Advertisement

Professional Associations as Public Actors in the Formulation and Implementation of Spatial Development Policies. Key Study Monitoring and Evaluation Standard for the Urban Environment of Sofia

  • Angel BurovEmail author
  • Vasil Madzihirski
  • Irina Mutafchiiska
Chapter
  • 211 Downloads
Part of the EAI/Springer Innovations in Communication and Computing book series (EAISICC)

Abstract

This chapter is focusing on the specific role of professional associations as proactive organizations in the development of public policies addressing sustainable local and regional development. This topic is demonstrated on the examples of a model for shared neighborhood development and a monitoring and evaluation standard for the urban environment of Sofia. The need for a more thorough approach in local community planning and design along with monitoring and evaluation of the urban environment has been identified through a series of actions and arenas related to Sofia. The approach of the Association of Bulgarian Urban and Regional Planners is described and argumented through the methods for studying the issue and the way in which it is addressed, including the phases of designing, texting and applying action research and standards in the decision-making process. The efforts of the ABURP try to establish further an urban culture both deep grass-roots and canopy farsighted around the tree of problems and solutions for the environment of Sofia.

Keywords

Power asymmetries Democracy Urban environment Professional associations Spatial strategies Communication Monitoring and evaluation Model Standard Transactive planning Transaction costs Multilevel (multi-scalar) metropolitan governance Institutional thickness or thinness Network society Self-reliance Resilience 

