The Institutional Structure of Land Use Planning for Urban Forest Protection in the Post-Socialist Transition Environment: Serbian Experiences

Abstract

In recent decades, Serbia has been undergoing a period of post-socialist transition that has significantly altered the value system underlying spatial development due to alteration of ownership frameworks and land use rights. In consequence, issues have arisen of how to strike a balance between the various interests involved in the distribution of spatial resources and how to control the outcomes of public policies. Land use planning has been identified as an efficient instrument for implementing the public policy value framework. The objective of this paper is to identify the key points of land use planning in relation to urban forest management of significance for the maintenance of urban forests in the environment of post-socialist institutional transformation in Serbia. Seen as an institutional structure, the practice of land use planning in Serbia is the product of a stable interaction between the set of interrelated rules, procedures and organisational units that allows spatial development outcomes that take into account and safeguard land resources and, ultimately, urban forests. The research was carried out in relation to the concept of institutional transformation across three scales: macro/governance, meso/coordination and micro/agency: (a) components of the regulatory framework; (b) procedures for cooperation between stakeholders; and (c) specific activities of land use planning practice. As a result, the concept of Land use Planning for Urban Forest Protection (LUPUFP) in Serbia was established. It identifies components of institutional structure of importance for regulating system changes in the post-socialist transition environment and steering them towards the establishment of a value framework that allows the agenda of saving urban forests to be implemented.

Full text

Article
The Institutional Structure of Land Use Planning for
Urban Forest Protection in the Post-Socialist
Transition Environment: Serbian Experiences
Marija Maruna 1, * , Tijana Crnˇcevi´c 2and Milica P. Milojevi´c 1
1Faculty of Architecture, University of Belgrade, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
2Institute of Architecture and Urban & Spatial Planning of Serbia, 11000 Belgrade, Serbia
*Correspondence: m.ma@sezampro.rs; Tel.: +381-63-42-91
Received: 23 May 2019; Accepted: 2 July 2019; Published: 4 July 2019


Abstract:
In recent decades, Serbia has been undergoing a period of post-socialist transition that has
significantly altered the value system underlying spatial development due to alteration of ownership
frameworks and land use rights. In consequence, issues have arisen of how to strike a balance
between the various interests involved in the distribution of spatial resources and how to control
the outcomes of public policies. Land use planning has been identified as an efficient instrument for
implementing the public policy value framework. The objective of this paper is to identify the key
points of land use planning in relation to urban forest management of significance for the maintenance
of urban forests in the environment of post-socialist institutional transformation in Serbia. Seen
as an institutional structure, the practice of land use planning in Serbia is the product of a stable
interaction between the set of interrelated rules, procedures and organisational units that allows
spatial development outcomes that take into account and safeguard land resources and, ultimately,
urban forests. The research was carried out in relation to the concept of institutional transformation
across three scales: macro/governance, meso/coordination and micro/agency: (a) components of
the regulatory framework; (b) procedures for cooperation between stakeholders; and (c) specific
activities of land use planning practice. As a result, the concept of Land use Planning for Urban Forest
Protection (LUPUFP) in Serbia was established. It identifies components of institutional structure of
importance for regulating system changes in the post-socialist transition environment and steering
them towards the establishment of a value framework that allows the agenda of saving urban forests
to be implemented.
Keywords: urban forest; institutional design; land use planning; Serbia; governance
1. Introduction
The research objective of this paper is to provide a critical overview of the institutional framework
of the development planning system in relation to urban forest management, particularly land use
planning, in the post-socialist environment in Serbia, in order to highlights components of importance to
be used by institutional design for re-establishing a stable interaction inside the institutional structure
that promotes a value system aimed at saving urban forests. As a result, this paper presents an
improvement of the current land use planning system in Serbia by proposing the concept of Land Use
Planning for Urban Forest Protection (LUPUFP), focusing on three major components: urban forests,
land use planning and post-socialist environment in Serbia.
The problems of urban growth in the 21st century emphasise the importance of managing
land resources in order to achieve sustainable development [
1
–
4
]. As a limited resource, land in
cities, especially urban forests as compact large greenfield land, is particularly affected by new
Forests 2019,10, 560; doi:10.3390/f10070560 www.mdpi.com/journal/forests

Forests 2019,10, 560 2 of 28
construction requirements that are directly reflected on environmental problems such as “heat islands”,
flooding and air pollution. Therefore, the network of woodlands, groups of trees and individual
trees located in a city that include forests, street trees, trees in parks and gardens and trees in derelict
corners [
5
], in terminology known as urban and peri-urban forests, play a crucial role in meeting global
commitments on sustainable development as well as adaptation to climate change and mitigation of its
impacts. These requirements represent a particular challenge for local governments that are expected
to make land use more efficient for planning compact cities and mixed-land use [1].
As it was indicated in recent research, urban forest services enhance nine of the seventeen
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [
6
,
7
]. These SDGs are 1: No poverty; 2: Zero hunger; 3: Good
health and well: being; 6: Clean water and sanitation; 7: Affordable and clean energy; 8: Descent work
and economic growth; 11: Sustainable cities and communities; 13: Climate action; and 15: Life on land.
These analyses included five categories that were considered to be urban forest (peri-urban forest
and woodlands, city parks and urban forests >0.5ha, pocket parks and gardens with trees, trees on
streets or in public squares and other green spaces with trees) where the category of peri-urban forest
and woodlands was scored with the highest score, suggesting that it contributes to human health
and well-being, climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, biodiversity and landscapes,
economic benefits and a green economy, land and soil degradation, watershed protection, resilience
to flooding events, food and nutrition security, wood security, recreation, education, social cohesion
and social security and equity. Further, it should be noted that the positive effects of urban forests
ecosystems are confirmed within numerous studies [
8
–
11
] where it is specifically stressed that in regard
to the public’s perceptions of the effectiveness of the ecosystems services “environmental knowledge
plays a key role in fostering pro-environmental behaviours” [12] (p.171).
Land use planning is a key mechanism for reducing pressure on land resources, which facilitates
the implementation of environmental protection policies and steers choices in the direction of nature
protection. This intention has been affirmed in the Curitiba Declaration on Cities and Biodiversity [
13
],
where the issue of integrating biodiversity into urban planning is placed within the context of
establishing the appropriate regulatory mechanisms and implementing tools, as well as decision-making
instruments that will ensure the integration of nature/biodiversity and the urban structure. Land use
planning directly serves the green agenda for ecological health and management of natural ecosystems
on the local level, which aims at preserving green open spaces in cities for biodiversity protection and
recreation [
14
]. The importance of integrating green structure planning in city development planning
is also borne out by the findings of a survey of 23 European cities [
15
] that have met green policy
targets by employing land use planning as the key instrument.
The achievement of the saving urban forests agenda has been challenged in post-socialist transition
Serbia. Namely, after the year 2000, with the transition of the socioeconomic system from a socialist
orientation to that of the market and democracy, and the start of the process of joining the European
Union, significant institutional changes were initiated in Serbia. Following major challenges are of
particular importance for this research.
Firstly, ownership relations over land have changed, thus establishing a new relationship of
strengths of power in society and the consequent plurality of interests in the process of creating public
policies concerning the use of land resources.
Secondly, with entering into the process of joining the European Union, the principle of subsidiarity,
which transfers competencies to the local level, is an important principle in decision-making on public
policies, thus giving the highest responsibility and commitment to local authorities in selecting and
promoting the agenda. This is particularly challenging for post-socialist transition countries that do
not have developed expert capacities at the local level.
Thirdly, global demands for the implementation of sustainable development promote the concept
of governance, which implies the development of horizontal and vertical coordination mechanisms
at different levels of the institutional structure. These demands entail a fundamental change in

Forests 2019,10, 560 3 of 28
the concept of decision-making in post-socialist countries, which up to now was hierarchical rather
than collaborative.
Harmonization of the above components of institutional changes represents a huge challenge
for the transition society, in the selection of a value framework for operation and the regulation of all
domains of public policies. This is, beyond doubt, a highly sensitive institutional redesign process
that will create instability and insecurity. Models that have proven successful in other situations
cannot be applied, and locally-specific answers are expected to be created. In this context, the country
must develop its own path of institutional transformation that will satisfy the demands of the new
environment of post-socialist transition and the EU accession process, while, at the same time, retaining
the positive experiences of the past. That is why this paper will investigate the current institutional
framework of the development planning system in Serbia, which is in the function of achieving the
agenda ‘saving urban forests’. According to the concept of institutional transformation [
16
–
25
] the
values are embedded in the institutional system and are a result of a balance between its components.
With the disturbance of the stability of the institutional system, due to the transition process, which is
induced by the influences that came into the system from the outside, an institutional transformation and
consequently a distortion of the value framework of public policies and related agendas are inevitable.
Following an introductory section, the paper will first outline the theoretical framework in three
important domains: land use planning, urban forest management and the concept of institutional
transformation. The methodological section that follows relies on the key conclusions of the previous
section to be used as the basis for the selection of methodological instruments and definition of key
research questions. The analysis section comprises a detailed presentation of the institutional system of
land use planning in relation to urban forest management from the national to local level, according to
the concept of institutional transformation, illustrated by examples of the land use planning practice of
two medium-sized cities. Within the discussion and conclusion section, as the first step in institutional
design, the components of the presented institutional system are highlighted as the basis for the
development of the Land use Planning for Urban Forest Protection (LUPUFP) concept.
1.1. Theoretical Background
1.1.1. Land use Planning
In the last decades it has been emphasised that land use planning represents a significant
management tool for dealing with unprecedented challenges that lie ahead of the accelerated
urbanization process of cities [
14
,
26
]. Land use planning is a local development instrument that is
complemented by regulations introduced hierarchically within vertical power relations. In general,
land use planning is regulatory in character and is used by governments as a legal instrument intended
to achieve public/common interest or public policy [
27
]. It essentially aims at controlling the use of
and rights to land, both public and private [
28
], by applying various regulatory measures, such as
protected areas, building codes and rezoning. More specifically, the purpose of the land use plan is
to regulate the land as a category of usage, while the purpose of regulatory measures is to change
ownership rights [29].
Contemporary development planning, and consequently land use planning, is a political and
democratic process that mediates the conflicts over land use, not just a technical tool [
30
]. Contemporary
planning has abandoned the traditional position of technical activity, where plans are understood as
documents, to become a collaborative practice jointly undertaken by planners and local communities.
This is consistent with the concept of safeguarding green areas, where traditional land use planning is
seen as a passive, technical, regulative and rigid planning instrument that is lacking the capacity to
protect spatial resources [
15
,
31
]. In contrast, the collaborative planning practice predominantly rooted
in strategic spatial planning is considered to allow the articulation of a more coherent and coordinated
long-term spatial logic for land use regulation [
17
]. Collaborative strategic planning practice looks
at the distribution of spatial resources through process orientation, social inclusion and a multilevel

