Stakeholder Participation in the Creation of Spatial Plan for Nature Park Medvednica

Thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the degree Philosophiae doctor of the Faculty of Environment and Natural Resources, Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg, Germany

by

Nataša Lovrić

Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany

2015

Dean: Prof. Dr. Tim Freytag

Supervisor: Prof. Dr. Werner Konold, University of Freiburg

Second supervisor: Prof. Dr. Margaret Shannon, Honorary Professor at Albert Ludwigs University of Freiburg

Readers: Prof. Dr. Werner Konold, Albert Ludwigs University of Freiburg

Prof. Dr. Michael Pregernig, Albert Ludwigs University of Freiburg

Graduate School: Environment, Society and Global Change

Research group: Environmental Governance

Faculty of Environment and Natural Resources, Chair for Landscape Management

Defended 15.6.2015

FOREWORD

Acknowledgements

Firstly, I would like to thank my supervisors, Prof. Werner Konold and Prof. Margaret Shannon, for their tireless enthusiasm, invaluable support, and for their contribution to this work. Many other people have also contributed either directly or indirectly to this study; in particular, I would like to thank Prof. Michael Pregernig for generously accepting the role of second reader of the thesis and with that gesture kindly to contribute to its assessment. I would like to extend my gratitude to Prof. Ivan Martinić for generously offering me the idea for this thesis research subject. In addition, I would also like to thank my colleagues at the Chair for “Landscape Management” and the Graduate School “Environment, Society and Global Change” who provided valuable and extensive comments on the work and challenging discussions in the numerous colloquia. I would like to express appreciation to the European Forest Institute (EFI) for supporting my work in the course of my Master of Sciences and PhD studies and providing me with the opportunity to experience my first years of career building and development. I would like to extend special thanks to Prof. Lauri Hetemäki and all my colleagues within the EFI for the support, valuable comments and time granted for finishing my thesis while working as a researcher. I am deeply indebted to my interviewees for sharing their thoughts, time and experiences. I also wish to extend special thanks to the people who facilitated contact with the stakeholders and provided me with all the necessary documentation: Nives Mornar and Aleksandar Bašić. In addition, I would like to thank Diana Tuomasjukka, Christian Suchomel and Claudia Bieling for helping me translate the summary into German language and to Nataša Kočova for checking the English language in the thesis. Finally, I would like to express special thanks to my dear husband and colleague, Marko Lovrić, for his tireless contribution and support throughout my PhD thesis writing process and the entire PhD studies. An enormous thank you goes to my dearest family - my mother and father, Nada and Jovan Lozanovski and my brother Dončo Lozanovski who have supported and encouraged me throughout the entire study process and built the scientist that I am today owing to their examples.

I

Zusammenfassung

Der Naturpark Medvednica ist ein Gebirgsschutzgebiet in Zentralkroatien am Nordrand der Landeshauptstadt Zagreb. Ein Naturpark (NP) ist eine nationale Schutzgebietskategorie, in der die nachhaltige Nutzung von Ressourcen erlaubt ist, besonders wertvolle Naturphänomene jedoch geschützt werden sollen. Im Fall des Naturparks Medvednica stehen hierbei acht verschiedene Waldlebensräume im Mittelpunkt. Raumordnungspläne sind die Verwaltungsgrundlage des Naturparks. Speziell für dieses Gebiet sollen darüber hinaus detaillierte, rechtlich nicht verbindliche Managementpläne erarbeitet werden. Raumordnungspläne treten in Kraft, wenn sie vom Parlament ratifiziert werden. Im Falle des NP Medvednica wurde die praktische Raumordnung von der lokalen Verwaltung der Stadt Zagreb erstellt. Das Raumordnungsverfahren für NP Medvednica begann 1981 mit der Ernennung des Parks. Der erste Prozess innerhalb dieses Verfahrens endete im Jahr 1989, da bis dato dem Stadtrat kein konkreter Vorschlag vorgelegt wurde. Der zweite Prozess begann im Jahr 2003 und endete im Jahr 2005; auch in diesem Fall wurde dem Parlament kein Vorschlag zur Raumordnungsplanung für den NP Medvednica vorgelegt und die einzige Entscheidung, die gefällt wurde, war eine Verringerung des Parkgebiets um ein Viertel seiner ursprünglichen Größe. Obwohl kein Raumordnungsplan für Medvednica existiert, gibt es einen Managementplan. Der Managementplan ist ein rechtlich nicht bindendes Dokument, dessen hauptsächlicher Zweck darin besteht, eine der Richtlinie für die Verwaltungsbehörde des NP Medvednica zu bieten. Die Situation, in welcher es kein rechtlich bindendes Dokument zur Verwaltung des Parks gibt, hat zu kontinuierlich voranschreitenden Bautätigkeiten geführt, wo Wohn- und Sportanlagen, aber auch Bauten für den Tourismus auf Flächen etabliert werden, die einst bewaldet waren. Ein erneuter und dritter Prozess der räumlichen Planung begann im Jahr 2012. Die endgültige Entscheidung über den Flächennutzungsplan vom NP Medvednica erfolgte am 15. Juli 2014 und wurde vom Parlament verabschiedet. Dieser Beschluss (OZ, No.89/14, 2014) wurde am 24. Juli 2014 veröffentlicht. Zahlreiche Expertenstudien beschreiben die drei Prozesse; alle diese verwendeten Umfragen, öffentliche Anhörungen und beratende Treffen mit Experten und Akteuren, mit dem Ziel, gemeinsam einen Raumordnungsplan zu erarbeiten. Partizipation erwies sich als einen wichtiger Teil der Raumplanung vom NP Medvednica. Nichtdestotrotz dauerte der Planungsprozess dreißig Jahre und wurde während verschiedenen II

Urbanisierungprozessen stark beeinflusst. Um den Prozess zu verstehen, stellt sich jedoch die folgende Forschungsfrage: Wie beeinflusst die Partizipation die Raumplanung des Naturparks Medvednica? Ein theoretischer Ansatz bildete die grundlegende Theorie. Durch Auswertung von Unterlagen für die Raumplanung des NP Medvednica wurde eine erste Liste von 32 Befragten erstellt, die im Schneeball-Verfahren auf die endgültige Liste von 51 Befragten erweitert wurde. Die Datenanalyse erfolgte parallel zur Datenerhebung, wobei die Datenerhebung bis zur theoretischen Sättigung fortgesetzt wurde. Die Analyse bestand aus zwei Teilen: einerseits der "Intermediär-mechanistischen“- Analyse und andererseits der altbewährten „klassischen“ grundlegende Theorie. Beide Ansätze bestehen aus offener, axialer und selektiver Kodierung. Jeder dieser Schritte hatte mehrere Teilschritte, in der die Bezeichnungen und die Codes neu angeordnet wurden, dann zu neuen Codes auf einer höheren theoretischen Abstraktionsebene aggregiert, dann disaggregiert und schließlich wieder auf andere, noch theoretischer Codes und Codegruppen zusammengefasst wurden. Dieser Prozess wurde fortgesetzt, bis keine neuen Aspekte in den Daten gefunden werden konnten. Durch dieses Vorgehen wurden versucht, mögliche Verzerrungen, die auf bestimmten theoretischen Perspektiven, (Vor)Wissen und Kontext der Forschenden beruhen, zu umgehen. Jedes der Kodierungsverfahren führte zur Identifizierung von mehreren zentralen Kategorien, die theoretische Konstrukte von hohem Abstraktionsgrad ist. Insgesamt wurden 11 zentrale Kategorien bestimmt, angeordnet in Intermediär „storyline“. Die endgültigen Ergebnisse der „klassischen“ Analyse sind die „storyline“ über die Rolle der Beteiligung der Raumplanung für den Nationalpark Medvednica und insgesamt 63 Hypothesen, Annahmen und Vorschläge. Die Ergebnisse zeigen eine starke Rolle der sozio-politischen Faktoren in der Raumordnungsplanung, die wiederum die Rolle der Partizipation beeinflusst. Die wichtigsten allgemeinen Kontextfaktoren sind der Grad der Zentralisierung der staatlichen Verwaltung, der Grad der Urbanisierung sowie die Partizipationskultur bei der Entscheidungsfindung auf lokaler Ebene. Diese Faktoren beeinflussen, wie die Raumordnung abläuft und die Rolle der Partizipation am Raumordnungsprozess. Einige der wichtigsten Merkmale für eine Partizipation bei der Raumordnungsplanung sind die Beziehung zwischen den Experten und Laien, Kosten und Nutzen der Partizipation und der Planungsumfang des Bereiches, der die menschlichen Bedürfnisse tangiert. Diese Faktoren prägen den Rahmen der Beteiligung, d.h. sie legen fest, welche Gruppe von Interessenvertretern mitwirkt und in welcher Form sie sich beteiligt. Die III

Formen der Beteiligung können sein: passive Teilnahme, öffentliche Anhörungen oder informelle Beteiligung. Allerdings ist es hier sinnvoller von einem Kontinuum von Mechanismen der Partizipation zu sprechen, die durch zwei Dimensionen charakterisiert werden: die Intimität in der Kommunikation zwischen dem Beteiligten und dem Planer und die Rückmeldung vom Planer zum Stakeholder (beide bewirken eine Veränderung von der passiven zur informellen Beteiligung). Dies sind auch die beiden Kriterien, nach denen die Stakeholder bewerten, wie angemessen der Mechanismus der Partizipation funktioniert. Die Beteiligung von Akteuren basiert letztlich auf der eigenen “Berechnung” von Kosten und Nutzen. Das gesamte System der Partizipation und der Prozess der Raumordnung insgesamt wird durch die Interessen der Stakeholder bestimmt. Die Forschungsergebnisse zeigen Übereinstimmungen mit Postulaten verschiedener Theorien und theoretischer Ansätze. Dies betrifft in erster Linie Ansätze im Bereich Partizipation, soziale Austauschtheorie, Stakeholder Analysis und die vier Gesichter der Macht. Allerdings schafft es keine Theorie, alle wichtigen Elemente der Ergebnisse festzuhalten. Obwohl die grundlegende Theorie dieser Forschung abstrakt genug ist, um in anderen Zusammenhängen verwendet zu werden, vereinfacht sie viele wichtige ihr zugrundeliegenden Variablen, vor allem die starke Heterogenität, welche innerhalb von Akteursgruppen auftritt.

IV

Summary

Nature Park Medvednica is a mountainous protected area in central Croatia, located on the north edge of Zagreb, the country’s capital city. Nature Park is a national category of protection in which sustainable usage of resources is allowed and where the protection is set around a particularly valuable natural phenomenon. In the case of Nature Park Medvednica, the phenomenon lays in its forest habitats, which cover eight different forest phytocenosis. The legal basis for the management of nature parks are spatial plans specifically designated for those areas, from which more detailed and non-legally binding management plans are to be established. Spatial plans come to power when they are ratified by the Parliament, and in the case of NP Medvednica the practical spatial planning was done by the local administration of the City of Zagreb. The process of spatial planning for NP Medvednica began in 1981, with the proclamation of the park. The first from the three processes ended in 1989, when it was blocked, and no proposal was submitted to City Council. The second process began in 2003 and ended in 2005; also, in this case no proposal of spatial plan for NP Medvednica was submitted to Parliament. The only decision that it made was that the area of the Park to be diminished by one quarter. Although no spatial plan for Medvednica existed at that time, a management plan was created in 2010. The management plan is a non-legally binding document, whose purpose is mostly one of a ‘guideline(s)’ for the Public Institution Nature Park Medvednica, a state administration organization responsible for the management of the Park. Unfortunately, a situation in which there is no legally binding document on the management of the Park has led to a constant state of continuous construction activities, where residential, tourist and sport facilities are entrench on the areas, which once were covered by forests. The third process of spatial planning began in 2012; the decision on approving the Spatial Plan for areas with specific characteristics of the Nature Park "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. A significant number of expert studies characterized all of the three processes, where all of them had used surveys, public hearings and utilized consultative meetings with experts and stakeholders in order to jointly draft the spatial plan. The above mentioned elements demonstrate that participation was a vital part of spatial planning of NP Medvednica; however, it took more than thirty years and three processes to make a plan, during which period the area of the park continued to be severely modified by processes of urbanization. Such state of affairs, leads to the emergence of a research question: How does participation affect spatial planning of Nature Park V

Medvednica? A grounded theory approach has been used in order to answer the research question. By performing literature review of documentation related to spatial planning of NP Medvednica, an initial list of 32 stakeholders has been created. This list was expanded through a snowball- technique until the 51 respondents (i.e. stakeholder representatives from the public administration, spatial planning, sports representatives, tourism programs, universities, NGO’s, citizens of Medvednica, municipalities, counties, hunting associations, private forest owners’ association, ministries, City of Zagreb representatives, and so on) were interviewed. Data analysis was done in parallel with data collection, and the data collection continued until theoretical saturation occurred. Analysis consisted of two parts: ‘intermediary-mechanistic’ analysis and classical, ‘grounded theory’ analysis. Both analyses had their own open, axial and selective coding. Each of these steps had several sub-steps in which the labels and the codes were re-arranged, aggregated to new codes with higher level of theoretical abstraction, disaggregated, and then aggregated again to different, more theoretical codes and groups of codes. This process continued until no new features in the data were found; and by which the research tried to surpass the bias of the researcher’s previous ideas, knowledge and context. The final results of the ‘intermediary-mechanistic’ analysis are 11 central categories arranged into an ‘intermediary’ storyline. The final results of the ‘classical’ analysis are the storyline on the role of participation in spatial planning for NP Medvednica and a total of 63 hypothesis, assumptions and propositions. Results point to the strong role of general, socio-political factors affecting the design of spatial planning, which in turn shapes the role of participation. The most important general, contextual factors are level of centralization of the state administration, level of urbanization, and the culture of participation in local decision-making processes. These factors affect the manner in which spatial planning is performed and the role participation has throughout the course of development. When talking about participation, the most important characteristics of spatial planning are the relation between the experts and the lay, what kind of benefits and costs does participation have and to what extent is the area encompassed by the plan dictated by human desires. These factors shape the context of participation, i.e. define which group of stakeholders participates, will participate and with what kind of ‘mechanism’ of participation. These mechanisms are passive participation, public hearings and informal participation. Nevertheless, it should be noted that it is more appropriate to state that there is a continuum of mechanisms of

VI participation that are characterized by two important dimensions; level of intimacy in the communication between the stakeholder and the planner, and the level of feedback from the planner to the stakeholder (both of which increase from passive towards informal participation). These are also two criteria by which a stakeholder judges the level of adequacy in terms of the mechanism of participation. Participation of stakeholders is based on their personal ‘calculation’ of social benefits and costs. The adequacy of the whole system of participation and the process of spatial planning in general is set to the extent to which the spatial plan fulfills the interests of the stakeholder. The research findings show alignment with postulates of several different theories and theoretical frameworks, most notably literature on participation, stakeholder analysis and four faces of power and social exchange theory. However, no theory is fit to capture all the important elements of the results. Although the grounded theory of this research is, abstract enough to be used in other contexts, it still simplifies many important features of the data on which it is based; most notably the strong heterogeneity found within groups of actors that it describes.

VII

INDEX

FOREWORD I Acknowledgements I Zusammenfassung II Summary V INDEX VIII Index of Tables and Figures X

CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1

CHAPTER II: HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF SPATIAL PLANNING IN 4 NP MEDVEDNICA 2.1 Introduction 4 2.2 Description of the NP Medvednica 5 2.3 Zoning of NP Medvednica 9 2.4 Forests in NP Medvednica 12 2.5 Legislative framework 15 2.6 Overview of participation in spatial planning 18

CHAPTER III: MATERIALS AND METHODS 24 3.1 Introduction 24 3.2 Grounded theory 25 3.3 Selection of interviews and interview questions 28 3.4 Data analysis 33 3.4.1 Intermediary analysis 33 3.4.2 Classical analysis 43 3.5 Descriptive information about analysis 48 3.6 Ethical considerations 51

CHAPTER IV: RESULTS 52 4.1 Interim results 52 4.1.1 Interim open coding 52 4.1.2 Interim axial coding 67 4.1.3 Interim selective coding 74 4.2. Classical results 78 4.2.1 Introduction 78 4.2.2 Process coding 79 4.2.2.1 First process 79 4.2.2.2 Second process 82 4.2.2.3 Third process 88 4.2.3. The comparison of processes 92 4.2.4. Participation in spatial planning 102 4.3. Formal hypotheses 110

120 VIII

CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION 5.1 Analysis and results 120 5.2 Research through alternative theoretical lenses 124 5.2.1. Introduction 124 5.2.2. Levels of participation 125 5.2.3. Stakeholder analysis 133 5.3. Four faces of power 137 5.4. Social exchange theory 143 5.5. Threats to validity 147

CHAPTER VI: CONCLUSIONS 151

REFERENCES 155

ANNEXES 168 Annex I: Interview protocol 168 Annex II: L1 and L2 codes with memos 170 Annex III: Relational codes and memos 188 Annex IV. Intermediary central categories 192

IX

Index of Figures and Tables

Figure 1. Overview of the thesis 2 Figure 2. Relation between Medvednica and Zagreb 6 Figure 3. Zoning of NP Medvednica 10 Figure 4. Quantitative comparison of 'participation' between the three processes 22 Figure 5. Design of interviews 32 Figure 6. Intermediary open coding 34 Figure 7. Labels of Process design L1 code 36 Figure 8. L1 coding on example of Public hearings 37 Figure 9. Intermediary axial coding 38 Figure 10. Elements of Unregulated participation relational code 39 Figure 11. Logical links between relational codes 41 Figure 12. Intermediary selective coding 42 Figure 13. Procedure of ‘classical’ GT analysis 44 Figure 14. Conceptual richness of interviews 49 Figure 15. Size of L1 codes 49 Figure 16. Size of L2 codes 50 Figure 17. Size of relational codes 50 Figure 18. Level 1 coding scheme 52 Figure 19. L1xL1 matrix, moderate level of ‘connection’ between the codes 56 Figure 20. Pattern decoupling from L1xL1 matrix 58 Figure 21. Level 2 coding scheme 59 Figure 22. Mapping of stakeholder’s interest areas 60 Figure 23. Visualization of L1xL2 matrix 64 Figure 24. Resulting diagram of open coding 66 Figure 25. Relational coding scheme 68 Figure 26. Visualization of RxR matrix 69 Figure 27. Visualization of L1xR matrix 71 Figure 28. Visualization of Central phenomenon group from L1xR matrix 73 Figure 29. Intermediary categories of grounded theory 75 Figure 30. Intermediary explanation of the grounded theory 76 Figure 31. First process of spatial planning 79

X

Figure 32. Second process of spatial planning 83 Figure 33. Third process of spatial planning 88 Figure 34. Analytical comparison of the three processes of spatial planning 92 Figure 35. Mechanisms of participation 102 Figure 36. Perceptions of participation 107 Figure 37.Arnstein’s ladder of participation (Source: Arnstein, 1969) 125 Figure 38. Wilcox’s classification of participation 128 Figure 39. IAPP2 spectrum of public participation (IAPP, 2004) 128 Figure 40. Participation 'rugs' of the three processes 131 Figure 41. Schematic representation of rationale, typology and methods for stakeholder 135 analysis (source: Reed et al, 2009)

Table 1. Data sources 30 Table 2. Formal hypotheses and propositions 118

XI

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION

The research objective of this PhD thesis is to assess the influence of participatory processes on spatial planning of Nature Park Medvednica, a mountainous protected area adjacent to Zagreb, the capital city of Croatia. The process began in 1981 right after the proclamation of the Park with an area of 22 826 ha; only its area was significantly decreased in 2009 to 17,938 ha. The first from the three spatial planning processes ended in 1989, when it was blocked, and no proposal was submitted to the City Council. The second process began in 2003 and ended in 2005; in this case, again no proposal of spatial plan for NP Medvednica was submitted to Parliament, and the only decision that it made was that the area of the Park is to be diminished by 4448 ha. Although Medvednica lacked having a spatial plan there was in existence a management plan. The management plan is a non-legally binding document, whose purpose is mostly one of a guideline for the Public Institution Nature Park Medvednica, a state administration organization responsible for the management of the Park. The situation in which there is no legally binding document on the management of the Park has led to a constant state of continuous construction activities, where residential, touristic program and sport facilities entrench on the areas, which were once covered by forests. The third process of spatial planning began in 2012. A spatial plan is a legally binding document that defines which activities are allowed in different parts of the area it covers; all other (sectorial) management plans have to use the spatial plan as their basis. As there was no spatial plan, NP Medvednica was subjected to strong pressure coming from urbanization on its fringe areas, and the main peak of the mountains was under strong pressure of development of sport and touristic infrastructure, far beyond what is acceptable under the restrictions of nature protection. In the period 1981-2014, many different background studies were initiated and numerous surveys, public hearings and several rounds of consultation meetings with experts and stakeholders were held. Stakeholders from several different lists participated in various ways in the process of spatial planning of NP Medvednica. In the end, these activities resulted in the inception of a spatial plan; the decision on approving the Spatial Plan for areas with specific characteristics of the Nature Park "Medvednica" was finally adopted by the Croatian Parliament on July 15, 2014. The decision was subsequently published in the "Official Gazette", No. 89/14 on July 24, 2014.

1

Following this issue, the central question of this research emerges:

How does participation affect physical spatial planning of Nature Park Medvednica?

In order to address this question, the research takes the position of grounded theory, and sets up the following tasks:

 To describe the past and current spatial planning situation of the Nature Park Medvednica  To identify the issues and stakeholders concerning the creation of a spatial plan for the Nature Park Medvednica  To identify and analyze the key issues that affect the formulation of a spatial plan  To analyze modes of stakeholders’ participation that were used  To assess the influence of participation of different stakeholders The thesis is divided into several chapters, which is typical to scientific research and forms a ‘chain’ starting from the introduction to the area of research and up to the conclusions part (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Thesis overview

2

The chapter on “Historical development of spatial planning in NP Medvednica” describes the biophysical characteristics of the Park, the history of its development, and all the important events related to spatial planning of the Park. This section is followed by the chapter “Materials and Methods”, which comprehensively explains the procedures of applying the grounded theory approach, the documents, which have been analyzed, the design of the sampling procedure, the structure of the interviews, and the ethical considerations of the research. All of this serves as an introduction to the “Results” chapter, which is based on both ‘intermediate-mechanistic’ and ‘classical’ analysis. The ‘intermediate’ analysis follows predefined procedures for coding, which are introduced in order to cope with the issue of having the entire analysis done by one researcher. Each of the coding procedures produces several central categories, highly theoretical conceptual constructs. Analyzing the relations between all of the central categories in the end produces an intermediary storyline on the impact of participation in the process of spatial planning, which is grounded on the data of the case of NP Medvednica. These results further serve as an intermediary step toward the ‘classical’ GT analysis, which rests on defining of concepts based on their theoretical characteristics. This classical analysis uses the concepts of ‘intermediary’ analysis to frame storylines for each of the three processes separately, and then identifies the relation between the actors and their interactions on one side, and their contextual setting on the another side. Such form of ‘process coding’ is then first used as a basis for the formulation of the central storyline on participation in spatial planning of NP Medvednica, and then in designing a series of formal hypotheses. Results follow with the “Discussion” chapter, majority of which tries to capture the results of the research thorough ‘theoretical lenses’ of different theories and theoretical frameworks. Most of the attention is devoted to literature that tries to scale the levels of participation, stakeholder analysis, four faces of power and social exchange theory. The “Discussion” chapter ends with assessing the threats to validity. The final chapter comprises of the “Conclusions” which provide a short overview of the research’s main findings, comments on their transferability to other contexts, and addresses the limitations of the results. In addition, reference is also made on aspects, which could have been done differently during the research phase with the intention to improve the result and data analysis outcome.

3

CHAPTER II HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF SPATIAL PLANNING IN NP MEDVEDNICA

2.1 Introduction

Medvednica is a mountain situated north of Zagreb, most of which is protected from 1981 onwards in the national category of Nature Park that bears the same name. According to the Nature Protection Act (OG 70/05, 139/08 and 57/11), the category of Nature Park includes a "vast natural and partly cultivated land with ecological features of international importance, with emphasis on landscape, educational, cultural, historical, tourist and recreational values”. The Nature Park Medvednica has very rich flora. There are 1346 documented species and 59 subspecies, 18 of which have the status of a protected species and 14, which are considered endemic for the region. According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN, 2008) categorization, the NP Medvednica is a home to six critically endangered (CR), 15 endangered (EN), 32 vulnerable (VU), 10 least concern (LC), 28 low-risks (LR) and 2 regionally extinct (RE) species. The park management regime allows for economic and other activities that do not threaten its essential features and roles. The area of the NP today is 17,938 ha and the highest peak is Sljeme (1033 m). Medvednica has a mostly forested mountainous surface, measuring 42 km in diameter, extending from the east-west direction (northeast – southwest). In mid-1981, the western part of the mountain Medvednica (an area of 22 826 ha) between Podsused and Kašine, was declared a Nature Park (Parliament, OG 24/81). The natural phenomenon upon which the Park was established was the well preserved natural forest phytocenosis, which cover about 65% of the area (Parliament OG 24/81, b). The Government of Croatia, in 1998 founded the Public institution “Park Prirode Medvednica” (Government, OG 118/1998), which is responsible for the management of the park, and employs 17 personnel. The basic activities of this institution are protection, maintenance, preservation and promotion of Nature Park Medvednica, protection and conservation of wildlife, habitats, ecosystems, geological and geomorphologic forms, water, soil, landscape and cultural values and other attractions within the area (Ministry of Environmental Protection and Spatial Planning, 2002). Adoption of the Act for proclamation of the Park (Parliament, OG 24/81) was preceded by an 4 expert research and elaboration of the National Institute for Preservation of Nature (study "Park Medvednica, Republic Institute for Protection of Monuments Nature, Zagreb, 1979). The Nature Protection Act (OG 70/05, 139/08 and 57/11) states that the protection, regulation, promotion and use of the Nature Park should be determined by a spatial plan, and that the Parliament of Croatia should approve the plan. In order to systematically protect natural values, especially the most important spatial objects of protection, a Spatial Planning Program of Croatia (Parliament, OG 50/99) was developed. This program provides guidelines and orientation for making spatial planning laws for declaration of nature parks such as Medvednica. According to the Law on Spatial Planning and Construction (Parliament, OG 76/07, articles 68 and 69), the spatial plan for areas with special characteristics has to be made for nature parks. This Law represents the fundamental management document, the one that all other documents have to be aligned with. The responsibility for the spatial plan of nature park Medvednica is with the Ministry of Construction and Physical Planning, and the obligation for its creation lies on the Bureau of Urban Planning within the administration of the City of Zagreb. Nature Park Medvednica spans onto three regional administrative units of Croatia: City of Zagreb (the capital), Zagreb County (‘outer ring’ of Zagreb) and Krapinsko – Zagorska Country (northwestern slopes of Medvednica).

2.2 Description of the NP Medvednica

Looking at the city from a bird’s eye perspective, it is evident that there is no sharp boundary between Zagreb and Medvednica (Figure 2). Following the construction of the railway line in the second half of the 19 century, Zagreb spread mainly to the east and the west, and later to the south of the basin. Numerous small and older settlements are situated on Medvednica, rural in lifestyle but easily accessible from the city. All these settlements are at altitudes between 200 and 500 meters.

5

Figure 2. Relation between Medvednica and Zagreb

These urbanized foothill parts of northern and north - western part of Zagreb, were the earlier settlements on the slopes of Nature Park Medvednica, which were later, in 2009, placed within the boundaries of the Zagreb General Urbanization Plan. Nature Park Medvednica belongs to Zagreb’s uninhabited northern parts of the district Podsused – Vrapče, Črnomerec and Podsljeme (Šestine - Gračani - Markuševec), Dubrava and the northern part of Sesvete. Some of the slopes of Nature Park Medvednica are consisting of parts of Zagreb County (East of Zagreb). In the entire area of the Nature Park, there are 28 settlements or parts of settlements. Medvednica has a long history of attracting people, those who settled in its peripheral region due to the economic exploitation of various natural resources (agricultural production, coal, minerals, and timber). In time, all those historical settlers became more functionally connected with the City of Zagreb, and spread in the wider area of the park. As such, earlier economic factors for settling areas on Medvednica lost their meaning, and strengthened new affinity for housing in a healthy 6 environment within the city’s reach. Spreading the construction zone in the park is only possible based on rational development needs (population growth, the central function of the park, the development of the economy). These developments should take into account the limitations of the basic factors; protected nature area, valuable natural and cultivated landscape, forests and forestland, agricultural land, unstable terrain (landslides, tectonic faults), safety and security zones and surface water, as well as the corridors of state and county road and utility infrastructure. New residential construction can be made primarily to fill the space interpolation and the insufficient division of irrationally constructed parts of settlements. The spatial plan that defines the urban areas in the Nature Park Medvednica needs consent from both the Ministry of Environment and Nature Protection and the Ministry of Physical Planning and Construction. Approval of the Plan in Parliament is also conditioned by the approval from the Parliamentary committees from both of these sectors. Majority of forests are state owned (8775ha), and they are managed by “Hrvatske Šume” Ltd. (Croatian Forests). This company manages all state owned forests in Croatia, and within the boundaries of the Park public institution “Park Prirode Medvednica” supervises their activities. There are some open issues in the management of state forests, where it is perceived by the members of the public institution “Park Prirode Medvednica” that the employees of “Hrvatske Šume” Ltd. are managing the forest as if they were not in a protected area. However, problems in the majority of cases occur in private forests (5775 ha), where sometimes their owners convert them into construction plots, irrespectively of legal obligations which constrain them to do so (PI Medvednica Management Plan, 2010). Pollution and illegal waste depots are continuous problems that occur within the park both to the environment and to the Park’s inhabitants. There are four quarries in Medvednica. Currently, active quarries are Bizek and Jelenje Vode. They are not allowed to expand further or to create new quarries. The biggest problem with the quarry is illegally exploiting green slate and the creation of landfills. A road tunnel passing through Medvednica should have been built as part of the Northern bypass of Zagreb, a total length of 25 kilometers and should connect the highway to Varaždin and highways for Krapina. The city of Zagreb has signed a contract with the Faculty of Civil Engineering and ordered studies for the building of the northern bypass around Zagreb, which relates to the construction of the tunnel through Medvednica (Draft spatial plan, NP Medvednica, 2012). The settlements within the access area of the Nature Park should not contain any manufacturing facilities or other types of inappropriate use of the space that could threaten the essential features

7 and the role of the nature park, or threaten the quality of life for residents and visitors. It is desirable to develop economic activities that contribute to the development and promotion of tourism and hospitality offers of the park (especially traditional crafts and products, production and supply of healthy foods, etc.). In the settlements located in the peripheral area of access located next to and out of the nature park border are planned as a ‘less economic’ zone, in which trade and service industries whose operation does not endanger the quality of life in the settlement can be located (Draft spatial plan NP Medvednica, 2012). There are 54 attractions defined in the plan as areas for rest and recreation (Spatial plan NP Medvednica, 2014). Those are often sites with long tradition, created at suitable locations with respect to the natural, historical and cultural beauty. Public transport and communication are accessible to persons with reduced mobility, e.g. all citizens, regardless of gender, age and special needs. NP Medvednica has always attracted hikers, sportsmen and City of Zagreb residents. There are also more and more visits for the purpose of education, which primarily relates to the school population by organizing school field trips in nature and educational programs. There are facilities offered with educational hiking trails adapted for people with reduced mobility, and there is a special education program for children with disabilities. Natural and cultivated landscape in the park offer good conditions for various forms of recreation like hiking, biking, rock climbing, skiing, cross country skiing, running orientation, paragliding, horse-back riding, cultural events, religious events, etc. There is a long tradition of hunting, and hunters will continue to visit this area if hunting is harmonized with other activities in the park. The transportation system in Nature Park Medvednica is developed and consists of public (county and local) roads. There are also other roads and streets in the urban areas, forest roads, access to buildings and parking lots, hiking trails, bike trails, educational paths and trails for people with reduced mobility. Along the 80 km long park boundaries, there are about 50 information posts. The existing mining activity in the park is oriented to the production of construction materials - stone and sand. A quarry is located in the City of Zagreb (Vukov Dol - out of order) and one in the Zagreb County (Ivanec) and Krapina – Zagorje County (Jelenje Vode) in which there is exploitation of technical-building stone. The provisions of the Mining Act (Government, OG 56/13) set a prohibition of exploration and exploitation of mineral resources in protected natural areas. The spatial planning in Natura 2000 (EC, 2012) protected areas do not allow expansion of the existing exploration fields or opening of new ones. Any further exploitation of mineral resources can only be performed as a function of landscaping as well as technical and biological

8 rehabilitation of existing exploration fields. Upon completion of the approved operation to repair existing exploration fields of all quarries, most of them are obligated to cease work. Quarries can be converted to have a primarily nature protection function, visiting facilities, culture, sports, recreation and forestry. Before the conversion of space, it is necessary to create a spatial program (study) and conduct an environmental impact assessment. The spatial program must contain fundamental evaluation of space, assessing the degree of threat and space capacity, measuring the interaction with the surrounding area and the whole nature park, evaluating quarries and the wider area, proposing measures for rehabilitation and improvement of space and other elements, depending on the space specifications.

2.3 Zoning of NP Medvednica

The principles of zoning of protected areas are standardized for all national categories of protected areas in Croatia. Zoning of protected areas is one of the basic tools in spatial planning. Zones range in degree where almost no human impact is allowed, to areas where use of natural areas within the zone that can be significantly altered. It is important to note that these levels do not imply the value of the area, but reflects the need for management of protected areas and for conservation of biological and geographical landscape diversity. It is not expected that all zones have to be represented in all protected areas. Zoning of protected areas is defined by two documents: The Spatial Plan for areas with specific characteristics and the Management Plan. It is also important to note that zoning in the Management Plan is of lesser importance than the one found within the Spatial Plan; as the Management Plan is not a legally binding document with fixed (10-year) validity whereas the Spatial Plan is a legally binding document without time- limited validity. Legally speaking, it is an unorthodox practice for a Management Plan to be formulated prior to the inception of a Spatial Plan. All economic activities should be planned in a way and at a rate, which do not compromise the natural values of the Park (in compliance with the provisions from Nature Protection Act (OG 70/05, 139/08 and 57/11). The Management Plan sets several zones with diminishing level of protection, as presented in Figure 3.

9

Figure 3. Zoning of National Park Medvednica

The first zone is the zone of strict protection, which includes all sources of water and upper watercourse streams with a protective belt around them. This zone prohibits all types of extraction of natural resources and intervention in the area, except for interventions required for the safety of visitors or the minimal interventions needed in an event of extraordinary circumstances (fire, removal station or invasive species outbreak, emergency relief during disasters). In the zone of strict protection, opening of construction zones is not permitted as well as construction of buildings for any purpose and any transport infrastructure. Accordingly, in the zones of strict protection, activities of preserving, protecting and monitoring of ecosystems, biodiversity and landscape are permissible. Those activities include scientific research, inventorying and monitoring of biodiversity components under the control of public institutions. Visiting in this area is focused only on public authorities, with an obligation to use paths only. Consequently, the development of visitor infrastructure is minimal and limited to the maintenance and improvement of existing educational and interpretive facilities (Spatial Plan NP 10

Medvednica, 2014). The second zone is the zone of moderate protection, which includes forest reserves, managed forest ecosystems, agricultural areas (meadows) that are not part of settlements and abandoned quarries. Management of this area is defined by measures of active protection. The revival of extensive livestock production and removal of woody vegetation on traditional grassland areas is encouraged. In this particular zone, only construction of minor building activities is allowed. The focused protection zone covers areas of high conservation importance where significant involvement of public institutions for the preservation or restoration of natural and cultural values is expected. The management goal of this zone is the preservation of natural processes and habitats (land and water) and their components as well as the preservation of the landscape. The focused protection zone is divided into the following sub-zones:

 Zone 2a - intermediate protection zones - forest reserves  Zone 2b - intermediate protection zones - forest complex  Zone 2c - zone on focused care and research  Zone 2d - zone on focused protection; peak area

The third zone of usage encompasses regions of lower preservation values. The management goal of this zone is a viable use of the land, in accordance with the objectives for conservation of biological and landscape diversity. This zone is a sort of compromise between the use and protection of the area. This zone includes:  All existing settlements;  Separate facilities for various purposes (e.g. mountain lodges);  Areas of current intense use (quarries, areas of intensive agricultural production);  Greater infrastructure to support visiting protected areas (visitor centers);  Roads;

The third zone is also ‘zone of usage’, which contains active quarries, chair and ski lifts, visitor infrastructure and properties within other zones, as well as asphalt and forest roads. The goal of this area is to focus on all economic and developmental activities in a way to preserve the landscape and environmental values, and to reduce to a minimum the negative impact on the entire protected area. Revival of extensive livestock production and removal of woody vegetation on traditional grassland areas is encouraged. The third zone is further divided into the 11 following sub-zones:

 Zone 3a – Zone with visitor infrastructure  Zone 3b – Settlements  Zone 3c - Active quarries  Zone 3d – Resorts

Forest management objectives are focused on protection of forest ecosystems through improvement of the ‘general beneficial’ functions, such as protection of soil erosion, watershed function and biodiversity. Additional protection of forests is assured through additional designation of certain areas to some national protection categories; e.g. designation of special reserves of forest vegetation. There also exists a fourth zone, which acts as a ‘buffer’ zone to other urban areas, situated out of the park. This zone represents the urbanized areas of the Park. As such, construction and other activities are allowed to take place in the ‘buffer’ zone. In addition to the general zoning, some areas are identified as particularly valuable and in need of special protection regimes, organization and utilization. Such areas may be particularly valuable in protecting monuments, memorial complexes, historically important spatial distribution of forests and meadows, streams and springs, and historical roads. The greatest weight is given to traditional and current usage patterns where they do not threaten the value of space, the preservation of natural values and the characteristics of that particular space. Interventions in space should be planned in a manner, which does not alter the character of the traditional, well-established characteristics of the site and space in general.

2.4 Forests in NP Medvednica

The need for rational management of the forests of Medvednica dates from the nineteenth century. Although its ownership has changed frequently, Medvednica forest complex is preserved in its fundamental value and spans on an area of 22,860 ha which was declared a Nature Park back in the year 1981. In its current boundaries, park forests are spreading over 14,550 hectares (81% of the overall area of the Nature Park). Forest phytocoenological communities cover the lowland forests of willow, alder and oak to mountain forests of beech, fir and sycamore. Medvednica also contains many relic species of Mediterranean flora. It should also be noted that the forests of NP Medvednica are under various abiotic pressures, primarily air 12 pollution and intensive use of space. According to studies of forest damage, the southern side towards the City of Zagreb is the most vulnerable one due to an increase in construction site areas (Draft spatial plan, NP Medvednica, 2012). Forests in the peak area are under strong impact of erosion, which causes disruptions in the continuity of the forest cover. That part of NP Medvednica is overloaded with constructions, other interventions and intensive visitors use such as, buildings, hotels, housing areas, etc. Croatian forests ltd. manages 8775 hectares of forest by their current management plan. The term ‘management’ implies to the use and care of forests. The remaining 5775 ha of forests is privately owned and there is an obvious difference in the quality and potential of these beneficial functions of the forests. Croatian forests ltd. also manages all the private forests that do not have a valid forest management plan. There are 12 072 private forest owners on Medvednica, who on average own 0.17 ha of forest (Draft spatial plan, NP Medvednica, 2012). There is a significant decay of oak, chestnut and fir trees, while sessile oak, turkey oak, downy oak, holm oak, sycamore and hornbeam are in favorable physiological condition. Symptoms are similar to the drying of forest degradation occurring in North America and Europe, known as the "dying forests", with discussions initiating in the 80s and 90s. In Croatia, the most damaged area of forest is within the City of Zagreb. According to the results of the research (Španjol, 2003) (about dying forests), the most vulnerable areas are the southeastern slopes of NP Medvednica. These data indicate the necessity to monitor and control pollution in the city, the region and beyond. In addition, there is a need to monitor the collection of forest fruits (mushrooms, chestnuts and berries), which attracts a large number of hikers in the woods. These activities often destroy the stems and roots of plants, and this behavior is not consistent with the requirements of nature protection. Within the park, there are eight special forest reserves, three natural monuments, two park architecture monuments, two individual plants, and two animal species that have their specific protection regimes (Draft spatial plan, NP Medvednica, 2012). Forest management in NP Medvednica is largely managed according to the restrictions of the FSC system of forest certification. The state forest management company (Croatian forests, Ltd.) manages vast majority of forests (all state and part of private) and is also the one, which is certified. During final felling in the major forest areas, where possible and appropriate, smaller areas are left uncut. The forest management regime tends to preserve forest clearing (meadows, pastures, etc.) as well as forest edges. Rotation period of stands with native tree species is prolonged; sometimes to the end of physiological maturity. Use of chemical pesticides and biological control agents and genetically modified organisms is avoided. Introduction of species

13 and genetically modified organisms is forbidden. In all forests, a constant percentage of mature, old and dead (standing and fallen) trees, especially trees with hollows should be provided. The forest management should ensure appropriate care for the preservation of endangered and rare wildlife species, and in place should be a systematic monitoring of their condition. Performing afforestation, where habitat conditions permit, the indigenous tree species’ composition should reflect the natural composition, using nature-friendly methods. Afforestation of a non-forest area should only be conducted where justified - provided that is not endangering non-forest habitat types. All of these elements are management measures for forest habitats within a National ecological network, as designated by the Ordinance on habitat types, map of habitats, endangered and rare habitat types, and on the measures for their preservation (Parliament, OG, 07/06). Since the whole NP is within the National ecological network, all the above-mentioned measures are incorporated into respective forest management plans (Spatial plan for NP Medvednica, 2014). Forest meadows are very valuable elements of the Nature Park due to their heavy use, especially in areas of leisure, sport and recreation; hence, they are the focus of the spatial plan. Formation of new meadows is not predicted. In existing meadows, there should be fewer interventions in order to increase the meadows space, especially in places where there is overgrowing vegetation. Streams and springs in the meadows, as a special attraction, should be maintained in accordance with the natural values of the environment. All interventions should be tailored to preserve the existing terrain features without affecting the landscape values of the area. Materials and grassland seed for renewal must be indigenous. Meadows should be protected through a measure for preserving the characteristics of the soil and landscape depending on the specifics of each meadow. The use of winter recreational activities in areas where it is provided in this plan is allowed, such as a ski school for children, but without the usage of snowmaking system or construction of other infrastructure facilities (Spatial plan for NP Medvednica, 2014). Forests in the Nature Park Medvednica are designated as special purpose forests with special management and administration regime under the Forest Act, forest management plans and the Law on Nature Protection. Forest areas in the park cannot be legally reduced. All technical forest management procedures that threaten any settlements should be kept to the necessary minimum without damaging the trees and disrupting the ecological profile of the soil with roots. With regard to specific forest management policies under a special regime, they cannot achieve adequate economic effects. As such, it is necessary to respond appropriately and find additional resources for successful economic activities all with the intention of protecting the forest. To name a few, the forestry sector, professionals, other associations, institutions like the Faculty of

14

Forestry or the Forest Research Institute should have a special role in the decision-making processes. The growth and protection of wildlife is established in all seven districts of the City of Zagreb. Three hunting grounds are located in the area of Zagreb County and three in the districts of Krapina-Zagorje County. Increase of populations in the near future is planned for the following game: wild boar, deer, pheasant, rabbit and partridge. Hunting and breeding in the Nature Park is regulated in accordance with the laws on game management, the Internal Rules of Nature Park Medvednica, and the nature protection requirements established by the competent ministries (Draft spatial plan, NP Medvednica, 2012).

