This paper explores public participation in socialist and post-socialist housing estates in Croatian cities. The quantitative (survey, N = 1,536) and qualitative research methods (focus groups with residents, semi-structured interviews with experts) were conducted. The focus was on the level of participation and obstacles for participation in Croatian housing estates. The results confirm the hypothesis that those citizens who do not believe that their participation impacts the decision-making process are less likely to participate. At the level of all estates, citizens are poorly acquainted with the actions of the city and local authorities, and poorly involved in decision-making processes. Citizens are mainly engaged when urgent situations occur that endanger the quality of life in the estate, which is most often related to environmental or infrastructural issues. That is also the most important ad hoc channel by which residents communicate their requirements with the formal government in cities, which is also called reactionist activism.
BrysonJohn M.QuickKathryn S.SlotterbackCarissa SchivelyCrosbyBarbara C.. 2013. “Designing Public Participation Processes.” Public Administration Review73 (1): 23–34.
9.
CairncrossLizClaphamDavidGoodladRobina. 1994. “Tenant Participation and Tenant Power in British Council Housing.” Public Administration72 (2): 177–200.
10.
CampbellKaren E.LeeBarrett A.. 1992. “Sources of Personal Neighbor Networks: Social Integration, Need, or Time?.” Social Forces70 (4): 1077–100.
CooperMatthewRodmanMargaret C.. 1994. “Accessibility and Quality of Life in Housing Cooperatives.” Environment and Behavior26 (1): 49–70.
13.
DekkerKarienVan KempenRonald. 2008. “Places and Participation: Comparing Resident Participation in Post-Wwii Neighborhoods in Northwest, Central and Southern Europe.” Journal of Urban Affairs30 (1): 63–86.
14.
ĐukanovićZoranŽivkovićJelenaLalovićKsenija. 2004. “Developing ICT Tools for Public Participation in Public Spaces Improvement Process-Public Art & Public Space (PAPS) Belgrade Pilot Project Results.” In CORP 2004: Geo-Multimedia 04, Meeting Place for Planners: Proceedings of the 9th International Symposium on Information and Communication Technologies in Urban and Spatial Planning and Impacts of ICT on Physical Space: February 25–27, 2004 TU Vienna. Vienna: Vienna University of Technology, Department of Computer Planning and Design, pp. 373–78.
Filipovič HrastMašaDekkerKarien. 2009. “Old Habits die Hard? Neighbourhood Participation in Post-WWII Neighbourhoods in Slovenia and the Netherlands.” Cities26 (3): 148–57.
17.
FischerClaude S.1982. To Dwell among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18.
GuastiPetra.2016. “Development of Citizen Participation in Central and Eastern Europe After the EU Enlargement and Economic Crises.” Communist and Post-Communist Studies49 (3): 219–31.
19.
GuestAvery M.WierzbickiSusan K.. 1999. “Social Ties at the Neighborhood Level: Two Decades of GSS Evidence.” Urban Affairs Review35 (1): 92–111.
20.
GustavssonEvaElanderIngemar. 2016. “Sustainability Potential of a Redevelopment Initiative in Swedish Public Housing: The Ambiguous Role of Residents’ Participation and Place Identity.” Progress in Planning103: 1–25.
21.
GvozdanovićAnjaAdamovićMirjanaMajcenSandra AntulićBaketaNikolaĐokićRatkoIlišinVlastaPotočnikDunja. 2024. Youth Study Croatia. Youth in Times of Uncertainty. Zagreb: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.
22.
HannemannChristine.2006. “Can Social Capital Save Shrinking Cities?” In Shrinking Cities, Volume 2: Interventions, 484–88. Hatje Cantz (eBook).
23.
HäussermannHartmutKapphanAndreas. 2004. “Berlin: From Divided into Fragmented City.” Επιθεώρηση Κοινωνικών Ερευνών, 25–61.
24.
HodžićAlija.2005. “Društveno restrukturiranje i novi socijalni kontekst.” [“Social Re-Structuring and the New Social Context”]Sociologija I Prostor43 (3) (169): 525–61.
25.
HrženjakJuraj.2011. “Ustrojstvo i funkcioniranje mjesne samouprave u Gradu Zagrebu. [Organisation and Functioning of Sub-Municipal Self-Government in the City of Zagreb].” Hrvatska i komparativna javna uprava11 (1): 43–69.