Forests 2019,10, 560 4 of 28
approach. From this point of view, the distribution of land use is seen as a policy conditioned by the
design of appropriate governance institutions and proactive management activities [
16
,
32
]. In this
context, decision-making is the key mechanism for establishing the value framework for public policy,
and consequently selecting objectives relevant for the protection of spatial resources. The practice of
strategic planning has proven to be a highly successful instrument for redistributing land in favour
of larger open green areas, such as the development of a new urban forest, ‘Parkbos’, in Ghent,
Belgium [33].
1.1.2. Urban Forest Management
Contemporary global development policies, which prioritize climate change issues in addition to
sustainability, assign particular importance to urban forests in the context of adaptation to climate
change and mitigation of its impacts. In addition to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) the
EU’s current strategic framework [
34
,
35
] promotes an integrated landscape approach, which links
protected spaces with other sectoral interests.
The Framework for Assessing and Monitoring Forest Governance [
36
] suggests six principles
of good governance as cornerstones for a stable institutional structure for managing forest land:
accountability, effectiveness, efficiency, fairness, participation and transparency. These principles
intersect three key pillars: (1) policy, legal, institutional and regulatory frameworks; (2) the planning
and decision-making process; and (3) implementation, enforcement and compliance. The second
pillar is of immediate significance for development planning processes, emphasising as it does how
important it is to “examine the extent, characteristics and quality of participation of a range of
stakeholders in forest governance and the capacity of different stakeholder groups to engage in
governance processes. Components under this pillar also consider the transparency of forest-related
decision-making and resource allocation and the degree of accountability of governance mechanisms
and processes” [36] (p. 13).
Similarly, in the domain of multi-disciplinary research into urban forest governance, Lawrence et al.
[
37
] defined the analytical framework as a research tool. This framework is proposed to comprise
four variables for researching the institutional system: (1) policies including national, regional or
local policies, plans and programmes that affect urban forestry; (2) planning and regulations, which
comprise planning and legal requirements specific to the case; (3) ownership of the land; and (4) access
and use rights, such as the right to walk/cycle and/or make use of products from the urban forest. The
proposed framework is only a starting model for studying urban forest governance which, according
to the authors, should be elaborated on to achieve a deeper understanding of the ways to ultimately
make our cities more sustainable.
The importance of stakeholder involvement in policy making to protect natural areas is also
acknowledged by the Natura 2000 network, the core pillar in the EU’s biodiversity conservation
policy [
34
] and one of the largest networks of protected areas in the world. Although member states are
free to align national regulations with EU instruments [
34
,
35
], the expected changes reach deep into the
institutional foundations of public policy decision-making by legitimising a broad range of stakeholders
and, consequently, introducing a multitude of varied interests that need to be harmonised [
38
–
41
]. This
primarily affects the local decision-making level, the most effective forum for exercising the concept of
public interest, as the issues at hand are specific and easy to operationalise.
1.1.3. Concept of Institutional Transformation
According to the concept of institutional transformation, values are embedded in institutional
systems and are the result of the established balance between system components [
18
,
19
]. From
a normative perspective, values and commitments generated in interaction shape undermine and
augment formal and official regimes [
23
]. The concept of institutional transformation additionally
describes in detail the procedures and interactions within processes of interest that can be used to

Forests 2019,10, 560 5 of 28
identify challenges in public administration, the formation of interests, the development of policies
and links, and the implementation of administrations’ programmes in the planning process [21–23].
The orientation of planning practice depends on the values built into the institutional structure.
In other words, the dominant ideology informs beliefs, values and systems, which in turn shape
institutions, which, ultimately, result in policies [
42
]. As such, land use planning, the regulation of the
use of space, reflects the ideology of defining and using space.
Socioeconomic changes under the influence of external factors initiate the process of institutional
transformation [
24
], which inevitably alters the behaviour of political and economic actors [
22
] and,
consequently, leads to changes in public policy. In essence, institutional transformation takes place
in the domain of changes to the value framework, and as such directly shapes the development of
society over time. Institutional transformation disrupts what is termed ‘stable interaction’ within
the institutional structure as the guarantee of the established value framework. Stable interaction
reduces uncertainty in decision-making by securing stable outcomes, dubbed ‘equilibria’. Institutional
transformation, therefore, must aim at establishing these stable interactions within the institutional
system and so reduce uncertainty.
Institutional design, as a normative aspect of institutional transformation, is an integral and
essential part of the planning practice [
22
]. Institutional design determines the success and quality
of interventions by agents (individuals and organisations), and so also determines the success of the
planning practice [
22
,
25
]. The operation of institutions, from the national to the local level, affects
the role and success of planning. Institutions create elements of order and predictability, impose
orderliness on societal relationships, reduce flexibility and variability in behaviour, and limit options
for one-sided exercise of personal interests [
19
,
24
]. Striking a balance between differences in land
use interests is a matter of policy choice and the design of appropriate institutions and proactive
management activities [
22
]. Consequently, it can be considered that institutional design is a useful
method for changing planning practice.
The behaviour of political and economic actors is conditioned by sets of regularised practices
with a rule-like quality [
24
] that also affect policy outcomes. The so-called regulatory regime of land
use management is of crucial importance for the application of planning practice as the source of
environmental protection policies [
25
]. The regulatory regime provides a framework for action within
which agencies enjoy autonomy in choosing their modes of operation and create room for exerting
influence on the value framework.
From a planning perspective, three general concepts should be viewed as the key elements to be
addressed by the institutional design [22]:
(a)
The first is the concept of governance, which is the most appropriate at the macro-level as it
involves society as a whole and is linked to constitutional and legal amendments. This is the
level of institutional design to which belong requirements for institutional change encountered
by Serbia in its EU accession process.
(b)
The second concept is that of coordination, at the meso-level, which pertains to the domain of
planning and comprises procedures which facilitate the development and implementation of
policies, programmes, projects and plans associated with professional planners’ fields of practice.
(c) The third is the concept of agency, which occurs at the micro-level and involves intra-organisational
design, the ordering of smaller working units and groups and the processes and interactions
within and between them. This level directly entails managing planning processes and policy, the
plan or project implementation [22].
That being said, institutional analysis does not focus on norms, rules and practices as integral
elements of institutions, but, rather, on their mutual interaction within the context that conditions
action [
25
]. The emphasis here is on understanding relationships between activities and the institutional
context that generate practices and a power structure that subsequently determine relationships and
changes. Institutional analysis, therefore, observes relationships between systems within an institution,

Forests 2019,10, 560 6 of 28
individual processes within and between those systems, what the constituent units of an institution
are, which rules or norms govern their relationships, etc. [
19
,
20
]. According to Alexander [
22
] (p. 213),
“institutional design means designing institutions: the devising and realisation of rules, procedures
and organisational structures that will enable and constrain behaviour and action so as to accord with
held values, achieve desired objectives or execute given tasks”. Institutional analysis, as an initial step
of institutional design, will be in this research applied to the land use planning practice related to
urban forest management in Serbia.
2. Materials and Methods
In accordance with the presented theoretical framework, the critical re-assessment of the
institutional structure of land use planning in the post-socialist environment of Serbia related to
urban forest management, will highlight the following two aspects: (a) on the one hand, understanding
the institutional and regulatory context of the planning process and (b) the other on discerning the
relationships between dominant stakeholders in this process that reflect value-based approaches.
Furthermore, the research is based on qualitative assessment on three scales that correspond to
the levels of institutional design [22]:
1.
The macro-level entails assessing the regulatory framework for the development planning system
related to urban forest management in Serbia from two aspects:
(a)
Overview and assessment of the institutional and legal framework for urban forest
protection standards at all levels of administrative organisation: national, regional and
local. In this assessment the position of urban forest protection standards within basic
land use planning documents is also included.
(b)
Overview and assessment of the value framework for urban forest protection in national
policy documents. This phase of the research relies on reviewing and analysing both the
primary literature (laws, strategies and other public documents) and secondary sources
dealing with issues of the planning system for urban forest protection.
2.
The meso-level looks at the procedures for cooperation between institutions of the land use
planning process on the local level, related to urban forest management in Serbia. Institutions are
observed from the national to the local levels through the lens of multilevel governance. The
focus is on the procedures for collaboration between institutions in the process of the ‘General
zoning plan’ production, as well as policy-making procedures, and is observed in two aspects:
(a)
Identification of the organisational structure, with particular attention to the position,
powers and roles of the relevant institutions.
(b)
Arrangements for collaboration that includes insight into both the horizontal and the
vertical levels. This segment of the research relies primarily on a review of primary
literature that sets out organisational powers while also considering secondary documents
devoted to how land use planning and urban forest management policies are made.
The micro-level entails a detailed review and assessment of the land use planning process in
relation to urban forest protection in selected examples of land use planning practice on the
local level. It is focused on analysis of activities of concrete cases of planning practices, where
formal and informal institutional arrangements in the planning process are observed. The cases
of planning practice are concrete solutions for the use of space viewed through the enacted
policies and regulations. The accent here is on the description and analysis of the procedure of
land use planning in terms of decision-making by the stakeholders (public, private and civil
sector) involved that employ various mechanisms, instruments and actions. Both policy-related
and regulatory planning solutions are analysed equally. This part of the research relies on both
a critical analysis of the actual land use plan development process (particularly the planning

Forests 2019,10, 560 7 of 28
procedure for the ‘General Zoning Plan’) and the concrete examples of the general zoning plans
(a result of the planning process) as undertaken by planners. Examples include the land use
planning processes of two Serbian cities: Bor and Vrnjaˇcka Banja. The criteria for the selection of
the cases were the following.
(a)
Medium-sized cities (in order to avoid the overly complex problems that are characteristic
of large cities).
(b)
The dominant planning agenda is ‘saving urban forests’. Bor is a town where the urban
environment is exposed to the impacts of copper and gold mines situated in the immediate
vicinity, and Vrnjaˇcka Banja is an urban environment purposefully developed as a spa.
(c)
The planning processes started after the year 2000, following the introduction of Serbia’s
new socioeconomic framework.
The methodological procedure shown is seen as suitable for institutional assessment as it
emphasises case development factors linked to the context, in the same manner as institutional theory
links norms and procedures to the broader institutional landscape [43].
3. Results
In socialist Yugoslavia, green open spaces were considered a public resource and were, as such,
accorded particular attention by urban planners. After World War II, with the institutionalisation
of socialism in Yugoslavia, land policy that determined land use was based on the ideological belief
in common or ‘social’ property, as opposed to the private ownership of land. The fundamental
political, social and economic reforms pursued at the time, accompanied by the establishment of a new
constitutional and legal order by the communist regime, declared which cities and urban settlements
stood to be social property and excluded them from legal transactions. In consequence, any extension
of the urban territory automatically made new land socially owned. Land use plans served as direct
instruments for these transformations and were employed to put public interest into effect in actual
space [44,45].
Although the trend under state socialism was to make forest land socially owned as well, forests
could be owned by the state, cooperatives or private individuals. Nevertheless, all forests, regardless
of ownership, were declared to be of general interest to the community and were placed under
government protection [
46
]. This made the preservation of forests and forest land a matter of public
interest, and a system of safeguards was designed and implemented across all levels of governance to
attain this objective.
Difficulties encountered by post-socialist countries in transitional processes [
47
] are inseparably
linked to the crucial issues of changes to the value system and established norms [
48
,
49
]. Private
property, instituted by the changes as a new form of land ownership, has brought about a major shift in
traditional patterns of land use planning. Private interests, needs and expectations of how land is to be
used have gained legitimacy and so become major factors in land-related policy-making. Consequently,
development land has come to be a fundamental resource for a city’s economic growth. In these
circumstances, pressure has increased to allow construction on greenfield land, where developers do
not incur additional costs when investing. Therefore, in a democratising society facing privatisation
and the construction of market institutions, land use planning has become both a tool to safeguard
property rights and interests of various land use stakeholders and an instrument to correct for market
failure [44].
Institutional changes characteristic of post-socialist transition altered the value basis for planning,
which also caused a shift in the planning paradigm [
50
]. Lacking a common planning system model
they could employ, post-socialist countries have developed their own approaches to institutional
transformation [
51
]. The experiences of post-socialist countries have shown that no changes were

