Between Memory and Everyday Life: Urban Design and the Role of Citizens in the Management of the Memorial Park “October in Kragujevac”

Abstract

The Memorial Park, “October in Kragujevac,” in addition to its memorial and symbolic value, is one of the largest memorial and landscape-designed city parks in Southeastern Europe. Methods of management, maintenance, landscaping, artistic design, construction, and space use by residents have changed over time. This research employs both quantitative and qualitative methods. Critical analysis of primary sources, mainly urban planning documents, is used to understand changes in management models and maintenance patterns. A survey was also conducted via a mobile application (Viber group: “City and Me KG”) among residents to assess their willingness to participate in managing and maintaining the space, as well as attitudes toward program content planned for specific areas. The first part outlines the urban development timeline of the Memorial Park and presents various models of management, maintenance, and use that arose due to historical events, government, and social systems. The park’s evolution relative to the city’s growth is depicted, showing its transition from peripheral space to the central urban park. The second part explores citizens’ interest in urban management and participatory design, along with attitudes toward possible changes to existing features and adding new elements for daily use, without compromising heritage, symbolism, or respect for victims. The survey also examines recognition of the park’s ecological microclimate and ecosystem functions within the city. The results suggest the potential for a new management strategy and creation of open urban spaces—landscape-designed memorial parks that meet community needs within cultural and ecological systems.

1. Introduction

1.1. Forming the Collective Memory

Collective memory has been recognized across various disciplines as a key concept for understanding social processes and as a way to embody remembrance in space through monuments or memorial landscapes. Besides its semiotic function, it is widely acknowledged that collective memory can be a crucial factor in social integration and cohesion, closely linked to collective identity [1,2]. The shaping of collective identity through memory can be seen as the creation of “time maps”—symbolic reconstructions of the past based on socially constructed narratives and the designation of specific events as focal points of remembrance [3]. Through collective memory, the connection between identity and space becomes clear, contributing to the development of distinctive place identities [4,5]. As Christine Boyer argues [6], the city itself can be understood as a place where collective memory and identity are continuously inscribed, contested, and reinterpreted through its spatial and symbolic forms. The spatial aspect of memory is becoming an increasingly important topic in Memory Studies, with extensive literature exploring questions of ‘memoryscapes’ and the relationship between memory and place [7].

Scholars have often approached memory through the notion of sites of memory [8], underscoring its deep attachment to particular places, monuments, and landscapes [9]. Sites of memory imprint meaning upon the surrounding environment, while simultaneously deriving their own significance from the context in which they are situated. Much work has focused on such locations, where memories and grief are inherently tied to particular places, monuments, and landscapes [10]. In the city of Kragujevac, located in central Serbia, the “October in Kragujevac” Memorial Park provides the most illustrative example of how spaces of remembrance evolve into integral parts of the urban environment and become key elements of local identity.

1.2. Šumarice Memorial Park—A Site of Memory Bearing Witness to the Past

The “October in Kragujevac” Memorial Park (also known as “Šumarice”) is located on the northern outskirts of Kragujevac, encompassing a vast landscaped area that functions simultaneously as a memorial complex, a symbol of local identity, and a space of everyday use. It was conceived as a place of collective remembrance dedicated to the civilians executed by the Wehrmacht on 20 and 21 October 1941 [11,12]. Although these tragic events provided the immediate impetus for the establishment of the memorial park, the area had already encompassed sites of suffering from the First and Second Balkan Wars, as well as the First World War, thereby adding further layers of historical and commemorative complexity to the landscape [13]. The concept of the park was based on a circular path that connects the valleys of the Erdoglija and Sušica streams, marking the locations of 31 mass graves, as proposed in the “Proposal for the Establishment of the Memorial Park to the October Victims in Kragujevac,” [14,15]. Such places are acknowledged as forms of dark heritage, reflecting collective trauma that contributes to the formation of social memory and identity [16]. As a space where remembrance, trauma, and everyday life intersect, the Šumarice Memorial Park exemplifies the idea of the lieu de mémoire (the site of memory) as articulated in memory studies. According to the Law on Cultural Heritage [17], the “October in Kragujevac” Memorial Park holds the status of a cultural site of exceptional national importance, ensuring its institutional protection, as a category in local legislation which denotes a site associated with events, persons, or locations of exceptional historical significance.

