail spaces and shared care and community
facilities. MAW is a home for around 1200 residents and 150 employees that live
and work across the precinct (McMaster 2016):
A series of subsidies are offered to low-income earners, and 10% of the apartments are
allocated to charities and not-for-profits, including an orphanage. The result is a development
that includes a mixture of people, ranging from recently settled refugees to middle income
professionals.
6.4 Effects of the Participatory Cooperative Housing

Model on Neighbourhoods, States and Societies
6.4.1 Cooperative Schools of Democracy
The essence of a cooperative is to fulfil the needs and wishes of its members. In
order to achieve this goal, each member has to continually reaffirm his or her wishes
through the process of participatory democracy. Participation in decisions which
impact one’s life through their housing brings more satisfaction with the created
living environment and more security with the knowledge that nothing can be decided
outside this process. The principle of participatory democracy is or at least should
be included in every housing cooperative, and therefore, cooperatives can be seen as
schools of democracy and active citizenship with the crucial emphasis on solidarity
and acting for the good of the whole community, not just for the benefits of an
individual (Sørvoll and Bengtsson 2018). The cooperative principle “one member—
one vote” can therefore be seen as a process of reviving the education and socialisation
in political engagement.
Members and neighbourhood residents gain more political power when they are
connected to a housing cooperative. Cooperatives encourage citizen participation,
which empowers people who otherwise would not be the decision-makers, by Arn-
stein’s definition: “it is the means by which they can induce significant social reform
which enables them to share in the benefits of the affluent society” (1969, p. 216).
In further promoting their chances of becoming involved in decision-making and
influencing their neighbourhood and their cities, cooperatives can play an important
role. “Participation in housing projects has also been found to play an important role
in empowering beneficiaries or community members to become part of the general
political process and to have a voice in decisions that shape the community” (David-
son et al. 2007, p. 102). They can significantly change the position of an individual
by backing them with their social capital and influence in the local community and
its institutions. It can provide the much-needed access to powerful actors and gov-
ernment bodies. Moreover, if the residents do not want to get directly involved or do
not have the means to, housing cooperatives have been noted to take the position of
intermediaries between residents and decision-making institutions or actors. Lang
and Novy (2014, p. 1745) point to the case of Vienna and argue that the connection
with the cooperative in the position of intermediary allows “residents to obtain social
capital which links them to decisive resources and decision-making”.
6.4.2 Replacing Public Institutions?
As already mentioned, contemporary alternative housing models were developed

mostly because the market failed to provide enough adequate housing, and also
as an answer to the rise of housing speculations. In many ways, cooperatives can
be seen as acting against the market logic and speculation, with their main aim of
fulfilling members’ needs rather than accumulating capital, and with the specific
form of collective ownership and management. They have been known to provide
much-needed apartments (especially to low- or middle-income households) when
the market and the state failed to do so. That is why many of the contemporary
housing cooperatives developed in a time of crisis of the housing market, as we saw
in the case of La Borda. However, the spread of cooperative housing can be seen in
a negative context: as outsourcing the duties and responsibilities that traditionally
belonged under the auspices of the government of cities and states.
Lang and Novy (2014, p. 1744) observed that cooperative housing often tries
“to fill the gap left by the withdrawal of the state in providing affordable housing”.
Therefore, low-income cooperative housing projects can be seen as substituting social
housing, within the frame of the neoliberal shrinking of the state and favouring the
capital’s needs over the needs of the people. These projects, which are said to fill
in the resources previously provided by public institutions, often involve some level
of civic participation and voluntarism and “can also have the potential to serve as
a resource for cushioning the outsourcing of former (local) state responsibilities in
neo-liberalising cities” (Rosol 2016, p. 86).
This political strategy has been marked with the name “roll-back neoliberalism”.
Its main aim was to lessen the extent and influence of the state and its institutions
in order to make way for the spread of private enterprise and competitive logic even
in providing for the most essential human needs. In the field of the housing sector,
this is escorted by the privatisation of public housing and land, deregulation, and
supporting private real-estate developers and their profits (Peck and Tickel 2007).
All of which tend to make housing less affordable.
In times when welfare states are shrinking and the position of the most vulnerable
parts of the population is worsening, the role of the voluntary sector increases. The
voluntary sector tries to fill in the withdrawal of resources and services and replace
them, which is also attractive to politicians who are facing budgetary cuts. Although
this may be seen as a good thing—offering services to people in need—it is also
legitimising the shrinking of public institutions and budgetary cuts. In these circum-
stances “community participation in the public service provision is not necessarily
an emancipatory claiming of rights by citizens anymore or only but can instead
be understood as part of a distinct political rationality that aims at passing state
responsibilities on to civil society” (Rosol 2016, pp. 86–87). In this regard, housing
cooperatives can be seen to lessen the hits of neoliberalism on the welfare state and
therefore on public housing by considering the needs of a community, participating
with its members and providing much-needed affordable apartments, all of which
used to be the work of governmental institutions.
But neoliberalism does not focus solely on shrinking of the state, it is more accurate
to describe it as a transformation of the state and its functions. “New state forms, new
models of regulation, new regimes of governance, with the aim of consolidating and
managing both marketization and its consequences” (Peck and Tickel 2007, p. 33) are
what most characterises the process of roll-out neoliberalism. In circumstances where
the former institutions and structures pull back, new structures emerge. As a part of the
new forms of governance developed the so-called community governance, which is
best described as a hybrid between the neoliberal characteristic of self-reasonability
and active citizenship. Community is seen as the ideal instrument for serving the
needs of local residents because of the shared value system of its members, which
also implies the trust of every member that his contributions to the community will
benefit every member individually as well as the community as a whole. Therefore, it
is believed that community governance does not only reduce the costs for the public
institutions, but also provide a better and more accepted policy (Adams and Hess
2001). In this form of governance, “communities are then expected to look to their
own means of governance to be able to survive” (O’Toole and Burdess 2004, p. 434).
Another way in which governmental bodies try to outsource their services is
through public–private partnership schemes. Mehr Als Wohnen is a project that grows
on the basis of private–public partnership, as are many other housing cooperatives.
In order to provide affordable and quality apartments, it is in some cases necessary
to gain some kind of support from the state. In the case of Mehr Als Wohnen,
public support takes the form of a renting lease for the land with a symbolic rent,
property rights, subsidies and public guarantees. As Barcelona or Spain do not yet
have a system in place to help develop housing cooperatives, La Borda had to find
significant other sources that were prepared to support the project. For this, they relied
on cooperation with cooperative for financial services Coop57 and on the solidarity,
social finance and social impact founding.
Housing cooperatives fit very well in the scheme of neoliberalism. Although their
intention is to fulfil the needs of its members and encourage a sense of belonging
through community building, the negative side effect is that they can also be seen as
an instrument for the “outsourcing of former local state responsibilities for public
services and urban infrastructure” (Rosol 2016, p. 85). In this context, they help legit-
imise the cuts to the welfare state by encouraging voluntarism, active participation
and community building. However, there still seems to be some potential for cooper-
atives to grow out of this context if citizen participation in housing cooperative leads
to a redistribution of power, not just on the level of the community, but broader—on
the level of the city or the state.
Real citizen participation is characterised by a redistribution of power, which can
bring citizens who were previously excluded from the political sphere into positions
of power. In order to achieve this, housing cooperatives need to “delegate power to
residents and, at the very top, give them control of the decision-making process and
the distribution of resources, such as participatory budgeting efforts today” (Smith
2016, p. 31). If they succeed, they can help shift the neoliberal agenda and have
an influence on the political content (Elwood 2002). But if housing cooperatives do
not focus on their members, the danger is that they become much more oriented
simply towards management and can start to resemble corporate establishments, as
has happened to some housing cooperatives in Vienna (Lang and Novy 2014).
6.4.3 Housing Cooperatives as Gentrifiers or Regulators

of the Rental Housing Market
Housing cooperatives, as previously established, focus on fulfilling their members’

needs. However, based on the seventh cooperative principle, the concern for well-
being and satisfaction is not limited just to the narrow community of the coopera-
tive’s members, but also on the broader local community. One of the goals of housing
cooperatives is therefore improving the living conditions of all the residents in the
neighbourhood where the housing cooperative is located. This is to be achieved
through participation on the neighbourhood level, which provides information about
the potential future projects that could improve the residents’ everyday lives. La
Borda, actually deriving from the Can Batlló neighbourhood movement, is a good
example of a cooperative directly addressing the needs of its immediate surround-
ings and the broader neighbourhood as the local community was involved in the
design process from the very beginning and certain spaces within the building will
be available for direct use of that same community.
Housing cooperatives can play a substantial role in regulating the renting housing
market as a part of the non-profit housing sector. If the non-profit sector becomes
big enough—has a similar presence in the share of the market and “in the mar-
ket segments where profit providers operate” (Kemeny et al. 2005, p. 858)—that it
can compete with the private, profit-seeking housing sector, the former becomes a
sort of regulator of the market. Non-profit housing strives for quality apartments at
affordable prices—the rent is usually set to cover the costs and any surplus is then
reinvested in either sustaining the dwellings as they are (mainly repairs) or in improv-
ing them. By forgoing profits and therefore offering cheaper housing, the non-profit
owners attract more renters. If the profit housing providers want to compete with
the non-profit providers, they also have to lower their rents. Furthermore, “the non-
profit sector may also offer better quality dwellings and greater security of tenure,
which could force the profit sector to match the offer, thereby reducing the need for
regulation” (Kemeny et al. 2005, p. 858). In most places where cooperatives work,
the presence of non-profit providers is not strong enough to really have a regulatory
influence. The two examples (where the cooperative housing is also very strong)
might be found in Zurich and Vienna, where the profit providers have to match the
offers of the non-profit providers in order to be competitive. But this may quickly
spread to other places. The cooperative housings are rising in many European states
are just now, and once the models are established, the housing cooperative sector can
grow rapidly. La Borda is a pilot project in Barcelona, but even before the end of the
construction phase, new housing cooperative projects are already in the making.
Housing cooperatives and similar participatory projects can have a great influence
on the neighbourhood through various community-lead participatory projects, but
that can also come with a downside—if the living standards in the neighbourhood
substantially improve, it will not be long before the real-estate market prices rise and
the process of gentrification takes place. The people who contributed to improving
the neighbourhood are consequently often forced to leave their homes for the benefit
of making profits by others. As Rosol puts it (2016, p. 90):
… if strategies to improve living conditions in a neighbourhood are not combined with
mechanisms that prevent displacement of residents and keep housing affordable, even the
most well-meaning projects can become the engine of gentrification.
6.5 Conclusion
Mehr als Wohnen, which would be roughly translated to more than housing, seems
to be the perfect name for a cooperative housing establishment; not just for the
housing and work complex in Zurich, but for every rental housing cooperative that
abides by the seven cooperative principles. This distinct form of housing provision
becomes more than a residence precisely because it entails participation on every
stage of development and use. It is the participation of residents in ownership and
democratic management of the cooperative that makes them more economically and
socially secure regarding their dwelling. Participatory approach to developing and
managing enables residents to integrate their needs, wishes and preferences into their
dwellings and common spaces. However, participation in housing cooperatives most
often surpasses the mere essentials of housing and is encouraged in other aspects of
living.
Through participation, housing cooperatives encourage the development of a com-
munity that connects its members, but also neighbourhood residents. Housing coop-
eratives often offer public spaces, services and activities to non-residents, which
can substantially improve neighbourhood life and encourage sociability on all lev-
els. By developing a sense of belonging to a certain community, people become
more responsible for their well-being. Through the process, they gain more social
capital, build on trust and therefore feel more socially secure. Participation on the
level of the cooperative can also encourage them to get involved in participatory
projects and decision-making on the level of the neighbourhood or even the city. In
summary, living in a democratic participatory housing project can simulate further
citizen activity.
Even though participatory practice appears to be beneficial for social interactions,
a question of successful and adequate housing management should not be neglected.
Participatory approaches to building and community design or management do not
always meet the variety of resident preferences per se. Consequently, a high level of
frustration might appear, resulting in members’ withdrawal from communal social
interaction. Although community-oriented ways of living may bring a significant
potential for one’s social reflexivity, they can also be tiresome and time consuming.
This leads to the conclusion that participatory processes need to be carefully planned
and managed, even though they may seem to be the single most spontaneous practice
within equitable communities.
The negative aspects that can emerge with participatory housing provision on a
systemic level have also been discussed. First, renting housing cooperatives are more
often than not based on voluntary work from organisers and its residents and are
generally subject to the public–private partnerships. Therefore, it seems that they fit
into the neoliberal strategy of privatisation of traditionally public domains, cutting
public funding, shrinking the state and externalising public services. This forces
people and their communities to become self-reliable and can leave them without
the needed services and support. Second, by improving the neighbourhoods in which
the cooperatives are embedded, they can contribute to the process of gentrification,
which threatens the local population.
When talking about the beneficial effects of a housing cooperative sector, we also
should not disregard the importance of the rental status of the housing units. By
keeping all of the housing units in the permanent ownership of a cooperative, the
future market speculations of separate dwellings may be prevented and sustainably
regulated through not-for-profit (where rents are based on costs) rent. Only as such,
housing cooperatives can be a part of the non-profit housing sector, influence rental
housing market regulation and by doing that, providing the possibility for affordable
housing alternative with the participatory potential.
References
Adams D, Hess M (2001) Community in public policy: fad or foundation? Aust J Public Adm
60(2):13–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.00205
Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Planners 35(4):216–224. https://
doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
Borowski T (2016) The Founding of More Than Housing. In: Hugentobler M et al (eds) More than
housing: cooperative planning—a case study in Zurich. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel
Bourdieu P (1986) The forms of capital, handbook of theory and research for the sociology of
education. Greenwood Press, Westport
Cabré E, Arnau A (2017) La Borda: a case study on the implementation of cooperative housing in
Catalonia. Int J Hous Policy 18(3):1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/19491247.2017.1331591
Coleman JS (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am J Sociol 94(S1):95–120
Davidson CH, Johnson C, Lizarralde, G et al (2007) Truths and myths about community participation
in post-disaster housing projects. Habitat Int 31(1):100–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.
2006.08.003
Droste C (2015) German co-housing: an opportunity for municipalities to foster socially inclu-
sive urban development? Urban Res Pract 8(1):79–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/17535069.2015.
1011428
Elwood S (2002) Neighborhood revitalization through collaboration: assessing the implications of
neoliberal urban policy at the grassroots. GeoJournal 58(2):121–130. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:
GEJO.0000010831.73363.e3
Filipovič M (2007) Družbena kohezija in soseska v pozni moderni. Fakulteta za družbene vede,
Ljubljana
Forrest K, Kearns A (2001) Social cohesion, social capital and the neighbourhood. Urban studies
38(12):2125–2143. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980120087081
Garcia A (2015) Designing with transitioning communities—the case of la borda. EINA Centre
Universitari de Disseny i Art de Barcelona, Barcelona
Garcia M (2006) Citizen practices and Urban government in European cities. Urban Studies
43(4):745–765. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980600597491
Iglič H (2004) Dejavniki nizke stopnje zaupanja v Sloveniji. Družboslovne razprave XX
46–47:149–175
ISSN Internation Co-operative Alliance (2018) Cooperative identity, values & principles. https://
www.ica.coop/en. Accessed 1 Sept 2018
Kemeny J, Kersloot J, Thalmann P (2005) Non-profit housing influencing, leading and dominating
the unitary rental market: three case studies. Housing Studies 20(6):855–872. https://doi.org/10.
1080/02673030500290985
Lang R, Novy A (2014) Cooperative housing and social cohesion: the role of linking social capital.
Eur Plan Stud 22(8):1744–1764. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2013.800025
Lang R, Roessl D (2011) Contextualizing the governance of community co-operatives: evidence
from Austria and Germany. Voluntas: international journal of voluntary and nonprofit organiza-
tions 22:706
McMaster J (2016) Mehr Als Wohnen. Arcspace. https://arcspace.com/feature/mehr-als-wohnen/.
Accessed on 1 Sept 2018
O’Toole K, Burdess N (2004) New community governance in small rural towns: the Australian
experience. J Rural Stud 20(4):433–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2004.01.002
Peck J, Tickell A (2007) Conceptualizing neoliberalism, thinking Thatcherism. Contesting Neolib-
eralism: Urban Front 26:50
Purtik, Zimmerling E, Welpe IM (2016) Cooperatives as catalysts for sustainable neighborhoods—a
qualitative analysis of the participatory development process toward a 2000-Watt Society. J Clean
Prod 134 A:1–16
Rosol M (2016) Community volunteering and the neo-liberal production of Urban green space.
Jovis Verlag GmbH, Berlin, The Participatory City
Schuller T (2001) The complementary roles of human and social capital. J Clean Prod 2(1):18–24
Smith J (2016) Making real plans to transform public housing. Jovis Verlag GmbH, Berlin, The
Participatory City
Somerville P (2007) Co-operative identity. J Co-Op Stud 40(1):5–17
Sørvoll J, Bengtsson B (2018) The pyrrhic victory of civil society housing? co-operative housing in
Sweden and Norway. Int J Hous Policy 18(1):124–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616718.2016.
1162078
Williams J (2006) Designing neighbourhoods for social interaction: the case of cohousing. J Urban
Des 10(2):195–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574800500086998
Zimmermann P (2014) Co-building the city with participatory housing in Strasbourg (France).
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=2ahUKEwj0-
NnQr_fdAhVE-6QKHciUDOYQFjAAegQICRAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.energy-
cities.eu%2Fdb%2FStrasbourg_etude_dialogue_EN.pdf&usg=AOvVaw0z-
WdRIAUC5eWWhSKldMLP. Accessed on 1 Sept 2018
Chapter 7
Participatory Research on Heritage-
and Culture-Based Development:
A Perspective from South-East Europe
Janez Nared and David Bole
Abstract The objective of the chapter is to highlight the relevance and implemen-
tation of culture- and heritage-led regional and local development in South-East
Europe. By implementing the participatory research methodology at two major events
in Europe, we analysed the practitioners’ views on the topics of culture- and her-
itage-led development. Our results showed that culture and heritage are characteristic
and unique and could provide a distinctive added value for regional development as
a branding tool, a factor of motivation, community empowerment and a strong ele-
ment of local identity. Although protection is an important issue in cultural heritage,
it should be complemented by education, identification, tourism and development,
especially by fostering the economic potentials reflected in increased tourism flows
and resulting multiplier effects. Culture and heritage are deeply embedded in a local
context, so local communities must be closely involved in the management structures
and their views and requirements must be considered. Participatory planning of such
sites is welcomed since it includes “negotiating” solutions horizontally and vertically
with the main planning goal of making positive changes in local communities and
integrating both perspectives (conservation and development) to achieve sustainable
futures.
Keywords Culture · Heritage · Development · Economic potentials · Participatory

research · Sustainable development
7.1 Introduction
South-East Europe is rich in cultural heritage, and its varied culture is still strug-
gling with its own development path and transition to a post-socialist and post-
war economic era. To tackle this problem, the European Commission launched the
J. Nared (B) · D. Bole

e-mail: janez.nared@zrc-sazu.si
D. Bole
e-mail: david.bole@zrc-sazu.si
108 J. Nared and D. Bole
South-East Europe Transnational Cooperation Programme that addressed culture as

an important part of the sustainable development of the entire region (Nared et al.
2014).
Culture and cultural heritage can be seen as a development factor, as they can be
used in various ways to contribute to the quality of life in individual communities.
Their economic potential is reflected in increased tourism flows and resulting mul-
tiplier effects, in regional marketing and branding, as well as having an important
role in education, identification and image (Nared et al. 2013). As said by Graham
(2001, p. 1006), cultural heritage
… is an economic resource; one exploited everywhere as a primary component of strategies
to promote tourism, economic development and rural and urban regeneration. But heritage
is also a knowledge, a cultural product and a political resource and thus possesses a crucial
socio-political function.
In a wider context, local culture is an important component of regional develop-

ment, and its protection and development must be closely integrated with planning
and developing the entire region. The initial development resource represented by
local culture must be evaluated and a great deal of knowledge, creativity and inno-
vation must be invested into it in order to gain the developmental benefits for the
community. Culture-based development relies on local actors and their relations and
is an intricate combination of a primary source (local culture) together with the
human and social capital of the region or the local community (Bole et al. 2013). As
other authors have determined (Bigaran et al. 2013; Šmid Hribar and Ledinek Lozej
2013), culture can only be an initial development resource if it is suitably evaluated,
negotiated and implemented by a myriad of different stakeholders.
According to the recommendations set out in the Convention (1972), heritage,
similarly to culture, should be included in the community life. However, it is impor-
tant not to exceed the carrying capacities or threaten the authenticity of the area
or monument (Ringbeck 2008; Ruoss and Alfarè 2013; Iliopoulou-Georgudaki and
Alfarè 2014) and to ensure that the measures do not reduce the exceptional universal
values of a specific protected monument. In this way, managing cultural and heritage
sites combines both protection and development, each having its own specificities,
which calls for integral planning of the cultural heritage sites. This requires constant
interactions among the involved stakeholders, which demonstrates that the partici-
pation process is of utmost importance (Nared et al. 2013, p. 359). Foremost, the
participatory process should be a bottom-up process taking place in real planning
areas and solving real issues (e.g. Alfarè and Nared 2014; Nared 2014), whereas it
might be supplemented by a participatory research that binds experts and practition-
ers in searching for more general and strategic solutions.
Our initiatives supported the development process in South-East Europe by tack-
ling both issues mentioned above. We studied the relevance and implementation of
culture and cultural heritage in regional and local development, and we were involved
in the participatory planning at the broader scale. The latter meant carrying out partic-
ipatory research for guiding development models, strategies and recommendations
in the entire South-East Europe. Since the local cases are often very specific and thus
7 Participatory Research on Heritage … 109
difficult to transfer to other areas, participatory research-driven results that involve

stakeholders and experts from the entire South-East Europe and beyond could be
more useful and internationally relevant. To this end, we present the results achieved
within two participatory processes, the first taking place in Cetinje, Montenegro and
the other in Heraklion, Greece. Both considered the local culture and cultural heritage
as factors of local and regional development. In addition to presenting the outcomes
of this research, we wish to reflect on the positive and negative aspects of carrying
out participatory research with experts and practitioners. We believe this will be ben-
eficial not only to those interested in culture- and heritage-based development, but
also any other researchers who are enquiring into a participatory or any other kind
of action research.
There are many studies focusing specifically on the role of cultural heritage in
economic development (the latest being Dümcke and Gnedovsky 2013; Tudorache
2016; Kouřilová and Pělucha 2017). The European Commission (2014) followed suit,
establishing that cultural heritage and cultural activities are seen as having signifi-
cant economic and social impacts, not just through cultural tourism, but also through
fostering cultural and creative industries. Culture-based development has become a
buzzword in many cities, towns and regions where new development strategies and
new growth are sought (Tubadji 2012). Large flagship culture and cultural heritage
projects are often central to this kind of development with museums, exhibitions,
festivals and similar activities, all falling under the scope of cultural tourism. Yet
some studies show that large-scale cultural projects do little for new development
if they are not positioned into the existing local context and supported by the local
practitioners and community (Grodach 2008, 2010). Sacco et al. (2013) provided a
critique of culture- and heritage-led development initiatives and of researchers taking
an either overly instrumental, over-engineered or parochial attitude towards it. In con-
trast, they propose that culture-led development should be based on negotiating the
economic and social conditions that enable the culture to be performed and executed
through the proper strategic coordination with the local economy and community
(2013). We consider participatory research to be a way to facilitate this coordination,
mainly because the final objective of a participatory research is not only to gain new
knowledge but also to facilitate the local communities and practitioners with open
debates about developmental, societal and other issues (Bole et al. 2017).
However, up to now, these open debates have been underrepresented and rarely
used for policy advice and policy recommendations. The chapter tries to fill this gap
and provides the explanation on how a participatory research can lead to coordinated
and consented solutions in the field of culture- and cultural heritage-led development.
The aim of this chapter is to analyse the practitioners’ views on the topics of
culture- and heritage-led development. To this end, we have formed the following
research questions tackled by the participatory research:
1. What is the role of culture and cultural heritage in sustainable development?
2. How to reflect the uniqueness and non-renewable character of cultural heritage?
3. Which are the economic potentials of cultural heritage and culture in general?
4. What is the proper territorial setting for fostering cultural heritage and culture?
5. Which are the lessons learned from the South-East Europe Programme perspec-
tive?
7.2 Method
The research was conducted in the area covered by the former transnational coop-
eration programme South-East Europe with two transnational cooperation projects
(CHERPLAN and SY_CULTour), which dealt with the planning of cultural heritage
sites and the development of cultural tourism in rural areas.
The participatory research took place in the scope of two international confer-
ences, one taking place in Cetinje, Montenegro (Fig. 7.1), attended by 31 experts
from nine countries, and the other in Heraklion, Greece, attended by 137 experts
from 11 countries. In this type of research, the methodological question arises as to
which groups of persons should or must be involved, especially in view of the fact
that different groups have developed different knowledge in the area under study
(Bergold and Thomas 2012). We identified three types of participants:
Fig. 7.1 Workshop is Cetinje, Montenegro. Photograph Janez Nared

• The first type was the participants whose involvement was pivotal and were invited
directly because the participatory process would not be sensible without their
knowledge. These were mainly professionals and practitioners in culture-led and
heritage-led development, its management and planning. They included also pol-
icymakers, representatives of responsible agencies and organisations (UNESCO,
responsible ministries of national states, planning authorities, etc.).
• The second participant type was those who expressed an interest in cooperating
themselves since they have been involved or are interested in this kind of develop-
ment. The sessions were open to the public and those participants applied to be part
of this research. They were mostly members of certain NGOs (culture, heritage,
tourism), representatives of territorial authorities (regions, local communities).
• The third type was researchers and academics. They were either steering the pro-
cess as facilitators and were involved from the beginning or were invited to the
interactive sessions because they were experts in certain fields.
Overall, we believe that the participant selection adhered to the fundamental prin-
ciples of conducting this kind of research (Bergold and Thomas 2012): we achieved
a balanced mix of researchers and practitioners (co-researchers); and second, by hav-
ing an open-door policy and enabling participants to “register” to the events, we did
not exclude anyone or any kind of knowledge (in the case of the Cetinje conference,
a number of external was rather limited).
From the methodological side, we decided to carry out the research with a smaller
interactive session with all the participants (workshop). In both cases, the partici-
pants participated in the interactive sessions led by the preselected facilitators. The
participants at each conference were divided into groups and each designated facil-
itator spent half an hour with each group covering a specific topic. After half an
hour, the facilitators switched, so that each group had a chance to provide their opin-
ions and policy recommendations for each of the topics. In this way, we ensured
that each individual or group had a voice and a chance to express their knowledge
in a comfortable setting. In the end, the facilitators consolidated the answers and
presented them in the plenary session, which also provided room for corrections if
anyone felt they had been misunderstood. In addition, presenting the results of all the
groups enabled us to draw some conclusions and identify how the discussed fields
interlinked together. This is very important because the research process has to be
self-reflective and different perceptions of the new knowledge should be negotiated
among the participants (Bergold and Thomas 2012).
The research design proved useful, as it enables everyone to have a voice on the
issue; furthermore, as the same questions were repeated from group to group, the
facilitator is able to augment the questions according to how the discussion develops
and to verify the gained results in the following group. The main prerequisites for
this kind of research are suitable spaces for the group discussion and that facilitators
understand the aim of the research and raise the right questions. It is also desirable
that they have sufficient expertise in the field they are discussing. As shown by the
results, some facilitators reoriented the questions in a way that suited their mindset
or past research experience, which did not always contribute to the coherence of the
process.
Despite these limitations, the performed research provided well-calibrated results
that support the analytical part of the research, as well as provide important inputs
into policy-oriented recommendations.
7.3 Results and Discussion
The following section presents the final results as discovered and “negotiated” by
the participants at the two conferences. First, we present their answers to the five
research questions; second, we discuss the wider implications of the participatory
research and policy approaches in culture- and heritage-led development.
7.3.1 The Role of Cultural Heritage in Sustainable

Development
When dealing with cultural heritage and sustainability, several issues arise, like defin-
ing a development path and related problems, as well as defining the objectives, the
drivers of development and the specific territorial level at which the problem should
be addressed. As confirmed by the participants, a partnership among all the relevant
actors is of crucial importance and must be understood as an approach or methodol-
ogy and not as a solution. It can be designed in an objective way and measured by
indicators. Furthermore, an important factor in providing sustainable development
using cultural heritage is the definition of the problem and the objectives. The various
actors that make up the partnership namely have different expectations, knowledge,
interests and capacities, which might result in completely different goals and defini-
tions of the problem.
Although they may have all the competencies to steer the development, various
territorial levels differ in jurisdiction over the related matter and there may also be
discrepancies between their development visions and the visions of the inhabitants
and the private sector. It is also necessary to make a decision regarding the concrete-
ness of the strategies and plans as well as their time span. In general, national and
regional authorities should take responsibility for the long-term strategic planning,
and however, this should be closely coordinated with the aspirations of the local com-
munities that strive for short-term results and solutions that lead to a higher quality of
life for the inhabitants. This should help define a long-term path that can be applied in
small and short-term steps, guaranteeing constant and visible progress. This finding
can be correlated to Kotter’s eight steps for institutional change that among others
clearly underline the short- and long-term wins that each activity/process should try
to achieve (Kotter 1996). The planning should be integrative, so as not to raise con-
flicts and to respect the needs of all the sectors and all the social groups. Networking
and the participative process are of crucial importance here to focus the views and to
define an acceptable and adequate development vision; they also enable overcoming
the deficiencies of each individual group (for more detailed positive effects of the
participatory process, see Nared et al. 2015).
7.3.2 The Uniqueness and Non-renewable Character

of Cultural Heritage
The main characteristics of cultural heritage are integrity and authenticity, both indi-
cating the unique character of cultural heritage sites as well as other intangible forms
of culture. Therefore, when applying development measures, one of the first steps is
determining what we would like to protect and how flexible we are at taking these
measures. As explained by the participating experts, there are numerous classifica-
tions of cultural heritage, but are often incomplete, and there is a constant fear of
losing important heritage with its increasing commercialisation and commodifica-
tion (Bunten 2008). Another threat to cultural heritage is a lack of the financial assets
needed to preserve it and the interest of the owners to use their properties according
to their aspirations. To enable both protection and development, context-dependent
solutions must be developed that reflect the characteristics of each specific area, its
heritage and possible development paths. Limits have to be found that ensure the
proper maintenance of cultural heritage and that are also flexible enough to enable
development where it does not contradict the most unique elements of the heritage.
7.3.3 The Economic Potentials of Cultural Heritage
Even though the aim was to explore the economic potentials of cultural heritage
beyond tourism, the experts were continuously eliciting tourism as the most obvious
and most effective economic use of cultural heritage. The central focus is on the
cultural heritage’s embeddedness in a specific territory that cannot be reproduced.
It is not transferable elsewhere and it thus guarantees a rare economic asset. On the
other side, the demand is almost unlimited, as the tourism sector and the number of
tourists constantly grow.
The wider benefit of tourism is also the multiplier it creates for a local economy
by boosting production and new jobs in the local food and handicraft sectors, the
revitalisation of areas and other connected activities. It also broadens the group of
people benefiting from the visitors, which is especially important for people who
had not been involved before. At the same time, the efficient management of cultural
heritage sites must be ensured so as not to exceed the carrying capacity of an area
or a monument and particularly not to stimulate hit-and-run tourism that might have
negative consequences in the longer term. To prevent hit-and-run tourism, cultural

heritage sites should strive to balance tourism and heritage conservation, clearly
defining the limits and possible solutions and thus avoiding unfavourable impacts on
cultural heritage (Ruoss and Alfarè 2013).
However, as observed in Idrija (Slovenia), cultural heritage does not only influence
tourism, but can stimulate economic relations through the values and intrinsic culture
not only for the cultural sector, but well beyond through openness, creativity, export-
orientedness, etc. (Urbanc et al. 2012; Nared et al. 2013; Nared et al. 2014; Zorn
et al. 2015).
An additional asset that cultural heritage and culture offer is that the recognition of
an area or a specific cultural heritage object enables branding. Uniqueness is econom-
ically attractive, meaning private investors can use cultural heritage for branding, and
however, the community must control the use of the brand to prevent its inappropriate
use. Not only brands for marketable products are based on cultural heritage, but also
those for regions, cities and other locations (Nypan 2008). The local economy can also
be boosted through a reinforced connection of the products to places, which fosters
identification with the product. A particular label can be used to ensure quality control
and the origin. Some revenue might also return to a community to be invested into
protection and conservation, e.g. the case of Saaremaa vodka using typical windmills
from Saaremaa Island (Estonia) as the company’s brand and investing some of the
revenue into the renovation of the windmills (Eppich et al. 2013).
7.3.4 The Territorial Setting for Fostering Cultural Heritage

and Cultural Values
Despite the fact that the importance of individual territorial levels differs from country
to country, the participants agreed that there is a huge divide among the needs at the
local level and the regulation and funding mechanisms at the level of the European
Union.
The local level is the one that could ensure bottom-up processes, and the local
leaders could make a difference if they were able to acquire sufficient legal and finan-
cial power. The voluntary sector and local activists can also be an important driver of
development at the local level, often successful without the need to raise funds. Com-
pared to other territorial levels, the local level can be effective in networking, creating
local partnerships and engaging the volunteers. Local initiatives include local knowl-
edge and human potential. This result is in accordance with similar research, where it
was found that certain social groups, such as the elderly, see small-scale heritage-led
tourism as a tool for the community building and strengthening social ties within
the area (Bole et al. 2017). Similarly, Scheyvens (1999) observed positive impacts
on the social and personal empowerment of tourism in local communities, which
reaffirms the need to involve the voluntary sector and local initiatives in heritage-
and culture-based development.
Higher territorial levels frequently hold a decisive power in both legal and financial
terms, but are often detached from the local needs. Bureaucracy and abstractedness
at the European and also national level often hinder local projects. Thus, some more
power should be devolved to local levels; the national and regional strategies must
fully support the local level as well.
The mismatch between the functional and administrative region can also be an
additional hindrance to the effective implementation of projects and would require
effective territorial governance by interlinking various territorial levels and a greater
flexibility in the decisions.
7.3.5 Lessons Learned: A Perspective from South-East