2.5 Legislative Framework

In the context of nature protection, spatial plans exist because through them the Republic of Croatia ensures nature protection with the principles of best practice. The primary nature protection in Croatia dates back to 1893, when the first law on hunting accurately standardized the protection of birds. There was a series of activities from several companies, individuals and scientists, as well as the adoption of acts that in the early years of the 20th century lead to raising awareness on protection of the flora and fauna (Draft spatial plan, NP Medvednica, 2012). The first law of Nature Protection in the Republic of Croatia was adopted in 1960, and was followed by the laws of 1965 and 1976. In this law, the nature park as a category of protection is defined for the very first time, outlining the main characteristics of vast natural or partly cultivated areas with high ecological, aesthetic and recreational values. In addition, economic activities that do not threaten its essential features and functions were listed as permissible. The nature Conservation Act of 2005 clearly highlights the difference in the level of protection of national parks and nature parks. The nature park reserves the option for unfolding economic activities unless they do not exceed the essential features and the role of the nature park, which is excluded in the national parks. The methods of performing economic activities and the use of natural resources in the park as well as the nature protection conditions are determined by the state. In 1937, the City of Zagreb adopted a Conclusion that the 1640 ha of forests on Medvednica are to be declared as protected areas with management emphasis on restoration, conservation and reforestation. In 1950, the Department for Protection of Natural Rarities made an official suggestion to declare the area of Medvednica as protected areas with management emphasis on 15 restoration, conservation and reforestation. There were no decisions for the National Park back then because of formal-legal reasons. A further step in the conservation and protection of forests was the designation of Medvednica’s forests as park forests in 1954. This decision covered all forests, woods and forest parks established regardless of ownership as well as meadows, agricultural land and other areas whose management affected forest area. A public enterprise "Sljeme" was founded to manage parks forest and a committee for the forest park was established in order to steer the activities. The Zagreb City Assembly passed in 1961 a decision with which the whole catchment area south of Medvednica, Podsused, Kašina with a total area of 192 km2 was designated as a protective area of the City of Zagreb. The aim of this decision was to ensure permanent preservation and to grant a protective role for Medvednica. Municipal assemblies of Zaprešić and Stubica brought this same decision, at the same time for the northern slopes. The Zagreb City Assembly in 1963 declared the forests on Medvednica as state forest. The Republic Institute for Nature Protection has determined an area of 996.71 hectares as special reserve forest area and thus excluded from it any economic intervention. Medvednica was at that time divided into three zones; an area of special forest reserves; a recreational area and an area beyond the recreational zone (Spatial plan for NP Medvednica, 2014). Unfortunately, neither the state nor the private forests had some specific limitations prescribed on the exploitation and on visiting rights. There was only a declaration on the use of the forest on Medvednica, but regrettably, the Forest Act did not specify a management regime in these forests. The Nature Conservation Act from 1976, which introduced ”Nature Park” as a new category, represents the basis for protection of Medvednica in its current form. Basic elements of a nature park encompass "protection and proper use not only from a natural perspective but also ranges in a number of other forms”. Those elements include landscape conservation as a mirror of history, with all its complex and layered components and eco-systems preservation. It also includes series of typical habitats of all kinds including the existing settlements (Spatial plan for NP Medvednica, 2014). Inside Nature Park Medvednica there are other categories of protection with the intention to conserve some smaller areas or objects of nature. Starting points for developing the spatial plan for NP Medvednica consist of:  Act of designation of the western part of Nature Park Medvednica (OG 24/81) and the Law on Amendments to the proclamation of the western part of Nature Park Medvednica (OG 25/09)  Nature Protection Act (OG 70/05 NN 70/05, 139/08, 57/11) and its bylaws  Environmental Protection Act (OG 110/07)

16

 Regulation of the National Ecological Network of the Republic of Croatia (OG 109/07)  Biological and Landscape Diversity and Action Plans (OG 81/99, OG 143/08)  Strategy for Sustainable Development of Croatia (OG 110/07)  Zoning documents from higher order: Spatial Planning Strategy of Croatia (1997) and the Program of Croatian Spatial Planning (1999)

International Conventions:

 Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn, 1979)  Agreement on the Conservation of European Bats EUROBATS (London, 1991)  International Convention for the Protection of Birds (Paris, 1950)  The European Landscape Convention (Florence, 2000)  The Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio de Janeiro, 1992)  Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (Bern, 1997)  The Convention on the Protection of Cultural and Natural Heritage (Paris, 1972)  Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Environmental Decision- making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (Aarhus, 1998)

The first priority of the plan (Spatial plan for NP Medvednica, 2014) sets out to preserve the natural integrity, landscape features and individual components of the natural and cultural heritage; in particular, the conservation of wildlife species and habitats are important for the preservation of the Croatian Ecologic Network. The second priority revolves around improving the ecological, scientific, educational and recreational functions of the area. The third priority focuses on increasing the access to pedestrian routes and public transport. Lastly, the fourth priority aims to increase the quality of services that accompany field trips, mountaineering and education as the primary elements in the park visiting system. In order to protect the environmental characteristics of the Park, exceptional attention and treatment must be placed on its relation to the City of Zagreb and the other adjacent towns. In order to address this issue, the following objectives have been set (Draft spatial plan, NP Medvednica, 2012):  Reaching high degree of control of land use activities;  Systematic issuing of guidance documents regarding the development of adjacent settlements; 17

 Diminishing the traffic pressures on the peak area through improved transportation systems;  Diversification of visiting routes, in order to enhance sightseeing, education, recreation activities;  Limiting the touristic facilities onto already constructed capacities;  Allowing construction of new buildings just on few specified locations;  Improvement of utility infrastructure;  Adaptation of traditional architectural features;  Harmonization of the use of natural resources (forests, agricultural land, water, mineral resources) with the requirements of environmental protection, landscape and biodiversity;  Permanent communication, education and interpretation of the parks’ aims with the concerned public, including both stakeholders and citizens;

2.6. Overview of Participation in Spatial Planning

Although the spatial planning began almost parallel to the proclamation of the Park in 1981, the first interaction with stakeholders was not until 1988. At that time, the Public Institute for Urbanism on behalf of the City of Zagreb was responsible for the preparation of the plan, including the interaction with stakeholders. The Institute had prepared an extensive list encompassing 44 stakeholders, who were engaged through surveys, public hearings and consultation meetings. The list of stakeholders is similar to the list of stakeholders developed for the purpose of this research. The spatial planning team consisted of 19 experts. Nine studies were carried out for the purpose of that plan. A total of 26 experts from different fields were consulted. Each public hearing had a ‘pre-hearing’, a form of consultative meeting during which all interested parties could discuss matters and prepare for the official hearing. The General State Administration of Socialistic Republic of Croatia (within Yugoslavia) was centered on municipalities and as a result, the public hearings were done 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 (cro. ‘Mjesne zajednice’). A rational approach was applied for spatial planning of NP Medvednica, as the municipal associations within the Park have formed a Committee for protection and management of Medvednica, a civil association that represents the people living within the Park; it also 18 encompassed experts and members of different groups such as hunters and mountaineers. All participants of the consultations were treated equally, both lay and expert. In the year 1989, the process ceased due to some problems. Although no formal explanation was provided, there is an informal consensus that the reason behind it was the pressure of hunting interests, as their activities would diminish if there were a spatial plan for NP Medvednica. During the second process (2002-2005), the coordinator was the Ministry for Environmental Protection, Spatial Planning and Construction headed by the Minister. The actual planning was done by the City of Zagreb, Bureau for Spatial Planning, which has consulted and recognized 21 stakeholders, and 23 people comprised the executive team that made the plan. They consulted five experts, and eight studies were made as background documents of the Plan. The starting legislative points for the draft of the spatial plan of Nature Park Medvednica (2005) were made based on: the Spatial Planning Strategy and Program of Spatial Planning of Croatia. In addition, all the applicable regional plans on county-level, city and municipality level were done as well as the general master plans and regional spatial plans. A draft version of the spatial plan was presented to the public on September 28, 2005. As in the case of independent Republic of Croatia, the organization of state administration emphasizes the importance of regional level involvement; the public hearings were organized on the level of Counties (regions). The second round of stakeholder engagement was focused on public hearings, which were held from 7 September 2005 until 7 October 2005, and most of the discussion was devoted to the topic of the National park’s borders. After each hearing, there was a 30-day notice time during which unsatisfied stakeholders were given the opportunity to submit a complaint, which might or might not have been accepted. The notice about the public hearings was sent to all the media and everyone who felt that they were affected by the plan was invited to attend. The forum was comprised of considerable number of stakeholders; members of different sections of public administration, concerned citizens, various environmental NGOs and residents of mountaineers and municipalities directly affected by the changes in the new spatial plan. Many of them felt that they were deprived of their wealth due to the falling prices of the value of real estate within the borders of the Nature Park. There has been great interest in the new regulation, which was directly related to the Sljeme ski resort (Ski resort is managed by the city company "Sljeme - Medvednica"). According to the plan, Medvednica was planned to be divided into four zones. Construction is allowed in the fourth zone, which is the marginal zone of the park, where there are already constructed buildings; the first zone marks the upper part of the Nature Park, where type of construction is prohibited, and were strict regulations of preservation

19 of nature apply. The ski resort falls into the first zone but no significant changes were made for it as the whole complex of ski resorts (in today's state) entered in the draft of the spatial plan. The plan also included the construction of a new cable car to the north side of Medvednica, against which environmental NGOs negatively reacted. In addition, the spatial plan regulates and reduces the traffic on the top part of Medvednica and brings regulation (prohibition) for any kind of construction in the first zone. From the 733 complaints made, only 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. Declaration for designation of Medvednica as part of the national ecologic network was made in 2007, and it was based on the Regulation on the National Ecologic Network of the Republic of Croatia (OG 109/07). In September 2008, the City of Zagreb Bureau of Urban Planning in cooperation with the Department for Strategic Planning and Development of the City of Zagreb and the Department of Planning of the Ministry of Environmental Protection, Spatial Planning and Construction, prepared a proposal for a renewed public debate. Nevertheless, such public hearing was not envisioned for the spatial plan of NP Medvednica but was focused exclusively on diminishing its borders on the southern slopes of the mountain. The comments of participants to this public hearing were very similar to the comments raised in the general public hearing for spatial planning of NP Medvednica that was organized for the area by the City of Zagreb. The Ministry of Culture, which is responsible for nature protection and the Ministry of Environmental Protection, Spatial Planning, and Construction, has initiated the adoption of the amendment for changing the nature park boundaries. They have instructed the State Institute on Nature Protection to make an expert background document, which would decrease the area of the Park on the southern slopes (next to Zagreb) and increase the area on the eastern slopes. This document (Parliament, PZ. no.140, 2008) proposed a reduction of 3 365 ha and an increase of 5 712 ha, with a total area of 25 173 ha. The Spatial Planning and Construction Committee of the Croatian Parliament rejected this proposal on February 13, 2009. However, based on the favorable opinion of the same Committee and following the strong pressure from the public, Parliament decreased the area of the park by 4888 ha (without the proposed increase on the east) to an area of 17 938 ha. This reduction also resulted in the decrease of its population from 33400 to 7400 inhabitants. The formal explanation of the decision came from public pressure stating that this solution represents a viable compromise between urbanization and nature protection (Parliament,

20

PZ.no.140, 2008). The form of decision for the decrease of the Parks’ area was an amendment to the Declaration for the proclamation of Medvednica as Nature Park (Parliament, OG 25/09). Pursuant to the Act on Spatial Planning and Construction (Parliament, OG, 76/07, 38/09, 55/11, 90/11 and 50/12), in 2012, for the third time a draft proposal of spatial plan for NP Medvednica was prepared for participation. As in the previous processes, the preparation of the Plan was in the hands of the City of Zagreb (Department for Spatial and Regional Planning) on behalf of the state-level administration (Ministry of Spatial Planning and Construction). Thirty experts from the City of Zagreb who formed the planning team strongly cooperated with the Public institution Nature Park Medvednica and representatives of two other Counties in which NP Medvednica is situated (Department of Spatial Planning of the Zagreb County, the Krapinsko-Zagorska County Department of Strategic Planning and City Development and the Spatial Planning Institute). The third round of public hearings was held between February and March 2014 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 complaints made by stakeholders who were collected in the third process, 223 were accepted. The Plan was based on the second draft from 2005 and since then, many new laws and strategies, which the Plan has to be aligned with, have been made. 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 (Spatial plan, 2014). This is especially the case with the amended version of the programme for spatial planning of the Republic of Croatia (Parliament, OG 50/99) and the Strategy of spatial planning of the Republic of Croatia (Parliament, 1999). The big practical differences 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 puts emphasis on public transportation (especially cable car). This scenario does not contain the northern pass over Medvednica that goes in the west-east direction and does not contain a cable car path from the northern side. However, the draft from the third plan contains a lot more touristic infrastructure in the peak area than the second draft did, especially for the development of skiing tourism. The consultation meetings in the third process were designed in such manner that one by one expert-level stakeholder was invited to collaborate with the spatial planning team. The only expert study done in the third process of spatial planning was the Expert basis of nature protection for the special features of spatial plan for NP Medvednica (SINP, 2012), which sets the management guidelines for habitats and species protected under Natura 2000 Directives.

21

Vast majority of these relate to the protection of forest habitats, which is a natural phenomenon for which Medvednica is protected as a nature park. These guidelines are the same as in Annex III of the Ordinance on habitat types, map of habitats, endangered and rare habitat types, and on the measures for their preservation (Official Gazette 07/06). The measures from the Ordinance were set for the National ecological network, a predecessor of the Natura 2000. Nevertheless, they are quite general and do not deviate much from the postulates of close-to-nature-forestry and the requirements of forest certification (e.g. where appropriate, prolong rotation period, avoid usage of chemical agents in forest protection, do not introduce genetically modified organisms); as such, do not represent an impediment for the active forest management practices that have been implemented to date. The experiences of the impacts of these measures and of the National ecological network are such that 90% of impact assessments state that there are no significant negative impacts on biodiversity (MNP, 2013) and in general, they have very rarely stopped development projects (FoE-CR, 2011). The Study recognized that the special reserves of forest vegetation are in altered state from 1963 when they were first proclaimed, and that they need measures of active management in order to revitalize them to their previous state. Contrary to the interests of the Croatian Forests Ltd., the area of the reserves has not decreased. It is also stated that there should be a special revitalization plan made for each of the forest reserves. These reserves cover only 5.71% of the area of the Park, and for all other forests, they fail to receive any ‘strong’ measures of protection. As such, it can be stated that Croatian Forests Ltd. made a small compromise and gained an expert background for the continuation of their current forest management practices. The decision on approving the Spatial Plan for areas with specific characteristics of the Nature Park 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.

22

Comparison of three periods

I Period II Period III Period

26

21 30

17 5 23 44 2 26 8 19 9

Nr. Stakeholders Experts involved Studies Made People involved in creation

Figure 4. Quantitative comparison of 'participation' between the three processes with number of stakeholders’ experts and people involved as well as studies made.

By looking at just the ‘crude’ numbers (Figure 4), the first process of spatial planning had ‘utilized’ more participation in comparison to the second and the third process; there were more public hearings and there were a greatest number of stakeholders who were present at the consultations. Most of them were not present at the consultations in the second and the third process, and it was during these consultations when the greatest number of expert studies and decisions were done for the preparation of the Plan. Furthermore, as the ‘number’ of participants decreased from the first to the third process, the number of people that the City of Zagreb devoted to spatial planning increased from 19 to 30. However, these numbers present a small picture on the process of spatial planning for NP Medvednica, and it is the main task of this thesis to provide a deeper understanding of it.

23

CHAPTER III MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Introduction

The research methodology employed in this PhD research was made by incorporating tools and techniques for the data collection and analysis proposed by “Grounded Theory”. Glaser and Strauss initially presented this approach back in 1967 with their study “The discovery of Grounded Theory”. They defined the term “Grounded Theory”, as “the discovery of theory from data systematically obtained from social research” (p.2). In the book, Glaser and Strauss offer systematic strategies for qualitative research practice, and they base it on practical work on a topic, a ‘dying’ one on which there was little knowledge about. They proposed systematic qualitative analysis with its own logic for generating theory. Moreover, they attempted to construct abstract theoretical explanations of social processes (1967; Glaser, 1978; Strauss, 1987). Grounded theory emerges from two contrasting and competing-traditions in sociology: The first one is from Columbia University positivism and the second from the Chicago school on pragmatism and field research. Glaser intended to codify qualitative research methods for entailing specifying explicit strategies for conducting research and demystifying the research process. On the contrary, Strauss brings into GT notions of human agency, emergent processes, social and subjective meanings, problem-solving practices, and the open-ended study of action to grounded theory. After their division, Glaser remained consistent on the usage of the method and thus defined grounded theory as a method of discovery, treated categories as emergent from the data, relied on direct and often narrow empiricism, and analyzed a basic social process. Strauss in 1987 moved the method toward verification into furthering this direction (Corbin & Strauss, 1990; Strauss & Corbin, 1990, 1998). In the meantime, many scholars have moved grounded theory away from the positivism in both Glaser's and Strauss and Corbin's forms of the method (Charmaz, 2000; Seale, 1999). The motivation behind this research was to find out the reasons behind the process of participation (why the participation looked like it did), the fact that it covers the complicated relations between nature and city, between various actors on different levels and a process that covers different socio-political contexts. Believing that no theory can adequately present all the important segments of the explanation of what is happening, grounded

24 theory is used under the assumption that it is an appropriate approach to developing in-depth knowledge on a topic on which little is known.

3.2. Grounded theory

With the onset of Grounded Theory, it was explained that the theory derives from data through a systematic collection and analysis. The researcher should begin the research without a preconceived theory in mind, and the theory should emerge from the study itself. For this to happen, it is important that the collection of data, the analysis and the eventual theory be in close relation (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). If the theory on the phenomenon is to be characterized as applicable, four criteria must be met in a well-defined empirically grounded theory. These criteria are; fit, understanding, generality and control. Fit relates to whether the theory was “faithful to the everyday reality of the substantive area and carefully induced from diverse data” (Strauss & Corbin, p. 23). Understanding reflects how comprehensible and logical the theory is to those that may have been studied (in this case the 51 interviewees). Generality relates to whether the theory is abstract enough and with sufficient variation to apply to “a variety of contexts related to that phenomenon” (Strauss & Corbin, p. 23). Moreover, generality depends on the data on which the theory was based whether it was comprehensive enough and whether its interpretations were “conceptual and broad” (Strauss & Corbin, p. 23). The last criterion is control, as “the theory should provide control with regard to action toward the phenomenon” (Strauss & Corbin, p. 23). This is an accomplished hypothesis that outlines the relationships between the concepts that were derived from the data and are related to the phenomenon. (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). It can be stated that a theory should be composed of elements that correspond to the daily reality of the aspect that is researched. Constructionist grounded theorists ‘attend’ usually to ‘what’ and ‘how’ questions. They emphasize abstract understanding of empirical phenomena and contend that this understanding must be located in the studied specific circumstances of the research process (Charmaz 2008). A theory is a lot more than granting knowledge or illustrating a picture. It endeavors to make the individuals using it capable of explaining and predicting events, thus giving directions for action (Strauss and Corbin, 1990). As Charmaz (2000) has suggested, “perhaps the scientific underpinnings” (Strauss and Corbin, 1990) reflect both Corbin’s earlier training and Strauss’ growing insistence that grounded theory is “verificational” (p. 512). Strauss and Corbin might appear to be more preoccupied with the notion of science as reflected in their use of standard scientific terminology and the canons of good science (Corbin & Strauss, 1990; Strauss & Corbin, 1994, 1998). In addition, Glaser and 25

Strauss (1967, p. 253) state that the core categories can emerge in the sociologist’s mind from his reading, life experiences, research and scholarship; furthermore no sociologist can possibly erase from his mind all the theory he knows before he begins his research. Indeed the ‘trick’ is to line up what one takes as theoretically possible or probable with what one is finding in the field. Researchers often use grounded theory methods and theorizing as “social action”. The rest of the “participants“ in our research like colleagues, professors and many others may live in the researchers’ minds and influence how they conduct their studies long after having their direct contact. The researchers interact with their data and create theories from it; but they do not exist in a social vacuum (Charmaz, 2006). Researchers’ conceptions of theory and previous research influence their work and the commitments they hold. A number of the disputes among grounded theorists and critiques by other colleagues result on the standpoint of various researchers between interpretive and positivist traditions. Grounded theory has taken somewhat different forms since its creation; constructivist and objectivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2000). Constructivist grounded theory is part of the interpretative tradition and objectivist grounded theory derives from positivism. Whether you judge specific study to be constructivist or objectivist depends on the extent to which its key characteristics conform to one tradition or the other (Charmaz, 2006). A constructivist approach places priority on the phenomena of study and sees both data and analysis as created from shared experiences and relationships with participants and other sources of data (Charmaz, 2000). Constructivist-grounded theory lies firmly in the interpretative tradition (Charmaz, 2006). While on the other side, an objectivist approach to grounded theory contrasts the constructivist approach and resides in the positivist tradition where it attends to data as real in and of themselves and does not attend to the processes of their production (Charmaz, 2006). This research stands more on the side of the constructivist grounded theory, by placing the phenomena of participatory processes of NP Medvednica spatial planning at the forefront. In this study both, the data and its analysis derive from the shared experience and relationships with the stakeholders interviewed as well as from the other sources of data taken for the analysis. At the onset of the qualitative studies in social science research, many researchers thought that the only way to escape the constriction of previous quantitative social science research was to avoid reading about a topic until after collecting and analyzing the data. By keeping a mind in an ‘unspoiled’ condition, one would be able to maintain an unbiased view of the data. This outlook is credited to Glaser and Strauss (1967), where Glaser (1978 as opposed to Strauss, 1998) does in fact promote avoidance of doing pre-research literature reviews. It has a certain application, and justifies jumping right into one’s research without the

26 long process of reading books and articles. There is the belief that without having any assumptions in qualitative research (which can be best understood as pessimism about the openness of the human mind) it can lead towards unchecked bias. For example, Bogdan and Taylor (1975) recommend to the readers preparing to do qualitative studies to read the literature in preparation for entering the field, in order to avoid committing indiscretion with informants. It is necessary to know something about a topic prior to data collection. The real question is what and how much as well as how to use what one already knows? Kant has generally emphasized that it is impossible to know anything without bringing some prior knowledge along. Without prior assumptions, categories, and words, one would be faced with “confusion”, or chaos in the data. The awareness of these prior knowledge structures has led to whole fields of study into the nature and content of the human knowledge system, like ethnomethology (Garfinkel, 1984). Charmaz’s approach explicitly assumes that any theoretical rendering offers an “interpretative” portrayal of the studied world, not an exact picture of it (Charmaz, 2000). In addition, she also argues for building on pragmatist underpinnings in grounded theory and advancing interpretative analysis that acknowledge these constructions (Cahrmaz, 2006). The failure to acknowledge the role, the influence, or the provided assistance arising from prior knowledge means that we cannot know the extent to which we are being limited or influenced by that knowledge, unaware to our biases, whether these are biological, psychological or cultural in origin. Glaser’s (1978) dispute against pre-research literature reviews appears to have been misunderstood. His view is that the researcher should read books on qualitative methods especially his books, to help him develop an open, creative approach to one’s data. The reason behind Glaser arguing that it is a bad idea to read the research literature before doing a research is that it will desensitize the researcher and will make it more difficult for them to hear what the data is trying to convey. Anything that interferes with hearing one’s data with a fresh, curious ear is bad and should be minimized. Instead, Glaser (1978) argues in favor of “theoretical sensitivity”, the use of sensitizing concepts that help one hear what is going on in the data. It is widely known that Glaser (1978) and Strauss (Strauss & Corbin, 1998) famously disagreed on this. Glaser favors a more open-ended, creative, unstructured use of prior concepts, opposite to that Strauss and Corbin put forward - a “paradigm” of organizing categories, which is the basis of what they refer to as “axial coding” (i.e., organizing your data within a set of broad headings or domains). It can be understood as a general social theory that can be applied to a wide range of social phenomena, as Strauss & Corbin appear to imply. Charmaz argues that a contextualized grounded theory can start with sensitizing concepts that address such concepts as power, global reach and difference and end

27 with inductive analyses that theorize the connections between local worlds and larger structures (Charmaz, 2006). Sensitizing categories, as proposed by Glaser & Strauss (1967), are concepts brought by researchers to assist qualitative analyses, but which do not justifiably affect the results that emerge from the data. The concept of whether or not to consciously employ sensitizing categories in one’s research raises important general issues for qualitative researchers to consider. Sensitizing categories constantly remind the researcher to look for exacting aspects of understanding, without limiting the specific nature of those aspects. It appears to be common for informants to want to say much more about the background or context of the phenomenon than the researcher is interested in studying. A primal set of sensitizing sphere should alert the researcher to listen for a broad range of aspects relevant to their topic. Sensitizing categories should organize the phenomenon being studied, without constraining it. Organizing the data into domains reduces the complexity of the analysis into more workable subsets of data that can be handled one at a time. This means that the researcher is less likely to be overwhelmed by the “perplexity” of their data.

3.3. Selection of Interviews and Interview Questions

Technical literature on spatial planning for NP Medvednica has been used as a starting point during initial interviews (Strauss and Corbin, 1998 p.51). The most important documents were:  Draft spatial plan for areas of special characteristics in Nature Park Medvednica. Division for urbanism. City of Zagreb, 1989.  Draft spatial plan for areas of special characteristics in Nature Park Medvednica. Division for Spatial planning. City of Zagreb, 2005.  Draft spatial plan for areas of special characteristics in Nature Park Medvednica. Division for Spatial planning. City of Zagreb, 2012.  Demographic characteristics in Nature Park Medvednica 2001– 2015 objectives, an outlook study; Review of the relevant literature, reports and of historical data. Antić et al, 2003.  Management Plan for Nature Park Medvednica. PI NP Medvednica, 2010.  Nature Park Medvednica, professional background on nature conservation for the spatial plan for areas of special characteristics. Working version, SINP, 2012. 28

 Revision of protected natural areas - proposals with a focus on special forest vegetation reserves. Španjol, 2003.  Programme for rest, recreation and sport in Nature Park Medvednica. Ivaniš, 2003.  Conservatory study for spatial plans for areas of special characteristics in Nature Park Medvednica. Institute for Protection of Cultural and Natural Heritage in City of Zagreb, 2008.  Evaluation of Nature Park Medvednica tourism resources. Kušen, 2003.  Meteorological study for the spatial plan on areas of special characteristics in Nature Park Medvednica. Meteorological and Hydrological service, 2003.  Study on active and potential landslides and rockslides, increased erosion and largely unstable areas in Nature Park Medvednica. Miklin, 2003.  Environmental impact assessment on Chair Lifts Sljeme reconstruction. ECOINA Ltd., 2009.

Analysis of these and previously stated documents provided the background for the initial identification of stakeholders, i.e. everyone who can affect or can be affected by the process of spatial planning (Freeman, 1984). The initial list consisted of 32 stakeholders. As new technical data was gathered and as interviews progressed, it showed that many organizations that had a stake in the process had changed their names, merged with another organization, departments within organizations changed, and some organizations seized to exist. Moreover, although these changes had occurred, the researcher succeeded to interview the exact persons from these organizations who were involved in the process (particularly the first process). Many of them are now retired or have changed their place of employment and no longer work on issues of spatial planning. Due to these reasons, in many cases, the affiliation of a particular interviewee was not linked to a specific organization, but to a stakeholder group (e.g. one mountaineer society seized to exist, but its members are now mostly part of the Mountaineer Union). The overview of data sources - interviews and minutes from various public hearings is presented in Table 1.

Nr. of Source Code interviewees Alliance of private forest owners and forest owners associations, 2 PFO Croatian union of Private Forest owners associations CF –Croatian forests ltd. 8 Cro Forest Skiing Magazine and Skiing society 2 Skiing City of Zagreb Hunting Society 1 Hunt

29

City of Zagreb 9 City Zg Ministry of Construction and Spatial Planning 3 Min. Spat Slijeme Medvednica Ltd. 1 Ski Resort Krapinsko-Zagorska County 1 KZ 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 1 Chairlift Minutes from public hearing for the Krapinsko-Zagorska County, - Minutes KZ 14.09.2005 Minutes from public hearing for Krapinsko-Zagorska County, - Minutes KZ 18.02. 2014 Minutes from public hearing; City of Zagreb, 28.09.2005 - Minutes Zg Minutes from public hearing for the City of Zagreb 20.02.2014 - Minutes Zg Minutes from public hearing for the Municipality Bistra Minutes Count. - (Zagrebacka County) 19.02.2014 ZG Minutes Count. Minutes from public hearing for Zagreb County, 18.02. 2014 - ZG Table 1. Data sources

Analysis of technical documentation was followed by preliminary fieldwork (Strauss and Corbin, 1998, p. 205), where the goal was to provide the researcher with an overview of the developments and of the general characteristics of the central phenomenon. This first group of interviewees 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

30 documentation that was used in the processes. 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, book of complaints of the spatial plan. The second group of interviewees 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 was the central figures in the process of spatial planning. In the end, several interviewees from different stakeholders’ organizations were once again interviewed. The interviews were preceded by a telephone call agreement. The majority of interviews took place at quiet cafe bars in the afternoon (after working hours). In cases where such intimacy could not be achieved, the interviews were done at the office of the interviewee. A third person was not present at any of the interviews. The interviewees were first provided a short overview of the topic, the questions, permission to record and the ethical considerations of the research (Chapter 3.6, p.51). All but one interview was recorded, transcribed and sent to the interviewee for verification. Four identified stakeholders did not express willingness to participate. For each of them, another member of their organizations or one who was within the same department of the organization and was familiar with the process of spatial planning for NP was interviewed. In this way, no stakeholder was overlooked. While conducting the interviews, respondents were asked to identify other potential stakeholders, even specific persons who might be knowledgeable on the process, who might have some additional information or different opinions on some of the topics that were discussed. Every single nomination of a potential stakeholder was accepted (snowball procedure). The analysis of interviews had also shaped the list of respondents, as the limiting factor was theoretical saturation (Charmaz, 2006, p.113). With this procedure, 51 face-to-face interviews were conducted. The interviews usually lasted 1 to 1.5 hours; some lasted up to 3 hours, while the shortest one lasted 15 minutes. Data was collected in the period November 2011 to September 2014.

Interviews were supplemented with non-participant observation of three public hearings that were also recorded, and by minutes from three other public hearings from the second process (Table 1). All these materials were analyzed (labeled and coded) in the same manner as the interviews. After the interview, a map of Medvednica was given to all interviewees, and they were asked to draw what their area of interest is, while explaining the most important issues of that area and the interests of other stakeholders regarding it.

31

Based on literature review, a short list of general questions was prepared as guidance (protocol) for the interview. The initial interviews were as open as possible (almost no interruptions by the researcher) where interviewees were asked in their own words to describe the process of spatial planning for NP Medvednica, and on the role of participation in it. As subsequent interviews were performed, the questions changed dramatically. They evolved through a path that is typical for a grounded-theory development (Strauss and Corbin, 1998, p.75); first the questions focus on defining the central phenomenon, then as the analysis progresses questions focus on how it is linked to its contextual setting (actors, events, political setting, etc.). Furthermore, when provisional hypotheses were made, the next step was to test them in the subsequent interviews, i.e. to test all the details of the (provisional) grounded theory. This ‘field-validation’ of the propositions of grounded theory was the reason why some interviewees were interviewed again, and two of them were interviewed three times. The interview protocol that is provided in Annex I, is from the middle part of performing interviews; when representatives of different civil society organization were interviewed. At this stage, the interview protocol was most detailed, and even then it could have been categorized as a “non-structured interview”, which involves a predetermined content that provides the objectives of the research, the formulation and the arranging of the questions submitted, which result with the “interaction of the interviewer and his subject” (Breakwell, 1995). Furthermore, with using open-ended questions, it is not necessary to determine certain or preselected answers, the individual can answer using his own words, without limitations to its content, in the way of expression and in the length of the answer (Brener, 1985). The complexity of analysis also changed in parallel with the interviews from labeling, defining concepts, theoretically linking them, and to finally constructing and refining formal hypotheses. Figure 5 demonstrates the process.

32

Figure 5. Design of interviews

The intertwined process of data collection and analysis was stopped when theoretical saturation had occurred, defined as (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 seem to emerge regarding a category  The category is well developed in terms of its properties and dimensions demonstrating variation (‘properties are the general or specific characteristics or attributes of a category, dimensions represent the location of a property along a continuum or range’ - Strauss and Corbin, 1998 p.117)  The relationships among categories are well established and validated

Interviews were transcribed using F4 software into Word documents. The F4 software allows the user to control the speed of the voice reproduction, making the transcription easier, but it is not a form of automatic translation. Following recommendations about the treatment of gathered data, the transcriptions were done as soon as possible after each interview, and they were checked against field notes and corrected when necessary (Dick 2000). Both the interviews and the transcription were done in Croatian language.

33

3.4. Data Analysis

3.4.1. Intermediary Analysis

Analysis of interviews already began right after the first interviews. The first step in the analysis was labeling (Strauss and Corbin, 1998, p.106), i.e. a technique for initial conceptualization of data where the label also suggests the meaning of the label. Labels have been developed for individual segments of transcriptions, which focus 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). Each single segment of text was marked with a unique label that represents the central idea of the text segment along with its contextual setting. Examples of these labels are: “each interest group wants to construct something on the peak, and they do not have expert’s approval for that”, “in public hearings every speech is regarded by them as an unfounded complain, to which they just nod their heads” and “citizens of Zagreb are consulted for irrelevant issues, and the important ones are not mentioned”.

One researcher did the entire analysis. This is seen as a strong threat to the validity of the research, as the integrative work in grounded theory research is best when done in groups where there is chance for different members of the research team to share ideas and increase the insight (Tirhekar, 2013). The analysis often might be biased toward the preconceived ideas of the researcher and its way of thinking. In order to diminish this bias, the ‘classical’ GT analysis is preceded by an intermediary, ‘mechanistic’ analysis. This intermediary analysis is based on preconceived ‘mechanics’ on how concepts of increasing level of abstraction should be made, and how they should be ‘conceptually connected’, all following the premises of open, axial and selective coding. The following paragraphs show how this intermediary, ‘mechanistic’ analysis was done.

Open coding – identification of concepts and of their properties in the data, where central ideas of the research material are represented as concepts. Figure 6 presents graphical overview of the notion of ‘mechanistic’ open coding.

34

Figure 6. Intermediary open coding

The first step is ‘micro-analytical’ development of codes (1a), i.e. a group of labels with a shared meaning, with its own unique properties and dimensions (Strauss and Corbin, 2008, p. 109). In order to ‘classify’ labels, constant comparison between the codes and their labels is applied. In the following text, these codes are regarded as Level 1 (L1) codes. Detailed memos for each code were developed. A grouping of L1 codes has also been made, which is based on capturing the basic features of the codes 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. There was further comparison between the L1 codes (1b) by constructing a matrix where rows and columns represent the L1 codes (L1 x L1 matrix (scheme). Each label from all of the 35 codes was compared to all other codes. If it was found that a label contains a logical relation to some other code, it was copied to a cell that represents an intersection of the two codes. In such manner, the same label was ‘shared’ by two different codes. An example of this step would be ‘sharing’ of the label “citizens of Zagreb are consulted for irrelevant issues, and the important ones are not mentioned” both by the codes ‘citizens of Zagreb’ and ‘Non-decision decision making’. Matrix L1xL1 is then visualized in order to identify patterns and similarities between the codes in the context of their ‘similarity’ to other codes, and to develop categories of codes that will guide further analysis. Higher level of theorizing (1c) has been made through conceptual comparison between the L1 codes along main characteristics of the codes. In this way new, more theoretical and more general codes have been developed (Level 2 or L2; i.e. a process of theoretical sampling; Strauss and Corbin, 1998, 201-207). A table has been constructed with conceptual ties between L1 and L2 codes, for which also detailed memos have been constructed. Constructing L1x L2 matrix has also facilitated the transition to a higher level of theoretical abstraction. In that transition, the cells in the matrix represent affiliation between L1 and L2 codes (i.e. if L1 and L2 codes are logically associated, their corresponding cell is marked with 1 otherwise it is 0). The L1xL2 matrix is s then visualized in order to identify patterns of affiliation between the codes and to develop categories, which will guide further analysis. The labeling procedure is shown in Figure 7 by the example of Process design L1 code. The process of analysis from labeling L1 codes to L2 Codes is presented by the example of L1 code Public hearings in Figure 8.

36

Figure 7. Labels of Process design L1 code

37

Figure 8. L1 coding on example of Public hearings

38

Preliminary conceptual structuring (1d) of the L2 codes has been performed, which represents provisional theoretical explanation of the central phenomenon, i.e. the effect of participation on the process of spatial planning, builds upon the case of NP Medvednica. A graphical depiction of the relations between the concepts is constructed in order to guide the explanation.

Axial coding – a disaggregation of core themes along their main characteristics. As stated by Strauss (1987, p.64), “[a]mong the most important choices to be made during these early sessions is to code intensively around single categories. By doing this, the analyst begins to build up a tense texture of relationships around the ‘axis’ of the category being focused upon”. Figure 9 presents the overview of intermediary axial coding.

Figure 9. Intermediary axial coding

In order to find out precisely how codes and categories connect to each other, a ‘structured’ version of axial coding was applied. The highly structured approach to axial coding is also in the line of thought of Charmaz (2006). Development of relational codes (2a) (R codes or just R) has been made on the basis of L1xL1 matrix from step 1b. All the labels in each of these ‘relational cells’ were grouped into ‘relational codes’, which represent conditions needed for the

39 explanation of phenomenon (i.e. codes). Relational codes are thus formed from several ‘intersections’ of L1 codes. All the labels defined from the transcriptions of the interviews have been re-coded in this manner. The purpose of this procedure was to define the “… repeated patterns of happenings, events, or actions/interactions that represent what people do or say, alone or together, in response to the problems and situations”. (Strauss and Corbin, 1998, p.130). Memos have been developed for relational codes. An Example of a short relational code is “Unregulated participation” presented in Figure 10 and represents an ‘intersection’ of Process design and Non-participation L1 codes.

Figure 10. Elements of Unregulated participation relational code

By exploring causal and conceptual ties between them, the analysis of relational codes has been done (2b). Following the literature on axial coding (Glaser and Strauss, 1967, Strauss and Corbin, 1990), the relational codes have been categorized onto the following groups: 1. Context - a set of conditions influencing the action. More stable over time than causal conditions. 2. Causal conditions - events or variables that lead to the occurrence or development of the phenomenon. The conditions may be susceptible to change over time.

40

3. Phenomenon - the central object of research, in this case affects the participation on spatial planning. 4. Action strategies - goal-oriented activities that agents perform in response to the phenomenon. 5. Consequences - consequences of the action strategies, intended and unintended.

Next step was to look at the relations between each of the relational codes. To that end, a matrix of relational codes has been constructed (RxR matrix). If a positive logical tie is identified between two relational codes, their corresponding cell is marked with 1; otherwise it is 0. Such relations were made between relational codes of the same group (i.e. Context, Causal condition…) and between relational codes that belong to groups joined by a causal relation (i.e. a tie between R codes in Phenomenon and Action strategies is allowed, but not between codes in Context and Phenomenon groups). The R x R matrix has also been visualized, which allows for the inspection of the temporal-causal links between the elements of the phenomenon and the development of categories, which will guide further analysis. The example of these links between relational codes is presented in Figure 11, which shows three connections between three codes in the group Causal conditions (Procedural costs of participation, power defines the politics and Centralization of decision making) and one code in the group Phenomenon (‘Deciders’ as stakeholders).

41

Figure 11. Logical links between relational codes

42

Joint analysis of L1 and R codes (2c) has been made in order to further identify the ‘axes’ between the codes. To that end, a L1xR matrix has been constructed where the corresponding cells have been filled-in with an appropriate number of shared labels. The matrix has been visualized, where all L1 and R codes have been marked by their affiliation to the groups developed in steps 1b and 2b. Patterns of affiliation between all of the L1 and R codes have been identified from which categories have been developed; the same notion applies for steps 1b, 1c and 2b.

Selective coding – a step when major categories are finally integrated and when research findings take the form of a theory (Strauss and Corbin, 1988). Figure 12 presents the overview of intermediary selective coding.

Figure 12. Intermediary selective coding

 Central categories are developed (3a) from the data and the intermediary steps of analysis. These categories are developed according to the following criteria (Strauss and Corbin, 1988, p.147): all other major groups must be related to them; they must appear frequently in the data, explanation of categories is logical and evolves from the data. In order to be applicable

43

in other areas, they should be sufficiently abstract. In addition, they are formed from integration of codes and they have to account for the conditions under which the main explanation holds. The categories are primarily based on the results from steps 1c, 1d, 1e, 2b and 2c, which have been further theoretically refined by the above stated criteria (the results section only shows ‘refined’ categories from steps 1 and 2).  Categories are integrated (3b) into a structure that represents the intermediary theoretical explanation of the research question. Corresponding conceptual ties between categories are developed. 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. A graphical depiction of the central categories and of their relations is developed in order to supplement the storyline. All of the steps above serve as an intermediary step to the ‘classical’ grounded theory analysis, where concepts developed in such ‘mechanistic’ steps are further defined according to their properties and dimensions. They are then intertwined into a ‘web’ of conceptual relations that form the grounded theory.

3.4.2. Classical Analysis

Most of the interviews were done during the third process; however, majority of the data from the interviews relates to the second process. This made the L1 and all the other code types from the intermediary analysis somewhat ‘static’ and unable to appropriately capture the time dimension of the participation phenomenon. In order to remedy such shortcoming, the first step in the ‘classical’ GT analysis after the intermediary ‘mechanistic’ analysis was to perform coding for process (Strauss and Corbin, 1998, p.163-181). In this procedure, all the codes important for explaining the central phenomenon for each of the three processes have been identified. Subsequently, each of these codes was separated into two categories: Structure (context) and Process. Consequently, the codes in these categories were further categorized within Structure into Macro conditions (broad in scope and possible impact) and Micro conditions (narrow in scope and possible impact). Codes within the category Process were

44 additionally categorized into Action/interaction and Actors sub-categories. This is a combination of process coding and of conditional matrix (Strauss and Corbin, 1998, p.181-199). Such organization of codes is visualized in a graph that also depicts linkages between the concepts, which enable the construction of a ‘storyline’ for each of the three processes of spatial planning. Figure 13 presents a graphical overview of the entire process of ‘classical’ GT analysis.

Figure 13. Procedure of ‘classical’ GT analysis

The next step was a comparative analysis of the three storylines. The purpose of this step was to identify the interplay between central concepts and their contextual setting, i.e. to capture all the dimensions of the concepts as their contextual setting changes. Such comparison has to a certain extent remedied the problem of ‘static concepts’ from the intermediary analysis, as now properties and dimensions of concepts have been identified with respect to changing the contextual setting. All of the above, together with the labels and the text from transcriptions has been used to design (final) concepts, and tie them into a ‘web’ of relations, which are basis for a GT storyline on the role of participation in the spatial planning of NP Medvednica. Particularly at this point of analysis, a number of concepts from ‘intermediary’ analysis were taken out, as the

45 problem was not “…with insufficient data but rather an excess of data; that is, some ideas do not seem to fit the theory. These are usually extraneous concepts, that is, nice ideas but ones that were never developed, most probably because they did not appear much in data or seemed to simply trail off into nowhere. Our advice is to drop them” (Strauss and Corbin, 1998, p.159). This storyline was then used as a basis for the design of series of formal hypotheses and propositions with different levels of abstraction, which also represent the final results of the research. However, reaching the final conceptualizations and hypotheses was rather an iterative process, as they have been validated in subsequent interviews, where the analysis was refined down to hypotheses and so on until theoretical saturation occurred. The theory and its hypotheses has been refined (Strauss and Corbin, 1998; p.156):

- (1) By reviewing the internal consistency and logic; - (2) Filling-in (not so well developed) categories; - (3) Trimming the theory – drop some concepts/categories that are not well developed, and which lead away from the central phenomenon and; - (4) Validating the theoretical scheme – and not just the central storyline on participation, but also the storylines on each of the three processes and their comparisons.

In general, the research process itself followed the path of inquiry (Strauss and Corbin, 1998, p.77):

 The sensitizing questions; i.e. to define issues, problems, concerns, actors, their actions and their meaning of different situations, and how they define them, etc.  Theoretical questions; i.e. to define relations between the concepts, how do they change over time, how are they embedded in a larger structural setting, etc.  Practical and structural questions on the grounded theory itself, e.g. which concepts are well developed, and which ones are not? What kind of data is needed for my evolving theory? What are the breaks in the logic of the theory? Is the saturation point reached or not?

The analysis process was also devoted to keep (as much as possible) an objective stance against the data, which was achieved by (1) attaining multiple viewpoints for all-important elements (concepts) of the research. For example, one can note the subsequent interviews that have also focused on highlighting ‘important’ concepts (i.e. searching for actors with different perspectives in comparison to the ones who have contributed most to defining a concept); (2) on validation of (important, central) concepts in the subsequent interviews by those who have commented

46 previously and by those who have an overview of the process, while sensitivity to the meanings in data is kept, (3) by framing the analysis around the perspectives of research participants, and not on the perspectives of the researcher (Strauss and Corbin, 1998 p.47).

