TITLE: Network approach to constructing theory of participation in spatial planning AUTHORS: Nataša Lovrić1, Marko Lovrić1, 1 European Forest Institute, Finland CONTACT OF THE CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Nataša Lovrić, Yliopistokatu 6, 80100, Joensuu, Finland EMAIL:
[email protected] You can download the original paper at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.07.038 Abstract Although importance of participation in public decision making is widely recognized in policy sciences, there is no consensus on what its preferred role and meaning would be. In the practice of European spatial planning, its outcome - impacts are peripheral, and there is no distinct theoretical explanation underpinning why this is so, and how the situation may be altered. The primary aim of the study is to tackle this issue; by developing initial step towards a theoretical explanation of participation in spatial planning. The inductive analysis is based on such process for the Nature Park Medvednica, a protected area in Croatia affected with strong urbanization. The research design is based on grounded theory, an approach for developing theoretical explanations of a given phenomenon by gathering qualitative data rooted in practical case(s), where the explanation is decontextualized and thus universal enough that it can be used in other cases (i.e. generalized). However, there is a high level of inconsistency on how exactly grounded theory should be applied, which diminishes the validity of its claims. The secondary aim of the study is to provide structure to how grounded theory could be applied; by developing a series of methodological steps rooted in social network analysis, and thus enhancing its replicability. Primary data is drawn from 56 interviews, covering a 30-year process of spatial planning. On a practical level, the results demonstrate that the role of participation in spatial planning for Nature Park Medvednica does not substantially differ from other comparable cases, where it starts late in the process and has mostly a symbolic role. On a theoretical level, a series of highly general, decontextualized codes have been developed, such as classification of actors, forms of participation and of system that suppresses its prominence. The research also identifies some policy solutions on how to alter the situation; for an individual process of spatial planning, disempowered groups can substantially affect the outcome only through public political engagement, which in turn is affected by ‘calculation’ of personal costs and benefits of participation. On a more general level, the change of the role of participation in spatial planning of a given local setting can occur through the following modes: (I) change of power relations between (construction) interest groups and the administration that leads the process, and (II) change in how the ‘value’ of a spatial plan is perceived by the administration that leads the process - from a system that promotes professional expertise and human-centered values to a system which endorses participation of the ‘lay’, de-values formal expertise, and perceives that nature has a value on its own, independent from human needs.
Key words: Spatial planning, participation, social network analysis, grounded theory, Croatia 1. Introduction
Public participation has entrenched over hierarchical public policy practitioner – client relation that dominated the positivistic policy sciences and practice (Cooke and Kothari, 2001). However, participation is a viable approach, if not a necessity, for dealing with ‘wicked’ problems (Rittel and Webber, 1973) of public policy (Fischer, 1993, Cooper et al, 2006). For Habermas (1975), implementation of top-down ‘scientific practices’ of policy science socially delegitimizes the political process as it supports elite decision-making and creates outcomes that would not be generated through a public deliberation. This notion is further elaborated by Foucault (2002), by whom professional expertise (of policy science and practice) has an emphasized function of social control; legitimizing itself on a claim to be value-neutral, it sets about natural description of the situation and preferable solutions which essentially delineate the political domain itself. Nevertheless, the claim of value-neutral stance is false, and thus professional expertise serves specific power interests and its practice is an antagonist to the democratization of society. Public participation may mean different things to different people, and there is no shared understanding on what are its preferred roles in the procedures and outcomes of public policy (Renn et al, 1993; Fiorino, 1990; Beierle, 1999; Rowe and Frewer, 2000; Innes and Booher, 2004; Bryson et al, 2012). Spatial planning in the European Union (EU) is no different from other policy domains, as participation permeates many segments of its legislation (e.g. Aarhus Convention, Bristol Accord, European Landscape Convention, and Directives 2003/05, 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC). However, there is evidence that the role of participation in spatial planning practice strongly deviates from its legislative requirements (i.e. it has very weak impact on decisions and only begins close to the end of the process). In addition, aside from describing the current state of affairs, there is no thorough theoretical underpinning of how policy interventions, with respect to micro and macro social conditions, can alter the role of participation (e.g. Conelly, 2006, Conrad et al, 2011, Fülöp 2013). With these issues in mind, the following research question emerges; “How different factors shape the participation practices in spatial planning?” The ‘participatory approach’ at the heart of it represents assessing alternative solutions through criteria that developed from divergent needs and values in a discursive confrontation of relevant actors (Habermas, 1975). As it emerges from a strong post-positivistic history of thought (see Fischer, 1993 for overview), it may be considered appropriate to study participation in spatial planning through interpretative approaches with inductive theorizing. Framing the study in positivistic epistemological stance with deductive theorizing might lead to outlining of the social actors, their wants and needs into pre-defined categories that support current social structure, and thus bring about policy solutions that fail to generate consent of relevant actors. A prominent inductive approach is the grounded theory (GT; Glaser and Strauss, 1967), which in shortest form can be defined as “the discovery of theory from data systematically obtained from social research” (p.2). Although its authors provide explanation of how the GT process should look like (Glaser, 1978; Strauss, 1987), it may be argued that there are as
many versions of grounded theory analysis as there are theorists (Dey, 1999). Faced with this challenge, it may be difficult for a research community to accept an understanding of a participatory process if the methodological steps that are undertaken have low level of replicability. Following the principles of grounded theory, this study offers a methodological step-by-step procedure on how to inductively analyse qualitative data in order to generate theoretical understanding of the phenomenon under study. The replicability issue is tackled by framing the methodological steps into formal (quantitative) routines of Social Network Analysis (SNA; Wasserman and Faust, 1994), where the SNA procedures are matched to corresponding GT coding procedures so that they assist the researcher in finding patterns in qualitative data. 2. Spatial planning of Nature Park Medvednica Nature Park (NP) Medvednica is a mountain area situated on the north edges of Croatia’s capital Zagreb, where the city is slowly expanding within the Park. Nature park (corresponding to IUCN category V) is a national category of protection where sustainable usage of natural resources is allowed in its outer parts. NP Medvednica is protected because of its forest habitats, which are also protected under the Natura 2000 network. The spatial planning process for NP Medvednica had three phases: (I) 1981-1989 within former Yugoslavia, (II) 2002-2005 within independent Republic of Croatia in a post-war period and (III) 2012-2014 during the EU-accession period. The Park was established in 1981 on 22,860 ha, and at the same time preparation of its spatial plan began. The part was divided into four zones: Zone I (strict protection - 11% of the Park’s area) where no activities are allowed, Zone II (active protection – 49%) where sustainable forestry is allowed, Zone III (usage zone – 14%) where touristic infrastructure, agriculture and settlements are present and Zone IV (buffer zone – 26%), which is practically a suburb of Zagreb. The first interaction with stakeholders began in 1988 and encompassed 44 stakeholders engaged through surveys, public hearings and consultation meetings. The spatial planning team also held additional consultations with 26 different experts, covering different fields of expertise such as commuting and traffic, environmental protection and tourism. Each public hearing had a ‘pre-hearing’, a form of consultative meeting during which all interested parties had the opportunity to discuss matters and prepare for the official hearing. The General State Administration of Socialistic Republic of Croatia (within Yugoslavia) was focused on municipalities and as a result, the public hearings were held separately for each municipality. The organization of municipal policy-making was such that a strong emphasis was placed on direct participation of citizens through Municipal associations (Cavrić and Nedović-Budić, 2007). In 1989, the process ceased. Although no formal explanation was provided, there is an informal consensus that the reason behind it was the pressure imposed by hunting associations, as this activity of local population would diminish if there were a spatial plan in place for NP Medvednica (PFO 1-2; City Zg 1-9; Min. Spat 1-3; Inst. Tourism 1-2; NP Medved 1-2; OIKON, Hunt – see Appendix A). The second process of spatial planning lasted from 2002 to 2005. As the Republic of Croatia is administratively organized through counties (regional government), the spatial planning issue was allocated to the City of Zagreb which has a status of a county (although two more counties are represented in the Park’s area Krapina-Zagorje County and Zagreb County). The City of Zagreb consulted with 21 stakeholders and 5 external experts. Unlike the previous process, this time the
consultations were performed only with different segments of national and regional administration. A draft version of the spatial plan was presented to the public on September the 28th, 2005. The second round of stakeholder engagement was focused on public hearings, which were held from 7th of September until 7th of October 2005, and most of the discussion was devoted to the topic of the Park’s borders. As majority of stakeholders (such as concerned citizens, mountaineering and environmental NGOs, hunters and representatives of local population) could engage through public hearings, several thousands of people participated in them. The main reason for such strong response of people to the public hearings was large media attention that the spatial planning for NP Medvednica had received. The main message carried by the media was that there is no construction allowed in the Park, and that all which was already constructed will become illegal. However, this message was contrary to the zoning system for NP Medvednica, as construction was allowed in Zone IV and with some limitations in Zone III (Draft Spatial Plan of areas with special characteristics of NP Medvednica 2005 and Draft Bill of Amendments to the Law on Proclaiming the Western Part of Nature Park Medvednica, 2005; Oikon; City Zg 2-7; Min. Spat 1-3; IGH; Min. Cult; NGO, SINP). The hearings resulted with 733 received complaints on the draft plan, out of which 81 were accepted. Vast majority of the complaints that were accepted stated that due to a high level of urbanization, certain areas were excluded from the Park. However, spatial planning stopped at this point, and subsequently in 2008, it was decided that only the Park’s area should be decreased by 4 888 ha. This decrease roughly corresponds to the area of Zone IV which was meant to serve as a buffer to Zagreb’s sprawl upwards the mountain, and has effectively decreased the Park’s population from 33400 to 7400. The formal explanation of the decision came from public pressure stating that this solution represents a viable compromise between urbanization and nature protection (Croatian Parliament, 2008). The third process of spatial planning began in 2012, with the same experts from the City of Zagreb leading the process as in the second attempt. The third round of public hearings was held between February and March 2014, taking place in all three counties covered by the Park. The hearings were not marked with any strong conflicts, and they mostly focused on presenting current developments of the Plan. Out of the 635 received complaints, 223 were accepted. However, the spatial planning team decided not to accept these complaints to the plan being under consideration; rather, they stated that if another plan is subsequently prepared, that those complaints would be addressed there. As of now, there is no other plan which is in consideration and one would probably not be made in the several decades to come (Meeting Minutes Kr. Zg, Count Zg and Zg); as the legislative framework of Croatia does not prescribe the mandatory term of validity and the time commitment for the preparation of a new spatial plan. The vast majority of the complaints that were ‘accepted’ were related to the harmonization of the spatial plan for NP Medvednica with the general national legislative framework (Ministry of Construction and Physical Planning, 2014). The significant difference between the drafts of the spatial plan in the second and third process is that the third plan deals with the decrease of road infrastructure leading to the top of the mountain and places emphasis on public transportation (particularly cable car). Moreover, it contains an increase in touristic infrastructure in the peak area compared to the second draft, and this is especially the case for the development of skiing tourism. The consultation meetings in the third process were designed in such manner where one by one expert-level stakeholder was invited to collaborate with the spatial planning team. The decision on approving the Spatial Plan for NP Medvednica was finally adopted by the Croatian Parliament on July 15, 2014. The decision was published in the "Official Gazette", No. 89/14 on July 24, 2014. For a longer description of the spatial planning process, refer to Lovrić, 2015.
3. Materials and Methods The initial step was to read all the available documentation, where the goal was to provide the researcher with an overview of the developments, the general characteristics of the central phenomenon, and to select initial interviewees who have a broad understanding of the topic (Strauss and Corbin, 1998, p. 205). The selection of interviewees was based the ‘snowball sampling’ procedure, where interviewees nominated other interviewees that might be knowledgeable on the process of spatial planning for NP Medvednica, represent a stakeholder group, or might shed new insight to developing concepts. All single nominations of a potential interviewee were accepted. The initial four interviewees were the key people in charge of the second and the third process of spatial planning for NP Medvednica. The first group of interviewees (total of 14) consisted out scientists who participated in the process or teach courses related to the spatial planning in protected areas, and several individuals who have been involved in the designing phase of all three processes. They have provided an overview of the developments in spatial planning for NP Medvednica, and have provided substantial internal, technical documentation that was used in all three processes of spatial planning. Such documentation encompasses expert background documents from different fields, minutes from public hearings and consultation processes, maps, results and analysis of questionnaires with the public, and book of complaints on the spatial plan (See Appendix A). The second group of interviewees (total of 24) represented different stakeholder groups; such as NGOs, mountaineers, hunters, and different organizations of public administration, such as Counties, Ministries and its expert agencies. The third group of interviewees (total of 13) consisted of central figures involved in the process of spatial planning. In the end, a total of 5 interviewees from different stakeholders’ organizations were once again interviewed. The interviews were preceded by a telephone call in which the questions and the ethical considerations of the interview were covered. The subsequent face-to-face interviews were then transcribed and sent to the interviewees for verification. The analysis of the interviews had also shaped the list of respondents, as the limiting factor was theoretical saturation (Charmaz, 2006, p.113). With this procedure, 56 face-to-face interviews were conducted. One interview was not recorded as it was requested by the interviewee, and one person who declined to be interviewed, nominated a colleague from the same organization who did end up taking part in the interview. On average, the interviews lasted around 1 to 1.5 hours; some lasted up to 3 hours, while the shortest one was only 15 minutes. Data was collected in the period November 2011 to September 2014. One may refer to the complete list of interviewees in Appendix A. After each type of coding, the preliminary results were sent back to the particular interviewees for comment, and supplemented with new interviews in order to fill-in the data gaps (e.g. insufficient elaboration of a certain code or missing causes or consequences of a certain action). The analysis was subsequently repeated after each additional feedback, and only the final cycle of analysis is presented in the results. In all of the steps, the researchers referred back not just to the labels but also to the transcriptions in order to fill-in the data gaps, with the intention to define the concepts properly. If an ‘answer’ to some of the posed questions was not found in the existing data, it was noted as an item in subsequent interviews. Such interviewees were chosen so that they could ‘fill-in’ these conceptual blind spots.
This study is rooted in procedures of GT (Corbin & Strauss, 1990; Strauss & Corbin, 1994, 1998), according to which different (coding) procedures are used to design codes with increasing levels of theoretical abstraction, and the interrelations between final, highly general codes (i.e. central categories) form the ‘storyline’ or main body of the constructed grounded theory. The GT procedures state that the data collection and analysis go in parallel, where the preliminary results are tested against new data and viewpoints. The basic method through which these theoretical codes are developed is the constant comparison, a process through which codes are compared to one another until theoretical saturation is achieved, i.e. (Glaser, 1978, p. 124-126; Glaser and Strauss, 1967, p. 61-62, p. 111-112; Strauss and Corbin, 1998, p.212):
No new relevant data emerges in a central category
The category is soundly developed regarding its properties and dimensions by demonstrating variation (‘properties - general or specific characteristics or attributes of a category, dimensions - location of a property along a continuum or range’ - Strauss and Corbin, 1998 p.117)
Relationships categories are well established as well as validated
Labeling was the first stage of analysis (Strauss and Corbin, 1998, p.106). It is a technique for initial conceptualization of data where the title suggests the meaning of the label. There were labels established for each individual segment of transcriptions, which are focusing on a single idea, i.e. the goal was to answer the question ‘What is the major idea brought out in this paragraph?’ (Strauss and Corbin, 1998, p.120). Labels were clustered into different types of codes (groups of labels with a shared meaning). A code consists of (I) title indicating its meaning (II) memo – a paragraph-long explanation and (III) list of all its labels. This study differs from previous GT studies as in this case the constant comparison method is systemized to a series of replicable analytical steps, supported by different procedures of Social Network Analysis. In practical terms, this means that if a ‘conceptual connection’ between two codes is found, then this connection is imputed into corresponding matrix of codes and analyzed quantitatively. We illustrate the basis of the constant comparison method on the unregulated participation code by comparing codes process design (which explains how the state administration designs participation) and non-participation (passive forms of participation such as surveys for collecting opinions). The analysis showed that these two codes share a number of labels. Subsequently, it was recorded which labels and how many of them are shared between these two codes. When these shared labels are analyzed separately from their initial codes, they form a separate code - unregulated participation. This code explains that the legislative framework does not specify the forms of participation, so the administration implements it arbitrary according to local cultural-historical context. This example and structure of code process design are presented in Appendix B. Such procedure is repeated for all codes of the same level of abstraction which results in different codes matrices, and which in turn function as the basis for different SNA procedures that are used to structure codes of higher level of abstraction, namely:
Degree centrality (Freeman, 1978) is a measure of the number of shared labels between a certain code and all the others. This measure is used to identify how
distinctive are its properties and dimensions in comparison to other codes.
Strength of ‘conceptual connections’ (or number of shared labels) between two codes. This measure is used to identify prominent ‘intersections’ of codes which could become new codes on their own, and thus reveal new patterns in the data.
Multi-dimensional scaling (MDS; Borg and Groenen, 2005). Here it is used as a visualization technique of the relations between the codes, and all figures are in MDS layout. In this layout, the codes with higher degree centrality are closer to the center of the figure, indicating that they are strongly related to many other codes, and the proximity between any two codes reflects the number of shared labels. In most cases, the lines and the code symbols are scaled, where thicker and darker lines represent higher number of shared codes, and varied code symbol size reflects the number of contained labels.