Europe
Culture and cultural heritage are important assets that provide income and jobs by
fostering tourism and related activities, although they are often neglected by the
central governments. This result is also in accordance with other research, where
culture was found to improve social cohesion and renew interest in the preservation,
interpretation and knowledge of the local culture and cultural heritage (Richards
2007). This calls for an optimisation of the resources and the human and social
capital, which can be achieved with a capitalisation and transfer of successfully
implemented projects and methodologies, a better communication and presentation
of the positive results, as well as with the engagement of volunteers (e.g. elderly,
youth), which ensures their social inclusion and at the same time decreases the cost
of the projects.
In territorial terms, better cooperation must be ensured among all the territorial
levels. It is also crucial to educate the decision-makers about the effects and the role
of culture and cultural heritage in the development of an area.
7.3.6 A Reflection and the Wider Implications of This

Research on Future Heritage- and Culture-Based
Development
We believe that this research puts forward at least two major considerations. The first
one is connected to the object of the research. The results reiterate the notion that
heritage- and culture-led development should be positioned in a local or regional con-
text and encompass a diverse range of stakeholders. These not only include cultural
workers, heritage conservation-related experts or development and tourism experts,
but also the local community, specific social groups within it and the NGO sector.
This diverse set of stakeholders is necessary to create a framework where preserva-
tion and development go hand in hand, just as in the case of ecotourism development
(Scheyvens 1999). This diversity of the involved stakeholders is extremely important

to ensure that the “developmental aspect” respects the local culture and preserves
the cultural heritage. Vice versa, as shown in some other examples, reviving certain
activities for economic gain can also revive certain old knowledge and heritage. There
is a good example from Slovenia, where the community of Črni Vrh has revived flax
production as a tourist product, sparking renewed interest in the younger population
to learn about this almost forgotten and disappearing form of cultural heritage (Bole
et al. 2017). Additionally, the results showed that practitioners do not instrumen-
talise culture and heritage in local development initiatives, which was the criticism
of certain initiatives by Sacco et al. (2013). Instrumentalisation, which considers
culture and heritage statically as “something out there” to be used to solve a certain
problem (Ilmonen 2015) is overly simplistic. It seems that the method used in this
research, where the results were negotiated through a series of workshops, enabled
the participants to go further and recognise not just the material, but also the non-
material developmental capital of culture and heritage (social cohesion, community
empowerment, intergenerational dialogue, etc.).
The second reflection concerns the method and its possible use in culture- and
heritage-led development. Although the aim of our study was more academic in
nature, we believe that participatory methods are very suitable for the future plan-
ning of this kind of development. As already explained above, culture- and heritage-
led development is much too complex and transdisciplinary to be carried out with
traditional planning methods. In our case, the participants came from various back-
grounds and this participatory method enabled them to discover the broader frame-
work of culture- and heritage-led development. This meant that they were challenged
to negotiate rather than “defend” certain notions and thus avoid the traditional conflict
between the ideas of conservation on one side and development on the other. Sec-
ond, participatory planning inherently engages the local community from the very
start of the process, meaning that development is more in-tune with its expectations
(Mahjabeen et al. 2009). Moreover, it is not possible to plan sustainable development
without taking into consideration the cultural processes at the everyday, micro-level
(Ilmonen 2015).
Our results partially confirm Nasser’s four objectives of the synergy between
heritage and development (2003, p. 477):
• The need for long-term planning (the participants in our research corroborated that
long-terms goals should be set, but with short-term steps at the local level);
• The need to protect heritage, since it will be degraded if over-exploited (the par-
ticipants corroborated this statement);
• Change and development are necessary (the participants see culture and heritage
as a possible tool for this change);
• Equitable access to heritage and culture resources by the local community and
visitors (the participants especially emphasised the role of local communities and
vulnerable groups within it).
Our research did have certain limitations, which we have to acknowledge. Our
experience was that the process should be moderated in an unbiased manner, or to put
it simply, the workshop moderators should be listeners and not speakers. This is an
unusual position for researchers, because of their traditional role as “wise outsiders”.
Additionally, this is a long-term process that cannot yield instant results. Getting the
right mix of participants is crucial and it can take months to ensure the heterogeneity
of the participants. For instance, in Heraklion, we had enough time to invite the
interested public and NGOs, while in Cetinje, the selection was more limited. The
human input in the organisational matters is also substantial, making this approach
quite time-consuming.
7.4 Conclusion
The aim of this chapter was to analyse the practitioners’ views on the topics of
culture- and heritage-led development and to provide an explanation of how a par-
ticipatory research can lead to coordinated and consented solutions in this field.
The participants of this research both in Heraklion and in Cetinje came to similar
conclusions that development and heritage can be complementary. The negotiated
results from the workshops showed that long-term strategies of culture- and heritage-
led development at the policy level should be implemented by short-term concrete
implementations with participation from the local communities (not forgetting the
disadvantaged groups). They also recognised the economic and non-economic ben-
efits of this synergy and the uniqueness of each heritage site and each local culture,
rendering uniform and all-embracing plans impossible. They concluded that this
kind of development is not possible without respecting the needs and capacities of
the local communities and reconfirming that not just economic, but also social and
human capital are needed to make and realise the plans of culture- and heritage-based
development.
They also pointed out certain shortcomings regarding current heritage- and
culture-based development. First is the lack of cooperation between the territorial
levels and the national and supra-national levels, which are often detached from the
needs of the regional and local levels. Second, if local communities and their cultural
specificities are not involved, the threat of commodification and further damage to
heritage sites due to a lack of protection or overuse is real.
A participatory planning of such sites is therefore welcomed, since it includes “ne-
gotiating” the solutions horizontally (between different participants, those interested
in preservation, development or something else) and vertically (between the national,
regional or local level of representation). The main planning goal should focus on
making positive changes in the local communities by integrating both perspectives
(conservation and development) to achieve sustainable futures.
Agency research core funding Geography of Slovenia (P6-0101).
References
Alfarè L, Nared J (2014) Leading a participatory process. In: Nared J, Razpotnik Visković N (eds)
Managing cultural heritage sites in southeastern Europe. Založba ZRC, Ljubljana, pp 32–37
Bergold J, Thomas S (2012) Participatory research methods: a methodological approach in motion.
Forum: Qualitative Social Research 13(1):1–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.17169/fqs-13.1.1801
Bigaran F, Mazzola A, Stefani A (2013) Enhancing territorial capital for developing mountain
areas: the example of Trentino and its use of medicinal and aromatic plants. Acta Geogr Slov
53(2):379–391. https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS53403
Bole D, Pipan P, Komac B (2013) Cultural values and sustainable rural development: a brief intro-
duction. Acta Geogr Slov 53(2):367–370. https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS53401
Bole D, Šmid Hribar M, Pipan P (2017) Participatory research in community development: a case
study of creating cultural tourism products. Acta Univ Carol, Geogr 52(2):164–175. https://doi.
org/10.14712/23361980.2017.13
Bunten AC (2008) Sharing culture or selling out? Developing the commodified persona in the
heritage industry. Am Ethnol 35:380–395. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1425.2008.00041.x
Convention (1972) Concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage. United
Nations educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris
Dümcke C, Gnedovsky M (2013) The social and economic value of cultural heritage: literature
review, EENC Paper. European expert network on culture, Berlin and Moscow
Eppich R, Espada JC, Cruz C, Kulmer A (2013) Good practice for the conservation of urban
settlements, vernacular architecture and surrounding landscapes. In: Correia M, Carlos G, Rocha
S (eds) Vernacular heritage and earthen architecture. CRC Press, London. https://doi.org/10.1201/
b15685
European Commission (2014) Towards an integrated approach to cultural heritage for Europe.
Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European
Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. COM (2014) 47 7
Graham B (2001) Historical geography. In: Smelser NJ, Baltes PB (eds) International encyclopedia
of the social & behavioral sciences. Pergamon. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/02576-
6
Grodach C (2008) Looking beyond image and tourism: the role of flagship cultural projects in local
arts development. Plan Pract Res 23(4):495–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697450802522806
Grodach C (2010) Beyond bilbao: rethinking flagship cultural development and planning in three
California cities. J Plan Educ Res 29(3):353–366. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X09354452
Ilipoulou-Georgudaki J, Alfarè L (2014) Carrying Capacity. In: Nared J, Razpotnik Visković N (eds)
Managing cultural heritage sites in southeastern Europe. Založba ZRC, Ljubljana, pp 97–101
Ilmonen K (2015) The role of culture in regional development work—changes and tensions. In: Go
FM, Lemmetyinen A, Hakala U (eds) Harnessing place branding through cultural entrepreneur-
ship. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 79–95
Kotter J (1996) Leading change. Harvard Business School Press, Boston
Kouřilová J, Pělucha M (2017) Economic and social impacts of promoting cultural heritage pro-
tection by the czech rural development programme 2007–2013. Eur Countryside 9(3):486–503.
https://doi.org/10.1515/euco-2017-0029
Mahjabeen Z, Shresha KK, Dee JA (2009) Rethinking community participation in urban plan-
ning: the role of disadvantaged groups in Sydney metropolitan strategy. Australas J RegNal Stud
15(1):45–63
Nared J (2014) Participatory Planning. In: Nared J, Razpotnik Visković N (eds) Managing cultural
heritage sites in southeastern Europe. Založba ZRC, Ljubljana, pp 28–32
Nared J, Erhartič B, Razpotnik Visković N (2013) Including development topics in a cultural heritage
management plan: mercury heritage in Idrija. Acta Geogr Slov 53(2):394–402. https://doi.org/
10.3986/AGS53404
Nared J, Bole D, Razpotnik Visković N (2014) Tradition and development: the case of Idrija,
Slovenia. Regions: quarterly magazine of the Regional Studies Association 293:17–20
Nared J, Razpotnik Visković N, Cremer-Schulte D, Brozzi R, Cortines Garcia F (2015) Achieving

sustainable spatial development in the alps through participatory planning. Acta Geogr Slov
55(2):363–373. https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.1631
Nasser N (2003) Planning for urban heritage places: reconciling conservation, tourism, and sustain-
able development. J Plan Lit 17(4):467–479. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885412203017004001
Nypan TM (2008) The economics of built heritage. Cultural heritage and tourism. Department of
Cultural Heritage under Ministry of Culture, Vilnius
Richards G (2007) The future of cultural tourism: grounds for pessimism or optimism? In: Richards
G (ed) Cultural tourism: global and local perspectives. Haworth Press, New York, pp 329–339
Ringbeck B (2008) Management plans for world heritage sites. A practical guide. German Com-
mission for UNESCO, Bonn
Ruoss E, Alfarè L (2013) Challenging hit and run tourism in cultural heritage sites. In: Marchegiani
L (ed) Proceedings of the international conference on sustainable cultural heritage management:
societies, institutions and networks. ARACNE editrice S.r.l, Rome, pp 525–536
Sacco P, Ferilli G, Blessi GT (2013) Understanding culture-led development: a critique of
alternative theoretical explanations. Urban Studies 51:2806–2821. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0042098013512876
Scheyvens R (1999) Ecotourism and the empowerment of local communities. Tour Manag
20(2):245–249. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-5177(98)00069-7
Šmid Hribar M, Ledinek Lozej Š (2013) The role of identifying and managing cultural values in
rural development. Acta Geogr Slov 53(2):371–378. https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS53402
Tubadji A (2012) Culture-based development: empirical evidence for Germany. Int J Soc Econ
39(9):690–703. https://doi.org/10.1108/03068291211245718
Tudorache P (2016) The importance of the intangible cultural heritage in the economy. Procedia
Econ Financ 39:731–736. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(16)30271-4
Urbanc M, Nared J, Bole D (2012) Idrija: a local player on the global market. In: Häyrynen S,
Turunen R, Nyman J (eds) Locality, memory, reconstruction: the cultural challenges and possi-
bilities of former single-industry communities. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, Newcastle upon
Tyne
Zorn M, Nared J, Razpotnik Visković N (2015) Creating new opportunities for an old mining region:
the case of Idrija (Slovenia). Ekonomska i ekohistorija: časopis za gospodarsku povijest i povijest
okoliša 11(11):123–138
Chapter 8
Collaborative
Inventory—A Participatory Approach
to Cultural Heritage Collections
Špela Ledinek Lozej
Abstract The chapter presents creation of a collaborative inventory and a cross-

border network of collections in the framework of the cross-border project that linked
different stakeholders (collectors, local communities and experts from the field of
museology, ethnology and digital humanities) with the aim of valuation—i.e. iden-
tification, register, arrangement, presentation and promotion—of cultural heritage
collections. It discusses impacts, issues and pitfalls of the participatory approach by
pointing out (1) the nature of participatory approach, (2) participation in relation to
the materiality of collections and virtuality of a database and (3) advantages of a
participatory approach for involved actors.
Keywords Participation · Heritage · Inventory · Borderland · Cross-border

cooperation · Heritage database · Participatory archive
8.1 Introduction
Over the course of the past decades, the concept of participation has profoundly mod-
ified—it is not just the discourse and practice of international and national policy-
making and implementation in areas of urban planning and community development
(Arnstein 1969; Cornwall 2008), but has entered also heritage discourses and prac-
tices of heritage-making. Participation within the heritage arena is not considered
just as a governance instrument, but also and more as a general involvement of stake-
holders within a range of heritage processes and projects (Neal 2015). Moreover, by
including a variety of stakeholders—especially those groups in need to have their
voices added to official records (Iacovino 2012)—is possible to provide alternative
narratives and more inclusive heritage-making. Amongst such marginalised groups
are communities in remote rural border areas. Despite or because of remoteness these
areas might be reached in cultural assets, which have been acknowledged as (cul-
tural) heritage and (endogenous) development potential (Šmid and Ledinek 2013;
Š. Ledinek Lozej (B)

Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Institute of Slovenian
Ethnology, Ljubljana, Slovenia
e-mail: spela.ledinek@zrc-sazu.si

122 Š. Ledinek Lozej
Šmid Hribar et al. 2015). Digital domain and tools are convenient for the community
groups to participate at heritage-making and at the same time allow institutions to
move beyond the production of authoritative and hegemonic (heritage) narratives and
to deploy sensibility of reflexivity, critique, revision, affect, polysemy, relationality
and imagination (Cameron 2011). Involvement of remote communities and individu-
als of the cross-border area in the heritage-making via digital tools seems a plausible
solution. Actually, in the case of ZBORZBIRK project—Cultural Heritage between
the Alps and the Karst (CBC Slovenia–Italy 2007–2013, http://zborzbirk.zrc-sazu.
si), participatory approach evolved already in the phase of project generation and
only continued in the phase of implementation. Besides collaborative inventory, the
project aims were also arrangement and equipment, presentation and promotion of
local heritage collections in the northern Italian—Slovenian cross-border region.
Based on the experiences at ZBORZBIRK project, the chapter discusses impacts,
issues and pitfalls of the participatory approach at the collaborative inventory and
mentions some improvements and references needed for the eventual transferability
and/or scaling up of the network of cultural heritage collections by pointing out:
• the nature of participatory approach at the project,
• participation in relation to the materiality of collections and virtuality of the
database, and
• advantages of a participatory approach for all involved actors.
By doing that it tries to contribute to the broader discussion of possibilities and
weaknesses of participation within heritage-making processes.
8.2 Citizens Collecting Practices and Co-creative,

Collaborative and Contributory Inventory
The ZBORZBIRK project was initiated on the basis of the long-term regional
ethnographic research of several experts (ethnologists, anthropologists, folklorists
and linguists) that were joined in the co-design process by representatives of the
partners’ institutions—one cultural-educational institution, two museums and six
local communities (Fig. 8.1) (Ledinek Lozej 2014; Ledinek Lozej and Ravnik
2016; Ravnik 2012).
The preliminary list of collections was based on the evidences of private col-
lections of different research and/or heritage institutions and associations, yet the
final list was elaborated in collaboration with partners and owners of the collections.
Some of the invited collectors refused to participate in the project due to various
reasons (e.g. disagreement with the partner’s institution or other collectors, fear of
inventarisation, general lack of interest), the others joined (or wanted to join) in the
course of initial activities, predominately because of the possibility of investments
in the equipment and promotion through different media (websites with the browser,
guide book, publications and other promotional activities). At the final stage, the
project involved thirty-four cultural heritage collections; fifteen from the Slovenian
8 Collaborative Inventory—A Participatory … 123
Fig. 8.1 Map of the ZBORZBIRK project area (Authors: Jernej Kropej and Špela Ledinek Lozej.
©ZBORZBIRK). Red dots indicate cultural heritage collections, black dots project partners: LP–
Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, 1—University of Udine, 2—The
Goriška Museum, 3—Municipality of Kobarid, 4—Municipality of Goriška Brda, 5—Municipal-
ity of Kanal ob Soči, 6—Jesenice Upper Sava Museum, 7—Municipality of Lusevera/Bardo, 8—
Municipality of Taipana/Tipana, 9—Municipality of Pulfero/Podbonesec, 10—Institute for Slove-
nian Culture Špeter/San Pietro al Natisone
side of the border and nineteen from the Italian side. Most of them (twenty-one) are
private-owned, eight are in property of associations, four of local communities and
one is a museum branch. Only four collections are regularly on view to the public,
six of them are inaccessible, while the rest can be viewed by prior arrangement with
the owner or the guardian of the collection. They also differ according to typology
and content (Ravnik 2012; Ledinek Lozej 2017).
In rethinking project’s participatory approach, we follow the models for public
participation in scientific research, identified by Center for Advancement of Infor-
mal Science (Bonney 2009) and further elaborated for the field of museology by
Simon (2010). They defined three broad categories of public participation—contri-

bution, collaboration and co-creation. In contributory projects, participants provide
limited and specific objects, actions or ideas to an institutionally controlled process.
In collaborative projects, citizens are invited to serve as active partners in the cre-
ation of institutional projects that are originated and ultimately controlled by the
institutions. In co-creative projects, community members work together with insti-
tutional staff members from the beginning to define the project’s goals. Differences
amongst participatory projects are highly correlated with the amount of ownership,
control of process and creative output given to (core) institutional project partners
and participants (Simon 2010). Backward-looking, we esteem that ZBORZBIRK
project incorporated some elements from each model, as there were several levels of
participation:
1. co-creation of project goals, activities and outputs amongst project partners:
needs, goals, working styles and benefits of all involved partners were supported
as the majority of partners (but not all of them) were engaged and dedicated to
the project;
2. collaboration at setting up the network of thirty-four collections amongst (some)
project partners and owners/managers of collections (which were in majority
cases identical): only target collections were included in the network; the net-
working process was controlled by core partnership following the initial plan and
concept; the majority of the collectors came with the explicit intention to partic-
ipate; the rules of engagement were based on the goals and capacity of the core
partnership consortia that curated, designed and delivered completed outputs;
3. content contribution of collectors to the digital inventory: construction of a central
database, using the client–server model with computer database and application
on the server of the lead partner instead of use of a local database (that would
keep the primary metadata collections at the places of owners/collectors, increase
their sense of ownership and, at the same time, make maintenance and adminis-
tration more difficult); the metadata on the collections’ objects were inserted into
modelled computer database by registrars and administrators, trained at the work-
shops and controlled by editors, language and photograph editors, responsible
for content, linguistic and photographs supervision; the whole inventory proce-
dure, as well as communication between registrars, editors, a database scheme
designer and a programmer, was coordinated and monitored by editor-in-chief,
assigned by lead partner (Ledinek Lozej et al. 2015).
The ZBORZBIRK catalogue only partially complies with the “archive 2.0” or
“participatory archive”, as it was set by Huvila (2008) and has the following char-
acteristics: decentralised curation (i.e. sharing of curatorial responsibilities between
archivists and participants), radical user orientation (i.e. priority of usability over
preservation) and contextualisation of both records and the entire archival process.
Even though a participatory archive is often about crowdsourcing, it might, as in our
case, focus on deeper involvement and more complex semantics (Huvila 2008). How-
ever, our project was consistent with the understanding of the archives as “an organi-
zation, site or collection in which people other than the archives professionals con-
tribute knowledge or resources resulting in increased understanding about archival

materials, usually in an online environment” (Theimer 2014, para 37). Besides iden-
tifying the participatory approach at collaborative/contributory inventory, we have
to take into consideration also participatory aspects of the cross-border network of
collections, a network, that might be—referring to Bauman (2000) and following
Cameron (2015)—described as “a liquid museum”, a heterogeneous assemblage of
(mobile, coherent, (de)territorialized and dispersed) material and expressive forms
enmeshed in diverse collectives. The relation between unified digital repository and
dispersed material collection will be questioned in the next chapter.
8.3 Materiality of Collections Versus Virtuality

of the Inventory Database
The central activity of the project was the creation of a digital inventory of thirty-four
cultural heritage collections that differed regarding the ownership, accessibility to
public, typology and content. Collections particularities, differences in the interests
of collectors and in competences of registrars influenced physical, informational and
procedural scopes of the registration process. For the purpose of the inventory, a
metadata scheme and an application for entering the data of the inventoried objects
were established, based on past experiences in museology, collections management
standards and recommendations, former and existing museum applications, open-
source platforms and frameworks and particularly on the information projects in the
field of ethnology that had dealt with similar circumstances and encountered similar
problems. One of the main challenges of the project was to define a metadata scheme
and a registration procedure that would be sufficiently flexible not to discourage the
owners and the registrars from a thorough and comprehensive registration of objects.
A unified repository, that aggregate metadata of material objects (items) from the
collections as well as digital photographs and scans of images and textual objects was
established. In total, there are 5355 items and 9334 digital objects (digital photographs
or scans) in the repository at the moment. Not all collectors that joined the network,
were favourable to digitalisation, and especially to online publishing of the inventory.
On the contrary, the majority understood digitalisation as a valuation tool or process,
and however, some of them were also very keen on online publishing as a media of
their promotion (Ledinek Lozej and Peče 2014; Ledinek Lozej et al. 2015; Ledinek
Lozej 2017). Therefore, some of the collectors estimated that their “real” objects were
under threat by the reproducibility of the “immaterial” nature of digital objects, and
on the other hand, the others saw that “immaterial” reproductability as an opportunity
of enhancing the value of their “real” artefacts. This issue triggered the revealing of
the relationship between “real” collections and their digital inventories and between
the physical act of collecting and the digital sphere of creating an entry into the
database.
Collection is objects’ sets, lifted out of the common purpose of daily life and
invested—utmost by collectors, but also by visitors—with thoughts, feelings, time,
troubles and resources (Pearce 1995). Due to that, they are invested with social
meaning and have the character of something extraordinary, special and capable
of generating reverence (Belk 1988). The imaginative link that unites the collected
objects/artefacts may be purely personal or may engage the wider world (Pearce
1995). In the ZBORZBIRK case, it ranged from very personal collections of irons
and holy cards, found remnants of the WWI, inherited carpentry and blacksmith
workshop, to collections of a great variety of rakes, manufactured by the local arti-
sans, to the larger and more systematic collections of the local crafts, clothing or
carnival characters. Regardless of all mentioned content differences, all collections
have in common that the materiality of its artefacts was really appreciated by the col-
lectors and guardians. Because of the fact, that collections were a result of invested
time, efforts and resources, some owners were afraid of losing control and of the
devaluation of their investments and collection’s integrity by digitalising. Following
Cameron (2007) this apocalyptic view of the real–virtual relationship is based on
a fear that “real” collections might become obsolete as virtual simulations became
more convincing. On the other hand, knowing that reproductions had a significant
role in the formation of cultural capital (Bourdieu and Darbel 1991), we know that
digital objects bring the “real” object into the presence of the viewer. Collectors’ and
registrars’ decisions on what to include into the inventory were an active process of
value and meaning-making, equal to the ascription of social meanings to their physi-
cal counterparts. It enacted the curatorial process of selection of what was significant,
what should be remembered and forgotten and what categories of meaning such as
classification, cultural values or aesthetic attributes were given pre-eminence. The
value of “real” objects and collections increased when they were digitized, by enhanc-
ing their social, historical and aesthetic importance, owing to the resources required
in the compilation of digital rendering, distribution and dissemination. Within this
context, the “real” object was not under threat but acted as an alibi for the virtual
(Cameron 2007).
Despite that ability, catalogued objects remain rooted in the specific sense of a
place and connected to personal/family/local versions of the past (King 2016). There-
fore, we assume that tangibility is still fundamental to the way that collectors relate
to the environment and act in the world. We suppose that gathered objects and sets
of artefacts do not simply reflect the (past and present) lives of collectors in a passive
manner, but are a fundamental medium for their action in the world (e.g. communica-
tion of cultural difference), as much constituting as constituted (Tilley 2007). Hereby,
we can—following Cameron (2007)—assume that the project was still bounded by
an object-centred museum culture and material culture paradigms, integrated in the
broader heritage complex of an institutionalized culture of discourses, practices and
ideas, that make digital objects just a “replicant” with constraint value, meaning and
imaginative uses.
8.4 Borderlands and Their Empowerment
The northern Slovenian–Italian border region—i.e. the north-eastern mountain part

of the ex-province of Udine in Italy and the northern part of the Goriška region
and western part of the Gorenjska region in Slovenia—is a remote area, which is,
especially on the Italian side, in comparison with the regional urban and tourist cen-
tres, underdeveloped in terms of economy. Due to the remoteness of the area and a
consecutive delay in socio-economic structural changes on both sides of the border,
some elements of past material culture remained well preserved in situ. The other
reason that encouraged collecting practices was an abundance of fund remnants from
the nearby WW1 Soča/Isonzo River Front. And the third reason that supported the
collecting practices was the fact that the territory on the Italian side of the border
was annexed to the Italy in 1866, and hence, the Slovenian-speaking inhabitants were
separated and forced to assimilation, and due to the suppressing Italian policies (they
were officially recognized as a linguistic minority only in 2001), they find their way
of expression of cultural difference via collecting (Ravnik 2017). That resulted in
vigorous collecting practices and numerous culturale heritage collections. After the
fall of the Iron Curtain, especially after the entry of Slovenia into the EU (2004) and
the Schengen area (2007), and disbanding of borders different attempts to reconnect
the territory emerged. And our project also joined these attempts with the aim to link
borderland cultural heritage collections. For that purpose, we organized besides col-
laborative inventory also several other events (a workshop, trainings, presentations
of collections, openings of info-points) and implemented several investments that
supported the participation of stakeholders and enabled a creation and reinforcement
of a cross-border network of experts (museologists, ethnologists, cultural anthro-
pologists, linguists, folklorists, historians, photographers, information specialists),
project managers and official representatives of local municipalities, owners and
guardians of collections and individuals, engaged in developing their own knowl-
edge about preservation and management of museum objects and about information
technologies and standards. The network enabled the exchange of information and
became a “vessel of significance”—a vessel as the building block for theorizing
meaning in heritage (Labrador and Chilton 2009, p. 7). Within this framework, the
values of heritage remain individualized, but the need and quest for valuing are under-
stood as shared (Labrador and Chilton 2009). Collectors, registrars, representatives
of local communities, museum and several experts, all found common ground not
in (specific personal or collective) objects and with them related narratives but in
the shared process of creating and marking them. More important than the project
concrete results and outputs was the process of co-creation of a project, repository
and a network and the actual and potential benefits arising from the experiences of
engagement.
Bennett in his book The Birth of the Museum (1995) showed how the early modern
state of the nineteenth century saw the museum as a part of an ensemble of govern-
mental agencies such as schools, a police and prisons. Similarly, Ricouer wrote that
archives are collections of documented testimonies, “silent orphans”, separated from
their authors and settled in the space of authoritative observations of the past and
production of historical knowledge (Ricoeur 2004, p. 166). Museums and heritage
institutions have institutionalized authority to act as custodians of the past (Cameron
and Kenderdine 2007). That institutional authoritativeness might be counterbalanced
by employing participatory approach and/or digital domain. Therefore, the value of
the participatory approach in collaborative inventory is not related just to participa-
tory archive (Huvila 2008; Theimer 2014) and liquid museum (Cameron 2015), but
also to broader questions about public history, history from below (Samuel 1994;
Kean and Ashton 2009; King 2016) and citizen science (Eitzel 2017). The possi-
bility to include contents that are not valuable from the perspective of the archivist,
curator or researcher, but also from the view of wider publics, offers the potential to
restructure (institutional) authority and to empower participants (King 2016); hence,
the possibility for a more democratic and pluralistic engagement with heritage.
The fact that experts no longer deliver content and meaning exclusively, but serve
as facilitators, intermediaries, curators, editors and registrars, changed also the role
of institutions as contents authorities. It is threatening to the power of the heritage and
research institutions (Simon 2010) and has political implications. It works towards
recognition and empowerment of collectors and their practices in local communities,
as well as towards recognition of the remote cross-border rural areas.
8.5 Concluding Discussion on Shortcomings and Impacts

of Participatory Approach
Participation is a buzzword and, as pointed out by Hertz (2015, p. 25), “at the centre
of a semantic field filled with familiar if vague notions of ‘engagement’, ‘owner-
ship’, ‘empowerment’”. The overuse and blur in the field of administration, political
processes and research, called for as transparent assessment of the advantages and
shortcomings (and their overcoming) of participation at our undertaking.
The advantages of participatory approach, as presented and discussed above are:
1. co-creation of a participatory archive of digital objects, characterised by decen-
tralised curation, user orientation and contextualised archival process (beside
records);
2. setting up a cross-border network of collections, experts, representatives of local
communities and other actors in the field of heritage with benefits for all involved
actors;
3. empowerment of non-authorised/institutional heritage actors in borderlands.
They extend over two strands (Eitzel 2017) of citizen science: in the contribution
of non-experts to the expert enterprise (a method or form of collaboration) and at
the same time, they addressed the responsibility of science to society (i.e. democ-
ratization of heritage-making). Hence, they comply fully to the principles of citizen
science, developed by the European Citizen Science Association (ECSA 2015).
Our presumption that a digital repository and creation, interpretation and presen-
tation of data using digital technologies would automatically support participation
of collectors at entering information into the database was only partially correct. The
reasons lie in:
• collectors’ limited skills and willingness,
• in their attachment and closeness to the material aspects of objects and general
mistrust to virtuality;
• in the fact that the software was a compromise between expectations and needs of
all involved stakeholders (including the administrative expectation of co-financing
programme), and hence, it did not meet all the needs of all involved users appropri-
ately. For the time being of the project, that issue was resolved by administrators,
registrars and professionals that gathered narratives on the objects and collections
and facilitated the participatory process, but it was not a sustainable solution.
The greatest deficiency of the project is its sustainability. After the end of the
project’s founding, there were no resources for the continuation of activities. Being
aware of that already in the phase of creating a metadata scheme our aim was to
maximize interoperability (e.g. a basic Dublin Core metadata structure), which could
facilitate a possible unification of metadata with other already existing or potential
inventories. Having in mind that some of the collections might come to belong
to public museum institutions in the future, it might be reasonable to design the
archival application according to the tools that are generally used in museums. This
was impossible since there were different archival applications used on either side
of the border. Hence, a new application was developed that tried to respond to the
different needs of the partners and owners and guardians of collections. Adjustments
were mostly necessary for the field of linguistics due to the bilingual demands of the
project administration and multilingual character of the area.
The most essential question regarding a participatory archive is whether it works
or not: whether the users contribute to an archive and whether the contributions create
added value. According to Huvila (2008), the functional sustainability of a repository
is highly dependent on the activity of archive users and the emergence of a culture
of collaboration, integration into daily practices and a critical mass to sustain the
necessary level of contributions, which obliges others to contribute (Huivila 2008).
Despite the fact that the ZBORZBIRK database is not updated constantly since the
closure of the project its content seems to be still significant to some of the users as
they are reconfiguring it into new networks (e.g. the integration of the project result
into the tourist offer).
The ZBORZBIRK collaborators are generally satisfied with the experiences
gained and lessons learned. The time seems mature for eventual follow-ups, recon-
figurations, transfers, and/or scaling ups. There are still valuable lessons to be learned
from engaging with practical and theoretical considerations of what the participatory
approach may offer and how it can enhance the value of heritage experiences. In a
world where rigid, fixed and obsolete institutional structures and forms of analysis
are increasingly problematic, new ontologies and knowledge practices are required
that more clearly match the heritage experience of contemporary circumstances

