New frameworks and experiences in local planning: Luhansk region and the state of main instruments

Анатолій Леонідович Мельничук, к. геогр. н., доцент кафедри економічної та соціальної географії, Київський національний університет імені Тараса Шевченка; Олена Олександрівна Денисенко, к. геогр. н., докторантка кафедри економічної та соціальної географії; Світлана Сергіївна Гнатюк, студентка кафедри економічної та соціальної географії

Система планування на місцевому рівні суттєво змінилася в останні роки: з'явилися нові підходи, інструменти та практики, що трансформують уявлення про процес планування та систему планування як таку. У цій статті ми аналізуємо стан використання основних інструментів на місцевому рівні, їх взаємодію та вплив. Стаття спрямована на аналіз перетворення системи планування на місцевому рівні в Україні у контексті посттранзитних процесів, зокрема, аналіз основних інструментів планування та участі, які використовують територіальні громади, а також переосмислення планування як діяльності та основних інструментів, спираючись на досвід Луганської області. Аналіз стану розроблення та використання інструментів планування та залучення спирається на дані щодо основних інструментів планування у розрізі територіальних громад Луганської області - загалом 15 інструментів, серед яких і традиційні інструменти планування, у т.ч. просторового планування, і нові учасницькі інструменти. Поєднаний аналіз стану використання інструментів та типізація громад регіону за цією ознакою доповнена критичним аналізом щодо практик використання інструментів та отриманих результатів на основі даних двох фокус-груп.

У статті показано, що громади мають доволі різний набір планувальних документів, слабко використовують планувальний інструментарій та мало спираються на нього у процесах перетворення території. Активна імплементація нових інструментів залучення, що стали доступними в останні роки, та активно популяризувалися як інструменти місцевої демократії, здебільшого застосовувалися без опори на інструменти планування, що є однією з форм спотворення планування місцевого розвитку. У той же час, у регіоні виділяються громади-лідери формування нової культури планування, які привносять нові практики, вдало використовують та поєднують різні типи інструментів. Здебільшого і інструменти планування розвитку громад, і процес їх застосування, і отримані результати основними акторами сприймаються та оцінюються по-різному, а відповідно - потребують подальшого збалансування. Отримані результати відображають стан використання інструментів планування та участі у громадах регіону, їх взаємодію та особливості використання різних інструментів з позицій впливу на перетворення територій та місцевих спільнот. Тим самим, стаття апелює до дискусії про еволюцію інструментів планування для країн та регіонів з досвідом транзитності, а отримані результати дозволяють вдосконалити політику планування на місцевому рівні.

Ключові слова: планування, місцевий рівень, інструменти, транзитність, Луганська область.

Introduction

Planning as a process, spatial and social practice in the post-Soviet perspective faced huge challenges: the need to rethink its functions and goals in the new socio-economic reality and mechanisms for their implementation into practice of spatial development, the need to legitimize planning as such, given its negative ideological connotation, and the need to rethink and update the planning tools. As in many other countries of the CEE region, these processes have resulted from significant social changes and transformations, creating demand for a more open and transparent governance, its de-ideologization and democratization.

Changes of the Soviet planning, typically defined as centralized [26, 8, 7, 17, 13, 23] and technocratic [16, 8, 9], in the post-Soviet period were not only related to building the institutional environment and implementing the overall trend of democratization but also rethinking the levels of planning and search for effective tools on each spatial level. As far as Soviet planning system relied upon the spatial planning as a way of spatial interpretation of economic development plans [31, 9, 7] and regulating the growth and development [23, 8] with making the main focus on the macro level in the Soviet scale, there was a strong need to reconsider these approaches in the post-transitional perspective.

Shifting attention to the local level, revising planning tools and updating them in view of the new context, have become general trends in the evolution of the planning systems in transitional countries [16, 9, 26, 21], and Ukraine has to some extent followed these trends [14]. However, the crisis of legitimacy of planning [16, 9, 22], its weakening and the subsequent crisis of planning as a tool of spatial development, along with the dominance of the so-called culture of “investor urbanism” [7, 21], as in other transitional countries, led to the chaos in spatial development, when planning instruments exist in one reality, and spatial processes develop on a far different trajectory. Often outdated, both formally and meaningfully, planning documents have largely ceased to play their role as tools for integrated development of territories over the long run, particularly since the urban situation was changing rapidly, and because of the lack of resources to implement these planning documents. The decentralization reform that began in Ukraine, albeit much later than in other countries of the region, was designed to strengthen and intensify local economic development and resulted in the emergence of new planning instruments for territorial communities, such as strategies and complex spatial development plans.