Factions analysis. This routine identifies maximally interconnected groups of codes that have a minimal level of connections between them. This procedure is used to identify cohesive groups of codes that could together form a joint, more theoretical code. In figures, these factions are marked with rectangles and oval shapes encompassing different codes that fall within them. All central categories are defined through factions analysis, and they are identified by comparing codes of the same or of a different type.
These procedures have been applied in almost each step of the coding1. Each of the coding steps has also ‘shed-away’ underdeveloped codes, which had high dyadic degree and low overall degree, low number of labels, and were at the edges of the MDS layout. Following guidelines on coding (Charmaz, 2006, Saldana, 2015), the analysis is split into the following steps: 1. Open coding. It represents initial development of codes with their own unique properties and dimensions (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). a. Design initial (L1) codes, i.e. ‘classify’ labels through constant comparison, where a code captures basic features of the labels that it contains. The process is analogous to what Strauss and Corbin (1998) call “conceptual ordering”, where labels are organized into discrete categories of increasing abstraction, which is a precursor to actual theorizing. b. Construct L1 x L1 matrix (See Figure 1). A matrix has been constructed where rows and columns are L1 codes. The entries in the matrix are the number of labels shared by the respective column and row-codes. The values in the matrix were set by comparing labels from all the codes to all other codes. c. Design more abstract (L2) codes. This is performed through comparison of properties and dimensions of L1 codes, as displayed in Appendix C. d. Construct L1 x L2 matrix (analogue to step 1.b, see Figure 2). e. Create preliminary GT storyline. This is performed by combining preliminary central categories that emerged from previous steps into a textual explanation of the participation in spatial planning (Appendix C).
1
Although we strive to apply them all from step 1b onwards, the data in several steps poses limitations. These include: In step 1d strength of ties and factions analysis could not be used (as the ties are binary and the matrix is composed of two different types of codes); step 2a does not use SNA procedures as it is basically a qualitative follow-up of step 1b – the same is valid for 1e, which is a qualitative interpretation of steps 1a-d; In step 2c strength of ties could not be used as the ties are binary.
2. Axial coding. Recognizing that construction of a theory grounded in data is not solely just lining-up of theoretical concepts, but it also includes the creation of a conceptual structure of concepts bound by a set of relational statements (Strauss and Corbin, 1998, p. 145), the emphasis in axial coding is placed on building the relations between the codes. It is split into the following: a. Create relational (R) codes (as label overlaps of L1 codes). As in step 1b, a L1 x L1 code matrix was constructed, but in this case the entries in the matrix are the actual labels shared by the respective row and column codes. Each matrix entry was defined as a separate, relational code. b. Construct R x R matrix (analogue to step 1.b; see Figure 3). Each of the R codes was, following guidelines on grouping in axial coding (Glaser and Strauss, 1967, Strauss and Corbin, 1998), designated to one of the following categories: (I) Context (a set of conditions influencing the action, more stable over time than causal conditions); (II) Causal conditions (events or variables that lead to the occurrence or development of the phenomenon, and are susceptible to change over time); (III) Phenomenon (the central object of research); (IV) Action strategies (goal-oriented activities that agents perform in response to the phenomenon) and (V) Consequences (intended and unintended consequences of the action strategies). c. Build causal relations. If a positive logical tie is identified between two relational codes, their corresponding cell in matrix of relational codes is marked with 1; otherwise it is 0. Such relations were made between relational codes of the same group, or between codes that belong to two adjacent groups of relational codes (i.e. a link is possible between codes in the groups context and causal conditions, but not between context and consequences). The purpose of this and the previous steps is to form a causality chain of factors that describe the participation in spatial planning for NP Medvednica. d. Construct L1 x R matrix (analogue to step 1b; see Figures 4-5), with a purpose of finding new data patterns. 3. Selective Coding. Represents the final step of analysis, i.e. refining the central categories and forming the inter-relations between them, which together form the theory (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). a. Fully develop central categories. Although they have been developed in previous steps, all of them are checked against following criteria (Strauss and Corbin, 1988, p.147): (I) all other major groups must be related to them; (II) they must appear frequently in the data, (III) explanation of categories is logical and evolves from the data, and (IV) they should be abstract enough so they allow for generalizability to other social contexts. b. Develop relations between central categories (see Figure 6). This structure is presented in a form of a storyline (Strauss and Corbin 1998, p.149), a short explanation of the central phenomenon and the conditions within which it occurs. Following the ethical guidelines for qualitative studies (Miles and Huberman, 1984, Creswell, 2007), the following steps have been taken: interviewees had permission from their organizations to talk to interviewees; only names of their organizations are used; interviewees verified the audio recordings and their transcripts as well as results, and if something was misinterpreted or could cause harm to interviewee – such text was deleted. Interviewees were informed on all of this issues before the interviews began, and also that they could choose not to answer any of the questions, stop the interview at any point, and also ask to be
totally excluded from the study.
4. Results 4.1. Open Coding Following the previously described steps, analysis has produced a total of 902 unique labels, 49 L1 codes classified in 7 groups, 13 L2 codes classified in 5 groups, 45 R codes classified in 5 groups and 11 central categories (the main, most general codes). All the names of the codes are presented in Appendix D, and the codes with their memos (i.e. explanation) and inter-relations are presented as supplementary material. As the codes are numerous, the results will mostly focus on presenting formation and interrelations between central categories. At the onset of the coding procedure (step 1a), four L1 codes that reflect forms of participation are identified, and they form an ordinal scale of participation as follows: 1. Non-participation. Represents passive involvement of stakeholders, where they have very little knowledge on spatial planning, their rights to participate, and on the NP Medvednica itself. They receive sparse information on the process of spatial planning and there is no feedback-mechanism to the spatial planning team. The spatial planning team endorses this mode of participation, where they regard everyone else but state administration as the non-expert public that just has to be informed on the decisions made by them. 2. Public hearings code. Only stakeholders who have personal benefits of participation attend them. They also perceive public hearings to have very low or no impact at all on the process. The spatial planning team sees public hearings as a legal obligation; however, as there is no obligation to accept any of the comments, they use public hearings primarily to inform the stakeholders on the developments of the plan. The comments and objections made by stakeholders are systematically written down and are then rejected. In such way, the public hearings formally fulfill their (symbolic) role; unfortunately, nothing has substantially changed. Nevertheless, public hearings may influence the spatial plan; when the interests of stakeholders are very strongly expressed (to a level of public protest), they can influence the priorities of the political elites. These political elites, in turn, influence the spatial planning team. 3. Consultation marks a mode of participation directed towards different parts of the public administration. The discussion in the consultation meetings is constructive, but the actual decisions are made by the spatial planning team (i.e. City of Zagreb.) The discussion is done on expert level. Participants at these meetings consider themselves as part of the spatial planning team; whereas the City of Zagreb considers them as stakeholders, whose opinion can be listened to, but they hold no discretionary rights over the process. All those who participate through consultation consider the current system of participation adequate. 4. Informal participation is the final form of participation, which represents actions of stakeholders who have direct interest and significant financial and/or political power. Most often, they do not take part in the formal process. They lobby informally to those who are part of the formal decision-making process. The rewards for compliance to their expectations are political support through donations, political favors and corruption.
The first central categories emerged through L1xL1 code matrix (step 1b; see Appendix C). The threshold for displaying relations was successively increased until a logical pattern2 of relations between the L1 codes emerged (eight or more shared labels), as presented in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Pattern decoupling from L1xL1 matrix The central category visible process represents a perspective on the structure of spatial planning endorsed by the spatial planners (City of Zagreb) and directed towards the public. From the side of the planners the process has many participatory characteristics and the main method for the ‘strong’ uptake of their ideas are public hearings. On the contrary, the public perceives this to be an inadequate facade and more of a non-participation. By assessing that the public hearings do not have an impact on the process, they are even more discouraged from participating. The central category hidden process represents an alternative perspective on spatial planning; one which focuses on the powerful stakeholders and their strong influence over the process of spatial planning. They represent 2
The Figure 1 was first visualized with all ties, and then ties with the value 1 were removed, then with value 2 and so on. At each of these steps we looked at the patterns between the codes, at the meaning of the codes, and tried to ‘connect’ them into a higher-level code that has consistent dimensions and properties. If the threshold was low, no patterns could be seen as there were too many connections. If too many ties were deleted, then there were only few codes that are connected, which could not form a wellrounded higher-level code.
special political and/or economic interests, and their informal influence is directed through the City of Zagreb. This group consists of political elites, the construction lobby group and the ski lobby group. All of them along with the City of Zagreb perceive the current structure of spatial planning as adequate. Their goal is not to have the spatial plan, or to have the plan after the borders of the NP Medvednica become diminished. In more general terms, it represents a structure of spatial planning where it is irrelevant which mode of participation is exercised as participation is futile and does not seem to have an impact on the decision-making. From the designing of more abstract (L2) codes, the most important result is classification of stakeholders into four groups: 1. The Outer group. They represent unorganized (or loosely organized) groups of different stakeholders, whose interests depend on the availability and sources of information on the subject matter. They feel that other, more powerful groups are manipulating them. They can influence the process if their interests are focused enough and if they feel that they can have benefits of participation on a personal level. In most cases, they are not interested in participation, the design of which they perceive to be inadequate. Moreover, they believe that the current structure of spatial planning is corrupt. In most cases, its broader segments (mostly local citizens) perceive that smaller, more focused segments (e.g. specialized NGOs) would better represent their joint interests in the process of spatial planning. They participate through public hearings, reply to questionnaires or become informed on the process by public media. They believe that they could really participate in the process of the spatial plan if the current structure of governing changes. 2. The Inner group. They represent different segments of state administration that are involved in the process, mostly in the form of experts. They are invited to consultation meetings but hold no substantial role in the decision-making process or on the agenda setting. They believe that the current form of participation is adequate, where they are the experts, and the 'others' (i.e. the outer group) should be merely informed on what the decisions entail. 3. The Formal decider. They have formal power of setting the agenda of decision-making, putting some decisions aside, defining the procedural and substantive aspects of spatial planning, and halting the process altogether. They believe that participation should have low impact on spatial planning. Although they are aware of other more 'liberal' forms of participation, they tend to cast them aside. The reasons for this are that in the case where the 'external', 'non-expert' actors would have a more prominent role, the formal deciders would decrease their own importance. Another reason is that participation has its procedural costs, which would require additional work (for which they would get no personal benefits) and would prolong the process of spatial planning. They are controlled by the powerful interest groups through political contributions. The formal decider also receives an input from the outer group in cases when their interests are explicit. However, the strength and importance of these interests, along with their substance, fluctuates with the passage of time and with the availability (and sources) of information. 4. The power behind the throne. This code encompasses strongly interconnected clusters of stakeholders that hold specialized interests. These interests do not contradict each other and they strive for broadening the scope of human presence and activities in the area. These interests contradict the interests of nature conservation, largely held by the outer group. They also hold the opinion that it is adequate that participation has low impact on spatial planning. Aside from controlling the formal decider through political donations, they also exert influence on parts of the inner group, and strongly shape the interests of the outer
group through public media campaigns. The second pair of central categories emerged from the L1xL2 matrix. It is visualized in Figure 2 below, where the white circles represent L1 codes and the black squares represent L2 codes.
Figure 2. Visualization of L1xL2 matrix Support to the system represent a structure through which the exercised mode of spatial planning is made possible. It entails all groups of stakeholders except the outer group, where their common trait is that they perceive the current system of participation as adequate. They have different attitudes toward nature protection in the area covered by the plan; the formal deciders and power behind the throne have 'human centered' attitude (nature as a mean of reaching human needs), while the inner group has a more 'balanced' attitude (equal importance of conservation and construction). The inner group also participates through consultation, which can also be seen as a symbolic participation with respect to its effect on the spatial plan. The central category opposition to the system is focused on the outer group of stakeholders, and its common trait to oppose the current system of spatial planning and its treatment of stakeholders. All members of this group also have in common the fact that their participation to the process is symbolic as they have no or very low influence on the process. They also tend to have 'nature
oriented' attitude (‘protection before construction’) towards the area covered by the spatial plan. Another characteristic is that the attitude of these actors can be subjected to change and turn from nature conservation to construction and vice versa.
4.2. Axial Coding The RxR code matrix visualization where codes are categorized to reflect causal relations (steps 2 b and c) is presented by Figure 3, and it reveals two additional central categories.
Figure 3. Visualization of RxR matrix The path of urbanization represents a 'path' for not bringing about a spatial plan and for diminishing the borders of the protected area. From the side of the outer group, the protected areas are viewed as something that will ‘burden’ them with personal costs through diminished construction possibilities. Fueled by public media, their organized action (taking the form of a public protest) supports the interest of the power behind the throne to halt the process, or to diminish the borders of the protected area. In addition, such development requires the powerful group to also have direct influence on the formal decider through their political
senior officials. The decisions are made with an aim to secure the interest of construction. The formal decider (i.e. spatial planning team) and most of the inner group (state and regional administration) have an ‘architectural’ approach to spatial planning. With this approach, the value of a spatial plan is equated with the level of expertise that goes into its design. Furthermore, the area under the plan is considered primarily as space to be subjugated to human needs, where a broad engagement of the outer group would severely slow down the process. This is also complementary to the passive role of the outer group, who by perceiving the internal dynamics of the process, refrain themselves from participating. Such passive behavior only reinforces their position of low influence. Balanced planning through active engagement represents a 'path' for bringing about the spatial plan and realization of the nature protection interests, held mostly by the outer group. From the side of the formal decider and inner group, this situation is preconditioned by high level of information and acceptance of the 'urbanistic' (as opposed to ‘architectural’) approach to spatial planning. The ‘urbanistic’ approach equally takes into account human needs and the value of nature on its own. Additionally, the value of the spatial plan is equated with the level to which the needs of all the stakeholders of the area are fulfilled. From the side of the outer group (e.g. citizens and NGOs), it requires that they perceive the current mode of planning as inadequate, and have personal benefits of having a spatial plan, i.e. having one allows nature protection of the area to be assured. It also recognizes that without their active involvement they may experience personal losses, as the plan may not go in their favor. The key code in this ‘chain’ is the active stakeholders, which is presumably the only action strategy part of it. The active stakeholders code encompasses strong, organized collective action of stakeholders that surpasses the process of spatial planning and becomes a local political priority, and in turn, indirectly influences the spatial planning. It can also be seen that active stakeholders is the only code shared mutually by both central categories of Figure 3; whereas, in path of urbanization it causes area decrease due to public pressure and in balanced planning through active engagement it results in bringing about a spatial plan. All the other central categories (Step 1d) are generated through L1xR matrix (Figures 4 and 5).
Figure 4. Visualization of L1xR matrix Figure 4 shows areas of high and low density of codes, where several groups of codes are on the periphery of the graph. The central category is pressure of hunting (top left), which relates to activities of hunters as interest group to have unrestricted hunting at the northern slopes of NP Medvednica. One may argue that their main goal is to stop the process of spatial planning. The second category is titled public pressure for construction (center). As citizens are owners of forest and construction land, they have interest for construction projects within NP Medvednica; as such, they can influence the formal decider accordingly (not to create a plan or to decrease the area). The construction-oriented attitude has been enhanced by media, by stating that no construction activities are allowed. This development demonstrates that recognition of personal benefits causes a reaction in the outer group, which in turn can affect the process of spatial planning. At the bottom of the graph the category forest management for profit is located. This category relates to the interest of managing forests within NP Medvednica primarily for the state forest management company’s profit. With that interest in mind, the Company strives to cancel or to diminish the forest protection status and ensure that no spatial plan is prepared. As many overlapping codes occupy the top right part of the graph (entitled power as driving force & structure of exclusion), this area of the MDS layout is magnified in Figure 5 (only ties signifying ten or more joint labels are shown).
Figure 5. Visualization of two central categories from L1xR matrix The top-left group of codes in Figure 5 represents the central category power as a driving force. In this category, the construction lobby and the political elites hold the dominant position. The system is constructed in such a way that the decision making is centralized in the City of Zagreb, who by having procedural control of the spatial planning, acts as the ‘visible’ part of the system, while the impacts of the political elites and the construction lobby remain disconnected from what is seen by the other groups, i.e. NGOs and citizens. The structure of exclusion is another central category, focused on procedural aspects of the spatial planning process. Its most distinctive feature is that the inherent interests of the formal decider impede the substantial impact of the outer group on the process of spatial planning. The outer group perceives the process of spatial planning as unjust, which de-motivates them from participating. They also largely do not feel that they have some personal benefits from participating, so they may decide to avoid participation altogether; or they believe that smaller and focused organizations such as NGOs are more appropriate to represent their interest(s). The outer group also has significant costs of participating; as they have to devote time and money to participate in public hearings or to some other mode of participation. Since they have little information on the process they have to spend a considerable amount of time gathering appropriate knowledge which will in turn empower them to feel that they are participating on an “equal level” with the other stakeholders. All of these costs in terms of time and money outweigh the potential benefits of participation, especially knowing that their effort might not have an effect on the
process. The formal decider also has an inherent interest not to utilize strong participation mechanisms; as participation makes the duration of the process longer. Moreover, they do not receive any personal benefits (e.g. increase in salary) if they were to implement it. In addition, it is also very difficult for the formal decider to take into account many conflicting interests, where usage of broad participation also implies that spatial planners have to talk on even terms with the 'lay and uninformed citizens'. It may be stated that in essence, the formal decider perceives themselves as experts - and they remark that all inputs to the spatial planning process deriving from the outer group are non-expert ones and thus less important.