Good example of conceptualization differences in the ‘mechanistic’ and ‘classical’ GT analysis is on the level of impact that different ‘levels’ of participation have. As ‘mechanistic’ analysis combines the data together from all three periods, on L2 level it has Informal and Symbolic participation, where Symbolic participation consists of Consultation, Public hearings and Non- participation. It was stated that Informal participation has substantial impact on the process of spatial planning, whereas Symbolic participation does not. This is true for the second and third process, but not for the first. However, in classical analysis the defining of these codes was performed through an analytical tool of questioning; where the researcher tried to capture all possible aspects/dimensions of the data, i.e. to answer the following: Who? When? Why? Where? What? How? With what results? (Strauss and Corbin, 1998 p.87-92). As in all of the other steps, the researcher went back not just to the labels but also to the transcriptions in order to find answers to these questions, with the intention to define the concepts properly. If an ‘answer’ to some of these questions was not found in the existing data, it was noted as an item in subsequent interviews. The following interviewees were chosen so that they could ‘fill-in’ these conceptual blind spots (e.g. in order to find out the reason behind the strong participation in the first process in the public hearings by people from northern municipalities) the researcher further needed to interview the participants from such meetings or the people from municipalities who were working on such issues at the time. In addition, the planners who guided the public hearings were also taken into consideration.

Aside from the questioning, other analytical tools (Strauss and Corbin, 1998 p.87) have been used for the (final) conceptualization of data. The researcher also used Analysis of a word, phrase or sentence. The conceptualization did not just examine the codes from the intermediary analysis, but also the labels, and the text behind them. If a certain (significant or analytically interesting) phrase or a word is used, then all indices of its usage are examined in order to find out it’s meaning which in effect marks the meaning of the code (i.e. its name and memo). The researcher also looked through all the interviews, looking for sections of text that might give indication to the meaning of the phrase or a word. If there was not enough ‘explanation’ for an important word or a phrase, then this became one of the topics in the subsequent interviews. Examples of this situation are the Adequate participation and Inadequate participation L1 codes.

47

They relate to the view of stakeholders on the process of participation in spatial planning, and the process of spatial planning itself. They demonstrate which stakeholders have which type of view, the reasoning behind it (for Inadequate participation the fact that powerful groups decide in secret, and for Adequate participation that those with expertise should have pronounced role in decision-making), and show the relation between topics addressed in the participation to those addressed in the Plan. However, by looking at what ‘adequate’ actually means, it was subsequently identified that it has two meanings: one dominant meaning and already identified as one of adequacy of the entire process with intention of fulfilling the interests of the stakeholder (as in L1 codes) and the other meaning, of the (procedural) adequacy of the ‘mode’ of participation that is exercised on the focal actor which is conditioned by the level of feedback from the planners to the stakeholders and by the level of intimacy in participation. In the context of L1 codes on the levels of participation, both level of feedback and intimacy rise from the Non- participation, through Public hearings and Consultation, and finally to Informal participation.

Another analytical tool was the Flip-flop technique, where the analysis tried to identify the opposites of codes, where such process would reveal important dimensions of both the code and of its opposite. Examples for this tool would be Capacity and Costs of participation for L1 codes and Organizational costs of participation from classical GT analysis. These codes focus on the procedural difficulties of stakeholders’ participation where planners have to devote more time and resources to design the process they often have to consider conflicting opinions and at times, the prolongation of the process. Nevertheless, from the perspective of planners, which are the benefits of participation? Subsequent ‘classical’ GT analysis has identified that this notion depends heavily on the contextual setting, on the perspective on participation and on the perspective on the process of spatial planning which is further in the text explained (see pages. 102-110).

Aside from the previously mentioned constant comparison (of codes, in order to distinguish one from the another onto a level in which there is no overlap and are built on a sound, logical basis with a clear meaning), the analytical tool of waving the red flag was used. The analysis does not take for granted what is said during the interview; rather, it tries to ‘probe’ for alternative explanations or to ‘frame’ under which conditions a certain action/interaction occurs. Such scenario is applied especially when interviewees use wording like ‘never’, ‘always’, ‘sometimes’, etc., and the researcher tries to find a path to frame the conditions under which these actions/interaction occur. An example of this would be ‘this sometimes happens’, where

48 the researcher tries to find out under which conditions that event occurs and whether the same opinion is held by other interviewees. An example of the usage of this tool is the frequently used phrase that the ‘powerful always fulfill their interests’. The researcher attempted to look to which extent the interest of the powerful groups is achieved in all of the three processes. It was identified that the most powerful group (construction lobby) is focused either on the periphery (housing) or on the peak area (touristic capacities). However, the interests of the other powerful groups, which focused on secondary areas, have not been fulfilled by the plan - the queries have been strongly reduced and the road infrastructure (e.g. the very expensive Northern pass over Zagreb and a tunnel through the mountain heading in the south-north direction) was removed from the plan. Both of these elements would have a strong negative effect on the support of the public towards the regional state administration (City of Zagreb), whereas the interventions in the periphery and the peak to a certain extent enjoy the support of the citizens. Jointly with some other results, this led to the conclusion that Zagreb’s political leadership balances the support from the public and interest groups, as the support of both groups is vital in winning elections. If the political benefits of aligning with the interests of the groups outweigh the potential loss of public support, then the spatial plan will reflect the interests of these powerful lobby groups. However, the planners cannot accept the measures, which have no, or minor public support, as it would result in a negative political impact.

3.5. Descriptive Information about Analysis

The labeling process of all the data sources resulted in 1104 labels. These labels were compared one against the other and if it was found that the central ideas of both the label and the text are the same, then these labels were merged. This resulted in 902 unique labels. When taking into consideration the whole analysis, it encompasses 49 Level 1 codes, 13 Level 2 codes, 45 relational codes, 11 central categories, storylines of three processes with 77 elements, comparison of processes in 19 dimensions, central storyline with 32 elements contained in 10 categories, 15 general assumptions, 14 auxiliary assumptions and 34 ‘process hypotheses’ (not counting the duplicates from the second and the third process). If we look at the conceptual richness of the interviews (Figure 14), we can see that on average an interview has 20 labels and contributes to 13 different L1 codes. However, there is large diversity in the interviews. Some

49 have lasted just 15 minutes, whereas others more than three hours. Several interviews were focused on just one, single topic, while others covered majority of topics.

Figure 14. Conceptual richness of interviews

There are even more discrepancies in the L1 codes (presented by Figure 15); as the City of Zagreb and the Process design are based on abundance of data, there is a group of codes with intermediary level of data (Construction lobby, Ski lobby, Limitations of participation, Decreasing of NP Medvednica, Non-decision making and Citizens of Zagreb), while all other L1 codes are based on average, on 20 labels from 10 different sources.

Figure 15. Extent of L1 codes

50

Similar description can be made of L2 codes (Figure 16). They are separated on one very data- rich group (Inner group, Power behind the throne, Formal decider, Structure of governing, Human centered interests and Outer group), and on one not so data-rich group (Symbolic participation, Balanced interests, Key areas, Secondary areas, Informal participation, Nature centered interests, The formal decider).

Figure 16. Extent of L2 codes

The situation was even more drastic with relational codes (Figure 17), where there are two (Power defines the politics and Practical exclusion from the process) very data-rich codes, whereas all of the remaining codes have on average 79 labels from 18 different sources.

Figure 17. Extent of relational codes

Due to its design, in this ‘intermediary’ analysis developing concepts was relatively straightforward; the difficulty was (as previously stated) with ‘trimming’ all the under-developed 51 concepts, especially those which stray too far from the central phenomenon. This was remedied in the ‘classical’ GT analysis by focusing on main ideas, and developing the codes according to their theoretical properties and dimensions, and not according to some preconceived designs.

3.6. Ethical Considerations

This study has utilized aspects of research ethics; informant consent in recruitment of participants, avoidance of harm in the fieldwork, confidentiality in reporting of the findings, and providing assurances of privacy, confidentiality and anonymity (Miles and Huberman, 1984, Creswell, 2007). All of these items were communicated to the interviewees before the interviews. In general, the research has followed the conditions of the Ethical Considerations in European Cross-National Research (Taylor, 1994):

1. The rights of subjects: the need to protect the statutory rights of members of the social community or groups being investigated, avoiding undue intrusion, obtaining informed consent, and protecting the rights to privacy of individuals and social groups;

2. The ethical conduct of research: the need to frame research questions and agenda objectively, so as to widen the scope of the social research, and to maintain confidence in the research process; to ensure that the conduct, management and administration of research is framed in a way which is consistent with ethical principles and which recognizes the limits of competence of each member of the research team;

3. Sensitivity to cultural and social differences: the need to remain sensitive to and cognizant of, social and cultural differences and to consider conflicting interests.

52

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

4.1. Interim Results

4.1.1. Interim Open Coding

A labeling (step 1a) procedure within open coding was applied on the data transcription, which resulted with 902 labels. Following the guidelines on open coding (Strauss and Corbin, 1998), these labels where then clustered in order to form 56 codes contained within four groups of codes. After a procedure of constant comparison (step 1b) between the codes and their labels a (new) coding scheme was developed. This scheme consisted of 49 codes and with their accompanying memos was contained within seven groups of codes. This coding is called ‘Level 1’ (L1), as it is the first ‘complete’ coding scheme. It is presented in Figure 18.

Figure 18. Level 1 coding scheme

It can be seen in Figure 18 that the Level 1 coding scheme has a ‘balanced’ structure, i.e. that three groups of codes (Processes, Areas and Actors) represent contextual setting, one (Spatial 53 plan) represents conditions, and three (Level of participation, Determinants of participation, Perceptions of participation) relate to the phenomenon of the research.

Four levels of participation are identified. The lowest one is Non-participation. It represents inactive involvement; stakeholders have very little knowledge on spatial planning, their rights to participate, and on the NP Medvednica itself. They receive sparse information on the developments of the spatial plan of NP Medvednica and there is no feedback-mechanism to the spatial planning team. The team endorses this mode of participation. In such scenario, the ‘stakeholders’ are other parts of state administration and all the others are not regarded as a stakeholder; rather they are regarded as the non-expert public that just has to be informed on the decisions made by the team. The next one is the Public hearings code; which as the name suggests represents participation in public hearings, organized by the spatial planning team. 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 all rejected. In such way, the public hearings formally fulfill their (symbolic) role; however, nothing has substantially changed. Nevertheless, public hearings also poses a feature by which they can 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 supervisors of the spatial planning team, who then influence the team. This was the case with the public protest regarding the decrease of the NP Medvednica area.

Consultation marks a mode of participation directed towards different parts of the public administration (ex. Zagrebacka County, Krapinsko - Zagorska County, Municipality Bistra, Ministry of Construction and Spatial Planning, State Institute on Nature Protection). The discussion in the consultation meetings is constructive, but the actual decisions are made by the 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 of the actors consider the current system of participation adequate. Informal participation is the final form of participation, which represents actions of actors who have direct interest and significant financial and/or political power. Most often, they do not take part in the

54 formal process. They lobby informally through actors who are part of the formal decision- making process. In majority of cases, that is the administration of the City of Zagreb or the Mayor of Zagreb directly. Another important public supporter of their interests is the Ministry of Construction and Spatial Planning, who have stopped the second process of spatial planning. They control the agenda setting, have direct control over decisions that are made and have influence on the choice of personnel who formally engages in decision-making. The rewards for compliance to their expectations are political support through donations, political favors and corruption.

The code group Determinants of participation contains three codes. The first one is Limitations of participation, which sets the internal limitations of stakeholders to participate. They feel that they have no personal benefits of participating (or costs outweighed them), that the participation is futile as decisions are made ‘somewhere else’. They also feel that they are being manipulated by some other more powerful groups, and since they are not well organized they would perhaps be better represented by a more focused and organized group (i.e. different NGOs from nature protection, private forest owners, human rights or local citizens’ associations). The code Costs of participation relates to practical, procedural limitations for participation; it is difficult to take many and often conflicting opinions into account, participation prolongs the process, and makes it more complicated and more costly. Given all of these ‘costs’ of participation and the fact the planners receive no personal benefits (e.g. increase in salary), they choose not to implement broad participation mechanisms. Moreover, the code Capacity for participation focuses on the ‘theoretical’ impediments to implementation of participation, held by the spatial planning team. They perceive themselves as experts and that the quality of a spatial plan is set by the level of expertise “used” in its preparation. Allowing others, non-experts (i.e. vast majority of stakeholders) to participate in the preparation of the plan would thus decrease its ‘quality’ and would also de-value their own position, as they would have to address the ‘non-experts’ on equal terms. They also do not perceive that broad participation would make the spatial plan more sustainable. The majority of spatial planners have education in architecture. This ‘theoretical opposition’ to participation has increased from the first to the third process.

The Perceptions of participation group consists of two codes: Adequate and Inadequate participation. Adequate participation represents a favorable view that the applied mode of perception fits the needs of good spatial planning. This is a view shared by part of the state administration (City of Zagreb and other Counties, and the Ministry of Spatial Planning and

55

Construction) and by interest groups. By adequate participation, it is meant Consultation and that experts should perform the spatial planning. The code Inadequate participation is an unfavorable view on the mode of participation that is applied. Unfortunately, it is characterized by important stakeholders’ exclusion (i.e. everyone but public administration), and that the forms of participation exercised with stakeholders (public consultation, questionnaires) is just a facade with no real impact on the process. Leaders of the process are perceived as corrupt and as manipulating the public and stakeholders. The topics of participation, which are used, are also of marginal importance and the important topics, which relate to the (more) “true” interest of stakeholders, are not the topics of discussion. This view is shared by citizens of all three Counties, NGOs, PI NP Medvednica, and associations of hunters and of private forest owners, Croatian Forest Ltd., the State Institute on Nature Protection and by the Ministry of Culture. All of these actors recognize that their opinions are not taken in consideration in the process of spatial planning.

The group Spatial plan contains many codes, all of which cover some aspect of the spatial planning. The main features of each of the three processes are contained in their corresponding codes (First, Second, and Third process). It applies to the two other important developments that were described earlier, the Decreasing of NP Medvednica, and the Protection within forest reserves. Decision making represents the effects of bringing about a spatial plan, by which both nature protection and development (i.e. construction) activities would be legally set, and by which the power relations among the stakeholders would no longer play an important role in the management of the park area. Non-decision making represents the effects of having no spatial plan, where there are few legal restrictions to the development activities within the park area. The final code is the Process design. It is the largest L1 code (with 149 labels, and it is the overall contextual code within which the interplay of all other codes occurs. The Process design code reflects the general characteristics of the spatial planning process where’ many of its elements have already been presented. An important feature of the process design that has to be stipulated is the fact that there is a consensus among actors that it represents a stable structure, and that the structure itself indirectly decides on the course of spatial planning process. The only factors, which may potentially disrupt this structure, are the supranational influences of the European Union.

The next step (1c) was a ‘structured’ comparison between the Level 1 codes. To that end, a L1xL1 matrix was constructed, where rows represent the ‘sender’ code and columns represent

56 the ‘receiving’ code. The inputs in the matrix were individual labels of the codes, which were compared against all other codes (as explained on pg. 34). All of the 902 labels have been compared in this manner. 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. The L1xL1 matrix has a total of 2352 cells (i.e. 49 codes x 49 codes – 49 diagonal values) 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. Figure 19 presents the visualization.

Figure 19. L1xL1 matrix, moderate level of ‘connection’ between the codes

Different types of symbols represent the groups of L1 codes. The size of the symbols reflects their number of labels; the bigger the symbol, the more labels it contains. The layout of the codes is spring embedding (Borgatti et al, 2013), which is a form of multi-dimensional scaling (MDS; Borg and Groenen, 2005). MDS is a visualization method for displaying a similarity of individual cases within a data set, where the proximity of individual cases represents their

57

‘similarity’, i.e. the closer they are, the more they are structurally similar (have same relations to others). The cases, which are closer to the center of the graph, are also more ‘central’, i.e. have relations to all other cases. Spring embedding is a modification of MDS, where the layout tries not to have an overlap between the cases (as we would not be able to see both of them) and tries to shorten ‘extreme’ distances between the cases (makes the graph easier to read). It can be seen in Figure 19 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. Almost all following visualizations of matrices of codes are in MDS or in the spring embedding layout. 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. In order to reveal the ‘strong’ relations between the L1 codes, the threshold for displaying relations was successively increased until a logical pattern of relations between the L1 codes emerged. A pattern emerged with threshold of eight or more shared labels; and all of these relations are displayed with continuous black lines. The width of the black lines represents the number of shared labels; i.e. the wider the line is the higher the number of shared labels between the codes that it connects. The strongest relations are between Process design and City of Zagreb, between Process design and Limitations of participation, and between Citizens of Zagreb and Non-participation. By comparing the memos of these codes, a strong logical connection between them is apparent. The Process design focuses on the procedural aspects of spatial planning. City of Zagreb describes Zagreb’s city administration, which is responsible for spatial planning, and the Limitations of participation describe the reflection of stakeholders on the Process design - they are under the assumption that their input in the process will account for very little. This further reinforces their position not to participate. Same strong logical connection exists between Citizens of Zagreb and Non-participation; as the former describes the desires and behavior of citizens of Zagreb directed towards spatial planning of NP Medvednica, and the latter describes the treatment of ‘external’ stakeholders (mostly directed towards citizens of Zagreb), by which they are just informed on the developments of spatial planning. The pattern of relations shows logical decoupling of codes in two sections, which show contrasting groups of codes, i.e. perspectives on the spatial planning process (Figure 20).

58

Figure 20. Pattern decoupling from L1xL1 matrix

The group Visible process represents a perspective on the structure of spatial planning endorsed by the spatial planners (City of Zagreb) and directed towards external stakeholders and 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 is the public hearings. On the contrary, stakeholders perceive this to be an inadequate facade and more of non-participation. By assessing that the public hearings do not have an impact on the process, they are even more discouraged from participating.

The group Hidden process represents an alternative perspective on spatial planning, one, which focuses on the powerful actors and their strong influence over the process of spatial planning. These actors represent special political and/or economic interests, and their informal influence is directed through the City of Zagreb. Main groups of these actors are political elites, construction lobby and ski lobby. All of them and the City of Zagreb perceive the current structure of spatial planning as adequate. They mostly focus on the peak area. In regards to the construction lobby, it is the periphery, which they consider as the most important topic for discussion. Their goal is not to have the spatial plan, or to have the plan after the borders of the NP Medvednica become diminished. In actuality, they have constructed what they had planned in the peak area. It represents a covert structure of spatial planning where political and economic power exhorts 59 control over the process. The goal is to attain further power, either through political support or through economic gains. As seen 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 have an impact on the decision-making. The power relations among the interest groups set the process of spatial planning.

The Groups Visible process and Hidden process also represent central categories that are further analyzed in the Selective coding.

Although focusing the analysis of L1 codes has revealed important features of the data, it represents only the beginning of the analysis. The next step was to increase the level of code abstraction (step 1d). L1 codes and their memos have been compared to each other based on their main features, with a goal of combining several features of different codes into more abstract codes. This comparison is presented in Appendix III. The results of the comparison are Level 2 (L2) codes, which are presented in Figure 21.

Figure 21. Level 2 coding scheme

L2 group Areas contains Key areas and Secondary areas codes. Key areas (e.g. Peak area and Periphery zone from L1) represent areas where there is a strong continuous development interest of several groups of stakeholders. They are important conflict areas in each of the three processes

60 of spatial planning. Secondary areas are areas of lesser general interest, or areas that were important to certain stakeholders for a limited period. The description of these areas corresponds to the ‘mapping’ of stakeholder’s interests, as explained on page 31. Out of 51 interviewees, 45 of them have marked their area of interest on the map of Medvedica while explaining what those interests are. The specificities of different interests were previously addressed on pg.58; as for the ‘zones of interests’, Figure 22 presents them.

Figure 22. Mapping of stakeholder’s interest areas

The areas that 45 respondents have drawn on a printed map have been scanned and then converted into polygons, which were later on overlaid on a map of NP Medvednica. The average of these ‘zones’ are presented on Figure 22, where two ‘zones’ can be seen: the periphery zone which covers all the fringe areas of the Nature park, and the ‘peak’ area which encompassed Sljeme, the highest point of the park. Majority of the periphery zone is located in the southeastern part of the park it represents the majority of the area, which was excluded from the park in 2009. The group Type of participation also contains just two L2 codes. Code Symbolic participation represents different types of 'enrollment' of stakeholders in the process of spatial planning, none of which have real impact on the process. Actors may be called to take part in consultative 61 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. They may believe that they are being manipulated or not, and that they might have adequate or inadequate level of information on the process. However, regardless of these factors, they do not possess the power to affect it.

The code Informal participation represents the type of involvement by actors who have direct interest and financial and/or political power. Most often, they are not part of the formal process; instead, they lobby informally through actors who are part of the formal decision making process. In majority of cases, the lobbying is done directly through the spatial planning team and their political supervisors. This is the method through which all the spatial plans have been stopped and how borders of the park have 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 reward of compliance to their needs is political support through donations, political favors and corruption. The L2 codes originate from L1 and share the same name.

Four groups of stakeholders have been identified in the second level. The first type of stakeholder is the outer group. They represent unorganized (or loosely organized) groups of different stakeholders, whose interest depend on the availability and sources of information on the subject matter. They feel that other, more powerful groups of actors 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. They also believe that the current structure of spatial planning is corrupt. In most cases, broader groups perceive that smaller, more focused groups (e.g. specialized NGOs and their regional Umbrella associations of private forest owners) would better represent their 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. To them EU accession is the only possible driving force of these changes.

The second group of stakeholders is 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 or on the agenda 62 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. Some of them have balanced interests (MC, SINP, PI NP Medvednica), while others (MCPP) act on behalf of special interest groups.

The third group of stakeholders is the formal decider. These are 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. They have perception that the current form of participation is adequate. Although they are aware of other more 'liberal' forms of participation, they 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 and the importance of the 'internal' experts who possess 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 (for which they would get 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 Parliament, they can just address the drafts that the City has sent them. They have decreased the borders of the NP Medvednica, and its Spatial Planning and Construction Committee acts as a representative of the construction lobby. The mechanisms of control of the Parliament and the City of Zagreb are the same - the powerful interest groups give 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 and importance of these interests, along with their substance, fluctuates with the passage of time and with the availability (and sources) of information.

The fourth group of stakeholders is the power behind the throne. This code encompasses 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. These interests contradict interests of nature conservation, largely held by the outer group. Actors within the power behind the throne have direct control over the actions of the formal decider 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 'favor'

63 of promotion with the 'favor' of securing the interests of these groups in the preparation of a spatial plan. The second stream of influence is through the Mayor of Zagreb, the function where the formal political power is concentrated. Compliance to their interests is secured through donations to the local political establishment. They perceive that the current mode of participation is adequate. They exert influence on parts of the inner group, and strongly shape the interests of the outer group through public media campaigns.

Four types of interests have been identified. The first group is the Human centered interests. These interests represent the attitude towards management of NP Medvednica focused towards the fulfillment of human needs (e.g. construction, quarries, hunting). The second group is the Balanced interests, which as the name suggests represents balanced human and nature-centered interests, for which sustainable usage of natural resources is allowed. Different types of values have priority according to the zoning structure of the area. The interventions in the area are clearly defined and deviation from these rules should be penalized. This clearly defined position is mostly held by parts of the state administration. The third group is the Nature centered interests. These represent an attitude towards management of NP Medvednica directed to preservation of nature itself, where nature has its own value, separated from human wants and needs. It also encompasses 'weak' sustainable usage of natural resources but to the extent, which it does not interfere with nature protection goals. There are also clearly defined interests held by NGOs and partially by citizens of all three counties, which surround NP Medvednica. The fourth group comprises of the Ambivalent interests which represent orientation of actors towards management of NP Medvednica which 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 and is reserved for unorganized groups of stakeholders, which feel that other, more cohesive groups are manipulating them. This is the prevailing orientation of citizens in all three counties, which surround NP Medvednica.

The final L2 code is the Structure of governing. This code represents the contextual setting within which the interactions of all other L2 codes are embedded. It represents the process of spatial planning, whose main features are that it is not transparent to the stakeholders and that a small inner group of planners holds the information and the decision-making rights. The structure of decision-making is such that it allows fulfillment only of interests that channel through the team. The team follows the interests of special interest groups. Other structural reason for this process design is that the majority of people involved in the process are architects,

64 and they mostly perceive the area as construction land or as a modified area (or that should be modified) by human activity. The situation was different in the first process; at that time, the Institute for urbanism existed and its employees had a more holistic approach towards the spatial plan, in which majority of the interests of stakeholders, citizens and requirements of nature protection were emphasized largely. Even this ‘attitude’ of the spatial planning team was not enough to resist the pressure from the special interest groups.

A more comprehensive depiction of L2 codes is provided by building-up an “affiliation” matrix of L1 and L2 codes (L1xL2 matrix). In this illustration, the matrix rows represent L1 codes and the columns represent L2 codes. If features of L1 code are present in a certain L2 code, their corresponding cell is marked with 1; otherwise it is 0. Out of 637 possible L1→L2 relations (i.e. 49 L1 codes multiplied by 13 L2 codes), 77 codes are present; which shows that on average, one L1 code relates to 1.5 L2 codes. Unlike L1xL1 matrix, sparse coupling of codes in L1xL2 matrix immediately shows patterns code grouping. Figure 23 presents the visualization of the matrix.

Figure 23. Visualization of L1xL2 matrix

The white circles represent L1 codes and the black squares represent L2 codes. These lines exist only between L1 and L2 codes and they mark the existence of shared features between these codes from these two groups. The layout of the graph is user specified, and it does not relate to 65 any analytical routine. The codes have been arranged in such a manner that it allows for easier understanding of the relations between L1 and L2 than it would be possible by random positioning of codes. Moving from top-left to bottom-right, the relations of L1 to L2 codes clearly show important elements of L2 codes which were described in the previous pages; Different interest groups compose the power behind the throne, which informally participates in the process of spatial planning. They along with the formal decider have Human centered interests, which translates to half of the state administration. The majority of activates that occur in NP Medvednica go to the same direction. The inner group consists of state administration that also has partly Balanced interests. It is important to stipulate that the L1 code, which ‘connects’ all the above stated L2 codes, is Adequate participation. This finding has largely shaped the two central categories that are seen in Figure 23 and will be addressed in the following lines. Both the inner and the outer group have ‘symbolically’ participated while the latter consists of mostly citizens who have ambivalent interests towards NP Medvednica. The defining of key and secondary areas is ‘disconnected’ from the rest of the coding schemes and the L2 code Structure of governing encompasses the characteristics of all three processes, as well as the one of the L1 Process design (has 149 labels and is the most well defined L1 code).

L1-L2 analysis developed from the two central categories (i.e. step 1d) is the Support to the system and the Opposition to the system. Support to the system represents a range of actors, which have a common trait to support the current system of spatial planning and its treatment of stakeholders. They range from different parts of state administration, the spatial planners, and a series of powerful interest groups. The role of all of these actors in the process of spatial planning varies greatly; an interest group heavily influences the process and the majority of the state administration is in a position of having only a minor role. They have different 'treatment', as interest groups are not formally presented and state administration participates through consultative meetings. They also have different attitudes toward nature protection and NP Medvednica; the formal deciders and interest groups have 'human centered' attitude (nature as a mean of reaching human needs), while state administration has a more 'balanced' attitude (equal importance of conservation and construction). What they have in common is that they feel they have an impact on the process and that their opinion is highly regarded. As long as they maintain such opinion, they will consider the current system of spatial planning an adequate one; this is valid for the state administration, which largely thinks that it has an impact, and the spatial planner state, which actually does not have a real impact.

66

The category Opposition to the system represents a range of actors who have a common trait to oppose the current system of spatial planning and its treatment of stakeholders. They 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. It does not matter which mode of participation is exercised it is its impact what matters. These actors are mostly represented in public. They also tend to have 'nature oriented' attitude (‘protection before construction’) towards NP Medvednica. Another characteristic is that the attitude of these actors can be subjected to change and turn to Balanced or even Human centered.

The final step is open coding (step 1e) which structures all of the findings that have been made up to the present point. By looking both at L1 and L2 codes, four important types of elements related to ‘answering’ the research question emerge: Areas (where?), Interests (why?), Stakeholders (who?) and Type of participation (how?). A graphical depiction of interplay of these elements is presented in Figure 24.

Figure 24. 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 67 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.

4.1.2 Interim Axial Coding

Recognizing that construction of a theory grounded in data is not just lining-up of theoretical concepts, but 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 the relations between the codes. Following the results of step 1c, a L1xL1 matrix has been developed. Recognizing that the 365 filled-in cells in this matrix represent relations between the (substantial) L1 codes, a new relational (R) coding system has been developed (step 2a) by joining the L1xL1 cells (i.e. groups of labels) based on their shared features. Therefore, the 1104 labels contained within 365 cells have been grouped into 45 relational codes, that themselves have been grouped into five categories. Figure 25 presents this relational coding scheme.

68

Figure 25. Relational coding scheme

As explained on pg. 39-41, the relational coding scheme consists of five categories: Context, Causal conditions, Phenomenon, Action strategies and Consequences. The specificities of each relational code will be addressed in subsequent analysis when they are to be compared to each other and to other types of codes.

The first analytical step of axial coding (step 2b) is to produce ‘explanatory’ patterns of relational codes. As the five groups of R codes form a causal-temporal ‘chain’, codes from the same group and from the ‘next’ group have been compared to each other by constructing a RxR matrix; where a positive logical connection is found between two codes, 1 is placed in the corresponding cell; otherwise it is 0. Figure 26 presents the visualization of this matrix in MDS layout.

69

Figure 26. Visualization of RxR matrix

As shown in the legend in the bottom left corner, different types of shapes reflect five categories of relational codes, which form a logical ‘chain’ starting from the top-left with Context, and ending in the bottom-left with Consequences. The size of shapes reflects the number of labels contained within the codes. Many of the elements that emerged from the data in open coding are also visible in Figure 26. These elements are viewed as different types of specialized interests in the context of spatial planning where Power defines the politics and creates a form of participation, which is characterized by Practical exclusion of stakeholders. As Procedural control of the City of Zagreb has been based on the Dictate of the powerful, they were able to treat ‘Deciders’ as stakeholders (i.e. marginalized state administration). Moreover, regardless of which Action strategy is pursued the realization of a different interest from the top-left finally leads to the Consequence of Devastation (of the park area) without spatial plan. The right side of Figure 26 shows an alternative ‘story’; based on Enjoyment of nature and Balanced interests, high level of information and expertise held by the state administration has created a Causal condition where spatial planning is based on Urbanism with balanced interests. The broad Participation as facilitator of decision-making and Active stakeholders have led the planners to

70 bring about spatial plan as a management tool, all of which leads to the realization of public interests of nature protection. The key code in this ‘chain’ is the Active stakeholders, which is also the only Action strategy in 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 such way indirectly influences the spatial planning. It can also be seen that Active stakeholders is the only code shared both by left and right ‘stories’ where on the left it causes Area decrease due to public pressure and on the right, it results with bringing about a spatial plan. These two ‘stories’ are also two central categories entitled Path of urbanization and Balanced planning through active engagement which will serve as a building block of the grounded theory in selective coding (third step).

The path of urbanization represents a 'path' for not bringing about a spatial plan and for diminishing the borders of the protected area, all of which finally lead to diminishing of the nature protection within the area. From the side of citizens, the protected areas are viewed as something that will cause them personal costs through diminished construction possibilities. Fueled by public media, the organized public action causes the political elites to halt the process, or to diminish the borders of protected area. From the side of special interest groups it requires that they have direct influence onto the spatial planning team through their political senior officials. The decisions are made in order to secure these special interests. External actors being “based on expertise” legitimize them and the broad public engagement would severely slow the process. This is also complementary to the passive role of citizens who by perceiving the internal dynamics of the process, refrain themselves from participating; as such, the passive behavior of citizens only reinforces the position of low influence.

Balanced planning through active engagement represents a 'path' for bringing about spatial plan and realization of public interests of nature protection. From the side of experts and state administration, this situation is preconditioned by high level of information and acceptance of the 'urbanistic' (as opposed to ‘architectural’) approach to spatial planning. ‘Urbanistic’ approach equally takes into consideration conservation and construction interests and bases the decision- making on the strong input of all those who can affect or will be affected by the spatial plan (i.e. a position held by the Institute on urbanism in the first process of spatial planning). From the side of broad stakeholders (mostly citizens), it requires that they perceive the current mode of planning as inadequate, and that they have personal benefits of having a spatial plan, i.e. that with it nature protection of the area will be assured. It also entails that they recognize that

71 without their active involvement they will have personal losses, as the plan will not go in their favor. These elements bring about active engagement of stakeholders, which is a catalyst for bringing about a spatial plan for the entire area of NP Medvednica.

The central idea of axial coding is to connect the (substantial L1 and L2) codes into a logical structure based on their central features. In addition, the understanding of relational codes is incomplete without analytically comparing them to substantial codes. Both of these issues are resolved by constructing an L1xR ‘affiliation’ matrix where rows represent L1 codes, columns represent relational codes, and the cells within the table represent affiliation between L1 and R codes. The cells within the table are filled-in with the number of shared labels between the codes where a higher number of shared labels is an indication of strong logical connection between them. Figure 27 offers a visualization of this matrix, where MDS layout has been used. As in previous visualizations, the size of the symbols reflects the number of labels contained within the codes and a dotted grey line presents the relations between the codes.

Figure 27. Visualization of L1xR matrix

72

Figure 27 shows areas of high and low ‘density’ of codes, where several groups of codes are on the ‘periphery’ of the graph. The first group of codes is the 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. Their goal is to stop the process of spatial planning. This is a secondary aspect of the research, as it is focused on a single group of actors. The second group is titled Public pressure for construction (center low). As citizens are owners of forest and construction land, they have interest for constructing within NP Medvednica. As such, they can influence the planners (not to make a plan, or to decrease the area). This attitude has been enhanced by media manipulation that no construction is allowed. This influence represents an alternative (to the organized lobby groups) acting as a stimulus to the continuation of construction activities. It also shows that recognition of personal benefits causes a public reaction, which in turn can affect the process of spatial planning. At the bottom of the graph a group of codes, Forest management for profit is located. It relates to the interest of managing forests within NP Medvednica primarily for the state forest management company “profit”. With that goal in mind they strive to cancel or to diminish the area of special forest reserve and that no spatial plan is made. This code also focuses on a single actor, so it is secondary to the object of research. Represented as Figure 13 and 27 in MDS layout it can be seen that there is a positioning overlap between many codes that have many labels in the top right part of the graph (entitled Central phenomenon). As no structure in that part of the graph can be seen, the following Figure 28 magnifies that area.

73

Figure 28. Visualization of the Central phenomenon group from L1xR matrix

Figure 28 keeps the MDS from the previous figure and displays only codes within the group Central phenomenon. In order to better, present the grouping pattern between the codes, relations that represent only more than 10-shared labels are visualized with black lines. Similar to categorization of codes from L1xL1 matrix in open coding (Figure 20, p.58, Pattern decoupling from L1xL1 matrix), two central categories of codes can be seen and they share City of Zagreb and the Process design L1 codes, which serve as a connection between them. These categories are Power as a driving force and the Structure of exclusion.

Power as a driving force is a characteristic of the process of spatial planning which sets the exact course of planning by the power relations of actors with an interest in it. This is possible, as a single actor has taken up the formal decision-making rights. The power mostly lies within organized groups of special interest and within political elites. However, as political elites also depend on the public their goals are also partly directed to please the public (e.g. like in part the touristic development in the peak area). There is also a feedback-loop from the public to the political elites and to the spatial planning, as strong expression of public interest may modify the priorities and interests of political elites. Due to the nature of the three processes of spatial

74 planning up to now, it is unknown whether the public expression of interest can modify the priorities of political elites up to a point that they go against the interest of construction groups.

The structure of exclusion is a procedural aspect of the process of spatial planning; its most distinctive feature is that the inherent interest of the actors impedes the substantial impact of stakeholders on the process of spatial planning; all of which leads to the fact that the majority of stakeholders are practically excluded from the process. The stakeholders perceive 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 choose not to; or they believe that NGOs are more appropriate to represent their interest. Stakeholders also have 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 to gather appropriate knowledge which will empower them to participate 'on an even heel' with other stakeholders. All of these costs outweigh the potential benefits of participating, especially knowing that their effort might not have an effect on the process. The people leading the process also have an inherent interest not to utilize strong participation mechanisms; as participation makes the process last longer. They do not receive any personal benefits (e.g. increase in salary) if they implement it. In addition, it is also very difficult to take into account many conflicting interests; usage of broad participation also implies that spatial planners have to talk on even terms with 'lay and unknowledgeable citizens', whereas they perceive themselves as experts - and they perceive all of these inputs as non-expert ones and thus less important.

All of the central categories developed in open and axial coding represent the basic input for the selective coding, which represents the following step of the analysis.

4.1.3 Interim Selective Coding

As depicted in open and axial coding, 11 already explained central categories have been developed. All together, they form the basic element for the construction of the theory grounded in the data on participation in spatial planning of NP Medvednica, and are jointly shown in Figure 29. During the analysis of the data a constant comparison (step 3a) between the central categories has been performed, where they have been modified several times in their description

75 and in the labels that they encompass. Analogous to L1 codes, only the final, complete list of central categories is shown below.

Figure 29. Intermediary categories of grounded theory

Constant comparison of central categories also help to identify the relations between them, which together represent the theoretical explanation of the research question, condensed into a short storyline, graphically presented by Figure 30. The layout of the symbols, which mark the central categories, is MDS, where the relation between them is the number of shared codes. The researcher has added all other elements (grouping of categories and the relations between them).

76

Figure 30. Intermediary explanation of the grounded theory

The Inner structure of spatial planning is such that the power relations between its actors define the course of the process. The actual process is hidden from the public. In it, the discretionary rights over the process have been centralized to a single actor - the formal decider. All the ‘inputs’ coming from the interest groups to the process of spatial planning come through the formal decider. In order to support this structure the formal decider has symbolically included many parts of the state administration to the process. They support the structure because they feel that their opinions and expertise are important, which in turn improves their status in their professional spheres. To the ‘outside’, the ‘wall of expertise’ protects the structure; decisions are based on expertise, the ‘lay’ cannot understand them and thus cannot judge them. The Inner structure is in clash with the Outer opposition. What is visible to the Outer opposition is that they can make their options heard by the formal decider (public hearings, questionnaires, etc.), but not listened to. Having no influence on the process and seeing their opinions as unimportant to the formal decider, they oppose the system by labeling it as corrupt. De-motivated by lack of personal benefits, this opinion only distances them even more from participating, which in turn reinforces the distancing of decision-making from the non-participating stakeholders. From the side of formal decision-makers the costs of participation out weight its benefits; by applying it they receive no personal benefits, they de-value themselves within their professional spheres of 77 architecture based spatial planning, and ‘externally’ they prolong and ‘complicate’ the process. All of this ‘inertia’ present within actors 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. From the Outer opposition the most important factors are passive acceptance of stakeholders of the current situation low knowledge on their rights to participate and on the area itself, which leads to wanted outcomes, which do not go in their favor. Low knowledge of the ‘outer’ group 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 public overestimate the personal costs of 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), which then leads to active (public) protest against the current situation. Active protest changes the political preferences of the formal decider, which causes the ‘balanced planning’ outcome.

Elements that may change the internal structure 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 within the formal deciders from the professional field of architecture-based spatial planning towards more ‘holistic’ spatial planning based on urbanism. In this ‘holistic’ approach, merits of the plan are not just based on the technical expertise of the planners, but also on the synergy of the plan with the natural characteristics of the area and on how much it meets the needs of all of the actors that are affected by it.

78

4.2 Classical Results

4.2.1 Introduction

All of the results that have been presented so far serve as an intermediary step to the ‘classical’ GT analysis, where concepts are analyzed according to their characteristics and dimensions, and the relations between the concepts are based on these dimensions, which forms the ‘web’ of the theory that is grounded in this case. The first step was the ‘coding for process’ (Strauss and Corbin). The coding for process is strongly rooted in ‘relational analysis’ (pg. 67-74) and this is done for each of the three processes. The second step was conceptual comparison of the three processes, with a purpose of forming links between actions/interaction of actors and the contextual factors in which they are embedded. The next step was the ‘storyline’ of the theory, which is the main result of the research and it provides understanding on the relation between participation and spatial planning. This section is divided into two parts, where the first part explains the relation between context and the ‘mechanisms’ (or forms) of participation and the second part provides an understanding on how different factors affect the perceptions on participation. The final step is the formalization of all the main results into a series of hypotheses, which provide clear-cut relations between important concepts and contextual elements, all on different levels of abstraction.

79

4.2.2. Process Coding

4.2.2.1. The First Process

Figure 31 presents a conceptual overview of the first process of spatial planning. The City of Zagreb (i.e. its Institute of urbanism on the behalf of the Department for spatial planning) is responsible for the preparation of a physical plan of the NP Medvednica.

Figure 31. First process of spatial planning

The urbanization of the area of NP Medvednica is not pronounced, and the most important ‘desire’ of the people towards the area of the Park is to enjoy its natural characteristics. This encompasses touristic visits to the area all while maintaining a ‘natural, clean and green’ environment. As (City Zg8) sees it,

80

“… and so they (Department for spatial planning) gave us their guidelines, according to which we should make it as a goal for this plan to decrease the touristic pressures on the peak zone and that the arrival of all tourists and visitors of the area is somehow distributed onto an area which is as wide as possible, but we should also protect the nature from the needs for exploiting of people and their devastation of the area”

As the political culture of SR Croatia puts municipalities and their citizens in active role of local decision-making, a Committee for protection and management of Medvednica was formed. The Committee represents the association of Municipal associations and thus covers the citizens who live in all municipalities covered by the Park. They also consist of a range of experts and organizations of civil society, such as mountaineers and hunters. The Committee was an association, (City Zg4):

“…functioned so that it represented all the municipalities and their citizens, and everyone wanted to get on-board. They have participated in different interventions to preserve Medvednica, they were doing different actions such as building-up of Queens’ well (outing area), they collected the money for protection of the area, and they were active when the spatial planning came up. They represented an articulated civil response on the Park”.

As the Committee has a high public reputation and consisted both out of ‘lay’ and ‘expert’ members, it was prestigious to be an expert within the Committee. The City of Zagreb delegated the preparation of the spatial plan to the Institute of Urbanism. The Institute saw spatial planning as a process in which equal weight is given to the value of nature protection and utilization. They also viewed participation as facilitator of decision-making, where it provides legitimacy to the process, and creates ‘socially optimal’ conditions. As (City Zg3) states,

“…that participatory process was characterized by mutual tolerance, respect, and inclusion of all. It was never forgotten (in the process) that decision should be based on consensus. We went through many public hearings that were organized by municipalities. The municipalities and the people had a big impact on the process,

81

and we followed through with all their claims and questions”

Participation also makes the process sustainable; as the obligation of joint decision-making neutralizes future conflicts. In addition, as in the case of the Committee, the stakeholder interaction, which is organized by the Institute of Urbanism, is such that everyone participates ‘on an even heel’. The general state administrative system is highly decentralized into municipalities and at the time of the first process of spatial planning Croatia had 115 counties (Klemenčić et al, 1996). They were organized into nine Associations of Municipalities; nevertheless, they had less rights and responsibilities than Counties done in the Republic of Croatia from 1991 onwards. Although the Communist party had significant impact on the activities of the municipalities, their local nature also left them ‘exposed’, i.e. being almost directly accountable to local population. This was due to broad participation in ‘self-regulation’ (OG, SFRJ Constitution, 9/74) of citizens within the municipalities. As (City Zg4) explains,

“At that time there were a lot of questionnaires and many public hearings, and people were included in each step of the process, not as now when they are included only after most of the things are defined. At that time, they were involved in decision- making, and they participated in great numbers. All of this is because they knew that they would have an impact, and so they decided to participate. They knew that if they wanted a forest trail here or some object there that they are going to get it, as they were involved in decision making in general, so they came to participate. At that the identity of the local community was strong”.

Active group engagement in local policy-making also strengthened the feeling of belonging to the group, which in turn affected the articulation of wants of the people to be focused on the group (their local community), and not on the individual. Close contacts between the local population and the municipalities made public interests of enjoyment of nature to be ‘replicated’ on the municipal political setting. Combined with the importance of municipalities in public decision-making, the local population felt that municipalities in the process of spatial planning represented them. All interest groups – ranging from specialized interests such as hunters to the general population felt that the implemented participation mechanisms were adequate. As hunting and touristic enjoyment of nature are conflicting activities, the hunting interests saw

82 bringing about a spatial plan as the most inconvenient development; and so it was their goal to stop the process. Hunting interests were pronounced in the Yugoslavian system, as it was a social norm to be a hunter among the political elite (Grubešic, 1993). These interests were especially pronounced on the northern slopes of Medvednica, where the municipalities were influenced by these interest groups to block the process of spatial planning. These pressures were seen as (Min. Spat1):

“…(pressures) coming from the north which is now Krapinsko-Zagorska County, that they keep their hunting area also in the area of the Park. That is not very logical, but not very incompatible with hunting, as in that way you stop the classical hunting (shooting) of animals, and start a regime in which hunters have an obligation to care for the animals. Also, these hunting areas have some of their parts out of the Park, so formally these associations and the hunting areas as such would cease to exist, as they would have too small of a surface within the Park. It is true that they were politically big and this is a very important reason why this ambitious plan that we had 20 years ago lost its momentum, and then stopped”.