At the same time, the rethinking of planning instruments in the post-transitional period was influenced by strengthening of civil society, which contributed to the spread of diverse participatory tools and their implementation into planning practice - public hearings, inquiries, petitions and many others. Development of participatory instruments, on the one hand, reflected the overall trend of democratization of governance in post-socialist countries, as well as the growing public demand for participation in the planning processes, despite numerous difficulties in implementing participatory governance into post-socialist planning [1, 11].

As a result, a planning system has been formed, based on numerous traditional planning instruments, new optional instruments resulting from the “import” of planning practices, as concepts of integrated development, and multiple participatory instruments supplementing the planning process at different stages. Thus, a rather complicated system consisting of multiple planning instruments has been formed at the local level. On the one hand, it really allows to consider the interests of different actors in the planning processes and next developments in a “stakeholder society” [6], on the other hand, due to its complexity, emerged planning system appears as confusing and non-transparent to many involved parties, which eventually negatively affects the planning process and its outcomes.

Although post-socialist transition and its impact on planning have received considerable attention in the literature, where various aspects of planning under transition [9, 7], rethinking planning in the post- transitional perspective [16, 21], restructuring the planning systems and particular instruments [4, 8, 22, 25] as well as introducing the new practices of governance [26, 1] are revealed, there is a lack of research on transformed planning systems based on both traditional planning instruments and participatory ones in the regions with a socialist past. At the same time, these issues are significantly affecting the local planning: the post-socialist context imposes quite specific conditions of the balance between supporting investment process and taking into account the possible consequences for environment and historical legacy, deregulating business facilitation procedures and considering other stakeholders interests in planning and development. In this article, basing on the local context of planning in the Luhansk region of Ukraine, we consider how territorial communities use the planning and participation instruments, their interaction and specificity of using diverse tools from the standpoint of spatial transformations and placemaking.

Research questions of the study include: How are the challenges for developing a balanced planning system, shaped by both traditional planning tools and new participatory practices, relayed to the local level? What instruments do territorial communities rely on and how the main tools are rethinking at the local level in a region with a severe planning crisis in recent decades. In this case, we consider planning as a process of elaboration and implementing the medium- and long-term plans for territories, which includes both strategic and spatial planning and relevant instruments.

The article consists of a theoretical part that reflects the main challenges for local planning in the post-socialist context, research methodology and data, analysis of the use of planning and participation instruments, including typification of territorial communities on this basis and ends with a critical analysis of the planning process from the standpoint of the main participants.

Theoretical background

Planning during the transitional period in the post-socialist countries is mostly described in the literature as related to the crisis of planning, including its legitimacy crisis [16, 9, 22] and the subsequent changes in ideas about planning itself, its goals and actors in the planning process, and, accordingly, the planning system as a whole [4, 26, 21]. Such changes are closely related to social transformations in the region and overall changes in the political governance culture, and consequently - planning culture [3, 12], which J. Friedmann defines as “the ways, both formal and informal, that spatial planning is ... conceived, institutionalized, and enacted” [3]. In this regard, it is necessary to emphasize some features, which contrasted sharply with the socialist past: growth of informal practices in planning process and spatial transformations, changing attitudes towards planning and ways of its institutionalization and revision of decision-making procedures, which redefine the role of different actors in planning and transformations in a new way.

New actors, especially private business, have introduced new practices of spatial transformations, which have become widespread within all transitional countries and often were realized in the form of “investor urbanism” [7; 21], when planning and its tools were, in fact, ignored while making decisions and transformations. As a result, glaring examples of disparity between the planning situation, as it is defined in the planning documents, and what it is in reality, could be observed. This imbalance is one of the hallmarks of transitional planning, as is the growth of informal transformation practices. Thus, rethinking of planning and “critical constructive thinking” [24] on its outcomes is intended to strengthen its role in the transformation of space and governance, to balance the influence of different actors and to contribute to reducing social and environmental imbalances.

