Considerations regarding a new settlement typology in Serbia

Abstract

A division between urban and rural settlements/areas has been traditionally applied in statistical reporting worldwide. The reports applying these terms have been used to create and implement development policies and measures. However, international policies such as those featured by the European Union (EU), as well as national policies, also recognize, define and render transitional types of settlements. The Program of Implementation of the Spatial Plan of the Republic of Serbia (2010) called for a new definition of the term "settlement" determined by new criteria for a settlement typology by the end of 2015. Except for theoretical contributions, this task has not been completed yet. At the same time, a trichotomous settlement typology has been recommended to Serbia by the EU as a result of the accession process. Therefore, this paper aims to analyze and discuss a new settlement categorization, taking into account considerations on the number of categories, number of variables, choice of variables and territorial level for data collection. These aspects are empirically tested on a data set collected through the Survey on Income and Living Conditions (SILC) in Serbia. The data are analyzed using two approaches: descriptive and cluster analysis. A parallel with other countries and theoretical recommendations is drawn in the discussion, based on which some recommendations are presented.

Digital Participation Framework for Mountain Areas in Serbia

“…Improved accessibility to the internet, enhanced technological possibilities of authorities, planning departments, and households, simplified and more user-friendly interfaces i.e., GIS-based platforms, broaden the opportunities to involve stakeholders in spatial planning processes (Kahila-Tani, Kyttä and Geertman, 2019). Still, digital participation is challenged even in well-established market economies when it comes to the accessibility to the internet and technical equipment (Pantić et al, 2021). Equally distributed technical preconditions for digitalization are necessary components of well-established digital participation platforms in both urban and rural areas (Labrianidis et al, 2004).…”

“…Secondly, the more and less affluent population has a different level of accessibility to digital participation tools, whereas low-income groups, including vulnerable groups, are usually excluded from digital participation processes (Bricout et al, 2021;Graziano, 2021). Some differences regarding the extent to which digital participation in urban and spatial planning is used are recognized between (a) urban and rural population, (b) more and less affluent population, (c) young and elderly population, and (d) different genders (Cilliers et al, 2020;Pantić et al, 2021). Vromen (2008) studied relations between the participation of the young population in the planning process and the role of the internet before COVID-19, finding that young people eagerly embrace the online world to build and share their attitudes, which does not necessarily comply with the official virtual participation tools offered by the government.…”

“…Vromen (2008) studied relations between the participation of the young population in the planning process and the role of the internet before COVID-19, finding that young people eagerly embrace the online world to build and share their attitudes, which does not necessarily comply with the official virtual participation tools offered by the government. Rikanović et al (2020) suggest that young people in Serbia are not interested in of-line forms of participation as much as the middle-aged population because they are a generation comfortable with using new technologies and the advantages of the internet (Pantić et al, 2021).…”

“…Although digital participation formats in urban and spatial planning are not a novelty, their importance has recently gained a new impetus in the domain of responsiveness to the 'new normal' during and after the pandemic (Lissandrello and Sorensen, 2021). In uncertain circumstances, responsiveness relies on digital tools and requires the (re)establishment of mechanisms for deliberative citizen participation and stakeholder engagement (Pantić et al, 2021;Čolić, Dželebdžić and Čolić, 2022).…”

“…The existing base of expertise in this domain has been revisited and extended across the national spatial planning systems during the COVID-19 pandemic. In Serbia, for example, formal and 'live' public participation in urban areas with established digital communication systems took the form of online meetings, online voting, phone consultations, submission of remarks and suggestions by e-mail or digital registry of the designated planning offices or ministries in charge of spatial planning, and/or use of mobile phone applications (Pantić et al, 2021). At the same time, evidence of digital methods application in the RA, and especially MA, remains uninvestigated.…”