26.
Institute for Urban Policies/Ministry of Space [Institut za urbane politike/Ministarstvo prostora]. 2022. Izrada planova iza pritvorenih vrata. [Planmaking behind semi-closed doors]. Belgrade.
JensenLene Arnett. 2008. “Immigrants’ Cultural Identities as Sources of Civic Engagement.” Applied Development Science12 (2): 74–83.
29.
KarajićNenad.2024. “Program Rijeka 2020 EPK u funkciji mjerenja socijalne kohezije.” [Programme Rijeka 2020 European Capital of Culture Measuring Social Cohesion] Sociologija i prostor62 (2): 279–309. https://doi.org/10.5673/sip.62.2.3.
30.
KigerMichelle E.VarpioLara. 2020. “Thematic Analysis of Qualitative Data: AMEE Guide No. 131.” Medical Teacher42 (8): 846–54.
31.
LipsetSeymour Martin. 1994. “The Social Requisites of Democracy Revisited.” American Sociological Review59: 1–22.
32.
Manojlović TomanRomeaVukojičić TomićTijanaKoprićIvan. 2019. “Neuspješna europeizacija hrvatske mjesne samouprave: nedovoljna atraktivnost ili loše institucionalno oblikovanje.” [Unsuccessful Europeanisation of Croatian Sub-Municipal Government: Insufficient Attractiveness or Bad Institutional Design]Godišnjak Akademije Pravnih Znanosti HrvatskeX (1): 185–210.
33.
MaričićTamaraCvetinovićMarijaBolayJean-Claude. 2018. “Participatory Planning in the Urban Development of Post-Socialist Serbia.” In A Support to Urban Development Process, edited by BolayJean-ClaudeMaričićTamaraZekovićSlavka, 1–28. Lausanne and Belgrade: EPFL and IAUS.
34.
MarschallMelissa J.2001. “Does the Shoe fit? Testing Models of Participation for African-American and Latino Involvement in Local Politics.” Urban Affairs Review37 (2): 227–48.
35.
MarzukiAzizan. 2015. “Challenges in the Public Participation and the Decision Making Process.” Sociologija i prostor53 (1): 21–39.
36.
MuersStephen.2004. “Deliberative Democracy and Urban Regeneration: Justification and Evaluation.” Public Policy and Administration19 (4): 34–56.
37.
NikodemKrunoslavČrpićGordan.. 2014. “O (ne)održivosti veza između povjerenja i demokracije; Analiza povjerenja u institucije u Hrvatskoj i u Europi. [(Non)Sustainability of Relations Between Trust and Democracy; Analysis of Institutional Trust in Croatia and Europe)].” In Vrednote u Hrvatskoj i u Europi [Values in Croatia and in Europe], edited by BalobanJosipNikodemKrunoslavZrinščakSiniša, 259–307. Zagreb: Kršćanska sadašnjost, Katolički bogoslovni fakultet Sveučilišta u Zagrebu.
38.
PharrSusan J.PutnamRobert D.. 2000. Disaffected Democracies: What's Troubling the Trilateral Countries? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
39.
Rogić NehajevIvan. 1997. Tko je Zagreb?: Prinos Sociološkoj Analizi Identiteta Grada Zagreba [Who is Zagreb?: A Contribution to the Sociological Analysis of the Identity of the City of Zagreb]. Zagreb: Hrvatska Sveučilišna Naklada.
40.
RolnikRaquel.2014. “Place, Inhabitance and Citizenship: The Right to Housing and the Right to the City in the Contemporary Urban World.” International Journal of Housing Policy14 (3): 293–300.
41.
SadıkoğluHaticeÖzsoyAhsen. 2020. “User Participation in Housing Regeneration Projects.” Global Dwelling: Approaches to Sustainability, Design and Participation193: 259.
42.
SeferagićDušica.2007. “Akteri društvenih promjena u urbanom prostoru Hrvatske.” [“Actors of Social Changes in the Urban Space of Croatia”]Sociologija i prostor45 (3–4): 361–76.
43.
SendiRichardKerblerBoštjan. 2021. “The Evolution of Multifamily Housing: Post-Second World War Large Housing Estates Versus Post-Socialist Multifamily Housing Types in Slovenia.” Sustainability13 (18): 10363. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810363.
44.