Rethinking of planning is inevitably related to introduction of new approaches and concepts that were supposed to change Soviet planning and assist to “switch [it] from technical, rigid, and mostly landuse oriented planning in support of economic plans to process-based, participatory, and integrative planning activities” [16]. Changes in planning as a process and its rethinking should have contributed to the updating of existing and the establishing of new planning tools as specific ways to implement the updated content of planning activities. More than 10 years ago, S. Hirt and K. Stanilov, giving recommendations for planning activities in transitional countries, called for the broadening of planning instruments and investing into alternatives to traditional tools such as master planning with more attention to other tools, including strategic planning and issue-focused planning [9]. However, the development of new tools, their elaboration and implementation into planning practice typically is encountering numerous obstacles for their interpreting, adopting and use, as evidenced by the Ukrainian experience [14]. Such difficulties lie both in the field of the new tools introduction, and achieving of the expected outcomes, shaping the new “temporalities of planning” [19]. That is why, the institutionalization of planning, in the words of J. Friedmann is "one of the greatest challenges to be faced" [3].

In this regard, one of the biggest challenges in the last two decades for planning in transitional countries is related to “changing frames” [26] due to the implementation of approaches and tools of communicative planning. Despite the proliferation of human-oriented approaches and principles in planning as a result of implementing various participatory practices and governance “for and by people” [5], the notion of communicative planning as a dominant paradigm has also been much criticized [10]. For the post-socialist context, the main risks of implementing the so-called imported practices [26, 20] lie between two extremes: either a flagrant disregard of participatory procedures (mostly at the initial stage) or abso- lutization of their use in contrast to traditional planning instruments. In this article, based on the experience of local planning in the Luhansk region, we analyze how different territorial communities in the region combine traditional planning tools and new participatory ones, thus contributing to the discussion on the evolution of local planning instruments in the post-Soviet space, role and effectiveness of certain instruments.

The effectiveness of planning largely depends on the awareness of the context in which the planning activity takes place [2]. In that connection, the regional context of planning activity can be defined as a specific environment influenced by historical, economic and socio-political characteristics of the region, as well as “legacies of the inherited institutional frameworks” [18]. The case of the Luhansk region, to which we refer in this article, is quite specific among other regions of Ukraine in terms of passivity of planning activities in the post-Soviet period and significant inertia of planning, which is substantially based on the past experiences. At the same time, due to decentralization processes and the active role of international technical assistance projects in the region, typical practices have begun to change. Thus, a rather specific mix of both inherited and new planning practices has been formed here, which is already taking place on a new territorial basis, thus creating a rather specific situation for local planning and its rethinking.

Data and methodology

This study focuses on the Luhansk region of Ukraine, a significant southern part of which was occupied in 2014. The specificity of the region is that it received special attention and support from the International Technical Assistance programs to facilitate decentralization processes. The Ministry for Reintegration of the Temporary Occupied Territories has also focused its attention on the region, mostly in rebuilding the infrastructure and developing territorial communities. As in other regions of Ukraine, planning processes here have become more complicated during the last decade, in particular, strategic planning has become mandatory, greater focus is being made on the broad citizen involvement into planning activity and transformations. Luhansk region is among the regions that actively participated in voluntary amalgamation of territorial communities at the initial stage of decentralization reform. Thus over the past few years, the culture of spatial and strategic planning has been formed here.

In order to analyze the state of use of planning and participation instruments at the local level, we focused on planning documents and participatory tools in 26 territorial communities of the government controlled areas in Luhansk region (as of the end of 2021). On the one hand, we analyzed seven relatively new participatory instruments - electronic requests for information, citizens' appeals, electronic appeals, electronic surveys, electronic petitions, geoportal and “participatory budget”, which provide different forms for citizen involvement and communication. On the other hand, we analyzed eight “traditional” planning instruments that are at the core of the planning process - statute, passport, profile, strategy of territorial community, master plans of settlements, historical and architectural reference plan, city planning conditions and restrictions. Thus, for every territorial community in the region we collected data on elaboration of a wide variety of instruments and evaluated each of them in one point. Building upon this empirical material, the ranking of territorial communities was carried.

Additional data for contextualizing the empirical information on the planning process, its outcomes and particular instruments were obtained from two focus groups which involved 35 persons, including local officials, local activists and residents from different territorial communities of Luhansk region. These focus groups were organized in order to gain a deeper understanding of the planning activity and main obstacles for it in the territorial communities of the region, the role of particular instruments, both planning and participatory in making spatial transformations and to evaluate the impact of the main actors. Thus, the present paper is based, on the one hand, on comparative analysis of the new participatory and traditional planning instruments in the territorial communities of the region and, on the other hand, on the critical analysis of the planning processes and planning practices.