Several sources (Min. For2, Min. Spat1, Hunt1) stated that these influences came equally from the local hunters and from the ‘political elites’. The broad participation implemented by the Institute of Urbanism also encompassed consensual decision-making; with the opposition of the municipalities, the process was unable to continue.

83

4.2.2.2. The Second Process

Figure 32 presents a conceptual overview of the second process of spatial planning.

Figure 32. Second process of spatial planning

Although the general political system has changed from communistic to a democratic one, the practical policy setting in the country is such that the powerful interest groups have a prevailing influence on the public decision-making process. NP Medvednica is no exception, so the construction activities that occur within the Park are backed-up with strong political connections.

84

The state administrative system of Croatia has put much more emphasis on the regional level than it was the case in Yugoslavia, so the County administration (which includes City of Zagreb) has a pronounced role in the process of spatial planning. As the population of Zagreb is rapidly increasing, the area of the Park is under strong pressure of urbanization. With the pressure of the development groups, vast discretionary rights and the pressures of urbanization, the City of Zagreb has assigned the task of spatial planning to its Division for spatial planning. The education background of the employees of the Department is mostly in the field of architecture, and the mindset revolves around a shared notion that nature is a range that has to be subdued to human needs, where the surface of the Park should be a ‘harmonious’ mosaic of green and developed areas. They perceive themselves as experts and that the quality of the spatial plan is set by the level of expertise that is ‘invested’ in it. With such a stand, the application of broad participation devalues them. In the word a spatial planner (City Zg5): “The whole team and all the experts sit down together on such consultations; I would call them workshops, an exchange of their expertise among themselves. Only after we define the way forward, we discuss it on the public hearings so that all those who naturally gravitate toward that area can give their opinions. However, the point of it all is somewhere else. When you put 15-20 experts on one table, it is for certain that none of these people can understand the rationale of the experts, and understand what is best for the green areas, the forests creeks and all of Sljeme (Medvednica).” Moreover, application of broad participation has pronounced procedural costs, where it lengthens the process and makes it difficult to combine different, often conflicting points. As the employees of the spatial planning Department get no personal benefits from the application of broad participatory mechanisms (only its ‘costs’ of working more), they choose not to implement it. The ‘strategy’ of the City directed towards other parts of public administration (‘Inner stakeholders’) for the ‘simplification’ of the process is to treat them practically as stakeholders, and not as someone who is a part of the spatial planning team. This means that representatives of different Ministries and agencies are invited to take part in the consultative meetings; they prepare their expert studies, are treated politely, and are led to perceive that the decisions are made based on joint agreement. However, the City of Zagreb holds itself as the only decider, and that everyone else is a stakeholder, whose opinions have to be heard, but there is no direct mechanism that they must be accepted or adhered to. Such ‘procedural fairness’ is sufficient for all of the state bodies to consider them as fairly treated, i.e. that this mode of participation of consultative meetings is adequate. It is also enough for the majority of them (but not SINP and

85 the Ministry of Culture) to consider all the participatory mechanisms that were used as acceptable, including public hearings and surveys, which have no impact. All the members of the state administration have an inherent incentive to accept the norm that expertise is more valuable than lay opinion, because they will be recipients of ‘procedural fairness’. As it can be seen from the following quotation (City Zg6), from the perspective of state administration, the participation is adequate; but even more, the notions of participation and the stakeholders are limited only to the elements of state administration: “I think that the participation was adequate. Our County has participated, we also gave our comments to the City of Zagreb, and the central planners made a presentation in our County. We had very good cooperation with the Ministry (of Spatial Planning and Construction) and with Zagreb and the Public Institution Nature Park Medvednica as well… I remember that they were active. Also our municipalities participated, I remember a discussion on Bistra (municipality), whose Mayor was also active... everyone was involved, all the stakeholders”. The ‘strategy’ of the City of Zagreb towards citizens and ‘Outer stakeholder’ (e.g. mountaineers, environmental NGOs, and such) is to formally follow the legal obligations which demands public hearings and surveys. From the perspective of the planners, this is adequate participation, as (City Zg7): “At that time when we were doing the plan, we really had a discussion on it, and we went through districts of Zagreb and through Counties to talk to people, and we presented the plan to them. So the democratic procedure of informing the people and their reactions was adhered to… everything was well organized. Everything was done right and according to laws.” It is prudent to note that by adhering to the norm ‘Expert > lay’, they exclude them from the process of spatial planning by treating their claims as less important, and with no justification to be adhered to. This makes the ‘Outer stakeholders’ to see the practiced participatory mechanisms as inadequate. It also makes them loose trust in the planners and do not consider themselves any more represented by their city’s administration. As municipalities are now also part of the ‘Inner stakeholder’ group, they see no other choice but to turn over their representation to an active group with a clear and uncompromising agenda; the environmental NGOs. As half of the forests in NP Medvednica are private, the process of urbanization also had impact on the private forests owners, most of which are citizens of adjacent areas; by converting their forests into construction land, they may gain significant financial gains. However, as

86

Medvednica is “the lung of Zagreb and it is its primary green area” (City Zg5), touristic enjoyment of the area is also of high interest to the people focused on the Park. Citizens are also poorly informed on their rights to participate in the process of spatial planning, on the impact that the spatial planning will have on the NP Medvednica, and in general on the management regime (i.e. what is allowed, and what is unacceptable) for the Park. These three factors have caused citizens to have ambivalent or conflicting interests regarding the Park, where the receipt of new information can set the prevalence of either side. Development interest groups are aware of this situation, and through strong media campaigning, they have managed to manipulate the people: stating that if the spatial plan is made there will be no construction allowed in the Park and all that has been done thus far will become illegal. As (City Zg6) states, “So we had these public hearings focused on the change of borders. Citizens were very loud, and they primarily asked that their land is set aside from the park, and that they become construction land. They were much more concerned about this than on the spatial plan or the park itself. I also saw this being emphasized in the media and it made people even more eager to put their land as the only priority”. The reaction was a strong public protest, and because of it, the City of Zagreb had ‘no choice’ but to halt the process and subsequently forward it to Parliament as a proposal for the decrease of the area of the Park. This proposal for the decrease of the Park’s area did not have a formal procedure of public participation. In addition, the proposal of a spatial plan that did have formal procedure of public participation was not discussed and voted on in Parliament. Both of these actions violate the Law on Nature Protection (OG 139/08 and 57/11) on the procedures for spatial planning in nationally protected areas. In the same heated political environment the Parliament (Parliament, PZ.nr.140, 2008) has accepted and voted for the proposal, seeing the decrease of area as a compromise between construction and protection, and also an opportunity to ‘save’ the areas that have not ‘yet became concrete’ (Cro Forest3). As power defines politics, the same (political) pressures that have guided the actions of the City of Zagreb have occurred in Parliament. As one member of the Parliament (Cro Forest3) states: “…those in majority represent the power groups, who practically in the beginning believed to have majority in the (parliamentary) Committee. Further, when the topic comes to voting as an item of the ruling, it will definitely pass. You have had situations when we at the Committee can have an open discussion and talk against some things…. but practically this does not mean much, as the possibility of

87

changing what they brought to the table is next to none”. From the perspective of ‘green-oriented’, political activist (Parliament1), the relations between the (development) interest groups, City of Zagreb and the Parliament is even more pronounced: “… there is a strong bond between the City’s administration and certain investors, which are interested to enter certain projects on national level, and they push then at the city level…. I have seen these examples in Zagreb, where some MPs are deceived by those which propose and prepare a spatial plan, and if they are not deliberately deceived then they are just obeying the commandments of their party, so they will vote for it…There is also a strong dose of ignorance and disinterestedness for what is being discussed, but there are also strong corruptive elements, where MPs affect the changes of a spatial plan by pushing some changes through, saying that it is due to public pressure or public interest, but is used as an excuse as there are some other interests behind it”. A background factor that has contributed to this development is the increased individualization of the desires of citizens, which in turn (in the context of spatial planning) was caused by diminishing the communal links within the municipal policy, as the ‘self-regulation’ within municipal associations has turned to representative participation through the Municipal council. This change has altered the ‘focus’ of costs and benefits from the communal to personal level, which was later expressed as decreased ‘value’ of nature protection, and increased ‘value’ of urbanization. As (Min. Spat2) states, “The relation of Zagreb towards Medvednica in touristic context is based on consumerism. The City of Zagreb acts as a touristic-construction establishment and sees Medvednica as its own personal resource and not as a resource of its citizens and the community. It just sees it as an attractive product from which it can gain benefits…. And people, and everyone else behaves the same, they see Medvednica and things in general just as something that they can profit from”.

88

4.2.2.3. The Third Process

Figure 33 presents a conceptual overview of the third process of spatial planning.

Figure 33. Third process of spatial planning

The setting within which the third process of spatial planning is imbedded in is not much different from the one that existed during the second process. The power relations between the interests groups and those responsible for spatial planning have remained the same and the attitude of the City of Zagreb towards spatial planning has remained the same. However, the 30- year period of having no spatial plan has left many areas of NP Medvednica subjected to 89 construction activities. The periphery zones, especially on the southern slopes, were heavily urbanized and set out of the park in 2009. Numerous interests arising from the construction lobby have been fulfilled; this is especially true for the touristic infrastructure in the peak area and the construction of skiing infrastructure. As (Min. Cult1) outlines, “The problem with the park is that all activities are bundled-up in the peak area – skiing and radars and tourism and mountaineers – everyone wants their presence there, and the nature is most sensitive over there, and this is the least appropriate place to develop infrastructure. However, it is also the most attractive one, and everyone has interests over there. The initial idea of the spatial plan was to decrease the pressures from the peak, but people were not listening and it did not happen so”. In this situation, the goal of development interest groups in the process of spatial planning is to have an approved spatial plan, which would legalize what has already been constructed and possibly a plan that envisages further development activities. Such a plan would legalize and thus secure their investments and the foundation of the Plan on a broad pallet of expert studies on which the City of Zagreb is focusing and would serve as a form of legitimacy, showing the construction activities within the framework of the natural process of urbanization. Another element of the policy setting is the pressure of the central state administration for fast approval of the plan. The rationale for this pressure is embedded in the fact that the EU funding has been recognized as the key mechanism for brining Croatia out of a five-year recession (Tomičić, 2013). The area of NP Medvednica is available for EU co-funding of development projects, under condition that it has a valid spatial plan. This is a potential source of great political support to the current state administration, as these developments might affect one quarter of the entire national electorate. Moreover, the only EU-conditioned expert document, which was missing, was the expert study that would set the conditions for securing the favorable conservation status under the Natura 2000 Directives. This study was made by SINP in 2012 under the title ‘Expert basis’ of nature protection for the special features of a spatial plan for NP Medvednica (SINP 2012), which was also the only expert document prepared in the third process of spatial planning. The participation of other parts of public administration was organized through a series of consultative meetings; but unlike the first and the second process, the meetings in the third were organized separately for each ‘stakeholder’. Such a way strongly diminishes the transparency of the process and decreases the opportunities of possibly conflicting standpoints to have a joint

90 voice towards the spatial planners. However, the perception of having an impact on the process was enough for the ‘inner stakeholders’ to view this as adequate mode of participation. The symbolic nature of participation was emphasized in the third process both for the ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ stakeholders; public administration was ‘consulted’ as a stakeholder but it perceived itself as part of the spatial planning team. In addition, the procedure of public hearing for the ‘outer’ stakeholders was stripped to its bare minimum. The announcement of public hearings was not much advertised in the public media; rather it is displayed at the panel boards of County-level and municipal information boards with a minimum legal prior notice of 30 days (Parliament, OG 70/05, 139/08 and 57/11). This kept majority of the ‘external’ stakeholder group out of the process, and it minimized the participation of the public; as only about thirty people participated in the public hearing for the City of Zagreb, and only half a dozen in the hearings for the Zagreb county and the Krapinsko-Zagorska county. As NGO2 comments, “The public is just not interested enough, which is strange because it (the spatial plan for NP Medvednica) is a strategic document which should be of everyone’s interest, and people should put pressure on it; but that does not happen. Only those who belong to some interests which are not public interests are in, and they already got a large portion of what they want”. The planners also made it clear that the proposal of the plan has been set, and that the hearings are primarily an information dissemination mechanism, and not a forum on joint decision- making (Minutes of the public hearing for Zagreb, Spatial plan 2014). It was also stated that if stakeholders have a complaint, that they have 30 days after the hearing to submit it in written form; nonetheless, due to lack of time (and short ‘deadlines’ to make the plan), no complaint will be taken into consideration, rather, they will be taken up in the next (theoretically envisaged) process of spatial planning. Needless to say, citizens and other ‘outer stakeholders’ regarded this as an inadequate mode of participation. However, following the central ideas of Inadequate participation and Adequate Participation, the spatial planners find it appropriate as stated (City Zg7): “I think we did it the right way. We followed the procedures. These ‘stakeholders’, how you say it now, as it is popular, well; they were involved, following the Laws. Therefore, we did everything: informal conversations type of communication with selected people, we have consulted ministries, hunters, sport associations, and others, we talked with the public institutions, and we had hearings and collected their requests. We did it correctly”.

91

The Parliamentary procedure was held in a similar fashion. The hearing within the Parliament’s Environment and Nature Conservation Committee was scheduled by an ‘urgent procedure’ (significantly shortened deadlines and volume of discussion) right before the summer break in 2014. The majority of the Department’s members did not have the time to review the materials, nor did they have time to invite other interested parties (usually independent experts and NGOs) to the discussion. It was also stipulated that the primary purpose of why the plan is being proclaimed now, in such ‘quick’ manner is that it is a precondition for the spatial plan of the peak area and of its ‘Skiing complexes’. Both of these sections have been recognized as development areas of national priority, and these developments can be co-funded from the EU funds (Parliament, PZ, No. 140, 2014). During the third process, (SINP2) comments: “I haven’t seen the final version yet, so I did not see if they accepted our comments or not. However, from what I have seen, they are still planning construction activities, especially at the top. This is what they are pushing for. This all is a problem of construction interests and the power of the City of Zagreb… that is the problem. If we had a plan before that, it would have been better. This is worse, as they are still pushing. This is a bad situation. If we had it a decade ago, we could slam our fist at the table and say: no more construction! Nevertheless, we cannot. And in that period the area has changed”. The hearings within the Physical Planning and Construction Committee also followed the rationale for nominating the future developments of the NP Medvednica in the 2016 EU Project bids. From the perspective of nature protection the representative of SINP has stipulated that the plan would secure a much higher control of the usage of the area than it was the case before, i.e. the “optimal usage of existing construction fund” (Parliament, PZ, No.140, 2014). Commenting on the third process altogether, (Min. Cult3) states: “We have defended the borders and wanted a plan. Later on the border moved, and I was not thrilled with that. However, the politics have spoken and nature protection has to follow. I understand that the City is expanding, but let us keep it legal. The same thing goes for the plan. They just want to construct and then legalize their illegal objects. That is inacceptable”.

92

4.2.3. The Comparison of Processes

Figure 34 graphically depicts the conceptual comparison of the processes in 19 dimensions. A superficial overview of the previous pages, which describe each of the three processes; leads the reader to a conclusion that the first process differs much from the second and the third, which are very much alike.

Figure 34. Analytical comparison of the three processes of spatial planning

93

Similar conclusion can be made if we start comparing the three processes by the policy setting in which they are embedded (Figure 34); the first process was in the communist-led Socialistic Republic of Croatia, whereas the second and the third process were done within the democratic system of the Republic of Croatia. The differences in the power relations between local and regional administration has already been explained, as well as modes of public engagement within the municipal polity and how it affected the perception of citizens who represented them in the process of spatial planning. What are more important in the policy setting of the spatial planning are the aspects, which the three processes have in common. The first common attribute is that they were all led by the City of Zagreb, regardless of the general political system or the organization of state administration. The interests of the city of Zagreb and its attitude toward participation in spatial planning have changed. Nonetheless, as Zagreb is the capital of Croatia and it represents one fourth of its population and a crucial constant will always play a central role in the spatial planning of its neighboring mountain Medvednica. Another constant is that the power relations have shaped the outcomes of all of the three processes. However, these relations cannot be reduced to simplistic cause-effect relation of the most powerful actors pushing their claims through. Rather, there is an obfuscated interplay between the actors and their social context, where actors (re)act within the condition defined by their social context, and the social context is altered by the actions of the actors. This interplay can be observed in the first process as the general idea of communist self-regulation (OG, SFRY Constitution, 9/74) has affected the creation of the decentralized state administrative system that has strong feedback-loops to its citizens. The organization of the spatial planning process for NP Medvednica reflects the usual way in which the strategic decisions of local character are made; with strong participation of people, and where, in accordance to communist de-valuation of the elites, ideas and claims of all people (both lay and expert) are of equal weight. In this context it was only logical from experts to proactively engage in the communication with the ‘lay population’ through the Committee for protection and management of Medvednica, and in this way to be recognized as a valuable part of the decision-making process, as one whose opinion matters (NP Medvednica Draft Spatial Plan, 1989). As (City Zg9) explains, “I think that the public participation has not started yet, and we already had an assembly of experts willing to participate in the preparation of the Plan. They have followed every step of its creation – and it consisted of the scientific elite, as everyone wanted to be part of it, and work for the benefit of Medvednica and of their community… too bad that the process died out”.

94

It was only until the end of the first process when it became apparent that the interests of the hunters might be in jeopardy, that the process became under the auspices of the central administration, which have informally put pressure to halt the process. The interplay between actors and their social context is quite different in the second and in the third process. In a democratic system of the Republic of Croatia, the state administration has put emphasis on the regional level, where the role of municipalities has been downplayed. Also, the partially direct representation of the people in deciding upon public local affairs through Municipal associations has switched to the representative system of Municipal councils, where the elected officials have their feedback-loops to their constituents once every four years. As (City Zg5) outlines, “We had (in SR Croatia) these councils in each district of the City and in each municipality. These councils participated in everything. In addition, each citizen could go through this council at any moment get the right information and get involved, find the underlying cause of it, and became formally part of the committee. Moreover, everyone wanted to get involved. Now, they all a priori state their discontent because they are out of the process, can’t get the information and say: OK, I’ll just see what happens in the end, and then say if I am happy or not, and what my comments are”. The ‘professionalization’ of decision-making on the local and regional level has also affected the way spatial planning is done. In the second and the third process the merits of a plan, as seen by the state administration and the spatial planning professions, are set by the number of expert background documents and the number of experts who are involved in its preparation. The ‘professionalization’ and high value of expertise also shape the organizational-procedural aspects of spatial planning in general, as (NGO1) states, “..This is how the system works. When a spatial plan is made, those who prepare it have to listen to wishes of those who gave them this task; and that is political influence. They also have to consult first all the other expert services, for example the City of Zagreb first has to consult the energy and the transportation department. They first consult internally, and agree on how to proceed. Although everyone should be included in the public hearings, by the time it gets to them this participation watered down to a level where everything is automatically rejected, so de facto you cannot influence any of the decisions in the spatial plan”. In this context, the planners and the experts ‘degrade’ themselves by equating the value of their point of view with the wants from the laypersons’ point of view. In addition, as the

95 comprehension of this ‘value’ embodied in the plan is obfuscated to the lay, the planners do not need to ‘explain’ their actions to the ‘lay’. This line of thought was only amplified in the third process, where the already made decisions were just presented to the ‘external’ stakeholders. The electoral dependence of state officials on political contributions that existed during the second and the third process also enabled the powerful construction interests to affect the organization of spatial planning within the City of Zagreb, where the focus is on urbanization of space. From the perspective of NGOs (NGO1), “… This is the central problem of the Park – it is too close to Zagreb. We have participated in all three processes of planning, and in other processes. When Medvednica was proclaimed Nature Park, there was no real implementation of protection on the field, and it took long time for the Public Institution (NP Medvednica) to be established. Moreover, they have the ungrateful position to coordinate all the stakeholders, but with no real power. You have the City of Zagreb, the Counties, hunters, foresters, private forest owners, and all of them have their own pressures of usage, especially the construction. All of this affected the Park heavily, and it never got a real identity of a Park, as it is torn by these influences”. Moreover, the context of five-year recession has caused spatial planning of NP Medvednica to catch the focus of the central state administration, which was able almost to superimpose the adoption of a spatial plan in a short period. The changes in the organizational setting of the spatial planning for Medvednica are illustrated by the following quotation (OIKON1): “All of the (spatial) planning was run by the City of Zagreb. Before (during the first process), it was the Institute for Urbanism, and later it became Division for Spatial Planning. However, before the second process it was transferred from an independent unit that was directly responsible to the City Council to part of the Division for Construction. Therefore, they became the spatial planner, that is the Division for Construction, and we can omit the name of Division for Construction or call them by their real name – construction lobby people, as they now have the jurisdiction over spatial planning for a nature park. On the other hand, there is the Division for Strategic Planning, which can only be an advisory body in this process, exerting no power. Therefore, the former Division for Spatial Planning split into the Division for construction and Division for Strategic Planning. All those individuals who did not yield to constant pressures were found ‘blacklisted’ and transferred to the Division of Strategic planning. These people are those who worked on the first

96

process. And so you have a totally unnatural situation, where the structure of planning is such that construction dictates it all.” The quotation above also quite vividly depicts the interplay of interests, which affect the social setting, and in turn create context for future interactions. This was explained in detail in the Power defines the politics relational code. Same developments where interests and power relations change the context of future interactions are present in the Public Institution Nature Park Medvednica, as (NGO1): “… these forces have always been stronger than the Parks’ management. The thing is that a Board runs it, and they approve the director of the Public Institution (Nature Park Medvednica). The Ministry defines this situation, that the Board has representatives of all stakeholders, mostly users of the park, such as local municipal authorities, foresters and the City. The members of the board have their own interests, and they all want someone who will not go against what they want, someone who will not stand up. It is very problematic to do nature protection when you have no power to do it. They are weak, and they have these influences coming on all sides. The city is expanding, and this has affected how the Institution works, and that in turn affects how nature protection is done.” The same is also present in the legislative framework on participation in public decision-making and in spatial planning for protected areas (Nature Protection Act, Parliament, OG 70/05, 139/08 and 57/11); as (Min. Cult3) states: “That procedure is legally defined. Now it just states participation and public hearings, without offering any specificity. In addition, all of this should be stated for each phase of planning, and people should obey it, not to be like this. They are following the laws and doing nothing illegal; but the laws are made in such a way that stakeholders and people have at least influence as much as possible. I think that this would be the right way to go, if it was written in the laws. Then all of it would make sense, and the interests of the state that the plan is made would be achieved, and not like this that it takes thirty years to make it. Then the planners would have to take into consideration every comment, to check if it holds water. If it is rejected there should be a feedback on why it is rejected, and not to reject it because you don’t’ like it, don’t bother to communicate, or even don’t like the person who made it”. To go one-step further, Power defines politics is also valid for all the spatial planning (Inst. IP1):

97

“In general, the spatial planning in Croatia is not transparent. You now have a new kind of different institutions, private tenders organized by investors, which have chosen their boards, which in turn approve the plans, and so put fog over the entire spatial planning. From the transition in the 1990s, the whole thing became anemic, and all the institutes became privatized. This created a deficit of knowledge and expertise in the public system, but also had no real control over this private system. They also became just an administration, with no real expert substance. For example, the Urbanistic Institute of Croatia was privatized, and with it the state lost all the right capacity for spatial planning. The reason behind this is that at that time the people had to have an interdisciplinary education and right information from all directions. Now these people in private institutes just follow the private interest, which dominates over the public one. This is the system and its consequences can be seen if we look around”. To illustrate the following point, let us categorize all the actors to ‘exterior’ public and non- influential organized interests groups, the planners of the process, and a third powerful group that consists of the central state administration and the influential organized interests groups. The actions of the planners and the powerful group have been commented on and it may seem from the text above that citizens are merely ‘pawns’ in a larger scheme beyond their comprehension. This is far from being correct. In the first process, the urbanization pressure was small so the predominant ‘want’ of citizens was enjoyment of nature. With increased urbanization in the second process, striving just for nature protection and fighting against illegally constructed dwelling complexes was not ‘easy’ any more, as such action has potential personal costs – the possibility of re-evaluating the legality of one’s own personal real-estate. Moreover, in the eyes of the planners this attitude of citizens was enhanced in the public hearings, as the vast majority of those who came to these hearings came because they had high (potential) personal costs of not raising their claims. On the other hand, the citizens who did not have their own personal property within the borders of the Park had no personal benefits of coming to the hearings and arguing on behalf of nature protection. One of the many comments on the personal calculation of benefits and costs states that (City Zg5), Our people and this is the case everywhere in the world, do not have time nor interest to participate and to gather the needed information, which would enable them to address methodologically the issue. Our laws set the time and place for participation and we obey them. In addition, if people had time and willingness, of

98

course they would pick-up more information on it. But let’s not forget how the system works; they participate if there is something in it for them”. NGOs see the situation in the same manner; however, it is in even bleaker perspective (NGO1): “When public hearings occurred focusing on the change in the borders of the Park, the vast majority of people who showed up came because they wanted to see the border reaches the forest top, high up on the hill. They did so even if it meant nothing to them directly, because being out of the park does not automatically mean that you will get a construction permit. However, it is easier to potentially change your forest into agricultural or construction land if it is out of the Park. Moreover, this was enough for them. Those people want to reduce the area of the Park, and it is even better that there is no spatial plan until their interests are realized. The same goes for the City of Zagreb and those with power behind it - those land speculators. It is also an inherent interest of Zagreb for Medvednica not to have a spatial plan, as in such scenario, they can control it”. In a culture of low public engagement in public decision-making and with low level of information on the process of spatial planning, it was only logical from the development interest groups to mobilize the public thorough media campaigns in order to act on their behalf. In addition, in the third process when the urbanized areas were no longer part of the Park, it was only logical that the number of participants in the public hearing would strongly decrease. Looking back at the participation in all three processes, (City Zg8) states: “Well, things were different in the beginning, as everyone was really involved. In the second process, the private landowners wanted to get their way, to get out of the park, to make it construction land. Those were also all the issues addressed at the public hearings. Other groups were these sport development organizations that want to take over the mountain, and that is it. No one else was involved, and these people got their way…. If you ask me, we should have included everyone right away then (at the second process), so they could really participate with their proposals. Now I think that it was all very reclusive, as a person could not get even proper information, let alone to participate normally; we should have done it more transparently. In the end, participation was just decreasing with the passage of time”. It is also interesting that the ‘external’ actors felt that all the participation ‘mechanisms’ that were used (public hearings, consultative meetings, surveys…) were adequate in the first process,

99 whereas they felt that it was inadequate in the second and the third process. The direct ‘treatment’ of citizens in all three processes (public hearings, questionnaires, surveys, state newspaper information.) was the same, and the ‘mechanisms of participation’ (i.e. consultative meetings) applied to the organization of state administration were the same; so the reasons for perceiving the participation differently lies somewhere else. In the first process, the citizens felt that influential actors over which they had significant influence represented them by the municipalities. In the second and the third, they felt that municipalities do not represent them anymore, and that it’s now a role played by the NGOs. As (Min. Spat3) states, “The first generation of plan was not made due to revolts by the municipality Donja Stubica and the hunters. When you design a process from the bottom, you cannot choose not to hear them… they felt that with a plan, the territory will be taken from them, and that is why it was not made. Now hunters and people in general do not go to municipalities with their concerns any more, they go to the environmental associations. This is operationally clear”. This change can be partly explained by ‘increasing the distance’ between the local state officials and their constituents which was previously discussed. However, it cannot be explained completely, as there are municipal officials (e.g. Municipality Bistra related to the northern cable car, hunting on the northern side of municipality Stubica, all northern municipalities on the south-north tunnel through Medvednica, northern road bypass) who fought for the interests of their constituents. The other reasons for this change is that citizens knew that municipalities do not have a strong impact on the process of spatial planning any more, so there was little point in being represented by someone who cannot push your claims (Min. Spat3) states, “The municipalities had strong contacts with the local community. Moreover, Municipalities could handle the pressures of Zagreb. Now they cannot. They participate in each proposal of the plan in consultations and hearings… but the impact which was visible is no longer existent and people see this”. The third reason is that the citizens are not invited to the consultative meetings, and thus are not able to see how municipalities can represent them. All the while, they can see how active NGOs can be in public hearings and can experience their strong activity in the public media. Municipalities may be more influential in the process in comparison to NGOs, but the limited nature of public perception tells them otherwise. The same analogy can be made for the expert officials of different state agencies and ministries; those who have their interests aligned with the dominant ‘urbanization’ position of the City of

100

Zagreb (Ministry of Construction and Spatial Planning, Counties, etc. feel that all used participation ‘mechanisms’ were adequate. On the contrary, those with opposite interests (SINP, Ministry of Culture, Ministry of Environment and Nature Protection) and those who do not have a prevailing influence over the process find all of the participation mechanisms inadequate. As citizens ‘lean’ towards NGOs due to the perception of NGOs influence on the process, so do expert officials of different state agencies and ministries deem the consultation process as adequate; as its procedural aspects enhance their perception of having a personal influence on the process. The position of hunters was that the participation was adequate in the first process, changed to a position that participation was inadequate in the second process. This is not the case as a result of being formally treated differently; it is because they had support from the central political establishment in the first process, whereas in the second process they had lost it. Experts and spatial planners strived towards participation as much as possible in the first process as in such manner; they would gain recognition from their peers, whereas in the second and the third ‘equating’ themselves with the ‘lay’ would only lose it. Development interest groups were not able to dominate the spatial planning process during the 1980s as the organization of spatial planning at that time was such that nature protection had equal weight as development, and the strong and public engagement of citizens and organizations of civil society did not leave much space for private lobbying activities. As (City Zg3) states, “At that time, in the old state, you had a group that was preparing the plan, and you had the Committee for protection and management of Medvednica which was involved in all of the activities and steps. People were included in it, and all for the protection of the public good, where they participated in decision-making. They were even financing nature protection activities themselves. In such structure there was simply no room for someone to come and try to push their personal interests through”. All of the above shows a clear pattern; that in a given social context, all groups of actors use their knowledge and opportunities to act to the best of their capabilities, all with a goal of furthering their interests. In the end, actions may affect the social context, which in turn alters the ‘calculation’ of interactions, and finally the outcome of the decision-making process itself. Appealing to public interests, ‘fairness’ of the process and transparency of decision-making, or to the importance of specific expertise, all of this falls under strategies that actors employ to further their interests. These interests vary across actors and range from human centered (e.g. the

101 development interests of a construction lobby) to nature-centered (e.g. NGOs). They may also be on personal (e.g. citizens pushing for legalization of their homes, experts for recognition in their professional fields and in their social setting), group (e.g. skiing lobby for development of ski tourism) or general level (e.g. SINP for preservation of forest habitats). Interests may also vary with the availability of information (e.g. change from nature protection to construction of Zagreb’s citizens due to media campaigns) and with the change in context (e.g. construction lobby from blocking the second process to supporting the adoption of the plan in the third process). The key role of information availability in the second process can be seen in the following quote (Min. Cult1): “People are not educated, and it is difficult to explain to them information. Reporters are also like that; only they tend to stick to details. We presented them with the plan, but they were totally focused on the construction issue… the entire story was so pumped-up by the media and those behind them… people did not know what was actually going on, and this led to revolt which further led to the decreasing of the borders and discarding the plan. All this is unnatural and strange. But we must recognize that people react to the interests and the information that they have”.

102

4.2.4 Participation in Spatial Planning

Participation of stakeholders in spatial planning (Figure 35) is embedded in a general socio- political context. Stakeholders are all those who can affect or can be affected by the process of spatial planning. The most important contextual factors are organization of state administration, role of the public in the local policymaking, level of urbanization and social stance (focus of goals and desires). There are two archetypes of socio-political context: ‘Individualistic’ and ‘Collectivistic’.

Figure 35. Mechanisms of participation in spatial planning

The Individualistic context is characterized by a regionalized organization of state administration, where the local policy setting (which includes local spatial planning) is not a regional political priority. Regionalized state administration means that the majority of power

103 over the policy setting is held by the regional, and not by the local (municipal) administration. The political leaders of the local and regional administration are periodically chosen in democratic elections. Elections are almost exclusively the only important feedback from the constituents to the officials. Re-election of political leaders of the regional level is affected more by the support of economic and political interest groups than the support of a single local community within the region. In this context, the political system values bureaucratic efficiency. A high level of urbanization, which provides economic opportunities both for development interest groups and for its citizens in general, characterizes the focal, local area. The focus of goals and desires of actors is based on individual level. This situation is contrasted by a Collectivistic context. In this setting, the local (municipal) administration has more power over policy setting than the regional administration. Although local political leaders are chosen periodically through elections, they are exposed to continuous feedback from the citizens through different councils, which have direct impact on the local policymaking. These feedbacks to the state administration de-value bureaucratic efficiency and promote collectivism within the community, which is also the focal point of goals and desires of actors. This context is also characterized by low level of urbanization, which provides little economic incentive to (development) interest groups and citizens in general. The direct link between general context and spatial planning for NP Medvednica can be summed-up as (City Zg9): “Until the 1990s people cared for the protection of nature and for the public good, and they did not have this interest of private property; so there were no complaints in the public hearings on the adoption of the plan. Now everyone looks at just their own interests, and that is why almost everyone is pushing for a plan to be made”. However, Edvard Kardelj provides a more concise nature of the Collectivistic context, which existed in SR Croatia. He was a professor of economics and one of the leaders of the Yugoslavian regime (Kardelj, 1981, p.157): “Decentralized management of social and political life and of the production process did not comprise just out of formal decentralization of the system of management – not as a communist-utopist vision of municipal socialism, but of a need to create practical conditions for bringing about a democracy in the social relations as a whole, so that the integrated system of self-management could gradually come alive in all spheres of social life, vertically and horizontally…. Moreover, this was aimed to weaken present and future negative tendencies of the bureaucracy and different

104

interest groups that aim to centralize and to stipulate hierarchy in the management of a country. This form of democratic self-managing social relations should be filled with a real democratic content through enabling a practice of direct self- management, without interference of the central state administration”. The socio-political context shapes the process of spatial planning. The presence of an ‘individualistic’ context leads to an ‘architectural’ process of spatial planning. The value of bureaucratic efficiency emphasizes the importance of professionals and experts in the process of spatial planning; and the level of expertise sets the spatial plan value (from the perspective of the planners) and what comprises it. The focus of expertise also de-values the importance of the input of the lay, and for experts there is no benefit from interaction with the lay. This leads the planners to view participation as a procedural cost, a legal requirement that has to be fulfilled but which should not have a substantial impact on the outcome of the process. As (Min. Cult1) presents it, “…all these planners need to follow the laws, that’s the procedure… we could also have some direct discussion, consultation with NGOs and citizens. But that’s not the law, it complicates the process and so it’s just extra work, all cost and few benefits”. The high level of urbanization affects the view of planners on the physical area, where it is predominantly seen as the surface which it to be shaped according to human needs, and where the ideal situation is a ‘harmonious’ balance of urbanized and natural space. As (City Zg5) states, “…spatial planning in this case is very important, because it is a multidisciplinary approach where every aspect is equally important – this goes for the green areas, to building touristic attractions, housing capacities; all this is equally important and all of it represents values of the nature park, and all of it should be harmoniously implemented in the Plan. The City is located right below the mountain, and it is what defines it”. The presence of Collectivistic context leads to ‘Urbanistic’ process of spatial planning. The value of communal feedback on general local policymaking affects planners to put equal emphasis on the wants of all actors, be it lay or expert. In this context, the level of accepting the desires of all the actors largely affects the merits of a spatial plan, and participation is seen as a facilitator of decision-making; as broad participation ensures the sustainability of the decisions. Such environment also encourages the experts to engage in a strong interaction with the lay, as the interaction enhances the role that they play in the process of spatial planning. Low level of

105 urbanization and communal spirit enhances the ‘Urbanistic’ basis of spatial planning, where equal emphasis is put on the value of nature for itself, and to the wants of the people. While commenting the change from the Urbanistic to Architectural context of spatial planning, (NGO1) states that; “Well, now you can make your comments within 30 days, but practically everything is dismissed without explanation, there is no real communication or feedback to the people. Investors that are in direct cooperation with those running the state now mostly influence spatial planning. This setting arose when we came out of the socialist regime, where the real profession of ‘urbanists’ existed. Since then, this profession has been systematically destroyed and transformed into something else… I guess that they could not adapt to this market conditions, to this general political setting that changed them. Now there is no real quality of participation”. Aside from the spatial planners, stakeholders can be separated unto three groups. The first group comprises of the citizens and civil society. They are the largest and least organized group of stakeholders, with low level of information on the process of spatial planning, and considered as lay by the other groups. The second group is the state administration. They are a well-organized group with high level of knowledge and are considered as experts by other groups and by themselves. The third group consists of (development) interest groups and highest political authorities. They are a very organized group with high level of information on the process of spatial planning. They consider themselves as experts who can most adequately set the progress of spatial planning. This opinion is partly held by the state administration, whereas the citizens and the civil society are exempt from holding such position. In a given context, each of the group of actors has its own dominant orientation of values. Orientation of values is a dimension of values which sets the focus of wants in a continuum ranging from human-centered, across balanced and onto nature-centered values, where the dominant values are assigned to the nature and by which it has a value for itself, separate and independent from human wants. Orientation of values may change according to the contextual setting and the level of information held by the focal actor. Pronounced types of wants are material and economic, recognition by its peers (experts), recognition by its community (both for expert and lay), trust (in political context), and protection of nature and environment. These interests can be focused on a personal level, on the level of interest groups, on the level of (local) community, and on the universal level. Moreover, just as the socio-political context shapes the characteristics of spatial planning, it also influences the value orientation of actors. Low level of urbanization and a strong spirit of

106 collectivism in the Collectivistic context emphasize the nature-centered values of citizens and civil society, while it also promotes balanced value orientation of state administration. On the other hand, strong pressures of urbanization and emphases on individuality in the ‘Individualistic’ context promote human centered values in all groups of actors. For citizens and parts of civil society, this creates a situation of ambivalent values, i.e. a lithe position that can sway towards both nature and human centered values, depending on contextual specificities and the level of information held by the focal actor. There are four groups of ‘mechanisms’ of participation. The first one is ‘Passive’ participation, which is directed towards citizens and civil society. It consists of providing information on the process of spatial planning by mass media and from surveys, through which opinions of the citizens and civil society are gathered. This group of actors also participates through public hearings, a public forum controlled by the spatial planners in which they can interact with stakeholders. This interaction can range from mere presentation of developments in spatial planning to an obligation of joint decision-making, and it may or may not include feedback from the planners to the stakeholders in later phase. The state administration participates in the process through consultations, which is a relatively intimate and closed setting in which all its participants engage in open discussion. In an ‘Individualistic’ context, all the participants of consultations are perceived as experts; the (development) interest groups are also in attendance. In Collectivistic context, representatives of the civil society may also participate in the consultation; and in these consultations, the wants of all participants are treated with same weight. However, the final form of participation – informal participation is reserved just for the development interest groups and highest political authorities. Informal participation is a completely intimate form of interaction between the stakeholder and the spatial planners, in which they engage in open communication, which is not disclosed to those who do not take part in it. Such relation is enabled by strong mutual dependence between the two, where the spatial planners can further the personal or group-level economic interests of the developers, and they in turn can secure either political or economic support to the planners, which can be either on a personal or group level. Realistically, informal participation ranges from lobbying, across to clientelism and to corruption. As (Inst. IP1) states, “All this informal participation is just for achieving someone’s interests, it’s a cliantelistic approach... they are all rent seekers, and try to influence the process in any way possible, from finding holes in legislation to who knows what. For example, there is Mister X, who got a construction permit for a hotel in the contact zone, but who knows how. However, everyone knew that it is not going to be a hotel but a

107

private estate, and he got the permits anyway, even if he should not have. All laws are applied very elastically, depending on whom, and those privileged actors get what they want due to their political, hidden ties to the process. We all loose from their involvement, from what they have unrightfully taken over from us.” Due to its egalitarian treatment of wants and seeing participation as facilitator of decision- making, ‘Urbanistic’ spatial planning puts emphasis on public hearings and passive participation. Architectural spatial planning puts emphasis on consultation and informal participation, due to its focus on expertise and emphasis of personal calculation of costs and benefits.

Figure 36. Perceptions of participation The perceptions of participation (Figure 36) differ according to the mechanism of participation, type (direct or indirect) of participation, and according to the perception of the outcome of the process. In a range from passive to informal participation, the level of feedback from the planners and the frequency of interaction increase. These are all important elements through which stakeholders see that the mechanism through which they are participating has an impact on the process, and thus they label it as fair, substantive and adequate. As (SINP4) states, 108

“We became a part of the inner team. They included us in the internal meetings, pre- meetings, in all steps of the development of the plan. Although we provide our expert background comments, which are our obligation, we most certainly had good relations with them. We talked freely, face-to-face, and we responded to each other’s ideas in proper manner. Our participation was done properly”. In a subsequent interview where the interviewees were contrasted with the perception of ‘procedural fairness’ and how ‘substantial’ their participation actually is, (Min. Cult3) states the following: “Yes I attended these meetings. The last one was on the change of borders, and the planners were there, people from different ministries, agencies… It was also on the tunnels and the roads, and the Zagreb-North bypass road. We talked a lot, gave our opinions, expertise and that was all right... but yes, when I look at it now and look at what followed, nothing concrete happened later on; they did not bring us a map or any ‘area interpreter’, no formal conclusions, it was more like that they came to talk, and that’s it. We are participating, but who knows what will happen in the end? Who knows if we had any effect in it?” The possible high personal benefits of participation are also matched with increased personal costs of participation, as informal participation requires much more resources (time, information, political connections, and economic resources) than passive participation does. In the opposite direction, ranging from informal to passive participation, the impersonal character of participation increases and the level of feedback from the planners decreases. These elements are important elements through which stakeholders perceive that the mechanism through which they are participating has low or no impact on the process, and thus they label it as inadequate, symbolic and unfair. As (Mount1) states, “We the mountaineers in the beginning have participated to some of the meetings and hearings. However, later on with these hearings many things happened, and it would be as if we did not come, as it seems that they see us as the ones who just complain and are in contact with the greens… it did not make much sense to be there. When we come and talk, there is no real feedback, as if they were not listening to what we were saying, and we got lost in the large group of people. Why should I waste my time when I am not really getting to them? We are not talking like two people face-to-face and responding to one another”. The low perceived level of impact on the process is matched by low level of resources needed

109 for public hearings, and especially for passive participation. From the procedural-organizational perspective of spatial planners, public hearings and passive participation require low ‘costs’ in order to address high number of stakeholders, and are favored in the Urbanistic context. Under certain conditions, each of the mechanisms of participation has a potential to have an impact on the process of spatial planning, and thus be labeled as adequate. Stakeholders who directly represent themselves in informal participation and consultation always label these mechanisms as adequate. The stakeholders on whom they are applied can label both public hearings and passive participation as adequate if other influential actors indirectly represent them through ‘higher’ mechanisms (consultation and informal participation). If these representatives are not influential, the focal actor will label public hearings and passive participation as adequate. Perception of the entire system of participation (all the applied mechanisms) and of the entire process of spatial planning does not depend on the choice of applied participation mechanism on the focal actor. Instead, it depends on the perception of the outcome of the process of spatial planning. If the focal actor perceives dominant interests to be aligned with its own, the actor will perceive the outcome of the process of spatial planning as favorable, and thus will consider the whole system of participation and the process of spatial planning as adequate. If the focal actor perceives dominant interests not to be aligned with its own, the actor will perceive the outcome of the process of spatial planning as unfavorable, and thus will consider the whole system of participation and the process of spatial planning as inadequate. These relations can be summed up in: (Inst. IP1): “But participation itself does not define how much someone will be satisfied with the way stakeholders have been treated and all of that. Two conclusions are here. Firstly, one way or another, everyone participated. Secondly, people will be happy with the spatial planning only if they see that what they want is or will be included in the plan”. This is not just valid for ‘external stakeholders, but for the state administration as well, (SINP2) states: “I really do not believe in this way of participation and spatial planning. If we did something more transparent and structured we would get better results. It would be far more transparent if everyone stated their real interests and ideas, and share the information that they have. That is my opinion and is not how they do it. They include all the institutional and non-institutional stakeholders, but in an unstructured way, with unclear roles. It’s not right”.