(Cameron 2015).
References
Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Plan Assoc 35(4):216–224

Bauman Z (2000) Liquid modernity. Polity, Cambridge
Belk RW et al (1988) Collectors and collecting. Adv Consum Res 15:548–553. http://acrwebsite.
org/volumes/6863/volumes/v15/NA-15. Accessed 5 July 2018
Bennett T (1995) The birth of the museum. History, science, politics. Routledge, London
Bonney R et al (2009) Public participation in scientific research. Defining the field and assessing
its potential for informal science education. A CAISE inquiry group report. Center for Advance-
ment of Informal Science Education, Washington. http://www.birds.cornell.edu/citscitoolkit/
publications/CAISE-PPSR-report-2009.pdf. Accessed 5 July 2018
Bourdieu P, Darbel A (1991) The love of art. European art museums and their public, Polity, Oxford
Cameron F (2007) Beyond the cult of the replicant. Museums and historical digital objects—tradi-
tional concerns, new discourses. In: Cameron F, Kenderdine S (eds) Theorizing digital cultural
heritage. A critical discourse. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, pp 49–76
Cameron F (2011) From mitigation to creativity. The agency of museums and science centres and
the means to govern climate change. Museum Soc 9(2):90–106
Cameron F (2015) The liquid museum. New institutional ontologies for a complex, uncertain world.
In: Witcomb A, Message K (eds) The international handbooks of museum studies. Museum
Theory. Willey, Blackwell, pp 345–361
Cameron F, Kenderdine S (2007) Introduction. In: Cameron F, Kenderdine S (eds) Theorizing
digital cultural heritage. A critical discourse, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
pp 1–16
Cornwall A (2008) Unpacking “participation”. Models, meanings and practices. Community Dev
J 43(3):269–283. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsn010
ECSA (2015) 10 principles of citizen science. https://ecsa.citizen-science.net/engage-us/10-
principles-citizen-science. Accessed 7 July 2018
Eitzel MV et al (2017) Citizen science terminology matters. Exploring key terms. Citizen Science.
Theory Pract 2(1):1–20. https://doi.org/10.5334/cstp.96
Hertz E (2015) Bottoms, genuine and spurious. In: Adell N et al (eds) Between imagined communi-
ties of practice. Participation, territory and the making of heritage. Universitätsverlag, Göttingen,
pp 25–58. https://doi.org/10.4000/books.gup.191
Huvila I (2008) Participatory archive. Towards decentralized curation, radical user orientation, and
broader contextualization of records management. Arch Sci 8(1):15–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10502-008-9071-0
Iacovino L (2012) Reshaping identity and memory. Balancing competing human rights in the partic-
ipatory archive. http://ica2012.ica.org/files/pdf/Full%20papers%20upload/ica12Final00092.pdf.
Accessed 5 July 2018
Kean H, Ashton P (2009) Introduction. People and their pasts and public history today. In: Kean H,
Ashton P (eds) People and their pasts. Public history today. Palgrave, Basingstoke, pp 1–20
King L et al (2016) Experiencing the digital world. The cultural value of digital engagement with
heritage. Herit & Soc 9(1):76–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/2159032x.2016.1246156
Labrador AM, Chilton ES (2009) Re-locating meaning in heritage archives. A call for participatory
heritage databases. In: Computer applications to archaeology 2009 proceedings. https://works.
bepress.com/angela_labrador/5/. Accessed 5 July 2018
Ledinek Lozej Š (2014) Dokumentacija kulturne dediščine v projektu ZBORZBIRK: Kul-

turna dediščina v zbirkah med Alpami in Krasom. Glasnik Slovenskega etnološkega društva
54(1–2):66–69
Ledinek Lozej Š (2017) Local cultural heritage collections from the Slovenian-Italian Border
Region. In: Pinton S, Zagato L (eds) Cultural heritage. Scenarios 2015–2017. Edizioni Ca’ Fos-
cari, Venezia, pp 607–621. https://doi.org/10.14277/6969-052-5/se-4-38
Ledinek Lozej Š, Peče M (2014) Povezovanje krajevnih zbirk-kulturne dediščine z informacijsko-
komunikacijskimi tehnologijami: Primer “ZBORZBIRK”. Knjižnica 58(3):41–57
Ledinek Lozej Š, Ravnik M (2016) Sodelovanje raziskovalcev in lokalnih skupnosti na čezmejnem
območju med Alpami in Krasom. Primer projekta ZBORZBIRK. In: Grbić Jakopović J et al (eds)
Srednjeevropsko povezovanje etnologov in kulturnih antropologov kot izziv današnjemu času.
13. vzporednice med slovensko in hrvaško etnologijo. Slovensko etnološko društvo, Ljubljana,
pp 53–65
Ledinek Lozej Š et al (2015) Linking local cultural heritage collections from the Slovenian-Italian
borderegion with ICT. Pregled Nacionalnog centra za digitalizaciju 27:52–64
Neal C (2015) Heritage and participation. In: Waterton E, Watson S (eds) The Palgrave hand-
book of contemporary heritage research. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/
9781137293565_22
Pearce S (1995) On collecting. An investigation into collecting in the European tradition, Routledge,
London and New York
Ravnik M (2012) Kulturna dediščina v zbirkah med Alpami in Krasom. Evropski projekt
ZBORZBIRK. Trinkov koledar, pp 101–103
Ravnik M (2017) Pomen tradicionalne kulture za samorealizacijo indružbeno komunikacijo
med slovensko manjšino v Videmski pokrajini. Glasnik Slovenskega etnološkega društva
57(3–4):128–133
Ricoeur P (2004) Memory, history, forgetting. University of Chicago, Chicago
Samuel R (1994) Theatres of memory. Past and present in contemporary culture, Verso, London
Simon N (2010) The participatory museum. Museum 2.0, Santa Cruz
Šmid Hribar M, Ledinek Lozej Š (2013) The role of identifying and managing cultural values in rural
development. Acta Geographica Slovenica 53(2):371–378. https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS53402
Šmid Hribar M, Bole D, Pipan P (2015) Sustainable heritage management. Social, economic
and other potentials of culture in local development. Procedia. Social & Behavioral Sciences
188:103–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.03.344
Theimer C (2014) The future of archives is participatory. Archives as platform, or a new mission
for archives. http://archivesnext.com/?p=3700. Accessed 7 July 2018
Tilley C (2007) Book review of Archaeologies of Materiality.In: Meskell L (ed). Am J Archaeol
111(2). https://doi.org/10.3764/ajaonline1112.tilley
Chapter 9
Introduced Conservation Agriculture
Programs in Samoa: The Role
of Participatory Action Research
Stephanie Ramona O’Connor Sulifoa and Linda J. Cox
Abstract Millions of dollars have been invested in programs to encourage the adop-
tion of sustainable farming practices associated with conservation agriculture (CA),
including programs aimed at Samoan farmers. However, many smallholder farmers,
including those in Samoa did not adopt the recommended practices. CA programs
aimed at Samoan farmers were investigated, and participatory action research about
the most recent program was conducted. Eight key informant interviews, 107 semi-
structured interviews, a ranking exercise involving farmers and extension officers
and participant observations were completed during 2016–2017. The results provide
a description of agricultural farming practices across Samoan villages; details about
the role of agriculture in these villages and information on the differences between
various stakeholders. Samoan farmers use CA practices and all previous CA pro-
grams prescribed practices that were not consistent with their current practices or
goals. Donors, national policy makers and researchers drive top-down programs
with limited term projects that focus on outputs or short-term outcomes. To alter
a country’s agricultural sector, particularly one dominated by smallholder farmers,
it requires investment in long-term outcomes supported by a participatory action
research process that ensures co-creation activities, reflexive feedback loops and
cooperative buy-in approaches be given top priority.
Keywords Conservation agriculture · Rural areas · Smallholder farmers ·

Agricultural practices · Oceania
S. R. O. Sulifoa
Solomon Island National University, Honiara, Solomon Islands
e-mail: ramona.sulifoa@sinu.edu.sb
L. J. Cox (B)
University of Hawaii, Honolulu, USA
e-mail: lcox@hawaii.edu

134 S. R. O. Sulifoa and L. J. Cox
9.1 The Use of Participatory Research to Ensure

Smallholder Farmers’ Sustainability
Achieving the 2030 Agenda for sustainable development (UNDP 2018) hinges upon
making progress in rural areas, where most of the poor and hungry live, with an agro-
industrial development strategy that involves increasing the productivity and incomes
of smallholder farmers and expanding the opportunities for off-farm employment
in industries that are found clustered in agro-industrial sectors. Past transforma-
tions from agricultural-based economies to industry and service-based economics
resulted in urbanization and higher incomes for urban consumers, which increased
the demand for high-valued products such as fruit and vegetables, meat, fish and
dairy. However, this brings a major array of challenges to improve the production
and market conditions for small-scale farming, in addition to unprecedented natural
resource constraints and global climate change. Productive and sustainable farming
systems are needed in order to assure that communities across the globe can thrive
in the future (FAO 2017).
Of the 570 million farms worldwide today, the 12% of farms are smallholder,
producing 50% of the human food supply (ETC Group 2009), and along with fam-
ily farms accounting for 75% of the world’s agricultural land (Lowder et al. 2016).
Agriculturists have long been interested in adapting farm management economics
originating in Europe and North American to meet the needs of small farmers, par-
ticularly those in the tropics. Work done in India (Mellor 1966) and Africa (Norman
et al. 1982; Collinson 1983) examined approaches that accommodated the charac-
teristics of smallholder farmers. The characteristics that define smallholders are:
1. They are poor and have almost no cash reserves.
2. Loans are usually unavailable or/and expensive.
3. They know they face many risks due to the uncertain environment, lack of cash
and family responsibilities, which makes them risk averse.
4. Cyclical labor shortage affects farm management, and under-employment is com-
mon in rural areas.
5. Off-farm employment may be available.
6. They are rational though are not necessarily maximizing profits, due to family
and community situations that affect their utility; social infrastructure that results
in markets, supplies and communications being unreliable; and their social norms
clearly define what is socially acceptable and what is not (Collinson 1983).
Sustainable agriculture requires more information and is more management-
intensive than more conventional, large holder agriculture (Simmonds 1985). At the
same time, the characteristics and situations faced of smallholders make them more
vulnerable to change. In the 1960s, Francis and Hildebrand (1989) developed a par-
ticipatory approach to technological improvement called farming systems research
and extension (FSR/E) in response to a growing interest in fostering sustainable
agriculture among smallholders. The guiding principle of FSR/E is that new tech-
nologies must conform to the environments where they will be used because farmers
9 Introduced Conservation Agriculture Programs in Samoa … 135
are unable to modify their environments to meet the needs of new technologies. The
overall goal of FSR/E is for farmers to participate in developing and testing technolo-
gies to ensure that their criteria, rather than the narrower focus used by researchers,
are used to guide decisions about efficient and effective technology development.
Smallholder farmers often have a variety of economic, environmental and social
goals to consider, which resulted in the holistic and interdisciplinary focus of FSR/E
(Francis and Hildebrand 1989).
FSR/E applies diffusion theory developed by Rogers (1962) as the theoretical
basis for this type of participatory research. Rogers (1962) concluded that the char-
acteristics of the innovation, the social system, communication channels for reach-
ing the end user and time devoted to extending an innovation to end users will
impact the adoption of the innovation. Stakeholders including farmers, scientists
and change agents responsible for outreach have differing opinions, perceptions and
beliefs (Rogers 2003), and the heterotrophic nature of stakeholders may result in the
use of top-down approaches (Dalton et al. 2014), rather than participatory planning
approaches. The human dimensions associated with adoption decisions by farm-
ers differ across regions (Knowler and Bradshaw 2007), also making place-based
adaption necessary.
While FSR/E called for an interdisciplinary, holistic approach for many years, the
FAO (2017) concluded that smallholder farmers face challenges today in identifying
and adopting the technologies that can make them more productive. Agricultural
growth, if broadly shared, appears to have the most positive impact on non-farm
income and employment (Tsakok 2011). Economic transformations that significantly
reduced a countries’ poverty rate were nearly always accompanied by sustained
growth in agricultural productivity (Timmer 2014). This supports the conclusion that
researchers should engage with managers across all scales to reflexively explore “how
things work” in the managers’ organizational context to ensure that individual and
collective learning occurs (Ripamonti et al. 2016). The main objective of this chapter
is to investigate approaches being used to increase the adoption of CA practices by
smallholder farmers in Samoa and demonstrate that a more interdisciplinary, and
holistic approach is needed if agricultural growth is an overall goal in developing
countries.
9.2 Sustaining Smallholder Farmers in Samoa
The economies in Pacific Island Countries (PICs) are becoming increasingly depen-
dent on tourism and remittances (FAO 2012), and information about the current
state of smallholder farmers in PICs is sparse. Reddy (2007) indicated that only a
few sectors show promise for economic growth in PICs, where many live in rural
areas and depend on agriculture for their livelihoods, while the overall population
is growing rapidly. Unfortunately, agricultural efficiency in Samoa, Fiji, Papua New
Guinea and Tonga did not increase from 1961 to 2004 (Reddy 2007), which indicates
that the agricultural sector in these countries experiences the same challenges that
smallholder farmers face globally. PIC farmers will be challenged to increase crop
production on the limited land area with low soil fertility (Barrow 2013).
Samoa is a small PIC located south of the equator between Hawaii and New
Zealand, with a total land area of 2842 km2 on the main islands of Upolu, Savaii
and six smaller islands. About three-quarters of Samoa’s population are involved in
village agriculture, farming predominately at the subsistence and semi-subsistence
level under a customary land tenure system and with household labor (Paulson and
Rogers 1997; Ward and Ashcroft 1998). Wild species and traditional crops have been
widely replaced by modern farming systems (Tikai and Kama 2004).
Today, Samoa’s economy is dependent on foreign aid, remittances and tourism
(Central Bank of Samoa 2011–2012; Connell 2015), though in the 1980s, agriculture
contributed 50% of Samoa’s gross domestic product (GDP). Figure 9.1 shows a
decline in the contribution of agriculture to the overall GDP relative to the overall
growth of the economy. The reduction in village agriculture has been attributed to
a set of complex factors. For many years, various institutions have focused on soil
health’s contribution to the decrease in agricultural production (Mercer and Scott
1958; Blakemore 1973; Guinto et al. 2015; Anand 2016).
Taro (Colocasia esculenta) is the main staple and primary cash crop with an esti-
mated 12,938 acres under cultivation and 17,733 farming households growing taro
(Agriculture Census 2015). Taro holds cultural, monetary and dietary significance in
Samoa, and the arrival of the taro leaf blight (TLB) caused by the fungus Phytoph-
thora colocasiae in 1993 reduced production significantly. Taro yields were declining
before 1993 due to intensified taro cultivation achieved by incorporating herbicide
and shortening fallow periods (Ofori n.d.). TLB-resistant varieties have resulted in
recent production increases with TLB-resistant taro varieties being exported to New
0.90 2.00
0.80 1.80
0.70 1.60
Millions ('000,000)
Billions ('000,000,000)
1.40
0.60
1.20
0.50
1.00
0.40
0.80
0.30
0.60
0.20 GDP (Billions)
0.40
0.10 Agriculture (Millions) 0.20
0.00 0.00
1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Years
Fig. 9.1 Annual value of Samoa’s total gross domestic product (GDP) and the agricultural sector
in constant dollars from 1994 to 2012. Source Central Bank of Samoa 2011–2012
Zealand starting in 2010 (Radio New Zealand October 1 2010). Local, regional and
international institutions are concerned that increasing taro production will reduce
soil health (ACIAR 2009; Agriculture Sector Plan 2010–2015).
9.3 Extending Conservation Agricultural Practices

to Smallholder Farmers
Conservation agriculture (CA) is used to combat declining soil health. CA encom-

passes the use of three key farming practices:
1. minimal mechanical soil disturbance (i.e., zero-tillage and direct seeding);
2. maintenance of carbon-rich organic matter covering or mulch to feed the soil;
and
3. rotations or sequences of crops including trees, which could include nitrogen-
fixing legumes (FAO 2012).
Government institutions, donor agency and non-government organizations used
the logic model or theory of change to provide a framework for extending CA pro-
grams (Framst 1995; McCawley 2004) to change farmer behavior and increase sus-
tainability (Pannell et al. 2014).
The diffusion of CA practices across agrarian societies is of interest worldwide
particularly in areas where per acre productivity is declining. Although CA prac-
tices appear to offer long-term benefits, farmers, particularly those in the developing
countries have not readily adopted them (Corbeels et al. 2014; Dalton et al. 2014,
Pannell et al. 2014; Umar et al. 2011). Smallholder farmers in Africa were very
slow to adopt CA practices because the initial setup of the system is labor inten-
sive (Rola et al. 2009). Yield improvement from using CA practices is not immedi-
ate, and seven years may be required to realize maximum benefits, which slow the
adoption for small holders (Jat et al. 2014; Paudel et al. 2014). Adoption has also
been slow due to the farmers’ lack of access to the appropriate equipment (Hobbs
2007). Intercropping was challenging for European farmers because they lacked the
information to select compatible cash crops (Shaxson 2006). Fourteen to 20 years
may be required from the time that farmers became aware of a practice until its
adoption (Corbeels et al. 2014).
9.3.1 CA Programs in Samoa
The earliest CA work in Samoa undertaken by Reynolds (1970) and the most recent
program were conducted by the Australian Center for International Agriculture
Research (ACIAR) Soil Health Program from 2010 to 2015. Most of this work
involved inputs from various institutions/agencies/organizations outside of Samoa
and the Samoan government, with little input from farmers. The output was gener-
ally focused on extending scientific evidence generated to researchers and the gov-
ernment. Very few outreach outputs were generated, although ACIAR (2015) con-
structed demonstration plots, provided limited training and involved farmer opinion
leaders in on-farm trials.
The ACIAR Soil Health Program identified mucuna (Mucuna pruriens) as a cover
crop because Samoa’s Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries (MAF) concluded that
it would reduce the use of costly herbicide for taro production by local farmers and
improve soil health (T.T. personal communication December 16 2016). Mucuna was
introduced into six villages on the island of Upolu and Savaii with on-farm trials in
the villages of Safaatoa, Salani, Aopo and Siufaga. The trials lasted for nine months,
which correspond to the taro production cycle. In the villages of Savaia, Siufaga and
Sapapalii, MAF set up demonstration plots with mucuna planted as a fallow crop
and mixed cropped with taro on land belonging to lead farmers and chiefs. Most
of the lead farmers are semi-subsistent producers, though in the village of Savaia,
they were more likely to be commercial and the village council actively involving
other village farmers in the training sessions. The only training provided was on the
use of mucuna. Yield data was recorded at the harvest, and farmers saw all yield
differences.
9.3.2 Evaluation of the ACIAR Program in Samoa
From December 2016 to July 2017, in-depth interviews in the villages of Siufaga
and Savaia and from Sapapalii, Aopo, Safaatoa and Salani where mucuna was also
introduced were conducted with farmers that the village mayor and the high chief
in the area recommended. In addition, focus groups in Siufaga, Savaia and Sapa-
palii were conducted, along with key informant interviews with consultants, village
opinion leaders, extension officers and scientists involved with CA work in Samoa.
The interview and focus group participants indicated that tilling is not used in
village level agriculture in Samoa; farmers cannot afford to own or hire a plow to till;
and farmers have no knowledge of tilling and its potential negative impact on soil
health. The majority of farmers do use herbicide to clear land for cultivation, though
manual clearing does occur, depending on the land area that requires clearing and
amount of available labor. Taro mulching was common, though vegetable mulching
was not because it attracts the Giant African Snail (Achtatina fulica) and results in
extensive vegetable losses. The primary crop rotation practice is fallowing between
six months and two years to allow natural regrowth. Some farmers plant vegetables
in their taro as a cover crop that provides food and additional income. The majority
of farmers did intercrop their taro with dadap (Erythrina variegate) or Gliricidia
(Gliricidia sepium) to provide nitrogen for the taro. No farmers used mucuna and the
few that did try it reported that it grew too fast and was not an effective cover crop.
Village farmers in Samoa now employ all of the desirable CA practices, which
participatory research such as FSR/E conducted a priori would have identified. Tikai
and Kama (2004) concluded that understanding indigenous knowledge and engaging
in more interactive technology development would produce a more efficient and cost-
effective path to sustainability in the agricultural sector. Top-down decision making
by foreign aid organizations, researchers and high-level government officials who
appear to have concluded that Samoan farmers were not using CA practices might
have produced positive outcomes for the agricultural sector had a more reflexive
approach been used, and indigenous knowledge was investigated.
Programs aimed at changing the behavior of farmers generally involve inputs
involving extension or outreach personnel and outputs in the form of extension or
outreach outputs (Rogers 1962). The process of communicating with farmers gen-
erally involves a variety of methods and differing content in order to address their
concerns or lack of information or knowledge about the characteristics of the inno-
vation, to provide feedback aimed at clarifying policies in order to further behavioral
change by farmers and to facilitate on-farm research to foster farmer-to-farmer learn-
ing and farmer feedback loops to researchers and institutions in order to increase
their effectiveness (Rogers 2003). Extension personnel play a key role (Vanclay
2004; Anaeto et al. 2012) in FSR/E because of the holistic link they provide between
research inputs, output and behavioral change at the community level. Social sci-
entists, who should also be included on the interdisciplinary FSR/E team, play an
important role in understanding the socioeconomic, environmental and social goals of
farmers (Shaner et al. 1982).
9.4 The Value of Samoa’s Extension Service

in Participatory Research
Samoa’s extension service is in the MAF under the crops division, which has three
main sections including research, development and advisory. In 2017, 33 extension
officers were employed with 14 on the island of Upolu and 19 on the island of
Savaii. MAF also has agricultural research stations located on the island of Upolu in
Aleisa, Savaia and Poutasi Falealili with a main office in Nuu, while on the island
of Savaii, stations are located in Salailua and Asau with the MAF headquarters in
Salelologa. Tunnel houses, shade houses and demonstration plots are at each station,
since in Samoa, extension officers implement village programs (Agriculture Sector
Plan 2016–2020; Tuilaepa 2006).
In order to determine how participatory research might be better structured in the
future, farmers from Siufaga and Savaia along with five extension officers completed
a rating exercise designed to investigate their perceptions about the impact of mucuna
for weed control. The ratings were analyzed using the analytical hierarchy process
(AHP) developed by Saaty (2004) to estimate trade-offs in multi-criteria decision
making. Figure 9.2 presents the general categories and specific components that
were developed based on the interviews and focus group results about why farmers
decided not to adopt mucuna.
Fig. 9.2 General categories and specific components for farmers’ decision not to adopt mucuna in
AHP-rating exercise
The relative weights across the three general categories and each of the three
specific components sets were collected using proportional piling. Proportional piling
has been used as a participatory rural appraisal tool in Samoa (Le De et al. 2014).
The geometric mean for each group of pairwise comparisons was entered in the
SuperDecisions software using the direct entry method after normalization (Creative
Decisions Foundation 2017). Spearman rank correlation, a nonparametric measure
of the correlation between two ranked variables, was used to investigate differences
in the relative weights between the normalized weights across various farmer groups
and the extension professionals.
Table 9.1 summarizes the factors that were ranked among the top three for non-
adoption of mucuna by farmers and extension officers in both villages. The ranking
results across the groups were not significantly different (p ≥ 0.05); however, some
correlation did exist between the ranks of farmers and the extension officers, i.e.,
Siufaga at (rs = 0.35, n = 9, p = 0.356) and Savaia, (rs= 0.57, n= 9, p = 0.112).
Food security and dadap as the preferred cover crop were the top two reasons for
non-adoption for famers and extension officers in Savaia. Natural disasters were also
Table 9.1 Top three reasons for non-adoption of mucuna for farmers and extension officers in the
villages of Siufaga and Savaia
Rank Siufaga farmers Savaia farmers Siufaga extension Savaia extension
officers officers
First Community Food security Dadap preferred Dadap preferred
involvement lacking
Second Herbicide cost Dadap preferred Community Food security
involvement lacking
Third Limited land area Natural disasters Food security Herbicide cost
a concern for Savaia farmers indicating farmers’ awareness of their vulnerability

and the risks associated with a conversion to a new farming system that is not well
understood. Since the farmers in Savaia were more likely to be commercial and the
Savaia council actively involved farmers in training sessions, the factors identified
by farmers are more similar to the factors identified by extension officers. Lack of
community involvement appeared to be of concern only in Siufaga. In order for
farmers in Siufaga to become more commercial, community involvement is likely
needed since due to a lack of labor, which results in more herbicide use, and access
to land would have to be addressed locally.
The extension officers and one group of farmers understood that dadap was the
preferred cover crop and could have provided this information before mucuna was
selected as a cover crop. Including farmers and extension officers, who also are
more likely to be aware of indigenous knowledge, in the decision-making process
about increasing the sustainability of Samoa’s agricultural sector would have pro-
duced a more holistic program. Further discussion into how to increase community
involvement, how to mitigate the risks associated with natural disaster and declining
food security and the economics associated with various production inputs including
herbicide would provide much insight. The socioeconomic situation in various com-
munities could also have been investigated a priori to better understand the effect
of labor shortages, high input costs and the role of farming in order to ensure that
the entire effort is more successful. In situations in which commercial producers do
not account for the majority of farmers, the holistic and interdisciplinary nature of
FSR/E becomes a key to success and can accommodate placed-based adaptations.
9.5 Lessons Learned
A bottom-up, holistic approach that involves participatory research such as FSR/E is

likely to require much longer planning and implementation horizons. As suggested
by Ranga and Etzkowitz (2013), the relationships between the components of the
innovation system are the key in resolving the flaws in previous innovation system’s
approaches that have a strong focus on institutions and bias toward more intensive
research and development. Knowledge flows within the system that include indi-
viduals such as extension officers and farmers, who have indigenous knowledge,
will strengthen the capacity to produce integrated development strategies. Studies
have shown that a combination of indigenous knowledge and science can improve
development and living standards and conserve resources to ensure sustainability
is achieved (Berkes et al. 2000; Tikai and Kama 2004). This knowledge has been
developed through community experience over time to ensure sustainable use of
resources and should not be discounted (Tikai and Kama 2004). International aid
agencies, foreign, regional and national universities and national governments will
be continually challenged to develop the agricultural sector in places with many
smallholder farmers.
International aid agencies often speak of a “burn rate” that accounts for how fast
project funds are spent to address a problem. It also implies that the agencies can
determine the best solution quickly based on the opinions of the experts involved in
the project. As this case study illustrates, devoting resources to the process of under-
standing exactly what the problem is and what solutions might be most effective
could play a much larger role in making a difference than how quickly a solution
suggested by experts is implemented. This result is not a novel conclusion, and the
resources must be invested in the diffusion process to achieve sustainable place-
based outcomes. Investigating indigenous knowledge requires a thorough place-
based effort. At the same time, the actual contribution of indigenous knowledge
may not be obvious immediately, and a sorting process is likely needed to maximize
it. Co-investigation and co-learning that involve farmers, extension staff and other
members of the community along with other experts will facilitate a process that
outlines information about indigenous knowledge, the local socioeconomic system
and the proposed innovation in a more usable format. For example, traditional indige-
nous knowledge that supports farming practices in order to help ensure long-term
environmental health could be identified in order to determine the compatibility
of innovations suggested by outside experts and the risks/local challenges associ-
ated with them. Understanding the local socio-ecological system and the associated
indigenous knowledge would aid in the development of a communication plan and
an action plan with the appropriate inputs and outputs to support diffusion.
Transdisciplinarity and reflexivity are needed to ensure that co-learning occurs
across all scales. Including social scientists, extension professionals and community
members on the planning team may present challenges to physical and biological
researchers and high-level policymakers. Indigenous knowledge and the socioeco-
nomic situation facing farmers require significant amounts of time to investigate and
incorporate, while academics have a tendency to reward a narrow disciplinary focus
(Henry 2005; Pfirman et al. 2008), and the big picture lens of policymakers challenge
those involved in such efforts. Additional research into the design of a more stan-
dardized participatory process that ensures local stakeholders have been considered
is needed. This will also result in more effective and meaningful policies to be devel-
oped at the community level. Participatory modeling using fuzzy-logic cognitive
mapping has been shown to further social learning across individual to institutional
scales (Henley-Shepard et al. 2015). Various approaches and tools to facilitate the
process, such as the Mental Modeler software (Henley-Shepard et al. 2015), need to
be investigated. Achieving genuine collaboration will require much more dedication

to achieving long-term success defined across institutions and individuals at a vari-
ety of scales, from smallholder farmers, their families and their village to national
policymakers, international researchers and aid agencies working across the globe.
References
Agriculture Census (2015) Report on Samoa agriculture survey. http://www.sbs.gov.ws/index.php/