The use of participatory instruments by territorial communities of the region

Participatory instruments, especially various electronic tools, such as petitions, requests, chatbots, appeals, requests for information, surveys, geoportals have become common instruments for planning and decision-making in the region these days [15]. However, according to empirical data, most territorial communities in the region are implementing only a few tools. Some territorial communities have introduced the use of GIS and e-services. Electronic petitions and electronic appeals are the most widely used participatory tools among the territorial communities of Luhansk region: petitions are used in all communities of the region, and electronic appeals are used by the majority of them (15, or 58% of the total number of communities).

However, a wide dissemination of these instruments does not necessarily is in line with their effectiveness and effective use. In the majority of cases, it is a declaration of intentions to involve citizens in decision-making on community development rather than real appeals and their consideration with subsequent citizen involvement. While the introduction of such tools is crucially important for making transition from a rigid bureaucratic administrative system of local governance to more democratic and participatory, further efforts are needed to facilitate their use. In practice, these instruments are often viewed as imposed and unneeded, therefore many actors are not willing to cooperate in a meaningful way, local authorities mostly are not able to provide collaboration and dialogue. The first experiences of public hearings, consultations and other participatory practices quite often are rather formal or even negative. And though it is the first step for changing the patterns of governance behavior, most territorial communities in the region are at the initial stage in their efforts to involve citizens in decision-making and planning.

Chmyrivska, Novopskovska, Starobilska and Troitska territorial communities use the largest number of participation instruments among the communities of the region (Fig. 1). Specifically, Novopskovska and Troitska communities use citizens' appeals, electronic appeals, electronic petitions, geoportal and participatory budget. Starobilska community does not have an interactive geoportal where you can leave your messages, but uses electronic consultations. These communities, on the one hand, have expanded the use of different instruments, on the other hand, such use, importantly, is not formal: the use of tools to involve citizens in decision-making and planning has become established and common practice. Although the impact of participatory practices is not yet high enough, various actors are learning to use their opportunities and benefits of active involvement in local planning and governance.

Fig. 1. The use of planning and participation instruments by territorial communities of Luhansk region, 2021

At the same time, four communities (15% of the total number in the region) use only one tool for interaction with citizens. These are Bilolutska, Nyzhnoteplivska, Shyrokivska and Schastynska territorial communities, which, in fact, refused to introduce and develop participatory instruments. It must be emphasized though that the use of only one participatory tool leads to the policies of discrimination of certain groups and their inability to influence local governance and planning (for instance, chatbots are used mainly by young people, and electronic appeals are more often registered by middle-aged people). However, it is also important to stress that the last three named communities are located adjacent to the temporarily occupied territories of Luhansk region and function as civil-military administrations, so difficulties of citizen involvement are largely attributed to the military threat and specificity of local governance.

The half of the communities in the region are on different paths from lagging behind in the use of participatory tools to enhancing their role in planning activities. Five territorial communities in the region may be identified as underdeveloped due to the peripheral location (Lozno-Oleksandrivska, Markivska, Milovska), proximity to the contact line with temporarily occupied territories (Stanychno-Luhanska community), small size (Kolomyichyska community), and that translates into participatory instruments use: these communities have only slightly increased the number of tools.

Four territorial communities - Hirska, Kreminska, Novoaidarska and Bilokurakynska - have an average level of participatory tools implementation and citizen involvement in planning activities. In these territorial communities an increase in the number of instruments had gradually led to a qualitative transformation of the involvement. Bilovodska community also has a relatively small number of participatory instruments; therefore, it can be attributed to the group of communities with a medium level of their implementation on this basis. At the same time, however, among the instruments implemented in this community the most complicated can be found, such as geoportal.

Lysychanska, Rubizhanska and Sievierodonetska territorial communities are communities with quite large cities that are administrative centers. They have significant experience of local governance with highly qualified personnel and implementing big projects, that certainly distinguishes these communities from others.

The use of planning instruments by territorial communities of the region

Development of the planning instruments in territorial communities, including strategic and spatial planning tools, evolved considerably over the past few years in Ukraine. In a number of territorial communities new strategic planning instruments were developed, such as economic profiles, investment profiles, local economic development programs, communication strategies, sustainable economic development and climate action plans, service delivery improvement plans, roadmaps for capacity development, etc. However, territorial communities vary significantly by elaborating these and other planning instruments, depending on the region, period of amalgamation, territorial community type - urban or rural, economic potential and others.