References

  1. Alexander C (1977) A pattern language: towns, buildings, construction. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Allmendinger P (2002) Planning theory. Palgrave, BasingstokeGoogle Scholar
  3. Amin A, Thrift N (1995) Globalisation and institutional thickness. In: Healey P, Cameron S, Davoudi S, Graham C, Madanipour A (eds) Managing cities: the new urban context. Wiley, Chichester, pp 91–108Google Scholar
  4. Appleyard D, Gerson MS, Lintell M (1981) Liveable streets. University of California Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Arnstein SR (1969) A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association 35(4):216–224Google Scholar
  6. Association of Bulgarian Urban and Regional Planners (ABURP) (2016a) Urban Development Forum. http://bgplanning.org/projects/forum-za-gradsko-razvitie/. Accessed 12.02.2018
  7. Association of Bulgarian Urban and Regional Planners (ABURP) (2016b) Model of shared development of vital urban environment in city of Sofia – “Tsar InavAsen II” str. and “Yavorov” residential quarter. http://bgplanning.org/projects/spodeli-kvartala/. Accessed 12.02.2018
  8. Association of Bulgarian Urban and Regional Planners (ABURP) (2017) Establishment of standard for evaluation and monitoring of quality of the urban environment. http://bgplanning.org/projects/gradski-standart/. Accessed 12.02.2018
  9. Campbell S (2003) Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development. In: Campbell S, Fainstein S (eds) Readings in planning theory, 2nd edn. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Castells М (2008) Space of flows, space of places: materials for a theory of urbanism in the information age. In: Haas T (ed) New urbanism and beyond: designing cities for the future. Rizzoli International Publications, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Centre for Study of Democracy (CSD) (2016) State capture unplugged: Countering administrative and political corruption in Bulgaria: http://www.csd.bg/artShow.php?id=17723. Accessed 12.02.2018
  12. COST Action C20 (2009) Urban Knowledge Arenas: re-thinking urban knowledge and innovation. Final report of COST action C20. http://www.cost.eu/module/download/7518. Accessed 12.02.2018
  13. Davoudi S, Shaw K, Haider LJ, Quinlan AE, Peterson GD, Wilkinson C, Fünfgeld H, McEvoy D, Porter L (2012) Resilience: a bridging. concept or a dead end? Planning Theory & Practice 13(2):299–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dempster MBL (1998) A self-organizing systems perspective on planning for sustainability. A thesis presented to the University of Waterloo in fulfilment of the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Environmental Studies in Planning, Waterloo, ON. http://www.bethd.ca/pubs/mesthe.pdf. Accessed 12.02.2018
  15. Dichev I (2010) Sluchvaniya na Grada Otdolu [Grassroots approach in city implementations]. https://www.seminar-bg.eu/spisanie-seminar-bg/broy2/item/240-sluchvaniya-na-grada-otdolu.html. Accessed 12.02.2018
  16. Dimitrova E (1999) Ustoychivost na gradskoto razvitie. Gordost I predrazsadatsi v prostranstvenoto planirane na postindustrialniya grad, Nauchna konferentsiya s mezhdunarodno uchastie “Arhitekturata kato izkustvo – 50 godini arhitekturni izsledvaniya v BAN” [Sustainablity in urban development. Pride and prejudice in spatial planning of postindustrial city, Scientific conference with international participation “The Architecture as an Art – 50 years of scientific research in Bulgarian Academy of Science”], BAS, SofiaGoogle Scholar
  17. Dinev I (2016) Studentski Grad na Studentite!“ Edna Istoriya za Pravoto varhu Grada” [Student’s City to the Students! A story about the right to the city]. http://dversia.net/1102/pravoto-varhu-grada/. Accessed 12.02.2018
  18. EC (2017) Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council. On Progress in Bulgaria under the Co-operation and Verification Mechanism. COM (2017) 750 final. https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/comm-2017-750_en_0.pdf. Accessed 12.02.2018
  19. EkoObshtnost (2014) Idei za po-efektiven Dialog Mezhdu Grazhdani I Stolichna Obshtina [Ideas for more effective dialogue between citizens and Sofia Municipality]. http://bepf-bg.org/идеи-за-по-ефективен-диалог-между-граж-2. Accessed 12.02.2018Google Scholar
  20. EU (2016) Report from the Commission to the Council on the Urban Agenda for the EU. COM(2017) 657 final:https://ec.europa.eu/futurium/en/system/files/ged/celex3a52017dc06573aen3atxt.pdf. Accessed 12.02.2018
  21. Flyvbjerg B (2002) Planning and foucault: in search of the dark side of planning theory. In: Allmendinger P, Tewdwr-Jones M (eds) Planning futures: new directions for planning theory. Routledge, London, pp 44–62Google Scholar
  22. Forester J (2007) Planning in the Face of Power, Journal of the American Planning Association, 48:1, 67–80Google Scholar
  23. Friedmann J (1973) Retracking America: a theory of transactive planning. Doubleday/Anchor, Garden CityGoogle Scholar
  24. Friedmann J (1987) Planning in the public domain: from knowledge to action. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  25. Friedmann J (2003) Why do planning theory? Planning Theory 2003; 2; 7. (2011) Insurgencies: essays in planning theory. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Grazhdanska Initsiativa Za Obshtestven I Relsov Transport (2015) Monthly Archives: November 2015: https://obshtestven.wordpress.com/2015/11/. Accessed 12.02.2018
  27. Grupa Grad (2013) Kritika [Ctiticism]: http://www.grupagrad.com/. Accessed 12.02.2018
  28. Gunderson LH, Holling CS (2003) Panarchy: understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  29. Hacking N, Flynn A (2017) Networks, power and knowledge in the planning system: a case study of energy from waste. Progress in Planning 113:1–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harvey D (1985) The urbanization of capital. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, p xvii, 239Google Scholar
  31. Harvey D (2008) The right to the city. New Left Review II(53):23–40Google Scholar
  32. Healey P (1992) Planning through debate: the communicative turn in planning theory. The Town Planning Review 62(2):143–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Healey P (1997) Collaborative planning – shaping places in fragmented societies. Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Institute for Market Economics (IME) (2017) Democratic Backsliding in Bulgaria. http://ime.bg/bg/articles/otstyplenieto-na-demokraciyata-v-bylgariya/. Accessed 12.02.2018
  35. “Let Nature Remain in Bulgaria” Coalition (2012) Aarhus convention - the new beginning for Bulgarian spatial planning in the favor of citizens. http://forthenature.org/news/2504. Accessed 2.02.2018
  36. “Let Nature Remain in Bulgaria” Coalition (2018a) Sluchai [Cases]. http://forthenature.org/cases. Accessed 12.02.2018
  37. “Let Nature Remain in Bulgaria” Coalition (2018b) Uchastie za Prirodata [Participaion for Nature]. http://forthenature.org/uchastie-za-prirodata, Accessed 12.02.2018
  38. Marcuse P (2009) From critical urban theory to the right to the city. City 13(2–3):185–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. National Assembly of the Republic of Bulgaria (2003–2016) Zakon za Kamarite na Architektite I Inzhenerite v Investicionnoto Proektirane [Law of Chambers of Architects and Engineers in Investment Design]. State GazzetteGoogle Scholar
  40. Piattoni S (2009) Multi-level governance: a historical and conceptual analysis. European Integration. 31(2):163–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC) (1998) Doors to democracy: current trends and practices in public participation in environmental decisionmaking in Central and Eastern Europe. http://archive.rec.org/REC/Publications/PPDoors/CEE/PPDoorsCEE.pdf. Accessed 12.02.2018
  42. Sofia for Us (2007) Tazhn ivesti [Sad news]: http://sofiazanas.blogspot.bg/2007/11/blog-post_8153.html. Accessed 12.02.2018
  43. Sofia Green Capital (2018) Za Nas [About us ]: https://sofiagreencapital.org/за-нас. Accessed 12.02.2018
  44. Spasi Sofia (2015) Zapochvame [We start]. http://spasisofia.org/bg/започваме.html. Accessed12.02.2018
  45. Szelenyi (1983) Urban inequalities: under state socialism. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  46. Transformatori Association (2018) Komunarchia. https://transformatori.net/komunarhia/. Accessed 12.02.2018
  47. UN (2016) Habitat III Policy paper 6: Urban spatial strategies: land market and segregation: http://habitat3.org/file/524217/view/572975. Accessed 12.02.2018
  48. Venkov N (2014) Konspiratsii okolo Zhenskiya Pazar [Conspiracies about “Woman’s market”]: https://www.seminar-bg.eu/spisanie-seminar-bg/broy10b/item/417-konspiracii-okolo-zhenskiya-pazar.html. Accessed 12.02.2018
  49. Viziya za Sofia (2018) ZaViziata [About the Vision]: https://vizia.sofia.bg/sofia-vision/. Accessed 12.02.2018
  50. Whata (2018) Whata awards. http://whata.org/awards/ Accessed 12.02.2018
  51. Williamson O (1979) Transaction-cost economics: the governance of contractual relations. Journal of Law and Economics 22(2):233–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yanchev P (2014) Epizodi na Urbanistichen Aktivizam v Sofiya – Gradskite Publichni Prostranstva Mezhdu Institutsii i Grazhdani [Episodes of urbanistic activism in Sofia – city public spaces between institutions and citizens]. https://www.seminar-bg.eu/spisanie-seminar-bg/broy10b/item/420-epizodi-na-urbanistichen-aktivizam-v-sofia.html. Accessed 12.02.2018
  53. ZaZemiata (2018) Deynosti po Upravlenie na Otpadatsite v gr. Sofiya [Waste management activities in tne City of Sofia]. http://zazemiata.org/v1/Sofija.273.0.html. Accessed 12.02.2018

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angel Burov
    • 1
    Email author
  • Vasil Madzihirski
    • 1
  • Irina Mutafchiiska
    • 1
  1. 1.Association of Bulgarian Urban and Regional Planners (ABURP)SofiaBulgaria

Personalised recommendations