Therefore, memorials extend beyond their physical constructs, embodying political narratives, influencing collective memory, and public sentiment [18]. In this study, public sentiment holds particular significance, as its analysis reveals the depth of residents’ emotional attachment to the memorial space. This sentiment is most clearly reflected in their judgments regarding what constitutes acceptable or unacceptable intervention within the memorial landscape, especially in areas associated with tragic events, where residents’ attitudes toward heritage and memory are most explicitly articulated. In this way, what is perceived as a desirable addition and what is instead regarded as a disruption of remembrance and an insufficient expression of respect for the victims becomes evident.

These issues of acceptance, remembrance, and the negotiation of meaning within memorial spaces can be interpreted through Assmann’s distinction between communicative and cultural memory [19]. Communicative memory (Ger. kommunikatives Gedächtnis) refers to short-term memory based on the recollections of contemporaries, transmitted through everyday communication and lasting for roughly three to four generations (80–100 years). By contrast, cultural memory (Ger. kulturelles Gedächtnis) denotes long-term, institutionalized remembrance, transmitted through material carriers such as monuments, texts, rituals, and ceremonies, and preserving collective identity across generations. This distinction emphasizes the selective nature of cultural memory, in which societies decide what to ritualize and retain as part of their identity, and what to suppress or forget [19].

Given their multilayered meanings and profound symbolic resonance, memorial landscapes require exceptionally careful, context-sensitive, and responsible management. Involving local communities in decision-making is crucial for preserving both the symbolic meaning and the practical use of these sites. However, despite their recognized importance, participatory mechanisms in Serbia remain weak and are not yet fully institutionalized, unlike in many other European countries. In Serbia, citizen participation in urban planning and public space management remains largely procedural, limited to formal consultations and public hearings without real decision-making power. Although participation is formally recognized in legislation, its practical implementation rarely extends beyond the stage of legitimizing pre-defined planning outcomes and is reduced to a mere formality with no real impact on planning decisions [20].

1.3. Participation and Its Limitations in the Local Context

Urban heritage management practice can be categorized into five management modes according to the collaboration levels of stakeholders: community-led, expert-coordinated, government-led, conflict-resolution, and privatization [21].

Participation is considered an inherent value of democracy because it gives citizens and civil society organizations the chance to be involved in political decision-making [22]. In academic literature, several typologies of participation are identified, which can help distinguish the level of public participation. The three main models are the ladder model [23], the double scale of participation model [24], and the cube typology of participation [25]. Although these three are the most common, other typologies also appear in the literature, along with modern approaches such as e-participation [26].

Community participation can be categorized as active or passive. In the context of heritage, passive participation involves increasing residents’ awareness of conserving architectural heritage and providing technical guidance for commercial and voluntary heritage conservation projects [27].

In Serbia, however, participation in planning and decision-making processes is still in a developmental phase1. In most cases, it remains limited to public hearings, as regulated by the Rulebook on the Content, Manner, and Procedure for the Preparation of Spatial and Urban Planning Documents [28], without providing citizens with any real opportunity to influence final decisions, while models of shared or co-management are almost nonexistent. In contrast, many European cities have developed advanced models of collaborative governance, such as co-management, in which citizens, institutions, and local authorities share responsibility for the design, use, and maintenance of common urban spaces [29,30]. These approaches emphasize partnership, deliberation, and collective decision-making, positioning governments as facilitators rather than sole regulators. While the path toward such integrated and participatory governance is still long for Serbia, the gradual adoption of co-management principles could foster more inclusive, transparent, and sustainable models of urban and cultural landscape management.

It is crucial to emphasize that none of the currently existing rulebooks or laws forming the legal basis for participation processes prescribe surveys of the local population, nor are there examples where this principle has been incorporated into research, design, or management procedures. Within such a planning culture, particularly in the treatment of large public spaces, planners should act as mediators and facilitators of the public voice, rather than merely technical experts [20]. Nevertheless, despite this, few studies and research initiatives in Serbia address the possibilities of implementing the principles of civic participation through concrete case studies, which is why it is essential to provide a research-based and scientific contribution that encourages the development of such topics within post-socialist contexts.