new-document-library?view=download&fileId=1845. Accessed 12 Jan 2016
Agriculture Sector Plan 2010–2015 Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. Volume I and Volume
II. Samoa
Agriculture Sector Plan 2016–2020 Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries. Volume I and Volume
II. Samoa
Anaeto FC, Asiabaka CC, Nnadi FN, Ajaero JO, Aja OO, Ugwoke FO, Onweagba AE et al (2012)
The role of extension officers and extension services in the development of agriculture in Nigeria.
J Agric Res 1(6):180–185
Anand S (2016) Developing a taro (Colocasia esculenta) production system based on genotype and
fallow system for economic and environmental sustainability under local conditions in Samoa.
Dissertation, University of the South Pacific
Australian Center for International Agriculture Research (ACIAR) (2009) Project Proposal
Australian Center for International Agriculture Research (ACIAR) (2015) Improving soil health
in support of sustainable development in the Pacific. http://aciar.gov.au/project/smcn/2009/003.
Accessed 18 Dec 2015
Barrow CJ (2013) Water resources and agricultural development in the tropics. Routledge, Taylor
& Francis Group, New York
Berkes F, Colding J, Folke C (2000) Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive
management. Ecol Appl 10(5):1251–1262
Blakemore L (1973) Potassium status of Western Samoan soils: a note. N Z J Exp Agric
1(3):213–216
Central Bank of Samoa Reports 2011–2012. http://cbs.gov.ws/. Accessed 18 Feb 2016
Collinson MP (1983) Farm management in peasant agriculture, 2nd edn. Westview Press, Boulder
Co., USA
Connell J (2015) Temporary labour migration in the Pacific. In: Khonje WH (ed) Migration and
development. Perspectives from small states, Commonwealth
Corbeels M, Graaff De, Ndah TH, Penot E, Baudron F, Naudin K, Rusinamhodzi L et al (2014)
Understanding the impact and adoption of conservation agriculture in Africa: a multi-scale anal-
ysis. Agric Ecosyst Environ 187:155–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.2013.10.011
Creative Decisions Foundation (2017) SuperDecisions Software. https://www.superdecisions.com/
Dalton TJ, Yahaya I, Naab J (2014) Perceptions and performance of conservation agriculture prac-
tices in Northwestern Ghana. Agric Ecosyst Environ 187:65–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.
2013.11.015
ETC Group (2009) Who will feed us? Questions for the food and climate crises. ETC Group Com-
minuque No. 102. November 2009. http://www.etcgroup.org/content/who-will-feedus. Accessed
14 June 2016
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2012) http://faostat.fao.org/.
Accessed 20 Sept 2016
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2017) The state of food and
agriculture: leveraging food systems for inclusive rural transformation. ISSN 0081
Framst G (1995) Application of program logic model to agricultural technology transfer programs.
Can J Program Eval 10(2):123. https://evaluationcanada.ca/secure/10-2-123.pdf. Accessed 18
June 2018
Francis C, Hildebrand PE (1989) Farming systems research/Extension and the concepts of sus-
tainability. Agronomy & Horticulture. Faculty Publications. 558. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/
agronomyfacpub/558. Accessed 14 June 2018
Guinto DF, Lauga S, Dauara L, Walasi E, Autufuga D, Perera H, Seuoti D, Tauati S (2015) Soil
health assessment of taro (Colocasia esculenta) farms in Samoa. University of the South Pacific,
School of Agriculture and Food Technology, Alafua Campus, Samoa
Henly-Shepard S, Gray SA, Cox LJ (2015) The use of participatory modeling to promote social
learning and facilitate community disaster planning. Environ Sci Policy 45:109–122. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.10.004
Henry S (2005) Disciplinary hegemongy meets interdisciplinary ascendance: can interdisciplinarity
survive, and if so, how? Issues Integr Stud 23:1–37
Hobbs PR (2007) Conservation agriculture: what is it and why is it important for future sustain-
able food production? Paper presented at the international workshop on increasing wheat yield
potential, CIMMYT, Obregon, Mexico, 20–24 Mar 2006
Jat ML, Singh B, Gerard B (2014) Chapter 5—nutrient management and use efficiency in wheat
systems of South Asia. Adv Agron 125:171–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-800137-0.
00005-4
Knowler D, Bradshaw B (2007) Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: a review and syn-
thesis of recent research. Food Policy 32(1):25–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2006.01.
003
Le De L, Gaillard JC, Friesen W, Matautia Smith F (2014) Remittances in the face of disasters:
a case study of rural Samoa. Environ Dev Sustain 17:653–672. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-
014-9559-0
Lowder SK, Skoet J, Raney T (2016) The number, size, and distribution of farms, smallholder farms,
and family farms worldwide. World Dev 87:16–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.10.
041 (Accessed 18 June 2018)
McCawley PF (2004) The logic model for program planning and evaluation. https://www.d.umn.
edu/~kgilbert/educ5165-731/Readings/The%20Logic%20Model.pdf. Accessed 18 April 2016
Mellor JW (1966) Agricultural growth—structures and patterns. http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/
bitstream/182449/2/IAAE-CONF-142.pdf. Accessed 18 June 2018
Mercer J, Scott P (1958) Changing village agriculture in Western Samoa. Royal Geogr Soc, London
Norman DW, Simmons EB, Hays HM (1982) Farming systems in the Nigerian Savanna. Research
and strategies for development. Westview Press, Boulder CO, USA
Pannell DJ, Llewellyn RS, Corbeels M (2014) The farm-level economics of conservation agricul-
ture for resource-poor farmers. Agric Ecosyst Environ 187:52–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agee.
2013.10.014
Paudel B, Radovich JKT, Chan-Halbrendt C, Crow S, Tamang TT, Halbrendt J, Thapa K (2014)
Effect of conservation agriculture on maize-based farming systems in the mid-hills of Nepal.
Proc Eng 78:327–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2014.07.074
Paulson DD, Rogers S (1997) Maintaining subsistence security in Western Samoa. Geoforum
28(2):173–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-7185(97)00005-5
Pfirman S, Martin P, Berry L, Fletcher M, Hempel M, Hombach SR, Hornbach D, Morehouse
B (2008) Interdisciplinary hiring, tenure and promotion: guidance for individuals and insti-
tutions. Council of Environmental Deans and Directors. http://www.uvm.edu/~tri/pdf/NCSE-
InterdisciplinaryHiring.pdf. Accessed 14 June 2018
Radio New Zealand, 1st October 2010. First Samoan taro export in a decade heads to New Zealand.
Retrieved from: https://www.radionz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/192859/first-samoan-taro-
export-in-a-decade-heads-to-new-zealand. Accessed 18 April 2018
Ranga M, Etzkowitz H (2013) Triple Helix systems: an analytical framework for innovation policy
and practice in the knowledge society. Ind High Educ 27(4):237–262. https://doi.org/10.5367/
ihe.2013.0165
Reddy M (2007) Enhancing the agricultural sector in Pacific Island economies. Pacific Econ Bull
22–3:48–62
Reynolds SG (1970) Manual of introductory soil science and simple soil analysis methods. Univer-
sity of the South Pacific, Alafua Campus, Samoa
Ripamonti S, Galuppo L, Gorli M, Scaratti G, Cunliffe AL (2016) Pushing action research toward
reflexive practice. J Manage Inq 25(1):55–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492615584972
Rogers E (1962) Diffusion of innovations. Free Press of Glencoe, New York
Rogers E (2003) Diffusion of innovations, 5th edn. Free Press, New York, London
Rola AC, Sajise AJU, Harder DS, Alpuerto JMM (2009) Soil conservation decisions and upland
corn productivity: a Philippine case study. Asian J Agric Dev 2(6):19
Saaty T (2004) Decision making—the analytic hierarchy and network processes (AHP/ANP). J
Syst Sci Syst Eng 13(1):1–35
Shaner WW, Philipp PF, Schmehl WR (1982) Farming systems research and development guidelines
for developing countries. Westview Press, Boulder CO, USA
Shaxson TF (2006) Re-thinking the conservation of carbon, water, and soil: a different perspective.
Agron Sustain Dev 26(1):9–19. https://doi.org/10.1051/agro:2005054
Simmonds NW (1985) Farming systems research: a review World Bank technical paper
number 43, WTP43 August 1985 Page 15. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/
111831468740665537/pdf/multi-page.pdf. Accessed 14 June 2018
Tikai P, Kama A (2004) A study of indigenous knowledge and its role to sustainable agriculture
in Samoa. Solomon Island National University National working paper. University of the South
Pacific, Alafua Campus, Samoa
Timmer CP (2014) Managing structural transformation: a political economy approach. WIDER
Annual Lecture 18
Tsakok I (2011) Success in agricultural transformation: what it means and what makes it happen.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, USA
Tuilaepa FS (2006) A participatory model of rural poverty in Samoa. Dissertation, Lincoln Univer-
sity
Umar B, Aune J, Johnsen F (2011) Options for improving smallholder conservation agriculture in
Zambia. J Agric Sci 3(3):50–62. https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v3n3p50
United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) (2018) Sustainable development goals. Retrieved
from http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/sustainable-development-goals.html
Vanclay F (2004) Social principles for agricultural extension to assist in the promotion of natural
resource management. Aust J Exp Agric 44(3):213–222. https://doi.org/10.1071/EA02139
Ward R, Ashcroft P (1998) Samoa: mapping the diversity. Institute of Pacific Studies, University
of the South Pacific; National University of Samoa, Suva, Apia
Chapter 10
Public Participation in Earthquake
Recovery in the Border Region Between
Italy and Slovenia
Primož Pipan and Matija Zorn
Abstract The chapter deals with public participation in recovery after earthquakes
in the border region of Friuli (NE Italy) and the Upper Soča Valley (NW Slovenia) in
1976 (magnitude 6.4, 6 May; magnitude 6.1, 15 September—the Friuli earthquakes),
1998 (magnitude 6.0, 12 April), and 2004 (magnitude 4.9, 7 July). It highlights the
differences in the concepts of the post-earthquake recovery, taking into consideration
the different political systems between the two countries (capitalist Italy vs. commu-
nist Slovenia in 1976) and changes in recovery after the change of political system in
Slovenia (communist Slovenia in 1976 versus capitalist Slovenia in 1998 and 2004).
The research is based on a qualitative case study carried out through interviews and
comparative analysis in selected settlements. From the strategy of recovery, Italy
was characterized by a bottom-up and Slovenia by a top-down approach. According
to Arnstein’s ladder, the citizen participation in Italy was at the highest stage of citi-
zen power—citizen control, while Slovenia was characterized by non-participation,
tokenism, and was thus at a much lower stage of citizen power, regardless of the
political system.
Keywords Natural disaster · Cultural heritage · Participatory planning ·

Earthquake reconstruction · Friuli earthquake
10.1 Introduction
The wider area along the border between Friuli, Italy, and the Upper Soča Valley,
Slovenia, is known for earthquakes with a magnitude exceeding 5.0: These include
a 5.3 magnitude earthquake in 1279, 6.5 in 1348, 7.0–7.2 in 1511, 6.2 in 1690, 5.6
in 1788, and 5.4 in 1857 (Vidrih 2008). This chapter discusses the most recent major
earthquakes in this area.
P. Pipan (B) · M. Zorn

e-mail: primoz.pipan@zrc-sazu.si
M. Zorn
e-mail: matija.zorn@zrc-sazu.si
148 P. Pipan and M. Zorn
The 1976 earthquakes with magnitudes of 6.4 (6 May) and 6.1 (15 September), or
an intensity between IX and X and between VIII and IX on the European macroseis-
mic scale (EMS-98), with an epicenter in the Venzone area in Italy claimed 990 lives
(Lessi 2016; Pellizzari 2016), and 157,000 people lost their homes (Geipel 1982).
There were no deaths in Slovenia, but 12,000 buildings were damaged and 13,000
people were left homeless (Orožen Adamič 1980).
The 1998 earthquake (12 April, the “Easter Earthquake”) with an epicenter in
the Krn Mountains in Slovenia had a magnitude of 6 and an intensity between VII
and VIII (Gosar et al. 1999; Ušeničnik 1999). Approximately, 4000 buildings were
damaged in Slovenia.
The last earthquake that caused damage occurred in 2004 (12 July). It had a
magnitude of 4.9 and an intensity between VI and VII. Again, its epicenter was in
the Krn Mountains. Nearly, 2000 buildings were damaged in Slovenia (Vidrih 2008;
Zorn and Komac 2011) among others also buildings that had already been renovated
after the 1998 earthquake.
This chapter highlights the public participation in post-earthquake recovery in
various political systems (capitalist Italy vs. communist Slovenia in 1976) and within
the same country (Slovenia) after the changes to its political system (communist
Slovenia in 1976 vs. capitalist Slovenia in 1998 and 2004).
According to Gamper (2008, p. 240), public participation in issues and decisions
connected with natural disasters “could be beneficial; both for experts, to gain in
acceptance and divide the share of responsibility … and the public, for integrating
their local knowledge … as well as preferences in the decision process.” If allowed,
the public can participate in various stages of natural disaster management (Pearce
2003; Kuhlicke et al. 2011) and various types of natural disasters such as mass
movements (Mikoš 2011), earthquakes (Omidvar et al. 2010, 2011; Pipan 2011a, b),
and floods (Lara et al. 2010; Meyer et al. 2012). Concerning foods, the EU Floods
Directive (2007/60/EC) even “recognizes the necessity of public participation in the
making of public policy concerning floods” (Lara et al. 2010, p. 2083).
10.2 Methodology
This study is based on a qualitative case study carried out through interviews and
comparative analysis in selected settlements (Pipan 2011a). The basic method used
was interviews (a similar method was also used in a similar study in Iran after the 2003
earthquake in Bam; Omidvar et al. 2011), which provided firsthand information from
the eyewitnesses to the recovery and individuals that participated in it. More than
thirty semi-structured interviews were conducted between October 2007 and July
2009. The informants were the former and actual representatives of local and regional
administration, inhabitants, experts in construction, and experts in the protection of
cultural heritage.
Six cases of settlement renovation are presented. They were ranked on the Arn-
stein scale (Arnstein 1969) based on public participation in decision-making pro-
10 Public Participation in Earthquake Recovery … 149
cesses (Thomas 1995). Arnstein (1969) understands citizen participation in decision-

making as a categorical factor supporting citizen power provided that all the stake-
holders or interested parties participate in the decision-making process. Her citizen
participation ladder includes eight rungs (Fig. 10.10): from non-participation (manip-
ulation and therapy) at the very bottom of the ladder, through the levels of “tokenism”
that allow the have-nots to hear and to have a voice (informing, consultation, and pla-
cation), to various levels of citizen power (partnership, delegated power, and citizen
control), which enable citizens to negotiate and engage in trade-offs with traditional
power holders and can even allow them to obtain full managerial power (Arnstein
1969; Mušič 1999).
The following three settlements, which were included in the recovery after the
1976 earthquake, were studied in Friuli (Fig. 10.1): Venzone, Portis, and Oseacco.
In the Upper Soča Valley, the settlements studied include Breginj (connected with
the 1976 earthquake), Drežniške Ravne (connected with the 1998 earthquake), and
Čezsoča (in relation to the 1998 and 2004 earthquakes) (Table 10.1).
Fig. 10.1 Study area with selected settlements

Table 10.1 Description of selected cases
150
Case study (settlement) Country Year of Population (year)a Political system Basic features of recovery
earth-
quake
Venzone Italy 1976 1805 (1971) Capitalism A low-lying settlement along the main road affected in the
1976 earthquakes. As a cultural monument of national
importance, the historical center inside the city walls was
renovated as a model example of cultural heritage protection.
It is the seat of the Municipality of Venzone
Portis Italy 1976 269 (1971) Capitalism A small low-lying settlement along the main road in the
Municipality of Venzone affected in the 1976 earthquakes.
Due to the risk posed by rockfalls triggered by the
earthquakes, the settlement was rebuilt at another location
Oseacco Italy 1976 409 (1971) Capitalism A settlement in the remote hilly border Municipality of Resia
with a Slovenian ethnic minority. It was the most severely
affected settlement in this municipality in the 1976
earthquakes. In terms of the post-earthquake recovery
approach, its recovery differs from that in other settlements in
the municipality
Breginj Yugoslavia1976 304 (1971) Communism A remote, hilly border settlement that was so severely
damaged in the 1976 earthquakes that it was rebuilt at a new
location. Through this, valuable architectural cultural heritage
was destroyed
(continued)
P. Pipan and M. Zorn
Table 10.1 (continued)
Case study (settlement) Country Year of Population (year)a Political system Basic features of recovery
earth-
quake
Drežniške Ravne Slovenia 1998 164 (1991), 153 (2002) Capitalism A small remote hilly settlement in the Municipality of
Kobarid, in which nearly all the buildings were damaged in
the 1998 earthquake. The Municipality of Kobarid adopted a
special regulatory plan that envisaged the comprehensive
renovation of the settlement
Čežsoča Slovenia 2004 317 (2002) Capitalism A small settlement in an alpine basin in the Municipality of
Bovec. The considerably weaker 2004 earthquake damaged
buildings that had been renovated after a stronger 1998
earthquake, which revealed irregularities in post-earthquake
construction
Adapted after Pipan (2011a)
a Sources 11° censimento … (1973), Orožen Adamič et al. (1995), Statistični urad Republike Slovenije (Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia) (2019)
10 Public Participation in Earthquake Recovery …
151
10.3 Concepts of Recovery After the 1976, 1998, and 2004

Earthquakes
With the legislation that was adopted for recovery after the 1976 earthquakes,
the region of Friuli-Venezia Giulia (Italy) transferred the responsibility for post-
earthquake recovery to municipalities as the smallest units of local government. The
municipalities obtained professional assistance from the earthquake office, but the
responsibility for the recovery lay solely with the individual municipalities and their
mayors, who represented both the region and the central government in Rome dur-
ing the post-earthquake recovery. The central government allocated recovery funds
to the region, and this, in turn, allocated it to individual municipalities or mayors
because they had the best overview of what was happening in the field. During the
recovery, there were only two cases of irregularities or misused funds discovered in
the entire region; in one (the Municipality of Resia) irregularities only occurred due
to a lack of necessary knowledge (Pipan 2011a).
In Slovenia, as in Italy, the responsibility for recovery after the 1976 earthquakes
was assumed by the municipalities, which relied on local communities (smaller
administrative units within a municipality). The communal assemblies of the munic-
ipalities of Tolmin, Nova Gorica, and Idrija established an inter-municipal board that
coordinated post-earthquake recovery across the entire Soča Valley (Ladava 1980).
The Municipality of Tolmin was most affected; however, because it did not have a
majority on the inter-municipal board, its needs may have been overruled by the other
two municipalities, which had not been as badly affected and were also more eco-
nomically developed at the time. The responsibility that the Municipality of Tolmin
had did not include sufficient funding for spending on the entire public infrastructure
needed, and especially the renovation of cultural heritage, which was shown in the
case of Breginj (Sect. 10.4.4).
Selective allocation of recovery funding was also typical at the municipal admin-
istrative level. With an area of 939 km2 , the Municipality of Tolmin was the largest in
Slovenia, which is why there was a clear gap in economic development between the
municipal center and its periphery. Spending as part of post-earthquake recovery was
thus directed to the central area of the municipality (i.e., Tolmin), followed by the
areas of Bovec and Kobarid, where recovery was underway in Breginj (Sect. 10.4.4;
Pipan 2011a). The disparity between the periphery and the center was also reflected
in the Kobarid area, where the local communities of Breginj and Borjana—that
is, distinctly peripheral settlements compared to the center of Kobarid—were most
affected. Thus, one could talk about a periphery at four levels (Fig. 10.2): (1) state: the
Municipality of Tolmin from the perspective of Slovenia (or at that time Yugoslavia),
(2) regional: the Municipality of Tolmin from the perspective of all affected munic-
ipalities, (3) municipal: the Kobarid area from the perspective of the Municipality
of Tolmin, and (4) local: the local community of Breginj from the perspective of
the Kobarid area. Thus, for example, in the local community of Breginj the planned
post-earthquake recovery was not fully implemented because of the allocation of
funds at the municipal level.
Fig. 10.2 Four levels of periphery of the settlement of Breginj (NW Slovenia) with regard to
post-earthquake recovery after 1976 earthquakes (Pipan 2011a; Zorn 2018)
After the 1998 earthquake, the central government supervised the recovery in
Slovenia. Thus, a shift in responsibility from the local (municipal) level to the state
level is evident after the change of the political system. To this end, the Slovenian
government established the National Technical Office in the affected area as a tem-
porary body with regional branches in the municipal seats of Tolmin, Kobarid, and
Bovec (during the 1990s, the large Municipality of Tolmin, which supervised the
recovery in 1976, was divided into three municipalities; Janežič et al. 2003). In order
to avoid a repetition of the concept of recovery in the Breginj area in 1976, during
which entire settlements were relocated, the law prioritized recovery at the same
location. In order to protect cultural heritage, the recovery of damaged buildings
had priority over new construction. The law simplified the administrative procedures
connected with building construction as part of the post-earthquake recovery and
combined them under the jurisdiction of the National Technical Office, which pro-
vided assistance to those affected in handling the required documentation. Before
individual projects started being implemented, all of the administrative procedures
needed to be completed because the goal was to not repeat the story from 1976, when
buildings were renovated or new ones were built, but not entered in the land register
for another three decades after the recovery was completed.
10.4 Case Studies
10.4.1 Venzone
Venzone stands out in Italy as an exemplary case of post-earthquake recovery. In

order to protect cultural heritage, the entire historical center inside the city walls
was proclaimed a cultural monument of national importance in 1965 (Bellina et al.
2006). Post-earthquake recovery was carried out based on two different legal bases.
Procedures envisaged in post-earthquake legislation applied to the entire area in
Friuli-Venezia Giulia that was affected by the earthquake, whereas in Venzone they
only applied to the area outside the city walls. Recovery of the historical center
inside the city walls as protected cultural heritage thus took place with an emphasis
on preserving architectural cultural heritage (Fig. 10.3).
On the Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation, Venzone is ranked under “citizen
control” (Fig. 10.10); this applied to both the areas within and outside the cultur-
ally protected historical center. Its residents successfully resisted the manipulation
attempts by the municipal authorities, which planned to raze buildings that had not
been damaged in the earthquake in order to make space for building a new sports
center as part of post-earthquake recovery. Inside the city walls, residents prevented
some of their fellow residents from purposely razing some of the buildings that had
been damaged in the first earthquake. They reacted the same way a year later, when a
series of old damaged houses were razed by an order of the municipal administration.
The residents established a special committee, which issued a weekly publication
Fig. 10.3 Markings based on which buildings were reconstructed after the 1976 earthquakes are
still visible on many buildings in the old town of Venzone. Photograph Primož Pipan
titled “Cjase Nestre” (in Friulian “Our Home”). This publication, which all the res-
idents of the Municipality of Venzone received free, critically evaluated even the
smallest step of both the municipal and the regional authorities (Bellina et al. 2006).
With a very active and effective bottom-up organization, the residents of Venzone
provided support to the Regional Cultural Heritage Office in the critical times of
post-earthquake recovery. Venzone, whose renovation was exemplary, is now visited
by more than 200,000 tourists a year (Cargnelutti 2018).
10.4.2 Portis
Portis lies on the left bank of the Tagliamento River in the Municipality of Venzone,
just three kilometers from the municipal seat. The settlement’s official name is Por-
tis, but because of the 1976 earthquake, the residents distinguish between the old
Portis (Portis vecchio) and the new Portis (Portis nuova). The old Portis lies right
along the Tagliamento River, whereas the new Portis, which was built after the 1976
earthquakes, lies 1.5 km further north. Due to the risk of rockfalls after the 1976 earth-
quakes (Fig. 10.4), the authorities decided to relocate the settlement (Fig. 10.5) over
the objection of a considerable number of residents. In line with the post-earthquake
act, the residents provided the impetus for establishing the new Portis cooperative
(La Cooperativa Nuova Portis) for building the settlement at a new location. Through
the cooperative, the residents successfully implemented post-earthquake recovery at
the lowest, local decision-making level and were the first in Friuli-Venezia Giulia to
complete the majority of the recovery work (in 1981). Portis is a good example of
how the residents took responsibility for the post-earthquake recovery into their own
hands and showed that this was the right choice after the authorities had ordered them
to move to a new location (Storia di un paese ricostruito 1992; Pipan 2011a; Cozzi
2017). Due to its relocation, Portis is ranked under “informing” on the Arnstein citi-
Fig. 10.4 Portis after the September 1976 earthquake. Rockfalls, which were the main reason for
relocating the settlement, can be seen in the background (archive of Ezio Gollino)
Fig. 10.5 Relocation of Portis following the 1976 earthquakes

zen participation ladder, but its later recovery can be ranked under the highest level:
citizen control (Fig. 10.10).
10.4.3 Oseacco
In terms of the Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation, the Municipality of Resia

is negatively classified under “citizen control” (Fig. 10.10), thus meaning that the
highest citizen participation is not necessary the most suitable solution for earth-
quake recovery. Even though the new settlement named Lario with prefabricated
houses as the most damaged part of Oseacco was already completed in the fall of
1976, recovery in Resia took a very long time. The law assigned responsibility for
the recovery to the municipality, but this was too much for the weak local commu-
nity to handle. The reason for this was a combination of unfavorable circumstances
such as a large extent of damage, the peripheral location of the municipality in the
mountains, and ineffective management of the recovery, which resulted from overly
frequent replacements of ineffective mayors. Thirteen years were lost because of this.
The renovation work only resumed in 1990 and ended in 1996, which was twenty
years after the earthquake (Madotto 1998). In addition to the problems connected
with electing an effective mayor, the negotiations between individual settlements
also proved extremely difficult. The settlements that had suffered less damage were
suitably renovated, but in Oseacco, which had had the most picturesque architectural
heritage in the valley before the earthquake, everyone renovated their houses as they
pleased. Thus, an eyesore that mars the overall image of the settlement is what has
remained of the settlement formerly styled as “Little Venice.”
10.4.4 Breginj
The situation in the old Breginj was complicated even before the earthquake. Despite
the efforts made by the Municipality of Tolmin and the Cultural Monument Protection
Institute to preserve the architectural heritage, the local community was divided.
After the 1976 earthquakes, the authorities ordered that the residents had to be in
new houses by winter. Thus, from the “informing” through the “consultation” levels
on the Arnstein’s ladder (Fig. 10.10), an agreement was reached to preserve and
renovate only a very small part of the old Breginj (Fig. 10.6). However, due to the
lack of funds, this renovation was not carried out until 2004. Based on the public
discussion on renovating Breginj that was aired on national television “TV Ljubljana”
(nowadays TV Slovenija) in 1983, this example of post-earthquake recovery can be
classified under “manipulation” because the program that presented this discussion
was censored and, in fact, canceled (Pipan 2011a).
After the 1976 earthquakes, the government did not act as it should have with
regard to architectural heritage because it did not have suitable mechanisms in place
Fig. 10.6 Old and new Breginj. Only a tiny part of the former architectural heritage has been
preserved in the old Breginj. It is surrounded by individual houses that were built after the
earthquake. Cookie-cutter prefabricated houses are typical of the new Breginj
and sufficient financial resources to protect and renovate cultural heritage of national
importance. The local authorities had power only on paper, and their responsibility
was too great given the financial resources available.
10.4.5 Drežniške Ravne
Drežniške Ravne was badly damaged in the 1998 earthquake (Fig. 10.7), and the
mayor saw a good opportunity to renovate the settlements as part of a comprehensive
regulatory plan. The stage in which the plan was being drafted is an example of
successful cooperation between the affected residents, the municipality, and the state.
On the Arnstein’s ladder, this could be classified under “partnership” (Fig. 10.10).
However, in the case of Drežniške Ravne, problems started with the implementation
stage of the regulatory plan because there was not sufficient funding available. In
addition, residents and the authorities understood the plan differently. Despite the
fact that the renovation was successfully completed, it could have been better, taking
into account the original plan.
Fig. 10.7 Damage to buildings in Drežniške Ravne after the 1998 earthquake. Photograph Matija
Zorn
10.4.6 Čezsoča
In Čezsoča (Figs. 10.8 and 10.9), the 2004 earthquake also damaged buildings that
had already been renovated after the 1998 earthquake. Čezsoča is an example of a
settlement in which the general public started doubting the operation of professional
institutions despite its lack of knowledge of earthquake-safe construction. Recovery
after the 1998 earthquake was based on the assumption that those affected in the
earthquake could not be trusted and that the state had to direct and supervise the
renovation in the form of a National Technical Office. The damage to all houses in
the village in 1998 amounted to almost one-third of the overall market value (28%)
of all real estate in the village (Komac et al. 2011). The 2004 earthquake revealed
that a great deal of the construction work that had already been paid and documented
as finished had not been carried out at all. This undermined people’s trust in the
operation of the recovery system. Čezsoča can be classified under “informing” and
partly also under “therapy” on the Arnstein’s ladder citizen participation (Fig. 10.10).
Fig. 10.8 Damage to buildings in Čezsoča after the 2004 earthquake. Photograph Matija Zorn
Fig. 10.9 New house built in Čezsoča after the 2004 earthquake. Photograph Primož Pipan
Fig. 10.10 Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation (Arnstein 1969, 2004) and the ranking of the
settlement recovery studied
10.5 Discussion and Conclusion
Each case is a story in itself, but the cases described here show that several factors
affect the success of post-earthquake recovery. In addition to various political and
legislative–administrative contexts, responsible citizens also play an important role.
In the case of Venzone, the majority of residents and stakeholders had a positive
influence on the preservation of cultural heritage because they reduced the negative
impacts of individuals and were successful in resisting the municipal authorities’
desire for a quick post-earthquake recovery, as had occurred in Breginj on the other
side of the border. Portis is a good example of how the local community successfully
agreed on how to renovate its settlement and also carried out the renovation entirely
on its own. The responsibility for carrying out the post-earthquake recovery proved
to be too much for the weak local community in the Municipality of Resia. Due to a
large amount of damage and ineffective management of the renovation, recovery was
only completed after two decades. The case of preserving the architectural heritage of
Breginj involved a divided local community, and the municipality’s responsibility for
carrying out the recovery was not supported with sufficient government funds. The
unwillingness of the authorities to critically evaluate the renovation also stands out
in this case because they even censored the television program featuring this issue.
Drežniške Ravne is an example of good negotiations with the locals in drafting the
regulatory plan for renovating the settlement affected in the earthquake. Unfortu-
nately, due to a lack of funds, the government did not fully implement what was
originally a very good regulatory plan. In the case of Čezsoča, the residents’ warn-
ings and discomfort regarding irregularities in the recovery after the 1998 earthquake
were only confirmed by the 2004 earthquake.
From the strategy of recovery, the case studies from Italy show a bottom-up
approach (Table 10.2), which is based on the tradition of democratic decision-making
processes. According to Arnstein’s ladder, the citizen participation is always at the
highest stage—citizen control. However, the case study of Oseacco shows that the
Table 10.2 Comparison of selected cases
Case study Political Recovery Periphery in Periphery Strategy of Citizen Time of Type of Preserving
(settlement; system responsibil- regard to the within the recovery Participation post- post- cultural
year of the ity state/region municipality (according earthquake earthquake heritage
earthquake) to Arnstein) recovery recovery
Capitalism Municipality Yes No Bottom-up Citizen 7 years: Rebuilding Yes
Venzone, control outside the on the same
Italy (1976) city walls location
(1983);
14 years:
inside the
city walls
(1990)
Portis, Italy Capitalism Municipality Yes No Bottom-up Citizen 5 years Settlement No
(1976) control (1981) relocation
(rockfall
10 Public Participation in Earthquake Recovery …
risk)
Oseacco, Capitalism Municipality Yes No Bottom-up Citizen 20 years Rebuilding No
Italy (1976) control (1996) on the same
(negatively) location
Breginj, Communism Municipality Yes Yes Top-down Manipulation <1 year Settlement No
Yugoslavia (declarative) relocation
(1976)
(continued)
163
164
Case study Political Recovery Periphery in Periphery Strategy of Citizen Time of Type of Preserving
(settlement; system responsibil- regard to the within the recovery Participation post- post- cultural
year of the ity state/region municipality (according earthquake earthquake heritage
earthquake) to Arnstein) recovery recovery
Drežniške Capitalism State Yes Yes Top-down Partnership <5 years Rebuilding Yes
Ravne, (2002) on the same
Slovenia location
(1998)
Čezžsoča, Capitalism State Yes No Top-down Informing 5 years Rebuilding Yes
Slovenia and therapy (2009) on the same
(2004) location
P. Pipan and M. Zorn
bottom-up approach and the citizen control stage may not necessarily be a success
story—also from the point of preserving the cultural heritage.
In Slovenia, the top-down approach was in effect regardless of the political sys-
tem. The change of the political system only slightly affected the citizen participa-
tion—from manipulation under communism to informing, therapy, and partnership
in democratic Slovenia. The change of the political system was, however, reflected
in better preserving the cultural heritage (Table 10.2).
In Italy, the residents themselves issued a weekly publication “Cjase Nestre”
about the earthquake recovery while contrary in Slovenia more than two decades later
the information bulletin about the earthquake recovery was issued by the National
Technical Office.
However, the successful “Friuli model” of public participation in earthquake
recovery was in Italy not repeated, e.g., Irpinia earthquake in 1980 (Geipel 1982)
and Abruzzo earthquake in 2009 (Cozzi 2017). The considerable differences in pub-
lic participation in earthquake recovery in Italy are the result of cultural differences
within the country.
According to Franceschino Barazzutti (Pipan 2011a), at the time the president of
the association of municipalities affected by earthquakes and the mayors of earth-
quake recovery in Friuli (Associazione dei comuni terremotati e dei sindaci della
ricostruzione del Friuli) the successful public participation in earthquake recovery
in Friuli could today not be repeated. Namely, the region and the state would not be
prepared to transfer its powers to municipalities for the bottom-up approach. Even
if this would be the case, there is the question if the municipalities with a new gen-
eration of politicians with different values than the ones in 1976 would be capable
to react and perform in a similar manner.
Acknowledgements The research was financed by the Slovenian Research Agency (ARRS)
through research core funding Geography of Slovenia (P6-0101) and Heritage on the margins: new
perspectives on heritage and identity within and beyond national (P5-0408). The authors would
like to thank Ezio Gollino and Silvana Valent from Portis for data and Paola Fontanini and San-
dro Domini from Associazione Amici di Venzone for the motivation and the help with providing
additional data.
References
11° censimento generale della popolazione 24. 10. 1971: Dati per comune sulle caratteristichestrut-
turali della popolazione e delle abitazioni, Provincia di Udine (1973). Istituto Centrale di Statistica,
Roma
Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Plann 35(4):116–224. https://doi.
org/10.1080/01944366908977225
Arnstein SR (2004) A ladder of citizen participation. http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherry-arnstein/
ladder-of-citizen-participation.html. Accessed on 12 Feb 2009
Bellina A, De Colle A, Moretti A, Quendolo A (2006) Venzone – La ricostruzione di un centro
storico. Bollettino dell’associazione “Amici di Venzone” 35
Cozzi D (2017) Antropologia, disastri e modelli: la lezione di Portis. In: Morandini S, Cozzi D
(eds) Portis: La memoria narrata di un paese. Cierre edizioni, Verona, pp 201–225
Cargnelutti P (2018) Un borgo da record: oltre 200 mila turisti nel 2017 a Venzone. Messag-
gero Veneto (11 February 2018). https://messaggeroveneto.gelocal.it/udine/cronaca/2018/02/10/
news/un-borgo-da-record-oltre-200-mila-turisti-nel-2017-a-venzone-1.16462905. Accessed on
27 Mar 2019
Gamper CD (2008) The political economy of public participation in natural hazard decisions—a
theoretical review and an exemplary case of the decision framework of Austrian hazard zone
mapping. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 8:233–241. https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-8-233-2008
Geipel R (1982) Disaster and reconstruction. George Allen & Unwin, London
Gosar A, Živčić M, Cecić I, Zupančič P (1999) Seizmološke značilnosti potresa (Seismological
earthquake characteristics). Ujma 13:57–65
Janežič I, Dolinšek B, Kos J (2003) Popotresna obnova Posočja: tehnični postopek in ekonom-
ski vidik prenove stanovanjskih objektov (Post-earthquake renewal in the Soča valley region:
technical approach ano economic point of view). Gradb vestn 52:107–113
Komac B, Zorn M, Kušar D (2011) New possibilities for assessing the damage caused by natural
disasters Slovenia—the case of the real estate record. Geogr vestn 84(1):113–127
Kuhlicke C, Steinführer A, Begg C, Bianchizza C, Bründl M, Buchecker M, De Marchi B, Di
Masso Tarditti M, Höppner C, Komac B, Lemkow L, Luther J, McCarthy S, Pellizzoni L, Renn
O, Scolobig A, Supramaniam M, Tapsell S, Wachinger G, Walker G, Whittle R, Zorn M, Faulkner
H (2011) Perspectives on social capacity building for natural hazards: outlining an emerging field
of research and practice in Europe. Environ Sci Policy 14:804–814. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
envsci.2011.05.001
Ladava A (1980) Izhodišča za odpravo posledic potresa 1976 na Tolminskem (Grounds for the
elimination of the effects of the 1976 earthquake in Tolminsko region). In: Dolenc J (ed) Potresni
zbornik. Temeljna kulturna skupnost, Odbor za ugotavljanje in odpravo posledic potresa, Tolmin,
pp 153–186
Lara A, Saurí D, Ribas A, Pavón D (2010) Social perceptions of floods and flood management in a
Mediterranean area (Costa Brava, Spain). Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 10:2081–2091. https://doi.
org/10.5194/nhess-10-2081-2010
Lessi D (2016) Friuli, 40 anni dopo spunta un’altra vittima del sisma. La Stampa. http://
www.lastampa.it/2016/05/06/italia/cronache/friuli-anni-dopo-spunta-unaltra-vittima-del-
sismaHKXFGdzhR8SihsYxBKAmjL/pagina.html. Accessed on 6 May 2016
Madotto A (1998) Resia: Paesi e localita. Circolo Culturale “Rozajanski dum”. Prato di Resia
Meyer V, Kuhlicke C, Luther J, Fuchs S, Priest S, Dorner W, Serrhini K, Pardoe J, McCarthy S,
Seidel J, Palka G, Unnerstall H, Viavattene C, Scheuer S (2012) Recommendations for the user-
specific enhancement of flood maps. Nat Hazards Earth Syst Sci 12:1701–1716. https://doi.org/
10.5194/nhess-12-1701-2012
Mikoš M (2011) Public perception and stakeholder involvement in the crisis management of
sediment-related disasters and their mitigation: the case of the Stože debris flow in NW Slovenia.
Integr Environ Assess Manag 7(2):216–227. https://doi.org/10.1002/ieam.140
Mušič VB (1999) Civilna družba v urbanizmu med državo in krajevno samoupravo (Civil society
in urbanism between state and local self-government). In: Bohinc R, Černetič M (eds) Civilna
družba v Sloveniji in Evropi: zbornik razprav. Društvo Občanski forum, FDV, Ljubljana, pp
253–258
Omidvar B, Zafari H, Derakhshan S (2010) Reconstruction management policies in residential and
commercial sectors after the 2003 Bam earthquake in Iran. Nat Hazards 54:289–306. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11069-009-9468-y
Omidvar B, Zafari H, Khakpour M (2011) Evaluation of public participation in reconstruction
of Bam, Iran, after the 2003 earthquake. Nat Hazards 59:1397–1412. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11069-011-9842-4
Orožen Adamič M (1980) Neposredni učinki potresa v pokrajini (The direct effects of the earthquake
in the landscape). In: Dolenc J (ed) Potresni zbornik. Temeljna kulturna skupnost. Odbor za
ugotavljanje in odpravo posledic potresa, Tolmin, pp 81–122
Orožen Adamič M, Perko D, Kladnik K (eds) (1995) Krajevni leksikon Slovenije (Settlement
lexicon of Slovenia). DZS, Ljubljana
Pearce L (2003) Disaster management and community planning, and public participation: how to
achieve sustainable hazard mitigation. Nat Hazards 28(1–2):211–228. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:
1022917721797
Pellizzari G (2016) Dopo quarant’anni spunta un’altra vittima del terremoto del Friuli. Mes-
sagero Veneto. http://messaggeroveneto.gelocal.it/udine/cronaca/2016/03/27/news/terremoto-1.
13197280?ref=search. Accessed on 27 Mar 2016
Pipan P (2011a) Primerjava popotresne obnove v Italiji in Sloveniji po potresih v Zgornjem Posočju
in Furlaniji (Comparing post-earthquake recovery in Italy and Slovenia after the earthquakes in
the Soča Valley and Friuli). Dissertation, University of Primorska
Pipan P (2011b) Sodelovanje javnosti v obnovi po naravnih nesrečah na primeru potresov v Furlaniji
in Zgornjem Posočju v letih 1976, 1998 in 2004 (Public participation at the recovery after natural
disasters on the example of earthquakes in Friuli and Upper Soča Valley in the years 1976, 1998
and, 2004). In: Zorn M, Komac B, Ciglič R, Pavšek M (eds) Neodgovorna odgovornost, Naravne
nesreče 2. Založba ZRC, Ljubljana, pp 21–29
Statistični urad Republike Slovenije (Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia) (2019) https://
www.stat.si/statweb. Accessed on 27 Mar 2019
Storia di un paese ricostruito (1992) Cooperativa edilizia Nuova Portis 1978–1991: Societa Cooper-
ativa a responsabilita limitata “Cooperativa Edilizia Nuova Portis” con sede in Venzone – Frazione
Portis, Venzone
Thomas JC (1995) Public participation in public decisions. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
Ušeničnik B (1999) Ukrepanje ob potresu. Ujma 13:71–84
Vidrih R (2008) Seismic activity of the Upper Posočje Area. Agencija Republike Slovenije za
okolje, Ljubljana
Zorn M (2018) Natural disasters and less developed countries. In: Pelc S, Koderman M (eds) Nature,
tourism and ethnicity as drivers of (de)marginalization. Perspectives on geographical marginality,
vol 3. Springer, Cham, p 59–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59002-8_4
Zorn M, Komac B (2011) Damage caused by natural disasters in Slovenia and globally between
1995 and 2010. Acta Geogr Slovenica 51(1):7–41. https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS51101
Chapter 11
Stakeholder Analysis
for (Mediterranean) Wetland
Governance: The Case of Ljubljansko
Barje Nature Park, Slovenia
Aleš Smrekar, Katarina Polajnar Horvat and Daniela Ribeiro
Abstract Wetlands in Europe are vulnerable interconnected environments, signifi-