Forests 2019,10, 560 8 of 28
possible to planners’ modes of operation that would allow them to protect the public interest without
an institutional foundation being laid first [52].
The issue of public interest in planning has remained ill-defined in Serbia following the democratic
changes of 2000. Urban plans have endeavoured to protect interests by defining public land, public
areas and public buildings, but the protection of other, privately owned land remained subject to
political decision-making and mechanisms intended to safeguard public interest. As such, issues
including protection of public spaces, the environment, public health and security, energy efficiency,
etc., topics that the public sector is not interested in addressing [
53
,
54
], remained within the remit of
regulatory regimes of land use governance, primarily at the national level.
By contrast, the EU accession process has placed a number of new demands before the practice
of environmental planning. Serbia formally became a candidate country for EU membership in
March 2012, starting a negotiations procedure to align the country’s regulatory framework with
EU law through 34 chapters. Chapter 27 envisages the creation of a sustainable environmental
management system, which cuts across all policy sectors and constitutes a value framework for their
formulation [
55
]. In addition to the requirements of the negotiations process, other instruments
pertaining more directly to the preservation of green open spaces also affect the harmonisation of the
Serbian regulatory framework with the European context. One major such document is the European
Landscape Convention [
56
], ratified by Serbia in 2011 [
57
]. An innovation introduced in the Convention
is the understanding of landscape as a dynamic category that evolves with societal change. This
approach means that landscape-related planning activity can no longer be subject only to deliberation
by specialised technical bodies, but that landscape development policies must be enacted through
democratic dialogue wherein all stakeholders are able to present their perceptions and views of the
future of landscape [56].
On the other hand, the changes brought about by transition commenced a decentralisation process
in which the local level became involved in decision-making about environmental protection policies.
The EU accession process explicitly requires the adoption of standards to allow equal participation of
all the various stakeholders in decision-making and reduce the scope for conflict between interests and
preferences for protected spaces [
58
], as is confirmed in the ARHUS convention ratified by Serbian
law [
59
]. This accords with the concept of governance, which promotes the establishment of diverse
forms of cooperation, partnership agreements, delegation of authority and greater powers of the local
community. Good governance entails the management of protected areas pursuant to the principles
and values chosen by all stakeholders. As part of societal and cultural heritage, these principles
are modified in accordance with globally recognised requirements and become integral parts of
constitutions, laws and other legal enactments that regulate nature protection. However, most powers
and responsibilities remain within the remits of governments and their agencies [60].
3.1. Macro-Level: Regulatory Framework for Development Planning System Related to Urban Forest
Management in Serbia
3.1.1. Institutional and Legal Framework for Urban Forest Protection Standards
As yet, Serbia has not enacted legislation that specifically supports planning for the system of green
spaces as a separate and autonomous domain. The Law on the Protection and Improvement of Green
Spaces has remained at the drafting stage for a number of years [
61
,
62
]. Furthermore, a project by the
Serbian Association of Landscape Architects, supported by the Ministry of Environmental Protection,
that besides requiring spatial and urban plans to acknowledge and recognise existing greenery, green
spaces, spaces close to nature and ecosystems, stressed the importance of the institutional framework
at the local government level related to management, maintenance and reconstruction of urban green
spaces [63].
The lack of an appropriate statutory and planning basis is compounded by the absence in Serbia
of guidelines and recommendations for planning green spaces. Plans and regulations do not recognise
the expression ‘urban forest’, but rather define forest land in urban contexts as ‘town forests’, an echo

Forests 2019,10, 560 9 of 28
of the German Stadtwald better suited to a general understanding of the urban forestry concept [
64
,
65
].
Terms of importance for urban forests formally employed in the green spaces planning system are
defined in the Forests Law [
66
]; these are (a) ‘forest’, an area of land in excess of 5 acres (500 square
metres) covered by forest trees and (b) ‘forest land’, the land on which are located structures facilitating
the attainment of the generally beneficial effects of forests.
In Serbia, the powers for managing, safeguarding and improving forests in urban areas (see Table 1)
in essence reside predominantly within two policy departments: the environment and planning. At the
national level, the responsible institutions are the Government of Serbia and the Nature Conservation
Institute, tasked with conservation activities, as well as the Ministry of Environmental Protection
and the Ministry of Construction, Transportation and Infrastructure. These ministries are charged
with the development of the national statutory framework for planning and protecting urban forests.
The key regulations for urban forests protection are a set of planning laws that govern norms for
establishing land use balance in the context of the regulation of property rights to land (i.e., public,
private and cooperatively owned property). The relevant nature conservation laws govern standards
for the protection, management and use of urban forests.
There is no regional governance level in Serbia, so only the Provincial Nature Conservation
Institute (with powers in the Province of Vojvodina) is the only formal regional body. At the local
level, urban forests are managed by local state-owned enterprises, established independently by
local authorities depending on their size, status and resources. However, powers are often dispersed
amongst different organisations and departments, as well as between various levels of governance. So,
for instance, in Belgrade, the capital city, the state-owned enterprise manages 32.322,70 hectares of
forests, while an additional 611 hectares of forests in the territory of Belgrade are owned and managed
by the city itself [46].
Nevertheless, local land use planning has the greatest impact on urban forest protection. Land
use planning, one of the most important components of planning in Serbia, is regulated chiefly by the
Planning and Construction Law [
67
], which envisages two spatial governance instruments: Spatial
Plans, more focused on the strategic orientation of development, and Urban Plans, more land use
oriented with some elements of an integrated approach. Urban Plans are the most common instruments
of local land use planning and are divided into three categories: (a) General Urban Plans, mostly
oriented towards strategic aspects; (b) General Zoning Plans; and (c) Detailed Zoning Plans, mainly
devoted to technical aspects. Land use maps and technical parameters, such as rules of planning and
rules of construction, are integral parts of Urban Plans. These land use maps are effective instruments
for designating land of public interest, as they formally distinguish between development land (land
designated for construction) and other land, which is as a rule publicly held [
67
]. The Serbian planning
system is characterised by a tradition of land use planning [
68
] that is based exclusively on regulation
and where plans are rigid instruments that set out long-term land use, architectural and aesthetic
standards, and landscape and natural resource protection rules [69].

Forests 2019,10, 560 10 of 28
Table 1. Institutional and legal framework for standards of urban forest protection in Serbia.
Territorial organisation Institutions Laws Standards of protection
National level
Government of Serbia
Government Order on the Environmental Network [
70
]
Government Order on Safeguards [71]
Environmentally significant areas
Area safeguards
Ministry of Construction, Transportation and
Infrastructure
Law on the Spatial Plan of the Republic of Serbia [72] Land use balance at the national level
Planning and Construction Law [67]
Change in intended use of forest land to development land
Expropriation Law [73] Determination of land of public interest
Public Property Law [74]
Resources of general interest (national level)
Resources in general use (local level)
Right to use public property
Utilities Law [75] Management and maintenance of public green surfaces
Ministry of Environmental Protection
Nature Conservation Law [76]Natural resources and natural values
Protected areas
Environmental Protection Law [77]Forest development plans and forest management rules
Safeguards and options for use as defined by plans
Forests Law [66]
Ban on sale of publicly-owned forests
Prohibited activities
Conditions for change in intended use
Environmental Impact Assessment Law [78] Preventive protection measures
Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment Law [79] Preventive protection measures
Serbian Nature Conservation Institute Safeguards and conditions for their implementation
Regional level* Vojvodina Urban Planning Institute Vojvodina Regional Spatial Plan
Vojvodina Nature Conservation Institute Protection programmes
Safeguards and conditions for their implementation
Special-purpose areas (no administrative powers)
Spatial plans for special purpose areas
Local level Local authorities’ departments
Local authority spatial plan Land use balance at the local level
General Urban Plan Land use
Zoning
Building codes
General Zoning Plan
Detailed Zoning Plan
State-owned enterprises tasked with developing
natural resources
Development and maintenance programmes
* Serbia is not formally divided into administrative regions. The only part of the country with territorial and administrative autonomy is the Province of Vojvodina.

Forests 2019,10, 560 11 of 28
3.1.2. Value Framework for Urban Forest Protection in Serbia
Achieving land use balance is a core task of the planning process in Serbia. So, for instance,
the first Spatial Plan of the Republic of Serbia provided for three key categories of land use as the bases
for striking balance in spatial development: agriculture, forests and land for other uses [
80
]. There
are many benefits to preserving forest land and, consequently, the biodiversity of Serbia’s ecosystems.
With a total surface of 670.598,81 hectares of protected area in Serbia, forest and forest land account for
more than 40%.
Table 2presents an overview of the basic value framework for urban forest protection in Serbia.
It reveals the extent to which strategic documents address issues of planning and managing urban
forests. The key words used in this assessment were: ‘urban forests’, ‘forest parks’, ‘forests’, ‘town
forests’ and ‘forest land’. Clearly, the expression ‘urban forests’ is not recognised in any of the
documents considered. The phrase ‘town forests’ was employed in only one of the instruments,
the National Strategy for Sustainable Use of Natural Resources [
81
], while most of the remaining
documents made use of the phrases ‘forests’ and ‘forest land’. The highlight here is that forests are
recognised as notable finite natural resources that are important for preserving biodiversity, amongst
other considerations. As such, the policy documents provide significant frameworks that guide
forest development and protection, in particular to ensure alignment with EU rules and institutional
strengthening. Indirectly, it is noteworthy for urban forests protection that the value framework
acknowledges the social and cultural functions of forests (in addition to protective and regulatory ones).
3.2. Meso-Level: Formal Cooperation Procedures between Institutions for Land Use Planning Related to Urban
Forest Management in Serbia
3.2.1. Organisational Structure
The organisational structure of institutions for land use planning related to urban forest
management in Serbia is analysed through three aspects: position, powers and roles.
Position: Institutions of formal importance for land use planning related to urban forest
management reside at the national and the local level (Figure 1). There are no institutional powers
at the regional level, except for the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina, and as such these cannot be
considered to be a general rule. The Serbian Government and Parliament are the supreme institutions,
and both are formally the establishing entities for specialised expert organisations responsible for
urban forest protection. As such, the Government of Serbia is responsible for the Nature Conservation
Institute, while Parliament has responsibility over ‘Srbijašume’, the Socially Owned Enterprise (SOE)
charged with forest management. In addition, the central public administration includes a number
of ministries responsible for sectoral duties in relation to land use planning related to urban forest
management, such as the Ministry of Construction, Transportation and Infrastructure; the Ministry
of Environmental Protection; and other government departments whose remits include urban forest
protection issues.
There are also two key groups of institutions at the local level, city administrations and
city assemblies. The administrations include a number of departments tasked with urban forest
management, while city assemblies formally establish local SOEs that directly perform urban forest
management duties.

Forests 2019,10, 560 12 of 28
Table 2. The value framework for urban forest protection in Serbia.
Policy Document Values: Urban Forest
National Sustainable Development
Strategy [82]
Sets out strategic objectives for management and use of forests and forest land, mandates an institutional framework for safeguarding
the protective functions of forests, and provides a model for inter-sectoral cooperation in the development of plans.
National Strategy for Sustainable Use of
Natural Resources [81]
Defines the concept of ‘forests’ and ‘forest land’; highlights the significance of forests as finite biological resources used, amongst other
purposes, for sports, recreation and tourism; and cites the overexpansion of tourism capacity and infrastructure as a threat. Lays out the
ultimate objective of sustainable development—balance between the use of all forest functions to ensure lasting multifunctionality in
the provision of material goods and other ecosystem services. Advocates the introduction of institutional and economic measures to
preserve and advance the recreational and health-related functions of forests and forest ecosystems. Envisages the creation of 5000
hectares of new town and suburban forests (by 2020).
Forestry Development Strategy [83] Introduces the fundamental objective of safeguarding and enhancing forests and developing forestry as an industry. Particularly
advocates the preservation, advancement, sustainable use, and acknowledgment of the protective, social, cultural and regulatory
functions of forests and reform and advancement of institutions in the forestry sector.
Biodiversity Strategy, 2011–2018 [84] Provides an overview of the state of biodiversity, safeguards and the legal, institutional and financial framework for preserving
biodiversity; defines strategic areas, goals and activities and includes an action plan. Divides forests by how mixed they are and
provides recommendations to achieve the objectives of reducing loss of habitat, including forests, by 2020, and instituting protection of
17% of all land and water areas subject to safeguards. The strategy sets out a framework for measures to prevent adverse impacts of
genetically modified species of trees and allochthonous and invasive species on forests and biodiversity. Also advocates development of
forest certification programmes and best sustainable forestry practices based on an ecosystem-wide approach.
National Environmental Protection
Programme [85]
Advocates the preservation, improvement and extension of existing forests and enhanced monitoring in line with international
frameworks.
Law Ratifying the Convention on
Biological Diversity [86]*
Advocates the preservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and all its components. Requires biodiversity issues to be
considered when any national decisions are being made to preserve and sustainably use biological resources and measures to be
adopted to avoid and minimise adverse impacts on biodiversity.
Law Ratifying the European Landscape
Convention [57]*
Sets out the principles that each country should adjust to suit its national law and incorporate into spatial development policies. The
Convention defines ‘landscape’ as a dynamic category that comprises areas of action of both natural and human resources, and
advocates dialogue in enacting landscape development policies, especially at the local level to facilitate practical implementation.
Law Ratifying the Convention on Access
to Information, Public Participation in
Decision-Making and Access to Justice in
Environmental Matters [60]*
This convention, also referred to as the Aarhus Convention, guarantees the right to access information, participate in decision-making,
and access justice in environmental matters. It establishes principles that public administration should adhere to when communicating
with the public on environmental issues so as to safeguard the right of everyone, whether belonging to present or future generations, to
live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well-being.
* Although these documents have legal force, they in effect ratify international instruments and are not binding in urban forest management practice.