1.4. Current Management of the Memorial Park October in Kragujevac

The General Urban Plan of Kragujevac 2030 [31] defines the framework for the Šumarice Memorial Park spatial organization, while its maintenance is delegated to the Public Utility Company Šumadija Kragujevac in accordance with the Decision on the Maintenance of Public Green Areas [32]. Furthermore, the Decision on the Transfer of Founding Rights and Obligations over the Institution “Memorial Park Kragujevac October” [33] formally establishes the City Assembly of Kragujevac as the legal founder of the Memorial Park and primary governing authority. Although this framework secures the park’s protection, it does not establish formal mechanisms for public participation or co-management. Citizen involvement remains largely confined to mandatory public consultations within urban planning procedures, which seldom have a meaningful impact on final decisions. This regulatory structure illustrates the institutional barriers that prevent the development of participatory and collaborative governance models comparable to those implemented in other European cities.

The absence of participatory instruments in the current governance framework raises an important question: to what extent do citizens wish to be involved in managing such a symbolically charged space? Addressing this question, the following section presents an empirical investigation into residents’ attitudes toward participation in the Memorial Park “October in Kragujevac.” As a site of remembrance and collective identity, this memorial landscape represents a particularly sensitive context for participation, where any intervention inevitably engages with symbolic meanings, emotional attachments, and ethical considerations of respect for the victims. The study, therefore, examines the extent to which citizens are willing to engage in decision-making processes and how they assess potential interventions within the memorial landscape, distinguishing between those perceived as appropriate enhancements and those regarded as disruptions to remembrance. Understanding public attitudes toward participation in this context is essential for formulating more inclusive and context-sensitive strategies for the management of memorial landscapes. Insights gained from this study can inform future models of participatory governance, contributing to the preservation of both the symbolic and the social value of these sites.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Research Area

The October in Kragujevac Memorial Park, also known as “Šumarice”, is an expansive green space covering 352 hectares. The word “Šumarice” in the Serbian language means a place overgrown with forest. Immediately after the end of the war, the Association of Veterans of the People’s Liberation War in Kragujevac proposed the landscaping of the area where the victims of the Kragujevac October massacre had been executed. The initiative to implement this proposal was taken over by a group of the most prominent and distinguished political and public figures of Yugoslavia, as documented in the Memorial Book of the “October in Kragujevac” Memorial Park [34]. The complex was established in 1953 [35], after the expert committee made its report [36]. Memorial Park was designed by architects Mihailo Mitrović, Radivoje Tomić, and Smiljan Klaić [14] after a public architectural competition was held. In addition to its memorial significance [37], the park is the largest open green space in the municipality of Kragujevac [31]. Over time, the Memorial Park has undergone multiple phases of development and management, each shaped by shifting socio-political circumstances, economic conditions, and governance frameworks. Its transformation from a peripheral site of remembrance into an integral component of Kragujevac’s urban fabric exemplifies the intricate interplay between commemorative intent, everyday use, and the broader dynamics of urban expansion. Given these circumstances, it is essential to explore the potential for further development and to transform certain zones into areas suitable for everyday activities.

2.2. Methodological Framework

This study applies two main methodologies: (1) Critical analysis of primary sources, employed as a qualitative method, and (2) semi-structured surveys conducted among the local population, applied as a quantitative method.

Through the cross-referencing and synthesis of all findings, the study endeavors to formulate a potential framework that enables the systematic incorporation of citizen participation within the complex structure of park governance and maintenance.

2.3. Data Collection

2.3.1. Critical Analysis of Primary Sources

The initial phase of the research employs a historical-interpretative framework grounded in urban studies. This approach enabled a detailed analysis of primary sources, primarily urban planning documents relevant to the study area. A comparative review of both the textual and graphical components of plans was then conducted. The research was carried out in four phases:

Material collection—gathering all planning documents that address the research area from the founding of Memorial Park in 1953. to the present day. The collected material, sourced from relevant institutions, comprised both physical and digital formats. The material was obtained from the Historical Archives of Šumadija, the internal archive of the Memorial Park “October in Kragujevac,” and the internal archive of PE Urban Planning Kragujevac. Systematization of materials—The archival material was analyzed and grouped chronologically for understanding into two main clusters: (1) Content and design of the memorial park, and (2) Management of the memorial park.

Material analysis—In each cluster, the aspects of development were observed and presented. Cluster 1 (content and design) traced changes in the park regarding the physical structure of the area, planned land uses, boundary modifications, and the contents within the complex.