On the one hand, strategic planning for territorial communities of the Luhansk region plays a crucial role in the light of the decentralization process and new administrative division, continuous planning crises and military risks. On the other hand, the institutional capacities for developing and implementing planning documents of adequate quality are quite limited in the region.

There are several types of territorial communities in the region by availability of planning documents. Most of the communities as newly formed ones need to develop basic planning documents. Significant part of those communities, which were established on the basis of voluntary amalgamation, still have not a valid development strategy. Some of the communities elaborated development strategies of high quality, some need to update the strategies because they do not meet current requirements or must be updated due to configuration changes. Most communities do not have proper representation of planning documents on their official websites, which significantly complicates public awareness on planning activity.

Spatial planning in the region is facing a number of specific problems as well, both recent and longstanding. The inherited long-standing problems include the traditional passivity of Luhansk region in developing planning documentation at the local level, even in comparison with other regions: the vast majority of the master plans in Luhansk region were elaborated and approved in Soviet times. This requires rethinking of planning policy, both on the regional level - for the region with temporarily occupied territories and constant military risks and on the local level - for territorial communities as new basic territorial units.

Ten territorial communities in the region (39% of the total) have a well-developed and complex system of traditional planning. These are Bilovodska, Bilokurakynska, Lysychanska, Novoaidarivska, Novopskovska, Popasnianska, Rubizhanska, Sievierodonetska, Troitska and Shulhynska community. These communities are distinguished for a larger number of available planning instruments, including updated development strategies and master plans. The leading positions by the number and variety of planning instruments belong to Bilovodska, Novo- pskovska, Popasnianska, Rubizhanska, Sievierodonetska and Troitska territorial communities (Fig. 1).

Among the territorial communities with average level of developing planning instruments, a few can be named with rather strong positions - Kreminska, Stanychno-Luhanska, Starobilska and Chmyrivska territorial communities. Other communities lag far behind in terms of planning instruments elaboration, mostly having only development strategies that need updating. Three territorial communities in fact do not have planning documents - Kolomyichyska, Milovska and Nyzhnoteplivska.

Neither of the communities in the region started the elaboration of the complex plan for territorial community spatial development - a new planning instrument at the local level, introduced in 2020, which is further evidence of certain backwardness of the region in terms of elaboration of new planning instruments. Such elaboration is complicated both by typical difficulties - search for funding to develop planning documentation, recognition of the need to update obsolete and irrelevant documentation and also by specific regional obstacles - a lack of investment, slow rate of construction and renovation, which in turn does not encourage planning activities.

Combined analysis of the use of planning and participation instruments by territorial communities

On the basis of the use of planning and participation instruments by territorial communities several different types of them could be identified. Territorial communities with developed planning instruments where implementation of new participatory instruments strengthens traditional planning stand at one extreme of this grouping (Type I) and communities only attempting to establish planning - at the other (Type II). Most of the other territorial communities are at different stages of transition between these extreme types.

The first type (I) includes communities that have the majority of planning instruments and are actively implementing them in local governance, updating and supplementing other instruments. Three subtypes of the territorial communities can be distinguished within the first type.

The first subtype (Ia) comprises territorial communities with advanced local planning and predominance of traditional planning instruments (Novopskovska and Popasnianska territorial communities). The second subtype (Ib) includes territorial communities with developed local planning and predominance of traditional planning instruments (Bilo- vodska, Bilokurakynska, Novoaidarska, Lysychanska, Rubizhanska, Sievierodonetska, Shulhynska, Troitska). The third subtype (Ic) includes territorial communities with low level of local planning and predominance of traditional planning instruments (Bilolutska, Hirska, Lozno-Oleksandrivska, Krasnorichenska, Kreminska, Markivska, Nyzhnoduvanska, Shyrokivska, Schastynska).

The second type (II) comprises territorial communities where new participatory instruments dominate over traditional planning. Two subtypes of the communities are clearly distinguished within this type. First subtype (IIa) includes communities with average or low level of local planning and predominance of participation instruments - Svativska, Staro- bilska and Chmyrivska territorial communities. Second subtype within this type of communities (IIb) includes communities that have very low level of local planning or do not have the planning instruments (Milovska, Kolomynchaiska and Nyzhnoteplivska communities).

