PL EN
Role of Digital Tools in Community Management and Urban Participation (Evidence of Belarus)
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Communication Technologies and Public Relations, Belarusian State University, Belarus
 
 
Submission date: 2022-08-08
 
 
Final revision date: 2022-10-19
 
 
Acceptance date: 2022-10-20
 
 
Publication date: 2022-12-30
 
 
Corresponding author
Elena Lebedeva   

Department of Communication Technologies and Public Relations, Belarusian State University, Kalvariyskaya, 9, 220004, Minsk, Belarus
 
 
Studia Humanistyczne AGH 2022;21(4):23-35
 
KEYWORDS
TOPICS
ABSTRACT
This article is devoted to an analysis of the “hybrid neighborhood” phenomenon. Traditionally, a Soviet residential yard is presented in urban studies as the sphere of a neighbor’s active participation. The post-Soviet changes have significantly weakened the activities of neighbor communities; however, the spread of digital communication tools (social networks and messengers) has led to an increase in civic engagement in cities (new forms of neighboring communities are created, traditions of spending time together with neighbors revived, and individuals are actively involving in the struggle for their “place in the city”). The empirical materials that are analyzed reveal the features of neighbors interacting demonstrate the differences between “neighbor” and “civil” communication modes, define the role of online communities in local self-government, and practically implement the “right to the city.”
 
REFERENCES (23)
1.
Amster, R. (2004). Street People and the Contested Realms of Public Space. New York: Lfb Scholarly Pub.
 
2.
Attoh, K.A. (2011). What kind of right is the right to the city? Progress in Human Geography, 35(5), 669–685.
 
3.
Barns, S. (2019). Negotiating the platform pivot: From participatory digital eco-systems to infrastructures of everyday life. Geography Compass, 13(9). https://doi.org/10.1111/ gec3.12464.
 
4.
Chernysheva, L.А. (2020). Online and offline conflicts around urban commons: caring for urban space in the territory of a large housing estate. Journal of Sociology and Social Anthropology, 2, 36–66.
 
5.
Cheshkova, A. (2000). Methodological approaches to the study of spatial segregation. Russian urban space: attempt to comprehend. Мoscow: MONF.
 
6.
Dellenbaugh, M., Kip, M., Bieniok, M., Müller, A.K., Schwegmann, M. (eds.) (2015). Urban Commons: Moving Beyond State and Market. Basel: Birkhäuser Verlag AG.
 
7.
van Dijk, J. (2006). The Network Society. 2-nd ed. London: Thouthand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage Publishing.
 
8.
Elias, N. (1974). Foreword  – Towards a Theory of Communities. In: C. Bell, H. Newby (ed.), The Sociology of Communities: A Selection of Readings (pp. ix–xliii). London: Frank Cass & Co. Ltd.
 
9.
Engel, B. (2007). Public space in the “blue cities” of Russia. In: K. Stanilov (ed.), The PostSocialist City. Urban Form and Space Transformations in Central and Eastern Europe after Socialism (pp. 285–300). Springer, GeoJournal Library vol. 92. https://doi. org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6053-3.
 
10.
Gromasheva, O. (2021). Hybrid neighborness in action: the case of Kudrovo, Russia. Laboratorium: Russian Review of Social Research, 13(2), 13–38.
 
11.
Hardt, M., Negri, A. (2011). Commonwealth. Cambridge: An Imprint of Harvard University Press.
 
12.
Hartman, C., Robinson, D. (2003). Evictions: The hidden housing problem. Housing Policy Debate, 14(4), 461–501.
 
13.
Harvey, D. (2011). The future of the commons. Radical History Review, 109, 101–107.
 
14.
Harvey, D. (2003). The Right to the City. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(4), 939–941.
 
15.
Lebedeva, E.V. (2020). “The Right to the Post-Soviet City”: Analyzing Communication Gaps in the Public Space. Eastern Review, 9, 189–209.
 
16.
Lefebvre, H., Kofman, E., Lebas, E. (2010). Writing on cities. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.
 
17.
Lunevich, I. (2019) (Dis)empowering technologies? Social construction of electronic participation tools. Crossroads. Journal of Eastern European Frontier Studies, 1, 79–100.
 
18.
Mitchell, D. (2003). The Right to the City: Social Justice and the Fight for Public Space. New York, London: The Guilford Press.
 
19.
Pavlov, A.V. (2006). Local urban communities in social networks: between “neighborly” and “civil” communication. Labyrinth. Journal of Social and Humanitarian Studies, 5, 46–57.
 
20.
Purcell, M. (2001). Neighborhood activism among homeowners as a politics of space. Professional Geographer, 53(2), 78–194.
 
21.
Rosol, M. (2010). Public participation in post‐Fordist urban green space governance: The case of community gardens in Berlin. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 34(3), 548–563.
 
22.
Walker, D.M. (2011). Networked Public Talk: Attention, Difference, and Imagination in Online Urban Forums. University of Michigan.
 
23.
Weinstein, L., Ren, X. (2009). The changing right to the city: Urban renewal and housing rights in globalizing Shanghai and Mumbai. City & Community, 8(4), 407–432.
 
eISSN:2300-7109
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top