Cluster 2 (Management) provided information on the institutions responsible for the governance, maintenance, and establishment of the Memorial Park up to the present day.

2.3.2. Survey-Based Data Collection

The second part of this research involved a structured survey of residents in the Kragujevac municipality. The logic underlying the survey design was grounded in the overarching objective of the study—to examine the relationship between citizens’ perceptions of the Memorial Park’s spatial characteristics, its commemorative function, and their willingness to engage in its management. Accordingly, the questionnaire was structured around three interrelated thematic clusters: (1) current use and perception of the Memorial Park as the largest open green space nearby; (2) how willing the local population is to accept spatial changes that could improve the park’s usability, considering their personal views on memorial heritage; and (3) their perspectives on governance and participatory engagement related to decision-making and maintenance efforts. The selection of specific questions was based on established frameworks in post-occupancy evaluation (POE), as well as on relevant empirical studies addressing users’ perceptions of memorial and heritage landscapes [38,39,40,41]. This approach allowed the research to combine objective indicators of spatial performance with the subjective, value-based dimensions of user experience.

A pilot survey was tested on 11 August 2025, by 20 residents onsite who are neighbors of the Memorial Park, to prevent potential sources of bias. The list of questions has been shortened to ensure that a larger number of participants are motivated to complete the questionnaire. This decision directly informed the choice to apply the cross-tabulation system, allowing all necessary information to be derived from a minimal number of questions. To ensure content validity and reliability, the questionnaire underwent expert review by an academic researcher with expertise in heritage site management and survey design in Serbia. Feedback from this review informed refinements to the clarity, sequence, and scaling of questions, ensuring their consistency with both local cultural contexts and comparable international research. The final form and content of the online questionnaire were adjusted based on the feedback from the pre-testers and peer review.

The survey was conducted online via the City and Me KG platform [42], with the support of the City of Kragujevac, and was distributed in the form of a Google Form. It remained open from 9 to 30 September 2025 and included responses exclusively from residents of the Kragujevac municipality. The decision to limit participation to residents stemmed from the need to examine the potential for everyday use of the park as opposed to its role as a memorial attraction, as well as the citizens’ willingness to engage in participatory governance. Accordingly, it was concluded that the most relevant insights could be derived from the responses of residents only. In total, 212 respondents participated in the survey.

2.3.3. Survey Structure

The questionnaire consisted of 20 questions, of which 7 referred to respondents’ demographic profiles and 13 addressed thematic aspects. The majority of questions were closed-ended, two used a Likert-scale format, and one was open-ended. The questions were thematically grouped into five categories: (1) general information about the respondent; (2) patterns of park use; (3) perception of the park’s current state; (4) vision of the park’s future and perception of it as a green urban oasis; (5) willingness to participate in management and planning processes.

Respondents were provided with a graphical reference (Figure 1) showing the division of the park into zones for this study. The zones were categorized based on the prevailing characteristics and functions of each area:

Zone 1: Landscaped green area with memorial functions and residential surroundings.

Zone 2: Landscaped green area with commercial facilities (hotel, restaurant, etc.) and residential surroundings.

Zone 3: Landscaped green area with cultural and educational functions (e.g., botanical garden).

Zone 4: Central forested green area.

Zone 5: Peripheral forested and recreational area.

Zone 6: Green area with densely distributed memorial content and the 21 October.

Questions concerning respondents’ acceptance of potential changes within specific zones were formulated as statements rated on a Likert scale. For clearer interpretation, responses were grouped into a three-level scale: (1) disagreement—respondents opposed to introducing new elements in that zone; (2) neutral—respondents undecided or without a clear stance, and (3) agreement—respondents supportive of introducing new elements in that zone. This approach was applied across all six zones, with respondents expressing their level of agreement individually for each one. Responses were analyzed using simple quantitative methods and cross-tabulation techniques.

Similarly, the questions addressing the respondents’ perceptions of desirable and undesirable future interventions in the park followed the same logic, allowing for an assessment of which types of new content were perceived as appropriate or inappropriate.