Experience of the Luhansk region in the implementation of local initiatives, renovation projects and other successful practices suggests that the greatest progress has been made by those territorial communities that manage to find a balance between traditional planning instruments and participatory ones. Balancing planning and participation in local governance allows not only to make the planning process more inclusive or socially oriented, to set more balanced strategic goals, but also to transform planning culture, facilitate interactions between different actors and largely contribute to place-making processes.

However, most territorial communities are facing a passive attitude of local actors when trying to implement new tools, plans and practices. As focus group discussion illustrated, such attitudes are deeply rooted and result from credibility lack, low understanding of the interplay between planning, public involvement and citizen interests. Even those communities who have been approved planning documents recently and were trying to promote this process, have encountered low public interest in any debates and discussions. Low interest, demonstrated by residents, in this case means their conscious or unconscious “self-exclusion” from the planning process, that eventually leads to ignoring their concerns and eventually public dissatisfaction. Furthermore, such `self-exclusion” complicates implementation of the new practices and instruments. Regular involvement of many actors, in contrast, requires regular efforts from local authorities: informing about intentions, decisions and their implementation, providing visible results of involvement, enhancing the collaboration between local authorities, activists and other actors. Such interaction and communication, as focus groups participants emphasize, is essentially enhancing credibility between local authorities and residents.

Analysis of particular instruments, both planning and participatory, and their implementation by territorial communities shows that one of the important drivers for their development and effective use is rethinking of tools in the course of using. It is essential not only for the lessons learned, but also for increasing awareness on goals and objectives of different instruments, re-evaluting the collaboration between the main actors, local institutional environment development. According to focus group participants, this rethinking has been largely achieved through participation in various projects and initiatives, seminars and workshops, organized mostly by numerous International technical assistance programs acting in the region.

Planning instruments, their implementations and the outcomes of planning activity in most cases are perceived and evaluated differently by the main actors. Local authority staff see it as too long, complicated, expert-oriented and eventually inefficient. The outcomes of the planning process for them mostly lie in the field of investment activity. Local activists, which are increasingly using tools of participation and are aware of planning documents, assess interaction with other actors as ineffective and even discriminatory. The effectiveness of planning for this group is primarily related to improving the living conditions of citizens, environmental quality and social justice. Local business owners mostly remain passive on the use of particular instruments and the planning process.

Bilovodska, Novoposkovska and Popasnyanska territorial communities in the Luhansk region have made visible progress in developing local planning instruments due to increasing the range of approved documents, citizen involvement and digitalization of many processes and interactions. Despite the whole complexity of the planning process as such, local authority staff have become increasingly aware of the planning instruments role and trying to develop the local planning culture in their communities.

Conclusions

Local planning was significantly transformed in recent years with the emergence of new planning instruments for this spatial level (development strategy, territorial community complex development concept, complex spatial development plan, etc.) and strengthening the tools and procedures of public participation. However, these recent changes have not yet led to the formation of a balanced and effective local planning in the Luhansk region. Mostly territorial communities rely on quite diverse planning documents, using them rarely or insufficiently when making decisions on spatial development. Active introduction of the new public participation tools that have become available in recent years and have been actively promoted by International technical assistance programs to facilitate decentralization and local democracy had a paradoxical effect in the region, when implementing without reliance on planning instruments. A number of territorial communities therefore were formed with almost no experience in strategic and spatial planning and elaboration related instruments. At the same time, the leaders of a new planning culture stood out in the region, being an important benchmark for the rest of communities in the region in strengthening the local planning.

Many territorial communities in the region are adapting various instruments to specific local context, thereby developing local planning and participatory practices, such as participatory budgeting, terms of which vary significantly by funding, project categories and types among different communities. Such experiences of analyzing and improving local tools, their adaptation to specific local needs and conditions contributes significantly to developing the local institutional environment, creating local success stories and strengthening democratic decision-making. Focus group discussion illustrated that success stories are much better perceived when realizing in neighboring communities: both residents and local authorities are willing to rely upon such experiences.

Bibliography

1. Durnova A. Czech postcommunist trouble with participatory governance. Toward an analysis of the cultural agency of policy discourses [Текст] / А. Durnova // Policy Studies. - 2021. - 42(1). - Pp. 80-97.

2. Fainstein S.S. Planning theory and the city [Текст] /S. S. Fainstein // Journal of planning education and research. 2005. - 25(2). - Pp. 121-130.

3. Friedmann J. Globalization and the emerging culture of planning [Текст] / J. Friedmann //Progress in Planning. - 2005. - 64(3). - Pp. 183-234.