4.3. Selective Coding The final step in the analysis was to form a GT storyline that intertwines all of the central categories. This is graphically depicted in Figure 6 below.
Figure 6. Graphical explanation of the grounded theory3
3
Figure 6 is in MDS layout, where the proximity of central categories reflects the number of shared labels. The size of squares reflects the number of the labels that they contain. However, the storyline was mostly constructed by connecting the central categories through their properties and dimensions. The same criterion was used to group
The inner structure of spatial planning is such that the power relations between its stakeholders (power behind the throne, formal decider and to a certain extent the inner group) define the course of the process. The actual process is hidden from the outer group. Under such circumstance, the discretionary rights over the process have been centralized to a single actor - the formal decider. In order to support this structure, the formal decider has symbolically included many parts of the state administration in the process (i.e. the inner group). The inner group supports the structure as they feel that their opinions and expertise are important, which in turn improves their status in their professional spheres. Both the formal decider and the inner group protect the inner structure of spatial planning by characterizing it as an expert-based decision making process. As such, the outer group is characterized by the formal decider and the inner group as ‘the lay’, who by not being ‘experts’, cannot truly understand spatial planning and thus cannot judge its outcomes. The inner structure is in clash with the outer opposition, which is almost exclusively focused on the outer group. What is visible to the outer opposition is that they can make their options heard by the formal decider (through public hearings, questionnaires, etc.), but are not listened to. Having no influence on the process and seeing their opinions as unimportant to the formal decider, the outer group opposes the system by labeling it as corrupt. Being demotivated by lack of personal benefits and having the perception of spatial planning as being a corruption-ridden process distances them even more from participating, which in turn reinforces the isolation of decision-making from the non-participating stakeholders. From the perspective of a formal decider, the costs of participation outweigh its benefits; by applying it they do not receive any personal benefits, they de-value themselves within their professional spheres, and they prolong and ‘complicate’ the process. All of this ‘inertia’ forms a self-reinforcing structure of exclusion from the process of spatial planning. The result of this situation is a continuous path of urbanization, where there is no legal restriction on the ‘development’ activities within the area. From the inner structure, factors that lead to such outcome are political influence and corruption. In regards to the outer opposition, the most important factors are the outer group’s passive acceptance of the current situation characterized with low knowledge on their rights to participate and on the area itself, which leads to outcomes that do not go in their favor. Their low level of knowledge is recognized by the inner structures, which through public media campaigns strongly overemphasize the development restrictions in the area posed by nature protection. This makes the outer group overestimate the personal costs of supporting nature protection, which in turn pressures the formal decider to lead the process onto a path of continuous urbanization. An alternative outcome of spatial planning which balances nature protection and development can be achieved by high level of knowledge of the outer group, which in turn leads to recognition of personal benefits (of nature protection), a common good, which then leads to active (public) protest against the current situation. Active protest may alter the political preferences of the formal decider, which leads to a ‘balanced planning’ outcome. Elements that may change the structure of a participation process are: strong political perturbations which change the power relations of the interest groups, supra-national influences which force compliance to legislative acts not set by the national political spheres and change(s) within the formal deciders from the professional field of architecturebased spatial planning towards more ‘holistic’ spatial planning where input from stakeholders is perceived as a benefit to the process.
central categories, as displayed by the rectangles and ellipses that are super-imposed to the graph. The lines are also super-imposed to the graph, signifying the most important dimension shared between the central categories.
5. Discussion When it comes to threats to research validity (Cook and Campbell, 1979), first item of discussion is the notion of construct validity (Messick, 1995). The theoretical saturation occurred around the 45th (out of 56) interview. There were a total of three rounds of feedback gained from the interviewees, after which the main comment was that the presented findings take into account all the factors that affect participation in spatial planning for NP Medvednica. A lot of similarities can be seen between the storyline presented in the results chapter and its preliminary form presented in Appendix C, demonstrating that a large portion of the research question was answered already with open coding analysis. In order to diminish the effect of researcher bias (i.e. preconceived ideas and internalized theoretical frameworks), two researchers performed the analysis. The main negative argument of construct validity that could be stated is that the constant-comparison method of analysis is obfuscated with its quite general guidelines and thus that the study has low replicability. We have tried to cope with this issue by structuring the constant-comparison method through pre-defined analytical steps and SNA procedures – which is in essence, the theoretical innovation of this study. The multitude on analytical steps were designed to uncover all the possible patterns in the data that could be missed due to researcher bias; and this can be regarded as a ‘within-method triangulation’ (Glaser and Strauss, 1965, p.7). It may well be that not all of these steps are necessary when this research design is applied in other cases; but the real deciding factor is the feedback gained from the interviewees. Another threat to construct validity is that SNA procedures are used as a support to uncover patterns in qualitative data; thus, they cannot be fully prescribed nor followed. As example of these deviations is the discrimination between central categories power as a driving force and structure of exclusion (Figure 5) that emerged with threshold of ten shared labels between the codes; while in some other data-set the dichotomization threshold from which the data-patters would be visible may be different. Another example is the classifying code active stakeholders both in the central categories path of urbanization and balanced planning through active engagement, while it quantitatively belongs only to the faction of the latter category; this deviation from the factions’ routine was done in order to create internal consistency of codes according to the criteria of theoretical saturation. Researchers may also use additional SNA procedures; e.g. use eigenvector (Bonachich, 2007) instead of degree centrality to demonstrate the prominence of codes, use E-I index (Krackhardt and Stern, 1988) to test the level to which labels are uniquely clustered into codes, or use core/periphery procedures (Borgatti and Everett, 2000) instead of factions, if it is more fitting to the data structure. The next item of discussion is the internal validity (Brewer, 2000). As the research covers a long period, it was able to capture the temporal ‘causality chain’ of factors that describe participation. However, it would be more prudent to state that two factors covary and are not in a causal relation; e.g. the resources and interest needed for participation relate to the exercised modes of participation for all groups of actors, and it cannot be clearly differentiated which is the cause and which is the effect. Yet another threat to internal validity is the fact that both researchers who have performed the analysis have the educational background in the fields of sociology and nature protection. If the analysis was performed by researchers with different background, it is possible that the obtained results would be different. As in construct validity, this bias was tackled by having pre-defined analytical steps and using SNA procedures. The last items are external validity (Cook and Campbell, 1979) and transferability (Silverman, 2013; Malterud, 2001). As this is a first step in the development of
an inductive theory of participation in spatial planning, it cannot claim to have external validity at this point. Nevertheless, the history of spatial planning for NP Medvednica to a large extent mirrors the history of spatial planning of the adjacent city of Zagreb (Cavrić and Nedović-Budić, 2007). In the former Yugoslavia the process was performed on the level of municipalities, where its ‘value’ was set by the level of participation that went into it; however, there were frequent instances of strong political influence from the federal level overriding local decisions. After the wars in the 1990s, the dominant characteristics of the process was expansion of construction activities, with little regard for the legality aspect or the environment; and the planning itself was more inclined towards technical expertise and focused less on the concrete inputs from participation. The same trends can be followed in the general Croatian practice of spatial planning (Šimunović, 2005) as well as in other Former-Yugoslavian countries (Bizjak, 2012; Nastran and Pirnat, 2012; Đordjević and Dabović, 2009; Milutinović and Jolović, 2010). Moreover, the dominance of technical expertise over participation also characterizes the Central-European context of spatial planning (Fülöp, 2013). As for transferability, the decoupling codes from the local context began even with Level 1 codes (e.g. codes reflecting forms of participation), and has been achieved within the central categories. The classification of actors, their value orientations and grouping, the feedback-loops and calculations of benefits and costs of participation all transcend the NP Medvednica context and are ready to be applied in other settings. Taking into consideration at the central categories and the GT storyline, it becomes clear that numerous segments of the study could be adequately explained through different theoretical lenses. The central categories visible process and hidden process from the L1xL1 matrix, both types of participation in L2 and the uptake of these practices by different groups of actors could be viewed from the perspective of Goffman’s (1959) dramaturgical analysis. According to this approach, the visible process is characterized as the front stage of the formal decider, where they play the role of a careful listener, diligently noting the needs of the ‘public’ (i.e. the outer group). The ‘public’ partially sees through the act of the formal decider, mostly leaving the ‘show’. In case of actors from NGOs and pressure groups whose job is to be present, are aware that they will not have any impact on the process but still chose to remain visible all with the opinion that if acting differently might ‘just complicate’ their affairs. A similar pattern can be seen in the hidden process; the formal decider is in front of a much smaller audience, they want to be the ‘team players’ and follow the political hierarchy, so they act as the audience of the power behind the throne expects them to act. As the outer group in the visible process, the state administration ‘sees through’ the act but still chooses to participate, since participation will further their image of experts whose opinions are valuable to the process. The inner structure and outer opposition and their ‘connection’ through media manipulation from the central explanation can be easily analyzed from the perspective of Frankfurt school’s One-dimensional man (Marcuse, 2013). According to this approach, the outer group’s passive behavior is the result of social control from the power behind the throne, where the public media acts as a mechanism through which neo-liberal values and the commoditization of nature is forced upon the public. Such attitude causes them to de-value environmental damage of construction and internalize the priority of ‘free-market’ and of unrestricted development opportunities. The majority of the obtained results could be seen from the prism of sociological rational choice theory (Coleman, 1990); as actors have their defined interests, range of available resources, and clearly defined policy preferences. In this context, they act in order to further their interests, and the result of which is the current situation of consolidated discretionary rights and of continuous development activities, which operate in a legislative vacuum. According to this position, the spatial plan will be made when the powerful actors have largely realized their
interests (i.e. ‘constructed enough’), where the spatial plan would actually legitimize their actions – and that is precisely what has occurred. However, none of these theories can encompass all the segments of research findings of this study. 6. Conclusions The results and discussion clearly point to following concluding remarks; (I) participation in spatial planning for NP Medvednica does not differ from other cases in the European context, (II) concepts of the study are raised to a theoretical level that allows their transferability to other cases and (III) developed methodological steps can be used to diminish the replicability and construct validity issues associated with grounded theory applications. The GT storyline may seem to confine participation to a symbolic role due to power relations between different actor groups. However, all actor groups are aware of their position and the position of other groups, and recognize the available courses of action. Thus, these power relations are equally constraining as they are an enabling agency (Giddens, 1984) with respect to affecting the outcomes of the process; as power behind the throne can affect outer group directly and can affect the formal decider both directly and indirectly, while outer group can directly affect the formal decider through a public protest that has political relevance. One may argue that this is the manner in which ‘disempowered’ actors can have actual impact in the spatial planning process. However, as there are no feedback-loops from the outer opposition to the inner structure, the outer group can only affect the outcomes of the (spatial planning) process in question, and not the structure of spatial planning itself. In practical terms, it means that although the outer group can protest and actually ‘achieve victory’, they are not agents of change of the structure of decision-making. As such, when another process is introduced, they will repeatedly have to make strong efforts to reach the outcomes which they desire. From this perspective, an even more fundamental question emerges, “How can the role of participation in spatial planning be changed?” This research has identified two factors: changes in the political system (which alter the control of powerful interest groups on the administration), and long-term changes in the higher education of spatial planners (i.e. a change from ‘architectural’ to an 'urbanistic' approach to spatial planning). Other cases through which the presented GT will be further developed should encompass variability in at least one of these factors. Another macro-level factor that was specific to this case was the strong (and non-varying) level of urbanization, where its relation to participation in spatial planning should also be explored. From the micro-level perspective, the categorization of actors is characterized by the non-varying ‘strength’ of civic society, which is yet another factor that deserves more attention and could be further explored. In conclusion, the main factors that have shaped the participation in spatial planning for NP Medvednica are the calculation of actors’ benefits and costs of participation, their power relations, administrative organization of the process and the cultural norms governing the spatial planning. Only the micro-level factor of calculating benefits and costs of participation is case-specific, while all other factors go beyond the scope of NP Medvednica and require historical perspective in order to be changed. As it can be seen on Figure 3, the key in the path-dependency of spatial planning is to have active stakeholders, where this activity is set by their calculation of benefits and costs, which in turn is to a large extent set by the information which they hold. A practical recommendation for the future spatial planning of NP Medvednica is to start a two-way communication with stakeholders early on in the process, with an emphasis on providing them a clear
understanding of which activities are allowed in each zone. Such development would enable stakeholders to align their perceived costs and benefits of participation with their interests, and thus lead to a spatial plan with high level of social acceptance. References
Beierle, T.C., 1999. Using social goals to evaluate public participation in environmental decisions. Review of Policy Research 16(3-4). 75–103
Bizjak, I., 2012. Improving public participation in spatial planning with Web 2.0 tools.
Borg, I., Groenen, P. (2005). Modern Multidimensional Scaling: theory and applications (2nd ed.). New York: Springer. Pp. 207–212.
Borgatti, S.P. and Everett, M.G., 2000. Models of core/periphery structures. Social networks, 21(4), pp.375-395.
Brewer, M. (2000). Research Design and Issues of Validity. In Reis, H. and Judd, C. (eds.) Handbook of Research Methods in Social and Personality Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bryson, J.M., Quick, K.S., Schively-Slotterback, C., Crosby, B.C., 2012. Designing Public Participation Processes. Public Administration Review 73(1). 23-34
Cavrić, B., Nedović-Budić, Z., 2007. Urban development, legislation, and planning in postsocialist Zagreb. In: Stanilov, K. (Ed.), The Post-Socialist City: Urban Form and Space Transformations in Central and Eastern Europe after Socialism. Vol. 92. Springer, Netherlands, pp. 385–410 century. Plann. Theory Pract. 5 (4), 419–436.
Charmaz, K., 2006. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative research. SagePublications Ltd, London.
Coleman, J. S. 1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Belknap Press and Harvard University Press.
Conelly, S., 2006. Looking inside public involvement: how is it made so ineffective and can we change this. Oxford university press and. Community Develop. J. 41 (1), 13–24.
Conrad, E., Cassar, L.F., Jones, M., Eiter, S., Izaovičova, Z., Barankova, Z., Chriestie, M., Fazey, I., 2011. Rhetoric and reporting of public participation in landscape policy. J. Environ. Policy Plan. 13 (1), 23–47.
Cook, T.D. and Campbell, D.T., 1979. The design and conduct of true experiments and quasi-experiments in field settings. In Reproduced in part in Research in Organizations: Issues and Controversies. Goodyear Publishing Company.
Cooke, B. and Kothari, U. eds., 2001. Participation: The new tyranny? Zed books.
Cooper, T.L., Bryer, T.A., Meek, J.W., 2006. Citizen-centered collaborative public management. Special issue. Public Adm. Rev. 66, 76–88.
Corbin, J., Strauss, A., 1990. Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qual. Sociol. 13 (1), 3–21.
Creswell, J.W., 2007. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among the five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Croatian Parliament, 2008. Report of the Physical Planning and Construction Committee on the proposal of spatial plan for the Nature Park Medvednica
on changing NP Medvednica borders. The first reading No. 140, Available at: PZ.br.140. http://www.sabor.hr/Default.aspx?art=24113 (accessed 17.9.2016).
Dey, I. 1999. Grounding Grounded Theory: Guidelines for Qualitative Inquiry. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 282p.
Đordjević, D., Dabović, T., 2009. System of spatial planning in Serbia: a critical review. Dela (31), 143–157.
Fiorino, D.J., 1990. Citizen participation and environmental risk: a survey of institutional mechanisms. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 15 (2), 226–243.
Fischer, F., 1993. Citizen participation and the democratization of policy expertise: From theoretical inquiry to practical cases. Policy sciences, 26(3), pp.165187.
Foucault, M., 2002. The order of things: An archaeology of the human sciences. Psychology Press.
Freeman, L.C., 1978. Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social networks, 1(3), pp.215-239.
Fülöp, S., 2013. Public participation in spatial planning procedures. In: Comparative Study of Six EU Member States. Justice and Environment, Internet. http://www.justiceandenvironment.org/_files/file/2013/Land%20use%20planning%20and%20access.pdf (accessed 15. 11. 2017).
Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Univ of California Press.
Glaser, B., Strauss, A.L., 1967. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
Glaser, B.,1978. Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L., 1965. Discovery of substantive theory: A basic strategy underlying qualitative research. American Behavioral Scientist, 8(6), pp.512.
Goffman, E. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Anchor Books. 251p.
Habermas, J., 1975. Legitimation Crisis. Beacon Press.
Innes, J.E., Booher, D.E., 2004. Reframing public participation: strategies for the 21st
Krackhardt, D. and Stern, R.N., 1988. Informal networks and organizational crises: An experimental simulation. Social psychology quarterly, pp.123-140.
Lovrić, N. 2015. Stakeholder Participation in the Creation of Spatial Plan for Nature Park Medvednica. PhD thesis, Universität Freiburg.
Malterud, K., 2001. Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. The lancet, 358(9280), pp.483-488.
Marcuse, H., 2013. One-dimensional man: Studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society. Routledge.
Messick, S., 1995. Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons' responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American psychologist, 50(9), p.741.
Miles, M. B., A. M. Huberman., 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis, Newbury Park, California, sage.