cantly contributing to biodiversity. They are often challenged by the overlapping of
different levels of spatial planning and authorities in charge of their preservation and
management, by the lack of coordination and incapacity of administrative authorities
to handle complex territorial dynamics. In this study, we present the methodology
used to engage relevant stakeholders in wetland governance in Ljubljansko Barje
Nature Park, located in the southern part of the Ljubljana Basin, Slovenia. The main
focus of this chapter is the detailed explanation of the implementation of effective
governance for the Ljubljansko Barje Nature Park, acting through a participatory
process in which users, private and public entities are committed to mainstream-
ing wetlands preservation into their ordinary activities. The Wetland Contract is a
document signed by different stakeholders, aiming at the active participation of stake-
holders in solving a selected problem in a wetland. Its implementation and the use
of selected cooperative participatory techniques assure greater coordination among
stakeholders and decision-makers in order to limit and absorb conflicts among dif-
ferent issues, primarily between preservation issues and economic activities, but also
those opposing cultural heritage valorisation to the protection of natural values.
Keywords Environmental decision-making · Stakeholder mapping · Effective

governance · Mediterranean wetlands · Wetland contract
A. Smrekar (B) · K. Polajnar Horvat · D. Ribeiro

Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts,
Anton Melik Geographical Institute, Ljubljana, Slovenia
e-mail: ales.smrekar@zrc-sazu.si
K. Polajnar Horvat
e-mail: katarina.polajnar@zrc-sazu.si
D. Ribeiro
e-mail: daniela.ribeiro@zrc-sazu.si

170 A. Smrekar et al.
11.1 Introduction
According to the Ramsar Convention (1971) for the protection of wetlands (articles
1.1 and 2.1), wetlands are defined as:
… areas of marsh, fen, peat land or water, whether natural or artificial, permanent or tem-
porary, with water that is static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt, including areas of marine
water the depth of which at low tide does not exceed six metres […] and may incorporate
riparian and coastal zones adjacent to the wetlands, and islands or bodies of marine water
deeper than six metres at low tide lying within the wetlands.
Wetlands in Europe are vulnerable interconnected environments, significantly

contributing to biodiversity. Their protection intertwines environmental aspects and
governance concerns. The project “WETNET—Coordinated management and net-
working of Mediterranean wetlands” was developed in order to tackle the issue of
implementing multilevel governance for Mediterranean wetlands to achieve overall
and network effects on wetlands ecosystems as well as on connected local systems.
The research generated aims at ensuring higher coordination between different levels
of spatial planning and authorities in charge of wetland management, whilst limiting
conflicts between preservation issues and economic activities (WETNET Applica-
tion Form 2014). Based on River Contracts—an innovative methodology for water
management based on the active participation of local actors, the research seeks to test
and transfer Wetland Contracts, acting through broad participatory processes where
users, private and public entities are committed to mainstreaming wetlands preserva-
tion into their ordinary activities. Wetland Contracts promote consultation processes
between various key actors and active participation from a range of stakeholders.
Therefore, Wetland Contracts are voluntary agreements to foster a dialogue and
shared responsibility among actors. The Ljubljansko Barje Nature Park was selected
as a pilot area. After 150 years of human intervention in this marsh landscape, at the
beginning of the twentieth century, the first realizations emerged regarding the need
to protect it. Efforts to protect the Ljubljansko Barje intensified during the 1980s,
until the marsh was protected as a Nature Park in 2008 in order to protect the natural
values, preserve the biodiversity and maintain and enhance the landscape diversity.
Despite being protected, the Park continues to face many pressures and threats that
may endanger its future sustainable development.
In order to develop and implement the Wetland Contract in the pilot area, a stake-
holder’s analysis should first be undertaken. With the aim of guaranteeing proper gov-
ernance of the Wetland Contract implementation, the contract should be designed by
stakeholders comprising representatives from (1) public authorities, (2) knowledge
providers, (3) civil society and (4) the economic sector. This structure ensures that
the principles of territorial consultation are respected during each stage and through
the final agreement, including the definition of objectives, content and the rationale
for its actions (Bravard 2016).
In this study, we present the methodology used to identify and engage relevant
stakeholders; i.e. all people, groups and institutions, willing to embark on the process
of improving the governance of Ljubljansko Barje Nature Park.
11 Stakeholder Analysis for (Mediterranean) Wetland … 171
11.1.1 Theoretical Framework
The various functions of wetlands give them unique importance for both plants
and animals but also for humanity. Wetlands are important for the people who live
around them but also for the global freshwater supply. The overuse of finite fresh-
water resources which constitute 2.5% of the total water volume of our planet and
the projected future increased use of freshwater paint a bleak picture for wetlands,
and thus for humans. Water shortage is already evident in many parts of the world,
and according to FAO (2019) by 2025 two-thirds of the world’s population could be
under water stress conditions. Lack of freshwater and increased population growth
present a real threat to humanity. However, the solution to this problem cannot be
found in a single response. Considering that wetlands store and purify water and
replenish underground water sources, their conservation is vital for our future. Wet-
lands are also important as part of cultural heritage. Their ecological functions have
overshadowed this aspect of their importance, but it is now getting increasingly more
attention. Wetlands are inextricably linked with the cultural heritage of humanity and
are a cradle for local knowledge and tradition, religious beliefs and aesthetic values.
Effectively, the conservation of wetlands contributes to the conservation of human
tradition (Medwet 2017).
Specific characteristics of the climate and the long history of human presence
make the Mediterranean a unique region. For thousands of years, the wetlands around
the Mediterranean Basin have provided people not only with essential services like
water, food, materials and transport, but have also played a major part in their social
and cultural activities. Major civilizations were established in association with and
dependent on wetlands for resources like water. Major cities have been built in or
very close to wetlands (e.g. Venice), where significant archaeological remains can
be found. In the twentieth century, with the advent of industrialization, intensive
agriculture, urbanization, population pressures and legitimate health considerations,
the bond between man and wetland was broken and hence many wetlands were
destroyed. Wetlands were perceived as dangerous places filled with dangerous ani-
mals, evil spirits and disease-carrying insects that needed to be “sanitized” or seen as
unimportant, fallow land to be drained and converted to other uses (Medwet 2017).
Three specific features are especially characteristic for the Mediterranean wet-
lands (Papayannis and Salathé 1998):
1. Mediterranean wetlands are very diverse, a result of the climatic variability of the
region. In the North, the wetlands are large river deltas and lagoons, and in the
South they are sabkhas and marshes that are seasonal and may appear every few
years. Also, artificial wetlands range from oases and salt pans to contemporary
reservoirs created by hydroelectric and irrigation dams.
2. There are strong ties between local inhabitants and wetlands. These ties are
evident from the fact that Mediterranean people not only used them but lived and
still live in or near them, as demonstrated by ancient Greek trading posts such as
Empurias (Catalonia, Spain) and Narona (Croatia). Venice and Tunis, two large
Mediterranean cities, are built-in wetlands (Matvejević 1990). These choices in
settlement demonstrate how local communities in the Mediterranean Basin have

developed strong cultural bonds with wetland sites.
3. Mediterranean wetlands are in a degraded condition and under threat. The last
century has seen the loss of more than half the wetlands, which has resulted
in a dramatic degradation of their functions and loss of their values (Finlayson
et al. 1992). Even though many attempts have been made to counteract this trend,
degradation and loss have not yet been stopped or reversed (Papayannis 2002).
In order to protect wetlands from these threats, it is important to involve stake-
holders in all levels of governance and change the destructive practices that have
been implemented until now. Wetland loss to a large extent is due to ignorance and
misunderstanding of their role, so an important step in effective wetland conservation
is informing public policy officials, decision-makers and the general public about the
true values and functions of wetlands (Medwet 2017). The sustainable management
of wetlands cannot be achieved without the active participation of all stakeholders.
For this purpose, a stakeholder analysis is a prerequisite for any development of or
intervention into wetland management, as emphasized by the Ramsar Convention.
In the Mediterranean countries in general, wetlands are not high priorities on the
political and strategic development and conservation agendas. This derives from a
series of factors (MED-survey 2011):
• The main development and conservation policies and agenda as well as public
institutional set-up are not based on specific ecosystems but on economic, social
and environmental considerations;
• Economic and social development is the driving agenda of most Mediterranean
countries, with economic growth, employment, food security, poverty reduction
and national security being the priorities;
• Wetlands represent less than 3% of the entire terrestrial surface of the Mediter-
ranean Basin, which is a very small part in terms of land use and planning for
decision-makers;
• In most non-EU countries, wetland protection and sustainable use are still often
understood as a Ramsar process for protected areas only, and not known outside
the conservation network and in non-Ramsar sites;
• Nature is still considered, especially in southern countries, as free capital in devel-
opment options, and the water component of wetlands captures interest for pur-
poses of irrigation, water supply, tourism, industry, etc.;
• Ramsar focal points are not always visible, not institutionally strong, or they may
be less involved in decision-making than EU and OECD focal points. However,
considering the small percentage (less than 3%) of the Mediterranean areas covered
by wetlands cumulated efforts since 1971 have been bearing fruit. These results
are recognized by most wetlands-related stakeholders involved at the policy level:
improved awareness; continuous increase of protected wetlands sites and areas;
updates and improvements of policy and strategic documents related to wetlands
and increased capacity and participation of civil society in wetlands protection.
River Contracts (the basis for the Wetland Contracts) were revealed as innovations
in policy, replacing the partial and/or sector-driven sector policies, with the practice
of stipulating contracts between partners on a local scale. These agreements strive to

reconcile economic development, social uses and values and the ecological quality
of the environment. In France, River Contracts provided the possibility to implement
concrete management practices based on integrated management, showing that it is
possible and desirable to deeply involve different stakeholders in the design process
and in political and management decisions (Bravard 2016).
Therefore, for the purpose of providing a robust, inclusive and credible approach
to assessing and strengthening wetland governance, at multiple levels and in diverse
contexts, the engagement and involvement of stakeholders are of crucial importance.
11.1.2 Engaging and Involving Stakeholders in Wetland

Governance
Public participation and stakeholders’ involvement in environmental decision-

making have become an increasingly important aspect over the past few decades
(Richardson and Razzaque 2006). The principle of public participation enables the
public to be heard and to affect decisions (Kiss and Shelton 2004). One of the first
international instruments that proclaimed this principle was the World Charter for
Nature, adopted in 1982 (UN 1982). Public participation distinctly gained impor-
tance in the UN Conference on Environment and Development in 1992 in Rio de
Janeiro (UNCED 1992). Its principle 10 establishes that:
Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens, at the
relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to infor-
mation concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information
on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to partic-
ipate in decision-making processes. States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness
and participation by making information widely available. Effective access to judicial and
administrative proceedings, including redress and remedy, shall be provided.
Later, the UNECE Convention on Access to Information, Public Participa-

tion in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters—the
Aarhus Convention—underscored this development (UNECE 1998). The Aarhus
Convention is actually the only instrument dedicated exclusively to participation.
The Convention is a significant example of the legal consolidation of measures
to enhance public participation in relation to decision-making (article 6), avail-
ability of information (Article 4) and access to justice (Article 9). The nego-
tiating sessions involved an unprecedented level of participation on the part of
NGOs, among them a coalition of environmental citizens’ organizations estab-
lished especially for the drafting sessions. The Aarhus Convention signalled
the conclusion of public participation reforms made since the 1970s. Signifi-
cantly, all Member States of the European Union have either signed or ratified
the Aarhus Convention (Pimbert and Wakeford 2001).
Several factors have encouraged the increase of participatory processes in
decision-making (Richardson and Razzaque 2006), such as (1) increased public
awareness and concern about the relationships between ecological health and human
well-being (Barton 2002); (2) the growth of human rights in legal and political sys-
tems has elevated people’s expectations regarding access to participation in policy-
making (Barton 2002); (3) the current concerns of the international community for
“good governance’ and the empowerment of civil society have also contributed to
increasing interest in the participatory processes (Pimbert and Wakeford 2001); and
(4) weaknesses in the legitimacy of the state and the lack of trust in government
institutions have fed popular demands for more fundamental and direct involvement
in decisions (Pimbert and Wakeford 2001).
The consequences of wetland management and mismanagement affect all sec-
tors of society; however, the values which people attribute to wetlands and the
impacts of wetland management decisions are sometimes not adequately consid-
ered in decision-making processes. Different stakeholders derive different benefits
from and attribute different values to wetlands. Therefore, it is critical to explicitly
and transparently recognize, assess and integrate these multiple perspectives in policy
-making (Kumar et al. 2017).
The improving management of wetlands to assure higher coordination among
stakeholders and decision-makers in order to limit and absorb conflicts among dif-
ferent issues—primarily between preservation issues and economic activities, but
including preventing the false opposition of cultural heritage valorisation to the pro-
tection of natural values—is a huge endeavour that cannot be accomplished without
the involvement of relevant stakeholders. Therefore, it is important to conduct a stake-
holder mapping to understand who might be impacted, who should be involved, and
what concerns they bring to wetland governance. The identification of these view-
points and interests is essential to creating a fully participatory process
11.2 Stakeholder Analysis
“Stakeholder analysis is the identification of individuals, groups or organisations

that have a specific interest in the wetland and are likely to affect or be affected by
proposed interventions in the wetland” (Gevers and Koopmanschap 2012, p. 35). It
is an important step to identify the key stakeholders, where they come from, and
what they are looking for in a relationship to the planning process (Morris and Bad-
dache 2012). It is a useful approach to assess the stakes of interested participants in
a system in more detail (Grimble et al. 1995; Grimble and Wellard 1997). This type
of analysis has become increasingly popular in various academic fields such as envi-
ronmental protection, management and governance, and it is used by policymakers
and academics (Friedman and Miles 2006). Its roots are in management theory and
in political science, where it has developed into a systematic tool with clearly defined
applications and methods (Brugha and Varvasovszky 2000; Raum 2018). Within this
research, we have developed a framework for stakeholder mapping in the field of
wetlands governance, which includes the following steps: identification of relevant
stakeholders, reaching them out, analysing them with interest-influence matrix and
assigning them the roles in a process.
11.2.1 Identification of the Relevant Stakeholders
Stakeholder identification is the process used to identify relevant stakeholders and

assess their interests in the process (Grimble et al. 1995). A careful identification is
essential because it is the basis for all further steps, as the chosen stakeholders will
be implementing the Wetland Contract idea (Grimble and Wellard 1997). There are
many principles involved in identifying stakeholders for the process, which has to be
done in a methodical and logical way to ensure that stakeholders are not omitted. This
may be done by looking at stakeholders organizationally, geographically or through
involvement with various process phases or outcomes (Piscopo 2018). It is important
to understand that not all stakeholders have the same influence or are equally affected
by or during the process. On the one hand, there are stakeholders who may be directly
impacted positively or negatively by the process and on the other hand those who
may be indirectly affected by the outcomes of a proposed intervention (Mayers
2005). Examples of directly impacted stakeholders are the project team members or
a customer who the process or project is being done for. Those indirectly affected
may include an adjacent organization or members of the local community. Directly
affected stakeholders usually have greater influence and impact than those indirectly
affected (Piscopo 2018).
The identification of stakeholders for developing and implementing a Wetland
Contract for Ljubljansko Barje was done through (Bole et al. 2017):
• brainstorming process between project partners,
• studying documents, initiatives and expertise related to wetlands,
• conversations with individuals and representatives of various organizations,
• browsing websites connected to the pilot area and
• field work (questionnaires).
The identification criteria of stakeholders for the Wetland Contract must answer
five questions:
1. Who are the public authorities/knowledge institutions/those within the civil soci-
ety/businesses that are interested in the management of Ljubljansko Barje Nature
Park?
2. What is their role (policy provider, knowledge provider, direct consumer, indirect
consumer …) in the process?
3. Who are the potential beneficiaries?
4. Who might be adversely impacted or has constraints regarding the process?
5. Who may impact the process or has influential power?
We have developed a stakeholder list with their characteristics, such as: geo-
graphical scope, sector of activity/field of intervention, institution, stakeholder clas-
sification, contact person and role. We identified 150 potential stakeholders, which
could be relevant for the development and implementation of a Wetland Contract

at Ljubljansko Barje Nature Park. According to the levels of influence, 10.6% of
them are working at the national level, 8.0% on the regional level and 81.4% on the
local level. 6.0% of the potential stakeholders are also working on the international
level. In order to involve a much broader group of stakeholders, we had to assign
and formalize a precise role for each stakeholder. For this, we chose the Quadruple
Helix approach, which is grounded in the idea that innovation is the outcome of an
interactive process involving different stakeholders, each contributing according to
its “institutional” function in society (Cavallini et al. 2016). “The Quadruple Helix
contextualizes the Triple Helix (public authorities, knowledge providers, economic
sector) by adding as the fourth helix “civil society” and the “media-and culture-based
public” (Woo Park 2014, p. 14).
“This is the understanding that additional perspectives must be added to com-
prehend innovation in the unfolding twenty-first century. In fact, democracy frames
and changes our conditions of innovation” (Woo Park 2014, p. 204). The Quadru-
ple Helix approach focuses on innovation generated by citizens. Social inclusion,
user-centrality and creativity have been encompassed in the knowledge production
process as essential elements, and civil society has been added as a fourth helix of
the innovation system (Cavallini et al. 2016). 50.6% of the potential stakeholders
are public authorities, 6.7% are knowledge providers, 20.7% are civil society, and
22.0% are from the economic sector.
11.2.2 Reaching the Potential Stakeholders
When the stakeholder identification process was finished, we had a comprehensive

list of groups of all the potential stakeholders. Now, we had to reach them. One way to
reach them was through online and offline social and professional networks, which
enable us to find stakeholders with common or relevant interests. Mapping these
relationships and content online helps to identify creative ways to reach stakeholders
and earn trust and referral. It can also help to understand social influence, political
context and potential risks (Plan your online engagement 2017).
We sent an e-mail to the potential stakeholders introducing the research and
explaining the purpose of cooperation. When necessary we phoned them and invited
them to take part in the governance process. When possible, we involved leadership
(dean/director of the institution) as a co-organizer of the working groups (employees
are more inclined to participate when asked by higher management).
In order to gain participants’ interest, the participation process should be facili-
tated and specifically designed according to the theme, situation or problem. There-
fore, raising the right questions and issues could provide manifold results, a com-
mon learning process and innovative ideas arising from a collection of ideas. Pow-
erful questions invite inquiry and new potential stakeholders: questions aimed
at getting as much information about their connections to the topic are needed
(Alfarè and Nared 2014).
After we contacted the potential stakeholders, we sent them a questionnaire in

order to obtain key information for further in-depth analysis of the relevant ones.
Based on the questionnaire, we developed a stakeholder list with their characteristics,
such as
• type of stakeholder;
• field of activity;
• area of activity;
• main objectives of the organization for the Ljubljansko Barje Nature Park;
• confidence and experience in inclusive governance processes;
• confidence and experience in Wetland Contract processes;
• what aspects of the pilot area management are of interest to the stakeholder;
• interest of engagement in the Wetland Contract process;
• influence of the stakeholder on the Wetland Contract process.
We received 53 responses to the questionnaire. Forty-four of were fully completed
and further analysed. From these, we have received 56.8% responses from public
authorities, 6.8% responses from knowledge providers, 20.4% responses from civil
society and 16.0% from economic entities.
11.2.3 Analysing the Stakeholders
We grouped the relevant stakeholders for the pilot area based on the interest-influence
matrix. This matrix considers the relative interest of the stakeholder in the manage-
ment of the wetland versus their level of influence, in order to create a stakeholder
map (Dearden et al. 2003; Hunjan and Pettit 2011; Maguire et al. 2012). Using
this approach, we assessed the stakeholders by taking into account their power and
their interest, and we placed them in four quadrants and stakeholder groups: key
players, subjects, context setters and the crowd. This approach shows in an under-
standable way which stakeholder categories demand priority attention. According
to the Programme Manual (2017), there should be between five and ten individuals
in each quadrant. Each stakeholder group on the matrix (Fig. 11.1) requires a dif-
ferent engagement form. We focused on the stakeholders located in the upper-right
quadrant that represents the key players, i.e. stakeholders with high interest and high
influence/power. They are the ones that will be involved and consulted regularly.
Subjects are stakeholders with high interest but low power. They are affected by the
wetland and are keen to influence the process but they do not have power to change
decisions. We kept them engaged and involved them on a regular basis. Context
setters are stakeholders with low interest but high power. They affect the wetland
but they had little interest; therefore, they are informed via general communications,
and we try to increase their level of interest. The crowd represents the stakeholders
with low interest and low power. They are not very interested in the pilot area and
do not have the power to influence decisions—we keep them informed about the
development of the Wetland Contract.
Fig. 11.1 Interest-influence matrix used to identify stakeholders with differing levels of interest
and influence over the project
One of the important steps was to discover which stakeholders might help to
develop the process and how, to detect their needs and aims and mark the already
existing cooperation or networks among them. It is important to mention that the
stakeholder list needs to be constantly updated during further steps.
Considering only the stakeholders with both higher interest and influence/power
in Ljubljansko Barje Nature Park (Fig. 11.2), we obtained 34.0% of all completed
responses to the questionnaire. From these, the majority of the stakeholders (66.7%)
are public authorities, 13.3% are knowledge providers, 13.3% correspond to civil
society and only 6.7% of the stakeholders come from the economic entities.
11.2.4 Assigning Stakeholders’ Roles
Following the Quadruple Helix approach, four helices are included in the process of
stakeholder mapping for Wetland Contract implementation:
• Public Authorities: public authorities with competences or territorial jurisdiction
or sectoral jurisdiction in the Ljubljansko Barje Nature Park, local authorities,
municipalities, government level institutions;
stakeholders with low interest and

low power
3 high power
medium power
Influence/power
stakeholders with medium interest

and medium power
2 and low power
and high power
stakeholders with high interest and
medium power
1 high power
0
0 1 2 3 4
Interest
Fig. 11.2 Stakeholders with both higher interest and influence/power in the pilot area
• Knowledge Providers: experts and professionals from universities, research or

development centres;
• Civil Society: associations and representative bodies representing the interests of
citizens and civil society organizations, individuals, rights-holders;
• Economic Sector: individual or collective private entities of the main activities of
the economic sector present in the surrounds of the Ljubljansko Barje Nature Park.
In terms of stakeholders’ heterogeneity, the result is not very satisfying, since
only one stakeholder is representative of the economic sector.
In order to reach the most interested stakeholders possible, and indeed a het-
erogeneous group, to further include them into the participatory processes such as
workshops and implementation of the Wetland Contract, we included those with a
medium interest and influence/power in the process (Fig. 11.3): 27.3% of the stake-
holders. From these, 50.0% are from the public authority, 8.4% are from the knowl-
edge providers, 25.0% are from the civil society, and 16.6% are from the economic
sector.
From all the responses which were received and fully completed, 61.4% stake-
holders were included in the further process of development and implementation
of the Wetland Contract; 38.6% of those who completed the questionnaire are not
interested in participating further in the process. Among those participating, 59.2%