Forests 2019,10, 560 13 of 28
Forests 2019, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 27
Owned Enterprise (SOE) charged with forest management. In addition, the central public
administration includes a number of ministries responsible for sectoral duties in relation to land use
planning related to urban forest management, such as the Ministry of Construction, Transportation
and Infrastructure; the Ministry of Environmental Protection; and other government departments
whose remits include urban forest protection issues.
There are also two key groups of institutions at the local level, city administrations and city
assemblies. The administrations include a number of departments tasked with urban forest
management, while city assemblies formally establish local SOEs that directly perform urban forest
management duties.
Powers: National-level institutions are responsible for the regulatory framework binding on all
levels of governance. Here, the Parliament enacts legislation proposed by the line ministries, while
the Government is able to adopt ‘Government orders’, which carry the force of secondary legislation
that elaborate on existing regulatory arrangements. The Nature Conservation Institute is specifically
charged with assessing the value of natural resources and assigning protected status to ‘natural
resources of national importance’, while the forest management SOE is responsible for regulating
forest management at the national level. Documents designating ‘protected natural resources’ and
setting out ‘forest management rules’ constitute a legally binding framework for land use planning
at all territorial levels. Apart from legally binding decisions, the various ministries are responsible
for enacting strategic documents that set out the value framework.
Figure 1. Formal cooperation procedures between institutions for land use planning related to urban
forest management in Serbia (source: Authors).
At the local level, it is the city assembly that is responsible for decision-making. Decisions are
drafted by the city administration through its sectoral departments. In addition to these, the city
assembly may incorporate local SOEs responsible for preparing ‘development conditions’, which
regulate norms for the use of space by sector. Apart from legally binding documents, departments of
city administration also prepare documents setting out values, such as strategies, action plans and
programmes.
Roles: The key role in the governance system is played by Parliament, the Serbian National
Assembly, which is the country’s legislature. Its local counterpart is the City Assembly. The executive
power is vested in Cabinet Ministries at the national level, and in Departments of City
Administrations at the local level. Institutions important for enacting legally binding documents
Figure 1.
Formal cooperation procedures between institutions for land use planning related to urban
forest management in Serbia (source: Authors).
Powers: National-level institutions are responsible for the regulatory framework binding on all
levels of governance. Here, the Parliament enacts legislation proposed by the line ministries, while
the Government is able to adopt ‘Government orders’, which carry the force of secondary legislation
that elaborate on existing regulatory arrangements. The Nature Conservation Institute is specifically
charged with assessing the value of natural resources and assigning protected status to ‘natural
resources of national importance’, while the forest management SOE is responsible for regulating
forest management at the national level. Documents designating ‘protected natural resources’ and
setting out ‘forest management rules’ constitute a legally binding framework for land use planning at
all territorial levels. Apart from legally binding decisions, the various ministries are responsible for
enacting strategic documents that set out the value framework.
At the local level, it is the city assembly that is responsible for decision-making. Decisions are
drafted by the city administration through its sectoral departments. In addition to these, the city
assembly may incorporate local SOEs responsible for preparing ‘development conditions’, which
regulate norms for the use of space by sector. Apart from legally binding documents, departments
of city administration also prepare documents setting out values, such as strategies, action plans
and programmes.
Roles: The key role in the governance system is played by Parliament, the Serbian National
Assembly, which is the country’s legislature. Its local counterpart is the City Assembly. The executive
power is vested in Cabinet Ministries at the national level, and in Departments of City Administrations
at the local level. Institutions important for enacting legally binding documents specifically aimed at
urban forest management are the national Nature Conservation Institute and forest management SOE
and local SOEs.
3.2.2. Arrangements for Collaboration
At the horizontal level, collaboration takes place between legislative and executive institutions
responsible for land use planning related to urban forest management that are at the same time the
key pillars of democratic society. National arrangements in this regard are mirrored at the local level.
Particularly important for land use planning related to urban forest management is close horizontal

Forests 2019,10, 560 14 of 28
collaboration between national and local parliaments with specialised nature and forest conservation
institutions, which these legislative bodies have formal responsibility for as their incorporating entities.
Their horizontal cooperation results in sectoral standards that safeguard land covered by urban forests.
Vertical collaboration between institutions of land use planning related to urban forest management
is defined by the national regulatory framework which is legally binding for all lower levels of
governance. Within the land use planning system itself, legislation mandates compliance with plans
enacted at higher levels (i.e., plans are vertically conditioned).
3.3. Micro-Level: Activities in Land Use Planning Practice
Amendments to the Planning and Construction Law [
87
] established the General Zoning Plans as
the binding planning documents for central built-up areas at the local level. These plans are defined as
operational instruments that allow direct implementation, meaning that they set out conditions for
construction. They define the intended use and status of land (publicly-owned and other); typology of
construction, regulation, capacities and infrastructure; and set out safeguards and development rules.
The General Zoning Plans are hierarchically linked with higher-level plans, the National Spatial Plan
and the Local Spatial Plan, which provide strategic guidelines for urban development.
The procedure for preparing urban plans is governed by the latest Planning and Construction
Law [
67
]. This is identical for all planning levels in this category (Figure 2). The planning process
is preceded by the local parliament’s ‘Initiative for planning’. The actual process of producing the
planning document is entrusted to an expert organisation, which may be a public enterprise or a
private company. Various public institutions become involved at various stages of the development of
the plan, as do civil or private-sector actors. At the outset of the process, when the ‘Concept of the
plan’ is defined, binding conditions are obtained from the relevant national-level SOEs and institutions,
which, for urban forest management, are the Nature Conservation Institute, the forest management
SOE and local SOEs tasked with public utilities and environmental protection. Public participation
is ensured at two points in the planning process: once at the very beginning, to verify the overall
concept, and once at the end, to vet the proposed plan. Immediately before the proposed plan is put
up for ‘Public viewing’, it is at the stage termed ‘Inspection of the plan’ by the Planning Commission,
an expert body established by the local government. After the ‘Inspection of the plan’ and ‘Public
viewing’ phases, the ‘Plan finalization’ follows, after which it is sent to the local assembly for ‘Adoption
of the plan’. The plan may be amended by the local assembly before it is enacted, and the amendments
may significantly impact some aspects of the plan.
Forests 2019, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 27
In terms of the transparency and collaborative nature of planning procedures, the practice of
public participation does not differ much from that employed in the later stages of the socialist period.
Until the enactment of the Planning and Construction Law [87], members of the public could become
involved only at the end of the process, once the plan had already been developed, which meant that
public comments could pose an issue and draw out the planning process. The 2014 the Planning and
Construction Law introduced the option of ‘Early-stage public viewing’ at the very outset of the
planning process.
Figure 2. Formal and informal arrangements in the planning procedure (Source: Authors, based on
[88]).
Within the presented planning model, we can identify formal and informal positions that
influence the issue of forest management and preservation:
a) The formal influence is implemented through
 plans of higher order,
 conditions of institutes for environmental protection and
 conditions of SOEs for managing forest land;
b) The informal influence is implemented through
 capacity of experts in relation to urban forest management and preservation in various
positions of the planning procedure—local councillor, expert responsible for a plan
creation, expert in the planning commission, expert from the civil sector and expert
from the private sector; and
 capacity of nonexpert stakeholders in relation to urban forest management and
preservation in various positions of the planning procedure—local councillor, civil
sector and private sector.
3.3.1. Examples of the Land Use Planning Practice Related to Urban Forest Management in Serbia
The General Zoning Plans of two medium-sized Serbian cities were chosen for this assessment
of the institutional structure of land use planning related to urban forest management at the micro-
level. These are the General Zoning Regulation Plan for Vrnjačka Banja [89] and the General Zoning
Plan for the Town of Bor [90].
General Zoning Plan for the Town of Vrnjačka Banja
Figure 2.
Formal and informal arrangements in the planning procedure (Source: Authors, based
on [88]).
Strategic Environmental Impact Assessments (SEA) is yet another key tool for nature conservation.
These are defined by the relevant legislation [
77
], and assessment is mandatory if a decision is made to

Forests 2019,10, 560 15 of 28
produce it at the same time as the Initiative to develop a plan. Even though these assessments were first
introduced as early as 2004 as a new environmental protection tool, until 2010 this was only a parallel
procedure. The new regulations made them a mandatory and integral component of spatial plans;
for urban plans, depending on the scope of each document, formal decisions are made to prepare or
not to prepare impact assessments. The SEA aims at describing, evaluating and assessing the likely
impact of the General Zoning Plan on the environment and envisages measures to mitigate adverse
effects. It is developed in parallel with the draft of the plan and is subject to expert verification by the
Planning Commission.
In terms of the transparency and collaborative nature of planning procedures, the practice of
public participation does not differ much from that employed in the later stages of the socialist period.
Until the enactment of the Planning and Construction Law [
87
], members of the public could become
involved only at the end of the process, once the plan had already been developed, which meant that
public comments could pose an issue and draw out the planning process. The 2014 the Planning
and Construction Law introduced the option of ‘Early-stage public viewing’ at the very outset of the
planning process.
Within the presented planning model, we can identify formal and informal positions that influence
the issue of forest management and preservation:
(a)
The formal influence is implemented through
•plans of higher order,
•conditions of institutes for environmental protection and
•conditions of SOEs for managing forest land;
(b)
The informal influence is implemented through
•
capacity of experts in relation to urban forest management and preservation in various
positions of the planning procedure—local councillor, expert responsible for a plan creation,
expert in the planning commission, expert from the civil sector and expert from the private
sector; and
•
capacity of nonexpert stakeholders in relation to urban forest management and preservation in
various positions of the planning procedure—local councillor, civil sector and private sector.
3.3.1. Examples of the Land Use Planning Practice Related to Urban Forest Management in Serbia
The General Zoning Plans of two medium-sized Serbian cities were chosen for this assessment of
the institutional structure of land use planning related to urban forest management at the micro-level.
These are the General Zoning Regulation Plan for Vrnjaˇcka Banja [
89
] and the General Zoning Plan for
the Town of Bor [90].
General Zoning Plan for the Town of Vrnjaˇcka Banja
Vrnjaˇcka Banja is one of Serbia’s major spas and a tourist resort of key national importance.
Tourism is the city’s chief industry, and as such development strategies focus on improving tourism
capacities and the quality of the tourist offering.
The General Zoning Plan is based on the Spatial Plan of Serbia [
72
] and the Spatial Plan of the
Municipality of Vrnjaˇcka Banja [
91
]. A specific feature of this plan is the Government Order Establishing
the Area of the Vrnjaˇcka Banja Spa [
92
], which defined the boundaries of the 182-hectare spa zone, which
contains a number of hot and mineral water springs harnessed for use in public baths and medical
establishments. In that sense, it should be stressed that forests and forest land are recognised as critical
for protection of mineral water springs. A number of the objectives set out in the higher-level plans
are of strategic importance for the development of Vrnjaˇcka Banja, including preventing continued
degradation of space, addressing threats to natural resources, combating unpermitted construction and