Milutinović, S., Jolović, A., 2010. Building capacity for sustainability: strategic planning processes for local sustainable development practices in western Balkan. Lex Localis 8 (3), 293–311.
Ministry of Construction and Physical Planning, 2005. Draft Bill of Amendments to the Law on Proclaiming the Western Part of Nature Park Medvednica.
Ministry of Construction and Physical Planning, 2014. Spatial Plan of areas with special characteristics of NP Medvednica. Available at: http://www.mgipu.hr/default.aspx?id=8504
Nastran, M., Pirnat, J., 2012. Stakeholder participation in planning of the protected natural areas: Slovenia. Sociologija i proctor. 193 (2), 141–164.
Renn, O., et al., 1993. Public participation in decision-making: a three-step procedure.
Rittel, H.W. and Webber, M.M., 1973. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy sciences, 4(2), pp.155-169.
Rowe, G., Frewer, L.J., 2000. Public participation methods: a framework for evaluation. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 25, 3). 3–29.
Saldaña, J., 2015. The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
Silverman, D., 2013. Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook. SAGE Publications Limited.
Šimunović, I., 2005. Planiranje ili pravo na budućnost. Marjan Tisak, Split.
Strauss, A. 1987. Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Press.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J., 1994. Grounded theory methodology. Handbook of qualitative research, 17, pp.273-285.
Strauss, A.L., Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, London: Sage Publications.
Wasserman, S. and Faust, K., 1994. Social network analysis: Methods and applications (Vol. 8). Cambridge university press.
Appendix A.
List of primary data sources Source Alliance of private forest owners and forest owner’s associations, Croatian union of Private Forest owners associations CF –Croatian forests ltd.
Nr. of interviewees 2
Acronym PFO
8
Cro Forest
Skiing Magazine and Skiing society
2
Skiing
City of Zagreb Hunting Society City of Zagreb
1 9
Hunt City Zg.
Ministry of Construction and Spatial Planning
3
Min. Spat
Slijeme Medvednica Ltd.
1
Ski Resort
Krapinsko-Zagorska County
1
Kr. Zg. County
Zagreb County
1
Zg. Count
Croatian forests ltd. (Directorate)
3
Cro Forest 1
Institute for tourism
2
Inst. Tourism
Institute IGH - institute for construction, building and planning
1
IGH
Public Institution NP Medvednica
2
NP Medved
Stubičke Toplice Municipality
1
St. Municp
Ministry of Agriculture, Department for Forestry and Hunting.
2
Min. For
Ministry of Culture, Division for nature protection
3
Min. Cult
Mountaineer society and union
2
Mount
NGO Friends of the Earth Croatia, Green Action
2
NGO
OIKON-Institute for applied Ecology
1
OIKON
Croatian Parliament
1
Parliament
State institute for Nature Protection
4
SINP
Institute of social sciences
1
Inst. IP
University of Zagreb, Faculty of Forestry
2
FOF
ZET-Chairlift Sljeme Minutes from public hearing for the Krapinsko-Zagorska County, 14.09.2005
1
Chairlift
Minutes from public hearing for Krapinsko-Zagorska County, 18.02. 2014
-
Minutes from public hearing; City of Zagreb, 28.09.2005
-
Minutes Kr. Zg. Minutes Kr. Zg. Minutes Zg.
Minutes from public hearing for the City of Zagreb 20.02.2014 Minutes from public hearing for the Municipality Bistra (Zagrebacka County) 19.02.2014 Minutes from public hearing for Zagreb County, 18.02. 2014
-
Minutes Zg.
-
-
Minutes Count. ZG Minutes Count. ZG
List of secondary data sources
City of Zagreb, Division for urbanism, 1989. Draft spatial plan for areas of special characteristics in Nature Park Medvednica.
City of Zagreb, Division for Spatial planning, 2005. Draft spatial plan for areas of special characteristics in Nature Park Medvednica.
City of Zagreb, Division for Spatial planning, 2012. Draft spatial plan for areas of special characteristics in Nature Park Medvednica.
Antić, P. et. al, 2003. Demographic characteristics in Nature Park Medvednica 2001– 2015 objectives, an outlook study; Review of the relevant literature, reports and of historical data.
PE NP Medvednica, 2010. Management Plan for Nature Park Medvednica.
SINP, 2012. Nature Park Medvednica, professional background on nature conservation for the spatial plan for areas of special characteristics. (Working version)
Španjol, Ž., 2003. Revision of protected natural areas - proposals with a focus on special forest vegetation reserves.
Ivaniš, K., 2003. Programme for rest, recreation and sport in Nature Park Medvednica.
Institute for Protection of Cultural and Natural Heritage in City of Zagreb, 2008. Conservatory study for spatial plans for areas of special characteristics in Nature Park Medvednica.
Kušen, E., 2003. Evaluation of Nature Park Medvednica tourism resources.
Meteorological and Hydrological service, 2003. Meteorological study for the spatial plan on areas of special characteristics in Nature Park Medvednica.
Miklin, Ž., 2003. Study on active and potential landslides and rockslides, increased erosion and largely unstable areas in Nature Park Medvednica.
ECOINA Ltd., 2009. Environmental impact assessment on Chair Lifts Sljeme reconstruction.
Appendix B Part I. Structure of code unregulated participation.
Process design (L1 code)
Non Participation (L1 code)
Part II. Labels and transcript-segments of the code process design PROCESS DESIGN (L1) Spatial plan is a basic form of collective action in modern society (Inst. IP1) “Spatial plan is the foundation of the articulation of collective action in modern society, which is tertiary or quartile. The collective action is something which is now only associated with rural areas; but it also exists in urban areas, in citizenship. In rural areas it is usually articulated thorough some form of local gathering with a long tradition and where people directly take part into management of their own area. In urban setting, this is not direct; but rather, it is through organization so civil society, where people find their social niche, and through it articulate their claims. This is not as strong as it should be. But regardless of the setting, spatial planning is the basic form through which people collectively take part into controlling the space they live in. This should be emphasized” The process is not transparent and participatory if everyone does not sit at the same table (Cro Forest4) “The problem is that people do not understand the effects of public hearings in a process. In the context of spatial planning that does not make a lot of sense because it cannot reflect the needs of co-existence in an area. Again, we are going back to this ignorance. When I was working on the by-law on public
participation in public decision making, I pushed that people should be really involved from the beginning, and just a thirty-day window in which they can come in. Now, you announce the public hearing, people come, and they tell you want they think about it. But only after it has been defined. If were to make a focus groups or roundtables, somewhere everyone would sit at the same table and talk with the same strength of voice…. So, this would mean that we call them, make step one, call them again, step two, step three and so on… so talk to them, ask them: What do you think that should be done? Without such a forum, it is not transparent how decisions are made…. We need to sit down everyone at the same table to talk freely on what to do” Architects have an interest to look at that area as a construction land (Parliament 1) “Everyone has their perspective, and the architects have a primary idea to look at that area, well, they want to enrich it with certain buildings, which anyway should not be the central idea of a spatial plan. However, due to all the unfortunate developments that have happened in the last twenty years, this is what spatial planning became, there is no more of this urbanism that equally strong looks at the nature. I am not talking now just on the spatial planning for Medvednica, this is a general case. And for Medvednica, this protected area was used for a certain type of land manipulation, where extreme financial gains are achieved overnight. It serves as a lever of power; it leads to a speculative behaviour. Architects are the medium for that”. Citizens and the Park itself are on the last place, and they cannot fulfil their interests Design of participation is chaotic, and it does not reflect a mature civic society Although everyone was invited to participate, there is no real communication, just informing Public participation is not defined by protocols, this devalues it Lack of real participation is a sign of corruption of the process Spatial planning is a part of the political sphere, and so it is a tool for gathering political points Spatial planning is a clash of two opposites, amateurs and experts with personal interests Only the opportunities coming with EU can save Medvednica The abundance of divergent opinions cannot be harmonized ….137 more labels
Appendix C
L1 X L1 matrix
In L1xL1 matrix rows represent the ‘sender’ code and columns represent the ‘receiving’ code. The inputs in the matrix were individual labels of the codes, which were compared against all other codes. All of the 902 labels have been compared in this manner. The L1xL1 matrix has a total of 2352 cells (i.e. 49 codes x 49 codes – 49 diagonal values, and the values within the matrix are the number of labels shared by two codes) and can be seen from the matrix that there is a moderate level of ‘connection’ between the codes; only 15.5% of the possible ‘connections’ between the codes are present. The matrix was visualized using the NetDraw software. The result of this procedure was an “adjacency” matrix of L1 codes, where a higher number of ‘shared’ labels indicate a logical connection between the L1 codes. The adjacency matrix has 365 cells containing shared labels.
Figure 1. L1xL1 matrix, moderate level of ‘connection’ between the codes It can be seen that codes City of Zagreb and Decreasing of the NP Medvednica are close to the center of the graph, indicating that they have ties to most of the other codes; however, the actual center of the graph is empty, indicating that there is no single ‘central’ L1 code. As there are 365 connections between the codes,
displaying all of them equally would conceal the ‘strong’ relations between the codes. For that reason, all the relations are shown in grey dotted lines. Ties representing eight or more shared labels are represented with scaled black lines.
Preliminary GT storyline of open coding
Figure 2. Resulting diagram of open coding
Power behind the throne (interest groups) is characterized by Human centered interests, which are focused on Key areas (peak and southern periphery). They participate informally to the process of spatial planning through corruption and donations to the formal deciders (local administration), with whom they share the general orientation of interests. The formal decider politically pressures or just ignores the claims of the inner group (state administration) that is a diverse group of actors with different kinds of interests and different territorial focuses. Although they symbolically participate through consultation, they feel that their opinion is regarded for; which is enough for them to endorse the current system. The outer group, which represents the majority of stakeholders, is more oriented on secondary areas. They symbolically participate in the process through public hearings, questionnaires and on-line surveys, and have little power over the development of spatial planning. Only in extreme cases of organized public protest can they modify the priorities of the formal deciders’ political supervisors, and by doing so, indirectly affect spatial planning. In general, they have little information on spatial planning, on their rights to participate, and on the NP Medvednica itself. Although they are primarily interested in enjoyment of nature, their interests are often ambivalent, and can easily be altered by new information. This situation is recognized by the Power behind the throne, who through media manipulation modifies the wants of the outer group. Such scenario makes them act unintentionally through public protest, which is directed towards the Formal decider on their behalf. Appendix D. List of codes Level 1 codes Code group Area
Process in NP Medvednica
Actors
Code Periphery zone Quarries Peak area Forest area Cable car path Northern slopes of NP Medvednica Illegal construction Degradation of forest habitats Cable car construction / reconstruction Hunting Nature protection Tunnel building through NP Medvednica Political elites State Institute on Nature Protection Citizens of Zagreb Ministry of Construction and Spatial Planning Parliament Citizens of Zagreb County
Number of labels 18 12 20 6 4 3 12 10 5 6 7 4 10 7 69 8 10 22
Level of participation
Perceptions on participation Determinants of participation Spatial plan
Citizens of Krapinsko – Zagorska county Ministry of Culture City of Zagreb Croatian Forests Ltd Hunters NGOs Zagreb county Krapinsko-Zagorska County Private forest owners Construction lobby Quarry owners PI NP Medvednica Ski lobby Non- participation Public hearings Consultation Informal participation Inadequate participation Adequate participation Limitations of participation Costs of participation Capacity for participation Decreasing of the NP Medvednica Decision making / Effects of spatial plan Non- decision making / Effects of no spatial plan Protection within forest reserves First process Second process Third process Theoretical goal Process design
24 6 106 18 11 15 3 8 16 39 6 7 43 11 22 16 12 27 17 67 16 9 44 13 55 10 39 24 20 22 149
Level 2 codes Code group Areas
Code Key areas
Number of labels 38
Interests
Stakeholder group
Type of participation Structure of governing
Secondary areas Human centered Balanced Ambivalent Nature centered Power behind the throne Formal decider The inner group The outer group Symbolic participation Informal participation structure of governing
25 160 35 115 17 138 141 117 346 115 12 232
Code Balanced interest Citizens as construction land owners Construction only with power Construction without expert justification Deforestation for construction Enjoyment of nature Forest management for profit Forests as central object of protection Halting the nature protection Interest for unrestricted hunting Natural process of urbanization Nature conservation as public interest Participation as facilitator of decision making Centralization of decision making Architects for construction City as loser of having spatial plan Power defines the politics Experts for nature protection
Number of labels 4 8 35 10
Relational codes Code group Context
Causal conditions
25 12 27 3 3 8 5 5 3 58 4 3 164 3
Phenomenon
Action strategies
Consequences
High information of public administration Private interest for public hearings High political interest Procedural costs of participation Inadequate participation design Interest against forest reserves Low information Personal costs of participation Low trust in spatial planning team Media manipulation NGOs as representatives of public Urbanism with balanced interests Useless participation Adequate participation Deciders' as stakeholders Decrease in participation over time Dictate of the powerful Procedural control of the City of Zagreb Practical exclusion from process Area decrease due profits of construction Active stakeholders Area decrease due to hunting Areas decrease due to public pressure Spatial plan as management tool Stopping the process Devastation without spatial plan Spatial plan for realization of public interest
4 12 9 52 4 18 29 50 11 60 9 6 5 32 64 9 32 66 215 35 17 12 4 8 6 21 38
Central categories Name Balanced planning through active engagement Forest management for profit
Number of codes 11 8
Number of labels* 183 111
Hidden process 11 431 Opposition to the system 13 319 Path of urbanization 33 1114 Power as driving force 11 671 Pressure of hunting 5 45 Public pressure for construction 8 101 Structure of exclusion 16 953 Support to the system 27 528 Visible process 8 464 *this includes labels from all three types of codes (L1, L2 and R), meaning that all unique labels are actually counted three times
Supplementary Materials
L1 and L2 Codes with Memos Level 1 group of codes Area
level 1 Codes
Memo
Level 2 group of codes
Periphery zone is located on the outskirts of NP Medvednica, mostly on the southern slopes. It represents an area under heavy pressure of urbanization, where forest area have been cleared, and due to a lack of spatial plan legal restrictions for illegal construction are very mild. Represents key interest area for owners of land (part of citizens from different counties) and of the construction lobby. (18 labels) Quarries are located throughout the park. They operate without environmental impact assessments. Bringing of spatial plan would strongly decrease the stone mining activities. Quarries are also of interest to Croatian Forests Ltd. (12 labels) Represents top of the mountain. It is an area of strong touristic construction interests, mostly in ski tourism. This is also of special interests to the City of Zagreb. Majority of these activities are not financially viable, and are against expert spatial planning documents. (20 labels) Represents majority of NP Medvednica. Represents special interest zone for Croatian Forests. Ltd., Private forest owners and hunters. Forest sector has interest to continue on with harvesting operations, and to decrease the level of protection in special reserves of forest vegetation. Some areas are being stripped from trees and converted to construction land. If Spatial plan would came into power, these activities would be halted (6 labels) Connects city of Zagreb to the peak area. Represents special interests of the City and Zagreb, but so far there is not enough finances to reconstruct it. (4 labels)
Areas
Key areas
Represents areas where there is a continuous interest of several groups of stakeholders. They are important conflict areas in each of the three processes of spatial planning. Strong pressure of construction activities
Periphery zone, Peak area
Areas
Secondary areas
Quarries, Forest area, Cable car path, Northern slopes
Areas
Key areas
Represents areas of lesser interest, or areas that are especially important to some stakeholders. The pressure of these stakeholders may be enough to stop the preparation of spatial plan (e.g. northern slopes of NP Medvednica for hunters). Represents areas where there is a continuous interest of several groups of stakeholders. They are important conflict areas in each of the three processes of spatial planning. Strong pressure of construction activities
Areas
Secondary areas
Represents areas of lesser interest, or areas that are especially important to some stakeholders for a certain time period. The pressure of these stakeholders may be enough to stop the preparation of spatial plan (e.g. northern slopes of NP Medvednica for hunters).