110

As expected, the position of SINP whose ideas have not been strongly presented in the plan itself is contrasted by the position of those organizations, which had their ideas strongly presented in the Plan (Cro. Forest2): “Participation was adequate, and it was more than adequate. My opinion is that we had too much of it. The discussions with the people usually stray away from the topics that should be the focus of work to something else, like it happened with the changes of the borders… everyone has their own ideas and interests and it makes the story stray away from where it should be”. The line of thought that permeates in all of the results presented above is that actors have a purpose to further their interests and everything that they do: (participate, protest…), say (find the process adequate or inadequate, appeal to public interest…) or think (on how favorable the outcome for them will be, what is allowed in the park…) is defined by their socio-political context, which shapes the interests, perceptions on the process and to a large extent it defines the ‘paths of interactions’ between the actors (e.g. power relations, general culture of public participation, level of urbanization, etc.). One may ask whether it is futile to try to reach a deeper understanding of a participatory process without going deep into its contextual setting.

4.3. Formal Hypotheses

The main ideas found in both the ‘mechanistic’ and ‘classical’ results are presented in a series of hypotheses. These represent the results of this research, and provide the basis for future testing of its findings in other cases; which will ultimately be the judge of the validity of all the claims that have been made here. These hypotheses are divided into three groups. The first group is represented by general (‘core’) hypotheses, which are valid for all three processes. They are also the most general ones, and ‘explain’ the basic ‘mechanisms’ by which interaction of actors occurs. The second group is auxiliary hypotheses and assumptions. These represent contextual conditions, and are different for each process. They also bridge the difference between the ‘core’ hypotheses/assumptions and the third group: ‘Hypotheses of process’. These hypotheses represent relational statements that are specific for each process, and describe concrete relations between important concepts and contextual conditions as they have been presented by data and analysis of each of the three processes. The final column to the right provides comments on each ‘process hypotheses’. In total, there are 15 general assumptions, 14 auxiliary assumptions and 34 ‘process hypotheses’ (not counting the duplicates from the second and the third process). 111

GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AND HYPOTHESES 1. Actions of actors have a purpose of furthering their interests. 2. Stakeholders are all those who can influence or can be influenced by the process of spatial planning. 3. Actors participate when the perceived benefits of participation outweigh its costs. More intimate and continuous participation with more feedbacks from the planners exhorts more costs on the focal actor. 4. General socio-political context affects the social structure of spatial planning, both of which strongly affect the interactions of actors. For local spatial planning the most important factors of general socio-political context are level of urbanization, culture of direct participation in local policy-making, and the level of regionalization of state administration. 5. Culture of direct participation in local policy-making de-values the bureaucratic efficiency and enhances the spirit of collectivism, while its absence enhances the spirit of individualism. 6. High value of bureaucratic efficiency, low culture of participation in local policy-making and high level of urbanization increase the importance of expertise and decrease the importance of participation in spatial planning. 7. Regionalized state administration, weak culture of direct participation in local policy-making, high level of urbanization and strong spirit of individualism promote individual, human centered values. An opposite status of these factors promotes non-individual nature centered values. 8. Level of intimacy and the level of feedback from the planners of a participation mechanism are positively affected by level of organization, expertise, and the economic and political power of the focal actor. 9. Level of intimacy and the level of feedback from the planners are the main factors through which stakeholders perceive that they have an impact in the process of spatial planning. 10. Perception of having personal impact in the process of spatial planning is the main factor of labeling the used mechanism of participation as adequate, substantive and fair. 11. Mechanisms of participation with low level of intimacy and feedback from the planners can be labeled as adequate, substantive and fair if another influential actor also represents the focal actor through other participation mechanisms, which have these characteristics. 12. Positive perception of the whole system of participation and on the spatial planning in general depends on how favorable the probable outcome of the process is for the focal actor. The probable favorable outcome of the spatial planning is conditioned by the alignment of dominant interests with the interests of the focal actor. 13. The level of benefits, which a focal actor can assure for those governing the process of spatial planning, will set the extent to which the actor will have influence on the process of spatial planning. 14. Increase of the importance of participation in spatial planning decreases the discretionary rights of planners over the process and increases its organizational complexity. 15. The more information an actor has, the more certain they are in their (potential) benefits and costs of participation.

111

FIRST PROCESS Auxiliary assumptions Hypotheses of process Comments 1. The local (municipal) administration has more 1. Within the participation mechanisms of There was a comprehensive feedback of power over policy setting than the regional spatial planning for NP Medvednica, experts experts on the issues raised during the administration. There is a continuous engage themselves in strong two-way public hearings. Representatives of civil feedback of constituents towards the local interaction with the lay. society had strong presence in the officials. consultations. Leaders of the process (spatial planners) strived for consensual 2. There is a low level of urbanization, which decision-making. provides little economic opportunities both for 2. Citizens feel that they are represented by Citizens felt that their municipal officials development interest groups and for citizens their municipal officials in the process of represent them. in general. spatial planning for NP Medvednica . 3. Participation in the spatial planning for NP The list of stakeholders identified by the 3. Political elites support hunting interests. Medvednica encompasses a wide range of Institute of urbanism is almost the same as Hunting interests are furthered if there is no stakeholders. the one defined in this research. spatial plan for NP Medvednica. 4. Citizens and civil society participate through There was one survey made with the public hearings and surveys. They are very citizens on Medvednica, public hearings 4. From all groups of stakeholders, citizens have active in the process. were done only with the local communities, the lowest level of knowledge on the process in each municipality separately, there is no of spatial planning. record on the number of participants. 5. Both public administration and Both public administration and representatives of civil society participate representatives of civil society have through consultations. participated through consultations. 6. Spatial plan is not made due to high Results are inconclusive for these two procedural costs of broad participation. hypotheses. The dominant perspective of 7. Spatial plan is not made due to political the actors is that these factors had equal pressures in favor of hunting interests. weight for stopping the process of spatial planning for NP Medvednica. 8. Spatial plan is to be made through Data does not support the hypothesis, as a consensual decision making of all spatial plan for NP Medvednica was not stakeholders. prepared at that time. 9. All groups of stakeholders characterize the Results support the hypothesis. mechanism of participation, which they are a part of as adequate.

112

10. All groups of stakeholders characterize the As all of the stakeholders became aware whole system of participation and the spatial that the outcome of the process would be in planning in general as adequate. their favor, they also considered the process itself to be adequate. SECOND PROCESS Auxiliary assumptions Hypotheses of process Comments 1. The regional administration has more power 1. Within the participation mechanisms of As the level of expertise that goes into it over policy setting than the local spatial planning for NP Medvednica, experts defines the merits of the plan, experts have administration does. There is a low level of refrain themselves from strong two-way no incentives to value lay wants. feedback of constituents towards the officials. interaction with the lay. Experts gain no prominence in the circle of their peers by attributing equal weight to 2. Re-election of regional officials depends more expert and lay opinions. on the support from development interest From the position of planners, broad groups than on the support of people from any participation primarily represents a single local setting within that region. procedural cost, and does not enrich the process. 3. There is a high level of urbanization, which 2. Citizens do not feel that their municipal Citizens do not feel that they are provides high economic opportunities both for officials in the process of spatial planning represented by municipalities, as development interest groups and for its for NP Medvednica represent them. municipalities to not have strong influence citizens in general. on the process and in general, there is low trust between municipal officials and their 4. From all groups of stakeholders, citizens have constituents. In addition, citizens do not see the lowest level of knowledge on the process how municipalities in the consultations of spatial planning. represent them. Citizens feel that they are represented by NGOs as they can see how they are participating through public hearings and in the public media and as NGOs have uncompromising interests. 3. Participation in spatial planning for NP Spatial planners consider only state Medvednica encompasses a narrow range of administration as stakeholders, and stakeholders. everyone else just as those who are to be informed on the developments of the process, and not having a stake in the process.

113

4. Emphasis in participation is on more active Emphasis is on informal participation and mechanisms, which require pronounced consultation. Consultation is emphasized as costs of participation from stakeholders and it promotes the value of expertise. Informal which provide high level of intimacy and participation is emphasized as it provides feedback from the planners. high (potential) benefits to the planners in the form of political and economic support. These mechanisms of participation also have low procedural/organizational costs, and planners do not gain personal benefits by increasing the procedural complexity of the process of spatial planning. 5. Representatives of civil society do not As consultations are reserved just for participate through consultations. professional experts, the planners do not extend the invitation to civil society. 6. Spatial planners try to monopolize the Planners consider state administration as discretionary rights over the process. stakeholders, while the state administration considers itself as part of the spatial planning team. In this manner, the planners (City of Zagreb) secure power over the process, which in turn increases their potential benefits that may arise from informal participation. 7. Public reaction that surpasses normal spatial Development interests have launched a planning and becomes a general political media campaign that has caused strong issue (affects regional elections) has an public reaction in the form of mass protest. impact on the process. As this protest was potentially significant for regional elections, the borders of NP were decreased. 8. Majority of citizens who are actively Majority of those who participated in the participating will do so in order to further public hearings wanted the area of the park their own economic interests. decreased. Vast majority of citizens who did not participate in public hearings or did not openly raise their claims at these hearings considered that they have little personal benefits of participation, only costs, and that they would be better 114

represented by a more organized group – NGOs. 9. Decisions are based on professional Spatial planners see that merits of a spatial expertise. plan are based on the level of expertise that goes into it. 10. Citizens and civil society characterize Seeing that they have no personal influence surveys and public hearings as inadequate. on the process, both citizens and civil society characterize the process as inadequate. 11. State administration and development As both of these groups participate in the interest groups characterize consultations as process through mechanisms with high adequate. level of intimacy and feedback from the planners, they see these mechanisms as ‘fair’ and adequate 12. Citizens and civil society characterize the By seeing the probable outcome of the whole system of participation and the process as unfavorable, both citizens and process of spatial planning in general as civil society characterize the process of inadequate. spatial planning as inadequate. 13. Parts of state administration and interest By seeing the probable outcome of the groups, which have human centered values, process as unfavorable, both state characterize the whole system of administration and interest groups which participation and the process of spatial have human centered values characterize planning in general as adequate. the whole system of participation and the process of spatial planning in general as adequate. This goes from the state administration, the Ministry of Construction and Spatial Planning, all t regional and the majority of local administration. In addition, the City of Zagreb, Medvednicas’ municipalities involved in the spatial planning, the Ministry of culture and SINP. 14. Parts of the state administration, which have This is valid for the State Institute on balanced values, characterize the whole Nature Protection, Ministry of Culture and system of participation and the process of Ministry of Environment and Nature spatial planning in general as inadequate. Protection.

115

15. Spatial plan is not to be made due to The relative weight of public wants and the pressures of development interest groups. pressures of development interest groups in 16. The area of NP Medvednica is decreased the realization of these outcomes is not due to the pressures of development interest clearly defined. groups. 17. The area of NP Medvednica is decreased due to the pressures of the public towards urbanization. 18. Hunting associations characterize the As hunting interests are no longer process of spatial planning as inadequate supported by the political elites, they no and unfair. longer have an influence on the process. THIRD PROCESS Auxiliary assumptions Hypotheses of process Comments 1. The regional administration has more power 1. Within the participation mechanisms of Previously commented. Second process - over policy setting than the local spatial planning for NP Medvednica, experts H1. administration does. There is a low level of refrain themselves from strong two-way feedback of constituents towards the officials. interaction with the lay. 2. Citizens do not feel that their municipal Previously commented. Second process - 2. The re-election of regional officials depends officials in the process of spatial planning H2. more on the support from development for NP Medvednica represent them. interest groups than on the support of people 3. Participation in spatial planning for NP Previously commented. Second process - from any single, local setting within that Medvednica encompasses a narrow range of H3. region. stakeholders.

4. Due to strong pressures of the central state Only one expert background document, 3. There is a high level of urbanization, which administration, minimal levels of expert conditioned by the EU is prepared. provides high economic opportunities both for background documents are prepared. development interest groups and for its 5. Due to strong pressures of central state The planners characterize the majority of citizens in general. administration, minimal level of participation from the second process as participation is exercised. belonging to the third process. Planners 4. From all groups of stakeholders, citizens have have stated in the public hearings that none the lowest level of knowledge on the process of the comments from the public hearings of spatial planning. will be considered for the spatial plan; but that they will be considered in the future spatial planning processes. 116

5. The area of the park is decreased, and 6. Emphasis in participation is placed on more Previously commented. Second process - majority of interest linked to urbanization are active mechanisms, which require H4. realized. pronounced costs of participation from stakeholders, and which provide high level of intimacy and feedback from the planners. 6. There are high interests by the central state administration that a spatial plan for NP is made, as it would provide future EU-funded 7. Representatives of civil society do not Previously commented. Second process - development and thus political support to the participate through consultations. H5. current administration. 8. Spatial planners try to monopolize the Previously commented. Second process - discretionary rights over the process. H6. 9. There is low level of participation from the As the area of the park is decreased, there citizens and civil society to participate. are no interests for citizens with potential personal economic benefit to participate. The diminished area of the park is not under strong pressures of urbanization, so there are little incentives to push for nature protection from the side of citizens and civil society. As there is no interest from the development groups to launch media campaigns, awareness of citizens on the process of spatial planning is low, which in turn decreases their participation. 10. Decisions are based on professional Previously commented. Second process - expertise. H9. 11. Citizens and civil society characterize Previously commented. Second process - surveys and public hearings as inadequate. H10. 12. State administration and development Previously commented. Second process - interest groups characterize consultations as H11. adequate. 13. Citizens and civil society characterize the Previously commented. Second process - whole system of participation and the H12. process of spatial planning in general as inadequate. 14. Parts of the state administration and interest Previously commented. Second process - groups, which have human centered values, H13.

117

characterize the whole system of participation and the process of spatial planning in general as adequate. 15. Parts of state administration, which have Previously commented. Second process - balanced values, characterizes the whole H14. system of participation and the process of spatial planning in general as inadequate. 16. In order to legalize their investments, the Although the results show abundance of development interest groups urge that a support for all of the three hypotheses, the spatial plan for NP Medvednica is made. relative ‘weight’ of these factors on the 17. In order to secure future political support, adoption of a spatial plan for NP the central state administration advocates Medvednica not clearly defined that a spatial plan for NP Medvednica is made. 18. Seeing it as a compromise solution between nature protection and urbanization, planners approve the spatial plan for NP Medvednica with a diminished coverage.

Table 2. Formal hypotheses and propositions

118

By looking at all of the hypotheses, it can be observed that all of their content has been described in the previous segments outlining the results: However, their explicit nature allows us to focus on the most important claims. It is also evident that the second and the third process share a number of hypotheses (14), which are set by almost the same contextual setting of the second and the third process. Nevertheless, another important thing can be detected; it is very difficult for a ‘social – scientific calculation’ based on prior analysis of a process to demonstrate what its outcome will be. Due to its design and contextual factors, there was a ‘high chance’ that the first process would produce a plan; unfortunately, that did not happen (hypotheses 6, 7 and 8 of the first process). In addition, it would be very difficult to define the relative importance of the procedural costs of participation, local hunters and their central political supporters in blocking the process; and this research has failed to do so. The factors, which shape the second process, clearly show that the area of the park was to be decreased; although the relative importance of landowners and construction lobby in these developments has not been identified. But the contextual factors and the relations between the actors were not enough indicative that a plan will not be made in the second process, as the interests of the most pronounced groups have been realized to a great extent. The strength of the relation between the City of Zagreb and the skiing and touristic interests has been presented in the interviews, but not as strongly and explicitly that they would halt the process. Similar analysis can be stated for the third process; an examination of the case prior to the actual adoption of the plan would show that the plan is made in order to legitimize what has been developed thus far. However, the ‘sudden’ (due to specific EU-funding opportunities) interests of the state administration, which occurred from the analysis, could not have been foreseen (hypotheses 16 and 17 of the third process). There is also a third cause for adoption of the plan; in its current form, it is a compromise solution between construction and protection. For instance, planners, SINP and MC maintain this position. In addition, it is recognized by Parliament (Parliament, PZ Nr. 140, 2014); nevertheless, they note that this is secondary to the pressures of the central state administration.

119

CHAPTER V DISCUSSION

5.1. Analysis and Results

By looking at the results of this research, it seems that they form a ‘channel’ that is at its top full of complicated relations, abundance of well-developed and not-so-well developed concepts, which then gradually ‘condense’ to smaller sets of descriptions, meanings and relations. If a clear-cut distinction is made in the results on the ‘intermediary-mechanistic’ and ‘classical’ results, it can be stated that the ‘classical’ results contain enough conceptual description of the process, provide meaning to the perspective of the interviewees and form a storyline and hypotheses that are perhaps enough to stand on their own. In such context, it becomes evident that this ‘intermediary’ analysis was unneeded. This question cannot be answered currently; as it was not tested – i.e. the design of the analysis was not envisioned as such, that one researcher performed only the ‘classical’ analysis, while the other researcher prepared both of them. As previously discussed (pg. 3), the purpose of ‘intermediary’ (or ‘mechanistic’) analysis was to cope with the bias of having one researcher do all the analysis. However, looking back and comparing these two approaches it can be stated that to a certain extent they are complementary. Quite early in the process of data collection and analysis it seemed that the research would focus on a narrow set of ideas and relations (mostly focused on ‘mechanisms’ of participation). However, after the majority of interviews have been done and when all of the procedures of the ‘mechanistic’ approach were initially completed, an abundance of concepts and their relations emerged. While studying these relations, many new directions opened up. Such scenario could likely be overlooked at the level of classical analysis. Some of these advantages are:  Conceptualizing the entire participation process of spatial planning of Medvednica as two separate processes: one, which is visible, and one, which is hidden (L1xL1 matrix – Figure 20, pg.58). In the ‘classical’ analysis, these elements led to further exploration of perceptions of planners of the role participation should have in spatial planning.  Grouping different elements (actors, ‘mechanisms’ of participation, perceptions of participation, interests and activities) that support and oppose the current system of spatial planning (L1xL2 matrix, Figure 23, pg.64). In the ‘classical’ analysis, this led to further

120

exploration of power relations among actors.  Conceptually defining the theoretical process, which leads to fulfilling the interests of public and enhancement of nature protection (balanced planning through active engagement, RxR matrix, Figure 26, p.69). In ‘classical’ analysis, these elements led to further exploration of the effects of general socio-political context on the design of spatial planning.  Recognizing self-enhancing ‘mechanisms’ of Power as driving force and Structure of exclusion (L1xR matrix, Figure 28, pg.73), which explained the distancing of citizens and civil society from the process of participation. In ‘classical’ analysis, these elements led to the examination of interplay between process and context, i.e. how actions and relations among actors affect the ‘local’ contextual setting, and so indirectly affect the subsequent interactions. Although the ‘mechanistic’ approach illustrated many ‘hidden’ relations between the concepts – its biggest shortcoming is how the concepts are defined in the first place. They are much better identified in the ‘classical’ approach, as they are defined based on their properties and dimensions. Examples of these differences are identifying Non-participation in L1 as a form of participation that has no effect on the process of spatial planning, whereas its equivalent in the ‘classical’ analysis is Passive participation, which can have effect on the process of spatial planning (only in the ‘Urbanistic’ context of spatial planning). However, it can also be seen that all of the ill-defined concepts in the ‘mechanistic’ analysis are actually valid for the second and third process, but not for the first. Such outcome points to the biggest procedural problem of the ‘mechanistic’ approach – in its current form, it was not able to address the strong changes in contextual setting which occurred between the first and the second process. This issue can be remedied by inclusion of the conditional matrix (Strauss and Corbin, 1998. p.181-199) in the process (most fitting in the relational analysis). One other advantage of the ‘mechanistic’ approach as an intermediary step to ‘classical’ analysis was the visualization of relations between the concepts, which allowed for easier identification of the most important patterns. This helped to discard the secondary aspects of the research in the ‘classical’ analysis that would lead it too far away from the central phenomenon. However, ‘classical’ analysis also forms a GT storyline which is much more straight-forward and easier to understand; one which is at the same time linked directly to actual case of spatial planning for NP Medvednica and one which is also enough theoretical to be easily transformed into formal hypotheses that can be tested in other cases. This is rooted in how concepts are developed in each of the two approaches for analysis. It makes ‘mechanistic’ analysis unsuitable to stand on its own.

121

All of this discussion may lead to an important question: How much is the presented analysis in line with grounded theory? To answer this question, a series of postulates of grounded theory (Corbin and Strauss, 1990) can be commented in light of this research:  Data collection and analysis are interrelated processes These two processes were done in parallel, as presented on pg.25 and 33.  Concepts are basic units of analysis Research was based on concepts of different level of abstraction. The only issue was over-abundance of concepts, sizable number of under-developed concepts and a series of concepts that are far from the general phenomenon. However, by combining the two approaches for analysis, a smaller set of well-developed concepts and their relation emerged.  Sampling in grounded theory proceeds on theoretical grounds As explained on pg.30-32, the questions and the interviewees of the subsequent interviews were chosen with respect to defining different aspect of concepts and their relations.  Analysis makes use of constant comparison The labels have been compared to one another. In the ‘mechanistic’ analysis, all of Level 1, Level 2, relational codes and central categories have been compared against another; the same applies for ‘classical’ analysis. The purpose of the comparison was to leave no overlap between the code, which also improves their logical basis and clarity of meaning.  Patterns and variations must be accounted for Many concepts have variations. Examples include differences in the perceived adequacy of certain levels of participation and of participation in general: change in the role of participation in spatial planning with the change of general socio-political setting, change of dominant interests of citizens of Zagreb with change of available information, change of representation of citizens in the process of participation with the change of organization of state administration and change of the general political setting.  Writing theoretical memos is an integral part of doing grounded theory Memos are developed for all codes. They have also been changing as the analysis and data collection was progressing. Examples of memos can be found for four relational codes on pages 36, 37 and 41, and in Annexes II, III and IV.  Hypotheses about relationships among categories are developed and verified as much as possible during the research process 122

A total of 63 hypotheses, propositions and assumptions have been made. The interviewees have verified all of them.  A grounded theorists need not work alone This basic postulate of GT was not respected, as one researcher did the whole analysis. However, all the ‘intermediary – mechanistic’ analysis was done in order to remedy this problem.  Broader structural conditions must be brought into the analysis, however microscopic the research Many structural conditions have been taken into account, both on the macro (general socio-political system) and on the micro level (characteristics of national and local system of spatial planning). They are present in both types of analysis, and both in the storyline and the hypotheses of the ‘classical’ analysis.

By looking at all of the final results - the hypotheses, it can be seen that all of their content has been described in the previous segments of results. Nevertheless, their explicit nature allows us to focus on the most important claims. It is also evident that the second and third process share many hypotheses (14), which are set by almost the same contextual setting of the second and third process. However, another important aspect can be observed; it is fairly challenging for a prior scientific analysis of a process to demonstrate what its outcome will be. Due to its design and contextual factors, there was a ‘high chance’ that the first process would produce a plan; however, that did not happen (hypotheses 6, 7 and 8 of the first process). In addition, it would be very difficult to define the relative importance of the procedural costs of participation, local hunters and their central political supporters in blocking the process; and this research has failed to do so. The factors, which shaped the second process clearly shown that the area of the park was to be decreased; although the relative importance of the landowners and the construction lobby in these developments have not been identified. But the contextual factors and the relations between the actors were not enough indicative that a plan will not be made in the second process, as the interests of the most pronounced groups have been realized to a great extent. The potency of the relation between the City of Zagreb skiing and touristic interests has been presented in the interviewees, but not so strongly and explicitly that they would stop the process. A similar assumption can be stated for the third process; an analysis of the case prior to the actual adoption of the plan would show that the plan would be made in order to legitimize what was developed so far. However, the ‘sudden’ (due to specific EU-funding opportunities) interests of the state

123 administration, which occurred out of the context analyzed, could not have been foreseen (hypotheses 16 and 17 of the third process). There is also a third reason for the plan’s adoption; in its current form, it is a compromise solution between construction and protection. It was the planners, the State Institute on Nature Protection and the Ministry of Culture who held such a position. It is also recognized by Parliament (Parliament, 2014); nonetheless, they also note that this is secondary to the pressures of the central state administration.

5.2. Research Through Alternative Theoretical Lenses

5.2.1 Introduction

Glaser’s approach (Glaser, 1992) to grounded theory was applied by which the use of literature comes after the analysis. The primary purpose of scientific literature review it is to contrast the conceptualizations of this research with conceptualizations of other authors from their theories and studies. However, classifying this research as ‘Glaserian’ might be irrelevant, as for some, each grounded theory is unique in its approach, and there are as many versions of it as there are grounded theorists (Dey, 1999, p.2). The first step in this comparison was to identify the theories and studies to which this study is to be compared with. This was first done by Internet search through Scopus and Google Scholar with key words and phrases that represent the main ideas of the research. These include the following: stakeholders, participation in public decision making/spatial planning/protected areas, power relations, social costs and benefits. In addition, two handbooks have been analyzed that cover sociological (Ritzer, 2008) and political science (Marsk and Stoker, 2002). The search resulted with four types of theories: defining the participation itself: stakeholder analysis, family of theories on power and social exchange theory. These four fields are addressed in the following sections.

5.2.2.Levels of Participation

The research question focuses on the impact of participation on the process of spatial planning. Nevertheless, in the context of public decision-making, what forms does participation take? One 124 of the definitions (World Bank, Santiso, 2001) states that participation is a process through which stakeholder’s influence and share control over development initiatives and the decisions and resources that affects them. Subsequently, participation can encompass anything ranging from a merely discarded obligation in the context of informing the public up to a binding agreement on implementation. This chapter tries to answer such question, and to compare the participation concepts of this research to the existing literature on different levels of participation. The definitions of dissimilar levels of participation in different scales actually represent what participation is in its essence. This section will not go into reasons for participation and on deliberative democracy (e.g. Cohen, 1989; Dryzek, 2010; Elster, 1989; Smith, 2003; Thompson, 2008), or into the effects of participation (e.g. Abelson and Gauvin, 2006; Mendelberg, 2002; OECD, 2005; Rowe and Frewer, 2004). It is not easy to provide an answer to what participation entail. In an attempt to understand, what participation is (Brodie et al 2009) have performed a thorough literature review. After going through 232 referenced sources, there are very few ones, which actually try to somehow list or scale different types of participation. The most renowned classification of participation is the one of Arnstein’s (1969) ‘ladder of participation’ (Figure 37).

Figure 37. Arnstein’s ladder of participation (Source: Arnstein, 1969)

Although in title the participation relates to citizens, in many of the examples that the author shares refer to different stake holding groups, where the primary distinction between the ‘citizens’ and that of the ‘officials’ is the distribution of power over the decision-making process; where the former starts from the position of powerlessness, and the latter are the power-holders. This classification consists out of eight ‘rugs’, categorized into three groups. The meanings of the elements of this classification are the following: 125

1. Manipulation. The lowest type of participation represents education, persuasion and advising of stakeholders – and not the other way around. This illusionary form of participation falls into the category of non-participation. 2. Therapy. Represents ‘adjustment of values and attitudes of the participants to those of the larger society’, by which the discussion is deliberately drawn away from the important topics. Due to its level of dishonesty of the leaders of the process, it may be even lower than Manipulation. This rug also falls into the category of non-participation. 3. Informing. Represents one-way flow on information from officials to the stakeholders, where there is no feedback option. Usually applied in late stages of planning, when all the important decisions are already made. This falls into category of Tokenism. 4. Consultation. It represents the next step towards inclusion of stakeholders. Represents a feedback from stakeholders to the officials, where the feedback is limited to statistical abstractions, numbering the participants to the meetings or the number of respondents to a questionnaire. If not combined with other (higher) types of participation, it represents just empty form of participation, devoid of substantial impact on the decisions. This too falls into the category of Tokenism. 5. Placation. This represents inclusion of stakeholders in the process of decision-making, but to an extent that they do not have substantial power over the process, and thus do not have practical impact on the decisions. This also falls into category of Tokenism. 6. Partnership. This represents the first ‘rug’ in which stakeholders have a substantial impact on the decision-making process. In partnership, the power is redistributed through negotiations between stakeholders and the officials, which results in mechanisms of decision-making (e.g. joint policy boards, planning committees, etc.) in which there are no unilateral changes. This falls into the category of Citizen Power. 7. Delegated power. This represents continuation of negotiations between the stakeholders and the officials from Partnership, where stakeholders gain dominant position over the officials in the process of decision-making. This falls into category of Citizen Power. 8. Citizen control. This represents the control of stakeholders in governing a program or an institution, both in formal decision-making and in the implementation of decisions. This is the highest ‘rug’ in the category of Citizen Power.

126

Arnstein herself is critical of the ‘ladder’, most notably that the powerless and the power holders are not homogenous groups. Another critique is that it does not consider impediments to participation, which are internal to both groups; from the side of power holders those are paternalism, resistance to power redistribution and racism. From the side of the powerless those are low socio-economic infrastructure, low knowledge base, lack of collective action, lack of resources, and distrust in the process. The most important critique is the fact that any categorization of participation is artificial and a gross simplification of reality, as what actually exists is a continuous range of participation, with no ‘pure’ distinctions between them.

Recognizing that Arnstein’s ladder is the dominant view on ‘levels’ of participation, Quetzal- Tritter and McCallum (2006) continue the critique of the ‘ladder’, by stating that its focus on the distribution of power downplays the importance of knowledge, expertise and procedural justice. However, they do not propose an alternative, they just point to a need to go beyond a simple hierarchical structure, and move towards multiple ladders for different categories of stakeholders, which also have multiple ‘bridges’ between the ‘rugs’. In addition, they recommend that for describing participation, the focus should be on building a scheme of different involvement methods, where the characteristics of each method would be in line with the characteristics of different groups of actors.

Petts and Leach (2000) have done precisely that. Based on literature review, they have made a four-point categorization of participation of (1) Education and information provision, (2) Information feedback, (3) Involvement and consultation and (4) Extended involvement. Next, each of these types has been further disseminated onto a series of well-characterized involvement methods (e.g. brochures, deliberative pools, workshops, etc.), which in the end resulted in 25 involvement methods. This work was based on the simplification of Wilcox’s (1994) work on ‘systematizing’ participation, the result of which is presented in Figure 38.

127

Figure 38. Wilcox’s classification of participation

IAPP (IAPP2) presented in the spectrum of public participation (Figure 39), made similar classification. This categorization ranges from Informing on the left, where there is no or little citizen involvement and impact, and to Delegated power on the far right, where citizens have complete control of the public participation process and its outcomes.

Figure 39. IAPP2 spectrum of public participation (IAPP, 2004) 128

Needless to say, all of these categorizations are inferior to Arnstein’s work, as her ladder also encompasses ‘non-participation’ elements, which are an important segment of practical decision- making. For this reason, the concepts of participation gained from this research will be primarily compared to Arnstein’s ladder of participation.

From the ‘intermediary-mechanistic’ analysis, there are 12 codes, which directly relate to participation. The L1 code Non-participation has elements of Manipulation and Informing, as stakeholders are just informed on the developments of spatial planning after (all important) decisions are made; however, the major purpose of this ‘informing’ is to ‘educate’ stakeholders on how the decisions are made in the best interest of all interested parties. As previously stated, this is quite similar to elements of Arnstein’s ladder – but this is not found in other ladders that have been discussed. The L1 code Public hearings have elements of Therapy and Consultation; as all the comments of the stakeholders are orderly written down and then discarded. The public hearings are a convenient forum for the planners to administer ‘therapy’ as to how the process is too complicated to be understood as a whole, and how the final decisions have to be made on the basic expertise held by the planners. The L1 code Consultation is more complex, as it encompasses elements of Consultation, Placation and even Partnership. The specificities of L1 code Consultation depend on who is being ‘consulted’, and is in direct relation to the level of power held by the ‘consulted party’. In the case of state administrations’ expert agencies (SINP), state-owned companies (Croatian forests Ltd.) or institutions (PI NP Medvednica) and parts of the state administration with Balanced interests (Ministry of Culture) it is Consultation; they are listened to, and then planners continue on with the envisaged set of ideas. In the case of more powerful parts of state administration, with Human centered interests like (Krapinsko-Zagorska County, Zagrebacka County) it represents Placation; as they have some influence on the process. Lastly, L1 Consultation can be viewed as Partnership in the case of the Ministry of Construction and Spatial Planning in the second and third process as the coordinator of spatial plan was the Ministry and the actual planning was done by the City of Zagreb. It should also be noted that the level of inclusion of different stakeholders within L1 Consultation is directly related to the level of similarity of interests between the stake-holding party and the Formal decider. The interests of the City of Zagreb are very different from the ones of the State Institute on Nature Protection and they share general inclination with the interest of other two counties. They are almost the same as the interests of the Ministry of Construction and Spatial Planning – as both of them are

129 fairly aligned with the interests of the Power behind the throne (mostly construction lobby). As for the L1 and L2 codes - Informal participation, it is not clear how prudent it is to call this participation. Nevertheless, if a relation to Arnstein’s ladder has to be made, the relation would go to the highest ‘rug’, where the stakeholders have the power over the process. There are also several relational codes that are directly related to participation. The first is Deciders as stakeholders, which relates to the treatment of different parts of state administration by the City of Zagreb as external actors, which have no influence over the process, while they themselves believe that they do. There is a clear link between this code and the Consultation ‘rug’. The second one is the Procedural control of the City of Zagreb, which relates to how the City of Zagreb has captured all the power over the process, regardless of what types of participation are exercised. In general, this code is related to the group Tokenism and its three ‘rugs’; and the same goes to the Dictate of the powerful code. The code Practical exclusion from the process relates to the lack of participation of stakeholders due to their lack of trust in the process and the manipulations of the powerful groups; this code is related to the Non participation group and its two rugs. The next one is an Active stakeholder, by which the stakeholders have the prevailing power on what the decision will be. Although this code is related to Delegated power, it has to be considered what kinds of interests these actors have, and ‘where’ these interests come from (The issue of ‘true’ interests; see pg. 71). The last code is the Decrease in participation over time. There is no direct link to Arnstein’s ladder to this code, as it relates to the change in the ‘levels’ of participation from the first to the third process. In order to crudely ‘evaluate’ the rugs of participation in each of the three processes, we could look at the ‘numbers’ behind the participation in each of the three processes (as shown in section 2.6. Overview of participation in spatial planning, p. 18-23): the number and type of organization of public hearings, the results from the comments of stakeholders, the number of experts involved, and the extent of the usage of questionnaires and public media in informing. Taking the above elements into consideration, it can be stated (Figure 40) that the first process was on the level of Consultation, the second one was on the level of Therapy, and the third one is on the level of Informing. All these elements also show in detail the Decrease in participation over time. It also illustrates the participation in the third process being ‘higher’ than it was in the second one, mostly to manipulative the role of the public media.

130

Figure 40. Participation 'rugs' of the three processes

If we compare these ‘ladder-type’ conceptualizations with the results of the ‘classical’ analysis, the first thing that immediately stands out is that a linear scale such as a ladder explains very little. The main elements of comparison in these conceptualizations are;  In Arnstein’s paper and in all other ‘ladders’ the movement up the rugs means that the stakeholders’ impact on the decision-making process is increasing, and that the way (or ‘mechanism’) of participation is also becoming more substantial. An example of this is that there is an increasing level of feedback from the planners to the stakeholders regarding their concerns, that the interaction is getting more personal and two-directional, and that the frequency of this interaction is increasing, etc. The results of this research show that there is decoupling between impact of participation and its procedural characteristics, e.g. that consultation may have a lesser impact on the decision-making than a public hearing can; which is dependent on the contextual setting of spatial planning.  While Arnsten’s paper openly admits that “In the real world… there might be 150 rugs” (p.3), i.e. that there is a continuum of ‘levels’ of participation, other papers try to improve her rather simplistic categorization by developing more discrete rugs, at defining dimensions (scales, or conceptual continuums) upon which participation rests. This paper also defines a continuum of ‘levels’ (or ‘mechanisms) of participation, where the most important dimensions are level of impact on decision-making, level of feedback from the planners, and level of intimacy in the interaction between the stakeholder and the planner. 131

 The literature on ‘ladders of participation’ uses direct participation, i.e. that a given stakeholder represents itself in the process. In this research it was found that a certain stakeholder can participate in one ‘mechanism’ (e.g. hunters, mountaineers and citizens through public participation) while at the same time be represented by another actor (‘representative’) in a different mechanism (e.g. by municipalities through consultation in the first process). In this case, the level of ‘adequacy’ of the mechanism that is applied on the focal actor from his perspective is largely set by the level at which the representative can influence the process. It is not set by the procedural characteristics of the mechanism of participation that is applied on the focal actor, or by the level of direct influence that a focal actor has on the process.  As the literature on ‘ladders of participation’ links the process with procedural aspects of participation, it points to a proposition that both influence over the process and pronounced positive procedural characteristics of participation are needed in order for stakeholders to view the system of participation as adequate. The results of this research point to an assumption that all that is needed is that a stakeholder sees that the outcomes of the process are aligned with his interests; and that this is sufficient enough to view even sporadic, impersonal public hearings as adequate.  The literature on ‘ladders of participation’ seems to have a normative perspective that more participation is good, without any special conditions. It does not really address the issue of procedural costs of participation, where the ‘high’ levels of participation may actually result with blocking the process (as it was the case with the first process of spatial planning). In this line of thought it can be stated that in the second and third process the planners have taken-up the stance of the balancing model towards procedural justice (Rawls, 1971), where the procedural costs of participation are weighted against the benefits that it may produce.

132

5.2.3. Stakeholder Analysis

Stakeholder analysis (SA) is variously used as an approach or tool for generating knowledge about actors (individuals or organizations), for understanding their behaviors and interests, and for assessing their value to decision-making (Varvasovszky and Brugha 2000). It also helps to identify both current and future opportunities and threats in projects to improve policy design and implementation (Blair and Fottler 1990). SA has been used for various purposes, such as to find compatibility between policy objectives and stakeholder aspirations, and helps managers to choose between short-term and long-term policy objectives, or balance conflicting objectives such as conservation, development, equity and peace (Grimble and Chan 1995; Chevalier and Buckles 1999). These aspects make SA particularly relevant to natural resource management (Grimble and Wellard 1997, Reed, 2009). Though protected areas may accrue net gain for society, the benefits could go to a party that is not disadvantaged and compromises an already marginalized group (De Lopez 2003). These marginalized populations often depend on the natural resources, and it may be unadvisable to ignore their needs (Grimble and Wellard 1997). Hence, the need for dynamic stakeholders’ interactions and partnerships for conservation has been stressed across recent literature (Nepal and Weber 1995; Kothari 1998; Enters and Anderson 2000).

Savage (1991) and Mitchell (1997) offer an interesting definition of the categories of stakeholders. According to them, there are four generic types: supportive, mixed blessing, non- supportive, and marginal. They develop an eight-part stakeholder typology based on assessment of the strength of three attributes: power, legitimacy and urgency. Comprehensive stakeholder identification, assessment and engagement that can be met in Cleland (1999), identifies stakeholders and their interests, measures these interests, and attempts to predict their future behavior and its impact on the project and on the project team. In contrast to this Briiner (1996) focuses on communication as important part of stakeholder management. Fletcher et al. (2003) describe stakeholder identification as a process for mapping stakeholder’s expectations based on value hierarchies and key performance areas. Frooman (1999) gives an analysis of ways through which organizations can plan their stakeholder’s management strategies, rather than only focusing on a response to strategies. Turner and Veil (2002) use a more holistic approach to stakeholder identification, which encompasses assessment of awareness, support and influence, all of which culminates in development of a stakeholder knowledge base. 133

De Lopez et al. (2001) give a very detailed analysis of stakeholders; the research goal was to describe how the functioning of the park distributes its benefits and costs among local population, and to formulate strategies for the enrollment of stakeholders in the decision-making processes, by which the conservation goals could be reached. The focus of the research was on the issues of deforestation and commercial illegal logging. The high level of analysis was reached through usage of triangulation, which comprised of in-depth interviews (15% of local population), 3 different contingent valuation applications (targeted at visitor groups), a forest inventory study, and a cost-benefit analysis of management scenarios. Cho (2009), who developed an interpretative planning model for a national park system in South Korea, reached a similar level of analysis. His triangulation consisted of in-depth interviews (use of SWAN framework – Stakeholder Wants and Needs Analysis) in combination with Resource Protection Criteria (RPC) and Park Management Criteria (PMC). Prell et al. (2009) made a case study on Peak district National Park, in which they focused on the relations among stakeholders through application of stakeholder network analysis (more than 200 stakeholder groups identified). In the contrast to a situation with many stakeholder groups Suman et al. (1999) did a case study on the “Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary”, in which they had focused on in-depth scenario-analysis of participation of three key stakeholder groups. Jennings et al. (2002) who on a case study of the “Lower Fitzroy and Port Curtis” catchments, used SA as a tool for capacity building did the following step in the stakeholder analysis. After performing face-to-face interviews and secondary research, the researchers created “social maps” of all stakeholder groups, which were later used to build the capacity of stakeholders for enrollment in decision-making processes by a series of structured negotiation sessions. The importance of inclusion of stakeholders in the decision-making processes is stressed by Kiran (2009), who analyzed the relation between stakeholder enrollment in decision-making and the success of development projects related to non-wood forest products in Pakistan. A similar conclusion was given by Christie (2004), who (without the usage of SA) did a comparative study of four “Marine Protected Areas in SE – Asia”, and found that just by looking at biological elements of protected area without recognition of social demands of stakeholder groups - especially local people, the protected area management regime was in fact a failure. To this end, the work of Renard, Brown and Geoghegan (2001), which gives an overview of six SA applications in PA of the Caribbean region, states that for effective enrollment of stakeholders in decision making capacity building and the communication skills of a project manager are essential.

134

Stakeholder analysis is also a building block of the ecosystem approach of IUCN to management of natural resources on local level (Shepard, 2004). With this in mind, Brenner (2001) performed a stakeholder analysis in a case study of the “Great Smoky Mountains National Park”. This research identified 29 stakeholder groups and focused on issue priorities and stakeholder power. The importance of SA in spatial planning was stressed by Enserink (2000), who in his paper pointed out the necessity of usage of SA in the early stages of big infrastructure investments in the Netherlands, where traditional reliance on secondary data about stakeholders has led to many negative public actions to big investments. He proposes a “stakeholder quick scan”, which is a combination of key informant interviews and focus groups. The ‘problem’ with stakeholder analysis is that it is not easy to define. Reed et al (2009) made a comprehensive effort on the topic, where they developed a three-step, ten-point typology of SA (Figure 41).

Figure 41. Schematic representation of rationale, typology and methods for stakeholder analysis (source: Reed et al, 2009) Figure 41 depicts that stakeholder analysis can be seen as a three-step process, which consists of identification of stakeholders, their differentiation and categorization, and finally on analysis of interactions between stakeholders. However, the types of methods of SA from Figure 41 range from sampling and data collection techniques (i.e. focus groups, semi-structured interviews, snowball sampling), methods on how to analyze data (interest–influence matrices; stakeholder- led categorization, knowledge mapping), discourse-based research designs (Q methodology; actor-linkage matrices), to structured view on relational sociology (Emirbayer, 1997) – social network analysis (Scott and Carrington, 2011). 135

This research, through application of grounded theory, has already touched upon various ‘methods’ of SA. Stakeholders have been identified according to a snowball procedure. Interviews with stakeholders have been performed during which their interests, influence and level of knowledge (on the process of spatial planning) were clearly defined. Their relations have been analyzed, as the entire coding structure has been re-arranged to put the focus on the ‘relations’, and not on the ‘substance’, and most of the graphical depictions have used formal graph procedures of social network analysis. With all these elements, there is no additional need to frame this research in the context of stakeholder analysis. Stakeholder analysis explores into a number of theoretical concepts, such as values and interests, legitimacy of claims, power relations, social benefits and costs. Nonetheless, on its own it does not have a real theoretical depth that would allow it to be called a theory; rather, it can be stated that stakeholder analysis is a bundle of approaches or tools to analyze stakeholders, which uses different theories to operationalize its concepts. However, there seems to be a growing trend in stakeholder analysis to see participation as an end and not as the means (aside from the previously stated, other examples are O’Neill, 2001; Parkins and Mitchell, 2005; De Groot, 2006; Koontz, 2005; Pomeroy and Douverne, 2008; Rydin and Pennington, 2000). This has been recognized by Few et al (2007), who attribute the stakeholder analysis to the direct influence of Habermas’ (1984) notions of ‘communicative rationality’. The basic idea of his theory of communicative action it that communication is the dominant characteristic of humanity, and the communicative action can be defined as “…the action of agents involved is coordinated not through egocentric calculations of success but through acts of reaching understanding. In the communicative action participants are not primarily oriented to their own success; they pursue their individual goals under the condition that they can harmonize their plans of action on the basis of common situation definitions” (Habermas, 1984, p.286). Such conceptualization has not been present in this research. The assessment of the role of stakeholders in the process of spatial planning was seen as they ‘compete’ to influence the process in order to further their interests, and not that they define a joint view on the situation and what the outcome of the process may be. On the contrary, the differences in the perceptions on the adequacy of participation, on the process itself and on how the area of the Park should be managed have been a constant through the research. If Habermas was searching for communication devoid of the power relations, the results of the thesis could go into opposite direction. However, further following this line of thought would sway the discussion too far away from stakeholder analysis. Moreover viewing the case of participation in spatial planning for NP Medvednica through the perspective of

136 communicative action would require a different type of analysis compared to what has been presented here.