Forests 2019,10, 560 16 of 28
use of space contrary to intended purposes and revitalising areas, in particular those with perspectives
for development.
The immediate reason for enacting the General Zoning Plan for Vrnjaˇcka Banja was the need to
take stock of new structures due to wide-ranging changes in the field resulting from not just legal
but also illicit construction. The primary objectives of the Plan are to safeguard the city’s character
as a spa town, increasing the extent of green spaces in the broader territory of the city, especially in
naturally green areas and plots of agricultural land that divide commercial zones from housing and
central facilities.
The SEA is an integral part of the General Zoning Plan. The SEA concluded that the plan
placed substantial emphasis on the sustainability of urban planning, zoning and construction. It also
concluded that environmental protection considerations were complied with and incorporated into all
aspects of the plan so as to allow the necessary development to proceed with minimum consequences
for the environment.
The General Zoning Plan for Vrnjaˇcka Banja covers an area of 2.318,97 hectares (see Table 3).
One of the Plan’s objectives is to protect forests, agricultural land and biodiversity in general. The
summary of the current state of publicly-owned green spaces identifies only two uses: forests and
forest parks. The General Zoning Plan introduces a forest park with an overall area of 150,3 hectares
(see Figure 3). The purpose of this specific type of land use is to preserve forest configurations, ensure
they can receive the required care and maintenance andpermit them to be used for purposes of tourism
and recreation.
Table 3.
General Zoning Plan for Vrnjaˇcka Banja: aspects relevant to land use planning related to urban
forest management.
General Zoning Plan Vrnjaˇcka Banja
Area covered 2.318,97 hectares
Existing use Forests (public use)
Planned use Forest park
Area/percentage of total area
covered by plan
150,3 hectares/6.5%
Objective of change of use to
forest park
Forest configurations entailing additional attention in terms of maintenance,
care and protection with a minimum of park facilities. The primary objective
is to maximise the protection of forests and greenery in general, safeguard
autochthonous vegetation, landscape configurations, and characters of areas.
These zones most commonly integrate recreational and tourism-related
facilities of central and boundary areas. These areas are designed for
tourism and/or meeting the needs of the residential population of all ages.
Development rules Construction of appropriate hydraulic engineering structures to provide
protection from torrential flooding and floods; Provision of discreet lighting
and street furniture as designed; Scheduled maintenance as part of park
care projects; Provision of cafe and restaurant facilities (construction of 1 to
3 buildings of up to 150 square metres)
Restrictions
Change in intended use of space, construction of structures, tree felling and
unplanned removal of vegetation, earth moving works, vehicle movements,
waste disposal
Implementation
conditions/instruments
Urban Planning Design required.
General Zoning Plan required for Forest Park 1 (10,46 ha), Forest Park 2
(17,31 ha) and Forest Park 3 (34,91 ha)
Protection zones Sanitary Protection Zone 2
Protection conditions Greenery of major importance for the character of the area (Borjak)
Conditions issued by the Kraljevo Cultural Heritage Institute (Forest Park 1
as whole)

Forests 2019,10, 560 17 of 28
Forests 2019, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 27
Implementation conditions/instruments
Urban Planning Design required.
General Zoning Plan required for Forest Park 1 (10,46 ha),
Forest Park 2 (17,31 ha) and Forest Park 3 (34,91 ha)
Protection zones
Sanitary Protection Zone 2
Protection conditions
Greenery of major importance for the character of the area
(Borjak)
Conditions issued by the Kraljevo Cultural Heritage
Institute (Forest Park 1 as whole)
The plan also lays down rules for development in the forest parks and sets out conditions for
particular types of constructions (catering and hydraulic engineering facilities). The plan bans any
changes to the intended use of space, construction of structures, tree felling and unplanned removal
of vegetation (except where required to protect plant health, as assessed by the relevant local SOE),
earth moving works (except where envisaged by the project designs) and unrestricted vehicle
movements and waste disposal. Detailed Zoning Plans are mandated for the three forest parks (Forest
Park 1, of 10,46 ha; Forest Park 2, 17,31 ha; and Forest Park 3, 34,91 ha), whereas urban planning
designs are required for any interventions within the planned forest parks. Apart from the
development rules applicable to all planned forest parks, special requirements were introduced for
the Borjak Forest Park (34,91 ha) to take account of the greenery of major importance for the character
of the area there, as well as for the forest park near the central city park due to the need to protect
cultural heritage monuments.
Figure 3. General Zoning Plan for Vrnjačka Banja: green spaces land use plan, current vs. planned
state (source: Authors).
General Zoning Plan for the Town of Bor
Bor is located close to a major copper and gold mining and smelting facility. Rapid
industrialisation in the latter half of the 20th century made the city an important centre for Eastern
Serbia. Current and future development of the area is based on mining and industry and the
accompanying manufacturing and services sectors.
The General Zoning Plan is based on the Spatial Plan for the Municipality of Bor [93] and the
General Urban Plan of Bor [94]. Specific issues are regulated by the local Development Land Decision
[95] and the Decision on Public Development Land [96], which determine which development land
can be owned publicly or held otherwise: (1) development land intended for public use, comprising
Figure 3.
General Zoning Plan for Vrnjaˇcka Banja: green spaces land use plan, current vs. planned
state (source: Authors).
The plan also lays down rules for development in the forest parks and sets out conditions for
particular types of constructions (catering and hydraulic engineering facilities). The plan bans any
changes to the intended use of space, construction of structures, tree felling and unplanned removal of
vegetation (except where required to protect plant health, as assessed by the relevant local SOE), earth
moving works (except where envisaged by the project designs) and unrestricted vehicle movements
and waste disposal. Detailed Zoning Plans are mandated for the three forest parks (Forest Park 1,
of 10,46 ha; Forest Park 2, 17,31 ha; and Forest Park 3, 34,91 ha), whereas urban planning designs are
required for any interventions within the planned forest parks. Apart from the development rules
applicable to all planned forest parks, special requirements were introduced for the Borjak Forest Park
(34,91 ha) to take account of the greenery of major importance for the character of the area there, as well
as for the forest park near the central city park due to the need to protect cultural heritage monuments.
General Zoning Plan for the Town of Bor
Bor is located close to a major copper and gold mining and smelting facility. Rapid industrialisation
in the latter half of the 20th century made the city an important centre for Eastern Serbia. Current and
future development of the area is based on mining and industry and the accompanying manufacturing
and services sectors.
The General Zoning Plan is based on the Spatial Plan for the Municipality of Bor [
93
] and
the General Urban Plan of Bor [
94
]. Specific issues are regulated by the local Development Land
Decision [
95
] and the Decision on Public Development Land [
96
], which determine which development
land can be owned publicly or held otherwise: (1) development land intended for public use, comprising
infrastructure and buildings (utilities facilities, urban greenery and other public structures and areas
of general interest, such as those devoted to education, child protection, healthcare, social welfare,
culture, sports and recreation, etc.) and (2) areas intended for other uses, meaning all other structures
and areas (housing, businesses, services, etc.).
Higher-level plans designate Bor as a (sub)regional hub with a catchment area covering a number
of surrounding municipalities. Bor is an industrial centre with well-developed industry and significant
prospects for continuing development of the nonferrous metals sector based on the mining and

Forests 2019,10, 560 18 of 28
processing of copper and gold ores. The Spatial Plan of Serbia envisages increasing the forested area of
the Municipality of Bor from 45% to 49.2% of the total land surface, or to 3.570 hectares. The new forests
are planned to take the place of poorer quality agricultural land. The General Zoning Plan sets out
priorities for development in all areas; for environmental protection, they entail the implementation of
the Municipality of Bor Sustainable Development Strategy and revitalisation of degraded land.
The General Zoning Plan applies to the entire territory of the town of Bor, which is divided
into seven spatial units and does not comprise the mining and smelting facilities. The area covered
amounts to 1312,20 hectares (Table 4). The plan aims at providing an urban planning framework for
buildings and areas of public interest. It sets out the requirements for the reconstruction of the town
core and other spaces, construction of public, commercial and other facilities, improved protection
of the environment, cultural heritage, natural and man-made settings and other issues. Green areas
are a major consideration of the Plan, especially in the town core and as part of housing complexes
containing multi-dwelling units. These green areas are planned to account for 0.85% of the entire area
covered (or 11,2 hectares).
Table 4.
General Zoning Plan for the Town of Bor: aspects relevant to land use planning related to
urban forest management.
General Zoning Plan Town of Bor
Area covered 1312,20 ha
Existing use Urban greenery (public use)
Planned use Forest park
Area/percentage of total area
covered by plan
11,2 ha/0.85%
Objective of change of use to
forest park
Conversion of a forest, including a zoo, into a forest park. Development of
recreation and tourism facilities
Development rules Basic natural characteristics to be retained
Minimum development:
- Passive recreation zone: basic equipment, walking paths, lawns to be
used for recreation purposes
- Active recreation zone: maximum percentage of paved and built-up
areas: 2.5% of total
- Activity zone: additional equipment (cycle paths, running paths,
miniature golf course, children’s playground, restaurants, etc.);
maximum percentage of paved and built-up areas: 5% of total
Part of forest may be developed as park
Only natural materials to be used for all paths, minimum lighting
Only natural materials (wood and stone) to be used for benches and rest areas
Parking spaces to be sited at the main approaches to the forest
Endeavour to restrict movement to pedestrians only
Provide signage and development and maintenance programmes
Restrictions -
Implementation
conditions/instruments
Appropriate technical documentation must be developed for newly planned
green areas and reconstruction of existing ones.
The Plan repealed the Zoning Plan for ‘Section 3’—Forest Park (Municipal
Official Journal Nos. 19/94, 4/01 и14/03).
Protection zones -
Protection conditions -
The SEA as an integral part of the Plan concludes that attaining the objectives of the plan will
not seriously threaten natural and environmental values, and recommends close adherence to the
guidelines of the Plan and the SEA with regard to the environment, spatial development and use of
natural resources.
The objectives of the General Zoning Plan for Bor include safeguarding and improving the state
of green areas and protective greenery, developing sports and recreation spaces and making the urban

