Urban regeneration has been an ongoing process in many cities for decades. It has experienced various changes in terms of the main driving force, with public engagement becoming more and more important. One of the ways for communities to get involved in urban transformation is through participation in urban planning. Local communities are considered as partners in urban design processes, and in many countries their role in planning and design is defined by industry regulations. Still, one question is important – is public participation a formal tool or does it have an influence on planning and how it impacts decision making. Along with community involvement in planning processes, participatory budgeting has been developed as a public participatory approach in recent years. This gives a chance for inhabitants to participate in the budgetary decision-making process. The aim of this study is to analyse whether participatory budgeting, which is mainly municipal-led urban activism, answers the real needs of inhabitants in terms of urban regeneration. The interests of formal urban activism are defined and compared to the interests of informal urban activism actions, correlation and gaps are defined.
2. Balaban, O., Puppim de Oliveira, J. A. Understanding the links between urban regeneration and climate-friendly urban development: lessons from two case studies in Japan. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 2013, Vol. 19, Issue 8, pp. 868‒890. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2013.798634
3. Atkinson, R. Discourses of partnership and empowerment in contemporary British urban regeneration, Urban Studies, 1999, Vol. 36, Issue 1, pp. 59‒72. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098993736
5. Maginn, P.J. Towards more effective community participation in urban regeneration: The potential of collaborative planning and applied ethnography. Qualitative Research, 2007, Vol. 7, Issue 1, pp. 25‒43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106068020
6. Madanipour, A.Cities in Time : Temporary urbanism and the future of the city. London: Bloomsbury, 2017. 198 p.
7. Lefebre, H.Writing on Cities (ed.: E.Kofman and E. Lebas). Blackwell publishers, 1996. 260 p.
8. Serrano-Jiménez, A., Lima, M. L., Molina-Huelva, M., Barrios-Padura, Á. Promoting urban regeneration and aging in place: APRAM – an interdisciplinary method to support decision-making in building renovation. Sustainable Cities and Society, 2019, Vol. 47, p. 101505. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101505
9. Palumbo, M. L., Fimmanò, D., Mangiola, G., Rispoli, V., Annunziato, M. Strategies for an urban renewal in Rome: Massimina co-goal. Energy Procedia, 2017, Vol. 122, pp. 559–564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.07.416
11. Ernst, L., De Graaf-Van Dinthera, R. E., Peek, G. J., Loorbach, D. A. Sustainable urban transformation and sustainability transitions; conceptual framework and case study. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2016, Vol. 112, Part 4, pp. 2988‒2999. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.10.136
12. Crivellaro, C., Taylor, A., Vlachokyriakos, V., Comber, R., Nissen, B., Wright, P. Re-making places: HCI, ‘community building’ and change. CHI’16: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 2016, pp. 2958‒2969. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858332
21. Laws, D., Scholz, R. W., Shiroyama, H., Susskind, L., Suzuki, T., Weber, O. Expert views on sustainability and technology implementation. The International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology, 2004, Vol. 11, Issue 3, pp. 247‒261. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504500409469829
23. Auziņa, I. Īstenots projekts “Brasas kaķi Brasas bērniem”, 25. oktobris, 2016 [online]. Riga City Council, Department of Education, Culture and Sport [cited 20.04.2019]. http://old.iksd.riga.lv/public/79701.html