All responses accumulated on the Google Forms platform, for which the distribution process was previously described, were downloaded and organized using Microsoft Excel 2019 (Version 2011, Build 13426.20404). The results were processed using the IBM SPSS Statistics software (version 31.0.1.0). This program was used for two main reasons. First, the primary focus of the research required performing multiple cross-tabulations in order to reveal interdependencies between specific respondent groups. Without this analytical approach, the survey results would have been overly complex and difficult to interpret, particularly for the wider public sample that participated in the study. Second, SPSS was selected for its simplicity and intuitive use, as highlighted by colleagues from the social sciences who have extensive experience applying this software in similar analytical contexts.

Cross-tabulations were conducted between two categorical variables depending on the analytical goal (Analyze > Descriptive Statistics > Crosstabs).The most frequent comparisons involved respondents’ demographic characteristics, perceptions of the park’s current condition, visions for its future, and willingness to participate in its management (

Table 1. Cross-tabulation with two categorical variables (source: Author).

No.	Question 1	X *	Question 2
01	Are there any children in your household?	X	Do you think the park offers enough facilities (**)?
02	Do you have a pet?	X	Do you think the park offers enough facilities?
03	Do you live in a house or an apartment?	X	Do you think the park offers enough facilities?
04	Do you live in the immediate vicinity of the Kragujevac October Memorial Park?	X	Which facilities would you like to have at the location? * Multiple answers possible
05	Are there any children in your household?	X	Which facilities would you like to have at the location? * Multiple answers possible
06	Do you think the park offers enough facilities? * Only for respondents who think that the park does not offer enough facilities or that certain parts lack sufficient facilities	X	There is no need to change anything—the existing condition should be preserved (Likert scale: 1—strongly disagree, 5—strongly agree)
07	Do you live in the immediate vicinity of the Kragujevac October Memorial Park?	X	Would you be willing to participate as a member of a working group in planning, decision-making, and management?
08	What is your highest level of education?	X	Would you be willing to serve as a member of a working group involved in the processes of planning, decision-making, and management?

* X represents the intersection between the two variables. ** such as smaller park units like children’s playgrounds, rest areas, outdoor gyms, or facilities such as a museum, botanical garden, service activities, etc.

).

After calculating the crosstabs, a test of independence was performed using Pearson’s Chi-square test (Statistics > Chi-square > Phi and Cramer’s V) to assess the strength of associations, followed by verification using Cramer’s V coefficient (ranging from 0 to 1, where 0.00–0.10 indicates a very weak association, 0.10–0.30 a weak association, 0.30–0.50 a moderate association, and 0.50–1 a strong association).

Tabular results from the IBM SPSS Statistics software (version 31.0.1.0). were stored again in Microsoft Excel 2019 (version 2011, Build 13426.20404) format and subsequently converted into graphical visualizations generated on the Jupyter Notebook (version 7.3.2, Project Jupyter, 2024) platform using Python (version 3.13.5) programming libraries, providing clear visual insights into the findings. Additionally, graphical outputs from Google Forms were used to complement the visual presentation of the results.

The selected statistical methods were chosen for their suitability in analyzing categorical survey data and identifying relationships between variables related to public perceptions, attitudes, and demographic characteristics. Cross-tabulation was applied as it allows for the exploration of patterns and associations between distinct categories—such as age, education level, and respondents’ views on park management—thus providing an interpretable overview of the distribution of responses. Pearson’s Chi-square test was employed to determine whether these observed associations were statistically significant rather than occurring by chance. To complement this, Cramer’s V coefficient was used to measure the strength of those associations, offering a standardized way to interpret the magnitude of relationships between variables. Together, these methods provide a robust analytical framework for understanding how different social and demographic groups perceive the memorial park, evaluate potential interventions, and express willingness to participate in its management, thereby directly supporting the study’s aim of linking public sentiment with heritage governance.

3. Results

3.1. Interpretation of Available Historical Records

3.1.1. Content and Design of the Memorial Park

The first documented proposal for establishing the Memorial Park in Kragujevac dates to the period 1952–1956. The proposal stated that the park should not be conceived as a common grave or a single sculptural–architectural monument, but as a memorial landscape intended to depict the events of October 1941 [14,36]. The designated area was planned as a protected and recreational green zone, free of vehicular traffic, and partly maintaining its agricultural function. Agricultural land was expropriated from private owners [43] and a portion of it remained under state-managed agricultural production to provide income for the park’s development. The site also functioned as a local excursion area. The plan included zones for recreation and open green spaces, as well as the removal of existing residential buildings, agricultural plots, the military cemetery, and the Gornji Milanovac road that intersected the site. A 5 km circular road was constructed, connecting the main grave locations. During this period, landscaping of individual burial sites began, and sculptural monuments were installed, designed by selected Yugoslav sculptors through public competitions [44].