StaeheliLynn A.ClarkeSusan E.. 2003. “The new Politics of Citizenship: Structuring Participation by Household, Work, and Identity.” Urban Geography24 (2): 103–26.
45.
SteinerArturMcMillanCarolynHill O’ConnorClementine. 2023. “Investigating the Contribution of Community Empowerment Policies to Successful co-Production-Evidence from Scotland.” Public Management Review25 (8): 1587–609.
46.
StenbergJenny.2018. “Dilemmas Associated with Tenant Participation in Renovation of Housing in Marginalized Areas may Lead to System Change.” Cogent Social Sciences4 (1): 1528710.
47.
StepickAlexStepickCarol DuttonLabissiereYves. 2008. “South Florida's Immigrant Youth and Civic Engagement: Major Engagement: Minor Differences.” Applied Development Science12 (2): 57–65.
48.
SuszyńskaKatarzynaRatajZuzanna. 2017. “New Trends in Social Housing Allocation—Case Study (City of Poznań, Poland).” Urban Development Issues56 (4): 53–8.
49.
Svirčić GotovacAnđelinaĐokićRatkoAdamovićMirjana. 2023. “Management And Maintenance of Multi-Family Buildings in Croatia: Perspective of Co-Owners' Representatives.” Journal of Housing and the Built Environment38 (4): 2427–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-023-10046-w.
50.
Svirčić GotovacAnđelinaGamberožićJelena Zlatar. 2020. “Obrana javnih prostora u zagrebačkim slučajevima „Čuvamo naš park “i „Vratite magnoliju.” [“Defense of Public Spaces in the Cases of “We are Keeping our Park” and “Bring Back the magnolia” Initiatives in Zagreb”]Sociologija I Prostor58 (1) (216): 5–31.
51.
Svirčić GotovacAnđelinaKerblerBoštjan. 2019. “From Post-Socialist to Sustainable: The City of Ljubljana.” Sustainability11 (24): 7126.
52.
Svirčić GotovacAnđelinaZlatarJelena. 2015. The Quality of Living in New Housing Estates in the Settlement Network of Zagreb. Zagreb: Institut za društvena istraživanja u Zagrebu.
53.
Svirčić GotovacAnđelinaZlatar GamberožićJelenaNikšičMatej. 2021. “Public Participation in Post-Communist Cities Between Stagnation and Progress.” Urbani Izziv32 (1): 75–84.
54.
TarrowSidney.1998. Power in Movement: Social Movements and Contentious Politics. Revised and Updated Third Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
55.
TsenkovaSasha.2007. “Urban Futures: Strategic Planning in Post-Socialist Europe.” In The Post-Socialist City: Urban Form and Space Transformations in Central and Eastern Europe After Socialism, 447–71. Dordrecht: Springer.
56.
VaismoradiMojtabaTurunenHanneleBondasTerese. 2013. “Content Analysis and Thematic Analysis: Implications for Conducting a Qualitative Descriptive Study.” Nursing & Health Sciences15 (3): 398–405.
57.
VerbaSidneyNieNorman H.. 1972. “Community Mobilization and Institutional Change: The Influence of the Community Action Program in Large Cities.” Social Science Quarterly32: 287–94.
58.
WardHelen.1992. “Tenant Participation from the Tenants’ Point of View.” In Housing Management: Changing Practice, 150–170.
59.
WassenbergFrank.2018. “Beyond an Ugly Appearance: Understanding the Physical Design and Built Environment of Large Housing Estates.” In Housing Estates in Europe: Poverty, Ethnic Segregation and Policy Challenges, edited by HessDaniel BaldwinTammaruTiitvan HamMaarten, 35–55. Springer Open.
60.
ZlatarJelena.2015. “The Quality of Housing at the Subjective Level: Aesthetic and Ecological Aspects of the Neighbourhood and Citizen Participation.” In Kvaliteta života u Novostambenim Naseljima I Lokacijama u Zagrebačkoj Mreži Naselja. [The Quality of Living in New Housing Estates in the Settlement Network of Zagreb], 75–114. Zagreb: Institut za društvena istraživanja u Zagrebu.
61.
Zlatar GamberožićJelena.2019. “Revitalization Paths of Urban Centers: Tentative Observational Comparison of two Cities: Ljubljana and Zagreb.” Družboslovne Razprave35 (90): 83–106.