Forests 2019,10, 560 19 of 28
environment more attractive with the aim of attaining public values and interests of the urban area.
The plan identifies two intended uses of publicly-owned green areas: Urban greenery (within the
limits of urban development land) and Other greenery (for areas other than urban development land),
which also includes forests (Figure 4). In Section 4, the General Zoning Plan introduces forest parks
as a separate intended use of land, with a total area of approximately 11.2 hectares. The existing
forest, which includes a zoo, is planned to be converted into a forest park designed for recreation. The
plan mandates that the fundamental purpose of green areas be respected and that the key natural
characteristics of the space be retained in their entirety (including vegetation, elevations, bodies of
water and the like). This includes preserving autochthonous vegetation and minimum interventions in
terms of introducing additional developments.
Forests 2019, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 27
The SEA as an integral part of the Plan concludes that attaining the objectives of the plan will
not seriously threaten natural and environmental values, and recommends close adherence to the
guidelines of the Plan and the SEA with regard to the environment, spatial development and use of
natural resources.
The objectives of the General Zoning Plan for Bor include safeguarding and improving the state
of green areas and protective greenery, developing sports and recreation spaces and making the
urban environment more attractive with the aim of attaining public values and interests of the urban
area. The plan identifies two intended uses of publicly-owned green areas: Urban greenery (within
the limits of urban development land) and Other greenery (for areas other than urban development
land), which also includes forests (Figure 4). In Section 4, the General Zoning Plan introduces forest
parks as a separate intended use of land, with a total area of approximately 11.2 hectares. The existing
forest, which includes a zoo, is planned to be converted into a forest park designed for recreation.
The plan mandates that the fundamental purpose of green areas be respected and that the key natural
characteristics of the space be retained in their entirety (including vegetation, elevations, bodies of
water and the like). This includes preserving autochthonous vegetation and minimum interventions
in terms of introducing additional developments.
Figure 4. General zoning plan for Bor: green spaces land use plan, current vs. planned state (source:
Authors).
The plan sets out development rules for the forest parks and provides conditions for
development of passive and active recreation and activity zones, indicates which facilities can be
constructed, regulates materials to be used in covering paths and walkways, stipulates how vehicular
access is to be controlled and gives pedestrians priority within the forest parks. The creation of the
newly-planned green areas and reconstruction of existing ones (which applies to the Section 4 forest
park) requires the development of the appropriate technical documentation. This location is not
subject to any specific restrictions.
4. Discussion and Conclusion
Land is a fundamental yet finite resource for urban development, and, as such, is directly
exposed to the influence of complex socioeconomic factors. In these circumstances, urban planning
must rise to the challenge of addressing the manifold development priorities that stem from public
policies. Land use planning consequently becomes an efficient instrument for implementing the value
framework of public policies through the definition of ways in which land can be utilised. According
to the concept of institutional transformation, values are inherent to the institutional system and are
the result of a balance struck between its elements. With the disturbance of the stability of the
Figure 4.
General zoning plan for Bor: green spaces land use plan, current vs. planned state (source:
Authors).
The plan sets out development rules for the forest parks and provides conditions for development
of passive and active recreation and activity zones, indicates which facilities can be constructed,
regulates materials to be used in covering paths and walkways, stipulates how vehicular access is to be
controlled and gives pedestrians priority within the forest parks. The creation of the newly-planned
green areas and reconstruction of existing ones (which applies to the Section 4forest park) requires
the development of the appropriate technical documentation. This location is not subject to any
specific restrictions.
4. Discussion and Conclusion
Land is a fundamental yet finite resource for urban development, and, as such, is directly exposed
to the influence of complex socioeconomic factors. In these circumstances, urban planning must rise to
the challenge of addressing the manifold development priorities that stem from public policies. Land
use planning consequently becomes an efficient instrument for implementing the value framework of
public policies through the definition of ways in which land can be utilised. According to the concept
of institutional transformation, values are inherent to the institutional system and are the result of a
balance struck between its elements. With the disturbance of the stability of the institutional system,
induced by the influences outside the system, there is an institutional transformation and a distortion
of the value framework of public policies and accompanying agendas, such as “saving urban forests”.
The key factors that influence the transformation of the institutional system in Serbia are as follows.

Forests 2019,10, 560 20 of 28
(a)
The shift in the economic system to embrace open market principles, directly leading to altered
ownership of land and, thereby, to a new balance of power in society. This has brought about
a fundamental change in perspectives of public property and promoted the diversification of
interests related to land use. While it was formerly beyond question, public interest, as a category
defined by ideological norms, is now a matter of political agreement that reflects the balance of
power in society.
(b)
Acceptance of the global value framework and the principle of sustainability as the dominant
development concept, which occasioned the development of horizontal and vertical coordination
mechanisms at all levels of institutional structure. This is significantly different in relation to
top-down decision-making practice that was dominant in a socialist society, where communication
mechanisms were exclusively in the function of carrying out the decisions made at the highest level.
(c) Acceptance of European integration, where a primary value concept is the principle of subsidiarity,
whereby responsibility for decision-making on shared issues is transferred to the lowest possible
tier of social organisation. It has introduced democratic dialogue as a means of determining
the value orientation of future spatial development. This presents a major challenge for local
authorities that should demonstrate the ability to carry out democratic dialogue within the
community and the choice of development goals.
Despite a sound and well-developed tradition of nature and forest land protection under socialism,
these key factors listed above, have significantly eroded the stability of the previous institutional
structure and initiated a process of institutional transformation. As a result, the position of land use
planning as a robust mechanism for mediating conflicts over land use and a regulatory instrument for
policy implementation is highlighted.
Given the objective of this paper, to provide a critical overview of the institutional framework of
land use planning in relation to urban forest management in the post-socialist environment of Serbia,
we have defined the components of importance, presented below, for establishing a stable interaction
inside the institutional structure for promotion of a value system aimed at saving urban forests. As a
first step of institutional design, these components represent key aspects of the concept of land use
planning for urban forest protection (LUPUFP) in the Serbian post-socialist transition environment.
The analysis was conducted across three scales: macro/governance, meso/coordination and
micro/agency. This included the analysis of system components from the national to local level,
illustrated by examples of the land use planning practice of two medium-sized cities. Accordingly, the
analysis has identified the major institutional changes regarding:
(a)
Regulatory structure and the value framework of public policies. This aspect of institutional
analysis is aimed at examining the macro-level, which is in Serbia determined by significant
macro-societal processes that take place due to the adoption of national and supranational
constitutions [
22
]. It includes two aspects: (a) an institutional and legal framework for urban
forest protection standards and (b) a value framework for urban forest protection. Serbia’s planning
system is hierarchically organised, from higher to lower levels of governance. Legislative changes
have aimed at reducing the number of planning levels to promote efficiency and effectiveness
in implementing plans. However, planning has failed to keep up with the pace of legislative
change, which has in practice led to unclear planning procedures and misalignment between
the outcomes of planning at various spatial levels. These circumstances have caused confusion
between the national, regional and local levels as to their respective powers and roles. Further,
the practice of land use planning related to urban forest management is subject to a variety of
laws enacted by administrative authorities in numerous sectors. One issue here is the lack of
alignment between urban forest protection standards introduced by the various regulations,
which has caused problems with interpretation and implementation at the local level. On the
other hand, the value framework for urban forest protection is formally implemented through
the legislative framework and the standards for protection envisaged by it. A major issue here is

Forests 2019,10, 560 21 of 28
the set of policy documents the implementation of which is not formalised and is therefore not
mandatory. The multitude of formal and informal policy documents at the national level, not
sufficiently aligned with one another, prevent both the establishment and the implementation of a
clear value framework. As a basic drawback, the absence of a terminological framework and the
identification of urban forests as a separate category of urban green land are observed, leaving at
the local level a space for different interpretations, as is shown in the cases of the General zoning
plans of Vrnjaˇcka Banja and Bor. In addition, the underdeveloped capacities of local SOEs, due
to the lack of expert profiles in the formation of employees, as well as the burden on the public
service of many utilities, represent an obstacle in the formulation of requirements as well as the
implementation of protection measures. Thus, as was illustrated in both of the General Zoning
Plans of Vrnjaˇcka Banja and Bor, standards defined on the national level serve as guidelines for
particular land use planning processes; however, LUPUFP is not yet recognised as a concept.
Consequently, the key components of the regulatory framework for the establishment of the
LUPUFP system are
•Retaining the hierarchy of the planning system;
•
Setting clear planning procedures and defining expected outcomes of planning at various
spatial levels;
•Harmonising different regulations that envisage urban forest protection standards;
•Establishing a clear relationship between formal and informal policy documents;
•Mutual alignment of the multitude of policy documents;
•
Formalising relationships between legally binding and nonbinding policies at the national
and local governance levels.
(b)
Procedures for cooperation between institutions. The next level of institutional analysis (the
meso-level) involves planning and implementation structures and processes [
22
]. Serbia’s
traditional hierarchical planning system, which entails complex inter-organisational networks,
requires cooperation at the horizontal and vertical levels aimed at the development and
implementation of policies, programmes, projects and plans. The top-down approach, which
emphasised the national decision-making level and an expert-driven approach to policy-making,
is slowly opening up to bottom-up initiatives and the acknowledgment of particular interests
in decision-making. This has been accompanied by a new set of regulatory reforms that aim
at decentralising public administration and placing responsibility for making spatial planning
decisions at the local level. This type of institutional transformation entails a reform process
wherein the regulatory system is carefully harmonised both horizontally and vertically. The
preconditions for these changes are a clear political orientation and the provision of appropriate
professional capacity. As such, institutional design must be based on firm foundations, including
institutions and regulations, which both define policies for urban forest protection and ensure
decision-making procedures aimed at safeguarding the public interest. From the urban forest
management perspective, the institutional structure is strictly divided between the national and
the local level of governance. Each institutional level possesses a distinct unit charged with
issues of nature conservation, including forests, whereby the communication between them is
very weak. Also, the strict sectoral division between governance units at the same level poses a
problem for horizontal communication. As was illustrated in cases of the General Zoning Plans
of Vrnjaˇcka Banja and Bor, there is a noticeable absence of horizontal communication between the
sectors dealing with the ”saving urban forest” agenda, as the requirements for defining planning
measures such as “restrictions”, “protection zones” and protection conditions” are not obligatory.
This clearly shows that, for example, climate change issues, drinking water protection, energy
efficiency, healthy environment, etc. are irreconcilable, and therefore they are dependent of the
expertise of the organisations involved in the development of the plan as well as the knowledge
of the local community. The value framework for the agenda of saving urban forests requires firm

Forests 2019,10, 560 22 of 28
regulations for stakeholder involvement in making decisions on urban forests, indicating that
various control mechanisms are necessary. The weaknesses of such a system lie in the rigidity
of its mechanisms and their uncritical application in locally specific situations. Implementation
of the public policies and safeguarding the adopted value framework is contributed by units
specialised in nature and forest protection at all levels. As was illustrated in Vrnjaˇcka Banja and
Bor, bottom-up initiatives for forest protection and development from the local level that are
recognised within land use planning processes, such as particular local decisions, reflect the
adjustment of the institutional structure in order to promote the concept of LUPUFP. Consequently,
the key components for the establishment of the LUPUFP system related to the procedures for
cooperation between institutions are
•
Strengthening vertical coordination between specialised nature and forest protection units at
the national as well as local levels;
•
Establishing procedures and mechanisms for horizontal communication between sectors at
the same level of governance;
•
Establishing procedures and mechanisms for bottom-up communication by decision-makers;
•Creating preconditions for efficient multi-stakeholder cooperation;
•Establishing firm regulations to control the impact of market forces;
•Defining legal procedures that acknowledge control mechanisms;
•
Ensuring more flexibility in the application of control mechanisms in locally specific situations;
•
Retaining specialised units and their instruments for implementing nature and forest
protection instruments;
•
Establishing mechanisms for horizontal and vertical coordination of policy
implementation instruments.
(c)
Activities in land use planning practice. This level of analysis pertains to intra-organisational
design, addressing organisational subunits and small semiformal or informal social units,
processes and interactions [
22
]. Also, it directly examines the extent of stakeholder participation
related to the legal framework, the effectiveness of processes, and the space for the involvement
of civil society [
36
] in relation to urban forest management. Land use planning at the local level
in Serbia in general is noticeably top-down oriented, with strict control conducted by public
sector, and mainly subordinate to the attainment of public sector interests. The participation
of stakeholders from the private and civil sectors is partial and insufficient. The role of expert
organisations does not enjoy a sufficiently clear position in the decision-making system. Substantial
responsibility—and power—is given to the planning commission as an expert body of the
local government. Accordingly, their position is sensitive to the influence of various interests.
Furthermore, the structure of the commission does not include experts from the domain of urban
forest management. As was illustrated in the example of the General zoning plan of Vrnjaˇcka
Banja, the formal institutional framework, particularly in the domain of top-down coordination
and standards for protection, serves as a base for urban forest protection that was recognised
as a crucial resource for further spa protection and development. In the example of Bor, where
urban forest protection is not specially required outside of the formal standards, the informal
institutional structure gives space for informal institutional actions for urban forest protection
and bottom-up initiatives that are in line with the requirement for ‘fostering pro-environmental
behaviours’. Consequently, the key components for the establishment of the LUPUFP system
related to the activities in the land use planning practice are
•
Establishing collaborative planning, which entails informed decision-making about the
directions of urban development at key stages of plan production;
•
Clarifying the roles of experts in the decision-making system and ensuring their independence
from political decision-making;