4. Golubchikov O. Urban planning in Russia: towards the market [Текст] / O. Golubchikov // European Planning Studies. - 2004. - 12(2). - Pp. 229-247.

5. Gualini E. Space, politics and conflicts: A review of contemporary debates in urban research and planning theory [Текст] / E. Gualini, I. Bianchi // Planning and conflict: Critical perspectives on contentious urban developments. - Routledge, 2015. -Pp. 37-55.

6. Healey P. Collaborative planning in a stakeholder society [Текст] /P. Healey // The Town Planning Review. - 1998. - Pp. 1-21.

7. Hirt S. Planning during Post-socialism [Текст] / S. Hirt // International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. - London: Elsevier, 2015. - Vol. 18. -pp. 187-192.

8. Hirt S. Planning the post-communist city: Experiences from Sofia [Текст] / S. Hirt // International Planning Studies. - 2005. - 10(3-4). -Pp. 219-240.

9. Hirt S., Stanilov K. Revisiting urban planning in the transitional countries. Regional study prepared for Planning sustainable cities: Global Report on Human Settlements 2009

10. Huxley M. New paradigm or old myopia? Unsettling the communicative turn in planning theory [Текст] / M. Huxley, O. Yiftachel // Journal of planning education and research. - 2000. - 19(4). - Pp. 333-342.

11. Istenic S.P. Participatory Planning in a Post-socialist Urban Context: Experience from Five Cities in Central and Eastern Europe [Текст] / S.P. Istenic, J. Kozina // Participatory Research and Planning in Practice. - Springer, 2020. - Pp. 31-50. ISBN 978-3-030-28013-0.

12. Maier K. Europeanization and changing planning in East-Central Europe: An Easterner's view [Текст] / K. Maier // Planning Practice and Research. - 2012. - 27(1). - Pp. 137-154.

13. Маруняк Є.О. Територіальне (просторове) планування: зміст, еволюція та основні сучасні напрями [Текст] /Є.О. Маруняк// Український географічний журнал. - 2014. - 2. - С. 22-31.

14. Melnychuk A. New tools for new urban spaces? Analyses ofplanning and participation tools and their performance in (post)transitional perspective [Текст] /A. Melnychuk, O. Denysenko, P. Ostapenko // Економічна та соціальна географія. - 2021. - 85. - Pp. 11-22.

15. Мельничук А. Практики та інструменти зворотного зв'язку у територіальних громадах: просування ГІС- інструментів як сервісів взаємодії [Текст] / А. Мельничук, С. Гнатюк // Регіон-2021. - Харків: Харківський національний університет імені В.Н. Каразіна, 2021. - С.152-154.

16. Nedovic-Budic Z. Adjustment of planning practice to the new Eastern and Central European context [Текст] / Z. Nedovic-Budic // Journal of the American Planning Association. - 2001. - 67(1). - Pp. 38-52.

17. Палеха Ю.М. Містобудівна документація у державах Європейського Союзу і в Україні: порівняльний аналіз [Текст] /Ю.М. Палеха, А.В. Олещенко //Досвід та перспективи розвитку міст України. - 2016. - 30. - С. 5057.

18. Peck J. Neoliberal urbanism: Models, moments, mutations [Текст]/J. Peck, N. Theodore, N. Brenner //SAISReview of International Affairs. - 2009. - 29(1). - Pp. 49-66.

19. Raco M. Slow cities, urban politics and the temporalities of planning: Lessons from London [Текст] /M. Raco, D. Durrant, N. Livingstone //Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space. -2018. - 36(7). - Pp. 1176-1194.

20. Roy A. Urbanisms, worlding practices and the theory of planning [Текст] / A. Roy // Planning Theory. - 2011. - 10(1). -Pp. 6-15.

21. Salukvadze J. Multiple transformations, coordination and public goods. Tbilisi and the search for planning as collective strategy [Текст] / J. Salukvadze, K. Van Assche // European Planning Studies. - 2022. - Pp. 1-19.

22. Sykora L. Urban development, policy and planning in the Czech Republic and Prague [Текст] / L. Sykora // Spatial planning and urban development in the new EU member states: from adjustment to reinvention. - 2006. - Pp. 113-140.

23. Sykora L. Cities Under Postsocialism [Текст] / L. Sykora // International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition. - Oxford: Elsevier, 2015. - Vol 3. - Pp. 605-611.