In 1966, the new General Development Plan of Memorial Park was adopted [15], and the boundaries of the Memorial Park were adjusted, which led to a reduction in its total area. In addition to the memorial function, the plan included recreational and cultural facilities: an artist’s residence (which the existing pre-war villa was adapted into), a peasantry, sports grounds, an auto camp, and tourist facilities. The halt in agricultural production has prompted a focused effort on areas designated for youth activities. During this period, an artificial lake was created within Memorial Park, following the construction of a dam on the Sušica stream in 1964.

Between 1969 and 1974, the service and accommodation facilities were expanded. The “Šumarice” hotel and restaurant was soon built and became one of the central venues for the city’s cultural and hospitality events. In 1976, a peasantry was planned within the Hunting Society “Šumadija,” and the following year an open-air restaurant “Palisad” was built. The Main building built during this period was A museum dedicated to the victims of the massacre, designed by Yugoslav architect Ivan Antić and Ivanka Raspopović. The museum was opened on 15 February 1976 [34].

During the period of rapid urban expansion in Kragujevac, the 1974 document “Kragujevac 1974–1977: Amendments and Supplements to the General Urban Plan” [45] expanded the city’s built-up zone to over 4000 hectares, gradually surrounding the Memorial Park with new residential districts.

In 1979, the “October in Kragujevac” Memorial Park was officially declared an immovable cultural asset of exceptional importance—a memorial site [46,47]. The decision establishing the memorial area defined its boundaries, which were subsequently modified in several later urban plans and often became the subject of discussions, disagreements, and revisions within urban planning and heritage protection procedures. One of the most notable changes was the incorporation of Mound No. 11 and the area extending to the Czechoslovak Monument into the city core. The General Urban Plan “Kragujevac 2000” was adopted in 1980 [48]. The city was planned for a population of 300,000 within a territory of 13,000 hectares. In this context, an expansion of the Memorial Park area to 540 hectares was planned by annexing additional forested and agricultural land to the existing park.

The General Urban Plan Kragujevac 2005 was adopted in 1991 [49]. It defined the existing Memorial Park together with the surrounding open space as the city’s central park. The plan aims to ensure continued protection, while also improving and equipping the area with sports, recreational, cultural, tourist, and hospitality facilities. The new plan proposes the expansion of the park area to a total of 537 hectares, comprising two sections: 342 hectares and an additional 195 hectares. Notably, the 195-hectare section designated for the establishment of the central city park will remain under private ownership. As part of the General Urban Plan of Kragujevac 2005, the future concept of Šumarice as “central city park” was characterized by the specificity of its memorial space as a “space that obliges us to respect both sides of life, but where with due reverence, life does not come to a halt.”

The General Urban Plan of 2015 [50] for the first time explicitly integrated the park within the concept of the Central City Park “Šumarice,” highlighting the necessity to harmonize its memorial and recreational functions while applying contemporary standards of landscape and ecological planning. Based on this document, the General Regulation Plan “Central City Park Šumarice” 2019 was developed [51], introducing a new development concept founded on multifunctional use and ecosystem-oriented spatial management. The plan strategically emphasized the spatial and functional integration of the memorial complex within the broader urban structure through the establishment of a transitional contact zone and the development of an interconnected network of pedestrian, cycling, and educational–recreational corridors. In parallel, the introduction of small-scale cultural and educational programs was encouraged, enhancing the park’s role as an active public space while safeguarding its commemorative, symbolic, and landscape values.

The boundaries of the protected area were precisely redefined (343 ha), confirming previous modifications in the location towards the Czechoslovak Monument and Mound No. 11. At the same time, stricter protection measures were introduced: mandatory detailed planning of the central zone, construction control in contact areas with the memorial complex, and restrictions on the legalization of structures. The new plan defines provisions for both protection and active use of the park, integrating memorial, ecological, and social functions within a single spatial framework.