Quarries, Forest area, Cable car path, Northern slopes
Areas
Secondary areas
Quarries, Forest area, Cable car path, Northern slopes
Northern slopes of NP Medvednica
Represents area of special interests to the hunting associations, as is the only area where hunting is allowed. Was a major topic at the first process, and has actually stopped the spatial plan (3 labels)
Areas
Secondary areas
Illegal construction
Illegal construction occurs on the outskirts of the Park. Some forest areas are cleared and became construction land. These activities are possible due to a lack of a spatial plan. This is in the interest of the construction companies, of private forest owners, part of the inhabitants of the city of Zagreb that live in the Podsljeme municipality. The exponent of this lobby group is the City of Zagreb – it brings it political “points” and it collects utility
Interests
Represents areas of lesser interest, or areas that are especially important to some stakeholders. The pressure of these stakeholders may be enough to stop the preparation of spatial plan (e.g. northern slopes of NP Medvednica for hunters). Represents areas of lesser interest, or areas that are especially important to some stakeholders. The pressure of these stakeholders may be enough to stop the preparation of spatial plan (e.g. northern slopes of NP Medvednica for hunters). Represents activity within or attitude towards management of NP Medvednica directed to fulfilment of human needs (e.g. construction, quarries, hunting)
Periphery zone
Quarries
Peak area
Forest area
Cable car path
Process in NP Medvednica
Level 2 codes
Human centred
Memo
Encompasses level 1 codes
Periphery zone, Peak area
Quarries, Forest area, Cable car path, Northern slopes Illegal construction, Degradation of forest habitats, Cable car reconstruction, hunting, tunnel building
fees. (12 labels)
Degradation of forest habitats
Forests in NP Medvednica are being actively managed, which is perceived by visitors and many others as a problem. Croatian Forests Ltd. are also not paying respect to the nature protection restrictions, which is s special problem to the NP management authority. They have also brought special reserves of forest vegetation to such a state that they have lost its characteristics. Another problem is cutting of private forests, which is some cases are converted to construction land. (10 labels) Connects the City of Zagreb to the peak area of NP Medvedica. Was active 20 years ago, but now there are no funds to reconstruct it. Of special political importance to the City of Zagreb. Cable car would also decrease the traffic to the peak area (5 labels)
Interests
Human centred
Represents activity within or attitude towards management of NP Medvednica directed to fulfilment of human needs (e.g. construction, quarries, hunting). Clearly defined interests
Interests
Human centred
Represents activity within or attitude towards management of NP Medvednica directed to fulfilment of human needs (e.g. construction, quarries, hunting). Clearly defined interests
Hunting
Hunting is allowed on the Northern slopes of NP Medvednica, which are a part of the Zagrebačka County and KrapinskoZagorska County. Hunting was the most prominent topic in the first cycle of spatial planning, and hunting relates pressures have stopped the process (6 labels)
Interests
Human centred
Represents activity within or attitude towards management of NP Medvednica directed to fulfilment of human needs (e.g. construction, quarries, hunting). Clearly defined interests
Nature protection
Nature protection as the overarching activity within the NP. Emphasis is also put on the touristic enjoyment of the nature. Nature park category allows sustainable usage of natural resources, but this is not known to many non-expert stakeholders, who equal it with national park (where no active management is allowed), and so any usage of natural resources on Medvednica is seen as very negative (by citizens and NGOs). In this context the management regime provides maximum nature protection and minimum usage of natural resources (7 labels) Intended to connect north and south of NP Medvednica. Was of interest to the City of Zagreb, especially to the major. When public pools showed that this idea does not have support, the City halted this development. (4 labels)
Interests
Nature centred
Represents activity within or attitude towards management of NP Medvednica directed to preservation of nature itself; where nature has its own value, separated from human wants and needs. Also encompasses 'weak', sustainable usage of natural resources, but to extent that does not interfere with nature protection goals. Clearly defined interests
Interests
Human centred
Represents activity within or attitude towards management of NP Medvednica directed to fulfilment of human needs (e.g. construction, quarries, hunting). Clearly defined interests
Cable car construction / reconstruction
Tunnel building through NP Medvednica
2. Spatial plan ; Decreasing of the area of NP Medvednica; Effects of no spatial plan Illegal construction, Degradation of forest habitats, Cable car reconstruction, hunting, tunnel building Illegal construction, Degradation of forest habitats, Cable car reconstruction, hunting, tunnel building Illegal construction, Degradation of forest habitats, Cable car reconstruction, hunting, tunnel building Nature protection, Protection within forest reserves
Illegal construction, Degradation of forest habitats, Cable car reconstruction, hunting, tunnel building
Actors
Political elites
Represents actors with direct influence over the preparation of spatial plan. They can also dictate whether the spatial plan shall be made or not. This actor is usually associated with the major of the city of Zagreb, and to the administrative organization of the City of Zagreb. They are also a channel into decision making process for many other stake holding groups, and are well connected (10 labels)
Stakeholder group
Power behind the throne
SINP
State Institute on Nature Protection. Represents state expert organization on nature protection, which prepares the expert studies for all nature parks, which is the basis of the NP Medvednica management plan. This position gives SINP indirect influence on the spatial planning process. However the perception on the extent of this influence is differs among stakeholders: those whit interests in construction state that SINP is influential, those with interest in conservation state that it is not..... but majority states that they are not influential. Recognize sustainable usage of natural resources (7labels)
The inner group
Citizens of Zagreb
Citizens of Zagreb have several interests towards NP Medvednica . The predominant general interest is in visiting NP and enjoying its nature. The second one is legalizing illegal housing within the borders of NP. Have little information on the Park itself. This relates to going against any active forest management, and perceiving that construction is illegal in the park. Before the second process they were agitated by public media that construction is banned from NP, which led to diminishing of protection area, as in this way the City of Zagreb was just "reacting to public wishes".... but this manipulation was enabled by the fact that citizens had little information on the process, and on the management regime (construction rights) within the park. The Media campaign was ordered by the construction lobby. This goes for citizens in all three counties..all other instances they are disinterested in participation, and perceive that they will not be listened to. Believe that NGOs and mountaineers should represent the nature protection interest, and not them. Perceived as being manipulated by different interest groups They were not interested in the tunnel through Medvednica, so this development was cancelled. (69 labels)
The outer group
Strongly interconnected clusters of actors that hold specialized interests. These interests do not contradict each other, and they strive for broadening the scope of human presence and activities in NP Medvednica. Their interests contradict nature conservation. These actors have direct control over the actions of the City of Zagreb in the process of spatial planning. These actors influence the choice of personnel assigned to the tasks of spatial planning, where the chosen employees return the 'favour' of promotion with the 'favour' of securing the interests of these groups in the preparation of spatial plan. The second stream of influence is through the Mayor of Zagreb, the function in which the formal political power is concentrated on. Compliance to their interests is secured through donations to the local political establishment. Perceive that the current mode of participation is adequate. Exert influence on parts of the inner group, and also strongly shape the interests of outer group through public media campaigns Represents different segments of state administration that are involved in the process, mostly in the form of experts. They are invited to consultation meetings by the City of Zagreb but hold no substantial role in the decision making, or on the agenda setting. They consider that the current form of participation is adequate, where they are the experts, and the 'others' (i.e. the outer group) should be merely informed on what the decisions were. Some of them have balanced interests (MC, SINP, PI NP Medvednica), while some (MCPP) act on behalf of special interest groups (i.e. The power behind the throne)
Represents unorganized (or loosely organized) groups of different stakeholders, whose interest are in most cases ambivalent (with the exception of NGOs, who are nature centred), i.e. depend on the availability and sources of information on the subject matter. Feel that there are being manipulated by other, more powerful groups of actors, which are represented by the formal deciders and by the media. Can influence the formal deciders if their interest are focused enough, and if they perceive that they can have benefits of participation on a personal level. In most cases not interested in participation, which they perceive as inadequate. They also perceive the current structure of spatial planning as corrupt. In most cases broader groups perceive that their interests in the process of spatial planning would be better represented by smaller, more focused group, e.g. specialized NGOs and regional/Umbrella associations of private forest owners. They either participate through public hearings, reply to questionnaires or get informed on the process by public media. Believe that they could really participate in the process of spatial plan if the current structure of governing changes. They perceive EU accession as a possible driving force of these changes
1. Actors; Political elites, Construction lobby, Ski Lobby, Quarry lobby, Hunting lobby 2. Level of participation informal participation. 3. Perceptions on participation Adequate participation
1. Actors - SINP, MC, MCPP, PI NP Medvednica, Zagrebacka County, KrapinskoZagorska County, Croatian Forests Ltd. 2. Level of participation Consultation 3. Percepceptions on participation Adequate participation 1. Actors Citizens of Zagreb, Zagrebacka County, and of KrapinskoZagorska County. NGOs, Private forest owners 2. Determinants of participation Limitations of participation 3. Level of participation; Public hearings, No n-participation
MCPP
Ministry had representatives in the team which worked on the preparation of the spatial plan in all three processes, but only a minor role – the major role belongs to the City of Zagreb. In the first process (Yugoslavia) it encompassed the Institute of urbanism, which looked at the topic more holistically; they have halted the second process, as they serve as the exponents of the construction lobby. They have also given the proposal for the diminishing of the borders of NP Medvednica to Spatial Planning and Construction Committee of the Croatian Parliament, which has adopted the plan. Recognize sustainable usage of natural resources (8 labels)
The inner group
Represents different segments of state administration that are involved in the process, mostly in the form of experts. They are invited to consultation meetings by the City of Zagreb but hold no substantial role in the decision making, or on the agenda setting. They consider that the current form of participation is adequate, where they are the experts, and the 'others' (i.e. the outer group) should be merely informed on what the decisions were. Some of them have balanced interests (MC, SINP, PI NP Medvednica), while some (MCPP) act on behalf of special interest groups (i.e. The power behind the throne)
Parliament
Parliament of the Republic of Croatia is the organization, which formally approves the spatial plan (in a form of a Law) for NP Medvednica; however the Parliament never got such a proposal. The only Law that the Parliament made was on decreasing of the borders of Medvednica in 2008, during the time of making the second proposal of the spatial plan. The discussions were made by the Spatial Planning and Construction Committee, which is a political body that adheres to the political interests of its members (10 labels)
Formal decider
Central actors with formal power of setting the agenda of decision making, putting some decisions aside, defining the procedural and substantive aspects of spatial planning, and halting the process altogether. Has perception that the current form of participation is adequate. Although is aware of other, more 'liberal' forms of participation, they are cast aside. The reasons are that in that case the 'external', 'non-expert' players would have more prominent role, by which they would decrease their own importance and the importance of the 'internal' experts with appropriate formal education. Another reason for not including 'more liberal' forms of participation is that it has its procedural costs, which would require additional work (with no personal benefits) and would prolong the process of spatial planning. This code encompasses the administration of the City of Zagreb, and the Croatian Parliament. Although spatial plan in the end depends on its adoption by the Parliament, they can just address the drafts that the City has sent them - and that has never happened. They have decreased the borders of the NP Medvednica, and its Spatial Planning and Construction Committee also acts as a representative of the Construction lobby (i.e. The power behind the throne). The mechanisms of control of the Parliament and the City of Zagreb are the same - the powerful interest groups put political contributions, and in return have the discretionary right of personnel selection to the functions of their interests, who also have to secure the interest of these groups in their daily work. The formal decider also receives an input from the 'outer group' in cases when their interest is explicit. However, the strength/importance of these interests, along with their substance, fluctuate with the passage of time and with the availability (and sources) of information.
1. Actors - SINP, MC, MCPP, PI NP Medvednica, Zagrebacka County, KrapinskoZagorska County, Croatian Forests Ltd. 2. Level of participation Consultation 3. Perceptions on participation Adequate participation 1. Actors; City of Zagreb, Parliament. 2. Determinants of participation; Costs of participation; Capacity for participation
Citizens of Zagreb County
Primarily interest of citizens of Zagreb County is visiting NP and enjoying its nature. However participation with this interest is low, and citizens perceive that NGOs should represent them. In general have little information on the management of Park, what rights and restrictions do they have for living within the park, and little information on the participation process, for which they perceive will bring them little benefit, as they will not be listened to. In the case of limiting construction they are much more proactive, and push this issue on public hearings and through other means. They feel that they have been manipulated by different interest groups (22 labels)
The outer group
Citizens of Krapinsko – Zagorska county
Primarily interest of citizens of Zagreb County is visiting NP and enjoying its nature. However participation with this interest is low, and citizens perceive that NGOs should represent them. In general have little information on the management of Park, what rights and restrictions do they have for living within the park, and little information on the participation process, for which they perceive will bring them little benefit, as they will not be listened to. In the case of limiting construction they are much more proactive, and push this issue on public hearings and through other means. They feel that they have been manipulated by different interest groups (24 labels)
The outer group
Ministry of Culture
Supervises the work of State Institute on Nature Protection, which provides different expert studies on nature protection. Was marginally involved in the drafting of the spatial plan – they were called for an opinion by the City of Zagreb, but there was no feedback information, nor it is known if their arguments were taken into consideration (6 labels)
The inner group
Represents unorganized (or loosely organized) groups of different stakeholders, whose interest are in most cases ambivalent (with the exception of NGOs, who are nature centred), i.e. depend on the availability and sources of information on the subject matter. Feel that there are being manipulated by other, more powerful groups of actors, which are represented by the formal deciders and by the media. Can influence the formal deciders if their interests are focused enough, and if they perceive that they can have benefits of participation on a personal level. In most cases not interested in participation, which they perceive as inadequate. They also perceive the current structure of spatial planning as corrupt. In most cases broader groups perceive that their interests in the process of spatial planning would be better represented by smaller, more focused group, e.g. specialized NGOs and regional/Umbrella associations of private forest owners. They either participate through public hearings, reply to questionnaires or get informed on the process by public media. Believe that they could really participate in the process of spatial plan if the current structure of governing changes. They perceive EU accession as a possible driving force of these changes Represents unorganized (or loosely organized) groups of different stakeholders, whose interest are in most cases ambivalent (with the exception of NGOs, who are nature centred), i.e. depend on the availability and sources of information on the subject matter. Feel that there are being manipulated by other, more powerful groups of actors, which are represented by the formal deciders and by the media. Can influence the formal deciders if their interests are focused enough, and if they perceive that they can have benefits of participation on a personal level. In most cases not interested in participation, which they perceive as inadequate. They also perceive the current structure of spatial planning as corrupt. In most cases broader groups perceive that their interests in the process of spatial planning would be better represented by smaller, more focused group, e.g. specialized NGOs and regional/Umbrella associations of private forest owners. They either participate through public hearings, reply to questionnaires or get informed on the process by public media. Believe that they could really participate in the process of spatial plan if the current structure of governing changes. They perceive EU accession as a possible driving force of these changes Represents different segments of state administration that are involved in the process, mostly in the form of experts. They are invited to consultation meetings by the City of Zagreb but hold no substantial role in the decision making, or on the agenda setting. They consider that the current form of participation is adequate, where they are the experts, and the 'others' (i.e. the outer group) should be merely informed on what the decisions were. Some of them have balanced interests (MC, SINP, PI NP Medvednica), while some (MCPP) act on behalf of special interest groups (i.e. The power behind the throne)
1. Actors Citizens of Zagreb, Zagrebacka County, and of KrapinskoZagorska County. NGOs, Private forest owners 2. Determinants of participation Limitations of participation 3. Level of participation; Public hearings, Non-participation
1. Actors Citizens of Zagreb, Zagrebacka County, and of KrapinskoZagorska County. NGOs, Private forest owners 2. Determinants of participation Limitations of participation 3. Level of participation; Public hearings, Non-participation
1. Actors - SINP, MC, MCPP, PI NP Medvednica, Zagrebacka County, KrapinskoZagorska County, Croatian Forests Ltd. 2. Level of participation Consultation 3. Perceptions on
participation Adequate participation
City of Zagreb
The most powerful actor in the preparation of the spatial plan. Formally the activities related to spatial plan were done by City Office for Spatial Planning, Construction of the City, Utility Services and Transport…. But in reality the City administration itself has its own interest, and they serve as a “channel” for different interest groups. The City Office for Spatial planning has a lot of autonomy from other city departments (sectors). The most prominent lobby group that the City represents is the construction lobby, and it has been so in Croatian and in the Yugoslav system. There is also a section of the construction lobby that operates directly through the mayor. These are the country`s most powerful figures from the political and financial sphere, which in return support the mayor politically. In general all the power in the administration of the City of Zagreb is held by the Mayor. If spatial plan came to power these activities would be severely halted. The power of the City of Zagreb overshadows the administration of the Krapinsko-Zagorska and Zagreb county in the process of spatial planning. Secondary interests of the City of Zagreb are endorsing sports activities on Medvednica, which is complementary to the ideas of the construction lobby. This activity is focused on the peak area, and the most prominent is the development of ski sports. Of tertiary interest is the (re)construction of cable car from Zagreb to the peak of Medvednica, for which currently there are no secured finances. (106 labels)
Formal decider
Croatian Forests Ltd
State forest management company, manages about 50% of forest in NP Medvednica. Perceived by NP Medvednica authorities and majority of other stakeholders as over-felling forests and not paying respects to the provisions of nature protection. Have interest to cancel the status of special reserves of forest vegetation, as this protection category diminishes their felling rights. Low participation in the spatial plan, just want to keep their current position. Powerful actor (18 labels)
The inner group
Central actors with formal power of setting the agenda of decision making, putting some decisions aside, defining the procedural and substantive aspects of spatial planning, and halting the process altogether. Has perception that the current form of participation is adequate. Although is aware of other, more 'liberal' forms of participation, they are cast aside. The reasons are that in that case the 'external', 'non-expert' players would have more prominent role, by which they would decrease their own importance and the importance of the 'external' experts with appropriate formal education. Another reason for not including 'more liberal' forms of participation is that it has its procedural costs, which would require additional work (with no personal benefits) and would prolong the process of spatial planning. This code encompasses the administration of the City of Zagreb, and the Croatian Parliament. Although spatial plan in the end depends on its adoption by the Parliament, they can just address the drafts that the City has sent them - and that has never happened. They have decreased the borders of the NP Medvednica, and its Spatial Planning and Construction Committee also acts as a representative of the Construction lobby (i.e. The power behind the throne). The mechanisms of control of the Parliament and the City of Zagreb are the same - the powerful interest groups put political contributions, and in return have the discretionary right of personnel selection to the functions of their interests, who also have to secure the interest of these groups in their daily work. The formal decider also receives an input from the 'outer group' in cases when their interests are explicit. However, the strength/importance of these interests, along with their substance, fluctuate with the passage of time and with the availability (and sources) of information. Represents different segments of state administration that are involved in the process, mostly in the form of experts. They are invited to consultation meetings by the City of Zagreb but hold no substantial role in the decision making, or on the agenda setting. They consider that the current form of participation is adequate, where they are the experts, and the 'others' (i.e. the outer group) should be merely informed on what the decisions were. Some of them have balanced interests (MC, SINP, PI NP Medvednica), while some (MCPP) act on behalf of special interest groups (i.e. The power behind the throne)
1. Actors; City of Zagreb, Parliament. 2. Determinants of participation; Costs of participation; Capacity for participation
1. Actors - SINP, MC, MCPP, PI NP Medvednica, Zagrebacka County, KrapinskoZagorska County, Croatian Forests Ltd. 2. Level of participation Consultation 3. Perceptions on participation -
Adequate participation
Hunters
Hunting is located on the northern slopes of Medvednica. They are represented by the Croatian Hunting Federation, which has its seven associations located in Medvednica. They have stopped the first draft of the spatial plan, as it would decrease their hunting rights. They have direct influence over the process of spatial planning through the City Office for Agriculture and Forestry of Zagreb. Croatian Hunting Federation claims that they are not influential, and that they are not involved in the process of spatial planning on Medvednica. (11 labels)
The inner group
Represents different segments of state administration that are involved in the process, mostly in the form of experts. They are invited to consultation meetings by the City of Zagreb but hold no substantial role in the decision making, or on the agenda setting. They consider that the current form of participation is adequate, where they are the experts, and the 'others' (i.e. the outer group) should be merely informed on what the decisions were. Some of them have balanced interests (MC, SINP, PI NP Medvednica), while some (MCPP) act on behalf of special interest groups (i.e. The power behind the throne)
NGOs
NGOs have interest in furthering nature conservation on Medvednica. They are very active on this issue in public media on in the public hearings, but none of their arguments/comments have never been accepted by the spatial planners. They have been called to stakeholder consultation in the final stages of planning, when there was no possibility of alterations. Perceive public hearing as a futile symbolic activity. They try to inform citizens on their public participation rights. Are very against of the forest management activities performed by Croatian forests Ltd. (15 labels)
