DIGITAL PARTICIPATION FRAMEWORK FOR MOUNTAIN AREAS IN SERBIA.

• Author: Pantic, Marijana

1. Introduction

   The subject of transition to more efficient governance is rapidly emerging in policy formulation, daily planning practices, and academia. The adaptation of local policy to the multilevel governance in the EU requires the digitalization of services in member states and accession countries (Castelnovo, Misuraca and Savoldelli, 2016). These processes have impacts on planning regarding the acceleration of formal development procedures and innovations in policy implementation (Angelidou, 2014). On top of that, governing transition requires the development of new forms of social collaboration and the application of communication technologies to enable equal access to decision-making processes (Meijer and Bolivar, 2016). To establish a just platform for public participation in planning, the technology itself is not sufficient and requires 'political understanding and support for enhancing individual and institutional capacities through a collaborative approach' (Colic et al., 2020, p. 26).

   COVID-19 accelerated the need for new formats of public participation worldwide (Rajhans et al., 2020). Although digital participation formats in urban and spatial planning are not a novelty, their importance has recently gained a new impetus in the domain of responsiveness to the 'new normal' during and after the pandemic (Lissandrello and Sorensen, 2021). In uncertain circumstances, responsiveness relies on digital tools and requires the (re)establishment of mechanisms for deliberative citizen participation and stakeholder engagement (Pantic et al., 2021; Colic, Dzelebdzic and Colic, 2022).

   According to the Interparliamentary Union Act (2015, p. 1), 'public participation is the bedrock on which democracy rests. It enriches democracy--including by helping to ensure better decision-making and strengthening politicians' accountability to the people'. Bearing this in mind, research that deals with the accessibility of all citizens to decision-making is of utmost importance in securing democratic planning practices. This stand is supported by the EU policy, such as the Treaty of Lisbon (2007) and the New Leipzig Charter (2020). The present research is thus embedded in the wider discussion of just transition to accessible decision-making, as well as to the notion that the most remote areas, such are rural areas (RA) and mountain areas (MA) face the least physical accessibility and are particularly valuable and fragile, which is proved by their UNESCO protection status.

   Public participation in urban and spatial planning in Serbia was institutionalized in the 1950s (Basic Resolution on General Urban Plan, 1949), whereas the participatory culture has been changing with the socio-economic transition from the state-led socialist development to the free-market economy. Since the socialist planning era, public participation included methods such as the presentation of plans to local communities, questionnaires, expert discussions, public inquiry, and the possibility to submit a complaint that was reviewed by the designated planners (Nedovic-Budic, Djordjevic and Dabovic, 2011). The domains of political, economic, and social transition, including that of collectivist ideology toward patterns of pluralism, went through radical changes with the transition from a socialist to a market-based economy (Colic and Dzelebdzic, 2018). However, the evolution of the planning system in terms of practicing innovative and inclusive participation methods did not subsequently follow the socio-economic transition or technological pathways, until the COVID-19 pandemic influenced all spheres of life and work.

   A literature review suggests that practical experimentation in digital participatory planning is predominantly implemented in urban areas of more developed democratic societies using i.e., geographic information systems (GIS), gaming, virtual and computer-aided design, and social media (Williamson and Ruming, 2019). In cases where plans can be established as 'virtual statements', technology is seen as a useful tool for capacity building and a key element of 'informationally enabled democracy' (Sieber, 2006, p. 491; Hudson-Smith, Evans and Batty, 2005). The existing base of expertise in this domain has been revisited and extended across the national spatial planning systems during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Serbia, for example, formal and 'live' public participation in urban areas with established digital communication systems took the form of online meetings, online voting, phone consultations, submission of remarks and suggestions by e-mail or digital registry of the designated planning offices or ministries in charge of spatial planning, and/or use of mobile phone applications (Pantic et al., 2021). At the same time, evidence of digital methods application in the RA, and especially MA, remains uninvestigated.