3.1.2. Management of the Memorial Park

The institution “Memorial Park” was established in 1953 as a regional institution responsible for the long-term development of the memorial space in Šumarice. The administration of Memorial Park had tasks defined by the Decree on Institutions with Independent Financing from 1953 [52]: constructing and maintaining the Park, executing construction and landscape works, and regularly maintaining green areas. In the following decades, the institution remained the central administrative body overseeing construction, maintenance, and development activities. In the Report on the Work of the Committee for the Construction of the Memorial Park from December 1954 [53], one of the priority tasks was the adoption of regulations for the “unified arrangement and management of the entire territory designated for the Memorial Park”.

At the request of the People’s Committee of the Municipality of Kragujevac, the People’s Committee of the Kragujevac District issued in 1956 a decision on the complete expropriation of immovable property in favor of the state of the FNRY (Federal People’s Republic of Yugoslavia, 1945–1963), for the purposes of implementing the urban regulation plan and constructing the Memorial Park [43]. The idea of complete “socialization” of the park area was not fully realized, leaving around 256 hectares under public ownership, while approximately 86 hectares remained in private ownership of citizens.

The implementation of the General Urban Plan 2005 [49] (adopted in 1991) recorded instances of land parceling and unregulated use in the park’s contact zones. Consequently, the plan included a recommendation to establish an institutional body for coordinated management of the park’s further development. According to the updated Statute [54], the administration of the Memorial Park comprises the Steering Board, the Supervision Board, and the Head, along with subordinate units related to the Museum and Gallery Services (

Table 2. Governance Structure of the Memorial Park Today (source: Author).

The Steering Board	The Supervision Board	The Head	Museum service	Expert council	Museum “21 October”	Program Councils
			Gallery service	Artistic council	Gallery “Bridges of the Balkans”	Artistic Council of the event
			Construction, development, and maintenance service

).

As the highest governing body, the Steering Board holds legislative authority. As a body with normative and managerial functions, it adopts general acts, the statute, and the business policies of the Memorial Park, and supervises their implementation. The Supervision Board performs auditing and control functions; it does not make decisions but verifies the legality and accuracy of operations and financial reports. The Head holds executive and operational authority, manages the institution’s daily operations, represents the Memorial Park, and implements the decisions of the Steering Board and legal obligations.

3.2. Survey Results

During the data collection process, interim checks were conducted to monitor the consistency of responses. It was observed that as the number of respondents increased, there were no statistically relevant changes in the overall distribution of answers. The results obtained at the halfway point of the survey (106 respondents) were almost identical to those recorded in the final dataset (212 respondents). For this reason, it was decided to present the research findings based on the responses of 212 participants, as no significant differences were observed compared to the interim sample. With this sample size, the calculated margin of error for the survey is 6.7% (Supplementary Materials).

3.2.1. Current Perception of the Memorial Park by Users

The perception of Memorial Park among users was examined based on both direct responses to survey questions and through cross-tabulation analysis.

According to the results, the park is most frequently used for walking—163 out of 212 respondents stated that they visit the park primarily for this activity. The next two most common activities are socializing with friends (110 respondents) and walking with children (101 respondents). Activities that are least practiced include sports and recreation, walking dogs, and visiting other available facilities within the park complex (such as the Botanical Garden, restaurant, or the 21st of October Museum).

The results indicate that the largest share of respondents (40%) believe that the park should offer additional amenities in certain areas. This is followed by 36.6% of respondents who consider the current amenities sufficient, 19.3% who think the park lacks adequate facilities, and only 4.1% who believe the park’s image is disturbed by an excessive number of elements (Table 1, No. 1).

The analysis further examined whether demographic characteristics influence opinions regarding the number of amenities within the park, but it showed no statistically significant associations. First, the relationship between respondents with children in their household and their opinion on the park’s existing amenities was analyzed. The results show a weak association (

Table 3. Verification of the Chi-square test and Cramer’s V coefficient (source: Author).