5.3 Four Faces of Power

Power as a concept has been defined in numerous ways. It would be appropriate to say that is a family resemblance’ concept (Haugaard, 2010), where its conceptualizations use complex language games and where the ‘members of the power family’ include: episodic power, dispositional power, systemic power, power to, power over, empowerment, legitimate power and domination. What is somehow ‘standard’ is to see power project through its ‘four faces’ (e.g. Isaac, 1987; Digeser, 1992; Haugaard, 2012), where the first face relates to ‘decision-making power’ (Dahl, 1961), the second to ‘non-decision making’ (Bachrach and Baratz, 1962), the third face of ‘power over real interests’ (Lukes, 1974), and the fourth face of ‘structural power (Foucault, 2009). The definition of power is still a matter of on-going sociological debate, and the inclusion of all other relevant views on the concept of power that are applicable to this case would go beyond the scope of this research. Other notable views on power are Bachrach and Baratz’s (1970) typology (coercion, influence, authority, force and manipulation), Issac’s (1987) ‘realist’ view of social roles, Clegg’s (1989) episodic, dispositional and systemic power, and Haugaard’s (2003) seven point typology of power, which is based on the works of all previous distinguished scholars of the topic. However, the debate on the nature of power is waning; it belongs to a group of ‘old’ policy concepts (such as public administration, interest groups and institutions), which are being replaced by ‘new’, more popular concepts such as interactive planning, stakeholder dialogue, deliberative democracy and governance (Arts and Van Tatenhove, 2004).

On the ‘fundamental’ level, spatial planning is a decision making process and the ‘basic’ effect that participation has on it is to influence the content of the decision. This is complementary to the pluralistic, decision-making view on power, where it is defined as “… a successful attempt by A to get B to do something he would not otherwise do” (Dahl, 1957). This line of thought was the guiding idea of his seminal work ‘Who governs?’ (Dahl, 1961), in which he explored the distribution of political power and representation on the case study of a “New Haven, Connecticut”. The pluralistic definition of power is equated to its ‘utilized’ counterpart, i.e. 137 influence. The ‘first face of power’ focuses on observable behavior of actors in the process of decision-making, where the ‘wants’ of actors are equated to their interests, and expressed as policy preference. In this view, the task of the researcher is “…to study actual behavior from documents, either at first hand or by reconstructing behavior from documents, informants, newspapers and other appropriate sources (Polsby, 1963, p.121). Pluralism focuses on public decision-making because it is “…the best way to determine which individual and groups have “more” power in social life, because direct conflict between actors presents a situation most closely approximating an experimental test of their capacities to affect outcomes” (Polsby, 1963, p. 4). Many elements of this research point to the importance of decision-making power. The Informal participation in codes L1 and L2 coding schemes directly relate to the power relations between different interest groups. On a broader level the ‘struggle’ between the power behind the throne and the outer groups to influence the formal decider is also a struggle between two ‘groups’ of actors to influence the public decision making process of spatial planning. The relational code Active stakeholders within the context of central category Balanced planning through active engagement clearly describes a situation where the ‘outer’ actors exhort prevailing influence on the formal decider. In the context of first face of power, the prevalence of the power behind the throne would be marked with a spatial plan, which encompasses a significantly decreased area. In that, area special forest reserves are diminished or not present at all, and where the current and many planned, construction activities are legalized, both in the southern periphery and in the peak area. The prevalence of the outer group would be marked by a spatial plan which covers the Park in its original size from the year 1981, where special forest reserves are marked as in the expert study (Španjol, 2003), and where no new areas of urbanization are defined. As presented in the analysis, there are many indications on the dominance of the power behind the throne. The decision on diminishing the park area is a clear indicator of the realization of their interest; especially as the majority of areas that were discarded from the park are forest habitats, which are yet to be urbanized. A thirty-year period in which no spatial plan was made can be regarded as the prevalence of the power behind the throne only to extent if it is delayed until all ‘important’ development activities are made – and that was the case. However, viewing spatial planning as a ‘forum’ in which different interests directly compete for the influence over the process is too simplistic; as the results clearly show that the social context in which the planning process is embedded sets its outcomes to a great extent, and that context is partly shaped from

138 past interactions of actors. Due to the contextual setting of the first process, “…there was simply no room for someone to come and try to push his personal interests through…” (City Zg3), whereas the contextual setting of the second and third process favored the opposite. From the comparison of the processes (Chapter 4.2.3 , p. 92-101) onwards it became evident that the role of macro and micro contextual setting is equally important and if not more important than the direct power of a certain actor; as the context has set the possibilities to have it in the first place. If the research were done in a stable contextual setting, most probably the importance of direct power relations would not be as downplayed as it is with the conceptualizations used in this study.

Since the proclamation, prior to the year 2010, the only decision made for the NP Medvednica was the parks’ management. The management plans outlays in its zoning section all the activities, which are allowed to be performed in the different areas. These elements are crucial to a spatial plan, but with one important difference; the management plan is not a legally binding document, while a spatial plan is. As such, the management plan symbolically defines the ‘borders’ of conservation and development; nevertheless, it substantially represents a non- decision (at least until all ‘important’ construction activities and the spatial plan legitimized these developments). Failing to bring a spatial plan (from 1989, onwards) and bringing about first its ‘symbolic’ counterpart closely resembles to what Bachrach and Baratz (1962) call non-decision making, which they, critiquing Dahl’s pluralistic perspective state that “…of course power is exercised when A participates in the making of decisions that affect B. But power is also exercised when A devotes his energies to creating or reinforcing social and political values and institutional practices that limit the scope of the political process to public consideration of only those issues which are comparatively innocuous to A”. Another element related to non-decision making is the characteristic of the L2 Symbolic participation code that the participating actors are also often restricted to comment on secondary issues, as NGOs and other ‘outer’ actors have been consulted on irrelevant issues, and the important ones were left aside of the communication. The power of the City of Zagreb to control the ‘flow’ of possible decisions to Parliament and thus halt spatial planning is also an act of non-decision making. However, the conceptualization of non-decision making power is not pronounced in this research, as the most important conflicts were over, and not covert.

139

The breaking point in the 30-year spatial planning was the decision revolving around the diminishing of the area of NP Medvednica. Formally, that decision was made due to public protest, but in fact, it has secured interests of development groups, and has formed a precondition for bringing about the plan in the third process, where a plan covering the diminished area of the Park is seen as a compromise solution. This might seem bizarre as during the course of this research Enjoyment of nature (L1 code) was found to be the main interest of citizens of all three counties that surround NP Medvednica. As Lukes (1974, p.27) states, “A may exercise power over B by getting him to do what he does not want to do, but he also exercises power over him by influencing, shaping or determining his very wants”. The Media manipulation (R code) of The power behind the throne directed towards The outer group (also described in the final results of open coding, p.66) is corresponding to the act in line to the third face of power. Special interest groups have through public media campaigns modified the interest of the public not to strive for nature protection, instead actively to protest against public administration for strengthening the construction activities in the southern slopes of Medvednica. However, Lukes’ shift of focus from subjective interest to ‘real’ interest also has its issues - it implies that someone else may know what the true interests of the actors are. A ‘way out’ maybe is to define actors’ ‘objective’ interest as correspondence to an objective position (Benton, 1981), where he speaks of creation of a ‘benchmark’ against which all interest should be tested (e.g. Nussbaum, 2000). Resolving the issue of subjective and objective interests of actors by comparing them to such a benchmark goes beyond the scope of this research. Rather a ‘utilitarian’ (Connoly, 1972) approach to interest is taken up, by which interests are equated with wants.

The ‘classical’ discussion on power would not be complete without Foucault’s (2009) view on governmentality, i.e. the fourth face of power. Unlike the first, three faces of power that looked into relations between actors A and B, the fourth “…postulates that subjectivity or individuality is not biologically given”. As such, “subjects are understood as social constructions, whose formation can be historically described” (Digeser, 1992, p.980). What Foucault means by subjectivity is understood by White (1986, p.419) as an “account of the human subject or agent, usually developed in terms of concepts such as rationality, intentionality, responsibility, mutuality, interest, etc." As such, the production of subjects refers to the quality of our wants (autonomy) and the capacity to act (i.e. agency; Benn, 1975-1976). The role of production of a subject is held by the state. In his own words, governmentality (Foucault, 2009, p.219-220) is defined as:

140

1. The ensemble formed by the institutions, procedures, analyses and reflections, the calculations and tactics that allow the exercise of this very specific, albeit complex form of power, which has as its target the population, and as its principal form of knowledge the political economy, and as its essential technical means the apparatuses of security. 2. The tendency that, over a long period of time and across the western countries, has steadily led toward the preeminence over all other forms (sovereignty, discipline, and so on) of this type of power; may be termed "government"-resulting. On one hand, it leads to the formation of a whole series of specific governmental apparatuses and on the other, to the development of a whole complex of knowledge. 3. The process, or rather the result of the process, through which the state of justice of the Middle Ages transformed into the administrative state during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, gradually becomes 'governmentalized’. From this definition of governmentality it can be seen that the understanding of (this view of power) requires a historical ‘perspective’, i.e. an application of genealogy of power (Foucault, 1976), which looks at how people govern themselves. The other approach is through the production of knowledge, or analyzing “conditions which hold at any one moment for ’saying the true’ “(Dean, 1994, p.33). Knowledge is generating power by constituting people as subjects and then governing the subjects with the knowledge, and history has quite often seen a transformation from one system of domination (based on knowledge) onto another one. Governmentality can be used as a framework for exploring how the Path of urbanization (pg. 49) became the dominant outcome in this research. It was previously stated that from the beginning of the spatial planning processes up to now the participation has decreased (pg.61) and that the primary characteristic of stakeholders is their passive behavior, and acceptance of the current situation (pg.40). How did this occur? The changes that have caused these developments are part of the context of spatial planning. From 1981 Croatia was part of three different political systems: a Republic within the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, a war-stricken transition country from 1991, and a (post) transition Country striving for EU integration from the end of 2006 (when the negotiation phase for EU accession began) as the primary political goal (Markušić, 2013). Economic consolidation was a priority in the 1991-2006; and where public participation only ‘complicates’ (pg.34) the process of spatial planning. This is evident from the EU screening report on Chapter 27, “The environment” (DG Enlargement, 2007), by which there is a moderate formal implementation of the Directive 2003/4/EC on public access to environmental information. One should also note Directive 2003/35/EC on public participation.

141

It should be stated that there is weak practical implementation of these directives and the situation has not improved much since then. An example of it is the fact that the strategic guidelines for the Green development of Croatia (MENP, 2011, p.3) state as its central goal the “…attraction of private capital, both domestic and foreign, and foreign investments…” Environmental impact assessments have very seldom-stopped development projects (Friends of the Earth Croatia, 2011). In the 2010-2013 period 49% of all environmental impact assessments had no comments from stakeholders (Fressl et al, 2013); compared to the 2008-2013 period where only 4.9 % of all environmental impact assessments had accepted or rejected the projects they evaluated (Krnjak and Valetić, 2013). These figures strongly indicate towards dominance of development over nature protection and public concerns, which are in line with the prevalence of the neo-liberal doctrine in national policies of Croatia (Bell, 2012). In A Brief History of Neoliberalism (Harvey, 2007, p.3), there is a ‘Foucauldian’ statement how it “... has pervasive effects on ways of thought to the point where it has become incorporated into the common-sense way many of us interpret, live in, and understand the world.” To Foucault, (2008, p.12), neoliberalism has spread from the area of economic activity to a general framework of social and political life, by which the worker has become “human capital”, and all human activities are assessed from an entrepreneurial point of costs and benefits. As such, people have fundamentally different motivations from homo juridicus (subject of the state); they become homo oeconomicus, a subject governed by interests and competition. In this system, the state acts as a ‘selector’ of interests, as it makes favorable activities socially inexpensive, and unfavorable expensive (Read, 2009). In this view of the public (as subjects), there is no interest for participating; it is best left to NGOs and alike, who receive salary for their efforts. Mobilization of bias from the public is not possible as everyone is his/her own entrepreneur. From the side of self-governing of the state, the institutions of spatial planning are transformed from those supporting the concept of urbanism to those supporting architecture. In this case, urbanism-based spatial planning is defined as a web of different types of experts in discourse and all other parties over the best way to manage a certain area, where best refers to ‘valuating’ interests of all parties, and of nature itself. Spatial planning based on architecture in this context can be defined as a web of different experts in dialogue between themselves over whose’ technical expertise will prevail, where the prevalence of standpoints is set by the distribution of personal benefits and costs of those who politically control the experts. This ‘commoditization of self’ in spatial planning is structurally endorsed by the dissolution of the Institute of Urbanism (which was present during the first process), and by design of the state administration in a manner which in a

142 neoliberal line of thought changes the pursuit of group interests towards ‘market’ based individual interests. As the type of favored expertise has shifted from urbanism towards architecture, so did the name of the city’s administrative unit responsible for spatial planning. It reformulated from Division for urbanism in the first process, Division for spatial planning in the second, and Division for spatial planning and development of the City of Zagreb, communal affairs and traffic in the third process. Aspects of this structure are seen in L1 code Process design. In addition, the L2 code Structure of governing from the perspective of The formal decider; minimization of personal costs comes from exclusion of ‘others’, maximization of personal benefits comes through monopolization of discretionary rights over the process and the fulfillment of procedures with only symbolic effect is more important than a substantial decision. As commented in the comparison of processes (Chapter 4.2.3, p.92-101), pronounced role of structural power is present in the setting of spatial planning within the City of Zagreb, the functioning of the Public Institution Nature Park Medvednica, the role of participation in public decision-making, and in the national structure of spatial planning. The above mentioned, have shaped the interactions of actors to a great extent; it could be also stated that from all the reviewed theories and studies in this discussion chapter, the structural power perspective best fits the central ideas that have been presented in this research. It would be crude to deduce from the text above that communism had lesser extent of ‘subjectification’ than the neo-liberal democracies have; to Foucault, a communist system had many characteristics with the bourgeoisie system that it replaced (Simon, 1971). It is also a fact that the first attempt to make a spatial plan failed due to the pressure of the hunters, who at that time were much more prominent among the ruling (communistic) politicians than they are today. However, Foucault’s study of the ‘genealogy of power’ of neo-liberalism has not been made, as the central area of his academic interest was in enlightening the processes from ancient Greece up to the nineteenth century.

143

5.4 Social Exchange Theory

Exchange theory is a general theory concerned with understanding the exchange of material or non-material resources between individuals or groups in an interaction. The relationship in which a person or group acts in a certain way toward others in order to receive a reward (i.e., benefit or return) is called an exchange relationship (Homans, 1958; Blau, 1964). George Casper Homans, the founder of social exchange theory, expressed that this theory was developed to comprehend the social behavior of humans in economic activities. Keeping such notion in mind, social exchange theory grew out of the intersection of economics, psychology and sociology. It evolved from the work of sociologists such as Homans (1958), Blau (1964), and Emerson (1972). Social exchange theory stresses that all human relationships are formed by the use of a subjective cost-benefit analysis and the assessment of alternatives. For example, when a person perceives the costs of a relationship as outweighing the apparent benefits, then the theory predicts that the person will choose to leave the relationship. For social exchange theorists, when the costs and benefits are equal in a relationship, then that relationship is defined as equitable. The notion of equity is a core part of social exchange theory. Homans, (1958) outlined that social behavior is an exchange of goods, material goods but also non-material ones, such as the symbols of approval or prestige. Persons who give much to others try to get much in return from them, and persons who get much from others are under pressure to provide reciprocity.

According to Blau, (1964) social exchange refers to relationships that involve vague future obligations. Like economic exchange, social exchange generates an anticipation of some future return for contributions; however, unlike economic exchange, the exact nature of that return is unspecified. Blau, (1964) believes that individuals will enter into and maintain a relationship with that as long as they can satisfy their self-interests and at the same time ensure that the benefits offset the costs. An individual will seek to maximize his or her profits and minimize losses in interactions with others. In terms of long-lasting relationships, individuals will try to maintain those exchanges that have proven to be gratifying in the past, and break off those which proved to be more costly than rewarding, and to establish new relations that have a good chance of being more gratifying than costly. This theory asserts that people develop attitudes toward other people and things in the context of anticipated personal benefits and costs to be derived from contact with them.

144

The central idea of this theory is that the exchange of social and material resources is a fundamental form of human interaction (Ingoldsby and Smith, 1995). This theoretical perspective states that people are reward seeking and punishment-avoiding creatures that endeavor to maximize individual wellbeing in all situations. Based on this theory, social relationships are considered as “markets” in which individuals act out of self-interest with the goal of maximizing ‘profits’ (Sabatelli and Sheehan, 1993). The first application of Social exchange theory was to explain the actions of actors in an economic activity (Homans, 1958.), but unlike economic exchange, in social exchange the object of exchange can be anything that an actor perceives as a benefit (profit, reward, trust, status, reputation, clean air, etc.). The nature of the theory can be explained as follows (Homans, 1958, p.606): “Social behavior is an exchange of goods, material goods but also non-material ones, such as the symbols of approval or prestige. Persons that give much to others try to get much from them, and persons that get much from others are under pressure to give much to them. This process of influence tends to work out at equilibrium to balance the exchanges. For a person in an exchange, what they give may be a cost to them, just as what they get in return may be a reward; their behavior changes less as the difference of the two, leads to a maximum profit for both. The participation at the formulation of spatial plan is characterized by an asymmetry in the level of power and information among different stakeholders, and thus it can be assumed that the process of participation will differ among stakeholders, i.e. that its managers and influential groups will use the process in order to extract compliance from other groups. Blau (1964), with this kind of calculation in mind, lays out the following principles of the social exchange theory (p.100):

 “The more services supplied in return for receipt of some valued service, the more power held by those providing valued services”

The power behind the throne controls the process of spatial planning though influencing the formal decider. This relation provides the actors within the formal deciders’ opportunities for professional advancement, strong assistance in future elections, and personal profits. Bundled-up, all of these elements provide important benefits, which outweigh the (mostly potential) costs of corruption charges, which could be easily mitigated by a reference to discretionary rights of expertise. From the side of the outer group, participation generally has no benefits, only costs. The situation is different in the case when they consider that 145

participation will secure personal economic benefits of legalization of construction activities (as it was the case in the second process); then the costs of coming to a public hearing, informing oneself on the Park or joining a protest group are lessened by the benefits.

 “The more alternative sources for reward are presented, the less likely that those providing the reward can extract compliance”

For the relation between the power behind the throne and the Formal decider, there are no alternatives; the interest groups can secure their ‘investments’ only through the spatial planning, and the spatial planning team can only secure the benefits from the previous point in the relation with the power behind the throne. However, the political supervisors of the spatial planning team that also comprise the formal decider have a range of potential sources of the benefits from the point mentioned previously. This issue has not been further addressed within this research.

 “The more those receivers can apply force and coercion, the less those providing can extract compliance”

As the relation between the power behind the throne and the formal decider is covert, this issue has not been directly studied in the research. As for the outer group, there is no coercion for participating in the process of spatial planning.

 “The more receivers can do without, the less providers can extract compliance”

This issue has not been addressed within this research.

In general, it can be stated that the conceptualizations of social exchange theory are very similar to what has been identified in this research; all actors, based on personal calculation of costs and benefits, set their course of action. However, similar to the discussion on the first face of power, the actual costs and benefits are not enough to explain the central ideas presented in the research, as they too, like direct power, are changeable according to the contextual setting. Some examples on how contextual setting affects the ‘calculus’ of costs and benefits is the decrease of benefits for experts to engage in substantial communication with the ‘lay’ (whom they consider to be majority of stakeholders) and the increase in the benefits of citizens in the second participation after the media campaigns on ‘threats’ from living within the Park. 146

5.5 Threats to Validity

As with any account, the results of this research have many ‘faces’, not just the ones covered with the literature from the previously mentioned theories. 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 seen 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 careful listener, diligently noting the wants of the ‘public’ (i.e. the outer group). The ‘public’ partially sees through the act of the formal decider, mostly leaving the ‘show’. Those who stay, act as nothing has happened as if they see how this strategy brings personal benefits to them. They may have a chance of getting their construction activities legalized; protesting loudly within a group may bring a feeling of group acceptance. For actors from NGOs and pressure groups whose job is to be there, are aware that they will not have any impact on the process but still chose to remain visible as acting differently would ‘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, 1991). 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 commoditization of nature is forced upon the public. This causes them to de-value environmental damage of construction and internalize the priority of ‘free-market’ and of unrestricted development opportunities. Majority of results could be seen from the position of sociological rational choice theory (Coleman, 1989); 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.

147

‘constructed enough’), where the spatial plan would actually legitimize their actions – and that is precisely what has happened. As with any other research, this one also has several items, which treat its validity (Cook and Cambell, 1979). In the area of construct validity (Messik, 1995) there are several issues to be discussed. The results show many codes, which emerged through different coding procedures. The theoretical saturation was approaching already around the 40th interview, so there is no viewpoint or a part of the ‘bases’ for the formation of the codes that is missing. The issue is that one individual did the analysis, which might have caused a systematic bias, and ‘skewed’ the viewpoint of results to the direction of preconceived ideas and theoretical frameworks. There was an attempt for ‘resolving’ this issue thorough constant comparison between the codes and the labels from all of the codes. By doing so, ‘fixing’ the coding structure to a pre-conceived theoretical framework would ‘hopefully’ be eliminated. There was also an attempt for performing the coding in as structured way as possible, by which ‘turning’ the coding structure to pre-conceived viewpoints would be diminished. In addition, an attempt was made to re-code the codes in various ways in order to find the relations in the data ‘which I was not looking for’. This was also a measure to strengthen the construct validity. Yet another issue is to which extent codes, their memos and the labels behind them actually relate to the ‘theoretical constructs’ they represent. As there were many coding structures, there were 118 different codes (i.e. L1, L2, R and ‘central categories’) made in this research, constructed from 1104 labels. Codes varied greatly in the number of labels that they contain. Central categories and L2 codes contained many labels, and were well defined. Many L1 and R codes consisted of only few labels, and thus there was little ‘foundation’, from which, precisely defined and detailed explanation of codes could be made. Examples of such codes are R codes Balanced interests (4 labels), Construction without expert justification (10 labels), Architects for construction (4), Spatial plan as management tool (8), and L1 codes Northern slopes of NP Medvednica (3), Tunnel building through NP Medvednica (4), SINP (7) and MCPP (8). However, many codes L1 and R codes were ‘built’ from a large number of labels, e.g. Citizens of Zagreb (69), City of Zagreb (106), The process design (149), Power defines the politics (164), Procedural costs of participation (52), Media manipulation (60), 'Deciders' as stakeholders (64) and Practical exclusion from process (215). The ‘size of foundation’ of each code was also marked in the visualization, and it can be seen (Figures 6, 7, 12, 13, 14 and 16) that the codes based on a small number of codes are usually on the margins of the graphs. The same goes for the logical construction of higher-level codes, as the meaning of more well defined codes had a much bigger part in the construction of

148 the grounded theory than was the case with secondary and less defined codes. Another issue in the validity of the content of the codes is the fact that one person did the coding, so the ‘path’ from the transcripts to the central categories would perhaps be different if someone else was doing the research; the codes should have different meaning. The researcher tried to deal with this issue by re-coding in many different ways, and they made an effort vigilantly to apply constant comparison between the codes of the same type. All of the above also stands for ‘classical’ analysis. 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 precedence of ‘causes’ and the ‘effects’ of participation. It can also be stated that the ‘causes’ and the ‘effects’ of participation co-vary; as the resources and interest needed for participation to relate to the exercised modes of participation for all groups of actors. To add, the relation between the structure of governing and the exercised modes of participation produced the same effects of spatial planning in each process. The crude ‘numbers’ behind participation (number of studies, experts, public hearings and questionnaires) match the perceptions on participation. Actors’ support to the structure of governing matches the extent on how ‘fair’ they were treated in the process. The element, which is missing, is the ‘check’ of plausible alternative explanation. This research has been done from the ‘background’ of sociology and nature protection, where the emphasis is on the viewpoints of different actors on the role of participation in the process of spatial planning. If the research was done with the same emphasis but from the ‘background’ of spatial planning, perhaps the role of participation would be downplayed and some other factors more related to spatial planning would be emphasized. An example would be the fact that the majority of area that went out of the park was in the third ‘buffer zone’ that was already partially urbanized and kept similar function within the boundaries of the City of Zagreb. Another factor which has not been addressed up to now is the possibility that the primary ‘cause’ for the decrease of the NP Medvednica was the action of Zagreb’s city administration to expand their domain of discretion and take up additional activities - an inherent objective of all organizations (Pfeffer and Salacnik, 2003; p.272). In addition, even in the case that the same researcher with the same background did this research but where the data collection methods were different, some other elements would have undoubtedly gained prominence. For example, if the bulk of data were collected through participatory action research (Reason and Bradbury, 2008), then the small-group dynamics of spatial planner and yet undefined idiosyncratic interests and values would play a more prominent role. However, it is impossible to expect to capture all potential

149 factors that have an impact on a real-life phenomenon within a research and the theories that come out of it; because every theory is a simplification of reality. As previously stated (see formal hypotheses), multiple factors have contributed to the outcomes of each of the three processes. However, the research has failed to describe in detail what the relative contributions of these factors were. The last items are external validity (Cook and Campbell, 1979) and transferability (Silverman, 2000; Malterud, 2001). This thesis has provided a thorough review of the developments related to spatial planning of NP Medvednica as well as defined interest, resources and the relations between the actors associated with the process. When looking at the intermediary storyline (p.74- 77), it becomes obvious that the relation between the Inner structure and the Outer opposition primarily limits its transferability to other settings. However, these power relations are equally constraining as they are an enabling agency (Giddens, 1986) with respect to affecting the outcomes of the process; as The power behind the throne can affect The outer group directly and can affect The formal decider both directly and indirectly, while The outer group can directly affect The formal decider. All groups of actors are aware of their positions and recognize the ‘available’ courses of action. These elements allow the grounded theory to transcend to other cultural contexts and to be utilized to other fields than just spatial planning. However, if we step away a little from the research question and focus on the grounded theory on its own we will see that, although it relates to the research question, it also ‘tells’ something else. As there are no feedback-loops from the Outer opposition to the Inner structure, the outer group can only affect the outcomes of a (spatial planning) process in question, and not the structure itself. This practically means that although stakeholders can protest and actually ‘achieve victory’, they are not agents of change of the structure of decision-making, and so when another process comes, stakeholders will repeatedly have to make strong efforts to reach the outcomes that they desire. From this perspective, an even more fundamental question emerges, “How can structure of public decision-making be changed?” This research has identified several factors: changes in political system, supra-national pressures and long-term changes in the higher education of spatial planners. Moreover, in this perspective, the grounded theory produced in this research can serve as a theoretical framework for any research, which focuses on public decision-making processes. The main ‘tool’ for this is the formal hypotheses. The discussion section has also shown that many elements of result ‘fit’ to several different theories, which have been ‘tested’ many times; but the actual test of the external validity of this research has yet to be made, when some other researchers apply this theoretical framework in different contexts.

150

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS

The national category of protected areas - Nature Park allows sustainable usage of natural resources; the goal of spatial planning would have to be a balance between the use and conservation of such area. However, what if the Park is right next to a country’s capital - a large city that a decade ago greatly expanded to every other direction other than to the Park? Chapter Spatial planning of NP Medvednica has showed us the legislative complexity to which spatial planning of NP Medvednica has to adhere. ‘Synchronizing’ all of these requirements into a concrete spatial plan exhorts a great level of expertise from the people who are formulating it. However, what about the pressures from the city to expand, pressures from the quarry owners to continue to operate, from the political-sport milieu to develop sport infrastructure in the heart of the protected area, or the pressures to hunt, hike and cut trees in the same forest? The Croatian language does not make a distinction between ‘politics’ and ‘policy’. When politics is involved in policy-making, it is perceived not as advantage but rather as a disadvantage; as the ideal type of ‘production’ of good policies is technocratic, it is based on ‘higher’ scientific criteria, and the context must be ‘managed’. Spatial planning of NP Medvednica is such a problem, and the level of expertise that went in it sets the ‘quality’ of the (second and the third) process. According to a very detailed study of Hallsworth et al. (2011), such policy formulations are unrealistic (as policy making cannot be separated from politics), it is undesirable (as politics adds value to policy making) and flawed (as analysis is never ‘pure’ or above politics).

Moreover, why did the entire process of spatial planning last thirty years? The results section has answered that question in detail. The open coding procedure has identified the Visible and the Hidden process, where the ‘wall of expertise’ masks the Hidden process from stakeholders; as the expertise is the criteria of judgment, which the ‘lay’ stakeholders cannot judge. All participation modes (i.e. L1 codes Public hearings, Consultation and Non-participation) are just symbolic participation modes. The only ‘mode of participation’ – the Informal participation, is perhaps not something that should fall into the category of participation; as it represents political pressures and corruption. All of the three modes of participation within L1 codes do not apply just to those who are usually considered as stakeholders (citizens, NGOs, professional associations, etc.), but also to the public administration itself; the L1 code of Consultation also 151 represents a mode of participation without any substantial input to the process. Nevertheless, the Consultation procedurally differs from Public hearings and Non-participation. Those who are consulted participate in a two-way communication with the Formal decider, they are invited to ‘high-level’ professional meetings, they bring their expertise to the process and they make professional studies. In the end, it may not really matter for state administration that they do not have real impact on the process, as they still manage to get all the benefits of participation (i.e. they raise their acknowledgement within their professional fields). From the side of the Formal decider, this ‘treatment’ created for the state administration a powerful ally, one that can defend the current structure of decision-making in various fields that it represents. In addition, it allows the ‘real’ process to continue, one where decision, non-decisions and changes in the procedural design are based on their alignment with the interests of powerful construction groups and to the alignment with the local political agendas. All of this is contrasted to the description of the first process of spatial planning as it is identified by ‘classical’ analysis. In such a scenario, the participation had an impact on the process, when the spatial planners and experts engaged in substantive interaction with the ‘lay’, which in turn increased the transparency of the process and left no room for the Hidden process to evolve. However, if we turn the focus to the second and third process and try to answer in short the research question - How does participation affect spatial planning of Nature Park Medvednica?, the answer, “It does not”, only further legitimizes the process. Nonetheless, the situation is not pessimistic per se, as there are ways in which stakeholders can affect the process. In the current contextual setting, they can do so not by adhering to the formal rules of participation but by breaking them. By deconstructing the procedural elements of public hearings until there is no discussion but only a single, powerful message that transcends the planners and goes directly to their political supervisors, “do what we want or you will not win the next elections”! Citizen’s public protests carrying the same message directed at politicians will most probably cause the same effects. And according to their calculation of costs and benefits, they will in turn influence the planners, as they will not be able to hold on to their position with a strongly antagonized population. Such occurrence was evident in the second cycle of spatial planning, when the public revolted for the decrease of the Park. Another issue, which is worthy of note, is the reason behind the public suddenly turning from relative indifference and passive behavior to active protest. The ‘mechanism’ through which such change occurred was the manipulation of public media, which in turn affected the citizen’s personal ‘calculation’ of benefits and costs of participation. The media campaign over- emphasized the construction constraints of the Park, by which the citizens ‘realized’ the strong

152 benefits of active engagements, as through such actions they would secure their investments. This was possible because of their ambivalence towards the Park, as their interests of enjoyment of nature are not backed-up by strong convictions or by adequate knowledge on the Park. The development interest groups are aware of this fact, the fact that public opinion on issues that should focus on public interests can be altered by changing the level and the sources of information, which are available to the public; thus creating new ‘public’ opinions and interests. As prescribed by this research, these are the ‘mechanisms’ for affecting the process of spatial planning. There are no mechanisms by which stakeholders can have an influence on how the process of spatial planning is performed. To reiterate, the situation is not pessimistic per se. Other ‘mechanisms’ can affect the way that the spatial planning is done. These are strong changes in the political system, supra-national influences from EU, and long-term changes in the higher education of experts in the field of spatial planning. The effects of macro and micro contextual setting are paramount to the defining on how participation affects the process of spatial planning. The research also showed that although results bare a strong resemblance to the concepts and their inter-relation of many different theories, there is no theory, which is adequate to capture all the important features of the case. There are direct links between the ‘grounded’ concepts of participation and the ‘ladder of participation’, as both of them focuses on the power relations between the leaders of the process and their stakeholders. However, the literature on the ‘scaling’ of participation only focuses on the impact on the decisions that are actually made - and this makes only a fraction of the story. The literature on stakeholder analysis generally follows the results of this research; stakeholder analysis is not a theory, theoretical framework or a research perspective. It has thematic focus on different research methodologies and as such does not fit the role of a theoretical framework. To add, the supporter of communicative action is stakeholder analysis, which is not a direction that this research has explored. Social exchange theory is adequate to ‘explain’ the actions of different groups of actors, but it is inadequate to provide an insight into the causes behind these actions. Four faces of power shed light into several new elements of research, which other theories did not illustrate. First, as to how the procedures of spatial planning are shaped through non-decision making, second, how the expressed interests may deviate from the ‘true interests’ within the framework of radical (i.e. third face) perspective on power and how the long-standing structure of spatial planning shapes the very possibilities to act within the perspective of the fourth face of power. In addition, there are still many sides to the story, as valuable insights can be made from the perspectives, of dramaturgical analysis,

153 critical theory, and rational choice theory. Strong support to rational choice theory is rather ‘pragmatic’ stance of actors judging the whole system of participation and spatial planning primarily in alignment with the outcomes of the process to their personal interests. From the visualization of the RxR matrix (Figure 26, p.69) and from the intermediary explanation (Figure 30, p.70) it can be seen that the only ‘path’ to Balanced planning through active engagement is Active engagement of the outer group. However, this active engagement is preconditioned by high level of information and by recognition of personal benefits of participation. In order to ‘supply’ these preconditions, the state can increase the transparency of the spatial planning processes by making a set of detailed steps on how participation ought to be involved in the process. In addition, it is required to raise public awareness on general rights of participation in the public decision-making process. Both of these elements are set by the Aarhus Convention (UNECE, 1998), which Croatia ratified in the year 2006. Without the abovementioned elements, all that is really left is symbolic participation and control of special interest groups over the process. Moreover, although the theory grounded in the data of this research is general enough to transcend the case on which it is based upon it does however have its limitations. The greatest limitations are not in the theory itself - but in the fact that it is a rather parsimonious theory, and every theory is a simplification of reality. In this case, the parsimonious theory masks some important features of the case on which it is based upon. The most important of these features are the heterogeneities of different groups of actors, which in the end have become homogeneous. The interests and the extent of change of interests is not the same in all groups of citizens. They differ between the citizens of Zagreb who greatly strive for enjoyment of nature but can soon enough strive for construction. Another example includes the citizens of Krapinsko - Zagorska County, who strive for touristic enjoyment of nature and hunting, but are less prone to altering their perceptions. These are kinds of compromises that had to be made during the raising of the level of abstraction in the results of the research. One may undoubtedly talk on the level of ‘fit’ between these results and many different theories that have been tested many times, on how this research followed three different processes under the same ‘theoretical umbrella’. The real test of this theory will be its application to different cases in diverse fields and in different cultural settings.

154

REFERENCES

1. Abelson. J., et al. (2003). Deliberations about deliberative methods: issues in the design and evaluation of public participation processes, Social Science & Medicine, 57, 239–251, Elsevier 2. Abelson, J., Gauvin, F. P. (2006). Assessing the Impacts of Public Participation: Concepts, Evidence and Policy Implications: Research Report P|06, Public Involvement Network: p.4 3. Act of designation the western part of Nature Park Medvednica (OG 24/81) and the Law on Amendments to the proclamation of the western part of Nature Park Medvednica (OG 25/09) 4. Agreement on the Conservation of European bats EUROBATS (1991), London, 5. Anderson, D. J., (2000). Floodplain delineation at highway river crossings by M.S.E The University of Texas-Austin. 6. Antić N. et al., (2003). Demographic characteristics in NP Medvednica, 2001– 2015 objectives, an outlook study. City Institute for Development Planning and Environmental Protection, Zagreb. 7. Arnstein, Sherry R. (1969). "A Ladder of Citizen Participation," JAIP, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 216-224 8. Arts, B., Van Tatenhove, J. (2004). Policy and power: A conceptual framework between the ‘old’ and ‘new’ policy idioms. Policy Sciences 37: 339–356 9. Bachrach, P., Baratz, M. S. (1962). Two faces of power. The American Political Science Review, 56 (4). 947-952. 10. Bachrach, P., Baratz, M. S. (1970). Power and poverty: theory and practice. Oxford University press. New York, p 220. 11. Bell, M. (2012). Croatia’s neoliberal trajectory: the applicability of variegated neoliberalism in the Croatian post-socialist context. Middle States Geographer, 45: 1-9 12. Benn, S. I. (1975-1976)."Freedom, Autonomy and the Concept of a Person." Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 76:109-30. 13. Benton, T. (1981). Objective interests and the sociology of power. Sociology. 15. 14. Berg, B. L. (1995). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. 15. Biological and Landscape Diversity and Action Plans (OG 81/99, OG 143/08), 16. Blair, J. D., M. D. Fottler (1990). Challenges in Health Care Management: Strategic Perspectives for Managing Key Stakeholders. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers. 155

17. Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley. 18. Bogdan, R., Taylor, S. (1975). Introduction to qualitative research methods: A phenomenological approach to the social sciences. New York: Wiley, 19. Borgatti, S. P., Everett, M. G., Johnson J. C. (2013). Analyzing social networks. SAGE Publications Ltd. 20. Borg, I., Groenen, P. (2005). Modern Multidimensional Scaling: theory and applications (2nd ed.). New York: Springer. Pp. 207–212. ISBN 0-387-94845-7. 21. Brenner, M., Brown, J., Canter, D. (Eds.) (1985). The Research Interview. Uses and Approaches. London: Academic Press. 22. Briiner, W., C. Hastings, M. Geddes (1996). Project leadership, New York, Van Nostrnd Reinhold 23. Brodie, E, Cowling, E., Nissen, N. (2009). Understanding Participation: A Literature Review [Online] National Council for Voluntary Organisations. Available from: http://www.ivr.org.uk/images/stories/Institute-of-Volunteering-Research/Migrated- Resources/Documents/U/Pathways-literature-review-final-version.pdf. [Accessed 10th June 2012] 24. Brown, J.T. (2007). The handbook of program management.McGraw-Hill.288 p. 25. Brugha, R., Z. Varvasovszky (2000). "Stakeholder analysis: a review." Health Policy Plan. 15(3): 239-246. 26. Breakwell, G. M., Millward, L., (1995). Basic Evaluation Methods: Analyzing Performance, Practice and Procedure. Leicester, U. K.: British Psychological Society. 27. 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. 28. Bryman, A. (2003). Research methods and organization studies in: Contemporary social research studies: 20, Routledge, p.p.304 29. Buckles, D. Cultivating Peace: Conflict and Collaboration in Natural Resource Management. (1999). Ottawa, Washington D.C., International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, The World Bank, Washington D.C.: 13-44. 30. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing Grounded Theory. A practical guide through Qualitative Analysis.London, Sage publications, Ltd.

156

31. Charmaz, K. (2008). Constructionism and the Grounded Theory.In J.A Holstein and J. f. Gubrium (Eds). Handbook of constructionist research p.p. (397-412) New York the Guilford press. 32. Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In N. K. Denzin, Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509-536). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 33. Chevalier, J. M., D. Buckles (1999). Conflict management: A hetero cultural perspective. 34. Cho, K. J. (2009). Developing an interpretative planning model for a national park system: A stakeholder-based needs assessment study for Korea. PhD dissertation. The Ohio State University. 35. Christie, P. (2004). Marine Protected Areas as Biological Successes and Social Failures in Southeast Asia. American Fisheries Society Symposium 42:155–164, 2004 36. Clegg, S. (1989). Frameworks of Power. London: Sage 37. Cleland, D. I. (1999). Project management Strategic design and implementation 3rd edition, New York, McGraw-Hill. 38. Cohen, J. (1989). "Deliberative Democracy and Democratic Legitimacy" (Hamlin, A. and Pettit, P. eds.), The Good Polity. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 17–34 39. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, Massachusetts. Belknap Press and Harvard University Press. 40. Coleman, J. S. (2011). Social Capital in the creation of Human Capital, The University of Chicago Press, pp. S95-S120 41. Corbin, J., Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3-21. 42. Connoly, W. E. (1972). On interest in politics. Politics Society 2. 43. Conservatory study for spatial plans for areas of special characteristics in Nature Park Medvednica, (2008). Institute for Protection of Cultural and Natural Heritage in City of Zagreb, 44. Constitution of SFRJ, (1974). Ustav Socijalističke Federativne Republike Jugoslavije, brought 21.2.1974. (OG, 9/74), 45. Convention on Biological Diversity (1992), Rio de Janeiro, 46. Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (1979), Bonn, 47. Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats (1997) Bern, 48. Convention on the Protection of Cultural and Natural Heritage (1972), Paris,

157

49. Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in environmental decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters (1998), Aarhus, 50. Cook, K. (1987). Social exchange theory, Sage publications. 51. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company. 52. Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among the five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 53. Dahl, R. A. (1961). Who governs? Democracy and power in an American city. . New Haven, Yale University Press. 54. Dahl, R. A. (1957). The concept of power. Behavioral Science 2: 201-218. 55. Dean, M. (1994). Critical and Effective Histories – Foucault’s Methods and Historical Sociology, Routledge. 56. De Groot, R. (2006). Function-analysis and valuation as a tool to assess land use conflicts in planning for sustainable, multi-functional landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning ,75. p. 175–186 57. De Lopez, T. T. et al. (2001). Policy options for Cambodia's Ream National Park: A stakeholder and economic analysis - Economy and Environment Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), Singapore. 58. De Lopez, T. T. (2003). "Economics and stakeholders of Ream National Park, Cambodia." Ecological Economics 46(2): 269-282. 59. DFID, Stakeholder Engagement: A Good Practice Handbook for Companies, Doing Business in Emerging Markets, (2007). IFC, World Bank 60. DG Enlargement, (2007). Screenings report Croatia. Chapter 27 – Environment. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/pdf/croatia/screening_reports/screening_report_27_hr_interne t_en.pdf.Accessed on 12.6.2013. 61. Dick, B. (2000). Grounded theory: a thumbnail sketch.2006: A paper written as a resource document for thesis candidates using Grounded Theory for data analysis. 62. Digeser, P. (1992). The fourth face of power. The Journal of Politics, Vol. 54, No. 4. pp. 977- 1007 63. Dolisca, F., Carter, R.D., McDaniel, J., Shannon M., D.A., Jolly, C.M., (2006). Factors influencing farmers’ participation in forestry management programs: A case study from Haiti.Forest Ecology and Management 236, 324-31.

