Resident (Non)Participation in Croatian Housing Estates
Jelena Zlatar Gamberožić, Mirjana Adamović, and Anamaria Klasić (all at the Institute for Social Research in Zagreb, Croatia)
In many cities around the world, there’s a growing concern: people aren’t participating in decisions that affect their everyday lives. Whether it's fixing a local park, building new roads, or improving public services, citizens are often missing from the conversation. Our recent study looked at four Croatian cities (Zagreb, Split, Rijeka and Osijek) to understand why this is happening. The findings were striking but not surprising: most people feel left out, unheard, and unsure of how to get involved.
Our research focused on two questions:
Are people participating in local government structures, and if not, why?
Are citizens engaged in neighbourhood life in ways that make a difference?
We looked at both formal participation, such attending city meetings or being part of local committees, and informal ways of getting involved, such as joining community groups or citizen-led initiatives.
The short answer is that most people don’t participate. And the few who do often feel as though their voices don’t matter. In cities like Zagreb and others, citizen involvement in local decision-making is minimal. Even professionals, civil society groups, and experts who could contribute valuable insight are not sufficiently included in the urban planning process. The system seems closed-off, and many residents feel like there’s no space for them to join in.
Two key themes emerged from our study: a lack of trust in the system and a lack of information. People either don’t believe the system will listen to them and often don’t even know who’s in charge of what. Many residents avoid public meetings or community discussions because they assume nothing will change. They don’t see the point in trying to influence decisions when they believe their input will be ignored.
A part of our research was also to understand how people feel about participating. The results were clear: most residents believe they can’t personally influence decisions, or they’re unsure whether they can. This feeling of powerlessness is even more pronounced in smaller towns, where the political structure can be confusing. People may recognize city leaders, but they often don’t know about local committees or who really makes the decisions in their area. When people don’t understand how the system works or don’t trust it, they’re far less likely to get involved. Those who had been involved in citizen initiatives or local associations were much more likely to believe they could make a difference. These active residents were also more aware of what was going on in their neighborhoods and felt more connected to their communities.
Local committees are supposed to help residents engage with local authorities and could play a key role. Many of participants said these committees are important, especially when it comes to infrastructure projects or neighborhood improvements. Ideally, these committees should act as a bridge between citizens and the city government. Unfortunately, they’re often invisible or inactive. When they don’t function well, people don’t see them as useful, and in many cases, residents don’t even know they exist.
When problems in a neighborhood reach a boiling point, it’s usually citizen-led initiatives or civil society organizations that step in, often attracting media attention in the process. In some neighborhoods, especially where public spaces or green areas were under threat, these groups have successfully pushed back and protected their communities. But this kind of activism tends to happen only after things have already gone wrong.
Another trend we saw was what researchers call “issue-based activism.” People get involved when a specific problem affects them directly: for example, when a new building project threatens their park. Whatever the issue, people act when they’re frustrated, and they often have little faith that traditional political structures will help them. This kind of participation is tied closely to immediate concerns like public space, housing, traffic, and infrastructure. As a consequence of this, one of the biggest findings from our study is that participation in Croatian cities is mostly reactive. People get involved when something goes wrong. There’s no strong structure in place to involve residents from the start, so engagement only happens when there’s a crisis.
This leads to a troubling cycle. People feel ignored, so they don’t get involved. Then, when decisions are made without their input, they feel even more alienated. Over time, this frustration turns into apathy. People give up on trying to change things and become more and more passive. To fix this, we need to rethink how cities are managed. Right now, political and economic interests dominate most decisions. The voice of the everyday citizen often takes a back seat to profit or political convenience. A system where citizen participation is built in, not just added as an afterthought is needed: empowering local committees, supporting citizen initiatives, and improving communication between city officials and residents. Most importantly, it means education, helping people understand how local government works and how they can be part of it.
Table 1: The respondent's activity in the last 5 years in an organization/initiative that aimed to improve the neighborhood/estate (Zagreb, Split, Rijeka, Osijek), N=1536, (%)
European urban policy already supports this idea. There’s a growing movement to involve citizens in housing, infrastructure, and environmental decisions. Croatia could follow this model, encouraging cooperation between city governments, civil society, and residents. This would help people feel more connected to their neighborhoods and more confident in their ability to shape the future of their cities.
Future research should take a closer look at individual cities and neighborhoods. By focusing on specific case studies, we can better understand what is efficient when it comes to involving people in local life. For now, one thing is clear: if we want stronger communities and better cities, we need to start listening to the people who live in them.
Jelena Zlatar Gamberožić is a sociologist and scientific advisor. Her areas of work are sociology of space, urban and rural sociology.
Mirjana Adamović is a sociologist and scientific advisor. Her areas of work are sociology of space, sociology of gender and youth.
Anamaria Klasić is a sociologist and research assistant. Her areas of work are sociology of space and urban sociology, focusing on sociology of housing.