low power
3 high power
medium power
Influence/power

and medium power
2 and low power
and high power
medium power
1 high power
0
0 1 2 3 4
Interest
Fig. 11.3 Stakeholders showing both medium and high interest and influence/power in the pilot
area
represent the public authorities, 11.1% represent knowledge providers, 18.6% rep-
resent civil society, and 11.1% represent the economic entities (Fig. 11.4).
After grouping the stakeholders, the following reflections helped to validate the
findings and to prevent forgetting some of the important ones (ODA 1995):
• Have all relevant stakeholders been listed?
• Have all potential supporters and opponents of the project been identified?
• Have the interests of vulnerable groups been identified?
• Are there any new stakeholders likely to emerge as a result of the project?
The final step of the stakeholder mapping is the preparation of the final register
of stakeholders. An outcome of this mapping process is the stakeholder register with
an emphasis on the interested and influential ones. This is a necessary tool for the
development and implementation of the Wetland Contract and provides significant
value for the project team to communicate with stakeholders in an organized manner
(Piscopo 2018).
Later on, all the stakeholders who were included in the further process of imple-
mentation of wetland governance are invited to workshops. The workshops focus
on the characteristics and challenges that the pilot area is facing, the opportunities
and threats, as well as the role of each stakeholder. The workshops contribute to
economic
acƟvity
11.1 %
civil society
18.6 %
public authority
59.2 %
knowledge
providers
11.1 %
public authority knowledge providers civil society economic acƟvity
Fig. 11.4 Type of stakeholder, according to the four helices, included in further process of wetland
governance
the understanding of different interests involved and to the evaluation of the poten-
tial involvement of the main stakeholders. All the organized workshops were very
well attended and the participants were very interested in the topic and actively col-
laborated in the process. One of the reasons for such well-attended and successful
workshops was the assiduous following of all the steps in stakeholder mapping pro-
cess, especially the analysis according to the interest-influence matrix. As we have
contacted and included the stakeholders with higher interest and influence, we have
brought in those willing to participate. One of the strengths of applying all the afore-
mentioned steps of stakeholder mapping is the retention of most of the interested
ones until the end of the process.
11.3 Conclusion
Irrespective of the scope and nature of the process, the narrower specialized expert
groups are no longer sufficient to develop and formulate final decisions. Even if they
are highly qualified professionals, the profession itself has a limited view and range.
A participatory communication is necessary, and communication is as important
as obtaining information (Cornish and Dunn 2009). The final users, such as civil
society, are those who can tell how the process and the final output will prove to
be experienced in practice. Too often, it turns out, practice diverges from theory.
Different stakeholders look at the process from different perspectives and present
their aspects and variants that responsible partners may overlook. By considering
these, the process has wider support and can, in practice, endure. Of course, not
everyone will be satisfied with the final decision, but with some effort and mediation
we should gain the trust of all participants and prevent differences from interfering
with the progress of the process.
Wetlands are important for the people who live around them; thus the values which
people attribute to wetlands and the impacts of wetland management strategies are
critical for their effective governance. Therefore, it is crucial to include all the relevant
stakeholders and to assess all activities that are ongoing at the wetlands and find ways
to meet their needs or at least to mediate them. Thus, multi-stakeholder processes
represent forms of cross-sector collaboration, which have become common practice
over the last decade in the management of wetlands, one of the most vulnerable
environments in Europe.
In our study, we found that stakeholder mapping in the involvement process must
be prepared exclusively for a specific process, carefully planned, but nevertheless
capable of adapting to new situations. We need to know clearly what we want to
achieve through the integration process of implementing the Wetland Contract and
how it will be managed. Moreover, the invited stakeholders also need to be appro-
priately pre-informed about the Ljubljansko Barje Nature Park and the development
of the Wetland Contract in its regard. The workshops that will follow the stake-
holder mapping must be carefully prepared to be effective, but at the same time
not overloaded with content. It will be necessary to ensure equal representation and
involvement of all relevant stakeholders—all of them should have the opportunity to
express their opinions, each opinion is counted, and we all listen to one another.
We played the role of the entity in charge relying on technical and scientific sup-
port, particularly while mapping the stakeholders, and knowledge bases, necessary
to define actions and interventions to be included in the Wetland Contract. The role
of stakeholders of different sectors varies widely; they have very diverse interests and
in many cases their stakes are very high. In our study, we found that there is a limited
number of stakeholders who have both high power and interest at the same time. An
additional challenge is that those are quite homogeneous and do not represent all the
relevant stakeholders that are crucial to the process. By including those who have
medium interest or power, we included those who are not at first glance the most
important stakeholders, yet are necessary for attaining successful management and
implementation of the Wetland Contract. With this step, we obtained additional rele-
vant stakeholders that were under-represented, especially knowledge providers who
will provide expert opinions and be available for consultancy; civil society, directly
or indirectly affected by the process, should be heard and to some extent taken into
account, and the economic sector is often economically dependent on the ongoing
process in the pilot area.
It is encouraging that actions towards the fundamental principles of stakeholder
mapping and their participation are increasingly being enforced. However, in spite
of several good practices, this approach is not always used. These actions are mainly
used when the stakeholder rejects involvement in the process due to lack of appro-
priate involvement in the beginning of the process. In order to avoid bad practices,
the necessary involvement of the all four stakeholders pillars in the governance of
wetlands is of crucial importance.
Agency research core funding Geography of Slovenia (P6-0101) and from the European Develop-
ment Fund funding WETNET (Interreg MED Programme).
References
Alfarè L, Nared J (2014) Leading a participatory process. In: Nared J, Razpotnik Visković N (eds)
Managing cultural heritage sites in Southeastern Europe. Založba ZRC, Ljubljana, pp 32–35
Barton B (2002) Underlying concepts and theoretical issues in public participation in resources
development. In: Zillman DM, Lucas A, Pring G (eds) Human rights in natural resource develop-
ment: public participation in the sustainable development of mining and energy resources. Oxford
UP, Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199253784.001.0001
Bole D, Šmid Hribar M, Pipan P (2017) Participatory research in community development: a case
study of creating cultural tourism products. Acta Universitatis Carolinae Geographica 52(2):1–12.
https://doi.org/10.14712/23361980.2017.13
Bravard JP (2016) Foreword 2. In: Scaduto ML (ed) River contracts and integrated water manage-
ment in Europe. UNIPA Springer Series, Palermo, pp ix–xii
Brugha R, Varvasovszky Z (2000) Stakeholder analysis: a review. Health Policy Plann 15:239–246
Cavallini S, Soldi R, Friedl J, Volpe M (2016) Using the quadruple helix approach to accelerate the
transfer of research and innovation results to regional growth. European Union. https://doi.org/
10.2863/408040
Cornish L, Dunn A (2009) Creating knowledge for action: the case for participatory communication
in research. Dev Pract 19(4/5):665–677. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27752104
Dearden P, Jones S, Sartorius R (2003) Tools for development. A handbook for those engaged in
development activity. University of Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton
FAO (2019). Water scarcity. http://www.fao.org/land-water/water/water-scarcity/en/. Accessed 8
Jan 2019
Finlayson CM, Hollis GE, Davis TJ (eds) (1992) Managing Mediterranean wetlands and their birds.
International Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Bureau, Slimbridge
Friedman A, Miles S (2006) Stakeholders: theory and practice. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Gevers I, Koopmanschap E (2012) Enhancing the wise use of wetlands: a framework for capacity
development. UR Centre for Development Innovation, Wageningen. http://wetlands.un-ihe.org/
sites/wetlands.un-ihe.org/files/cop11-doc34-e-capacity.pdf. Accessed 20 Mar 2019
Grimble R, Chan MK, Aglionby J, Quan J (1995) Trees and trade-offs: a stakeholder approach to
natural resource management. Gatekeeper Series 52. International Institute for Environment and
Development, London
Grimble R, Wellard K (1997) Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a re-
view of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities. Agric Syst 55(2):173–193. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0308-521X(97)00006-1
Hunjan R, Pettit J (2011) Power: a practical guide for facilitating social change. Carnegie United
Kingdom Trust, Fife
Kiss A, Shelton D (2004) International environmental law. Transnational Publishers, Ardsley, New
York
Kumar R, McInnes RJ, Everard M, Gardner RC, Kulindwa KAA, Wittmer H, Infante Mata D (2017)
Integrating multiple wetland values into decision-making. Ramsar Convention Secretariat, Gland
Maguire B, Potts J, Fletcher S (2012) The role of stakeholders in the marine planning process—stake-
holder analysis within the Solent. Mar Policy 36(1):246–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.
2011.05.012
Matvejević P (1990) Mediterranean: a cultural landscape. University of California Press, Berkeley,

Los Angeles
Mayers J (2005) Stakeholder power analysis. International Institute for Environment and Develop-
ment, London
MED-survey (2011) Mediterranean wetlands monitoring situation and needs assessment. Mediter-
ranean Wetlands Observatory, Arles
Medwet (2017) What are wetlands? http://medwet.org/aboutwetlands/. Accessed 8 Aug 2018
Morris J, Baddache F (2012) Back to basics: how to make stakeholder engagement meaningful for
your company. BSR publishes, London
Papayannis T, Salathé T (1998) Mediterranean wetlands at the dawn of the 20th century. Ramsar
Bureau – Tour du Valat, Arles
Papayannis T (2002) Regional action for wetlands: The Mediterranean experience. Ramsar Bu-reau
– Tour du Valat, Arles
Pimbert M, Wakeford T (2001) Overview—deliberative democracy and citizen empowerment. PLA
Notes, London
Piscopo M (2018) What is a stakeholder? How to identify, analyze and manage project stake-holders.
http://www.projectmanagementdocs.com/blog/what-is-a-stakeholder.html#axzz5NUBNxcsS.
Accessed 7 Aug 2018
Plan your online engagement (2017) https://webtoolkit.govt.nz/guidance/online-engagement/
planning-your-online-engagement/identifying-your-stakeholders-and-their-needs/. Accessed 10
Dec 20
Programme Manual (2017) Designing your external communication strategy. https://interreg-med.
eu/fileadmin/user_upload/Sites/Programme/Toolbox/Reference_documents/24.-Designing_
your_communication_strategy.pdf. Accessed 7 Aug 2018
Ramsar Convention (1971) http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/how_we_work/policy/conventions/
ramsar/. Accessed 7 Aug 2018
Raum S (2018) A framework for integrating systematic stakeholder analysis in ecosystem services
research: stakeholder mapping for forest ecosystem services in the UK. Ecosystem Services
29(A):170–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2018.01.001
Richardson BJ, Razzaque J (2006) Public participation in environmental decision making. In: Envi-
ronmental law for sustainability, pp 165–194
WETNET Application Form (2014) Marseille Interreg Mediterranean
Woo Park H (2014) Transition from the TripleHelix to N-TupleHelices? An interview with Elias
G. Carayannis and David F. J. Campbell. Scientometrics 99:203–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11192-013-1124-3
Chapter 12
Planning Major Transport
Infrastructure: Benefits and Limitations
of the Participatory Decision-Making
Processes
Maruša Goluža
Abstract Although stakeholder participation has been considered an ideal approach

in spatial planning theory since the 1980s, decision-making processes are not always
so inclusive in practice. Planning major transport infrastructure is usually a very con-
tentious, time-consuming, and extremely demanding task due to a myriad of stake-
holder interests and power relations that accompany decision-making processes. In
order to determine the benefits and limitations of stakeholder participation when
planning major transport infrastructure, this study analyzes and compares the plan-
ning processes of two freeway sections in Slovenia. It applies a qualitative document
analysis method to reveal the background and developments of Slovenian infrastruc-
ture planning through history. The results show that both decision-making processes
analyzed indicate a democratic deficit, which is a consequence of unfavorable institu-
tional arrangements and legislation, and tokenistic planning tradition. The openness
of decision-making processes has remained dependent on decisionmakers’ (usually
national institutions’) preferences. Both of the decision-making processes studied
also lack legitimacy and are biased by the power relations among stakeholders. The
main contribution of this chapter is a more thorough understanding of the benefits
and limitations that accompany stakeholder participation in planning major infras-
tructure, which may enhance the efficiency of future decision-making processes.
Keywords Infrastructure development · Conflicts of interest · Deliberative

democracy · Communicative planning · Power relations
12.1 Introduction
Planning major infrastructure is usually a time-consuming and challenging task

because these projects are generally large-scale and financially demanding, with
long-term and irreversible consequences. Consequently, infrastructure planning con-
cerns a large number of stakeholders, whose stakes in planning and policy-making are
M. Goluža (B)
e-mail: marusa.goluza@zrc-sazu.si
186 M. Goluža
usually very high. They range from national, regional, and local economic interests
and conservationist interests (e.g., nature, cultural heritage, and agriculture) to very
individual existential interests (usually expressed as opposition to noise, pollution, or
even loss of a home). There is a strong connection between road construction and spa-
tial and regional development, which raises the stakes in infrastructure planning. One
of the main underlying goals behind infrastructure construction is usually tackling
uneven spatial and economic development (e.g., Committee on Spatial Development
1999; Dühr, Colomb and Nadin 2010; European Commission 2011). According to
Peters (2003), investments in various transport options are always also investments
in different spatial development futures. Infrastructure is commonly presented as a
generator of economic growth, as well as economic and social cohesion, which is
why infrastructure holds an important position in strategic documents connected with
spatial development, both supranational (e.g., Committee on Spatial Development
1999) and national, such as the Spatial Development Strategy of Slovenia (2004).
This developmental role has remained the main rationale behind infrastructure plan-
ning in the European Union and worldwide, even though it has been proven that many
such projects have strikingly poor performance records in terms of the economy, the
environment, and public support (Flyvbjerg et al. 2003; Crescenzi and Rodrigues-
Posé 2012). Transport infrastructure as longitudinal projects also cuts across various
administrative layers (i.e., national, regional, and local), different land uses under
the domain of different sectoral policies, and, last but not least, individuals’ private
property. Harmonizing, the entire range of interests in infrastructure planning is thus
inevitably a strikingly demanding task for spatial planners.
Due to such a variety of stakeholders that are affected by infrastructure projects,
conflicts are usually an integral part of planning procedures. Peters (2003, p. 317)
illustrated the conflict-prone character of infrastructure planning with a European
Commission statement from 1994 that says: “transport is many things to all people.”
At first glance, this rather ambiguous statement quite clearly points out the main
challenge in decision-making procedures in infrastructure planning. Stakeholders
perceive infrastructure differently and thus do not have the same views on what the
right decision is. The great variety of stakeholders’ perceptions and distinctively
high stakes makes decision-making in infrastructure planning highly contentious.
Conflicts as an integral part of infrastructure planning make stakeholder participation
an indispensable part of every legitimate decision-making processes.
This chapter reveals the main characteristics of stakeholder participation in infras-
tructure planning, set in the context of specific sociopolitical changes that Slovenia
faced after gaining independence in 1991. It analyzes the benefits and limitations
of stakeholder participation through the lens of contentious situations that generally
accompany decision-making procedures in the transport sector. The freeway project
that started while Slovenia was still part of Yugoslavia is one of the largest infras-
tructure projects in Slovenia, and it played a strong integrating and state-formation
role. Public support for this project was relatively high in the initial stages of carry-
ing out the project, but through the course of its realization, it became increasingly
conflict-laden. After independence, the Slovenian spatial planning system and infras-
tructure planning in particular struggled with several challenges: the growing number
12 Planning Major Transport Infrastructure … 187
of municipalities, privatization, greater interest of residents in participating in deci-

sions on public matters, the ineffectiveness (or even the absence) of harmonization
measures (such as public hearings), and the absence of a regional administrative
level as an intermediate between local and national interests. Several researchers
have questioned the quality of democracy and the process of Europeanization in
post-communist countries (for a more thorough literature review, see Coman and
Tomini 2014). They argue that post-communist countries lag behind their western
European counterparts in terms of participation (Coman and Tomini 2014) and that
their communist history has had a major influence on the understanding of and trust
in democracy. This study analyzes two case studies from Slovenia whose time span
stretches through most of the history of Slovenian infrastructure planning. It contrasts
spatial planning legislation and participatory planning practice from the transitional
times of the 1990s to today when Slovenia is presumed to have adopted western
norms. The two case studies reveal what the role of stakeholder participation has
been in infrastructure planning in Slovenia after the transition and how it fits into
broadly accepted standards of good participatory decision-making processes.
12.2 Slovenian Infrastructure Planning Before

Independence
This study is set in a Slovenian context, characterized by the transition from the
communist era to democracy after independence in 1991. Transition is primarily a
political process (Offe 1997) that is accompanied by the democratization of civil and
political society, the state’s legal order, the institutional apparatus, and the economy
(Thomas 1998). Each country’s path of transition may differ and is influenced by
the past (i.e., it is path-dependent; Thomas 1998). After the Second World War,
the Yugoslav constitutional monarchy was succeeded by a communist regime with
central command planning that underpinned socioeconomic development (Vujošević
and Nedović-Budić 2006). At that time, collective interests gained power, and spatial
resources (except rural properties smaller than ten hectares) became state property
(Perić 2016). Until 1967, spatial planning as a profession in Slovenia was mostly
oriented toward urbanism rather than spatial planning in general (Ravbar 2007).
In 1967, Slovenia adopted its first law on regional and spatial development.
Regional and spatial planning became part of social planning and was harmonized
with economic planning and projections. The law was quite advanced, even in
a wider European context, in a sense that it introduced democratic principles in
decision-making procedures (Saje 1967). Planning processes were consensus-based
and opened not only to sectoral interests, professionals’ knowledge, and represen-
tatives of local politics, but also to public stakeholders (Saje 1967). Nevertheless,
this collaborative principle faced several obstacles in practice. First, the law lacked
a clear methodology for realizing stakeholder participation (Pogačnik 2005), and,
second, politics significantly influenced decisions. The Communist Party, at that
188 M. Goluža
time, the only political party in the state, controlled all associations (professional
and civil), which is why hardly any decision was made without its involvement and
prior consent (Perić 2016).
Infrastructure planning in Yugoslavia played an important role in economic and
social development from 1960 onward. In 1970, Slovenia finally adopted its first
regional spatial plan, which emphasized the importance of infrastructure for antici-
pated economic development and the emerging model of the polycentric settlement
system. The rationale behind infrastructure planning in Slovenia was to provide cit-
izens with equal opportunities to choose a place of residence, work, shopping, and
recreation (Regional spatial plan … 1970). These trends of decentralization, growth
of new industrial urban centers, and the goal of equal accessibility to various services
can be understood in the light of territorial justice, which resonated well with the
dominant social ideology of egalitarianism that was prominent in Yugoslavia (Luthar
and Pušnik 2017).
The first 32 km of freeways were built in 1972. Even though Yugoslavia mostly
encouraged infrastructure connections within its federal borders, Slovenia considered
and planned infrastructure that would also make possible connections with more
developed countries of western and central Europe. The freeway project, the largest
infrastructure project in Slovenia’s history, had a strong state-forming role, which
contributed to high public support for the project (Kos 2003). Notwithstanding this
public acceptance, however, Slovenian freeways were not built without conflicts. The
conflicts were more latent because the political system did not allow overt opposition,
especially among the public.
12.3 Slovenian Infrastructure Planning After

Independence
After independence in 1991, Slovenia continued its freeway project. The majority of
freeways were built based on the National Freeway Construction Program (1995),
in a new post-communist context. Key challenges that Slovenian spatial planning
faced after the transition to democracy were, as already stated, the local government
reform followed by the growing number of municipalities, privatization, broader
public engagement in planning procedures and the expansion of initiatives, the inef-
fectiveness (or even absence) of harmonization measures (such as public hearings),
and the absence of a regional administrative level as an intermediate between local
and national interests. The local government reform in 1994 gave municipalities
autonomy for spatial planning in their territory, and it gave residents of Slovenia the
right to participate in public matters (Vlaj 1998). The subsequent legislation in local
self-government permitted the fragmentation of the existing system, which resulted
in a growing number of new municipalities (from 147 in 1994 to 212 in 2017).
This significantly affected planning procedures not only due to the increased num-
ber of (local) interests that needed to be harmonized, but also due to the prevailing
tendency of many municipalities to pursue local competitiveness goals instead of

carrying out projects in the national interest (such as freeways; Kos 2002; Ravbar
2016). Major infrastructure projects are, nevertheless, still primarily in the domain
of the state. Vertical differentiation (Bartos and Wehr 2002) between the national and
local administrative levels is often the fundamental source for conflict in infrastruc-
ture planning. In relation to this national versus local divide, the absence of a regional
administrative level in Slovenia encumbers the harmonization of interests. Another
challenge for planning procedures in the newly established country was the privati-
zation and general higher engagement of individuals in decision-making procedures.
This strengthened the dynamics of civil initiative formation and encouraged individ-
uals to more explicitly demand the right to participate in decision-making processes
and influence final decisions. The absence of sufficient measures for harmonizing
interests in the Slovenian spatial planning system, limited to public hearings and pub-
lic displays, exacerbated the legitimacy crisis in spatial planning and clearly showed
the need for more context-sensitive planning practices.
Until 2002, Slovenia had only provisional interim spatial planning legislation that
served for the realization of sectoral plans such was the freeway project (Nared et al.
2019). The first Slovenian law on spatial planning was the Spatial Management Act
(2002), which implemented the public hearing as an instrument to harmonize various
stakeholder interests in the decision-making process. The law provided the public
hearing as an instrument to harmonize interests among national institutions, local
authorities, interest groups, and economic entities. The general public in a broader
sense had the right to criticize and react to national spatial plans already made by
government agencies at public displays in the later stages of decision-making pro-
cedures. Although the public hearing was a promising step forward in terms of
stakeholder inclusion in planning procedures, such a measure still corresponds to
a degree of tokenism on Arnstein’s ladder of citizen participation (Arnstein 1969).
The decisions are still mainly in the hands of more influential, powerful stakeholders,
and participatory procedures are limited to informing the public, consultation, and
placation (Arnstein 1969). However, with the Spatial Planning Act adopted in 2007,
the public hearing was removed from planning legislation as an obligatory part of
the decision-making process. The main intent of this step was to accelerate planning
procedures, but with no success. This measure even strengthened the domination of
national institutions in spatial planning in general and, consequently, in infrastructure
planning as well. The participation of sectoral ministries was reduced to providing
an expert background for preparing the national development plan and limitations
regarding the planned structure. Each ministry provided materials for its own profes-
sional field, with no formal instrument in the procedure allowing the harmonization
of incompatibilities among them. Other stakeholders and the public were given an
opportunity to object, criticize, or support national development plans no sooner than
at public displays, when the national development plan had already been made.
In 2010, this less-than-beneficial move, the removal of the public hearing, was
partially corrected with the adoption of another law, the Siting of Spatial Arrange-
ments of National Importance Act (2010), which only addressed planning of struc-
tures of national interest, including infrastructure projects. The public hearing
190 M. Goluža
again became obligatory, but only to harmonize the interests of national institu-
tions (e.g., ministries), not the other stakeholders and the general public. Objection
and appeal procedures for other stakeholders and the general public retained their
position in public displays at the end of decision-making procedures. According
to Nared et al. (2015), such provisions provide a false impression that every plan-
ning decision is made with public consent. In practice, the public is deprived of
the opportunity to contribute to plans and decisions about its own future and living
environment (Nared et al. 2015).
Major transport infrastructure is an immense intervention in a natural environ-
ment. Commonly, these are financially and technically very demanding projects
that cause permanent loss of land. Although transport infrastructure brings sev-
eral advantages to wider society, it may also be very disturbing, especially for
local communities (e.g., worsened quality of life, change of residence, demolition
of homes, noise, etc.; Škarabot 2002). Decisions about future transport infrastruc-
ture are thus highly complex and cannot be legitimate without opening decision-
making procedures to a wider circle of stakeholders and the public. In contrast to
this stance, the common reaction of national authorities to the complexity of major
infrastructure planning is usually the simplification of planning procedures (Salet
et al. 2012). An example of such simplification in Slovenia was the Spatial Plan-
ning Act (2007), which attempted to lower the number of stakeholders included
in decision-making procedures, but with quite the opposite effect. Such measures
may cause vigorous reactions of excluded stakeholders (e.g., the NIMBY effect),
obstruct a constructive dialog among stakeholders, and hinder finding an appropri-
ate solution of the conflict. As a consequence, the mere decision-making procedure
may thus be prolonged, become more expensive or even be impossible to complete
(Škarabot 2002; Salet et al. 2012).
In 2018, Slovenia adopted its latest spatial planning legislation, which again pro-
motes earlier inclusion of relevant stakeholders in the decision-making process (Spa-
tial Planning Act 2 2017). It also provides the legal basis for preparing inter-municipal
spatial plans. However, participatory approaches to planning processes as well as
inter-municipal collaborations are not legally binding. Instead, they are more or less
voluntary optional choices.
12.4 Methods and Materials
This study analyzed decision-making procedures in infrastructure planning in Slove-

nia in order to define the advantages and obstacles that accompany stakeholder partic-
ipation in infrastructure planning. The choice of case studies (Fig. 12.1) was chrono-
logically driven because the goal was to cover as much as possible during the time
span of Slovenian infrastructure planning. The reason behind this decision stems
from the fact that Slovenian spatial planning had to operate in different sociopolit-
ical contexts. As already described in the previous section, changing sociopolitical
contexts in the history of Slovenian spatial planning conditioned the changing role
Fig. 12.1 The Slovenian road network with the two case studies
of stakeholders and revealed some advantages and limitations that accompany their
participation. The first case study therefore is the Slovenian freeway section from
Pluska to Ponikve, which was started in the 1960s. The decision about the future route
was made in 2006 under pressure from more powerful stakeholders. The section was
built in 2010. The decision-making procedure for the second case study, the section
from Otiški Vrh to Holmec on the third development axis, started in 2002. Due to
the opposition of local communities to the proposed route, the Ministry of the Envi-
ronment and Spatial Planning decided to open the decision-making process to the
general public. This was in some way a precedent in Slovenia in terms of stakeholder
inclusion in the decision-making procedure. Despite the willingness of the ministry
to attain a consensual decision that would be accepted in the local environment,
the procedure was postponed due to unresolvable differences among the locals and
national institutions.
The first case study is the Slovenian freeway section from Pluska to Ponikve.
The first plans for Slovenian freeways were created in the 1960s, but the decision-
making process for the section from Pluska to Ponikve actually started in 1995 and
was finished in 2010. The second case study is more recent planning of the third
development axis. The study analyzed its northern part, the section from Otiški Vrh
to Holmec. The third development axis was first mentioned in the long-term plan
for 1986 to 2000, published in 1986. The decision-making process actually started
much later, in 2004, and has not yet been realized.
192 M. Goluža
To define the advantages and possible obstacles that supplement stakeholder par-
ticipation throughout decision-making processes, a document analysis method was
applied, which is useful in cases when there is interest in a historical context or
when the goal is to provide a background and track the changes to or development of
some phenomena (Bowen 2009). Because both case studies were quite contentious
and notorious, it was decided to use only documents that are kept by the Ministry
of the Environment and Spatial Planning, such as studies of variants, minutes from
meetings with stakeholders, the results of inquiries (if carried out), and so on. The
documents from the ministry for both case studies are consistent and relatively com-
parable. They are also relatively neutral in comparison to newspaper articles or other
references from the media. All materials were obtained at the Ministry of the Envi-
ronment and Spatial Planning in spring 2017. For a better understanding of both
case studies, Slovenian spatial development legislation was also analyzed as a legal
basis that defines the outline of decision-making procedures and determines the role
of stakeholders. There are, however, also some limitations to the research method
chosen. The main concern of the document analysis is the issue of bias, which can be
twofold: first, the documents can be influenced by the “writer’s” viewpoints and posi-
tions, and, second, the researcher’s assumptions, values, and interests may influence
the research process (Karppinen and Moe 2014).
The information that was sought in documents was which stakeholders partici-
pated in the planning procedure (or were able to participate), key events that changed
stakeholders’ positions, and how decisions were made and by whom. This informa-
tion is presented in Tables 12.1 and 12.2, which also indicate which planning law
was in force at that time (in different colors).
12.5 Results
The main characteristics of the planning processes in both case studies are chrono-
logically presented in Tables 12.1 and 12.2. Each table shows the main events in both
decision-making processes and its short description with an emphasis on relations
among (conflicting) stakeholders.
12.5.1 First Case Study: The Freeway Section from Pluska

to Ponikve
The first case study, the freeway section from Pluska to Ponikve, is one of the latest
freeway sections in Slovenia. The major challenge in the planning procedure was
selecting the final route among three different options, named after their location:
• The route alongside Trebnje, a route that was supposed to replace the existing
regional road passing Trebnje;
Table 12.1 The section from Pluska to Ponikve; the chronology of the decision-making process
Year Law in force Decision/document/event Description Chronology of conflict
1969 Regional and Spatial Planning Act Study on infrastructure network The first plans for Slovenian
(1967) and freeways in Slovenia: freeways were created in the 1960s
development plan
1995 Spatial Planning Act in Transition National freeway construction First national plan for the
(1990) program construction of motorways after
independenc
1995 First evaluation of the three Construction, technical evaluation, Conflict became evident. The
variants and economic evaluation in favor ministries involved in the
of the route alongside Trebnje; procedure, DARS, and the
Spatial evaluation in favor of the municipality could not reach a
Bukovje route; consensus on which variant for the
The route behind Trebnje Castle section was the most appropriate
scored the lowest;
12 Planning Major Transport Infrastructure …
No decision accepted
1998 Second evaluation of the three The reason for a second evaluation The conflict among stakeholders
variants was the deviation in predicted intensified
investment costs;
No consensus reached:
oppositions between the municipal
authorities, ministries, local
stakeholders, etc.
(continued)
193
194

2000 Third evaluation of the three Inter-sectoral/ministerial meeting; Conflict between the national and
variants The Ministry of the Environment local administrative level, and the
and Spatial Planning and the two initiatives that each preferred
Ministry of Infrastructure agreed one option).
that the Bukovje route was the The civic initiative that was in
least appropriate due to numerous favor of the Bukovje route and the
negative impacts (low transport Municipality of Trebnje opposed
efficiency, more expensive, etc.); the decision of the ministry
Only two routes (alongside
Trebnje and behind Trebnje
Castle) were evaluated further in
the procedure;
The route alongside Trebnje was
evaluated as better;
The Municipality of Trebnje and
the civic initiative for the Bukovje
route objected to the elimination
of the Bukovje route from the
evaluation process
2004 Spatial Management Act (2002) DARS arbitrarily prepared a A civic initiative that lobbied for
leaflet to inform local residents the Bukovje route labeled DARS’s
about the two variants and carried moves as biased and misleading;
out a survey on the public A civic initiative of various local
acceptance of both variants; enterprises that supported the
DARS lobbied for the route route alongside Trebnje was less
alongside Trebnje allegedly due to active in the conflict
financial revenues from tolls
(continued)
M. Goluža
2004 Public hearing held in Trebnje Ministries (infrastructure, spatial Attendees of the public hearing
planning), representatives of demanded the resignation of
municipalities and local DARS executives;
communities, civic initiatives, Attendees agreed that the Bukovje
experts, DARS and local residents route was more appropriate for the
discussed the suggested routes further development of Trebnje;
They highlighted the importance
of public hearings and
verifications of public acceptance
of projects in decision-making
procedures
2004 Fourth evaluation of the routes A governmental working group Even though both routes scored
alongside Trebnje and Bukovje was established to evaluate the the same at the evaluation, the
two variants of the section from Ministry of the Environment and

Pluska to Ponikve; both routes Spatial Planning decided on the
scored the same Bukovje route because it was less
contentious, it was more quickly
realizable, and it left more options
for spatial and economic
development of the Municipality
of Trebnje
2006 Decree on the national location The national location plan was
plan prepared for the Bukovje route
2010 Siting of Spatial Arrangements of Completed The section from Pluska to
National Importance Act (2010) Ponikve was finally built
195
Table 12.2 The section from Otiški Vrh to Holmec; the chronology of the decision-making process
196

1986 Spatial Management Act (1984) Long-term plan of Socialist The third development axis
Republic of Slovenia from 1986 to predicted in a long-term
2000 development plan
2004 Spatial Management Act (2002) Spatial development strategy of The third development axis
Slovenia predicted in a spatial development
strategy of Slovenia
2004 First initiative for preparing the The Ministry of Infrastructure and
national spatial plan for the the Ministry of the Environment
section; and Spatial Planning started
First study of variants preparing the national location
plan
2007 Spatial Planning Act (2007) Each sectoral ministry provided its Informal consultation among the Local stakeholders
own guidelines regarding the Ministry of the Environment and (municipalities, local residents,
planned road; Spatial Planning, and and civic initiatives) and national
representatives from the institutions (the Ministry of the
municipalities and civic initiatives Environment and Spatial
was held with a goal to achieve Planning) could not reach
consensus on a local scale before consensus on the route of the
preparing the national spatial plan section
Evaluation of variants None of the best-rated variants The Ministry of the Environment
was acceptable for the local and Spatial Planning made a
communities of Prevalje and decision that thenceforth in the
Ravne na Koroškem procedure the collaboration
among stakeholders should (and
would) be closer from the
beginning of preparing the
national development plan.
(continued)
M. Goluža
2008 The Ministry of Infrastructure No consensus reached between the Ongoing conflict among local
suggested dividing the route into national institutions and local stakeholders and national
four subsections stakeholders because none of the institutions
proposed variants had been
acceptable for local stakeholders
Preparation of the national spatial
plan was temporarily postponed
2009 The first regional public The Ministry of the Environment Regional public consultation
consultation and Spatial Planning held the first offered participants an opportunity
regional conference; it was to express their suggestions. These
attended by representatives of were then integrated into the
local communities, civic preparation of further variants
initiatives, NGOs, and local
enterprises
2010 Siting of Spatial Arrangements of The second regional public New variants were optimized and No consensus reached
National Importance Act (2010) consultation: presentation of new discussed in local workshops
variants
Evaluation of variants for all four The four subsections were The best-rated variant significantly
subsections evaluated from the spatial, exceeded the expected costs;
environmental, technical, and Less expensive variants were not
financial points of view (a total of acceptable for the local
nineteen different variants) communities.
(continued)
197
198