158

64. Dryzek, J., (2010). Foundations and Frontiers of Deliberative Governance. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-956294-6. 65. Drafts spatial plans for areas of special characteristics in Nature Park Medvednica (1989, 2005 and 2012). 66. EC, (2012). Natura 2000 network. Accessed on 15.03. 2013. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/ 67. Eden, C. and Ackermann, F. (1998). Making Strategy: The Journey of Strategic Management, London: Sage Publications. 68. Eliot, L. (2001), Ask these questions to reach your stakeholders Management. Global Environmental Change (15). p. 184-188. 69. Elster, J., (edt.) (1998). Deliberative Democracy (Cambridge Studies in the Theory of Democracy). Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-59696-3. 70. Emerson, R. M. (1976). Social exchange theory - Annual review of sociology, Vol. 2 (1976), pp. 335-362 – JSTOR 71. Emirbayer, M. (1997). Manifesto for a relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology 103; 281-317. 72. Enserink, E. (2000). A quick scan for infrastructure planning: screening alternatives through interactive stakeholder analysis. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, volume 18, number 1, p. p 15–22 73. Environmental Protection Act, (OG 110/07) 74. Environmental impact assessment on reconstruction for Chair Lifts Sljeme (2009), ECOINA l.t.d. 75. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989b). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14: 532–550. 76. Eisenhardt, K. M., Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges of Management Journal, Vol. 50, No. 1, 25–32.: 77. Elsbach, K. D., Kramer, R. M. (2003). Assessing creativity in Hollywood pitch meetings: Evidence for a dual process model of creativity judgments. Academy of Management Journal, 46: 283–301. 78. European Parliament, (2006). Regulation on the application of the provisions of the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation in Decision-making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters to Community institutions and bodies. Regulation no.(1367/2006).

159

79. Few, R., Brown, K., Tompkins, E. L.( 2007). Public participation and climate change adaptation: avoiding the illusion of inclusion, Climate Policy, 7:1, 46-59 80. Fletcher, A., et al. (2003). "Mapping stakeholder perceptions for a third sector organization." in: Journal of Intellectual Capital 4(4): 505 – 527. 81. Foucault, M. (2009). Security, Territory, Population: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1977- 1978. St. Martin’s Press, 417 p. 82. Foucault, M. (1979). The History of Sexuality Volume 1: An Introduction. London: Allen Lane 83. Fressl, J., Brki’ M., Bakula M., Saric I. (2013). Analysis of public participation in Environmental Impact Assessment procedures. First regional conference on environmental impact assessment, Zadar 84. Friends of the Earth Croatia, (2011). “Court accepts the law suit and discards the decision of the Ministry of Environmental protection for the golf course Brkač in Motovun” http://zelena- akcija.hr/ 85. Frooman, J. (1999). Stakeholder influence strategies. Academy of management Review 24(2): 191-205 86. Garfinkel, H. (1984). Studies in Ethnomethodology, Cambridge: Polity. 87. Giddens, A. (1986). The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. University of California Press. 402p. 88. Glaser, B., Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine. 89. Glaser, B. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. 90. Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. 91. Goffman, E. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Anchor Books. 251p. 92. Graebner, M. E., Eisenhardt, K. M. (2004). The seller’s side of the story: Acquisition as courtship and governance as syndicate in entrepreneurial firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 49: 366–403. 93. Grimble, R., Chan, M. K. (1995). "Stakeholder analysis for natural resource management in developing countries. Some practical guidelines for making management more participatory and effective." Natural Resources Forum 19(3): 113-124. 94. Grimble, R., K. Wellard (1997). "Stakeholder methodologies in natural resource management: a review of principles, contexts, experiences and opportunities." Agricultural Systems 55(2): 173-193.

160

95. Grubešic, M., and Raguž, D.,(1993). Posljedice agresije na RH u lovnom gospodarstvu Glasnik za šumske pokuse, posebno izdanje 4, Zagreb, 147–154, 96. Haugaard, M. (2010). Power: A ‘family resemblance’ concept. European Journal of Cultural Studies 13(4) 419–438. 97. Haugaard, M. (2012). Rethinking the four dimensions of power: domination and empowerment. Journal of Political Power. 5(1). 33-54. 98. Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action Vol. 1, reasons and the rationalization of society. Boston: Beacon press. 99. Hallsworth, M., Parker, S., Rutter, J. (2011). Policy making in the real world: Evidence and analysis. Institute for Government. 100. Haugaard, M. (2003). Reflections on seven ways of creating power. European Journal of Social Theory. 6(1).87-113. 101. Harvey, D. (2007). A Brief History of Neoliberalism (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 102. Homans, G.C. (1958). Social Behavior as Exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 63 (6): 597-606. 103. Ingoldsby, B. B., Smith, S. (1995). Families in Multicultural Perspective. The Guilford Press: New York. 104. International Convention for the Protection of Birds (1950). Paris, 105. IFC (1998). Doing Better Business Through Effective Consultation and Disclosure. http://www.ifc.org/ifcext/enviro.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/p_pubconsult/$FILE/PublicConsulta tion.pdf 106. International Association of Public Participation, (2004). Public participation spectrum.http://www.iap2.org.au/sitebuilder/resources/knowledge/asset/files/36/iap2spectrum .pdf 107. International Institute for Environment and Development, Power Tools: for policy influence in natural resource management http://www.iied.org/natural-resources/key- issues/empowerment-and-land-rights/power-tools-for-policy-influence-natural-re(iied), 108. IUCN, Protected Areas Categories System (2008). Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 21 ISBN 978-2-8317-1086-0 109. Ivaniš, K., (2003). Programme for rest, recreation and sport in Nature Park Medvednica, Faculty of Architecture, Zagreb 110. Issac, J. C. (1987). Beyond the three faces of power: A realist critique. Polity 20 (1) 4-31.

161

111. Jennings, S. F., S. Lockie. (2002). Democratization and capacity building in coastal zone decision-making in Australia: the application of stakeholder analysis and social mapping. Paper presented at the Coastal Zone Asia Pacific Conference, Bangkok, TH. 112. Kardelj, E. (1981). O komuni (About the community). Beograd: Radnička štampa. 113. Kiran, S. (2009). Social network analysis of stakeholders in the context of forest related development interventions in NWFP, Pakistan, PhD thesis, 06-arid-1313. 114. Klemenčić, M. (1996). Promjene upravno-teritorijalnog ustroja Hrvatske 1918 – 1992. In: Mirošević, F. et al., Hrvatske županije kroz stoljeća, Školska knjiga i Zavod za hrvatsku povijest Filozofskoga fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, Zagreb, (p. 123. – 148.). 115. Koontz, T.M. (2005). We Finished the Plan, So Now What? Impacts of Collaborative Stakeholder Participation on Land Use Policy. The Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 33, No. 3, 2005 116. Kothari, R., (1998). Communalism In Indian Politics, 223 p. Rainbow Publishers, ISBN-10: 8186962018 117. Kušen E., (2003). Evaluation of Nature Park Medvednica tourism resources - tourism sector study, Zagreb 118. Krnjak, D. S., Valetic, Z. (2013). Overview of statistical indicators related to implementation of environmental impact assessments in the Republic of Croatia on the basis of the Environmental protection act (JSC 110/07). FIRST REGIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT. Zadar 119. Law on Nature Protection (OG 70/05) and bylaws, Regulations on Environmental Impact Assessment, (NN 59/00) 120. Law on Spatial Planning and Construction (OG 76/07, articles 68 and 69) 121. Leonard-Barton, D. (1990). A dual methodology for case studies: Synergistic use of a longitudinal single site with replicated multiple sites. Organization Science, 1: 1–19. 122. Lincoln, Y.S., Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509-536). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 123. Lukes, S.M. (1974). Power: a Radical View, Macmillan, 1974; Blackwell, 1986. 124. Malterud, K. (2001). Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. The lancet, Vol 358, 125. Management Plan for Nature Park Medevednica (2010). PE Medvednica

162

126. Marcuse, H. (1991). One-dimensional Man: studies in ideology of advanced industrial society. London: Routledge. Second edition. 127. Marsh, D., Stoker, G., (2002). Theory and methods in political science. Palgrave McMillan, Houndmills and New York, United States 128. Markušić, D. (2013). Hrvatka ulazi u EU bez euforije (Croatia enters EU without euphoria). Poslovni dnevnik. 30th June. http://www.poslovni.hr/hrvatska/hrvatska-ulazi-u-eu-bez- euforije-245770 129. MENP – Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection of Croatia, (2011). Strategic guidelines for the development of green economy – Green development of Croatia. Available at http://www.mzoip.hr/doc/propisi/153._-_1.3.pdf.Accessed on 16.9.2013. 130. Merton, R. K., Fiske, M.; Kendall, P. L. (1990). The focused interview. New York: Free Press. 131. Messick, S. (1995). "Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning". American Psychologist 50: 741–749 132. Meteorological study for the spatial plan on areas of special characteristics in Nature Park Medvednica, (2003). Meteorological and Hydrological service, Zagreb 133. Miles, M. B., A. M. Huberman (1984). Qualitative Data Analysis, Newbury Park, California, sage. 134. Miklin. Ž. (2003). Study on active and potential landslides and rockslides, increased erosion and largely unstable areas in Nature Park Medvednica - Institute for Geological research, Zagreb 135. Mining Act of R. Croatia (OG 56/13), 136. Ministry of Environmental Protection and Spatial Planning, 2002. By-law on internal affairs of Nature Park Medvednica. (OG 03/02), 137. Ministry of Environmental and Nature Protection, (2013). Ispravak spornih navoda Hrvatske komore inžinjera građevinarstva o ekološkoj mreži Natura 2000 (Correction of disputable claims of the Croatian Chamber of Civil Engineers related to ecological network Natura 2000. http://www.mzoip.hr. 138. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., Wood. D. J. (1997). "Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What really Counts." in: Academy of Management Review 22(4): 853 - 888.

163

139. Mostyn, Β. (1985). The Content Analysis of Qualitative Research Data: A Dynamic Approach. In M. Brenner, et al (eds.) The Research Interview: Uses and Approaches. London: Academic Press. 140. Moore, S. A. (1996). Defining “successful” environmental dispute resolution: Case studies from public land planning in the United States and Australia. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 16, 151-169. 141. Mushove, P., Vogel, C. (2005). Heads or tails? Stakeholder analysis as a tool for Conservation Area 142. Nature Protection Act (OG 70/05, OG 70/05, 139/08, 57/11) and its bylaws, 143. Nature Park Medvednica, professional background on nature conservation for the spatial plan for areas of special characteristics (2012). State Institute for nature Protection, Zagreb, 144. Nepal, S. K., K. E. Weber (1995). "Prospects for coexistence: Wildlife and local people." Ambio 24 (4): 238-245. 145. Neuman, W. L. (2011). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (sixth edition), Pearson International Edition 146. Nussbaum, Martha (2000). Women and human development: the capabilities approach. Cambridge New York: Cambridge University Press. 147. Oakley, P. (1988). The monitoring and evaluation of participation in rural development, FAO, Rome. 148. OECD - (2005). Evaluating Public Participation in Policy Making, OECD Publishing 149. Ofak, L. (2009). Public Participation in environmental issues decision making, Hrvatska javna uprava: opis za teoriju i praksu javne uprave. 9, 2; 443-470 150. O’Neill, J., (2001). ‘Representing people, representing nature, representing the world’, Environment and Planning C 19(4), 483–500. 151. Parkins, J.R., Mitchell, R.E., (2005), ‘Public participation as public debate: a deliberative turn in natural resource management’, Society and Natural Resources 18, 529–540. 152. Petts, J., Leach, B. (2000). Evaluating methods for public participation: Literature review. ENTEC, R&D Technical Report E135. 153. Pfeffer, J., Salancik, G. R. (2003). The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective, 2d ed. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press 154. Polsby, P. (1963). Community Power and Political Theory New Haven: Yale University Press, 155. Pomeroy, R., Douverne, F. (2008). The engagement of stakeholders in the marine spatial

164

planning process. Marine Policy 32. 816– 822. 156. Prell, C., Hubacek, K., Reed, M. (2009). Stakeholder Analysis and Social Network Analysis in Natural Resource Management. Society and Natural Resources, V. 22, Issue 6. 501-518. 157. Programme of Croatian Spatial Planning (1999). 158. Rawls, J. A Theory of Justice (1999). Belknap Press; Revised edition, 560 p. 159. Reason, P., Bradbury, H. (eds.) (2001). The Sage Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice. Sage, CA, pp. 5–10. 160. Reed, J. (2009). A Genealogy of Homo - Oeconomicus: Neoliberalism and the Production of Subjectivity. Foucault Studies, No 6, pp. 25-36, 161. Reed, J. et al. (2011). Who’s in and why? A typology of stakeholder analysis methods for natural resource management. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, p.1933–1949 162. Regulation of the National ecologic Network of the Republic of Croatia (OG 109/07), 163. Regulation on the Establishment of the PE " NP Medvednica" (OG 118/1998) 164. Renard, Y., Brown, N., Geoghegan, T. (2001). Stakeholder approaches to natural resource management in the Caribbean. Regional Conference on Community-Based Coastal Resource Management Mérida, Mexico 165. Report of the Physical Planning and Construction Committee on the proposal of Spatial plan for the Nature Park Medvednica on changing NP Medvednica borders (2009), The first reding No. 140, Available at: PZ.br.140, 17.9.2008 http://www.sabor.hr/Default.aspx?art=24113 166. Report of the Physical Planning and Construction Committee on the proposal of Spatial plan for the Nature Park Medvednica (2014). Available at: http://www.sabor.hr/izvjesce-odbora- za-prostorno-uredenje-i-gradit0008 167. Ritzer, G. (2008). Sociological theory. McGraw Hill, Eight edition. New York. 168. Rockloff, S.F., Lockie, S. (2004). Participatory Tools for Coastal Zone Management: use of Stakeholder Analysis and Social Mapping in Australia. Journal of Coastal Conservation (10). p. 81-92. 169. Rowe, G., Frewer, L. J. (2005). A Typology of Public Engagement Mechanisms, Science Technology Human Values 2005; 30; 251, Sage publication. 170. Rowe, G., Frewer, L. J. (2004). Evaluating Public- Participation Exercises: A Research Agenda, Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 29 No. 4, 512-556 171. Rydin, Y., Pennington, M. (2000). Public Participation and Local Environmental Planning: the collective action problem and the potential of social capital. Local Environment, Vol. 5, No. 2, 153–169.

165

172. Sabatelli, R. M., Sheehan, C. L. (1993). Exchange and Resource Theories in: Sourcebook of Family Theories and Methods, pp. 385-417, Springer Link 173. Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage, Los Angeles 174. Santiso, C. (2001). World Bank and good governance: good governance and aid effectiveness: the World Bank and conditionality - Geo. Public Policy Rev. 175. Savage, G. T., Nix, T. W., Whitehead, Blair. (1991). "Strategies for assessing and managing organizational stakeholders." In: Academy of Management Executive 5(2): 61 – 75. 176. Schmeer, K. (1999). Guidelines for Conducting a Stakeholder Analysis. Bethesda, MD, Partnerships for Health Reform, Abt. Associates Inc. 177. Schmeer, K. (2000). Stakeholder Analysis Guidelines. Policy Toolkit for Strengthening Health Sector Reform. Washington, D.C., Regional Office of the World Health Organization. 178. Scott, J., Carrington, P. J. (ed.). (2011). The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis. SAGE Publications Ltd. 640p. 179. Searle, S. Mark, (1990). Social Exchange Theory as a Framework for Understanding Ceasing Participation in Organized Leisure Activities, Recreation Studies Degree Program, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2N2. Proceedings Sixth Canadian Congress on Leisure Research 180. Shepard, G. (2004). The ecosystem approach – Five steps to implementation. IUCN Publications Services Unit 181. Silverman D. (2000). Doing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000. 182. Simon, J.K. (1971). “A Conversation with Michel Foucault”, Partisan Review, Vol.38, No.2, pp.192–201. 183. Smith, G., (2003). Deliberative Democracy and the Environment (Environmental Politics). Routledge ISBN 0-415-30940-9. 184. Spatial Planning Strategy of Croatia (1997). and the Program of Croatian Spatial Planning (OG 50/99) 185. Španjol, Ž. (2003). Revision of protected nature parts in NP Medvednica, with emphasis on forest reserves, Faculty of Forestry, Zagreb. 186. Spatial Plan of areas with special characteristics of NP Medvednica (2014). Prostorni plan područja posebnih obilježja Parka Prirode „Medvednica“ Available at: http://www.mgipu.hr/default.aspx?id=8504 187. Strategy of biological and landscape diversity with the action plans (OG 81/99), 188. Strategy for Sustainable Development of Croatia (OG 110/07),

166

189. Strauss, A. (1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Press. 190. Strauss, A.L., Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of Qualitative Research - Grounded Theory: Procedures and Techniques.London, Sage Publications. p. 23 and 310 191. Strauss, A.L., Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, London: Sage Publications. 192. Suddaby, R. (2006). What grounded theory is not? Academy of Management Journal, 49: 633–642. 193. Suman, D., Shivlani, M., Ilon, J. W. (1999). Perceptions and attitudes regarding marine reserves: a comparison of stakeholder groups in the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Ocean & Coastal Management 4210191040 194. Svendsen, A.C, R. G, Boutlier, R. Abbot, D. Wheeler, (2004). Measuring the business value of stakeholder Vancuver, BC, Simon Fraser Centre for Innovation in Management; 195. Taylor, M. F. (1994). Ethical considerations in European cross-national research International Social Science Journal, no. 142, p. 523-532. 196. The European Landscape Convention (2000). Florence, 197. Thompson, D., F. (2008).“Deliberative Democratic Theory and Empirical Political Science,” Annual Review of Political Science 11: 497-520. ISBN 978-0824333119 198. Tirhekar S. S. (2013). “Research methodology in education” Lulu Publication, USA ISBN No: 978-1-312-09374-4, p. 27 199. Tomičić, T. We have the projects, bring in the funding. Novi list, 30.10.2013. Available at: http://www.novilist.neomedia.hr/layout/set/print/Vijesti/Regija/Opatija/Komadina-Projekte- imamo-otvorite-novcanike 200. Tritter, Q. McCallum, J., Al. (2006). The snakes and ladders of user involvement: Moving beyond Arnstein. Health Policy 76 (2006) 156–168. 201. Turner, J. R., Veil. K., et al., Eds. (2002).The Project Manager as Change Agent. London, Mc Graw 202. Wilcox, D. (1994-2003). Guide to Effective Participation. Delta Press, Brighton. 73p. 203. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 204. Yin, R. K. (2005). Case Study Research: Design and Methods SAGE Publications

167

ANNEXES:

Annex I: Interview Protocol

This research aims to assess the influence of participatory processes on spatial planning of Nature Park Medvednica. The data gained in this process will only be used for the purpose of this PhD thesis research and will insure total anonymity with respect to the ethical research codex. Before publishing the data obtained, they will be given to you to review and in case there are some comments/suggestions/complaints, they will be taken into consideration. Confidentiality and protection of identity is guaranteed. The names of people and places will be omitted or changed in the transcriptions and the text. An option exists for you to stop the recording, as well as not to answer a question if you wish so.

Your participation in this research is of great importance for obtaining a representation of the ‘complete picture'. Providing an answer will undoubtedly assist in the development of proper and valid research results.

Questions: 1. Do you know why Nature Park Medvedinca still does not have a spatial plan? 2. What is the reason? 3. In which way did you participate in the process? 4. Since when did you start participating? 5. Who else was in that process? 6. How did the process go? 7. Did you attend all the meetings and who invited you to participate? 8. Do you know who has interest in participating in bringing the spatial plan? 9. What do you think are the issues concerning the spatial plan? 10. Can you point out some more important stakeholders involved in that process? 11. Please explain the pros and cons of establishing the spatial plan. 12. What are your thoughts on the area reduction of NP Medvednica? 13. Do you think it will be reduced once more? 14. Can you point out the winners and the losers with the bringing of the spatial plan?

168

15. Can you point out the most influential stakeholders who have the biggest interest in participating? 16. Do you think that all interested stakeholders are part of the spatial planning process? 17. If not, who do you think is missing? 18. What is their interest? 19. In witch way, do they influence the process? 20. What do you think will be the outcome of the process? 21. Is there a specific topic/area that is important to you (within the spatial plan)?

General Information: Name, Education, Working position. Do you have something to conclude at the end of this conversation?

If you think of something important additionally, please do not hesitate to contact me.

If you wish to receive feedback on the results obtained, please leave your contact information so I will be able to get in touch with you.

- Do you have any questions for me? - Would you like to ask me something related to this research or u would you like additional clarification? - Do you think there is something important about the NP Medvednicas’ Spatial Plan I have not asked you about, and you wanted to emphasize?

169

Annex II. L1 and L2 Codes with Memos

Level 1 level 1 Codes Memo Level 2 Level 2 codes Memo Encompasses group of group of level 1 codes codes codes

Area Periphery Periphery zone is located on the outskirts of NP Medvednica, Areas Key areas Represents areas where there is a continuous interest of Periphery zone, zone mostly on the southern slopes. It represents an area under heavy several groups of stakeholders. They are important Peak area pressure of urbanization, where forest area have been cleared, and conflict areas in each of the three processes of physical due to a lack of physical plan legal restrictions for illegal planning. Strong pressure of construction activities 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 Quarries are located throughout the park. They operate without Areas Secondary Represents areas of lesser interest, or areas that are Quarries, Forest environmental impact assessments. areas especially important to some stakeholders. The pressure area, Cable car Bringing of physical plan would strongly decrease the stone of these stakeholders may be enough to stop the path, Northern mining activities. Quarries are also of interest to Croatian Forests preparation of physical plan (e.g. northern slopes of NP slopes Ltd. Medvednica for hunters). (12 labels) Peak area Represents top of the mountain. It is an area of strong touristic Areas Key areas Represents areas where there is a continuous interest of Periphery zone, construction interests, mostly in ski tourism. This is also of special several groups of stakeholders. They are important Peak area interests to the City of Zagreb. Majority of these activities are not conflict areas in each of the three processes of physical financially viable, and are against expert physical planning planning. Strong pressure of construction activities documents. (20 labels) Forest area Represents majority of NP Medvednica. Represents special interest Areas Secondary Represents areas of lesser interest, or areas that are Quarries, Forest zone for Croatian Forests. Ltd., Private forest owners and hunters. areas especially important to some stakeholders for a certain area, Cable car Forest sector has interest to continue on with harvesting time period. The pressure of these stakeholders may be path, Northern operations, and to decrease the level of protection in special enough to stop the preparation of physical plan (e.g. slopes reserves of forest vegetation. Some areas are being stripped from northern slopes of NP Medvednica for hunters). trees and converted to construction land. If Physical plan would came into power, these activities would be halted ( 6 labels) Cable car Connects city of Zagreb to the peak area. Represents special Areas Secondary Represents areas of lesser interest, or areas that are Quarries, Forest path interests of the City and Zagreb, but so far there is not enough areas especially important to some stakeholders. The pressure area, Cable car finances to reconstruct it. of these stakeholders may be enough to stop the path, Northern (4 labels) preparation of physical plan (e.g. northern slopes of NP slopes Medvednica for hunters). Northern Represents area of special interests to the hunting associations, as Areas Secondary Represents areas of lesser interest, or areas that are Quarries, Forest slopes of NP is the only area where hunting is allowed. Was a major topic at the areas especially important to some stakeholders. The pressure area, Cable car Medvednica first process, and has actually stopped the physical plan of these stakeholders may be enough to stop the path, Northern (3 labels) preparation of physical plan (e.g. northern slopes of NP slopes Medvednica for hunters). Process in Illegal Illegal construction occurs on the outskirts of the Park. Some Interests Human Represents activity within or attitude towards Illegal NP construction forest areas are cleared and became construction land. These centred management of NP Medvednica directed to fulfilment of construction, Medvednica activities are possible due to a lack of a physical plan. This is in human needs (e.g. construction, quarries, hunting) Degradation of the interest of the construction companies, of private forest forest habitats, owners, part of the inhabitants of the city of Zagreb that live in the Cable car Podsljeme municipality. The exponent of this lobby group is the reconstruction, City of Zagreb – it brings it political “points” and it collects utility hunting, tunnel fees. building 170

(12 labels) 2. Physical plan ; Decreasing of the area of NP Medvednica; Effects of no physical plan Degradation Forests in NP Medvednica are being actively managed, which is Interests Human Represents activity within or attitude towards Illegal of forest perceived by visitors and many others as a problem. Croatian centred management of NP Medvednica directed to fulfilment of construction, habitats Forests Ltd. are also not paying respect to the nature protection human needs (e.g. construction, quarries, hunting). Degradation of restrictions, which is s special problem to the NP management Clearly defined interests forest habitats, authority. They have also brought special reserves of forest Cable car vegetation to such a state that they have lost its characteristics. reconstruction, Another problem is cutting of private forests, which is some cases hunting, tunnel are converted to construction land. building (10 labels) Cable car Connects the City of Zagreb to the peak area of NP Medvedica. Interests Human Represents activity within or attitude towards Illegal construction / Was active 20 years ago, but now there are no funds to reconstruct centred management of NP Medvednica directed to fulfilment of construction, reconstruction it. Of special political importance to the City of Zagreb. Cable car human needs (e.g. construction, quarries, hunting). Degradation of would also decrease the traffic to the peak area Clearly defined interests forest habitats, (5 labels) Cable car reconstruction, hunting, tunnel building Hunting Hunting is allowed on the Northern slopes of NP Medvednica, Interests Human Represents activity within or attitude towards Illegal which are a part of the Zagrebačka County and Krapinsko- centred management of NP Medvednica directed to fulfilment of construction, Zagorska County. Hunting was the most prominent topic in the human needs (e.g. construction, quarries, hunting). Degradation of first cycle of physical planning, and hunting relates pressures have Clearly defined interests forest habitats, stopped the process Cable car (6 labels) reconstruction, hunting, tunnel building Nature Nature protection as the overarching activity within the NP. Interests Nature Represents activity within or attitude towards Nature protection, protection Emphasis is also put on the touristic enjoyment of the nature. centred management of NP Medvednica directed to preservation Protection within Nature park category allows sustainable usage of natural resources, of nature itself; where nature has its own value, separated forest reserves but this is not known to many non-expert stakeholders, who equal from human wants and needs. Also encompasses 'weak', it with national park (where no active management is allowed), sustainable usage of natural resources, but to extent that and so any usage of natural resources on Medvednica is seen as does not interfere with nature protection goals. Clearly very negative (by citizens and NGOs). In this context the defined interests management regime provides maximum nature protection and minimum usage of natural resources (7 labels) Tunnel Intended to connect north and south of NP Medvednica. Was of Interests Human Represents activity within or attitude towards Illegal building interest to the City of Zagreb, especially to the major. When public centred management of NP Medvednica directed to fulfilment of construction, through NP pools showed that this idea does not have support, the City halted human needs (e.g. construction, quarries, hunting). Degradation of Medvednica this development. Clearly defined interests forest habitats, (4 labels) Cable car reconstruction, hunting, tunnel building

171

Actors Political elites Represents actors with direct influence over the preparation of Stakeholder Power behind Strongly interconnected clusters of actors that hold 1. Actors; Political physical plan. They can also dictate whether the physical plan shall group the throne specialized interests. These interests do not contradict elites, be made or not. This actor is usually associated with the major of each other, and they strive for broadening the scope of Construction the city of Zagreb, and to the administrative organization of the human presence and activities in NP Medvednica. Their lobby, Ski Lobby, City of Zagreb. They are also a channel into decision making interests contradict nature conservation. These actors Quarry lobby, process for many other stake holding groups, and are well have direct control over the actions of the City of Zagreb Hunting lobby connected in the process of physical planning. These actors influence 2. Level of (10 labels) the choice of personnel assigned to the tasks of physical participation - planning, where the chosen employees return the 'favour' informal of promotion with the 'favour' of securing the interests of participation. 3. these groups in the preparation of physical plan. The Perceptions on second stream of influence is through the Mayor of participation - Zagreb, the function in which the formal political power Adequate is concentrated on. Compliance to their interests is participation 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 SINP State Institute on Nature Protection. Represents state expert The inner Represents different segments of state administration that 1. Actors - SINP, organization on nature protection, which prepares the expert group are involved in the process, mostly in the form of experts. MC, MCPP, PI studies for all nature parks, which is the basis of the NP They are invited to consultation meetings by the City of NP Medvednica, Medvednica management plan. This position gives SINP indirect Zagreb but hold no substantial role in the decision Zagrebacka influence on the physical planning process. However the making, or on the agenda setting. They consider that the County, perception on the extent of this influence is differs among current form of participation is adequate, where they are Krapinsko- stakeholders: those whit interests in construction state that SINP is the experts, and the 'others' (i.e. the outer group) should Zagorska County, influential, those with interest in conservation state that it is not..... be merely informed on what the decisions were. Some of Croatian Forests but majority states that they are not influential. Recognize them have balanced interests (MC, SINP, PI NP Ltd. 2. Level of sustainable usage of natural resources Medvednica), while some (MCPP) act on behalf of participation - (7 labels) special interest groups (i.e. The power behind the throne) Consultation 3. Percepceptions on participation - Adequate participation Citizens of Citizens of Zagreb have several interests towards NP Medvednica . The outer Represents unorganized (or loosely organized) groups of 1. Actors - Zagreb The predominant general interest is in visiting NP and enjoying its group different stakeholders, whose interest are in most cases Citizens of nature. The second one is legalizing illegal housing within the ambivalent (with the exception of NGOs, who are nature Zagreb, borders of NP. Have little information on the Park itself. This centred), i.e. depend on the availability and sources of Zagrebacka relates to going against any active forest management, and information on the subject matter. Feel that there are County, and of perceiving that construction is illegal in the park. Before the being manipulated by other, more powerful groups of Krapinsko- second process they were agitated by public media that actors, which are represented by the formal deciders and Zagorska County. construction is banned from NP, which led to diminishing of by the media. Can influence the formal deciders if their NGOs, Private protection area, as in this way the City of Zagreb was just interest are focused enough, and if they perceive that they forest owners "reacting to public wishes".... but this manipulation was enabled by can have benefits of participation on a personal level. In 2. Determinants of the fact that citizens had little information on the process, and on most cases not interested in participation, which they participation - the management regime (construction rights) within the park. The perceive as inadequate. They also perceive the current Limitations of Media campaign was ordered by the construction lobby. This goes structure of physical planning as corrupt. In most cases participation for citizens in all three counties..all other instances they are broader groups perceive that their interests in the process 3. Level of disinterested in participation, and perceive that they will not be of physical planning would be better represented by participation; listened to. Believe that NGOs and mountaineers should represent smaller, more focused group, e.g. specialized NGOs and Public hearings, the nature protection interest, and not them. Perceived as being regional/Umbrella associations of private forest owners. No manipulated by different interest groups They were not interested They either participate through public hearings, reply to n-participation in the tunnel through Medvednica, so this development was questionnaires or get informed on the process by public cancelled. media. Believe that they could really participate in the 172

(69 labels) process of physical plan if the current structure of governing changes. They perceive EU accession as a possible driving force of these changes MCPP Ministry had representatives in the team which worked on the The inner Represents different segments of state administration that 1. Actors - SINP, preparation of the physical plan in all three processes, but only a group are involved in the process, mostly in the form of experts. MC, MCPP, PI minor role – the major role belongs to the City of Zagreb. In the They are invited to consultation meetings by the City of NP Medvednica, first process (Yugoslavia) it encompassed the Institute of Zagreb but hold no substantial role in the decision Zagrebacka urbanism, which looked at the topic more holistically; they have making, or on the agenda setting. They consider that the County, halted the second process, as they serve as the exponents of the current form of participation is adequate, where they are Krapinsko- construction lobby. They have also given the proposal for the the experts, and the 'others' (i.e. the outer group) should Zagorska County, diminishing of the borders of NP Medvednica to Physical Planning be merely informed on what the decisions were. Some of Croatian Forests and Construction Committee of the Croatian Parliament, which has them have balanced interests (MC, SINP, PI NP Ltd. 2. Level of adopted the plan. Recognize sustainable usage of natural resources Medvednica), while some (MCPP) act on behalf of participation - (8 labels) special interest groups (i.e. The power behind the throne) Consultation 3. Perceptions on participation - Adequate participation Parliament Parliament of the Republic of Croatia is the organization, which Formal Central actors with formal power of setting the agenda of 1. Actors; City of formally approves the physical plan (in a form of a Law) for NP decider decision making, putting some decisions aside, defining Zagreb, Medvednica; however the Parliament never got such a proposal. the procedural and substantive aspects of physical Parliament. The only Law that the Parliament made was on decreasing of the planning, and halting the process altogether. Has 2. Determinants of borders of Medvednica in 2008, during the time of making the perception that the current form of participation is participation; second proposal of the physical plan. The discussions were made adequate. Although is aware of other, more 'liberal' forms Costs of by the Physical Planning and Construction Committee, which is a of participation, they are cast aside. The reasons are that participation; political body that adheres to the political interests of its members in that case the 'external', 'non-expert' players would have Capacity for (10 labels) more prominent role, by which they would decrease their participation 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 physical planning. This code encompasses the administration of the City of Zagreb, and the Croatian Parliament. Although physical 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 Physical 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.

173

Citizens of Primarily interest of citizens of Zagreb County is visiting NP and The outer Represents unorganized (or loosely organized) groups of 1. Actors - Zagreb enjoying its nature. However participation with this interest is low, group different stakeholders, whose interest are in most cases Citizens of County and citizens perceive that NGOs should represent them. In general ambivalent (with the exception of NGOs, who are nature Zagreb, have little information on the management of Park, what rights and centred), i.e. depend on the availability and sources of Zagrebacka restrictions do they have for living within the park, and little information on the subject matter. Feel that there are County, and of information on the participation process, for which they perceive being manipulated by other, more powerful groups of Krapinsko- will bring them little benefit, as they will not be listened to. In the actors, which are represented by the formal deciders and Zagorska County. case of limiting construction they are much more proactive, and by the media. Can influence the formal deciders if their NGOs, Private push this issue on public hearings and through other means. They interests are focused enough, and if they perceive that forest owners feel that they have been manipulated by different interest groups they can have benefits of participation on a personal level. 2. Determinants of (22 labels) In most cases not interested in participation, which they participation - perceive as inadequate. They also perceive the current Limitations of structure of physical planning as corrupt. In most cases participation broader groups perceive that their interests in the process 3. Level of of physical planning would be better represented by participation; smaller, more focused group, e.g. specialized NGOs and Public hearings, regional/Umbrella associations of private forest owners. Non-participation 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 physical plan if the current structure of governing changes. They perceive EU accession as a possible driving force of these changes Citizens of Primarily interest of citizens of Zagreb County is visiting NP and The outer Represents unorganized (or loosely organized) groups of 1. Actors - Krapinsko – enjoying its nature. However participation with this interest is low, group different stakeholders, whose interest are in most cases Citizens of Zagorska and citizens perceive that NGOs should represent them. In general ambivalent (with the exception of NGOs, who are nature Zagreb, county have little information on the management of Park, what rights and centred), i.e. depend on the availability and sources of Zagrebacka restrictions do they have for living within the park, and little information on the subject matter. Feel that there are County, and of information on the participation process, for which they perceive being manipulated by other, more powerful groups of Krapinsko- will bring them little benefit, as they will not be listened to. In the actors, which are represented by the formal deciders and Zagorska County. case of limiting construction they are much more proactive, and by the media. Can influence the formal deciders if their NGOs, Private push this issue on public hearings and through other means. They interests are focused enough, and if they perceive that forest owners feel that they have been manipulated by different interest groups they can have benefits of participation on a personal level. 2. Determinants of (24 labels) In most cases not interested in participation, which they participation - perceive as inadequate. They also perceive the current Limitations of structure of physical planning as corrupt. In most cases participation broader groups perceive that their interests in the process 3. Level of of physical planning would be better represented by participation; smaller, more focused group, e.g. specialized NGOs and Public hearings, regional/Umbrella associations of private forest owners. Non-participation 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 physical plan if the current structure of governing changes. They perceive EU accession as a possible driving force of these changes

174

Ministry of Supervises the work of State Institute on Nature Protection, which The inner Represents different segments of state administration that 1. Actors - SINP, Culture provides different expert studies on nature protection. Was group are involved in the process, mostly in the form of experts. MC, MCPP, PI marginally involved in the drafting of the physical plan – they They are invited to consultation meetings by the City of NP Medvednica, were called for an opinion by the City of Zagreb, but there was no Zagreb but hold no substantial role in the decision Zagrebacka feedback information, nor it is known if their arguments were making, or on the agenda setting. They consider that the County, taken into consideration current form of participation is adequate, where they are Krapinsko- (6 labels) the experts, and the 'others' (i.e. the outer group) should Zagorska County, be merely informed on what the decisions were. Some of Croatian Forests them have balanced interests (MC, SINP, PI NP Ltd. 2. Level of Medvednica), while some (MCPP) act on behalf of participation - special interest groups (i.e. The power behind the throne) Consultation 3. Perceptions on participation - Adequate participation City of The most powerful actor in the preparation of the physical plan. Formal Central actors with formal power of setting the agenda of 1. Actors; City of Zagreb Formally the activities related to physical plan were done by City decider decision making, putting some decisions aside, defining Zagreb, Office for Physical Planning, Construction of the City, Utility the procedural and substantive aspects of physical Parliament. Services and Transport…. But in reality the City administration planning, and halting the process altogether. Has 2. Determinants of itself has its own interest, and they serve as a “channel” for perception that the current form of participation is participation; different interest groups. The City Office for Physical planning has adequate. Although is aware of other, more 'liberal' forms Costs of a lot of autonomy from other city departments (sectors). The most of participation, they are cast aside. The reasons are that participation; prominent lobby group that the City represents is the construction in that case the 'external', 'non-expert' players would have Capacity for lobby, and it has been so in Croatian and in the Yugoslav system. more prominent role, by which they would decrease their participation There is also a section of the construction lobby that operates own importance and the importance of the 'external' directly through the mayor. These are the country`s most powerful experts with appropriate formal education. Another reason figures from the political and financial sphere, which in return for not including 'more liberal' forms of participation is support the mayor politically. In general all the power in the that it has its procedural costs, which would require administration of the City of Zagreb is held by the Mayor. If additional work (with no personal benefits) and would physical plan came to power these activities would be severely prolong the process of physical planning. This code halted. The power of the City of Zagreb overshadows the encompasses the administration of the City of Zagreb, and administration of the Krapinsko-Zagorska and Zagreb county in the Croatian Parliament. Although physical plan in the the process of physical planning. Secondary interests of the City of end depends on its adoption by the Parliament, they can Zagreb are endorsing sports activities on Medvednica, which is just address the drafts that the City has sent them - and complementary to the ideas of the construction lobby. This activity that has never happened. They have decreased the borders is focused on the peak area, and the most prominent is the of the NP Medvednica, and its Physical Planning and development of ski sports. Of tertiary interest is the Construction Committee also acts as a representative of (re)construction of cable car from Zagreb to the peak of the Construction lobby (i.e. The power behind the throne). Medvednica, for which currently there are no secured finances. The mechanisms of control of the Parliament and the City (106 labels) 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.

