Volume 85
  • Реєстрація



1,2Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Ukraine, 3Ukrainian Researchers Society

1This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.2This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.3This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. 


For a long timepost-socialist countries served as a space for interaction between multiple transformations, urban policy changes and urban planning adjustments on the one hand, and challenging institutional and socio-cultural legacy, on the other. What are the outcomes of these interactions and how the urban space is changing? How effective aretraditional (“old”) and newly established planning and participation tools? To what extent does the current system meet the expectations of different stakeholders? These are the main issues to discuss in the paper. For this aim we use the experience of Ukrainian planning system changes in (post)transitional perspective, focusing on several planning and participation tools and their performance both on the national and local level. 
The impact of the main planning and participation tools on the urban transformations in Ukraine is critically considered in the paper, discussing their outcomes from different perspectives. The local context of using particular tools is discussed through the cases of two cities - Kryvyi Rih and Kherson; this allows to trace the logic of the planning process and practices of urban restructuring, notably by using the tools ofparticipation. Using in-depth interview data,the paper is aimed at revealing how different stakeholders perceive the main planning and participation tools as well as evaluate their effectiveness. Thus, we rethink the changes of planning and participation tools in (post)transitional perspective, their role in urban development processes,their performance in various local contexts and also their compliance with the declared goals and interests of different stakeholder groups.

Key words:

post-socialist countries, transition, planning, participation, urban spaces, Kryvyi Rih, Kherson 





Головаха, Е., Панина, Н. (2001). Постсоветская деинституционализация и становление новых социальных институтов в украинском обществе. Социология: теория, методы, маркетинг4, 5-22. [Golovakha E., Panina, N. Post-Soviet deinstitutionalization and development of new social institutions in Ukrainian society]

Закон України Про основи містобудування від 16.11.1992 № 2780-XII (Редакція станом на 16.10.2020). Режим доступу: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2780-12/ed20201016#Text [Law of Ukraine On Basics of town-planning]

Закон України Про планування і забудову територій від 20.04.2000 № 1699-III (Редакція станом на 20.04.2000). Режим доступу: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/1699-14/ed20000420#Text [Law of Ukraine On planning and development of territories]

Закон України Про регулювання містобудівної діяльності від 17.02.2011 № 3038-VI (Редакція станом на 01.12.2020). Режим доступу: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/3038-17#Text [Law of Ukraine On regulation of town-planning activity]

Маруняк Є. О. (2014). Територіальне (просторове) планування: зміст, еволюція та основні сучасні напрями. Український географічний журнал, 2, 22-31. [Marunyak Ye. Territorial (spatial) planning: content and evolution of major modern trends]

Мезенцев К. В., Денисенко О. О. (2018). Міста на постсоціалістичному просторі: підходи до концептуалізації та місце в урбаністичному дискурсі. Український географічний журнал, 4, 16-24. [Mezentsev K.V., Denysenko O.O. Cities in post-socialist space: approaches to conceptualization and placing in urban discourse]

Палеха Ю. М., Олещенко А. В. (2016). Містобудівна документація у державах Європейського Союзу і в Україні: порівняльний аналіз. Досвід та перспективи розвитку міст України, 30, 50-57 [Palekha Yu., Oleshchen-ko A. Urban planning documentation in EU states and Ukraine: comparative analysis]

Платформа реалізації ідей для покращення твого міста: Кривий Ріг. Режим доступу: https://gb.kr.gov.ua [A platform for implementing ideas to improve your city. Kryvyi Rih.]

Повідомлення про початок процедури розгляду та врахування пропозицій громадськості у проекті містобудівної документації “Актуалізація плану зонування м. Кривий Ріг та звіті про стратегічну екологічну оцінку” від 9.11.2020. Режим доступу: https://kr.gov.ua/ua/news/pg/91120811087058_s/ [Notification of the beginning of the procedure of consideration and integration of public proposals in the draft of urban planning documentation “Update of the zoning plan of Kryvyi Rih and Report on strategic environmental assessment” issued on 9 November 2020].

Про генеральний план розвитку міста Херсона. Постанова Ради Міністрів УРСР від 30.05.1984 №231. [On the general plan of Kherson. Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the Ukrainian SSR on May 30, 1984, № 231].

Про генеральний план розвиткуміста Кривого Рога Дніпропетровської області. Постанова Ради Міністрів УРСР від 19.12.1986 №435. [On the general plan of Kryvyi Rih, Dnipropetrovsk region. Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the Ukrainian SSR on December 19, 1986, № 435].

Рекомендації щодо змісту електронних петицій. Режим доступу: http://www.city.kherson.ua/articles/elektronni-peticiyi-2 [Recommendations on the content of electronic petitions].

Чисельність наявного населення України на 1 січня 2020 р. Режим доступу: http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/druk/publicat/kat_u/publnasel_u.htm [Number of available population as of January 1, 2020].

Чисельність наявного населення України на 1 січня 2011 р. Режим доступу: http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua/druk/publicat/Arhiv_u/13/Arch_nnas_zb.htm [Number of available population as of January 1, 2011].

Cilliers, E. J., & Timmermans, W. (2014). The importance of creative participatory planning in the public place-making process. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design41(3), 413-429.

Cleary, L. (2016). Half measures and incomplete reforms: the breeding ground for a hybrid civil society in Ukraine. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies16(1), 7-23.