The outer group
Represents unorganized (or loosely organized) groups of different stakeholders, whose interest are in most cases ambivalent (with the exception of NGOs, who are nature centred), i.e. depend on the availability and sources of information on the subject matter. Feel that there are being manipulated by other, more powerful groups of actors, which are represented by the formal deciders and by the media. Can influence the formal deciders if their interest are focused enough, and if they perceive that they can have benefits of participation on a personal level. In most cases not interested in participation, which they perceive as inadequate. They also perceive the current structure of spatial planning as corrupt. In most cases broader groups perceive that their interests in the process of spatial planning would be better represented by smaller, more focused group, e.g. specialized NGOs and regional/Umbrella associations of private forest owners. They either participate through public hearings, reply to questionnaires or get informed on the process by public media. Believe that they could really participate in the process of spatial plan if the current structure of governing changes. They perceive EU accession as a possible driving force of these changes
1. Actors - SINP, MC, MCPP, PI NP Medvednica, Zagrebacka County, KrapinskoZagorska County, Croatian Forests Ltd. 2. Level of participation Consultation 3. Perceptions on participation Adequate participation 1. Actors Citizens of Zagreb, Zagrebacka County, and of KrapinskoZagorska County. NGOs, Private forest owners 2. Determinants of participation Limitations of participation 3. Level of participation; Public hearings, Non-participation
Zagreb county
Formally involved in the spatial planning process, but actually marginalized by the City of Zagreb. Have little information or relations to participation activities (3 labels)
The inner group
Represents different segments of state administration that are involved in the process, mostly in the form of experts. They are invited to consultation meetings by the City of Zagreb but hold no substantial role in the decision making, or on the agenda setting. They consider that the current form of participation is adequate, where they are the experts, and the 'others' (i.e. the outer group) should be merely informed on what the decisions were. Some of them have balanced interests (MC, SINP, PI NP Medvednica), while some (MCPP) act on behalf of special interest groups (i.e. The power behind the throne)
KrapinskoZagorska County – also contains municipality Stubičke toplice
Involved in the team that drafts spatial plan. More involved than Zagrebačka County, less than the City of Zagreb. More involved in the second and third process than they were in the first one. Perceive broad (public) participation as pointless and that only a small team should make the plan. (8 labels)
The inner group
Represents different segments of state administration that are involved in the process, mostly in the form of experts. They are invited to consultation meetings by the City of Zagreb but hold no substantial role in the decision making, or on the agenda setting. They consider that the current form of participation is adequate, where they are the experts, and the 'others' (i.e. the outer group) should be merely informed on what the decisions were. Some of them have balanced interests (MC, SINP, PI NP Medvednica), while some (MCPP) act on behalf of special interest groups (i.e. The power behind the throne)
Private forest owners
Private forest owners own 50 % of forest on Medvednica. Not very interested in active forest management. In general were not invited to meetings, have little information on the process of spatial planning, and would like to be more involved. Smaller part of them has interest in converting their forest to construction land and legalizing it – they were active in the public hearings, and were involved in the process. (16 labels). Croatian Forests Ltd., the state forest management company, also manages part of the private forests
The outer group
Represents unorganized (or loosely organized) groups of different stakeholders, whose interest are in most cases ambivalent (with the exception of NGOs, who are nature centred), i.e. depend on the availability and sources of information on the subject matter. Feel that there are being manipulated by other, more powerful groups of actors, which are represented by the formal deciders and by the media. Can influence the formal deciders if their interest are focused enough, and if they perceive that they can have benefits of participation on a personal level. In most cases not interested in participation, which they perceive as inadequate. They also perceive the current structure of spatial planning as corrupt. In most cases broader groups perceive that their interests in the process of spatial planning would be better represented by smaller, more focused group, e.g. specialized NGOs and regional/Umbrella associations of private forest owners. They either participate through public hearings, reply to questionnaires or get informed on the process by public media. Believe that they could really participate in the process of spatial plan if the current structure of governing changes. They perceive EU accession as a possible driving force of these changes
1. Actors - SINP, MC, MCPP, PI NP Medvednica, Zagrebacka County, KrapinskoZagorska County, Croatian Forests Ltd. 2. Level of participation Consultation 3. Perceptions on participation Adequate participation 1. Actors - SINP, MC, MCPP, PI NP Medvednica, Zagrebacka County, KrapinskoZagorska County, Croatian Forests Ltd. 2. Level of participation Consultation 3. Perceptions on participation Adequate participation 1. Actors Citizens of Zagreb, Zagrebacka County, and of KrapinskoZagorska County. NGOs, Private forest owners 2. Determinants of participation Limitations of participation 3. Level of participation; Public hearings, Non-participation
Construction lobby
Represents investors and construction companies with a lot of political and financial power. They are constructing housing, touristic and industrial real estates within the Park. Most of these activities occur on the southern slopes of Medvednica i.e. on the northern borders of Zagreb. They are also constructing illegally, and converting some forest areas into construction land. They have stopped the second decision making process of the spatial plan, and pushed in the Parliament that the borders of NP Medvednica are to be diminished. The areas that went out of the park were the ones that were urbanized. Their interest prevails over any other interests. The exponent of their interest in the process of spatial planning is the administration of the City of Zagreb itself, and the Ministry of Construction. (39 labels)
Power behind the throne
Quarries (Quarry owners)
Influential in the process of spatial planning, but not formally involved. They keep on with their activities regardless of many environmental complaints. (6 labels)
Power behind the throne
PI NP Medvednica
Has interest in the proclamation of the spatial plan. Not influential. Agreed to decrease of the area due to low power. Advocates conservation and to some extent sustainable usage of natural resources. (7 labels)
The inner group
Strongly interconnected clusters of actors that hold specialized interests. These interests do not contradict each other, and they strive for broadening the scope of human presence and activities in NP Medvednica. Their interests contradict nature conservation. These actors have direct control over the actions of the City of Zagreb in the process of spatial planning. These actors influence the choice of personnel assigned to the tasks of spatial planning, where the chosen employees return the 'favour' of promotion with the 'favour' of securing the interests of these groups in the preparation of spatial plan. The second stream of influence is through the Mayor of Zagreb, the function in which the formal political power is concentrated on. Compliance to their interests is secured through donations to the local political establishment. Perceive that the current mode of participation is adequate. Exert influence on parts of the inner group, and also strongly shape the interests of outer group through public media campaigns Strongly interconnected clusters of actors that hold specialized interests. These interests do not contradict each other, and they strive for broadening the scope of human presence and activities in NP Medvednica. Their interests contradict nature conservation. These actors have direct control over the actions of the City of Zagreb in the process of spatial planning. These actors influence the choice of personnel assigned to the tasks of spatial planning, where the chosen employees return the 'favour' of promotion with the 'favour' of securing the interests of these groups in the preparation of spatial plan. The second stream of influence is through the Mayor of Zagreb, the function in which the formal political power is concentrated on. Compliance to their interests is secured through donations to the local political establishment. Perceive that the current mode of participation is adequate. Exert influence on parts of the inner group, and also strongly shape the interests of outer group through public media campaigns Represents different segments of state administration that are involved in the process, mostly in the form of experts. They are invited to consultation meetings by the City of Zagreb but hold no substantial role in the decision making, or on the agenda setting. They consider that the current form of participation is adequate, where they are the experts, and the 'others' (i.e. the outer group) should be merely informed on what the decisions were. Some of them have balanced interests (MC, SINP, PI NP Medvednica), while some (MCPP) act on behalf of special interest groups (i.e. The power behind the throne)
1. Actors Political elites, Construction lobby, Ski Lobby, Quarry lobby, Hunting lobby 2. Level of participation informal participation. 3. Perceptions on participation Adequate participation
1. Actors Political elites, Construction lobby, Ski Lobby, Quarry lobby, Hunting lobby 2. Level of participation informal participation. 3. Perceptions on participation Adequate participation
1. Actors - SINP, MC, MCPP, PI NP Medvednica, Zagrebacka County, KrapinskoZagorska County, Croatian Forests Ltd. 2. Level of participation Consultation 3. Perceptions on participation Adequate participation
Level of participation
Ski lobby
Influential in the process of spatial planning. From all touristic activities skiing is most pronounced. Have special interest in the peak zone, where they build ski tracks, and other touristic facilities. Part of the formal process of decision making, have high support from the City of Zagreb. Have political power, and push further skiing capacities, although they are not financially viable. (43 labels)
Power behind the throne
Public hearings
Only actors that have direct interest are participating to the public hearings. The participant put a lot of energy in stating their claims. The team that runs the process of spatial planning has not accepted a single comment from any of the hearings (except for the case written below). The team also perceives this kind of participation adequate. Participants feel that they are being manipulated. Exemption of this rule was the situation on the decreasing of the borders, when public media have infuriated people stating that no construction will be allowed within the park, which is untrue. This created a very heated atmosphere in the hearings and a public protest, which was seen as a cause for decreasing of the protection area. (22 labels)
Type of participation
Symbolic participation
Informal participation
Represent actors that have direct interest and financial and/or political power. They are more often not part of the formal process. They lobby informally through actors that are part of the formal decision making process. In majority of cases that is the administration of the City of Zagreb or the major of Zagreb directly. This is the method through which all the spatial plans have been stopped, and how borders of the Park have been decreased. All organized interest groups have utilized this method. They control the agenda setting, have direct control over decisions that are made, and have influence on the choice of personnel that formally performs the process of decision making. The rewards for compliance to their wants are political support through donations, political favours and corruption. (12 labels)
Type of participation
Informal participation
Strongly interconnected clusters of actors that hold specialized interests. These interests do not contradict each other, and they strive for broadening the scope of human presence and activities in NP Medvednica. Their interests contradict nature conservation. These actors have direct control over the actions of the City of Zagreb in the process of spatial planning. These actors influence the choice of personnel assigned to the tasks of spatial planning, where the chosen employees return the 'favour' of promotion with the 'favour' of securing the interests of these groups in the preparation of spatial plan. The second stream of influence is through the Mayor of Zagreb, the function in which the formal political power is concentrated on. Compliance to their interests is secured through donations to the local political establishment. Perceive that the current mode of participation is adequate. Exert influence on parts of the inner group, and also strongly shape the interests of outer group through public media campaigns Represents different types of 'enrolment' of stakeholders in the process of spatial planning, all of which share in common that they do not have real impact on the process itself. Actors may be called to consultative meetings, participate in public hearings, reply to a questionnaire, or read and comment on the process on-line. They may agree or disagree with the process itself and on the applied methods of participation, believe that they are being manipulated or not, to have adequate or inadequate level of information on the process; but regardless of these factors, they do not have the power to affect it. With a strong, organized representation of interests that goes beyond the current modes of participation actors which have symbolically participated can affect the process of spatial planning; but this mobilization of interests originates from manipulation by other (i.e. The power behind the throne) group of stakeholders, where in the end the less powerful actors act against their (true) interests Represent type of involvement by actors that have direct interest and financial and/or political power. They are mostly not part of the formal process. They lobby informally through actors that are part of the formal decision making process. In majority of cases that is the administration of the City of Zagreb or the major of Zagreb directly. This is the method through which all the spatial plans have been stopped, and how borders of the Park have been decreased. All organized interest groups have utilized this method. They control the agenda setting, have direct control over decisions that are made, and have influence on the choice of personnel that formally performs the process of decision making. The rewards for compliance to their wants are political support through donations, political favours and corruption. (12 codes)
1. Actors Political elites, Construction lobby, Ski Lobby, Quarry lobby, Hunting lobby 2. Level of participation informal participation. 3. Perceptions on participation Adequate participation
1. Level of participation; Consultation, Public hearings, Non-participation
1. Level of participation: informal participation
Perceptions on participation
Nonparticipation
Represents inactive involvement. The list of stakeholders has been given to the spatial planners politically, and it is very narrow. Planners also believe that in general stakeholders should not be involved… and that the adequate level of their involvement is just by informing them on the process through internet, or by (other) public media . From the stakeholders perspective it represents passive involvement or non-involvement (just receiving sparse information), with low information level on the process itself. (11 labels)
Type of participation
Symbolic participation
Consultation
Consultations are meetings with different stakeholders organized by the City of Zagreb. Its participants are, however, other parts of public administration: Zagrebacka County, Krapinsko - Zagorska County, Municipality Bistra and Ministry of Spatial planning... all off which perceive themselves as members of the team for spatial planning, and not as stakeholders. The discussion in the consultation meetings is constructive, but the actual decisions are made by the City of Zagreb. City of Zagreb believes that only this group represent stakeholders which should participate, and that all other should be just informed. The consultation occurred in the second and the third process. (16 labels)
Type of participation
Symbolic participation
Inadequate participation
View that participation in the process was inadequate. It is characterized by excluding important stakeholders (i.e. everyone but public administration), and that the forms of participation exercised with stakeholders (public consultation, questionnaires) are just a facade with no real impact on the process. Leaders of the process are perceived as corrupt and as manipulating public and stakeholders. The topic of the participation which are used are also of marginal importance, and the important topics which relate to true interest of stakeholders are not the topic of discussion, Diverting from true interests. This view is shared by all the citizens, NGO, PI NP Medvednica, Hunters, private forest owners, Croatian Forest Ltd., SINP and the Ministry of Culture. (27 labels)
The outer group
Represents different types of 'enrolment' of stakeholders in the process of spatial planning, all of which share in common that they do not have real impact on the process itself. Actors may be called to consultative meetings, participate in public hearings, reply to a questionnaire, or read and comment on the process on-line. They may agree or disagree with the process itself and on the applied methods of participation, believe that they are being manipulated or not, to have adequate or inadequate level of information on the process; but regardless of these factors, they do not have the power to affect it. With a strong, organized representation of interests that goes beyond the current modes of participation actors which have symbolically participated can affect the process of spatial planning; but this mobilization of interests originates from manipulation by other (i.e. The power behind the throne) group of stakeholders, where in the end the less powerful actors act against their (true) interests Represents different types of 'enrolment' of stakeholders in the process of spatial planning, all of which share in common that they do not have real impact on the process itself. Actors may be called to consultative meetings, participate in public hearings, reply to a questionnaire, or read and comment on the process on-line. They may agree or disagree with the process itself and on the applied methods of participation, believe that they are being manipulated or not, to have adequate or inadequate level of information on the process; but regardless of these factors, they do not have the power to affect it. With a strong, organized representation of interests that goes beyond the current modes of participation actors which have symbolically participated can affect the process of spatial planning; but this mobilization of interests originates from manipulation by other (i.e. The power behind the throne) group of stakeholders, where in the end the less powerful actors act against their (true) interests Represents unorganized (or loosely organized) groups of different stakeholders, whose interest are in most cases ambivalent (with the exception of NGOs, who are nature centred), i.e. depend on the availability and sources of information on the subject matter. Feel that there are being manipulated by other, more powerful groups of actors, which are represented by the formal deciders and by the media. Can influence the formal deciders if their interests are focused enough, and if they perceive that they can have benefits of participation on a personal level. In most cases not interested in participation, which they perceive as inadequate. They also perceive the current structure of spatial planning as corrupt. In most cases broader groups perceive that their interests in the process of spatial planning would be better represented by smaller, more focused group, e.g. specialized NGOs and regional/Umbrella associations of private forest owners. They either participate through public hearings, reply to questionnaires or get informed on the process by public media. Believe that they could really participate in the process of spatial plan if the current structure of
1. Level of participation; Consultation, Public hearings, Non-participation
1. Level of participation; Consultation, Public hearings, Non-participation
1. Actors Citizens of Zagreb, Zagrebacka County, and of KrapinskoZagorska County. NGOs, Private forest owners 2. Determinants of participation Limitations of participation 3. Level of participation; Public hearings, Non-participation
governing changes. They perceive EU accession as a possible driving force of these changes
Adequate participation
Determinant s of participation
Limitations of participation
View that participation in the process was adequate. The participation was exercised on the official list of stakeholders (through consultation), and the list contained only organizations of public administration.... and all the rest are not regarded as stakeholders but as "citizens", which should not be involved in the process of decision making. This view is shared by the City of Zagreb and other Counties, and by the Ministry of Spatial planning, and lobby/interest groups (17 labels) The impact of participation on the process is very weak. The underlying reason is that people in the current system fear the political repercussions of their public activity, and perceive that they cannot change anything due to informal (corruptive) practices. This is the central idea of the code; people perceive that they do not have an impact of the process, which further dissuades them from participating. In this general atmosphere there is a lack of collective action, and majority does not see what their interests are in the process of spatial planning. The public is also manipulated through media on the emphasized power of the (political) elites, which dissuades them from participating. The media can also alter the perception of what the true interests of stakeholders are, so they may act against their true interests (e.g. that citizens' already build houses in the southern slopes will be demolished - which is not true- so they made a campaign against the adoption of the plan. Majority of interviewees believe that entrance to the EU will change the current system of governance, and make the process of spatial planning more transparent and more open to stakeholders. (67 labels)
The power behind the throne; The formal decider, The inner group
The outer group
Represents unorganized (or loosely organized) groups of different stakeholders, whose interest are in most cases ambivalent (with the exception of NGOs, who are nature centred), i.e. depend on the availability and sources of information on the subject matter. Feel that there are being manipulated by other, more powerful groups of actors, which are represented by the formal deciders and by the media. Can influence the formal deciders if their interest are focused enough, and if they perceive that they can have benefits of participation on a personal level. In most cases not interested in participation, which they perceive as inadequate. They also perceive the current structure of spatial planning as corrupt. In most cases broader groups perceive that their interests in the process of spatial planning would be better represented by smaller, more focused group, e.g. specialized NGOs and regional/Umbrella associations of private forest owners. They either participate through public hearings, reply to questionnaires or get informed on the process by public media. Believe that they could really participate in the process of spatial plan if the current structure of governing changes. They perceive EU accession as a possible driving force of these changes
1. Actors Citizens of Zagreb, Zagrebacka County, and of KrapinskoZagorska County. NGOs, Private forest owners 2. Determinants of participation Limitations of participation 3. Level of participation; Public hearings, Non-participation
Costs of participation
There are many different stakeholders and many different interests revolving around NP Medvednica, and the implementation of participatory mechanisms requires capacities that state administration does not have. The leaders of the process have problems with accommodating the interests of different segments of state administration, let along of the other (external) stakeholders). They also receive no personal benefits for implementing participation, which would complicate their jobs. (16 labels)
Formal decider
Central actors with formal power of setting the agenda of decision making, putting some decisions aside, defining the procedural and substantive aspects of spatial planning, and halting the process altogether. Has perception that the current form of participation is adequate. Although is aware of other, more 'liberal' forms of participation, they are cast aside. The reasons are that in that case the 'external', 'non-expert' players would have more prominent role, by which they would decrease their own importance and the importance of the 'external' experts with appropriate formal education. Another reason for not including 'more liberal' forms of participation is that it has its procedural costs, which would require additional work (with no personal benefits) and would prolong the process of spatial planning. This code encompasses the administration of the City of Zagreb, and the Croatian Parliament. Although spatial plan in the end depends on its adoption by the Parliament, they can just address the drafts that the City has sent them - and that has never happened. They have decreased the borders of the NP Medvednica, and it’s Spatial Planning and Construction Committee also acts as a representative of the Construction lobby (i.e. The power behind the throne). The mechanisms of control of the Parliament and the City of Zagreb are the same - the powerful interest groups put political contributions, and in return have the discretionary right of personnel selection to the functions of their interests, who also have to secure the interest of these groups in their daily work. The formal decider also receives an input from the 'outer group' in cases when their interests are explicit. However, the strength/importance of these interests, along with their substance, fluctuate with the passage of time and with the availability (and sources) of information.