2013 Preparation of the national spatial Incompatible goals between local
plan for the section from Otiški stakeholders and national
Vrh to Holmec stopped institutions remained unbridgeable
2017 Protocol on the course of planning Signed by the Ministry of The final route of the section from
and building the third Infrastructure, the regional council Otiški Vrh to Holmec has
development axis (for sections of the Carinthia region, and the remained undecided
from Šentrupert to Dravograd via council of mayors from the
Velenje and Slovenj Gradec, and Savinja–Šalek region;
from Otiški Vrh to Holmec) A decision that construction will
be finished in 2023
M. Goluža
• The Bukovje route, which runs over the hill south of Trebnje, and
• The route behind Trebnje castle, as a middle route between the other two variants.
Key stakeholders involved in the decision-making process were:
• Two civic initiatives, each with a different preference (a group of mainly
entrepreneurs from Trebnje that preferred the route alongside Trebnje, and a group
of local influential people and experts that preferred the Bukovje route);
• The mayor of Trebnje, who preferred the route alongside Trebnje;
• The municipal council, which preferred the Bukovje route;
• Sectoral ministries; and
• The national freeway company (hereinafter DARS), as the investor, which
defended the route alongside Trebnje.
12.5.2 Second Case Study: The Section from Otiški Vrh

to Holmec (the Third Development Axis)
The second case study is the unfinished process of planning the northern part of
the third development axis; namely, the section from Otiški Vrh to Holmec. This
decision-making process was a precedent in Slovenia regarding the inclusion of
stakeholders in the decision-making process. Due to several conflicts accompanying
the decision-making procedures and the anti-inclusionary spatial planning legisla-
tion, the Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning made an important step
forward toward more participative, inclusionary planning practice. They decided to
hold three regional conferences during the preparation of the national spatial plan
where the public was able to participate, influence the final decision, and thus con-
tribute to more a democratic and more legitimate decision-making process and final
decision.
Key stakeholders:
• Municipalities;
• Ministries;
• Representatives of enterprises;
• Representatives of local communities;
• Several civic initiatives; and
• Local residents.
12.5.3 Case Studies’ Comparison
The two case studies of infrastructure planning in Slovenia show how approaches
to stakeholder inclusion in decision-making procedures changed over time. Most
200 M. Goluža
of the first case study planned before the public hearing was legally an obligatory
part of the planning process (only after 2002). Technically, this process shows only
the vague outline of participatory practice. Even though the planning procedure was
clearly organized top-down, there was cooperation between the national (ministries,
DARS) and local administrative levels (the municipality), and the two civic initiatives
that emerged during the planning procedure. Local stakeholders that were somehow
neglected in the initial stages of the decision-making procedure publicly demanded
more inclusionary procedures in the future. One of the most influential stakeholder
groups was a civic initiative that preferred the Bukovje route, which significantly
influenced the final decision. The civic initiative remained active throughout most of
the preparation of the national development plan. Its members responded to (often
arbitrary) decisions made by national institutions and successfully articulated their
interests. This case study is an example of how even a small group of people, a
minority (e.g., a civic initiative), can be influential and can oppose more influential
governmental institutions at a national and local level, and even the majority of
municipal residents, according to DARS’s inquiry. Today, it is meaningless to argue
which option for the section from Pluska to Ponikve was better for the Municipality
of Trebnje, but the fact is that the final decision was somehow imposed by a minority,
the civic initiative. Larger infrastructure projects are always imbued with such power
relations that can significantly influence final decisions. The state (the responsible
national institutions), however, still bears the responsibility to make decisions that
are the most appropriate, even if consensus is not possible. The final decision was
made based on the principle of the “lesser evil.” Both options had their supporters
and opponents, as well as advantages and disadvantages. The decision was the result
of pressures made by the civic initiative on the one hand and the result of searching
for a less contentious option that would be more easily realized on the other. The
fact that this section was one of the last sections of the Slovenian freeways built, and
that it needed to be resolved as soon as possible, simply facilitated the decision that
would be able to be easier to implement.
The majority of the second case study was planned at a time when the public hear-
ing was removed from planning legislation (after 2007), and it continued after it was
obligatory for planning objects of national interest (after 2010). Despite unfavorable
legal conditions for stakeholder participation, the Ministry of the Environment and
Spatial Planning decided on more inclusionary practice and encouraged stakeholder
participation earlier in the decision-making process for the section from Otiški Vrh
to Holmec. For this purpose, they pledged to hold several regional conferences on a
local scale throughout the decision-making process with an attempt to reach a more
locally accepted and legitimate final decision. Despite good intentions, the decision-
making process still does not have an epilogue. Regional conferences, which were
held with the goal of reaching consensus in the local environment, have not yet
resulted in a consensual decision. The variant that is acceptable for local residents is
economically unfeasible, and the best-evaluated variant was not approved by local
communities. The future route of this section thus still remains uncertain.
As both case studies reveal, infrastructure planning is time-consuming and is an
ideologically, politically, and financially biased task that demands much cooperation
and active participation of stakeholders. Undoubtedly, participation in infrastructure

planning brings many advantages, but it can be accompanied by several obstacles
that make participative processes demanding to carry out.
There are many well-known advantages to participatory planning that make partic-
ipation of stakeholders a compulsory part of each legitimate infrastructure planning
procedure. First, the participation of stakeholders is practically the only possible way
that makes it possible for stakeholders to discuss their ideas, viewpoints, demands,
and priorities. Deliberation among stakeholders makes space for new (sometimes
better) suggestions and exchange of opinions, and it is the only way to better mutual
understanding. Second, as the two case studies revealed, the level of participation
throughout the planning procedure partly depends on legislation, which sets certain
demands regarding stakeholder inclusion. It is largely contingent on stakeholders’
commitment to participate on the one hand and to allow participation on the other.
Even the absence of regulations that demand or limit stakeholder participation does
not necessarily mean that the decision-making process will be arbitrary or enforced
by national institutions. The second case study shows that the incentive for partic-
ipation can originate from a need, from experiences that prove that participation is
necessary in order to make decisions that are better accepted in public, especially in
the local environment, among people that are or will be most affected by the newly
planned (or built) infrastructure.
What the two case studies also show are some hindrances that accompany partic-
ipatory decision-making procedures in infrastructure planning. There are three main
obstacles that hinder stakeholder participation in infrastructure planning in Slove-
nia: (1) spatial legislation, (2) a lack of criteria to restrain power, and (3) the absence
of a regional administrative level. First, Slovenian spatial legislation has been dis-
tinctively unfavorable for stakeholder participation, especially after 2007, when the
public hearing was no longer a compulsory part of the decision-making process. The
main reason for this was an attempt to accelerate planning procedures, but in practice,
this measure was far from realizing its purpose. Even the reintroduction of the public
hearing for projects in the national interest in 2010 proved that it is not an entirely
sufficient measure. The participation of the general public is still made possible too
late in the planning procedure. This can trigger opposition in the local environment
because municipalities and other stakeholders at the local level do not have a voice
in the initial stages of planning procedures. Second, major infrastructure projects are
usually politically biased and demand great financial resources. There are generally
a large number of stakeholders differing significantly in terms of power (political,
economic, financial, informational, etc.) and preferences (which can be very personal
or collective), making harmonizing interests extremely demanding. The state has a
twofold role in the decision-making procedure. It functions as a stakeholder (repre-
senting national interests) on the one hand, and as an “ombudsman” that must provide
equal rights of stakeholders to participate in planning procedures on the other. As
such, it has no clear criteria for sorting out interests (e.g., public support), which
leads to the risk of illegitimate decisions biased by political and elites’ interests on
the one hand or leads to conflict and deadlock on the other. The third obstacle, which
is especially problematic for infrastructure planning, is the absence of a regional
202 M. Goluža
level in the spatial planning system. Major transport infrastructure not only affects
the local environment and community that live in the very vicinity of the planned
new route, but is also an inter-municipal and national matter. The regional public
consultations that were held in the second case study are evident proof that such con-
sultations are necessary, but they were clearly held too late in the decision-making
process (after the variants were already created) and thus ineffective. Despite the fact
that the Spatial Planning Act 2 (2017) again introduced a legal basis for preparing
regional plans, it is still not an obligatory document. For now, it is also still uncertain
how detailed regional plans will be regarding the route itself as well as the expert
study on the feasibility of various options.
12.6 Discussion and Conclusion
This chapter examined infrastructure planning with conflict and its resolution process
(which is more or less participative). Conflicts as an integral part of infrastructure
planning demand the participation of stakeholders in order to reach legitimate deci-
sions. The two case studies reflect approaches to infrastructure planning in Slovenia
that adapted to the planning legislation in force, and also to national institutions’
interest in including stakeholders in decision-making processes. Infrastructure plan-
ning in Slovenia can be seen through the lens of path dependency. Slovenian spatial
planning legislation and the national institutions involved in infrastructure planning
show that the spirit of tokenistic participation from the past political regime has
survived the transition from communism. Slovenian planning legislation has been
distinctively unfavorable to participation. It has not only neglected the existence of
different interests but has also underestimated the importance of stakeholder partic-
ipation in decision-making processes. The exclusion of the public hearing for the
sake of faster decision-making was a clear sign of ignoring the plurality of (con-
flicting) interests, which Hillier (2003) termed “agonistic pluralism.” Conflict is
often interpreted as the consequence of a democratic deficit, but some researchers in
agonistic planning theory even acknowledge conflict as a prerequisite for democracy
(e.g., Marres 2005, 2007; Metzger and Oosterlynck 2015). Instead of acknowledging
the agonistic pluralism of interests and properly incorporating and managing them
within the planning procedure as an inevitable and essential part of infrastructure
planning, conflict is somehow construed as undesirable, something that should be
avoided. Although the Ministry of the Environment and Spatial Planning has made
some promising steps toward more inclusive decision-making processes in recent
years, some stakeholders are still included in the planning procedure too late, when
their power to influence the final decision is already limited to few variants prepared
in advance.
This chapter discussed the benefits and limitations that have accompanied infras-
tructure planning in Slovenia. The analysis of two case studies showed that insti-
tutions involved in infrastructure planning are making some progress toward more
inclusionary practices, but spatial planning legislation does not provide adequate
support for infrastructure planning regarding stakeholder participation. There is cer-

tainly some room for more in-depth qualitative research on the highly versatile power
relations that are impossible to neutralize in infrastructure planning and on how to
manage such asymmetric interests within the decision-making processes. There is
also the problem of exclusion. Spatial planning can never be fully inclusive, and some
reduction of interests is needed in order to reach a decision (i.e., the first case study) or
the decision-making process cannot be completed (i.e., the second case study). There
is always a gap between many desirable solutions and a few possible solutions. More-
over, there will always be some values or views that will be repressed or excluded.
As Hillier (2003) stated, any decision requires some form of sorting values. More
in-depth research could also provide a better understanding of how to manage highly
versatile power relations and interests within decision-making and policy-making
procedures and the extent to which stakeholder participation should be prescribed by
law. The two case studies and some other experiences from Slovenia and abroad (e.g.,
spatial development strategies of the Municipality of Idrija, the Austrian regions of
Vorarlberg and Tyrol, informal initiatives in Switzerland that assist in participatory
policy-making at the national and regional levels, and congestion taxes in Oslo and
Gothenburg; Nared et al. 2015; Nared 2019) prove that participation is an integral
part of each decision-making and policy-making process. A lack of communication
and participatory processes is not solely a problem of post-communist countries,
but can be found anywhere, even in countries with a long democratic history, such
as Sweden. Implementing congestion tax, consensually accepted in Oslo, Norway,
failed in Gothenburg, Sweden, mainly due to the meager inclusion of civil society in
the decision-making process. As practices in Slovenia and abroad show, participation
is interest-driven to a large degree, even if it is not legally binding.
Acknowledgements The author thanks the Slovenian Research Agency for funding the core pro-
gram Geography of Slovenia (P6-0101) and the junior researchers postgraduate research program.
Both funds provided support for publishing these findings.
References
Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. J Am Inst Planners 35(4):216–224. https://

doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
Bartos OJ, Wehr P (2002) Using conflict theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Bowen GA (2009) Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qual Res J 9(2):27–40.
https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Coman R, Tomini L (2014) A comparative perspective on the state of democracy in central and
Eastern Europe. Europe-Asia Studies 66(6):853–858. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2014.
905384
Committee on Spatial Development (1999) European spatial development perspective. Towards
balanced and sustainable development of the territory of the European Union. Available via
European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docoffic/official/reports/pdf/
sum_en.pdf. Accessed 12 Oct 2018
204 M. Goluža
Crescenzi R, Rodrigues-Posé A (2012) Infrastructure and regional growth in the European Union.
Pap in Regional Sci 91(3):487–513. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1435-5957.2012.00439.x
Dühr S, Colomb C, Nadin V (2010) European spatial planning and territorial cooperation. Routledge,
London
European Commission (2011) White paper on transport. Available via European Commission.
https://ec.europa.eu/transport/sites/transport/files/themes/strategies/doc/2011_white_paper/
white-paper-illustrated-brochure_en.pdf. Accessed 10 Dec 2018
Flyvbjerg B, Bruzelius N, Rothengatter W (2003) Megaprojects and risk: An anatomy of ambition.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Hillier J (2003) Agonizing over consensus: Why Habermasian ideals cannot be real. Planning
Theory 2(1):37–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095203002001005
Karppinen K, Moe H (2014) What we talk about when we talk about document analysis. In: Just N,
Puppis M (eds) Trends in communication policy research. New theories, methods and subjects.
Intellect, Bristol, pp 134–145
Kos D (2002) Praktična sociologija za načrtovalce in urejevalce prostora. Založba FDV, Ljubljana
Kos D (2003) Postmoderno prostorsko planiranje. Teorija in praksa 40(4):647–657
Luthar B, Pušnik M (2017) The restoration of capitalism after Yugoslavia: Cultural capital, class and
power. In: Jelača D, Kolanović M, Lugarić D (eds) The cultural life of capitalism in Yugoslavia:
(Post)socialism and its other. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, pp 81–100. https://doi.org/10.1007/
978-3-319-47482-3_5
Marres N (2005) No issue, no public: democratic deficits after the displacement of politics. Doctoral
dissertation. Department of Philosophy, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam
Marres N (2007) The issues deserve more credit: Pragmatist contributions to the study of public
involvement in controversy. Soc Stud Sci 37(5):759–780
Metzger J, Oosterlynck S (2015) The contested terrain of European territorial governance: New
perspectives on democratic deficits and political displacements. In: Metzger J, Allmendinger P,
Oosterlynck S (eds) Planning against the political: democratic deficits in European territorial
governance. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon, pp 2–28
Nared, J (ed) (2019) Transforming European metropolitan regions. Smart mobility for better liveabil-
ity. Založba ZRC SAZU, Ljubljana. Available via Založba ZRC SAZU. https://zalozba.zrc-sazu.
si/sites/default/files/transforming_european_metropolitan_regions.pdf. Accessed 28 Apr 2019
Nared J, Razpotnik Visković N, Cremer-Schulte D, Brozzi R, Cortines Garcia F (2015) Achieving
sustainable spatial development in the Alps through participatory planning. Acta geographica
Slovenica 55(2):363–373. https://doi.org/10.3986/AGS.1631
Nared J, Hudoklin, J, Kavaš, D, Zavodnik Lamovšek, A (2019) Integration of Spatial and Develop-
ment Planning at the Regional Level in Slovenia. Založba ZRC, Ljubljana. Available via Založba
ZRC SAZU. https://zalozba.zrc-sazu.si/sites/default/files/gr29.pdf. Accessed 6 May 2019
National freeway construction program (1995) Uradni list RS 13/96. Available via PISRS. http://
www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=NACP12. Accessed 12 Oct 2018
Offe C (1997) Varieties of transition—The east European and East German experience. The MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA
Perić A (2016) The evolution of planning thought in Serbia: Can planning be “resilient” to the tran-
sitional challenges? In: History urbanism resilience: Planning theories, pedagogies and practices.
Proceedings of the 17th International Planning History Society conference, Delft, July 2016. Int
Plan Hist Soc Proc 17(7):181–194. https://doi.org/10.7480/iphs.2016.7
Peters D (2003) Cohesion, polycentricity, missing links and bottlenecks: Conflicting spatial story-
lines for pan-European transport investments. Eur Plan Stud 11(3):317–339. https://doi.org/10.
1080/09654310303638
Pogačnik A (2005) Prispevek k integraciji prostorskega, socialnega, gospodarskega in okoljskega
načrtovanja. Dela 24:49–59
Ravbar M (2007) Spatial planning—What for? Geodetski vestnik 51(2):233–245
Ravbar M (2016) Regions—A tool for communication? (An opportunity for more effective regional
planning). IB Revija 50(2):83–87
Regional spatial plan for the territory of the SR Slovenia. Situation in space and development
tendencies. 1970. Biro za regionalno prostorsko planiranje, Ljubljana
Regional and Spatial Planning Act (1967) Uradni list SRS 16/1967. Ljubljana
Saje M (1967) Principles of the law on the regional space planning. Gradbeni vestnik 6(7):124–129
Salet W, Bertolini L, Giezen M (2012) Complexity and uncertainty: problem or asset in decision-
making of mega infrastructure projects? Int J Urban Reg Res 37(6):1984–2000. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01133.x
Siting of spatial arrangements of national importance act (2010) Uradni list RS 80/10. Available
via PISRS. http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO5830. Accessed 12 Oct 2018
Škarabot J (2002) Primeri iz prakse. Programi in postopki vključevanja interesnih skupin na Uradu
RS za prostorsko planiranje. In: Marega M, Kos D (eds) Aarhuška konvencija v Sloveniji:
strokovna priporočila za implementacijo Konvencije o dostopu do informacij, udeležbi javnosti
pri odločanju in dostopu do pravnega varstva v okoljskih zadevah. Ljubljana, Regionalni center
za okolje za srednjo in vzhodno Evropo, pp 111–114
Spatial development strategy of Slovenia (2004) Available via MOP. http://www.mop.gov.si/
fileadmin/mop.gov.si/pageuploads/podrocja/prostorski_razvoj/SPRS_angleska_verzija.pdf.
Accessed 22 May 2019
Spatial management act (1984) Uradni list SRS 15/1984. Ljubljana
Spatial management act (2002) Uradni list RS 110/02. Available via PISRS. http://www.pisrs.si/
Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO1581. Accessed 12 Oct 2018
Spatial planning act (2007) Uradni list RS 33/07. Available via PISRS. http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/
pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO1581. Accessed 12 Oct 2018
Spatial planning act 2 (2017) Uradni list RS 61/17. Available via PISRS. http://www.pisrs.si/Pis.
web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO7341. Accessed 28 Apr 2019
Spatial planning act in transition (1990) Uradni list RS 48/90. Available via PISRS. http://pisrs.si/
Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO21. Accessed 12 Oct 2018
Thomas M (1998) Thinking about planning in the transitional countries of central and eastern
Europe. Int Plan Stud 3(3):321–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/13563479808721717
Vlaj S (1998) Lokalna samouprava. Založba FDV, Ljubljana
Vujošević M, Nedović-Budić Z (2006) Planning and societal context—The case of Belgrade, Serbia.
In: Tsenkova S, Nedović-Budić Z (eds) The urban mosaic of post-socialist Europe. Contributions
to economics. Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg, eBook, p 275–294. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/3-
7908-1727-9_14
Chapter 13
Focus Groups as a Tool for Conducting
Participatory Research: A Case Study
of Small-Scale Forest Management
in Slovenia
Peter Kumer and Mimi Urbanc
Abstract Focus group discussion is a participatory research method that has been
effectively utilized in numerous social science disciplines either as a standalone
method or more often alongside other methods. The research presented in this chapter
used focus groups as the final tool in an extensive study of small-scale forest owners’
management practices, examining driving and hindering factors. This issue stems
from dispersed and fragmented private ownership with many owners, 89% of whose
properties are smaller than 5 ha and are divided into three plots on average. This has
posed a considerable challenge to Slovenia’s forestry sector. Focus groups sought to
obtain stakeholders’ reflections on findings from previous research as well as new
insights. To this end, nine focus groups scattered around the country were conducted
at the local level following the same format. The National Forestry Service’s district
foresters contributed greatly to recruiting participants and carrying out the discus-
sions. Important outcomes were owners’ perspectives on detached owners and their
lack of management, as well as new topics that were not identified in previous stages.
Despite some limitations—in our case, the inability to attract detached owners and
overcome some power-related tensions between owners and the district forester—
the focus groups proved to be not only efficient and informative for researchers, but
above all supportive of state forest policy being implemented at the local level and
greater stakeholder participation in it.
Keywords Forest management · Action research · Research triangulation ·

Stakeholder participation · Hierarchical spatial organization
P. Kumer (B) · M. Urbanc

Research Center of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Anton Melik Geographical
e-mail: peter.kumer@zrc-sazu.si
M. Urbanc
e-mail: mimi.urbanc@zrc-sazu.si

208 P. Kumer and M. Urbanc
13.1 Introduction
The focus group is a qualitative method of data collection that has been widely used
in the social sciences for several decades (Parker and Jonathan 2006). Its origins go
back to Columbia University in the late 1940s. The first topics studied were attitudes
toward radio soap operas and responses to the government’s own wartime radio pro-
paganda programs (Bloor et al. 2001). From a prevailing data collection method in
both public and private organizations, it has become a valuable research method in
recent decades. Focus groups are commonly used to explore and construct knowl-
edge about a particular phenomenon in small groups (Kitzinger 1995; Liamputtong
2011; Krueger and Casey 2015) or to aid interpretation, critical appraisal, or feed-
back for survey findings (Bloor et al. 2001). For a researcher, focus groups offer
invaluable breadth of learning, and the participants’ thoughts complement the origi-
nality of researcher’s own thinking (Bloor et al. 2001). Moreover, participants have
the capacity to identify various (hidden) dimensions of a topic (Longhurst 2010).
Because the method is very resourceful and adaptive, and it perfectly complements
other research methods such as surveys, questionnaires, and individual interviews
(Longhurst 2010). In addition, its time efficiency and low cost have promoted its
widespread adoption.
A further reason for the wide use of the focus group method is its inherent par-
ticipatory nature based on group processes (Chiu 2003), making it an excellent par-
ticipatory approach. This is additionally strengthened by the fact that focus groups
normally address average people, who are assumed to be “ingenuous participants”
(Farinosi et al. 2019). Accordingly, the focus group is one of the most dynamic
research methods (Farinosi et al. 2019); its group dynamics help researchers to obtain
richer and more detailed data (Lune and Berg 2017), making it stand out from other
qualitative research methods. Whereas the scholarly benefits of the researcher–par-
ticipant relationship have been clearly identified, participant benefits have received
less attention. However, we believe there are some. The most tangible is in planning
procedures by incorporating peoples’ needs and expectations. When a focus group
discussion is driven by pure curiosity, participants’ benefits are confined to new
insights and a wider perspective on the issues shared within a group more generally
such as empowerment, inclusion, and community building.
The basic element of this method is the participatory aspect, which stimulates
dynamic discussion among participants guided by a moderator in such a way that all
group members are engaged and active. The discussion is normally semi-structured
because the topics are well defined prior to carrying out a focus group (Miller and
Scoptur 2016). Usually, a focus group cycle consists of two to ten discussions, but
the number varies and depends on the research goals, number of topics, and time
and budget availability. The number of participants for each individual focus group
discussion varies from an optimal six to eight, to real-life practical modifications
ranging from three to fourteen participants. The group size reflects the characteristics
of participants as well as the topics being discussed (Bloor et al. 2001).
13 Focus Groups as a Tool for Conducting … 209
Although the focus group method is primarily used in the social sciences, its
usability nevertheless applies to other disciplines if the research necessitates a human
or social aspect. The method has, therefore, also gained popularity in natural resource
management. Not only are natural resources generally very complex, but they also
touch upon various sectoral policies, which makes them challenging to manage.
Forests and their future development are no exception, especially in connection with
climate change discourse and accessibility and social equity concerns, among other
things.
The usefulness of focus groups in forest management practices and options is
widely addressed in the literature. Attention is given to the following aspects: how the
management process is developed and steered (Corral and Hernandez 2017), what is
considered or neglected in forest management (Mountjoy et al. 2014; Heltorp et al.
2018), whether and how stakeholders are included (Wilkes-Allemann et al. 2015;
Awung and Marchant 2018; Ward et al. 2018), what stakeholders’ expectations and
values are (Bernués et al. 2014; Andrejczyk et al. 2016; Ordóñez et al. 2017; Takala
et al. 2017a, b; Soto et al. 2018; Sutherland et al. 2018), which forest interventions are
socially acceptable (Miller et al. 2014; Vaidya and Mayer 2016; Kelly et al. 2016),
and what the benefits are for people involved in the management process (Egunyu
et al. 2016).
Encouraged by the popularity of qualitative research methods for understanding
the link between forests and society, and following the latest trends in forest manage-
ment research (i.e., analytical approaches and methods; Leipold 2014), we used the
focus group method to explore the characteristics of small-scale forest management
in Slovenia. The purpose of conducting focus groups was to assemble diverse stake-
holders that were engaged in forest management and to use moderated discussion to
collect their often opposing views of and opinions about selected topics (Nyumba
et al. 2018). Therefore, this chapter shows how the focus group method was used in
the final phase for studying the management of pocket-sized private forest properties
as an efficient complement to other methods. Specifically, focus groups were used
to obtain stakeholders’ reflections on findings from previous research stages as well
as new insights.
13.2 Background
Slovenia is one of the most forested countries in Europe, and forests hold a promi-
nent role in Slovenians’ mindset based on the wide variety of services they provide:
from economic and environmental to recreational and social. Most of the country’s
forests (76% of 1.2 million ha) are owned by approximately half a million private
forest owners (PFOs), which is a large group within a country of only two million
(Medved et al. 2010; Kumer and Potočnik Slavič 2016). Given the high number of
forest owners in comparison to the total population, it is not surprising that private
forest properties are small (89% of them are smaller than 5 ha). Moreover, private for-
est properties are also considerably fragmented with one owner having three parcels
on average (Fig. 13.1). The small sizes of forest properties and their parcelization
and fragmentation is a result of socioeconomic changes that occurred in the decades
after the Second World War. The owners have started to migrate from rural areas
to towns, and they lost interest in their forest property. The changes occurred when
planned inheritance practices (e.g., by favoring one heir among the children) changed
into unplanned practices. Inherited forest properties were divided among children,
spouses, and siblings, each receiving an equal but small share. The same thing hap-
pened with restitution (denationalization), in which properties were assigned to all
of the legal heirs of a single owner that lost land nationalized after the Second World
War (Kumer 2019). On top of that, traditional inheritance practices in the past were
different among regions. For example, due to Hungarian inheritance law (and despite
planned inheritance), the land was broken up into small parcels in the eastern part
of the country long before the aforementioned social changes. This has led to a sit-
uation in which forest properties in eastern Slovenia are even more fragmented than
elsewhere. In addition to all of these forest-related aspects and challenges, there is
another one worth mentioning: Slovenian law requires forests to be publicly accessi-
ble, permitting not only walking and relaxation, but also collecting berries, nuts, and
mushrooms for personal consumption. This fact that Slovenians are very proud of
can conversely lead to conflicts between land owners and users (Kumer et al. 2018).
Average size of private forest property (ha) Authors: Rok Pisek, Peter Kumer
Cartographer: Peter Kumer
less than 0.5 1.0 to 1.5 3.0 to 5.0 © Anton Melik Geographical Institute
ZRC SAZU
0.5 to 1 1.5 to 3.0 more than 5.0 Layer source: SURS
Fig. 13.1 Map showing the ownership fragmentation of forest land

In Slovenia, forest-related challenges have only been subject to quantitative

research, and they have predominantly been discussed within the context of
production-oriented forestry policy, which has aimed to engage owners in manage-
ment of their economically underutilized forests. To our knowledge, no qualitative
research has been conducted on the attitudes of forest owners, their socioeconomic
background, and their understanding of forest values beyond mere timber produc-
tion. Therefore, focus groups to complement prior surveys, interviews (Kumer and
Potočnik Slavič 2016), owner type analysis (Kumer and Štrumbelj 2017), and multi-
criteria decision analysis (Kumer and Pezdevšek Malovrh 2018) appeared to be an
ideal method to bridge this research gap. The focus groups are an ideal tool when
trying to access local knowledge and also detailed and hidden information (i.e.,
interpersonal interactions and nonverbal communication).
In order to approach forestry stakeholders in an effective and communicative man-
ner, we worked closely with the Slovenian Forest Service. This public institution,
whose task it to outline and steer forest management planning in all forests, irrespec-
tive of ownership, is hierarchically organized with a central unit in Ljubljana and 396
forest districts around the country. District foresters are forestry experts that transmit
national forest-related policy to the local level. They provide education and train-
ing for forest owners, cooperate with rural communities, and foster awareness about
forests and nature preservation. Due to their embeddedness in the local situation,
they were our key figures for approaching forest owners.
13.3 Implementing the Method
13.3.1 Designing the Focus Groups
The essential part of the preparatory phase was developing an implementation guide,
as suggested by Crabtree and Miller (1999). Building on the research question, a list of
semi-structured questions was prepared based on prior research steps; specifically, on
the results of a mixed-mode survey, in-depth interviews, and multi-criteria research
analysis for evaluating stakeholders’ perceptions.
The questions included in the guide covered the following topics: agricultural
affiliation, inheritance practices, gender differences in management, interpersonal
relations with co-owners and neighbors, managerial practices, distant management,
taxes, and future forestry regulation.
In order for the process to run smoothly and to help the moderator to conduct the
discussion efficiently, a series of questions and a strict timeline were outlined. The
general outline for the entire cycle was set between March and June 2016. The entire
time span allowed flexibility in carrying out individual focus groups.
The focus groups required technical equipment for audio and video recording.
Video recording was needed for analysis of interpersonal interactions and nonverbal
communication.
13.3.2 Selecting and Recruiting Participants
The quality of the data collected was greatly dependent on the participants, and so
the group composition was of high importance. We paid particular attention to par-
ticipants’ heterogeneity and diversity (Table 13.1), which were both acknowledged
in the literature (Bole et al. 2017). The internal variety also considered gender and
age balance. The common denominator of our stakeholder groups is embeddedness
in forest management at the local level. More specifically, partakers were individual
small-scale private forest owners (SPFO), members of PFO associations, and mem-
bers of machinery circles. A top-down legal and decision-making perspective was
added by including district foresters, other employees of the public forestry service,
and representatives of Chamber of Agriculture and Forestry.
The group composition created a challenge, which is referred to as “power impo-
sition” (Cooke and Kothari 2001). Numerous SPFOs considered themselves less
knowledgeable about forestry than the forestry sector professionals and employ-
ees. To overcome SPFOs’ self-perceived inferior position and subsequent imped-
iment, we emphasized that our goal was only to collect personal attitudes, expe-
riences, and reflections. This proved to be effective and encouraging enough
for SPFOs to take part.
The success of the recruitment process, however, depended greatly on the local
district forester and his or her credibility, moral authority within the forest owners’
community, and other stakeholder communities. It was the district forester, therefore,
that functioned as a communication channel. We also reached nonowners through
academic contacts, e-mail, and phone invitations. In addition, attendants were further
encouraged by simple incentives. These included practical gifts, such as recyclable
shopping bags, notebooks, and umbrellas. Professionals were provided with confir-
mation of their participation, allowing them to integrate attendance into their daily
work and have travel costs reimbursed.
13.3.3 Location, Date, and Size
Given the general forest ownership and forest property situation in Slovenia and
regionally specific inheritance practices, we paid special attention to the locations of
focus groups. Nine focus groups were spatially dispersed and conducted in selected
local units of the Slovenian Forestry Service. Nationwide coverage was in line with
one of the aims of the research: to obtain a geographical aspect, including under-
standing regional differences.
The first group—a pilot or preparatory focus group for testing the questions’
clarity—was carried out in downtown Ljubljana. The venue was a modern, state of the
art focus group facility, which offered a quiet, private, and comfortable environment
for participants and an observation cabin with a one-way mirror and audio, visual, and
other technical support for the moderator and his supervisors. Despite this excellent
Table 13.1 Date, location, and participants at focus groups

Date Location Number of Type of Age Gender ratio
participants participants (F/M)
24 March 2016 Ljubljana 6 SPFO (2), Around 40 2/4
public forestry
service,
Chamber of
Agriculture
and Forestry,
PFO
association,
district forester
12 April 2016 Bohinj 7 SPFO (3), 42–60 0/7
machinery
circles, large
property
owner, sawmill
owner, district
forester
13 April 2016 Bukovica 8 SPFO (7), 43–78 1/7
pri district forester
Vodicah
18 April 2016 Počakovo 8 SPFO (6), 20–66 2/6
district
forester, local
development
agency
20 April 2016 Velesovo 7 SPFO (6), 42–78 3/3
district forester
17 May 2016 Tišina 13 SPFO (7), 40–65 2/11
district forester
(4), public
forestry
service, PFO
association
1 June 2016 Kozina 8 SPFO (4), 52–76 0/8
district forester
(2), public
forestry
service,
agrarian
community
(continued)