Forests 2019,10, 560 23 of 28
•Clearly defining policies and regulatory mechanisms at the national level;
•Standardising the various categories of land use at the national level;
•
Retaining mechanisms that acknowledge the regulatory norms and hierarchy of the
planning system;
•Harmonising regulations across various sectors;
•Strengthening the positions and capacities of local public sector experts;
•Establishing a clear methodology for the development and content of urban plans.
These three groups of components constitute possible guidelines for preserving the robust tradition
of land use planning related to urban forest protection by the establishment of the concept of LUPUFP
in Serbia. The complexity of the subject, rooted as it is in differing sectors of expertise, certainly calls for
deeper consideration of the myriad components of the system in the future. The findings presented in
this paper have no ambition to include all the components of the system, but to provide some valuable
insight into the practice of land use planning as one of the most efficient instruments for protecting
green land in cities and that adheres to the agenda of saving urban forests.
The concept of LUPUFP is in line with current recommendations for the safeguarding and
sustainable management of forests and other green areas in cities as crucial components for the health
and well-being of citizens, promoted by the most influential documents such as Agenda 2030, the Paris
Agreement and the New Urban Agenda. Related to that, the main contribution of this research is in the
promotion of the relevance of the concept of LUPUFP in accordance to the importance of ecosystem
services especially, as outlined by the FAO report regarding the nine SDGs.
The conducted research also contributes to the concept of institutional transformation, which
is verified through the system of the land resource management of society in the environment of
post-socialist transition. The results of this research presents the specific, practical and applicable path
of institutional redesign that leads to the establishment of a concept of LUPUFP as an experience that
may assist other countries in the region seeking answers in the process of developing their own models.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, M.M. and T.C.; Methodology, M.M.; Investigation, M.M., T.C. and
M.P.M.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, M.M., T.C. and M.P.M.; Writing—Review & Editing, M.M.;
Visualization, M.P.M. and M.M.
Funding:
The paper was prepared as a result of work on the scientific projects: “The investigation of climate
change and its impacts on the environment—monitoring impacts, climate change adaptation and mitigation”
(No. 43007) and “Spatial, Environmental, Energy and Social Aspects of Developing the Settlements and Climate
Change—Mutual Impacts” (No. 36035) which were financed within the program Technological development by
the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References and Notes
1.
United Nations (UN). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development; Resolution
A/RES/70/1; United Nation: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
2. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Paris Agreement. 2015. Available
online: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf (accessed on 22 June 2018).
3.
United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN HABITAT). New Urban Agenda. A/RES/71/256. United
Nations, 2017. Available online: http://habitat3.org/wp-content/uploads/NUA-English.pdf (accessed on
22 April 2018).
4.
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Our Common Future; University Press:
Oxford, UK, 1987.
5.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO UN). Urban and Peri-Urban Forestry-
Definition. Available online: http://www.fao.org/forestry/urbanforestry/87025/en/(accessed on 22 December
2018).

Forests 2019,10, 560 24 of 28
6.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Guidelines on Urban and Peri-Urban Forestry;
FAO Forestry Paper No. 178; Salbitano, F., Borelli, S., Conigliaro, M., Chen, Y., Eds.; Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2016.
7.
Edreny, T. Strategically growing the urban forest will improve our world. Nat. Commun.
2018
,9, 1160.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
8.
Hurokawa, H.K. Sustainability and the Urban Forest: An Ecosystem Services Perspective. Nat. Resour. J.
2011,51, 233–259. [CrossRef]
9.
Zhou, W.; Cao, F.; Wang, G. Effects of Spatial Pattern of Forest Vegetation on Urban Cooling in a Compact
Megacity. Forests 2019,10, 282. [CrossRef]
10.
Kim, G. Assessing Urban Forest Structure, Ecosystem Services, and Economic Benefits on Vacant Land.
Sustainability 2016,8, 679. [CrossRef]
11.
Jim, C.Y.; Chen, W. Ecosystem services and valuation of urban forests in China. Cities
2009
,26, 187–194.
[CrossRef]
12.
Gungor, B.S.; Chen, J.; Wu, S.R.; Zhou, P.; Shirkey, G. Does Plant Knowledge within Urban Forests and Parks
Directly Influence Visitor Pro-Environmental Behaviors. Forests 2018,9, 171. [CrossRef]
13.
Curitiba Declaration on Cities and Biodiversity; Curitiba, Brazil. 2007. Available online: https://www.cbd.in
t/doc/meetings/city/mayors-01/mayors-01-declaration-en.pdf (accessed on 22 December 2018).
14.
United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (UNCHS). An Urbanizing World: Global Report on Human
Settlements; Oxford University Press for UNCHS: Oxford, UK, 1996.
15.
Baycan-Levent, T.; Nijkamp, P. Planning and Management of Urban Green Spaces in Europe: Comparative
Analysis. J. Urban Plan. Dev. 2009,135, 1–12. [CrossRef]
16.
Rivolin, U.J. Planning Systems as Institutional Technologies: A Proposed Conceptualization and the
Implications for Comparison. Plan. Pract. Res. 2012,27, 63–85. [CrossRef]
17.
Albrechts, L.; Alden, J.; Pires, A. (Eds.) The Changing Institutional Landscape of Planning; Ashgate: Aldershot,
UK, 2001.
18. Selznik, F. Institutionalism ‘Old’ and ‘New’. Adm. Sci. Q. 1996,2, 270–277. [CrossRef]
19.
March, J.G.; Olsen, J.P. Elaborating the new institutionalism. In The Oxford Handbook of Political Institutions;
Rhodes, R.A.W., Binder, S.A., Rockman, B.A., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2006; pp. 1–20.
20.
Healey, P. Institutionalist analysis, communicative planning, and shaping places. J. Plan. Educ. Res.
1999
,19,
111–121. [CrossRef]
21.
Pierre, J. Models of Urban Governance: The Institutional Dimension of Urban Politics. Urban Aff. Rev.
1999
,
34, 372–396. [CrossRef]
22.
Alexander, E.R. Institutional Transformation and Planning: From Institutionalization Theory to Institutional
Design. Plan. Theory 2005,4, 209–223. [CrossRef]
23.
Richard Scott, W. Institutional theory. In Encyclopedia of Social Theory; Ritzer, G., Ed.; Sage Publications:
Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2005; pp. 408–414.
24.
Hall, P.A. Historical Institutionalism in Rationalist and Sociological Perspective. In Explaining Institutional
Change: Ambiguity, Agency and Power; Mahoney, J., Thelen, K., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: New York,
NY, USA, 2009; pp. 204–225.
25. Healey, P. An institutional model of the development process. J. Prop. Res. 1992,9, 33–44. [CrossRef]
26.
United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN HABITAT). Planning Sustainable Cities: Global Report on
Human Settlements; Earthscan: London, UK, 2009.
27.
European Commission (EC). The EU Compendium of Spatial Planning Systems and Policies; Office for Official
Publications of the European Community: Luxembourg, 1997.
28.
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). Spatial Planning: Key Instrument for Development
and Effective Governance with Special Reference to Countries in Transition; United nations: Geneva, Switzerland,
2008.
29. Hopkins, L.D. Urban Development: The Logic of Making Plans; Island Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2001.
30.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Land-Use Planning Systems in the OECD:
Country Fact Sheets; OECD Publishing: Paris, France, 2017.
31.
European Environment Agency (EEA). Urban Sprawl in Europe: The Ignored Challenge; EEA Report No 10/2006;
European Commission Joint Research Centre/European Environment Agency: Copenhagen, Denmark, 2006.

Forests 2019,10, 560 25 of 28
32.
Sandström, C.; Lindkvist, A.; Öhman, K.; Nordström, E.M. Governing Competing Demands for Forest
Resources in Sweden. Forests 2011,2, 218–242. [CrossRef]
33.
Buizer, M.; Van Herzele, A. Combining deliberative governance theory and discourse analysis to understand
the deliberative incompleteness of centrally formulated plans. For. Policy Econ.
2012
,16, 93–101. [CrossRef]
34.
European Commission (EC). The EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020; Publications Office of the European Union:
Luxembourg, 2011.
35.
Commission of the European Communities (CEC). White Paper, Adapting to Climate Change: Towards a
European Framework for Action. 2009. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/health/ph_threats/climate/doc
s/com_2009_147_en.pdf (accessed on 8 March 2019).
36.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO UN). Framework for Assessing and Monitoring
Forest Governance; The Program on Forests (PROFOR) and Food and Agriculture Organization of the United
Nations (FAO): Rome, Italy, 2011.
37.
Lawrence, A.; De Vreese, R.; Johnston, M.; van den Bosch, C.C.K.; Sanesi, G. Urban forest governance:
Towards a framework for comparing approaches. Urban For. Urban Green. 2013,12, 464–473. [CrossRef]
38.
Lakti´c, T.; Pezdevšek Malovrh, Š. Stakeholder Participation in Natura 2000 Management Program: Case
Study of Slovenia. Forests 2018,9, 599. [CrossRef]
39.
Tacconi, L. Developing environmental governance research: The example of forest cover change studies.
Environ. Conserv. 2011,38, 234–246. [CrossRef]
40.
Faggin, J.M.; Behagel, J.H.; Arts, B. Sustainable Forest Management and Social-Ecological Systems:
An Institutional Analysis of Caatinga, Brazil. Forests 2017,8, 454. [CrossRef]
41.
Young, O.R. The Institutional Dimensions of Environmental Change. Fit, Interplay, and Scale; Cambridge
University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2012.
42.
Campbell, H.; Marshall, R. Utilitarianism’s Bad Breath? A Re-Evaluation of the Public Interest Justification
for Planning. Plan. Theory 2002,1, 163–187. [CrossRef]
43.
Suddaby, R.; Lefsrud, L. Institutional theory, old and new. In Encyclopedia of Case Study Research; Mills, A.J.,
Durepos, G., Wiebe, E., Eds.; Sage Publications: London, UK, 2010.
44. Zekovi´c, S. Urban land planning in Serbia. Arhitektura i Urbanizam 2002,9, 11–17.
45.
Živanovi´c Miljkovi´c, J. Urban Land Use regulation in Serbia: An analysis of its effects on property rights.
In A Support to Urban Development Process; Bolay, J.C., Mariˇci´c, T., Zekovi´c, S., Eds.; EPFL & IAUS: Belgrade,
Serbia, 2018; pp. 129–147.
46.
Noni´c, D. Organisation and Operation of the Forestry Service; Univerzitet u Beogradu, Šumarski fakultet:
Beograd, Serbia, 2010.
47.
Committee on Spatial Development (CSD). European Spatial Development Perspective: Towards a Balanced
and Sustainable Development of the Territory of the European Union; Office for the Official Publications of the
European Communities: Luxembourg, 1999.
48.
Beauregard, R.A. Epilogue: Globalization and the city. In Change and Stability in Urban Europe; Anderson, H.,
Jorgensen, G., Joye, D., Ostendorf, W., Eds.; Ashgate: Aldershot, UK, 2001; pp. 251–262.
49.
Pallagst, K.M.; Mercier, G. Urban and regional planning in Central and Eastern European countries–from
EU requirements to innovative practices. In The Post-Socialist City: Urban form and Space Transformations in
Central and Eastern Europe after Socialism; Stanilov, K., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2007; pp. 473–490.
50.
Maruna, M.; ˇ
Coli´c, R.; Milovanovi´c Rodi´c, D. A New Regulatory Framework as both an Incentive and
Constraint to Urban Governance in Serbia. In A Support to Urban Development Process; Bolay, J.C., Mariˇci´c, T.,
Zekovi´c, S., Eds.; EPFL & IAUS: Belgrade, Serbia, 2018; pp. 80–108.
51.
Stanilov, K. Urban planning and the challenges of post-socialist transformation. In The Post-Socialist
City: Urban form and Space Transformations in Central and Eastern Europe after Socialism; Stanilov, K., Ed.;
Springer-GeoJournal Library: Dodrecht, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 413–425.
52.
Tsenkova, S. Urban Futures: Strategic planning in post-socialist Europe. In The Post-Socialist City: Urban form
and Space Transformations in Central and Eastern Europe after Socialism; Stanilov, K., Ed.; Springer-GeoJournal
Library: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2007; pp. 447–471.
53.
Petovar, K. Professional Associations as an Actor in the Enactment of Spatial Planning Decisions. In Actors of
Social Changes in Space: Spatial Transformation and Quality of Life in Croatia; Svirˇci´cGotovac, A., Zlatar, J., Eds.;
Institut za društvena istraživanja: Zagreb, Croatiam, 2012; pp. 99–114.