175

Croatian State forest management company, manages about 50% of forest The inner Represents different segments of state administration that 1. Actors - SINP, Forests Ltd in NP Medvednica. Perceived by NP Medvednica authorities and group are involved in the process, mostly in the form of experts. MC, MCPP, PI majority of other stakeholders as over-felling forests and not They are invited to consultation meetings by the City of NP Medvednica, paying respects to the provisions of nature protection. Have Zagreb but hold no substantial role in the decision Zagrebacka interest to cancel the status of special reserves of forest vegetation, making, or on the agenda setting. They consider that the County, as this protection category diminishes their felling rights. Low current form of participation is adequate, where they are Krapinsko- participation in the physical plan, just want to keep their current the experts, and the 'others' (i.e. the outer group) should Zagorska County, position. Powerful actor be merely informed on what the decisions were. Some of Croatian Forests (18 labels) them have balanced interests (MC, SINP, PI NP Ltd. 2. Level of Medvednica), while some (MCPP) act on behalf of participation - special interest groups (i.e. The power behind the throne) Consultation 3. Perceptions on participation - Adequate participation Hunters Hunting is located on the northern slopes of Medvednica. They are The inner Represents different segments of state administration that 1. Actors - SINP, represented by the Croatian Hunting Federation, which has its group are involved in the process, mostly in the form of experts. MC, MCPP, PI seven associations located in Medvednica. They have stopped the They are invited to consultation meetings by the City of NP Medvednica, first draft of the physical plan, as it would decrease their hunting Zagreb but hold no substantial role in the decision Zagrebacka rights. They have direct influence over the process of physical making, or on the agenda setting. They consider that the County, planning through the City Office for Agriculture and Forestry of current form of participation is adequate, where they are Krapinsko- Zagreb. Croatian Hunting Federation claims that they are not the experts, and the 'others' (i.e. the outer group) should Zagorska County, influential, and that they are not involved in the process of physical be merely informed on what the decisions were. Some of Croatian Forests planning on Medvednica. them have balanced interests (MC, SINP, PI NP Ltd. 2. Level of (11 labels) Medvednica), while some (MCPP) act on behalf of participation - special interest groups (i.e. The power behind the throne) Consultation 3. Perceptions on participation - Adequate participation NGOs NGOs have interest in furthering nature conservation on The outer Represents unorganized (or loosely organized) groups of 1. Actors - Medvednica. They are very active on this issue in public media on group different stakeholders, whose interest are in most cases Citizens of in the public hearings, but none of their arguments/comments have ambivalent (with the exception of NGOs, who are nature Zagreb, never been accepted by the physical planners. They have been centred), i.e. depend on the availability and sources of Zagrebacka called to stakeholder consultation in the final stages of planning, information on the subject matter. Feel that there are County, and of when there was no possibility of alterations. Perceive public being manipulated by other, more powerful groups of Krapinsko- hearing as a futile symbolic activity. They try to inform citizens on actors, which are represented by the formal deciders and Zagorska County. their public participation rights. Are very against of the forest by the media. Can influence the formal deciders if their NGOs, Private management activities performed by Croatian forests Ltd. interest are focused enough, and if they perceive that they forest owners (15 labels) can have benefits of participation on a personal level. In 2. Determinants of most cases not interested in participation, which they participation - perceive as inadequate. They also perceive the current Limitations of structure of physical planning as corrupt. In most cases participation broader groups perceive that their interests in the process 3. Level of of physical planning would be better represented by participation; smaller, more focused group, e.g. specialized NGOs and Public hearings, regional/Umbrella associations of private forest owners. Non-participation 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 physical plan if the current structure of governing changes. They perceive EU accession as a possible driving force of these changes

176

Zagreb Formally involved in the physical planning process, but actually The inner Represents different segments of state administration that 1. Actors - SINP, county marginalized by the City of Zagreb. Have little information or group are involved in the process, mostly in the form of experts. MC, MCPP, PI relations to participation activities They are invited to consultation meetings by the City of NP Medvednica, (3 labels) Zagreb but hold no substantial role in the decision Zagrebacka making, or on the agenda setting. They consider that the County, current form of participation is adequate, where they are Krapinsko- the experts, and the 'others' (i.e. the outer group) should Zagorska County, be merely informed on what the decisions were. Some of Croatian Forests them have balanced interests (MC, SINP, PI NP Ltd. 2. Level of Medvednica), while some (MCPP) act on behalf of participation - special interest groups (i.e. The power behind the throne) Consultation 3. Perceptions on participation - Adequate participation Krapinsko- Involved in the team that drafts physical plan. More involved than The inner Represents different segments of state administration that 1. Actors - SINP, Zagorska Zagrebačka County, less than the City of Zagreb. More involved group are involved in the process, mostly in the form of experts. MC, MCPP, PI County – also in the second and third process than they were in the first one. They are invited to consultation meetings by the City of NP Medvednica, contains Perceive broad (public) participation as pointless and that only a Zagreb but hold no substantial role in the decision Zagrebacka municipality small team should make the plan. making, or on the agenda setting. They consider that the County, Stubičke (8 labels) current form of participation is adequate, where they are Krapinsko- toplice the experts, and the 'others' (i.e. the outer group) should Zagorska County, be merely informed on what the decisions were. Some of Croatian Forests them have balanced interests (MC, SINP, PI NP Ltd. 2. Level of Medvednica), while some (MCPP) act on behalf of participation - special interest groups (i.e. The power behind the throne) Consultation 3. Perceptions on participation - Adequate participation Private forest Private forest owners own 50 % of forest on Medvednica. Not very The outer Represents unorganized (or loosely organized) groups of 1. Actors - owners interested in active forest management. In general were not group different stakeholders, whose interest are in most cases Citizens of invited to meetings, have little information on the process of ambivalent (with the exception of NGOs, who are nature Zagreb, physical planning, and would like to be more involved. Smaller centred), i.e. depend on the availability and sources of Zagrebacka part of them has interest in converting their forest to construction information on the subject matter. Feel that there are County, and of land and legalizing it – they were active in the public hearings, and being manipulated by other, more powerful groups of Krapinsko- were involved in the process. actors, which are represented by the formal deciders and Zagorska County. (16 labels). Croatian Forests Ltd., the state forest management by the media. Can influence the formal deciders if their NGOs, Private company, also manages part of the private forests interest are focused enough, and if they perceive that they forest owners can have benefits of participation on a personal level. In 2. Determinants of most cases not interested in participation, which they participation - perceive as inadequate. They also perceive the current Limitations of structure of physical planning as corrupt. In most cases participation broader groups perceive that their interests in the process 3. Level of of physical planning would be better represented by participation; smaller, more focused group, e.g. specialized NGOs and Public hearings, regional/Umbrella associations of private forest owners. Non-participation 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 physical plan if the current structure of governing changes. They perceive EU accession as a possible driving force of these changes

177

Construction Represents investors and construction companies with a lot of Power behind Strongly interconnected clusters of actors that hold 1. Actors Political lobby political and financial power. They are constructing housing, the throne specialized interests. These interests do not contradict elites, touristic and industrial real estates within the Park. Most of these each other, and they strive for broadening the scope of Construction activities occur on the southern slopes of Medvednica i.e. on the human presence and activities in NP Medvednica. Their lobby, Ski Lobby, northern borders of Zagreb. They are also constructing illegally, interests contradict nature conservation. These actors Quarry lobby, and converting some forest areas into construction land. They have have direct control over the actions of the City of Zagreb Hunting lobby stopped the second decision making process of the physical plan, in the process of physical planning. These actors influence 2. Level of and pushed in the Parliament that the borders of NP Medvednica the choice of personnel assigned to the tasks of physical participation - are to be diminished. The areas that went out of the park were the planning, where the chosen employees return the 'favour' informal ones that were urbanized. Their interest prevails over any other of promotion with the 'favour' of securing the interests of participation. 3. interests. The exponent of their interest in the process of physical these groups in the preparation of physical plan. The Perceptions on planning is the administration of the City of Zagreb itself, and the second stream of influence is through the Mayor of participation - Ministry of Construction. Zagreb, the function in which the formal political power Adequate (39 labels) is concentrated on. Compliance to their interests is participation 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 Quarries Influential in the process of physical planning, but not formally Power behind Strongly interconnected clusters of actors that hold 1. Actors Political (Quarry involved. They keep on with their activities regardless of many the throne specialized interests. These interests do not contradict elites, owners) environmental complaints. each other, and they strive for broadening the scope of Construction (6 labels) human presence and activities in NP Medvednica. Their lobby, Ski Lobby, interests contradict nature conservation. These actors Quarry lobby, have direct control over the actions of the City of Zagreb Hunting lobby in the process of physical planning. These actors influence 2. Level of the choice of personnel assigned to the tasks of physical participation - planning, where the chosen employees return the 'favour' informal of promotion with the 'favour' of securing the interests of participation. 3. these groups in the preparation of physical plan. The Perceptions on second stream of influence is through the Mayor of participation - Zagreb, the function in which the formal political power Adequate is concentrated on. Compliance to their interests is participation 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 PI NP Has interest in the proclamation of the physical plan. Not The inner Represents different segments of state administration that 1. Actors - SINP, Medvednica influential. Agreed to decrease of the area due to low power. group are involved in the process, mostly in the form of experts. MC, MCPP, PI Advocates conservation and to some extent sustainable usage of They are invited to consultation meetings by the City of NP Medvednica, natural resources. Zagreb but hold no substantial role in the decision Zagrebacka (7 labels) making, or on the agenda setting. They consider that the County, current form of participation is adequate, where they are Krapinsko- the experts, and the 'others' (i.e. the outer group) should Zagorska County, be merely informed on what the decisions were. Some of Croatian Forests them have balanced interests (MC, SINP, PI NP Ltd. 2. Level of Medvednica), while some (MCPP) act on behalf of participation - special interest groups (i.e. The power behind the throne) Consultation 3. Perceptions on participation - Adequate participation

178

Ski lobby Influential in the process of physical planning. From all touristic Power behind Strongly interconnected clusters of actors that hold 1. Actors activities skiing is most pronounced. Have special interest in the the throne specialized interests. These interests do not contradict Political elites, peak zone, where they build ski tracks, and other touristic each other, and they strive for broadening the scope of Construction facilities. Part of the formal process of decision making, have high human presence and activities in NP Medvednica. Their lobby, Ski Lobby, support from the City of Zagreb. Have political power, and push interests contradict nature conservation. These actors Quarry lobby, further skiing capacities, although they are not financially viable. have direct control over the actions of the City of Zagreb Hunting lobby (43 labels) in the process of physical planning. These actors influence 2. Level of the choice of personnel assigned to the tasks of physical participation - planning, where the chosen employees return the 'favour' informal of promotion with the 'favour' of securing the interests of participation. 3. these groups in the preparation of physical plan. The Perceptions on second stream of influence is through the Mayor of participation - Zagreb, the function in which the formal political power Adequate is concentrated on. Compliance to their interests is participation 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 Level of Public Only actors that have direct interest are participating to the public Type of Symbolic Represents different types of 'enrolment' of stakeholders 1. Level of participation hearings hearings. The participant put a lot of energy in stating their claims. participation participation in the process of physical planning, all of which share in participation; The team that runs the process of physical planning has not common that they do not have real impact on the process Consultation, accepted a single comment from any of the hearings (except for itself. Actors may be called to consultative meetings, Public hearings, the case written below). The team also perceives this kind of participate in public hearings, reply to a questionnaire, or Non-participation participation adequate. Participants feel that they are being read and comment on the process on-line. They may agree manipulated. or disagree with the process itself and on the applied Exemption of this rule was the situation on the decreasing of the methods of participation, believe that they are being borders, when public media have infuriated people stating that no manipulated or not, to have adequate or inadequate level construction will be allowed within the park, which is untrue. This of information on the process; but regardless of these created a very heated atmosphere in the hearings and a public factors, they do not have the power to affect it. With a protest, which was seen as a cause for decreasing of the protection strong, organized representation of interests that goes area. beyond the current modes of participation actors which (22 labels) have symbolically participated can affect the process of physical 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 Informal Represent actors that have direct interest and financial and/or Type of Informal Represent type of involvement by actors that have direct 1. Level of participation political power. They are more often not part of the formal participation participation interest and financial and/or political power. They are participation: process. They lobby informally through actors that are part of the mostly not part of the formal process. They lobby informal formal decision making process. In majority of cases that is the informally through actors that are part of the formal participation administration of the City of Zagreb or the major of Zagreb decision making process. In majority of cases that is the directly. This is the method through which all the physical plans administration of the City of Zagreb or the major of have been stopped, and how borders of the Park have been Zagreb directly. This is the method through which all the decreased. All organized interest groups have utilized this method. physical plans have been stopped, and how borders of the They control the agenda setting, have direct control over decisions Park have been decreased. All organized interest groups that are made, and have influence on the choice of personnel that have utilized this method. They control the agenda formally performs the process of decision making. The rewards for setting, have direct control over decisions that are made, compliance to their wants are political support through donations, and have influence on the choice of personnel that political favours and corruption. formally performs the process of decision making. The (12 labels) rewards for compliance to their wants are political support through donations, political favours and corruption. (12 codes)

179

Non- Represents inactive involvement. The list of stakeholders has been Type of Symbolic Represents different types of 'enrolment' of stakeholders 1. Level of participation given to the physical planners politically, and it is very narrow. participation participation in the process of physical planning, all of which share in participation; Planners also believe that in general stakeholders should not be common that they do not have real impact on the process Consultation, involved… and that the adequate level of their involvement is just itself. Actors may be called to consultative meetings, Public hearings, by informing them on the process through internet, or by (other) participate in public hearings, reply to a questionnaire, or Non-participation public media . From the stakeholders perspective it represents read and comment on the process on-line. They may agree passive involvement or non-involvement (just receiving sparse or disagree with the process itself and on the applied information), with low information level on the process itself. methods of participation, believe that they are being (11 labels) 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 physical 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 Consultation Consultations are meetings with different stakeholders organized Type of Symbolic Represents different types of 'enrolment' of stakeholders 1. Level of by the City of Zagreb. Its participants are, however, other parts of participation participation in the process of physical planning, all of which share in participation; public administration: Zagrebacka County, Krapinsko - Zagorska common that they do not have real impact on the process Consultation, County, Municipality Bistra and Ministry of Physical planning... itself. Actors may be called to consultative meetings, Public hearings, all off which perceive themselves as members of the team for participate in public hearings, reply to a questionnaire, or Non-participation physical planning, and not as stakeholders. The discussion in the read and comment on the process on-line. They may agree consultation meetings is constructive, but the actual decisions are or disagree with the process itself and on the applied made by the City of Zagreb. City of Zagreb believes that only this methods of participation, believe that they are being group represent stakeholders which should participate, and that all manipulated or not, to have adequate or inadequate level other should be just informed. The consultation occurred in the of information on the process; but regardless of these second and the third process. factors, they do not have the power to affect it. With a (16 labels) strong, organized representation of interests that goes beyond the current modes of participation actors which have symbolically participated can affect the process of physical 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

180

Perceptions Inadequate View that participation in the process was inadequate. It is The outer Represents unorganized (or loosely organized) groups of 1. Actors - on participation characterized by excluding important stakeholders (i.e. everyone group different stakeholders, whose interest are in most cases Citizens of participation but public administration), and that the forms of participation ambivalent (with the exception of NGOs, who are nature Zagreb, exercised with stakeholders (public consultation, questionnaires) centred), i.e. depend on the availability and sources of Zagrebacka are just a facade with no real impact on the process. Leaders of the information on the subject matter. Feel that there are County, and of process are perceived as corrupt and as manipulating public and being manipulated by other, more powerful groups of Krapinsko- stakeholders. The topic of the participation which are used are also actors, which are represented by the formal deciders and Zagorska County. of marginal importance, and the important topics which relate to by the media. Can influence the formal deciders if their NGOs, Private true interest of stakeholders are not the topic of discussion, interests are focused enough, and if they perceive that forest owners Diverting from true interests. This view is shared by all the they can have benefits of participation on a personal level. 2. Determinants of citizens, NGO, PI NP Medvednica, Hunters, private forest owners, In most cases not interested in participation, which they participation - Croatian Forest Ltd., SINP and the Ministry of Culture. perceive as inadequate. They also perceive the current Limitations of (27 labels) structure of physical planning as corrupt. In most cases participation broader groups perceive that their interests in the process 3. Level of of physical planning would be better represented by participation; smaller, more focused group, e.g. specialized NGOs and Public hearings, regional/Umbrella associations of private forest owners. Non-participation 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 physical plan if the current structure of governing changes. They perceive EU accession as a possible driving force of these changes Adequate View that participation in the process was adequate. The The power participation participation was exercised on the official list of stakeholders behind the (through consultation), and the list contained only organizations of throne; The public administration.... and all the rest are not regarded as formal stakeholders but as "citizens", which should not be involved in the decider, The process of decision making. inner group This view is shared by the City of Zagreb and other Counties, and by the Ministry of Physical planning, and lobby/interest groups (17 labels) Determinant Limitations of The impact of participation on the process is very weak. The The outer Represents unorganized (or loosely organized) groups of 1. Actors - s of participation underlying reason is that people in the current system fear the group different stakeholders, whose interest are in most cases Citizens of participation political repercussions of their public activity, and perceive that ambivalent (with the exception of NGOs, who are nature Zagreb, they cannot change anything due to informal (corruptive) centred), i.e. depend on the availability and sources of Zagrebacka practices. This is the central idea of the code; people perceive that information on the subject matter. Feel that there are County, and of they do not have an impact of the process, which further dissuades being manipulated by other, more powerful groups of Krapinsko- them from participating. In this general atmosphere there is a lack actors, which are represented by the formal deciders and Zagorska County. of collective action, and majority does not see what their interests by the media. Can influence the formal deciders if their NGOs, Private are in the process of physical planning. The public is also interest are focused enough, and if they perceive that they forest owners manipulated through media on the emphasized power of the can have benefits of participation on a personal level. In 2. Determinants of (political) elites, which dissuades them from participating. The most cases not interested in participation, which they participation - media can also alter the perception of what the true interests of perceive as inadequate. They also perceive the current Limitations of stakeholders are, so they may act against their true interests (e.g. structure of physical planning as corrupt. In most cases participation that citizens' already build houses in the southern slopes will be broader groups perceive that their interests in the process 3. Level of demolished - which is not true- so they made a campaign against of physical planning would be better represented by participation; the adoption of the plan. Majority of interviewees believe that smaller, more focused group, e.g. specialized NGOs and Public hearings, entrance to the EU will change the current system of governance, regional/Umbrella associations of private forest owners. Non-participation and make the process of physical planning more transparent and They either participate through public hearings, reply to more open to stakeholders. questionnaires or get informed on the process by public (67 labels) media. Believe that they could really participate in the process of physical plan if the current structure of governing changes. They perceive EU accession as a 181

possible driving force of these changes Costs of There are many different stakeholders and many different interests Formal Central actors with formal power of setting the agenda of 1. Actors; City of participation revolving around NP Medvednica, and the implementation of decider decision making, putting some decisions aside, defining Zagreb, participatory mechanisms requires capacities that state the procedural and substantive aspects of physical Parliament. administration does not have. The leaders of the process have planning, and halting the process altogether. Has 2. Determinants of problems with accommodating the interests of different segments perception that the current form of participation is participation; of state administration, let along of the other (external) adequate. Although is aware of other, more 'liberal' forms Costs of stakeholders). They also receive no personal benefits for of participation, they are cast aside. The reasons are that participation; implementing participation, which would complicate their jobs. in that case the 'external', 'non-expert' players would have Capacity for (16 labels) more prominent role, by which they would decrease their participation 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 physical planning. This code encompasses the administration of the City of Zagreb, and the Croatian Parliament. Although physical 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 Physical 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.

182

Capacity for Lack of capacity to implement stakeholder’s participation, i.e. to Formal Central actors with formal power of setting the agenda of 1. Actors; City of participation acknowledge their interests in the decision making. The state decider decision making, putting some decisions aside, defining Zagreb, administration that prepares the plan does not perceive citizens and the procedural and substantive aspects of physical Parliament. stakeholders as expert enough to participate, and that the decision planning, and halting the process altogether. Has 2. Determinants of making has to be done by them, the experts (as contrast to non- perception that the current form of participation is participation; experts). This position has strengthened from the first to the third adequate. Although is aware of other, more 'liberal' forms Costs of process. of participation, they are cast aside. The reasons are that participation; (9 labels) in that case the 'external', 'non-expert' players would have Capacity for more prominent role, by which they would decrease their participation 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 physical planning. This code encompasses the administration of the City of Zagreb, and the Croatian Parliament. Although physical 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 Physical 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. Physical plan Decreasing of The only decision that has been made regarding physical planning Interests Human Represents activity within or attitude towards Illegal the NP of NP is decreasing of its borders. This has occurred mostly on the centred management of NP Medvednica directed to fulfilment of construction, Medvednica southern slopes, less on the northern. The formal decision has been human needs (e.g. construction, quarries, hunting) Degradation of made by the Parliament on recommendation of the Ministry of forest habitats, physical planning, but in reality represents the efforts of the City of Cable car Zagreb and of its major. The reason behind the decrease is reconstruction, urbanization and the pressures of the construction lobby. Only one hunting, tunnel quarter of the area that left the park was urbanized, and the rest building awaits urbanization by investors. Although in general population 2. Physical plan ; if against the decreasing of the NP, Public media has issued a Decreasing of the campaign sponsored by the construction lobby saying that no NP area of NP has very strict construction regime (not true), and so the people Medvednica; revolted... and so the city of Zagreb was just reacting to the "will Effects of no of the people" . Possibility exists that this will happen again. physical plan (44 labels)

183

Decision Effects of designation of the physical plan. Bringing about Interests Balanced Represents balanced human and nature-centred interests, Effects of physical making / physical plan would improve the nature protection function, and it where sustainable usage of natural resources is allowed. plan; Theoretical Effects of would further the interest of general public, especially citizens of Different values have priority according to the zoning goal of physical physical plan Zagreb. structure of the area, and the interventions in the area are plan (13 labels) clearly defined; deviation from these rules should be punishable. Clearly defined position. Non- decision Represents effects of not bringing about physical plan. In its Interests Human Represents activity within or attitude towards Illegal making / absence there are no legal penalties for unsustainable usage of centred management of NP Medvednica directed to fulfilment of construction, Effects of no natural resources and for construction activities within NP, so the human needs (e.g. construction, quarries, hunting) Degradation of physical plan 'winners' in this situation are all the groups that have these types of forest habitats, interests. They have been blocking all of the three processes, Cable car mostly through influencing (represented by) the political reconstruction, leadership of the City of Zagreb (and in smaller part the Ministry hunting, tunnel of Construction and Physical Planning). building (55 labels) 2. Physical plan ; Decreasing of the area of NP Medvednica; Effects of no physical plan Protection Especially valuable forest habitats are protected as special reserves Interests Nature Represents activity within or attitude towards Nature protection, within forest of forest vegetation (a national category of protection) within NP centred management of NP Medvednica directed to preservation Protection within reserves Medvednica. Relates to protection in which very little active of nature itself; where nature has its own value, separated forest reserves human management is allowed. They have been managed by from human wants and needs. Also encompasses 'weak', Croatian forests Ltd. (CF), and in the process have over-utilized sustainable usage of natural resources, but to extent that them to a point where their important ecosystem elements are lost. does not interfere with nature protection goals. Clearly CF has interest to de-classify these areas as special reserves. They defined interests have been especially active in the second process (10 labels) First process The first process was made in the 1980s. The public participation Structure of The process of physical planning is not transparent to the Process design; was high, with public hearings, consultations and questionnaires. governing stakeholders, and the information and the decision making First process; The best experts and scientists worked on its preparation, and the rights are held by a small inner group of planners. The second process; cooperation between segments of public administration was much people that compose these teams are placed to those third process; more harmonious than later on. The process failed due to the positions politically, and not based on their expertise. The formal resistance of municipalities from the northern side of NP majority of the discretionary rights is held by the City of Medvednica (at that time municipalities had much more political Zagreb, where they have power to place the people in the power than later on, and they had political power similar to team, and to dismiss those people and those studies Counties). The formal resistance of municipalities was rooted in (expert background documents) than are against their line informal resistance of the hunting interests, which were endorsed of thought; and the line of thought of the City of Zagreb is by high-level politicians. aligned with the development interests (construction and (39 labels) sport tourism). Only state administration is regarded as stakeholders; they are invited to consultative meetings, but have no real influence on the process of physical 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, 184

and its employees had more holistic perception on the physical plan, where all interests of stakeholders, citizens and requirements of nature protection were more emphasized. (149 labels) Second The second process was done in early 2000s. The process has Structure of The process of physical planning is not transparent to the Process design; process failed due to formal resistance of the Ministry of Construction and governing stakeholders, and the information and the decision making First process; Physical planning. City of Zagreb had also halted the process rights are held by a small inner group of planners. The second process; through its administrative procedures and assigning 'political' and people that compose these teams are placed to those third process; not expert personnel to carry out the drafting of the physical plan. positions politically, and not based on their expertise. The Public hearings had no effect, and questionnaires with stakeholders majority of the discretionary rights is held by the City of have been falsified. These efforts by different parts of public Zagreb, where they have power to place the people in the administration were backed informally by construction lobby, ski team, and to dismiss those people and those studies lobby that wanted to construct sport facilities in peak areas, and (expert background documents) than are against their line Croatian Forests Ltd. that wanted to stop the protection of special of thought; and the line of thought of the City of Zagreb is reserves of forest vegetation. aligned with the development interests (construction and (24 labels) sport tourism). Only state administration is regarded as stakeholders; they are invited to consultative meetings, but have no real influence on the process of physical 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 physical plan, where all interests of stakeholders, citizens and requirements of nature protection were more emphasized. (149 labels)

185

Third process Started in 2012. The background documents and participation Structure of The process of physical planning is not transparent to the Process design; process are over, but the final plan is not finished (yet). Only governing stakeholders and the information and the decision making First process; counties, ministries and state agencies are regarded as rights are held by a small inner group of planners. The second process; stakeholders, and have been invited to consultation meetings; but people that compose these teams are placed to those third process; the lead role falls to the City of Zagreb. Municipalities had less positions politically, and not based on their expertise. The involvement in the process than in the first and the second attempt. majority of the discretionary rights is held by the City of Interaction with all other stakeholders is performed through public Zagreb, where they have power to place the people in the hearings, which have no substantial role. Participation is exercised team, and to dismiss those people and those studies in a lesser degree than in a third, and far lesser degree than in the (expert background documents) than are against their line first process. The citizens did not have (adequate) information on of thought; and the line of thought of the City of Zagreb is the process or on their rights, and in general did not have much aligned with the development interests (construction and willingness to participate. The public interests was to a great extent sport tourism). Only state administration is regarded as represented by NGOs stakeholders; they are invited to consultative meetings, (20 labels) but have no real influence on the process of physical 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 physical plan, where all interests of stakeholders, citizens and requirements of nature protection were more emphasized. (149 labels) Theoretical The overall goal of the physical plan is the protection of the forest Interests Balanced Represents balanced human and nature-centred interests, Effects of physical goal ecosystem. Given the adherence to nature protection management where sustainable usage of natural resources is allowed. plan; Theoretical guidelines, It is allowed to sustainably use natural resources. Different values have priority according to the zoning goal of physical In the current situation where physical plan does not exists the structure of the area, and the interventions in the area are plan balance between protection and usage of natural resources is clearly defined; deviation from these rules should be destroyed. The interests that revolve around the physical plan have punishable. Clearly defined position. 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 physical 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 physical planning. (22 labels)

186

Process The process of physical planning is not transparent to the Structure of The process of physical planning is not transparent to the Process design; design stakeholders and the information and the decision making rights governing stakeholders and the information and the decision making First process; are held by a small inner group of planners. The people that rights are held by a small inner group of planners. The second process; compose these teams are placed to those positions politically, and people that compose these teams are placed to those third process; not based on their expertise. The majority of the discretionary positions politically, and not based on their expertise. The rights is held by the City of Zagreb, where they have power to majority of the discretionary rights is held by the City of place the people in the team, and to dismiss those people and those Zagreb, where they have power to place the people in the studies (expert background documents) than are against their line team, and to dismiss those people and those studies of thought; and the line of thought of the City of Zagreb is aligned (expert background documents) than are against their line with the development interests (construction and sport tourism). of thought; and the line of thought of the City of Zagreb is Only state administration is regarded as stakeholders; they are aligned with the development interests (construction and invited to consultative meetings, but have no real influence on the sport tourism). Only state administration is regarded as process of physical planning. The others (stakeholders, external stakeholders; they are invited to consultative meetings, actors) are informed on the decisions, and there are no protocols to but have no real influence on the process of physical include their opinions in the plan after the public hearings, planning. The others (stakeholders, external actors) are questionnaires or other methods. The structure of decision making informed on the decisions, and there are no protocols to is such that it allows fulfilment only of interests that originate include their opinions in the plan after the public hearings, within the team. Other structural reason for this process design is questionnaires or other methods. The structure of decision that majority of people involved in the process are architects, and making is such that it allows fulfilment only of interests they mostly perceive the area as construction land, or as an area that originate within the team. Other structural reason for modified by human activity. The situation was different in the first this process design is that majority of people involved in process; at that time the Institute for urbanism existed, and its the process are architects, and they mostly perceive the employees had more holistic perception on the physical plan, area as construction land, or as an area modified by where all interests of stakeholders, citizens and requirements of human activity. The situation was different in the first nature protection were more emphasized. process; at that time the Institute for urbanism existed, (149 labels) and its employees had more holistic perception on the physical plan, where all interests of stakeholders, citizens and requirements of nature protection were more emphasized. (149 labels) Interests Ambivalent Represents interests whose' orientation depends on the 1. Actors; Citizens availability and type (i.e. origin) of information on the of Zagreb, subject matter. The orientation may range from human, Zagrebacka balanced to nature oriented. Reserved for unorganized County, and of groups of stakeholders, which feel that they are being Krapinsko- manipulated by other, more cohesive groups. Zagorska County

187

Annex III . Relational Codes and Memos

CONTEXT Number Relational code Number Memo Related to of code of labels 1 Balanced interest 4 Interest of having a process where the management of area under physical planning equally 6,8,9,12,13, reflects nature conservation and utilization of natural resources 18,19, 23, 29, 30 2 Citizens as construction 8 Citizens of the areas around NP are also partly the owners of the land within NP 3,,4,5,11, 16, land owners Medvednica, for which they hope that will be converted to construction land. 20, 25, 26, 27, 28, 3 Construction only with 35 Construction in the area is practically 'allowed' only to the powerful actors. These actors 2, 4, 5, 9, 11, power have enough financial resources and political influence to construct almost whatever they 14, 15, 16, 17, want. They can get 'special' permissions from the public authorities which they can 21, 28, 31, 32 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 physical planning, as they can excerpt their influence over the process by covert means, mostly corruption 4 Construction without 10 The public authorities justify different kinds of construction activities within NP 2, 3, 5, 9, 11, expert justification Medvednica, and the majority of those go against the management guidelines for nature 14, 15, 16, 17, protection. In the periphery zone they issue construction permits without justification for 19, 21, 28, 31, housing, and in the peak area for touristic activities. Especially the construction on the peak 32 area is in the interest of the City as it also gives its leaders 'political' points 5 Deforestation for 25 Forests are being cleared for construction, hoping that there will be an added effect if there 2, 3, 4, 9, 11, construction are many cases of this activity; where subsequently all these construction would be 14, 15, 16, 17, legalized. Performed both by the citizens of surrounding area and by the construction lobby 19, 21, 28, 31, 32 6 Enjoyment of nature 12 Position by which the primary purpose of NP Medvednica is to provide unobstructed 1, 8, 12, 13, 19, enjoyment of nature to citizens. This entails that the construction activities are minimized 23, 29, 30 7 Forest management for 27 Forest management that is focused on profit, with not enough attention to the guidelines of 14, 17, 24, 32 profit 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 8 Forests as central object 3 Position where nature protection is the most important function of NP Medvednica. 1,6, 12, 13, 18, of protection Emphasis is put on special forest reserves. More 'extreme' position than under code 23, 30 'Enjoyment of nature' 9 Halting the nature 3 Position where NP should be abolished, and where 'development' activities should unfold 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, protection with very little restrictions. 'Extreme' develo0pment position 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 32 10 Interest for unrestricted 8 Interest to perform hunting without (much) restrictions of nature protection, or 11,14, 17, hunting construction. Mostly focused on northern slopes of NP Medvednica 11 Natural process of 5 Position that construction activities are infact a natural process of urbanization, by which 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, urbanization peripheral areas of NP should be urbanized, and fall out of the nature park. This position 15, 17, 20, 21, gives legitimacy to illegal construction activities 22, 25, 26, 29, 30 12 Nature conservation as 5 Position that nature protection is the primary interest of citizens. Relatively moderate 1, 6, 8, 13, 18, public interest position where some construction is allowed. 19, 29, 30

CAUSAL CONDITIONS Number Relational code Number Memo Related to of code of labels 13 Participation as 3 Position that strong participatory processes enhance and improve the physical planning 18, 19, 23, 29, facilitator of decision 30, 34, 38 making 14 Centralization of 58 City of Zagreb is the sole formal decider on the physical planning in Medvednica. All the 15, 16, 17, 19, decision making other parts of state administration that are involved are practically marginalized. The City 21, 27, 31, 32, generally does not take any input from stakeholders in the process of physical planning, i.e. 33, 34, 35, 36, of citizens and civil society. Only in extreme cases (such as organized public revolt) does 37, 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 physical planning. The most prominent group of interest is construction. They operate either through Division for physical 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 lobby. The representation of these groups in the process of physical 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 188

that they do not want the physical plan to be made, and they want that the area of NP is decreased 15 Architects for 4 The leaders of the process that work for the City of Zagreb are mostly architects, and 15, 16, 17, 19, construction perceive the periphery and the peak zone of NP Medvednica primary as construction areas. 27, 31, 32, 34, They have little or no expertise on the participatory processes. In this context there is a 35, 36, 37, 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) 16 City as loser of having 3 Aside for serving private interest group, the City of Zagreb also has an inherent interest of 14, 15, 17, 21, physical plan not making the physical plan, as in this context it would lose a part of its discretionary 27, 32, rights over NP Medvednica. 17 Power defines the 164 A structure of physical planning where the process primarily serves certain private interest 14, 15, 16, 20, politics that remains hidden from the public. The two dominant interest groups are construction 21, 24, 28, 31, focused on southern periphery zone and construction-touristic-skiing activities focused at 32, 35, 36, the peak area. The corruption of the special interest groups does not entail just that their interest are secured in the physical 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 18 Experts for nature 3 The experts of state administration related to nature protection are the most prominent 13, 19, 23, 29, protection 'defenders' of nature protection in NP Medvednica, and they are being consulted in the 30, 38 process 19 High information of 4 State administration has a high level of information on all the topics relevant for the 13, 18, 30, public administration process of physical planning. They are the only group of actors whio have that level of information (as opposed to public and civil society) 20 Private interest for 12 Only actors with high private (i.e. personal) interest are participating at public hearings. 20, 21, 26, 28, public hearings This to a large extent relates to citizens that have forest or construction land within NP 38 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. 21 High political interest 9 Formal political interest in physical planning depends how much a certain topic is 14, 15, 16, 17, politically important, i.e. how much is public interested in it. If a certain topic enjoys public 20, 22, 25, 26, support and does not go against 'special' interest, then it will become a part of the physical 27,31, 32, 35, plan. Examples are the tunnel and cable car construction 38, 22 Procedural costs of 52 Usage of participatory mechanisms in physical planning has high procedural costs. It 20, 21, 25, 26, participation requires that more resources are devoted to gathering opinions of stakeholders. Even the 29, 33, 34, 36, actions of state administration are uncoordinated, which makes it very difficult to reach a 37 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 physical planning. 23 Inadequate participation 4 Position that the utilized participation model is inadequate to reflect the position of all the 13, 18, 19, 22, design stake-holding groups 26, 27, 31, 38 24 Interest against forest 18 Position that the primary action within physical planning by which 'economy-based' forest 17 reserves 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. 25 Low information 29 Citizens have very little information on the NP Medvednica, and on the process of physical 14, 26, 27, 28, planning. They have little information on the legal construction possibilities within NP 29, 37 Medvednica They are mostly not interested in getting more informed and in participating in the process of physical planning. 26 Personal costs of 50 Vast majority of people that have participated in the public hearings have done so if they 20, 27, 37 participation 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 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 27 Low trust in physical 11 Citizens recognize the current structure of decision making, which serves the interest of 17, 25, 37 planning team powerful groups. This makes them have very low trust in the process of physical 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 189

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 28 Media manipulation 60 Public media have deliberately manipulated citizens on the characteristics of living within 17, 20, 21, 25, NP Medvednica. They have persuaded the public that their way of life will deteriorate if 38, 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 29 NGOs as 9 Citizen acknowledge that their participation at the public hearings might be futile, and that 13, 25, 26, 37 representatives of perhaps their interest would be better represented by more focused and organised groups - public NGOs 30 Urbanism with 6 The first process was run by employees of the Institute for Urbanisms, who had a physical 13, 18, 23, 38 balanced interests 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 physical 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. 31 Useless participation 5 Position that broad public administration is useless and that physical planning should be 14, 15, 17, 21, done solely by expert. Shared by some parts of state administration 22, 32, 34, 36, 37 32 Adequate participation 32 Position that the current mode of participation is adequate, i.e. public is informed, state 14, 15, 22, 31, administration is consulted, and all the actual decisions are made by the City of Zagreb on a 33, 34, 36, 37 political basis. This opinion is shared by the power elite, 'special' interest groups and by experts architects (consultants) that worked on physical 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 PHENOMENON Number Relational code Number Memos Related to of code of labels 33 Deciders' as 64 Perception/identity dissonance over role of a stakeholder and of a decision maker. Many 36, 39, 40, 43 stakeholders parts of the state administration are called to consultative meetings by the City of Zagreb for the purpose of physical planning of NP Medvednica. The members of the state administration that participate to these meetings consider themselves as a part of the physical planning team, and that they should through coordinated action together bring about the physical plan. They also consider this mode of physical 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 physical 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' 34 Decrease in 9 There is a decrease in the usage of participation from the first to the second process, and 35, 37, 39, 40, participation over time from the second to the third. There is a large difference between the first process on one 43 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 35 Dictate of the powerful 32 The powerful interest groups dictate the process of physical planning. Their influence is 34, 36, 37, 38, both political and 'private'. 'Private' entails donations and corruption. They have influence 39, 40, 41, 43 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. 36 Procedural control of 66 City of Zagreb has total control over the process of physical planning. This entails the 36, 34, 37, the City of Zagreb 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 physical 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) 37 Practical exclusion 215 Citizens and civil society are practically excluded from the process; all the participation is 34, 35, from process 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 190

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 38 Active stakeholders 17 Mostly people that have personal benefits to participate have been present at the public 41, 42 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. ACTION STRATEGIES Number Relational code Number Memos Related to of code of labels 39 Area decrease due 35 Area of NP was decreased due to the pressure of the construction lobby. The majority of 39, 40, 41, 43, profits of construction area that went out of the park actually was not urbanized; it presents future revenues for the 44 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 physical plan 40 Area decrease due to 16 When NP was proclaimed in 1981 it should have had larger surface than it was the case. 39, 40, 41, 43, hunting The reason for diminishing the area was the pressure of hunters. For analytical purposes 44 this pressure is linked to the first process of physical planning. 41 Areas decrease due to 4 Area of NP was decreased due to public pressure, as they have feared that no construction 39, 40, 43, 44 public pressure 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 42 Physical plan as 8 The proclamation of physical plan represents the creation of a legal basis for the 45 management tool 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 physical plan is a balance of nature protection and construction/utilization of natural resources. Having physical 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 physical planning process, and had low power over the decision making process 43 Stopping the process 1 6 The process was stopped in the first and the second attempt due to the pressure of the 39, 40, 41 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. CONSEQUENCES Relational code Number Memos Related to of labels 44 Devastation without 21 Situation in which there is a continuous degradation of natural ecosystems in NP 39, 40, 41, 43 physical plan 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. 45 Physical plan for 38 Physical plan represents a legal basis for the management of the area of NP Medvednica, 42 realization of public and as such represents realization of interest of all those with nature protection in mind. It interest is in interest of all citizens of adjacent areas that physical plan is made. Physical 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 physical plan are all those who perform illegal construction, skiing, and quarries

191

Annex IV. Intermediary Central Categories CENTRAL CATEGORIES CODES Group Type Name Memo Visible process Perspective on the structure of physical planning. Endorsed by the physical planners (City of Citizens of Zagreb Actors Substantial Zagreb), directed towards external stakeholders and public. Stakeholders are included City of Zagreb (through public hearings); however they perceive this to be an inadequate facade, and more of Public hearings Level of participation a non-participation. By assessing that the public hearings do not have an impact on the Non- participation process, they are even more dissuaded from participating. Inadequate participation Perceptions on participation Limitations of participation Determinants of participation Decision making Physical plan Process design Hidden process Perspective on the structure of physical planning. Focuses on the powerful actors and their Peak area Area Substantial strong influence over the process of physical planning. These actors represent special political Cable car path and/or economic interests, and their informal influence is directed through the City of Zagreb. Illegal construction Process in NP Medvednica Main groups of these actors are political elites, construction lobby and ski lobby. All of them Political elites Actors and the City of Zagreb perceive the current structure of physical planning as adequate. Their City of Zagreb focus is on the peak area and for the construction of the periphery area. Their goal is not to Construction lobby have the physical plan, or to have it after the borders of the NP Medvednica are diminished, Ski lobby and they have constructed what they have planned in the peak area. It represents an overt Informal participation Level of participation structure of physical planning where political and economic power exhorts control over the process. The goal of the control is to attain further power, either through political support or Adequate participation Perceptions on participation through economic gains. In more general terms, it represents a structure of physical planning Non- decision making Physical plan where it is irrelevant which mode of participation is exercised, as participation is futile and Process design does not have impact on the decision making. The process of physical planning is set by the power relations among the interest groups. Support to the Represents a range of actors which have a common trait to support the current system of Illegal construction Process in NP Medvednica Substantial system physical planning and its treatment of stakeholders. They range from different parts of state Degradation of forest habitats administration, the physical planners, and a series of powerful interest groups. The role of all Cable car construction / reconstruction of these actors in the process of physical planning varies greatly; as interest group heavily Hunting influence the process, and the majority of state administration only has a minor role. They Tunnel building through NP Medvednica have different 'treatment'; as interest groups are not formally presented, and state Political elites Actors administration participates through consultative meetings. They also have different attitudes SINP toward nature protection and NP Medvednica; the formal deciders and interest group have MCPP 'human centred' attitude (nature as mans to reaching human needs), while state administration Parliament has more 'balanced' attitude (equal importance of conservation and construction). What they Ministry of culture all have in common is that they feel that they have an impact in the process, and that their City of Zagreb opinion is highly regarded of. As long as they have that opinion, they will consider the current system of physical planning to be adequate; and this also goes to state administration Croatian Forests Ltd which largely thinks that they have an impact, and the physical planner say that they actually Hunters do not have a real impact Zagreb county Krapinsko-Zagorska County Construction lobby PI NP Medvednica Ski lobby Informal participation Level of participation Consultation Adequate participation Perceptions on participation Costs of participation Determinants of participation Capacity for stakeholder participation Decreasing of the NP Medvednica Physical plan 192

Decision making Non- decision making Goal Opposition to Represents a range of actors which have a common trait to oppose the current system of Nature protection Process in NP Medvednica Substantial the system physical planning and its treatment of stakeholders. They also have in common that their Citizens of Zagreb Actors participation to the process in symbolic, as they have no / very low influence on the process Citizens of Zagreb County of physical planning. It does not matter which mode of participation is exercised ; its impact Citizens of Krapinsko – Zagorska county is what matters. These actors are mostly represented in public. They also tend to have 'nature NGOs oriented' attitude (protection before construction) towards nature protection and NP Private forest owners Medvednica. Another characteristic is that the attitude of these actors can be subjected to Public hearings Level of participation change, and turn to 'balanced' or even 'human centred'. Non- participation Consultation Inadequate participation Perceptions on participation Limitations of participation Determinants of participation Defining of forest reserves Physical plan Decision making Pressure of Pressure of hunters as interest group to have unrestricted hunting at the northern slopes of NP Northern slopes of NP Medvednica Area Substantial hunting Medvednica. Their goal is to stop the process of physical planning. Represents a secondary Hunting Process in NP Medvednica aspect of the research, as this categorical code focuses on a single group of actors Hunters Actors Interest for unrestricted hunting Context Relational Area decrease due to hunting Action strategies Public pressure As citizens are owners of forest and construction land, they have interest for constructing Periphery zone Area Substantial for construction within NP Medvednica. As such, they can influence the planners (not to make a plan, or to Illegal construction Process in NP Medvednica decrease the area). This attitude has been enhanced by media manipulation that no Private forest owners Actors construction is allowed. This influence represents alternative (to the organized lobby groups) Citizens as construction land owners Context Relational influence path to the continuation of construction activities. It also shows that recognition of Construction without expert justification personal benefits causes public reaction, which in turn can affect the process of physical Natural process of urbanization planning City as loser of having physical plan Causal conditions Devastation without physical plan Consequences Forest Pressure of the state forest management company to cancel or to diminish the area of special Forest area Area Substantial management for forest reserves…. And with that goal in mind, they also strive that no physical plan is made. Degradation of forest habitats Process in NP Medvednica profit As this code focuses on a single actor, it is secondary to the object of research Croatian Forests Ltd Actors Defining of forest reserves Physical plan Deforestation for construction Context Relational Forest management for profit Forests as central object of protection Interest against forest reserves Causal conditions Power as A characteristics of the process of physical planning; by which the exact course of planning is Peak area Area Substantial driving force set by the power relations of actors with interest in it. This is possible as the formal decision Cable car path making rights have been taken up by a single actor. The power mostly lies within organized Political elites Actors groups of special interest and within political elites. However, as political elites depend also City of Zagreb depend on the public their goals are also partly directed to please the public (e.g. like in part Construction lobby the touristic development in the peak area), and there also is a feedback-loop from the public Ski lobby to the political elites and to the physical planning; as strong expression of public interest may Informal participation Level of participation modify the priorities/interest of political elites. Due to the nature of the three processes of Process design Physical plan physical planning up to now, it is not known whether the public expression of interest can Centralization of decision making Causal conditions Relational modify the priorities of political elites up to a point that they go against the interest of Power defines the politics construction/development groups Procedural control of the City of Zagreb Phenomenon Structure of A procedural aspect of the process of physical planning, where the most distinctive feature is Citizens of Zagreb Actors Substantial exclusion that the inherent interest of the actors impedes the substantial impact of stakeholders on the process of physical planning, all of which leads to the fact that the majority of stakeholders Citizens of Zagreb County City of Zagreb 193

are practically excluded from the process. The stakeholders perceive the process of physical Public hearings Level of participation planning as unjust, which demotivates them from participating. They also to a large extent do Non- participation not feel that they have some personal benefits from participating, so they choose not to; or Inadequate participation Perceptions on participation they believe that NGOs are more appropriate to represent their interest. Stakeholders also Limitations of participation Determinants of participation have significant costs of participating; as they have to devote time and money to participate to Costs of participation public hearings or some other mode of participation, and since they have little information on Third process Physical plan the process they have to spend a considerable amount of time to gather appropriate Process design knowledge which will empower them to participate 'on an even heel' with other stakeholders. Procedural costs of participation Causal conditions Relational All of this costs outweigh the potential benefits of participating, especially knowing that their effort might not have an effect on the process. The people leading the process also have an Personal costs of participation inherent interest not to utilize strong participation mechanisms; as participation makes the Media manipulation process go longer, they do not receive any personal benefits (e.g. increase in salary) if they Practical exclusion from process Phenomenon implement it; it is very difficult to take into account many conflicting interests, and usage of Active stakeholders broad participation also implies that the physical planners have to talk on even terms with 'lay Physical plan for realization of public Consequences an unknowledgeable citizens', whereas they perceive themselves as experts... and they interest perceive all of these inputs as non-expert ones and thus less important Balanced Represents a 'path' for bringing about physical plan and realization of public interests of Enjoyment of nature Context Relational planning nature protection. From the side of experts and state administration, these are preconditioned Forests as central object of protection through active by high level of information, and acceptance of the 'urbanistic' approach to physical planning, Nature conservation as public interest engagement which equally takes into consideration conservation and construction interests, and which Experts for nature protection Causal conditions bases the decision making on the strong input of all those which can affect or will be affected High information of public administration by the physical plan (i.e. a position held by the Institute on urbanism in the first process of Inadequate participation design physical planning). From the side of broad stakeholders (mostly citizens), it requires that they NGOs as representatives of public perceive the current mode of planning as inadequate, and that they have personal benefits of Urbanism with balanced interests having physical plan, i.e. that with it nature protection of the area will be assured. It also Active stakeholders Phenomenon entails that they recognize that without their active involvement they will have personal Physical plan as management tool Action strategies losses, as the plan will not go in their favour. These elements bring about active engagement Physical plan for realization of public Consequences of stakeholder, which is a catalyst for bringing about physical plan for the entire area of NP interest Medvednica. Path of Represents a 'path' for not bringing about physical plan and for diminishing the borders of the Citizens as construction land owners Context Relational urbanization protected area, all of which finally leads to diminishing of the nature protection within the Construction only with power area. From the side of citizens it requires perception of protected area as something which Construction without expert justification will cause them personal costs through diminished construction possibilities. Fuelled by Deforestation for construction public media, the organized public action causes the political elites to halt the process, or to Forest management for profit diminish the borders of protected area. From the side of special interest groups it requires that Halting the nature protection they have direct influence onto the physical planning team through their political senior Interest for unrestricted hunting officials. The decisions are made in order to secure these special interests. To external actors Natural process of urbanization they are legitimized as based on expertise, and that broad public engagement would severely Centralization of decision making Causal conditions slow the process. This is also complementary to the passive role of citizens, which perceiving Architects for construction the internal dynamics of the process, refrain themselves from participating.... and where the City as loser of having physical plan passive behaviour of citizens only reinforces the position of low influence Power defines the politics Private interest for public hearings High political interest Procedural costs of participation Interest against forest reserves Low information Personal costs of participation Low trust in physical planning team Media manipulation Useless participation Adequate participation Deciders' as stakeholders Phenomenon 194

Decrease in participation over time Dictate of the powerful Procedural control of the City of Zagreb Practical exclusion from process Active stakeholders Area decrease due profits of construction Action strategies Area decrease due to hunting Areas decrease due to public pressure Stopping the process Devastation without physical plan Consequences

195