Date Location Number of Type of Age Gender ratio
participants participants (F/M)
14 June 2016 Velike 8 SPFO (4), 51–76 0/8
Lašče large property
owner,
Chamber of
Agriculture
and Forestry,
district
forester, public
forestry
service
28 June 2016 Nazarje 7 SPFO (4), 47–69 2/5
district forester
(2), public
forestry
service
technical arrangement, its distance from forest owners’ home locations dissuaded us
from using this venue for follow-up focus groups.
Based on practical and logistical reasons, the locations for the main part of the
focus groups were selected close to participants. Consequently, we had to adapt to the
availabilities and capacities of the local facilities. These focus groups, therefore, did
not necessarily meet the technical standards of the first one. The chosen venues were
different: from local inns to the local branch office of the Slovenian Forestry Service.
The local branch offices proved to be a comfortable place to meet and discuss matters
due to the participants’ familiarity with them. Organizing a group at the local level
substantially reduced the overall cost: the participants traveled shorter distances on
average.
13.3.4 The Moderator, Key Person, and Group Dynamics
The role of a moderator is to introduce the aim of the focus group and to guide the
conversation. Introducing the aim is done with a broad, open-ended question in order
to define the scope of the discussion and pitch the topic. In our case, the introduc-
tory question was “What does a forest mean to you?” For guiding the subsequent
conversation, a moderator should only use the guide to negotiate the group and to
create a structured way of collecting responses. However, the discussion might raise
unpredictable and unexpected thoughts, and a moderator should, therefore, remain
open-minded and receptive, and be able to react appropriately. A moderator can use
probes to prompt participants to explain further.
Negotiating between allowing a natural flow of the interaction among participants
on the one hand and a focus group guide with a timeline on the other is a considerable
Fig. 13.2 Snapshot from a focus group in Velesovo. Photograph Peter Kumer
challenge. The group structure plays a role in this respect. Well-structured groups
tend to answer a research question in a straightforward way, whereas less structured
ones help reveal the perspectives of the group participants and may assist in the dis-
covery of new ideas and insights (Morgan 1988). In our case, the moderator fostered
spontaneous and free-flowing conversation, thereby allowing relatively unstructured
discussions (Fig. 13.2).
The role of district foresters was an important one not only in the recruiting pro-
cess, but also in the implementation phase, but in the latter case, their inactivity
was appreciated. They understood that their viewpoints could influence the partic-
ipants’ train of thoughts. Therefore, they refrained from talking, especially from
giving informed opinions; however, they helped the moderator to put the attendees’
personal attitudes and experiences into a policy context and they brought in the
absentee owners’ perspectives.
13.3.5 Analysis
We transcribed audio recordings in their entirety and then performed a computer-

assisted grounded theory analysis. The theoretical background was based on Friese’s
(2016) adaptation of a constructivist approach to grounded theory (Charmaz 2006),
which foregrounds researchers’ interpretations and their “immersion” in the data in
a way that embeds the narrative of the participants in the final research findings.
The ATLAS.ti program was used in the coding process, which is the core of the
analytical stage. It included theoretical sampling; initial, focused, and axial coding;
and building the category system. The focus groups were analyzed after each session.
13.4 Results
The focus group discussion provided down to earth interpretation of and reflec-
tion on findings from previous research stages as well as completely new
and unexpected standpoints. By bringing in their personal and family experi-
ences, participants enhanced the grass roots aspect of small-scale forest prop-
erty management. To a researcher, they provided an in-depth understanding of
small-scale forest ownership.
First, the discussion on cluster analysis results yielded two SPFO types—those that
are engaged and those that are detached (Kumer and Štrumbelj 2017)—and it revealed
other potential owner types in Slovenia. In addition, the notion of detached (absentee)
SPFOs that live away from their properties and are not engaged in management
gave rise to a broad and lively discussion mostly focusing on the reasons for their
disengagement. Among these, the participants singled out past migrations, especially
from rural to urban areas or from Slovenia abroad (mostly to western European
countries or overseas), changes of permanent residence, and co-ownership, which
hinders efficient management.
On the other hand, the important focus group outcomes were emerging topics
that appeared relevant for the research but were not identified in the previous stages.
One such example is the climate of mistrust among forest owners, which negatively
affects their willingness to cooperate. A second circumstance was the landowner
versus visitor conflict, which is especially evident near urban centers. Unlimited
access to forests as a popular recreational space and a resource of non-wood forest
products (such as mushrooms, nuts, herbs, etc.) can result in a collision of different
(and often conflicting) ideas among diverse user groups about how to use the forest.
This challenge is more severe due to inadequate consideration and a subsequent lack
of appropriate monitoring and governance measures.
The participants also benefited from the focus groups by hearing the viewpoints of
various stakeholders, and they were informed about the findings of previous research
phases, which helped them to learn more about the topic. They could see a complex
picture of different interests in the forest.
13.5 Reflection on the Method Used
In our broader research, in which we examined the managerial issues of small-

scale forest properties, the focus groups were a final but valuable data resource and
interpretation vehicle at the same time. They were therefore planned to be conducted
during the last phase in order to allow the juxtaposition of results from previous
research phases and ex post reflection on them. Surprisingly, new topics emerged.
Taking all of this into account, focus groups proved to ideally complement than other
methods, especially for issues in which the human aspect is of major relevance. Our
case is closely in line with extensive literature addressing the usefulness of focus
groups.
Although the entire endeavor was started and carried out exclusively for research
purposes, the process and its activities were also advantageous for stakeholders, espe-
cially for district foresters. By participating in the process, they were able to realize
some of their general tasks: training and educating owners, disseminating information
on forest management, and raising forest-related issues among the public. Moreover,
they were given the opportunity to obtain structured and evidence-based insight into
current forestry policy from the perspective of owners and other stakeholders.
Nonetheless, some limitations were obvious. A critical limitation is connected
with the selection of focus group participants. Despite the valuable assistance of dis-
trict foresters in recruiting local forest owners and forestry-related stakeholders, the
pool of participants did not represent the entire owner population. Detached owners
were missing for the most part; absenteeism is inherent in their modus operandi in
forest-related issues. This gap was partially filled by district foresters, who func-
tioned as a proxy for absentee owners, whose perspective was thereby indirectly
considered.
Even though the district foresters were crucial in the process, they were unable to
mitigate the uneasiness of participants that were not entirely comfortable in express-
ing their views openly. District foresters were perceived as officials that supervise
activities in private forests. Upon reflection, excluding foresters from the discussion
would probably help overcome this gap.
Not only top-down power pressure emerged, but also a powerless feeling in the
professional community in charge of implementing state policy at the local level,
which revealed certain power relations within the forestry sector. Some foresters
refused to participate because they thought their influence on owners was insignifi-
cant or that all owners in their district were inactive. It is somewhat surprising that
intangible power and the informal position of foresters emerged as a decisive factor
for (dis)engaged private small-scale forest management.
Organizing focus groups at the local level proved to be successful due to the
familiar environment and participants. There was no need for an icebreaker to start
the discussion. The district foresters functioned as a communication channel between
the focus group moderator and participants. They often summarized the conversation
and put it into the context of modern forestry challenges. Giving priority to local
venues with basic technical equipment over a centrally located specialized focus
group facility proved fortuitous in many respects.
Moreover, integrating the focus group into the research was generally economi-
cally and academically justified, providing abundant knowledge and information for
modest financial input. However, the rich material obtained required substantial staff
effort for subsequent qualitative analyzes. Focus groups made it possible for new top-
ics to surface (new, subtle topics were identified) and discussions of aspects beyond
the topics planned. These aspects were relevant to our research focus. For exam-
ple, topics such as trust, cooperation, cultural influence, tradition, and globalized
individualism proved to be an important managerial factor.
Management of a resource as important as a forest definitely cannot be devoid

of public participation, especially management of private forests and particularly in
countries with short democratic tradition. Focus groups are a vehicle for extending
public participation. They should be further developed by the Slovenian Forestry
Service and considered as a format for regular meetings at the local level to promote
cooperation and information transfer, thereby positively influencing forest manage-
ment.
The following conclusions can be drawn from this study. The method would be less
appropriate if the topics discussed were personal and the participants did not know
one another. Focus groups are also inappropriate if the problem is individualized
and does not require previous interactions. This is not the case in forest management
because it typically requires aspects of various stakeholders.
Focus groups are appropriate for identifying unknown or suspected and sub-
tle issues as well as for stakeholders’ reflection on aspects already identified and
research findings. Inclusion of a spatially well-organized hierarchical institution (e.g.,
the Slovenian Forestry Service) into the research can raise certain power-relation
tensions, yet the advantages considerably surpass possible disadvantages, not only
by providing communication channels, but also by including experts’ opinions and
informed experience. Because the issues related to forest management are uniform
across the country, the spatial dispersion of focus groups helped us with generaliza-
tion. Focus groups perfectly connect research, public service, and individual social
groups.
Acknowledgements The authors thank the Slovenian Research Agency for funding the core pro-
gram Geography of Slovenia (P6-0101) and the junior researchers postgraduate research program.
Both funds provided support for publishing these findings.
References
Andrejczyk K, Butler BJ, Tyrrell ML, Langer J (2016) Hansel and Gretel walk in the forest, landown-
ers walk in the woods: A qualitative examination of the language used by family forest owners.
J Forest 114(1):52–57. https://doi.org/10.5849/jof.14-151
Awung NS, Marchant R (2018) Quantifying local community voices in the decision-making process:
insights from the mount cameroon national park REDD + project. Environ Sociol 4(2):235–252.
https://doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2017.1363144
Bernués A, Rodríguez-Ortega T, Ripoll-Bosch RBC, Alfnes FD (2014) Socio-cultural and economic
valuation of ecosystem services provided by Mediterranean mountain agroecosystems. PLoS
ONE 9(7):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102479
Bloor M, Frankland J, Thomas M, Robson K (eds) (2001) Focus groups in social research. Sage,
Thousand Oaks
Bole D, Šmid Hribar MŠ, Pipan P (2017) Participatory research in community development: a
case study of creating cultural tourism products. AUC Geogr 52(2):164–175. https://doi.org/10.
14712/23361980.2017.13
Charmaz K (2006) Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis.
Sage, London
Chiu LF (2003) Transformational potential of focus group practice in participatory action research.
Action Res 1(2):165–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/14767503030012006
Cooke B, Kothari U (eds) (2001) Participation: The new tyranny?. Zed Books, London
Corral S, Hernandez Y (2017) Social sensitivity analyses applied to environmental assessment
presses. Ecol Econ 141:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.05.022
Crabtree BF, Miller WL (eds) (1999) Doing qualitative research. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Egunyu F, Reed MG, Sinclair JA (2016) Learning through new approaches to forest governance:
evidence from Harrop-Procter community forest Canada. Environ Manag 57(4):784–797. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00267-015-0652-4
Farinosi M, Fortunati L, O’Sullivan J, Pagani L (2019) Enhancing classical methodological tools
to foster participatory dimensions in local urban planning. Cities 88:235–242. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.cities.2018.11.003
Friese S (2016) CAQDAS and grounded theory analysis. MMG Working Paper, Göttingen
Heltorp KMA, Kangas A, Hoen HF (2018) Do forest decision-makers in southeastern Norway adapt
forest management to climate change? Scand J For Res 33(3):278–290. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02827581.2017.1362463
Kelly MC, Germain RH, Mack SA (2016) Forest conservation programs and the landowners who
prefer them: Profiling family forest owners in the New York City watershed. Land Use Policy
50:17–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.08.026
Kitzinger J (1995) Qualitative research: introducing focus groups. BMJ 311:299–302
Krueger R, Casey MA (2015) Focus groups: a practical guide for applied research. Sage, Thousand
Oaks
Kumer P (2019) Lastniki gozdov v Sloveniji. Založba ZRC, Ljubljana
Kumer P, Pezdevšek Malovrh Š (2018) Factors hindering forest management among engaged
and detached private forest owners: Slovenian stakeholders’ perceptions. Small-Scale Forestry
18(1):105–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11842-018-9409-2
Kumer P, Potočnik Slavič I (2016) Heterogeneous small-scale forest ownership: Complexity of
management and conflicts of interest. Belgeo 4:1–21
Kumer P, Štrumbelj E (2017) Clustering-based typology and analysis of private small-scale forest
owners in Slovenia. For Policy Econ 80:116–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.03.014
Kumer P, Šmid Hribar M, Smrekar A (2018) Gozd kot prostor številnih interesov in priložnosti. In:
Flajšman K et al (eds) Trajnostna rekreacija in turizem v gozdu: zbornik zaključne konference CRP
projekta “Priprava strokovnih izhodišč za turistično in rekreacijsko rabo gozdov,” 11 September
2018, Ljubljana. Založba Silva Slovenica, Ljubljana, p 23
Leipold S (2014) Creating forests with words: a review of forest-related discourse studies. For
Policy Econ 40:12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2013.12.005
Liamputtong P (2011) Focus group methodology: principles and practice. Sage, London
Longhurst R (2010) Semi-structured interviews and focus groups. In: Clifford N et al (eds) Key
methods in geography. Sage, London, pp 117–132
Lune H, Berg BL (2017) Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Pearson Education,
Essex
Medved M, Matijašić D, Pisek R (2010) Private property conditions of Slovenian forests. Prelimi-
nary results from 2010. In: Medved (ed) IUFRO conference proceedings small-scale forestry in a
changing world: Opportunities and challenges and the role of extension and technology transfer.
Slovenian Forestry Institute, Ljubljana, p 879
Miller P, Scoptur P (2016) Focus groups: hitting the bull’s-eye. Association for Justice, Washington
DC
Miller KA, Snyder SA, Kilgore MA, Davenport MA (2014) Family forest landowners’ interest in
forest carbon offset programs: focus group findings from the lake states, USA. Environ Manage
54(6):1399–1411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-014-0352-5
Morgan DL (1988) Focus groups as qualitative research. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Mountjoy NJ, Seekamp E, Davenport MA, Whiles MR (2014) Identifying capacity indicators for
community-based natural resource management initiatives: focus group results from conservation
practitioners across Illinois. J Environ Planning Manage 57(3):329–348. https://doi.org/10.1080/

09640568.2012.743880
Nyumba T, Wilson K, Derrick CJ, Mukherjee N (2018) The use of focus group discussion method-
ology: insights from two decades of application in conservation. Methods Ecol Evol 9(1):20–32.
https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12860
Ordóñez C, Beckley T, Duinker PN, Sinclair AJ (2017) Public values associated with urban forests:
synthesis of findings and lessons learned from emerging methods and cross-cultural case studies.
Urban Forestry and Urban Greening 25:74–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.05.002
Parker A, Jonathan T (2006) Focus group method and methodology: current practice and recent
debate. Int J Res & Method Educ 29(1):23–37
Soto JR, Escobedo FJ, Khachatryan H, Adams DC (2018) Consumer demand for urban forest
ecosystem services and disservices: examining trade-offs using choice experiments and best-
worst scaling. Ecosyst Serv 29:31–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.11.009
Sutherland WJ, Dicks LV, Everard M, Geneletti D (2018) Qualitative methods for ecologists and
conservation scientists. Methods Ecol Evol 9(1):7–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12956
Takala T, Hujala T, Tanskanen M, Tikkanen J (2017a) Forest owners’ discourses of forests: Ideolog-
ical origins of ownership objectives. J Rural Stud 51(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.
2017.01.014
Takala T, Hujala T, Tanskanen M, Tikkanen J (2017b) The order of forest owners’ discourses:
Hegemonic and marginalised truths about the forest and forest ownership. J Rural Stud 55:33–44.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.07.009
Vaidya A, Mayer AL (2016) Use of a participatory approach to develop a regional assessment
tool for bioenergy production. Biomass Bioenerg 94(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.
2016.08.001
Ward C, Holmes G, Stringer L (2018) Perceived barriers to and drivers of community participation
in protected-area governance. Conserv Biol 32(2):437–446. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13000
Wilkes-Allemann J, Pütz M, Hirschi C (2015) Governance of forest recreation in urban areas:
Analysing the role of stakeholders and institutions using the institutional analysis and development
framework. Environ Policy Governance 25(2):139–156. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1668
Index of Places
A D
Adriatic Sea, 56 Delta del Ebro, 61
Africa, 52, 134, 137 Drežniške Ravne, 149, 151, 159, 160, 162, 164
Albania, 56 Dublin, 129
Algeria, 51, 56, 57, 63, 64
Algiers, 63 E
Alps, 122 Eastern Europe, 31, 34, 35, 46, 52
Aopo, 138 Ebro, 61, 63
Asau, 139 Elba Islands, 58
Els Ports Massif, 61
B Empurias, 171
Baix Ebre, 61 Estonia, 114
Barcelona, 7, 8, 13, 15, 19, 97, 101, 103 Europe, 6, 28, 52, 58, 107, 134, 169, 170, 182,
Bejaïa, 63 209
Blagoevgrad, 34–38, 40–43, 45–47 European Union, 35, 48, 114, 173, 186
Bohinj, 213
Borjana, 152 F
Bovec, 151, 152, 154 Fiji, 135
Breginj, 149, 150, 152–154, 158, 159, 162, 163 Finland, 15
Budapest, 15, 19, 36, 75, 77, 80–86 France, 56, 173
Bukovica pri Vodicah, 213 Friuli–Venezia Giulia, 152, 154, 156
Bukovje, 193–195, 199, 200
Bulgaria, 34, 36, 37 G
Germany, 6
C Gorenjska Region, 127
Can Batlló, 97, 102 Goriška Region, 127
Carinthia, 198 Gothenburg, 15, 17, 19, 203
Central Europe, 77, 188 Gouraya, 51, 57, 63–69
Čezsoča, 149, 160–162 Greece, 56, 109, 110
Črni Vrh, 116 Grosseto, 58, 60
Cetinje, 109–111, 117
Croatia, 56, 171 H
Cyprus, 56 Hawaii, 136
Czech Republic, 34, 44 Hegyvidék, 81, 82, 85, 86
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2020 221

The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28014-7
222 Index of Places
Helsinki, 15, 17, 19 P

Heraklion, 109, 110, 117 Paciﬁc, 135
Holmec, 191, 196, 198–200 Papua New Guinea, 135
Hungary, 15, 34, 36, 77, 80 Pluska, 191–193, 195, 200
Hunziger, 98 Počakovo, 213
Poland, 77, 80
I Ponikve, 191–193, 195, 200
Idrija, 114, 152, 203 Portis, 149, 150, 156, 157, 162, 163
Italy, 15, 51, 56–58, 122, 127, 147, 148, 150, Porto, 15, 19
152, 154, 162, 163, 165 Portugal, 15
Poutasi Falealili, 139
J Prague, 34–44, 46, 47
Jordan, 56
R
K Resia, 150, 152, 158, 162
Karst, 122 Rio de Janeiro, 173
Kobarid, 123, 151, 152, 154 Romania, 34, 36
Kozina, 35, 37, 213 Rome, 15, 18, 19, 152
Krakow, 75, 77, 80, 82, 83, 85
Krn Mountains, 148 S
Saaremma Island, 114
L Safaatoa, 138
Lima, 53 Salailua, 139
Livorno, 58, 60 Salani, 138
Ljubljana, 15, 19, 158, 211–213 Salelologa, 139
Ljubljana Basin, 169 Samoa, 133, 135–141
Ljubljansko barje, 169, 170, 175–179, 182 Sapapalii, 138
Lomma, 6–8 Savaia, 138–141
Savaii, 136, 138, 139
M Savinja-Šalek region, 198
Małopolska Region, 80 Sierra de Cardo, 61
Maribor, 75, 77, 79, 80, 82–85 Siufaga, 138–141
Marocco, 64 Slovenia, 15, 18, 28, 34, 36, 48, 56, 77, 79, 80,
Mediterranean, 51, 52, 56–58, 63, 65–67, 69, 114, 116, 117, 122, 127, 147, 148,
170–172 151–154, 164, 165, 169, 186–193, 196,
Montenegro, 56, 109, 110 199, 201–203, 207, 209–212, 216, 218
Montsià, 61 Slovenj Gradec, 198
Morocco, 56 Soča, 127, 147, 149, 151, 152, 164
Munich, 6–8 South East Europe, 107–110, 115
Spain, 7, 15, 51, 56, 57, 61, 97, 101, 171
N Sweden, 6, 7, 15, 203
Narona, 171 Switzerland, 98, 203
Nazarje, 214 Székesfehérvár, 34–38, 40–43, 46, 47
Netherlands, 7
New Zealand, 136, 137 T
Norway, 15, 203 Tagliamento River, 156
Nova Gorica, 152 Tanger, 68
Nuu, 139 Terra Alta, 61
Terres de l’Ebre Delta, 51
O Tišina, 213
Oseacco, 149, 150, 158, 162, 163 Tolmin, 152, 154, 158
Oslo, 15, 17, 19, 203 Tonga, 135
Otiški Vrh, 191, 196, 198–200 Trebnje, 192–195, 199, 200
Index of Places 223
Tunis, 171 Velike Lašče, 214

Tunisia, 56 Venice, 158, 171
Turkey, 56 Venzone, 148–150, 154–156, 162, 163
Tuscan Islands, 51, 57–59, 67 Vienna, 100, 102, 103
Tyrol, 203 Vorarlberg, 203
U W
Udine, 123, 127 Wilaya, 63
Upolu, 136, 138, 139 Witkowice, 80, 82
Upolu in Aleisa, 139
Utrecht, 7, 8 Y
Yugoslavia, 150, 152, 163, 186, 188
V
Vaslui, 34–38, 40–43, 45, 46 Z
Velenje, 34–47, 198 Zurich, 98, 103
Velesovo, 213, 215
Subject Index
A Community, 1–5, 24, 32, 38–40, 51, 52, 54, 58,

Action plan, 6, 53, 68, 69, 80, 142 60, 63, 64, 66–69, 75–87, 91–104,
Agriculture, 34, 37, 38, 48, 61, 63, 64, 66, 67, 108–109, 111, 112, 114–117, 121–124,
133–139, 171, 186, 212–214 127, 128, 134, 139, 141, 142, 152, 158,
Arnstein, 2, 3, 9, 13, 23, 33, 100, 121, 162, 172, 174, 175, 190, 191, 195–197,
147–149, 154, 156, 158–160, 162–164, 199, 200, 202, 208, 211–213, 217
189 Conservation, 51–56, 65, 66, 69, 80, 114–117,
Awareness rising, 64 133, 137, 171, 172
Consultation, 2, 19, 32, 40–42, 45, 56, 60, 80,
B 83, 149, 158, 170, 189, 196, 197, 202
Biodiversity, 53, 55–57, 61, 64, 67, 68, 76, Co-production, 1–4, 6–9, 94
169, 170 Cultural heritage, 68, 80, 107–110, 112–116,
Biosphere reserves, 51–53, 57–59, 61–65, 67, 121–123, 125, 127, 148, 150, 152, 154,
68 155, 159, 162, 163, 165, 169, 171, 174,
Bottom-up (approach), 1, 34, 46, 51, 54, 66, 186
69, 76, 84, 87, 93, 108, 114, 141, 147, Culture, 5, 107–109, 109, 115, 123
155, 162, 163, 165
D
C Decision-making, 2–7, 9, 14, 17, 31, 32, 34,
Citizen initiatives, 38 38, 45–47, 52–54, 56, 65, 66, 75, 76, 78,
Citizens’ engagement, 2, 6, 32, 33, 40 79, 81, 94, 97, 98, 100, 102, 104, 139,
City, 1, 2, 4–9, 15, 31, 34, 36–41, 43, 46, 63, 141, 148, 149, 156, 162, 172–174,
75, 76, 82, 83, 97, 98, 100, 102, 104, 185–187, 189–193, 195, 196, 199–203,
109, 114, 150, 154, 163, 171 212
Civil society, 6–8, 19, 31, 32, 45–48, 75, 76, Decision maker, 3, 20, 23, 25, 27, 32, 44, 100,
79, 101, 170, 172, 174–180, 182, 203 115, 169, 172, 174
Climate change, 1–3, 5–9, 19, 52, 53, 55, 58, Deliberation, 6, 8, 9, 84, 201
63, 66, 134, 209 Democracy, 1, 14, 23, 32, 33, 47, 54, 75, 78,
Co-creation, 1, 2, 124, 127, 128, 133 87, 95, 99, 176, 187, 188, 202
Co-learning, 142 Demographic, 35, 36, 46
Collaborative inventory, 121, 122, 127, 128
Communication, 8, 18, 19, 22, 24, 25, 31, 32, E
38, 39, 63, 64, 66, 68, 69, 78, 85, 91, Earthquake, 147–165
115, 124, 126, 134, 135, 138, 142, 177, Economic development, 14, 34, 35, 52, 54, 63,
182, 203, 211, 212, 217, 218 108, 109, 152, 173, 186–188, 195
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2020 225

The Urban Book Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28014-7
226 Subject Index
Empowerment, 14, 77, 79, 92, 93, 107, 114, Marine protected areas, 51, 52, 54–56
116, 128, 174, 208 Method, 8, 13, 15, 16, 18–24, 26, 27, 32, 33,
Expert knowledge, 5, 25, 44 40, 43, 46, 47, 57, 68, 77–81, 84, 87,
110, 116, 128, 139, 140, 148, 174, 185,
F 190, 192, 207–209, 211, 216, 218
Face-to-face (meeting), 7, 8, 19, 39–44, 46, 47, Metropolitan region, 13–20, 23, 26, 27, 34
80 Municipality, 6–8, 14, 18, 31, 34–48, 58, 60,
Facilitation, 4, 9, 20, 44, 45, 53, 69, 77, 83, 84, 61, 63, 67, 75, 77, 79–82, 84–86, 123,
86, 93, 109, 129, 139, 142, 173, 176, 127, 150–152, 154–156, 158, 159, 162,
200 163, 165, 179, 187–189, 193–196,
Facilitator, 1, 13, 18, 23, 26, 27, 77, 111, 128 199–201, 203
Focus group, 21, 138, 139, 207–209, 211–218
Forest management, 209, 211, 212, 217, 218 N
Natural disaster, 141, 148
G Neighbourhood planning, 34, 39–42
Governance, 1, 2, 4–6, 8, 9, 14, 19, 23, 25, 31,
32, 34, 38, 39, 46–48, 51–58, 61, P
65–68, 75, 78–80, 84, 93, 94, 101, 115, Participation, 1–3, 8, 9, 13–15, 17–21, 23–27,
121, 169, 170, 172–174, 176, 177, 31–35, 38–44, 46–48, 52, 54, 56, 58,
181–183, 216 60, 62, 65–68, 75–82, 84–87, 91–93,
95–104, 108, 117, 121–124, 127–129,
H 147–149, 154, 158, 160, 162–165, 169,
Heritage, 51, 52, 55, 57, 63, 67, 108, 109, 170, 172–174, 176, 183, 185–187,
111–117, 121, 122, 126–130, 155, 158, 189–192, 200–203, 207, 212, 218
162–164 Participatory action research, 1, 45, 133
Housing cooperative, 91, 92, 94–104 Participatory democracy, 32, 75, 78, 87, 99
Participatory governance, 1, 8, 46–48, 61, 65,
I 67, 68, 78, 84
Inclusive, 2–4, 7, 9, 14, 24, 52, 76, 79, 92, 98, Participatory planning, 4, 6–8, 13–15, 17–19,
121, 173, 177, 185, 202, 203 22, 24, 27, 31–35, 43–46, 48, 86, 107,
Infrastructure, 9, 14, 15, 18, 24, 39, 66, 80, 82, 108, 116, 117, 135, 187, 201
102, 134, 152, 185–190, 193–203 Participatory process, 1, 3, 14, 17–27, 33, 43,
Institutional, 6, 8, 9, 14, 16, 17, 20, 23, 27, 44, 53, 57, 60, 62, 65–67, 84, 94, 104,
32–34, 38, 48, 65, 92, 93, 95, 112, 124, 108, 109, 111, 113, 129, 142, 169, 170,
128, 129, 142, 172, 176, 185, 187 173, 174, 179, 203
Participatory research, 26, 107–110, 112, 117,
K 135, 138, 139, 141, 207
Knowledge transfer, 3, 96 Partnership, 2, 3, 6, 32, 40, 54, 68, 69, 101,
104, 112, 114, 124, 149, 159, 164, 165
L Policy, 1–4, 6, 7, 9, 13, 23, 25, 31, 32, 45, 46,
Learning process, 14, 23, 176 53, 54, 56, 60, 61, 64, 66, 76, 78, 84, 91,
Living lab, 40–43, 80 93–96, 101, 109, 111, 112, 117, 121,
Local development, 34, 45, 52, 54, 57, 84, 107, 127, 133, 139, 142, 148, 172, 174, 175,
108, 116, 213 185, 186, 203, 207, 209, 211, 215, 217
Local level, 4, 13, 26, 27, 35, 46, 53, 54, 57, Policymaker, 111, 142, 143, 174
66, 69, 70, 114–117, 176, 200, 201, Post-socialist, 31, 33, 34, 46, 47, 76, 85, 107
207, 211, 212, 214, 217, 218 Power dynamic, 1, 2, 6, 7, 9
Protected area, 51, 52, 54–58, 61, 63, 64,
M 67–69, 172
Management plan, 6, 57, 60–69, 211 Public participation, 15, 18, 40, 123, 124, 147,
Management system, 45, 51–55, 57, 66, 67 148, 165, 173, 218
Marginalized group, 34, 40, 42, 43, 46–48, 78
Subject Index 227
R Sustainable development, 14, 53, 57, 63, 64,

Ramsar, 170, 172 66, 68, 75, 96, 98, 108, 109, 112, 116,
Recovery, 147–156, 158, 160, 162–165 134, 170
Regional development, 81, 87, 107–109, 186
Regional level, 13, 19, 35, 80, 96, 176, 202, T
203 Tokenism, 147, 149, 189
Representation, 2, 6, 33, 117, 182 Town, 31, 34, 36, 109, 155, 210
Resilience, 1, 2, 4–6, 9 Transdisciplinary, 116
River contract, 170, 172, 173 Transport, 13–20, 23–26, 55, 171, 185, 186,
190, 194, 202
S
Social capital, 23, 25, 79, 82, 91–94, 100, 104, U
108, 115 UNESCO, 51–54, 56, 57, 68, 69, 111
Social cohesion, 9, 92, 94, 115, 116, 186 Urban greens, 34, 40–42, 75–79, 84, 87
Social media, 18, 40–43, 45 Urban planning, 2, 4, 5, 9, 75, 77, 78, 121
Stakeholder, 3, 4, 6–8, 13, 17–27, 32, 40–42, Urban resilience, 1, 2, 4, 6, 9
45, 51–55, 57, 65–67, 69, 77–81, Urban spaces, 1
84–86, 92, 93, 108, 109, 115, 116, 121,
127, 129, 133, 135, 142, 149, 162, 169, W
170, 172–183, 185–187, 189–193, Web platform, 40–42
196–203, 207, 209, 211, 212, 216–218 Wetland, 55, 63, 169–183
Stakeholder analysis, 3, 4, 15, 17, 18, 169, 170, Workshop, 7, 8, 13, 15–17, 19, 20, 23, 25, 26,
172, 174, 177 28, 40–46, 60, 80, 81, 84–86, 97, 111,
Stakeholder mapping, 174, 176, 178, 180–183 116, 117, 124, 126, 127, 179, 181, 182,
Strategic planning, 14, 19, 34, 40–43, 46, 47, 197
112 World heritage site, 51, 52
Sustainability, 1, 2, 60, 68, 75, 76, 79, 81, 86,
87, 98, 99, 112, 129, 134, 137, 139, 141,
142

Para Cortar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Para Cortar

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Para Cortar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 5

Promises and Limits of Participatory

Martin Pogačar, Jasna Fakin Bajec, Katarina Polajnar Horvat,

M. Pogačar (B) · J. Fakin Bajec

© The Author(s) 2020 75

Keywords Urban green spaces · Participation · Community · Sustainability ·

5.2 Participation in Urban Planning and Management

opment of UGS (urbanists, architects, and decision-making bodies). The potential

Such practices require moving beyond internalized hierarchical structures, negoti-

ernance structures, they also present an opportunity to find unexpected solutions

5.3 Presentation of Pilot Actions

oped measures to increase people’s awareness of the benefits of green spaces,

5.4 Involving the Community

5.4.1 Detecting and Mobilizing the Community

When working with citizens or communities engaged in participatory approaches,

The Maribor situation, however, lacked an organic community. In comparison to

5.4.2 Managing and Sustaining a Community

Abstract The chapter presents a theoretical overview of the participatory practice

Keywords Cooperative · Housing · Participation · Community · Barcelona ·

D. Visković Rojs (B) · M. Hawlina · B. Gračner · R. Ramšak

© The Author(s) 2020 91

6.1 Institutional Framework of the Housing Question—The

The rise of alternative housing models should primarily be understood as a response

6.2 The Rise of Participatory Approaches in Housing:

the idea of a functional society. The possibility of individuals’ civic engagement

6.3 Rental Housing Cooperative Model

Cooperative is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common

A cooperative is an institutional form that connects individuals with certain needs

5. Education, training and information:

6.3.1 La Borda—Introducing a Housing Cooperative Model

6.3.2 Mehr Als Wohnen—A Broad Community-Oriented

6.4 Effects of the Participatory Cooperative Housing

6.4.1 Cooperative Schools of Democracy

6.4.2 Replacing Public Institutions?

As already mentioned, contemporary alternative housing models were developed

6.4.3 Housing Cooperatives as Gentrifiers or Regulators

Housing cooperatives, as previously established, focus on fulfilling their members’

Janez Nared and David Bole

Keywords Culture · Heritage · Development · Economic potentials · Participatory

J. Nared (B) · D. Bole

South-East Europe Transnational Cooperation Programme that addressed culture as

In a wider context, local culture is an important component of regional develop-

difficult to transfer to other areas, participatory research-driven results that involve

Fig. 7.1 Workshop is Cetinje, Montenegro. Photograph Janez Nared

7.3 Results and Discussion

7.3.1 The Role of Cultural Heritage in Sustainable

7.3.2 The Uniqueness and Non-renewable Character

7.3.3 The Economic Potentials of Cultural Heritage

negative consequences in the longer term. To prevent hit-and-run tourism, cultural

7.3.4 The Territorial Setting for Fostering Cultural Heritage

7.3.5 Lessons Learned: A Perspective from South-East

7.3.6 A Reflection and the Wider Implications of This

(Scheyvens 1999). This diversity of the involved stakeholders is extremely important

Nared J, Razpotnik Visković N, Cremer-Schulte D, Brozzi R, Cortines Garcia F (2015) Achieving

Špela Ledinek Lozej

Abstract The chapter presents creation of a collaborative inventory and a cross-

Keywords Participation · Heritage · Inventory · Borderland · Cross-border

Š. Ledinek Lozej (B)

© The Author(s) 2020 121