Forests 2019,10, 560 26 of 28
54.
Vujoševi´c, M.; Petovar, K. Public interest and actor strategies in urban and spatial planning. Sociologija
2006
,
48, 357–382. [CrossRef]
55.
Vlada RS (Vlada Republike Srbije) Pregovaraˇcka poglavlja, Poglavlje 27: Životna sredina [Chapters of the
Acquis. Chapter 27: Environment]; Pregovaraˇcki tim za vo
đ
enje pregovora o pristupanju Republike Srbije
Evropskoj uniji. 2018. Available online: http://www.eu-pregovori.rs/srl/pregovaracka-poglavlja/poglavlje-2
7-zivotna-sredina/(accessed on 26 December 2018).
56.
Council of Europe (CE). European Landscape Convention; European Treaty Series No. 176; Council of Europe:
Strasbourg, France, 2000.
57.
Zakon o potvr
đ
ivanju Evropske konvencije o predelu [Law Ratifying the European Landscape Convention].
2011. Available online: http://predelisrcasrbije.rs/dokumenta.html (accessed on 23 December 2018).
58.
Resolution H1: General Guidelines for the Sustainable Management of Forests in Europe. Ministerial Conference
on the Protection of Forests in Europe, Helsinki. 1993. Available online: https://www.foresteurope.org/docs/
MC/MC_helsinki_resolutionH1.pdf (accessed on 11 January 2019).
59.
Zakon o potvr
đ
ivanju Konvencije o dostupnosti informacija, uˇceš´cu javnosti u donošenju odluka i pravu
na pravnu zaštitu u pitanjima životne sredine [Law Ratifying the Convention on Access to Information,
Public Participation in Decision-Making and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters]. 2009. Available
online: https://www.poverenik.rs/sr-yu/me%C4%91unarodni-dokumenti/1735-zakon-o-potvrdjivanju-kon
vencije-o-dostupnosti-informacija-ucescu-javnosti-u-donosenju-odluka-i-pravu-na-pravnu-zastitu-u-pit
anjima-zivotne-sredine.html (accessed on 11 September 2018).
60.
Lockwood, M. Good governance for terrestrial protected areas: A framework, principles and performance
outcomes. J. Environ. Manag. 2010,91, 754–766. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
61.
Crnˇcevi´c, T.; Mani´c, B.; Mari´c, I. Zeleni zidovi urbanih prostora u kontekstu klimatskih promena–pregled
najnovijih okvira i iskustava [Green Walls of Urban Spaces in the Context of Climate Change-An Overview
of the Latest Frameworks and Experiences]. Arhitektura i Urbanizam 2015,41, 40–48.
62.
Crnˇcevi´c, T.; Sekuli´c, M. Green Roofs in the Context of Climate Change-A review of recent experiences.
Arhitektura i Urbanizam 2012,36, 57–67.
63.
Vujiˇci´c, D.; Tubi´c, Lj.; Todorovi´c, D.; Šabanovi´c, V.; Tutundži´c, A.; Jeftovi´c, A.; Jadži´c, N. Sustainability of Green
Space Legislation; Udruženje pejzažnih arhitekata Srbije: Beograd, Serbia, 2018.
64.
Luki´c, N. Urban Forests and Greening in the Republic of Serbia–Legal and Institutional Aspects. South-East
Eur. For. 2013,4, 51–55. [CrossRef]
65.
Guduri´c, I.; Tomi´cevi´c, J.; Konijnendijk, C.C. A comparative perspective of urban forestry in Belgrade, Serbia
and Freiburg, Germany. Urban For. Green. 2011,10, 335–342. [CrossRef]
66.
Zakon o šumama [Forests Law]. 2015. Available online: https://www.paragraf.rs/propisi/zakon-o-sumama-r
epublike-srbije.html (accessed on 20 January 2018).
67.
Zakon o planiranju i izgradnji [Planning and Construction Law]. 2018. Available online: https://www.paragr
af.rs/propisi/zakon_o_planiranju_i_izgradnji.html (accessed on 22 Jun 2018).
68.
Trkulja, S.; Toši´c, B.; Živanovi´c, Z. Serbian Spatial Planning among Styles of Spatial Planning in Europe.
Eur. Plan. Stud. 2012,20, 1729–1746. [CrossRef]
69.
Reimer, M.; Panagiotis, G.; Blotevogel, H. Spatial Planning Systems and Practices in Europe; Routledge: New
York, NY, USA, 2014.
70.
Uredba o ekološkoj mreži [Government Order on the Environmental Network]. 2010. Available online: http:
//www.zzps.rs/novo/kontent/stranicy/propisi_podzakonski_akti/uredba%20o%20ekoloskoj%20mrezi.pdf
(accessed on 6 February 2019).
71.
Uredba o režimima zaštite [Government Order on Safeguards]. 2012. Available online: http://www.zzps.rs/
novo/kontent/stranicy/zastita_prirode_o_zasticenim_podrucjima/uredba_rezimi_zastite.pdf (accessed on 6
February 2019).
72.
Zakon o prostornom planu Srbije [Law on Spatial Plan of Serbia]. 2010. Availableonline: https://www.mgsi.gov.rs/
sites/default/files/ZAKON%20O%20PROSTORNOM%20PLANU%20RS%20OD%202010%20DO%202020.pdf
(accessed on 12 December 2018).
73.
Zakon o eksproprijaciji [Expropriation Law]. 2016. Available online: https://www.paragraf.rs/propisi/zakon_
o_eksproprijaciji.html (accessed on 6 February 2019).
74.
Zakon o javnoj svojini [Public Property Law]. 2018. Available online: https://www.paragraf.rs/propisi/zako
n_o_javnoj_svojini.html (accessed on 6 February 2019).

Forests 2019,10, 560 27 of 28
75.
Zakon o komunalnim delatnostima [Utilities Law]. 2018. Available online: https://www.paragraf.rs/propisi/
zakon_o_komunalnim_delatnostima.html (accessed on 6 February 2019).
76.
Zakon o zaštiti prirode [Nature Conservation Law]. 2018. Available online: https://www.paragraf.rs/propisi/
zakon_o_zastiti_prirode.html (accessed on 6 February 2019).
77.
Zakon o zaštiti životne sredine [Environmental Protection Law]. 2018. Available online: https://www.paragr
af.rs/propisi/zakon_o_zastiti_zivotne_sredine.html (accessed on 6 February 2019).
78.
Zakon o proceni uticaja na životnu sredinu [Environmental Impact Assessment Law]. 2009. Available online:
https://www.paragraf.rs/propisi/zakon_o_proceni_uticaja_na_zivotnu_sredinu.html (accessed on 7 February
2019).
79.
Zakon o strateškoj proceni uticaja na životnu sredinu [Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment Law ].
2010. Available online: https://www.paragraf.rs/propisi/zakon_o_strateskoj_proceni_uticaja_na_zivotnu_sr
edinu.html (accessed on 7 February 2019).
80. Stojkovi´c, S. Spatial Plan of the Republic of Serbia; Službeni glasnik: Beograd, Srbija, 1996.
81.
Nacionalna strategija održivog koriš´cenja prirodnih resursa i dobara [National Strategy for Sustainable Use
of Natural Resources]. 2012. Available online: http://www.zzps.rs/novo/kontent/stranicy/propisi_strategije/S
_prirodnih%20resursa.pdf (accessed on 6 February 2019).
82.
Nacionalna strategija održivog razvoja [National Sustainable Development Strategy]. 2008. Available online:
http://www.zurbnis.rs/zakoni/Nacionalna%20strategija%20odrzivog%20razvoja.pdf (accessed on 6 February
2019).
83.
Strategija razvoja šumarstva Republike Srbije [Serbia Forestry Development Strategy]. 2006. Available online:
https://www.fornetserbia.com/doc/shared/Strategija_razvoja_sumarstva.pdf (accessed on 6 February 2019).
84.
Strategija biološke raznovrsnosti Republike Srbije za period 2011. do 2018. godine [Serbia Biodiversity
Strategy, 2011 to 2018]. 2011. Available online: http://www.zzps.rs/novo/kontent/stranicy/propisi_strategije/s
trategija_bioloske_raznovrsnosti.pdf (accessed on 8 February 2019).
85.
Nacionalni program zaštite životne sredine [National Environmental Protection Programme]. 2010. Available
online: http://www.zzps.rs/novo/kontent/stranicy/propisi_strategije/Nacionalni_program_zastite_%20zs.pdf
(accessed on 11 February 2019).
86.
Zakon o potvr
đ
ivanju Konvencije o biološkoj raznovrsnosti [Law Ratifying the Convention on Biological
Diversity]. 2001. Available online: http://www.vojvodinasume.rs/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/sertifik
acija/Zakon%20o%20potvrdjivanju%20KONVENCIJE%20O%20BIOLOSKOJ%20RAZNOVRSNOSTI.pdf
(accessed on 11 February 2019).
87.
Zakon o planiranju i izgradnji [Planning and Construction Law]. 2014. Available online: https://www.mgsi.gov.rs/
sites/default/files/ZAKON%20O%20PLANIRANJU%20I%20IZGRADNJI%20PRECTEKST%202015.pdf (accessed
on 11 February 2019).
88.
Graovac, A.; Danilovi´c Hristi´c, N.; Stefanovi´c, N. Technical and logical methods for improving the process of
urban planning in Serbia. Spatium 2017,38, 27–34. [CrossRef]
89.
Plan generalne regulacije Vrnjaˇcke Banje [General Zoning Plan of Vrnjaˇcka Banja2016. Available online:
http://vrnjackabanja.gov.rs/privreda/urbanizam/plan-generalne-regulacije?alphabet=lat (accessed on 15
March 2019).
90.
Plan generalne regulacije gradskog naselja Bor [General Zoning Plan of the Town of Bor]. 2018. Available
online: http://bor.rs/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Nacrt-Bor-Knjiga-I-Planska-resenja-konacno.pdf?scrip
t=lat (accessed on 16 March 2019).
91.
Prostorni plan opštine Vrnjaˇcka Banja [Spatial Plan of the Municipality of Vrnjacka Banja]. 2011. Available
online: https://vrnjcispa.biz/baze-i-registri/vazeci-planovi/prostorni-plan-opstine-vrnjacka-banja (accessed
on 15 March 2019).
92.
Uredba o utvr
đ
ivanju podruˇcja Banje [Government Order Establishing the Area of the Vrnjaˇcka Banja Spa].
1997. Available online: http://www.pravno-informacioni-sistem.rs/SlGlasnikPortal/eli/rep/sgrs/vlada/uredb
a/1997/26/2/reg (accessed on 15 March 2019).
93.
Prostorni plan opštine Bor [Spatial Plan of the Municipality of Bor]. 2014. Available online: http:
//bor.rs/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/PPO-Bor-Knjiga-1_januar-2014.pdf?script=lat (accessed on 16 March
2019).
94.
Generalni urbanistiˇcki plan Bora [General Urban Plan of Bor]. 2015. Available online: http://bor.rs/wp-cont
ent/uploads/2018/02/Knjiga-I_Plan.pdf?script=lat (accessed on 16 March 2019).

Forests 2019,10, 560 28 of 28
95. Odluka o građevinskom zemljištu [Decision on Development Land]. Službeni list opštine Bor, br. 3/1983.
96.
Odluka o javnom gra
đ
evinskom zemljištu [Decision on Public Development Land]. Službeni list opštine Bor,
br. 2/2016.
©
2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).