Participatory approaches in spatial contexts: Limits, contradictions and emerging practices

If we generally know why people participate in something (for recognition, sociability, morality), for what purpose (for the environment), and for whom (for oneself, one’s children, neighbors, employer, etc.), answering the questions “for where” and “from where” is much more difficult. In fact, these questions even sound strange because Western individuals, in a context of globalization, are not accustomed to representing—or considering—the spatial consequences of their actions. Inspired by the concept of urban metabolism, which emphasizes the circulation of materials and the interdependence of territories and scales, I wondered which spatial references justify the unpaid labor of volunteer litter collectors. Based on an ethnography of collective volunteer waste-picking movements (2018–2022) in Athens, Vienna, and Lyon, this reflection situates civic participation in cleanliness across multiple scales, from the polluting molecule to the world itself. The results show that the places and scales of engagement are primarily those of proximity (my body, my neighborhood) and distance (the world, the ocean, the planet), while never taking into account either the political scale of waste management (at the metropolitan/regional level) or the origin of the waste itself. Put simply, everything happens as though, once collected on Turkovounia or Lycabettus hill, a waste is no longer a problem because it no longer represents, apparently, a risk either to one’s own body or to the planet—“the environment is protected” by "environmental heroes" as the common rhetoric says… albeit at the expense of the bodies of the inhabitants of Fyli ! When i asked people in Athens if they knew where the collected waste goes, they ignored the location of the landfill. Their bourgeoise discursive ecology in the city-center is opposed, in a way, to the embodied ecologies of Fyli inhabitants.

This paper examines the limits of institutional and semi-formal participatory practices in contemporary planning and explores the conditions under which participation can transition from passive consultation to meaningful co-production. Drawing on structured interviews with 13 actors, including planning authorities, private practitioners, NGOs, and research intermediaries, the study investigates how participation is implemented through case studies, perceived, and operationalized across institutional contexts. The findings reveal a persistent structural gap between formal decision-making systems and participatory processes. While participation is embedded within planning frameworks, it is often procedural, compliance-driven, and limited in its capacity to influence outcomes. In contrast, more adaptive and connective actors demonstrate higher engagement potential but lack the institutional authority and capacity to translate participatory input into actionable decisions. This misalignment highlights a critical barrier: decision-making practices are institutionally rigid and linear, while effective participation is produced outside decision-making centers and not translated into actionable information capable of influencing outcomes. In response, the paper explores the potential of data-enabled participatory methods as a bridging mechanism between qualitative local knowledge and quantitative spatial analysis. Through the presentation and evaluation of a geolocated, workshop-based participatory tool, the research examines how structured digital environments can support the capture, codification, and integration of tacit, place-based knowledge at the neighborhood scale. Particular emphasis is placed on spatial interfaces, iterative feedback loops, and facilitator-led processes in enhancing both the quality and duration of engagement. The study identifies three key requirements for advancing toward co-production: (1) methodological clarity in structuring participation, (2) technical capacity to translate qualitative input into usable evidence, and (3) institutional readiness to absorb and act upon participatory outputs. Ultimately, the paper argues that the transition to co-production is not solely a technological challenge, but a systemic one requiring alignment between participatory practices, governance structures, and decision-making cultures.

The “15-minute city” model, introduced by Carlos Moreno (2016), is considered as one of the most interesting efforts of the recent years, for promoting sustainable urban planning. This has already been adopted by major cities, such as Paris and Barcelona, in order to promote sustainable urban transitions. The present paper is making an effort to elaborate on the 15-minute city concept, by placing it in a historical context. In the first part, the present study argues that the 15-minute model concerns of a modern version, of a type of organization which can be met already in ancient Greek cities, e.g. Athens. Such an argument, opens up new possibilities for research and experimentation, in sustainable urban practice. In the next part, the paper elaborates on the economic aspects of the model under study, by focusing on the implications of the proximity-based models on real estate markets, namely on land prices. These effects are closely related to the added value of mixed land-use areas, but also to urbanization and spatial discrimination. In the final part, the paper argues that the successful implementation of the 15-minute city model requires a shift towards participatory planning, enriched by appropriate tools such as, multicriteria approaches, geo-visualization tools etc. Finally, some interesting conclusions are drawn regarding the interrelationships among urban morphology, real estate economics and urban governance. Keywords: 15-minute city, urban proximity, real estate dynamics, participatory design.

This paper examines participation both conceptually and empirically through the synAthina programme of the Municipality of Athens, one of the case studies of an ongoing doctoral research. It situates participation within the broader context of neoliberal urban governance, tracing the proliferation of concepts such as sustainable development, good governance and participatory development since the 1980s. These notions have been increasingly embedded within a normative and value-laden discourse, often detached from a critical interrogation of the political and economic imperatives underpinning them (Leal, 2010). Within this shift, the transition “from managerialism to entrepreneurialism” (Harvey, 1989) redefines the role of cities as competitive actors striving to attract investment, consumption and symbolic capital. In this context, participation acquires a specific instrumental value, functioning as a policy prerequisite for accessing European funding. As such, it operates as a “buzzword” (Cornwall, 2007), whose conceptual and political content is progressively diluted, while urban competitiveness becomes tied to the effective mobilisation of such vocabulary. At the same time, dominant approaches to participation tend to focus on methods and tools, leaving largely unaddressed fundamental questions concerning who participates, under what conditions, and with what consequences. This critique echoes earlier interventions that have problematised participation as a potentially depoliticised and technocratic practice (Cooke & Kothari, 2001). Drawing on Critical Discourse Analysis across three levels—textual, discursive and socio-political practices—this paper explores the dialectical relationship between rhetoric and practice in the case of synAthina. Focusing on the period 2013–2019, during which the Municipality of Athens aligned closely with European and international urban agendas, synAthina emerged as a flagship initiative, widely recognised as a best practice within networks and programmes (URBACT, Refill, etc.). However, this paper critically interrogates such narratives of success, highlighting the contradictions, exclusions and power relations that remain obscured within evaluation frameworks primarily oriented towards measurable outputs and deliverables.

Participation has become a central reference in spatial planning and territorial governance. However, its integration into decision-making processes often remains uneven, procedural and contradictory. This paper examines these tensions through the case of forest mapping reform in Greece after 2016, a large-scale project of land administration and environmental mapping implemented in the context of the economic crisis, cadastral modernization, and contradictory policies surrounding the nationalization, privatization and commodification of forest lands. Rather than focusing on formally designed participatory tools, the paper analyses objection and land-acquisition procedures as a form of indirect, conflictual and largely individualized participation in the production of spatial knowledge. Empirically, the study combines quantitative analysis of forest-map data in Ilia, Western Peloponnese, with qualitative research based on semi-structured interviews with citizens, local actors and technical professionals involved in objection procedures. The findings show that these procedures, officially presented as mechanisms for correcting technical errors, operate in practice as instruments of spatial regulation. Through them, land-use classifications, property claims and interpretations of forest legality are renegotiated “from below”. However, this participation is deeply unequal: access to it depends on geographical inequalities related to the exchange or use value of land, financial capacity, legal knowledge and technical mediation. The paper argues that objections to forest maps reveal both the democratic potential and the limits of participatory spatial governance. They make local histories, informal relations to land and contested environmental categories visible, while at the same time risking the reinforcement of individualized property strategies and socio-spatial inequalities. The Greek case therefore offers an opportunity for broader reflection on how participatory practices can move beyond consultation, correction or conflict management and contribute to more collective, public and accountable forms of spatial planning.