Durnová, A. (2021). Czech postcommunist trouble with participatory governance. Toward an analysis of the cultural agency of policy discourses. Policy Studies42(1), 80-97.

Fainstein, S. S. (2005). Planning theory and the city. Journal of Planning Education and Research25(2), 121-130.

Ferenčuhová, S., & Gentile, M. (2016). Introduction: Post-socialist cities and urban theory. Eurasian Geography and Economics57(4-5), 483-496.

Fischer, F. (2012). Participatory Governance: From Theory to Practice. The Oxford Handbook of Governance, 457-471.

Friedmann, J. (2005). Globalization and the emerging culture of planning. Progress in Planning64(3), 183-234.

Friedmann, J. (2010). Place and place-making in cities: A global perspective. Planning Theory & Practice11(2), 149-165.

Fung, A., & Wright, E. O. (2003). Deepening democracy: Institutional innovations in empowered participatory governance. Verso.

Golubchikov, O. (2004). Urban planning in Russia: towards the market. European Planning Studies12(2), 229-247.

Golubchikov, O., Badyina, A., & Makhrova, A. (2014). The hybrid spatialities of transition: Capitalism, legacy and uneven urban economic restructuring. Urban Studies51(4), 617-633.

Grava, S. (1993). The Urban Heritage of the Soviet Regime. The Case of Riga, Latvia. Journal of the American Planning Association59(1), 9-30.

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.

Healey, P. (2010). Introduction: The transnational flow of knowledge and expertise in the planning field. In Crossing Borders: International exchange and planning practices. Routledge, pp. 1-26.

Healey, P. (1999). Institutionalist analysis, communicative planning, and shaping places. Journal of Planning Education and Research19(2), 111-121.

Hirt, S. A. (2005). Planning the post-communist city: Experiences from Sofia. International Planning Studies10(3-4), 219-240.

Hirt, S., & Stanilov, K. (2009). Revisiting urban planning in the transitional countries. Unpublished regional study prepared for the Global Report on Human Settlements.

Hirt, S., Ferenčuhová, S., & Tuvikene, T. (2016). Conceptual forum: The “post-socialist” city. Eurasian Geography and Economics57(4-5), 497-520.

Huxley, M., & Yiftachel, O. (2000). New paradigm or old myopia? Unsettling the communicative turn in planning theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research19(4), 333-342.

Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (2018). Planning with Complexity: An Introduction to Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy. Routledge.

Istenič, S. P., & Kozina, J. (2020). Participatory Planning in a Post-socialist Urban Context: Experience from Five Cities in Central and Eastern Europe. In Participatory Research and Planning in Practice (pp. 31-50). Springer, Cham.

Legacy, C. (2017). Is there a crisis of participatory planning? Planning Theory16(4), 425-442.

Meléndez, J. W., & Parker, B. (2019). Learning in participatory planning processes: Taking advantage of concepts and theories across disciplines. Planning Theory & Practice20(1), 137-144.

Neugebauer, C., Semenov, A., Denysenko, O. (2020): Urban activism and planning in Ukraine and Russia. In T. Darieva, C. Neugebauer (eds.), Urban Activism in Eastern Europa and Eurasia. Strategies and Practices. DOM Publishers, pp. 138-200.

Peck, J., Theodore, N., & Brenner, N. (2009). Neoliberal urbanism: Models, moments, mutations. SAIS Review of International Affairs29(1), 49-66.

Roy, A. (2011). Urbanisms, worlding practices and the theory of planning. Planning Theory10(1), 6-15.

Sýkora, L. (2006). Urban development, policy and planning in the Czech Republic and Prague. In Spatial Planning and Urban Development in the New EU Member States: From Adjustment to Reinvention. Ashgate: Aldershot, pp. 113-140.

Sýkora, L., & Bouzarovski, S. (2012). Multiple transformations: Conceptualising the post-communist urban transition. Urban Studies49(1), 43-60.

Tsenkova, S. (2006). Beyond transitions: Understanding urban change in post-socialist cities. In The Urban Mosaic of Post-Socialist Europe (pp. 21-50).

Tsenkova, S. (2014). Planning trajectories in post-socialist cities: patterns of divergence and change. Urban Research & Practice7(3), 278-301.

Van Assche, K., Verschraegen, G., & Salukvadze, J. (2010). Changing frames: Citizen and expert participation in Georgian planning. Planning Practice & Research25(3), 377-395.

Van Wymeersch, E., Oosterlynck, S., & Vanoutrive, T. (2019). The political ambivalences of participatory planning initiatives. Planning Theory18(3), 359-381.

Vujošević, M., & Nedović-Budić, Z. (2006). Planning and societal context – The case of Belgrade, Serbia. In The Urban Mosaic of Post-Socialist Europe (pp. 275-294).


Suggested citation: 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 Geografiya / Економічна та соціальна географія85, 11–22, https://doi.org/10.17721/2413-7154/2021.85.11-22.

Print ISSN: 2413-7154. Online ISSN: 2413-7553

Author Guidelines

Instruction for authors: 

Reviewer Guidelines

Download Reviewer's Form: 

Publication Ethics

Current Issue

Contact information

Editorial address:

Department of Economic and Social Geography, Faculty of Geography, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Prospekt Akademika Hlushkova, 2a, MSP-680, Kyiv, Ukraine 

Tel .: 00 38 044 521-32-24,

00 38 044 521-35-79

E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Contact us