24. Tasan-Kok T. Exploring Critical Constructive Thinking in Planning Studies [Текст] / T. Tasan-Kok //plaNext - next generation planning. - 2019. - 8. - Pp. 40-44.

25. Tsenkova S. Planning trajectories in post-socialist cities: patterns of divergence and change [Текст] / S. Tsenkova // Urban Research & Practice. - 2014. - 7(3). - Pp. 278-301.

26. Van Assche K. Changing frames: Citizen and expert participation in Georgian planning [Текст] / K. Van Assche, G. Verschraegen, J. Salukvadze // Planning Practice & Research. - 2010. - 25(3). - Pp. 377-395.

27. Web platform “e-Consultations” (E-DEM)

28. Web platform “Local petitions” (E-DEM)

29. Web platform “Single Platform for Local e-Democracy” (E-DEM)

30. Web-platform Diia. Digital hromada

31. Яргина З.Н. Градостроительный анализ [Текст] / З.Н. Яргина. - М.: Стройиздат, 1984. - 245с.

local planning place-making luhansk

References

1. Durnova A. (2021). Czech postcommunist trouble with participatory governance. Toward an analysis of the cultural agency of policy discourses. Policy Studies, 42(1), 80-97.

2. Fainstein S.S. (2005). Planning theory and the city. Journal of planning education and research, 25(2), 121-130.

3. Friedmann J. (2005). Globalization and the emerging culture of planning. Progress in Planning, 64(3), 183-234.

4. Golubchikov O. (2004). Urban planning in Russia: towards the market. European Planning Studies, 12(2), 229-247.

5. Gualini E., Bianchi I. (2015). Space, politics and conflicts: A review of contemporary debates in urban research and planning theory in Planning and conflict: Critical perspectives on contentious urban developments. Routledge, 37-55.

6. Healey P. (1998). Collaborative planning in a stakeholder society. The Town Planning Review, 1-21.

7. Hirt S. (2015). Planning during Post-socialism. In International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd Edition, Volume 18. Elsevier.

8. Hirt S.A. (2005). Planning the post-communist city: Experiences from Sofia. International Planning Studies, 10(34), 219-240.

9. Hirt S., Stanilov K. (2009). Revisiting urban planning in the transitional countries. Regional study prepared for Planning sustainable cities: Global Report on Human Settlements 2009.

10. Huxley M., Yiftachel O. (2000). New paradigm or old myopia? Unsettling the communicative turn in planning theory. Journal of planning education and research, 19(4), 333-342.

11. Istenic S.P., Kozina J. (2020). Participatory Planning in a Post-socialist Urban Context: Experience from Five Cities in Central and Eastern Europe. In: J. Nared, D. Bole (Eds.) Participatory Research and Planning in Practice, 31-50.

12. Maier K. (2012). Europeanization and changing planning in East-Central Europe: An Easterner's view. Planning Practice and Research, 27(1), 137-154.

13. Marunyak Ye. (2014). Territorial (spatial) planning: content and evolution of major modern trends. Ukrainian Geographical Journal, 2, 22-31. [In Ukrainian].

14. Melnychuk A., Denysenko O., Ostapenko P. (2021). New tools for new urban spaces? Analyses of planning and participation tools and their performance in (post)transitional perspective. Ekonomichna ta Sotsialna Geografya, 85, 11-22.

15. Melnychuk A., Hnatiuk S. (2021) Practices and tools for feedback in amalgamated territorial communities: promotion of GIS as services of interaction. In: L. Niemets (ed.) Region-2021. Kharkiv, V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National University, pp. 152-154. [In Ukrainian].

16. Nedovic-Budic Z. (2001). Adjustment of planning practice to the new Eastern and Central European context. Journal of the American Planning Association, 67(1), 38-52.

17. Palekha Yu.M., Oleshchenko A.V. (2016). Urban planning documentation in EU states and Ukraine: comparative analysis. Experiences and perspective on urban development. 30, 50-57. [In Ukrainian].

18. Peck J., Theodore N., Brenner N. (2009). Neoliberal urbanism: Models, moments, mutations. SAIS Review of International Affairs, 29(1), 49-66.

19. Raco M., Durrant D., Livingstone N. (2018). Slow cities, urban politics and the temporalities of planning: Lessons from London. Environment and Planning C: Politics and Space, 36(7), 1176-1194.

20. Roy A. (2011). Urbanisms, worlding practices and the theory of planning. Planning Theory, 10(1), 6-15.