   Although RA and MA, as sparsely populated, were subjected to population influx during the pandemic for their healthy environments and opportunity for social distancing (Pitkanen et al., 2020), these areas have been rarely included in the research on the application of (digital) participatory tools and outcomes (International Mountain Conference, 2022). So far, researchers focused on proving the relevance of participation and the (dis) advantages of particular methods (Jamei et al., 2017; Olszewski et al., 2017) and divide e.g. class divide (Graziano, 2021) or age divide (Alston, Dias and Phillips, 2015); but studies that take in account all relevant divides have not taken place yet. Protected MA research examined traditional (non-digital) public participation means (e.g., Meessen et al., 2015; Escobedo et al., 2022). However, the MA and perspective of different participation opportunities in the digitalized era were not a focus of academic studies, even though the impact on the participation of urban-rural differences was often addressed (Radovanovic and Knezevic, 2014; Williamson and Ruming, 2019; Rajhans et al., 2020).

   Given that public participation in Serbia is formally established as a normative basis that guarantees the rights of the public to participate in territorial development processes (Colic and Dzelebdzic, 2018), this work aims to identify contextual factors for digital participation in spatial planning within the scenario of MA as specific areas with rising attractiveness. The following chapter presents perspectives and limitations of digital public participation in urban and spatial planning worldwide. After this, the authors provide insight into the research design and methodology--describing data sources, justifying indicator selection, and limitations of the research. The indicators are analyzed and presented in the results and discussion chapter. Finally, this paper wraps up with the conclusion and recommendations for future practice and research.

2. Perspectives and limitations of digital public participation in urban and spatial planning

   Current research in the field of participatory planning points out that digitalization progressively advances (Hudson-Smith, Evans and Batty, 2005). Improved accessibility to the internet, enhanced technological possibilities of authorities, planning departments, and households, simplified and more user-friendly interfaces i.e., GIS-based platforms, broaden the opportunities to involve stakeholders in spatial planning processes (Kahila-Tani, Kytta and Geertman, 2019). Still, digital participation is challenged even in well-established market economies when it comes to the accessibility to the internet and technical equipment (Pantic et al., 2021). Equally distributed technical preconditions for digitalization are necessary components of well-established digital participation platforms in both urban and rural areas (Labrianidis et al., 2004).

   Taken that participation events are usually organized in urban areas, digital participation minimizes or eliminates travel costs for citizens living in remote areas (Rajhans et al., 2020). Therefore, the application of digital participation methods holds the potential to motivate the participation of actors who were hard to reach from the perspective of physical distance (Hampton et al., 2017). Even though the utilization of digital participatory tools might be a challenge for certain population groups (e.g., elderly, poor), the 'modernization' of participatory processes through new digital tools brings at least young people closer to planning practice, since the internet and online communication are an integral part of their daily routine (Vromen, 2008). In addition, studies from Jamei et al. (2017) and Olszewski et al. (2017) suggest that virtual and augmented reality has proved a useful tool to simplify and increase attractiveness in the presentation of plans.

   The involvement of the urban population in digital participation diverges from the rural population due to limited technological equipment, tools, and capacities for use of new technologies in RA (Radovanovic and Knezevic, 2014). Secondly, the more and less affluent population has a different level of accessibility to digital participation tools, whereas low-income groups, including vulnerable groups, are usually excluded from digital participation processes (Bricout et al., 2021; Graziano, 2021). Some differences regarding the extent to which digital participation in urban and spatial planning is used are recognized between (a) urban and rural population, (b) more and less affluent population, (c) young and elderly population, and (d) different genders (Cilliers et al, 2020; Pantic et al, 2021).

   Vromen (2008) studied relations between the participation of the young population in the planning process and the role of the internet before COVID-19, finding that young people eagerly embrace the online world to build and share their attitudes, which does not necessarily comply with the official virtual participation tools offered by the government. Rikanovic et al. (2020)...