1. Actors; City of Zagreb, Parliament. 2. Determinants of participation; Costs of participation; Capacity for participation
Spatial plan
Capacity for participation
Lack of capacity to implement stakeholder’s participation, i.e. to acknowledge their interests in the decision making. The state administration that prepares the plan does not perceive citizens and stakeholders as expert enough to participate, and that the decision making has to be done by them, the experts (as contrast to nonexperts). This position has strengthened from the first to the third process. (9 labels)
Decreasing of the NP Medvednica
The only decision that has been made regarding spatial planning of NP is decreasing of its borders. This has occurred mostly on the southern slopes, less on the northern. The formal decision has been made by the Parliament on recommendation of the Ministry of spatial planning, but in reality represents the efforts of the City of Zagreb and of its major. The reason behind the decrease is urbanization and the pressures of the construction lobby. Only one quarter of the area that left the park was urbanized, and the rest awaits urbanization by investors. Although in general population if against the decreasing of the NP, Public media has issued a campaign sponsored by the construction lobby saying that no NP has very strict construction regime (not true), and so the people revolted... and so the city of Zagreb was just reacting to the "will of the people" . Possibility exists that this will happen again. (44 labels) Effects of designation of the spatial plan. Bringing about spatial plan would improve the nature protection function, and it would further the interest of general public, especially citizens of Zagreb. (13 labels)
Decision making / Effects of spatial plan
Formal decider
Interests
Interests
Human centred
Balanced
Central actors with formal power of setting the agenda of decision making, putting some decisions aside, defining the procedural and substantive aspects of spatial planning, and halting the process altogether. Has perception that the current form of participation is adequate. Although is aware of other, more 'liberal' forms of participation, they are cast aside. The reasons are that in that case the 'external', 'non-expert' players would have more prominent role, by which they would decrease their own importance and the importance of the 'external' experts with appropriate formal education. Another reason for not including 'more liberal' forms of participation is that it has its procedural costs, which would require additional work (with no personal benefits) and would prolong the process of spatial planning. This code encompasses the administration of the City of Zagreb, and the Croatian Parliament. Although spatial plan in the end depends on its adoption by the Parliament, they can just address the drafts that the City has sent them - and that has never happened. They have decreased the borders of the NP Medvednica, and it’s Spatial Planning and Construction Committee also acts as a representative of the Construction lobby (i.e. The power behind the throne). The mechanisms of control of the Parliament and the City of Zagreb are the same - the powerful interest groups put political contributions, and in return have the discretionary right of personnel selection to the functions of their interests, who also have to secure the interest of these groups in their daily work. The formal decider also receives an input from the 'outer group' in cases when their interests are explicit. However, the strength/importance of these interests, along with their substance, fluctuate with the passage of time and with the availability (and sources) of information. Represents activity within or attitude towards management of NP Medvednica directed to fulfilment of human needs (e.g. construction, quarries, hunting)
1. Actors; City of Zagreb, Parliament. 2. Determinants of participation; Costs of participation; Capacity for participation
Represents balanced human and nature-centred interests, where sustainable usage of natural resources is allowed. Different values have priority according to the zoning structure of the area, and the interventions in the area are clearly defined; deviation from these rules should be punishable. Clearly defined position.
Effects of spatial plan; Theoretical goal of spatial plan
Illegal construction, Degradation of forest habitats, Cable car reconstruction, hunting, tunnel building 2. Spatial plan ; Decreasing of the area of NP Medvednica; Effects of no spatial plan
Non- decision making / Effects of no spatial plan
Represents effects of not bringing about spatial plan. In its absence there are no legal penalties for unsustainable usage of natural resources and for construction activities within NP, so the 'winners' in this situation are all the groups that have these types of interests. They have been blocking all of the three processes, mostly through influencing (represented by) the political leadership of the City of Zagreb (and in smaller part the Ministry of Construction and Spatial Planning). (55 labels)
Interests
Human centred
Represents activity within or attitude towards management of NP Medvednica directed to fulfilment of human needs (e.g. construction, quarries, hunting)
Protection within forest reserves
Especially valuable forest habitats are protected as special reserves of forest vegetation (a national category of protection) within NP Medvednica. Relates to protection in which very little active human management is allowed. They have been managed by Croatian forests Ltd. (CF), and in the process have over-utilized them to a point where their important ecosystem elements are lost. CF has interest to de-classify these areas as special reserves. They have been especially active in the second process (10 labels) The first process was made in the 1980s. The public participation was high, with public hearings, consultations and questionnaires. The best experts and scientists worked on its preparation, and the cooperation between segments of public administration was much more harmonious than later on. The process failed due to the formal resistance of municipalities from the northern side of NP Medvednica (at that time municipalities had much more political power than later on, and they had political power similar to Counties). The formal resistance of municipalities was rooted in informal resistance of the hunting interests, which were endorsed by high-level politicians. (39 labels)
Interests
Nature centred
Represents activity within or attitude towards management of NP Medvednica directed to preservation of nature itself; where nature has its own value, separated from human wants and needs. Also encompasses 'weak', sustainable usage of natural resources, but to extent that does not interfere with nature protection goals. Clearly defined interests
Structure of governing
The process of spatial planning is not transparent to the stakeholders, and the information and the decision making rights are held by a small inner group of planners. The people that compose these teams are placed to those positions politically, and not based on their expertise. The majority of the discretionary rights is held by the City of Zagreb, where they have power to place the people in the team, and to dismiss those people and those studies (expert background documents) than are against their line of thought; and the line of thought of the City of Zagreb is aligned with the development interests (construction and sport tourism). Only state administration is regarded as stakeholders; they are invited to consultative meetings, but have no real influence on the process of spatial planning. The others (stakeholders, external actors) are informed on the decisions, and there are no protocols to include their opinions in the plan after the public hearings, questionnaires or other methods. The structure of decision making is such that it allows fulfilment only of interests that originate within the team. Other structural reason for this process design is that majority of people involved in the process are architects, and they mostly perceive the area as construction land, or as an area modified by human activity. The situation was different in the first process; at that time the Institute for urbanism existed, and its employees had more holistic perception on the spatial plan, where all interests of stakeholders, citizens and requirements of nature protection were more emphasized. (149 labels)
First process
Illegal construction, Degradation of forest habitats, Cable car reconstruction, hunting, tunnel building 2. Spatial plan ; Decreasing of the area of NP Medvednica; Effects of no spatial plan Nature protection, Protection within forest reserves
Process design; First process; second process; third process;
Second process
The second process was done in early 2000s. The process has failed due to formal resistance of the Ministry of Construction and Spatial planning. City of Zagreb had also halted the process through its administrative procedures and assigning 'political' and not expert personnel to carry out the drafting of the spatial plan. Public hearings had no effect, and questionnaires with stakeholders have been falsified. These efforts by different parts of public administration were backed informally by construction lobby, ski lobby that wanted to construct sport facilities in peak areas, and Croatian Forests Ltd. that wanted to stop the protection of special reserves of forest vegetation. (24 labels)
Structure of governing
Third process
Started in 2012. The background documents and participation process are over, but the final plan is not finished (yet). Only counties, ministries and state agencies are regarded as stakeholders, and have been invited to consultation meetings; but the lead role falls to the City of Zagreb. Municipalities had less involvement in the process than in the first and the second attempt. Interaction with all other stakeholders is performed through public hearings, which have no substantial role. Participation is exercised in a lesser degree than in a third, and far lesser degree than in the first process. The citizens did not have (adequate) information on the process or on their rights, and in general did not have much willingness to participate. The public interests was to a great extent represented by NGOs (20 labels)
Structure of governing
The process of spatial planning is not transparent to the stakeholders, and the information and the decision making rights are held by a small inner group of planners. The people that compose these teams are placed to those positions politically, and not based on their expertise. The majority of the discretionary rights is held by the City of Zagreb, where they have power to place the people in the team, and to dismiss those people and those studies (expert background documents) than are against their line of thought; and the line of thought of the City of Zagreb is aligned with the development interests (construction and sport tourism). Only state administration is regarded as stakeholders; they are invited to consultative meetings, but have no real influence on the process of spatial planning. The others (stakeholders, external actors) are informed on the decisions, and there are no protocols to include their opinions in the plan after the public hearings, questionnaires or other methods. The structure of decision making is such that it allows fulfilment only of interests that originate within the team. Other structural reason for this process design is that majority of people involved in the process are architects, and they mostly perceive the area as construction land, or as an area modified by human activity. The situation was different in the first process; at that time the Institute for urbanism existed, and its employees had more holistic perception on the spatial plan, where all interests of stakeholders, citizens and requirements of nature protection were more emphasized. (149 labels) The process of spatial planning is not transparent to the stakeholders and the information and the decision making rights are held by a small inner group of planners. The people that compose these teams are placed to those positions politically, and not based on their expertise. The majority of the discretionary rights is held by the City of Zagreb, where they have power to place the people in the team, and to dismiss those people and those studies (expert background documents) than are against their line of thought; and the line of thought of the City of Zagreb is aligned with the development interests (construction and sport tourism). Only state administration is regarded as stakeholders; they are invited to consultative meetings, but have no real influence on the process of spatial planning. The others (stakeholders, external actors) are informed on the decisions, and there are no protocols to include their opinions in the plan after the public hearings, questionnaires or other methods. The structure of decision making is such that it allows fulfilment only of interests that originate within the team. Other structural reason for this process design is that majority of people involved in the process are architects, and they mostly perceive the area as construction land, or as an area modified by human activity. The situation was different in the first process; at that time the Institute for urbanism existed, and its employees had more holistic perception on the spatial plan, where all interests of stakeholders, citizens and requirements of nature protection were more
Process design; First process; second process; third process;
Process design; First process; second process; third process;
emphasized. (149 labels)
Theoretical goal
The overall goal of the spatial plan is the protection of the forest ecosystem. Given the adherence to nature protection management guidelines, It is allowed to sustainably use natural resources. In the current situation where spatial plan does not exists the balance between protection and usage of natural resources is destroyed. The interests that revolve around the spatial plan have remained the same for the last 50 years. These interest have created very different situation in the field from the one envisaged by the draft versions of the spatial plan - i.e. many construction activities have occurred where they should not be. Lowering of the level of (public) participation stops the reaching of the goal of spatial planning. (22 labels)
Interests
Balanced
Represents balanced human and nature-centred interests, where sustainable usage of natural resources is allowed. Different values have priority according to the zoning structure of the area, and the interventions in the area are clearly defined; deviation from these rules should be punishable. Clearly defined position.
Effects of spatial plan; Theoretical goal of spatial plan
Process design
The process of spatial planning is not transparent to the stakeholders and the information and the decision making rights are held by a small inner group of planners. The people that compose these teams are placed to those positions politically, and not based on their expertise. The majority of the discretionary rights is held by the City of Zagreb, where they have power to place the people in the team, and to dismiss those people and those studies (expert background documents) than are against their line of thought; and the line of thought of the City of Zagreb is aligned with the development interests (construction and sport tourism). Only state administration is regarded as stakeholders; they are invited to consultative meetings, but have no real influence on the process of spatial planning. The others (stakeholders, external actors) are informed on the decisions, and there are no protocols to include their opinions in the plan after the public hearings, questionnaires or other methods. The structure of decision making is such that it allows fulfilment only of interests that originate within the team. Other structural reason for this process design is that majority of people involved in the process are architects, and they mostly perceive the area as construction land, or as an area modified by human activity. The situation was different in the first process; at that time the Institute for urbanism existed, and its employees had more holistic perception on the spatial plan, where all interests of stakeholders, citizens and requirements of nature protection were more emphasized. (149 labels)
Structure of governing
Interests
Ambivalent
The process of spatial planning is not transparent to the stakeholders and the information and the decision making rights are held by a small inner group of planners. The people that compose these teams are placed to those positions politically, and not based on their expertise. The majority of the discretionary rights is held by the City of Zagreb, where they have power to place the people in the team, and to dismiss those people and those studies (expert background documents) than are against their line of thought; and the line of thought of the City of Zagreb is aligned with the development interests (construction and sport tourism). Only state administration is regarded as stakeholders; they are invited to consultative meetings, but have no real influence on the process of spatial planning. The others (stakeholders, external actors) are informed on the decisions, and there are no protocols to include their opinions in the plan after the public hearings, questionnaires or other methods. The structure of decision making is such that it allows fulfilment only of interests that originate within the team. Other structural reason for this process design is that majority of people involved in the process are architects, and they mostly perceive the area as construction land, or as an area modified by human activity. The situation was different in the first process; at that time the Institute for urbanism existed, and its employees had more holistic perception on the spatial plan, where all interests of stakeholders, citizens and requirements of nature protection were more emphasized. (149 labels) Represents interests whose' orientation depends on the availability and type (i.e. origin) of information on the subject matter. The orientation may range from human, balanced to nature oriented. Reserved for unorganized groups of stakeholders, which feel that they are being manipulated by other, more cohesive groups.
Process design; First process; second process; third process;
1. Actors; Citizens of Zagreb, Zagrebacka County, and of KrapinskoZagorska County
Relational Codes and Memos CONTEXT Number of code 1
Relational code Balanced interest
Number of labels 4
Memo Interest of having a process where the management of area under spatial planning equally reflects nature conservation and utilization of natural resources
2
Citizens as construction land owners
8
Citizens of the areas around NP are also partly the owners of the land within NP Medvednica, for which they hope that will be converted to construction land.
3
Construction only with power
35
4
Construction without expert justification
10
5
Deforestation for construction
25
Construction in the area is practically 'allowed' only to the powerful actors. These actors have enough financial resources and political influence to construct almost whatever they want. They can get 'special' permissions from the public authorities which they can influence by legal and illegal means. The construction activities mostly occur in the southern slopes and in the peak area. Although they can construct within the park, the abolishment of the park or a significant decrease of its area would even more facilitate the construction activities. These actors do not have interest to formally participate in the process of spatial planning, as they can excerpt their influence over the process by covert means, mostly corruption The public authorities justify different kinds of construction activities within NP Medvednica, and the majority of those go against the management guidelines for nature protection. In the periphery zone they issue construction permits without justification for housing, and in the peak area for touristic activities. Especially the construction on the peak area is in the interest of the City as it also gives its leaders 'political' points Forests are being cleared for construction, hoping that there will be an added effect if there are many cases of this activity; where subsequently all these construction would be legalized. Performed both by the citizens of surrounding area and by the construction lobby
6
Enjoyment of nature
12
Position by which the primary purpose of NP Medvednica is to provide unobstructed enjoyment of nature to citizens. This entails that the construction activities are minimized
7
Forest management for profit
27
8
Forests as central object of protection
3
9
Halting the nature protection
3
Forest management that is focused on profit, with not enough attention to the guidelines of nature protection. This management regime also degrades forests, most notably special forest reserves. This management regime is at its most when the forest area on Medvednica is out of the Nature park, and when special forest reserves are cancelled as a means of protection. Mostly refers to state forest management company Position where nature protection is the most important function of NP Medvednica. Emphasis is put on special forest reserves. More 'extreme' position than under code 'Enjoyment of nature' Position where NP should be abolished, and where 'development' activities should unfold with very little restrictions. 'Extreme' develo0pment position
10
Interest for unrestricted hunting Natural process of urbanization
8
Nature conservation as public interest
5
11
12
5
Interest to perform hunting without (much) restrictions of nature protection, or construction. Mostly focused on northern slopes of NP Medvednica Position that construction activities are infact a natural process of urbanization, by which peripheral areas of NP should be urbanized, and fall out of the nature park. This position gives legitimacy to illegal construction activities Position that nature protection is the primary interest of citizens. Relatively moderate position where some construction is allowed.
Related to 6,8,9,12,13, 18,19, 23, 29, 30 3,,4,5,11, 16, 20, 25, 26, 27, 28, 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 28, 31, 32
2, 3, 5, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 28, 31, 32 2, 3, 4, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 28, 31, 32 1, 8, 12, 13, 19, 23, 29, 30 14, 17, 24, 32
1,6, 12, 13, 18, 23, 30 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 32 11,14, 17, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 15, 17, 20, 21, 22, 25, 26, 29, 30 1, 6, 8, 13, 18, 19, 29, 30
CAUSAL CONDITIONS Number of code 13
14
Relational code Participation as facilitator of decision making Centralization of decision making
Number of labels 3
58
Memo
Related to
Position that strong participatory processes enhance and improve the spatial planning
18, 19, 23, 29, 30, 34, 38
City of Zagreb is the sole formal decider on the spatial planning in Medvednica. All the other parts of state administration that are involved are practically marginalized. The City generally does not take any input from stakeholders in the process of spatial planning, i.e. of citizens and civil society. Only in extreme cases (such as organized public revolt) does the City take into account the interests of 'outer' stakeholders. City of Zagreb is also a focal point for the expression of different interest groups in the process of spatial planning. The most prominent group of interest is construction. They operate either through Division for spatial planning or through the Mayor. Hunting and forestry interest are represented though the action of Division for agriculture and forestry. Other notable interest group is the ski
15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 27, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37,
15
Architects for construction
4
16
City as loser of having spatial plan
3
17
Power defines the politics
164
18
Experts for nature protection
3
19
High information of public administration
4
20
Private interest for public hearings
12
21
High political interest
9
22
Procedural costs of participation
52
23
Inadequate participation design Interest against forest reserves
4
25
Low information
29
26
Personal costs of participation
50
24
18
lobby. The representation of these groups in the process of spatial planning is the primary characteristic of the process. This structure is present in all three processes. Public clearly perceives this relation. These interest groups secure the compliance of administration through political donations and by corruption. All them have in common that they do not want the spatial plan to be made, and they want that the area of NP is decreased The leaders of the process that work for the City of Zagreb are mostly architects, and perceive the periphery and the peak zone of NP Medvednica primary as construction areas. They have little or no expertise on the participatory processes. In this context there is a clear demarcation between the first processes on one side and the second ant the third on another - as architects run the second and third process, and employees of the Institute for urbanism ran the first (they had more holistic viewpoint and utilized participatory mechanisms to the best of their abilities) Aside for serving private interest group, the City of Zagreb also has an inherent interest of not making the spatial plan, as in this context it would lose a part of its discretionary rights over NP Medvednica. A structure of spatial planning where the process primarily serves certain private interest that remains hidden from the public. The two dominant interest groups are construction focused on southern periphery zone and construction-touristic-skiing activities focused at the peak area. The corruption of the special interest groups does not entail just that their interest are secured in the spatial planning, but also extents to the process design itself, and to the way how other stakeholders are treated. Examples of that include preparation of stakeholder lists that hold no stakeholders but certain parts of public administration, excluding public due to their 'lack of expertise', falsifying questionnaires to the public, and enhancing the position that the citizens primarily concern is construction, and that they want that the area of NP is diminished. Quarries operate regardless of guidelines on nature protection, civil discontent, and even legal requirements The experts of state administration related to nature protection are the most prominent 'defenders' of nature protection in NP Medvednica, and they are being consulted in the process State administration has a high level of information on all the topics relevant for the process of spatial planning. They are the only group of actors whio have that level of information (as opposed to public and civil society) Only actors with high private (i.e. personal) interest are participating at public hearings. This to a large extent relates to citizens that have forest or construction land within NP Medvednica, and are interested in construction activities. Citizens who have do not have construction interest, and are interested in nature protection, do not participate in public hearings. Other actors that do participate in public hearings are NGOs and some other interest groups, like skiing groups and mountaineers. Formal political interest in spatial planning depends how much a certain topic is politically important, i.e. how much is public interested in it. If a certain topic enjoys public support and does not go against 'special' interest, then it will become a part of the spatial plan. Examples are the tunnel and cable car construction Usage of participatory mechanisms in spatial planning has high procedural costs. It requires that more resources are devoted to gathering opinions of stakeholders. Even the actions of state administration are uncoordinated, which makes it very difficult to reach a common basis even among experts that work together in a team. It also takes a lot of time for all the stake-holding groups to exchange their opinions, and to engage in constructive discussion. The opinions of certain stakeholders are so diverse that it is impossible to find a common ground for decision making. The members of the team that leads the process receive no benefits for utilizing participatory mechanisms, which prolong the process and 'complicate' their job. There is also no established methodology for participation, which makes in an ad-hoc activity, with little substantive meaning. Combined with low capacities to implement it, the participation mechanism has very small probability of affecting the process of spatial planning. Position that the utilized participation model is inadequate to reflect the position of all the stake-holding groups Position that the primary action within spatial planning by which 'economy-based' forest management will be furthered is to cancel the protection of forest habitat within the national category of special reserves. All the actions of the state forest management company are aimed toward that goal. Citizens have very little information on the NP Medvednica, and on the process of spatial planning. They have little information on the legal construction possibilities within NP Medvednica They are mostly not interested in getting more informed and in participating in the process of spatial planning. Vast majority of people that have participated in the public hearings have done so if they have perceived some personal benefits. For this reason the representation of general (i.e. nature protection) interest was very low. Coming to public hearings and to plea for a public cause is generally not work of effort of devoting personal time to come to a public hearing. They also perceive a lack of coordination/ unanimity among the participants of
15, 16, 17, 19, 27, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37,
14, 15, 17, 21, 27, 32, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 24, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36,
13, 19, 23, 29, 30, 38 13, 18, 30,
20, 21, 26, 28, 38
14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 22, 25, 26, 27,31, 32, 35, 38, 20, 21, 25, 26, 29, 33, 34, 36, 37
13, 18, 19, 22, 26, 27, 31, 38 17
14, 26, 27, 28, 29, 37
20, 27, 37
27
Low trust in spatial planning team
11
28
Media manipulation
60
29
NGOs as representatives of public
9
30
Urbanism with balanced interests
6
31
Useless participation
5
32
Adequate participation
32
public hearings, which makes it very difficult for the planners to acknowledge some specific arguments, as they are 'hearing' many different claims at the same time Citizens recognize the current structure of decision making, which serves the interest of powerful groups. This makes them have very low trust in the process of spatial planning and in the state administration in general. This also diverts people from participation, as they perceive that it will be futile, and that by participating they will provide legitimization to the current, corrupt structures. They also fear political retaliation for speaking their mind, which also diverts them from participation. The situation is different with NGOs which do not fear political retaliation for making their claims public, which on the other hand makes City of Zagreb 'afraid' of NGOs Public media have deliberately manipulated citizens on the characteristics of living within NP Medvednica. They have persuaded the public that their way of life will deteriorate if they live in the park, as there would be very low construction/legalization activities, that the public infrastructure will be bad, and that they will have to pay additional taxes. All of this is untrue. The media did so under the pressure of political/financial/construction elites, who partly own the public media. This led to a general discontent over the size of the Park, and led to an organized protest for the diminishing of the area of NP Medvednica Citizen acknowledge that their participation at the public hearings might be futile, and that perhaps their interest would be better represented by more focused and organised groups NGOs The first process was run by employees of the Institute for Urbanisms, who had a spatial planning goal for Medvednica which equally adhered to nature protection and to construction/utilization of natural resources. This also entailed that they wanted to have input of scientists from many different fields in the process of spatial planning. They also had a positive attitude towards participatory mechanisms, and they have tried to utilize it as much as possible, having many different questionnaires, interviews, public hearings, etc. Position that broad public administration is useless and that spatial planning should be done solely by expert. Shared by some parts of state administration Position that the current mode of participation is adequate, i.e. public is informed, state administration is consulted, and all the actual decisions are made by the City of Zagreb on a political basis. This opinion is shared by the power elite, 'special' interest groups and by experts architects (consultants) that worked on spatial planning. It also presents an 'honest' position that due to 'legitimization' of the process it would be perhaps more appealing to use more participation, but that this is actually how the process works
17, 25, 37
17, 20, 21, 25, 38,
13, 25, 26, 37
13, 18, 23, 38
14, 15, 17, 21, 22, 32, 34, 36, 37 14, 15, 22, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37
PHENOMENON Number of code 33
Relational code Deciders' as stakeholders
Number of labels 64
34
Decrease in participation over time
9
35
Dictate of the powerful
32
36
Procedural control of the City of Zagreb
66
Memos Perception/identity dissonance over role of a stakeholder and of a decision maker. Many parts of the state administration are called to consultative meetings by the City of Zagreb for the purpose of spatial planning of NP Medvednica. The members of the state administration that participate to these meetings consider themselves as a part of the spatial planning team, and that they should through coordinated action together bring about the spatial plan. They also consider this mode of spatial planning adequate, and that the public and the civil society should not (or very weakly) included in the process. In the eyes of the City of Zagreb the state administration is a stakeholder, and not a partner in spatial planning; and as such the City has to just 'consult' with the state administration, and then decide on its own, with no obligation to take into account the comments of the state administration. The exact term how the City refers to state administration is 'official stakeholder' There is a decrease in the usage of participation from the first to the second process, and from the second to the third. There is a large difference between the first process on one side, and the second and the third on another. In the first process there was much more participation than in the second and in the third. Although the methods (public hearings, questionnaires....) have not substantially changed, the perception of the planners did; as in the first process they have valued the input of public participation, and have tried to incorporate it in the plan as much as possible The powerful interest groups dictate the process of spatial planning. Their influence is both political and 'private'. 'Private' entails donations and corruption. They have influence both over the City of Zagreb and the Parliament. Concrete this means that the regardless of the participation, there is a 'pre-defined' course of the plan which is followed. This is a continuous phenomenon, throughout all three processes. City of Zagreb has total control over the process of spatial planning. This entails the decisions are made based on just the discretion of the City, that the expert studies and feedback from stakeholders that go against their ideas are discarded, and that only their ideas are put forward in the process, i.e. that no spatial plan has ever been subjected to a vote, and that the only decision that ever made it to the formal protocol of decision making was on the decrease of the NP Medvednica (which was against the expert studies)
Related to 36, 39, 40, 43
35, 37, 39, 40, 43
34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43
36, 34, 37,
37
Practical exclusion from process
215
Citizens and civil society are practically excluded from the process; all the participation is of symbolic nature, without any substance. The 'mode' of participation favoured and practiced by the City of Zagreb is just informing them. That attitude of 'informing' is also brought to the public hearings, where City 'informs the public' on the decision which were already made, rather than to look for advice before making them. Citizens and civil sector recognize this. In order to 'please' the public and civil sector the public hearings are modified in such manner that irrelevant topics are discussed, and the public has a right to participate in the decisions regarding these irrelevant topics. In this way they are 'given' some power over the process, but in reality it is just a diversion. The public also has a low level of information on the process, and is being manipulated by media against the NP Medvednica. This induced revolt against NP is the only segment of citizens' argumentation that has been accepted by the City... however it was also something that was in line wit the intentions of the City and with the interest of those who control it. This mode of participation is regarded as inadequate by the citizens and by the civil sector
34, 35,
ACTION STRATEGIES Number of code 39
Relational code
38
Active stakeholders
17
40
Area decrease due to hunting
41
Area decrease due profits of construction
Number of labels 35
Memos
Related to
Area of NP was decreased due to the pressure of the construction lobby. The majority of area that went out of the park actually was not urbanized; it presents future revenues for the Construction lobby, who had their primary goal achieved. Parts of the state administration regard this decrease as a compromise between nature protection and Inevitable pressure of Urbanization. As such, area decrease might also facilitate the process of proclamation of a spatial plan Mostly people that have personal benefits to participate have been present at the public hearings (e.g. construction, hunting rights, etc.). This also includes civil society. In general it was too costly for people to come to public hearings and appeal for public interests, especially when they have very little hope that their claims will be accepted.
39, 40, 41, 43, 44
12
When NP was proclaimed in 1981 it should have had larger surface than it was the case. The reason for diminishing the area was the pressure of hunters. For analytical purposes this pressure is linked to the first process of spatial planning.
39, 40, 41, 43, 44
Areas decrease due to public pressure
4
39, 40, 43, 44
42
Spatial plan as management tool
8
43
Stopping the process
6
Area of NP was decreased due to public pressure, as they have feared that no construction is allowed within NP. This is untrue, and they have been manipulated into this situation by the construction lobby. In this way the formal decision makers were just 'reacting' to the will of the public when they have decreased the area of the Park The proclamation of spatial plan represents the creation of a legal basis for the management of the area of the Park. As such, it represent the central political interest of nature protection in the Park, as without it there is no legal basis for the prosecution of those who break the guidelines of nature protection set by the management plan. The goal of the spatial plan is a balance of nature protection and construction/utilization of natural resources. Having spatial plan is of interest of everyone who also has interest in nature protection. Those are public, NGO, and parts of the state administration that are related to nature protection activities - Ministry of culture/Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection, State Institute for Nature Protection and the Public Institution NP Medvednica. All of them had minor involvement in the spatial planning process, and had low power over the decision making process The process was stopped in the first and the second attempt due to the pressure of the interest groups. The first time it was the hunters, the second time it was the construction lobby. The pressure on the third time is not so powerful as the second time as the borders of NP have been decreased, and the peak area has already been an area of extensive construction activities, mostly for skiing. In the case of construction lobby stopping of the process represents an intermediary goal, which is needed to buy time until the area of the park is decreased.
41, 42
45
39, 40, 41
CONSEQUENCES Relational code 44
Devastation without spatial plan
45
Spatial plan for realization of public interest
Number of labels 21
38
Memos Situation in which there is a continuous degradation of natural ecosystems in NP Medvednica, as there is no legal basis for the prosecution of these activities. The periphery area in under continuous construction and forest clearing, the peak area is being constructed for touristic (skiing) activities, the forest ecosystems are being degraded (particularly special forest reserves), and the quarries continue on to operate. Spatial plan represents a legal basis for the management of the area of NP Medvednica, and as such represents realization of interest of all those with nature protection in mind. It is in interest of all citizens of adjacent areas that spatial plan is made. Spatial plan also is of interest to the parts of the state administration that deal with nature protection, as in this way they would have a legal basis for their activities. The 'looser' of spatial plan are all those who perform illegal construction, skiing, and quarries
Related to 39, 40, 41, 43
42