No. *	χ2	p-Value	Cramer’s V
01	3.770 a	0.387	0.189	There is no statistically significant correlation. weak association
02	0.128 a	0.988	0.035	There is no statistically significant correlation. very weak correlation
03	0.422 a	0.936	0.063	There is no statistically significant correlation. very weak association
04	-	-	-	Due to the response format (multiple choice), the chi-square test is not applicable; a graphical analysis was conducted as the basis for concluding.
05	-	-	-	Due to the response format (multiple choice), the chi-square test is not applicable; a graphical analysis was conducted as the basis for concluding.
06	-	-	-	Due to the response format (multiple choice), the chi-square test is not applicable; a graphical analysis was conducted as the basis for concluding.
07	5.370 a	0.497	0.159	There is no statistically significant correlation. weak association
08	9.566 a	0.654	0.173	There is no statistically significant correlation. weak association

* The Reference Numbers Correspond to the Numbers Listed in Table 1. ^a There is no statistically significant correlation. weak association.

, No. 1). The same applies to the presence of pets in the household (Table 3, No. 2) and the type of housing (house vs. apartment) (Table 3, No. 3). The analysis indicates that the perception of the adequacy of the park’s current facilities is independent of respondents’ demographic characteristics (Figure 2).

However, regarding a single parameter—that the park should offer more amenities in certain parts—respondents who own pets expressed this view at a noticeably higher rate (51.1%) than those without pets (32.8%).

In addition to the perception of amenities, respondents’ views on the equipment and infrastructure of the park were also examined (

Table 4. Graphical representation of the relationship between respondents’ profiles and their attitudes toward the existing park amenities (source: Author).

No.	Chart
01		The park does not offer a sufficient number of facilities.	The park offers too many facilities that disturb the landscape image.	he park offers an adequate number of facilities.	In some areas, the park should offer additional facilities
02		The park is insufficiently equipped.	The park is over-equipped—the number of benches and other street furniture disrupts the landscape image.	The park is adequately equipped.	In some areas, the park should be better equipped.
03		Disagree	Don’t know	Agree	-
04		-	Don’t know	No changes are needed	Some changes are needed
05		Contributes moderately	Does not contribute much	Does not contribute at all	Contributes greatly
06		No additional facilities are needed.	Don’t know	Additional facilities are needed	-
07		No additional facilities are needed.	Don’t know	Additional facilities are needed	-
08		No additional facilities are needed.	Don’t know	Additional facilities are needed	-
09		No additional facilities are needed.	Don’t know	Additional facilities are needed	-
10		No additional facilities are needed.	Don’t know	Additional facilities are needed	-
11		No additional facilities are needed.	Don’t know	Additional facilities are needed	-
12		The proposed improvement of facilities disrupts the image of the memorial park	Don’t know	The proposed improvement of facilities enhances the image of the memorial park	-
13		The proposed improvement of facilities disrupts the image of the memorial park	Don’t know	The proposed improvement of facilities enhances the image of the memorial park	-
14		The proposed improvement of facilities disrupts the image of the memorial park	Don’t know	The proposed improvement of facilities enhances the image of the memorial park	-
15		The proposed improvement of facilities disrupts the image of the memorial park	Don’t know	The proposed improvement of facilities enhances the image of the memorial park	-
16		The proposed improvement of facilities disrupts the image of the memorial park	Don’t know	The proposed improvement of facilities enhances the image of the memorial park	-
17		The proposed improvement of facilities disrupts the image of the memorial park	Don’t know	The proposed improvement of facilities enhances the image of the memorial park	-
18		-	The park would be better maintained if it had more facilities, and consequently more users who would contribute to its upkeep	The park is not adequately maintained	The park is adequately maintained
19		Yes, I am willing to participate, but to a limited extent	No, because I believe that citizens are not qualified to participate	No, because I believe that without political support, citizens’ wishes cannot be recognized	Yes, I am willing to participate

, No. 2). Compared with perceptions of amenities, a larger share of respondents believe that better equipment is needed. Specifically, 55.4% think that some areas of the park require more benches, improved lighting, and more waste bins; 20.3% believe that the overall park is insufficiently equipped; 22.6% do not see any problem regarding equipment; and only 1.7% think that the park’s image is disrupted by excessive street furniture.

Using a Likert-scale question, respondents expressed their opinion on whether any changes to the park are currently necessary. Following the previously described methodology, responses were grouped into a three-level scale. More than half of the respondents believe that no changes are needed, 23% were undecided, while the remaining respondents think that specific changes are necessary (Table 4, No. 3).

For additional validation, cross-tabulation was conducted between respondents who considered the park insufficiently equipped (either overall or in specific areas) and their views on whether changes to the park are necessary (Table 3, No. 6). Among respondents who assessed the number of amenities as insufficient, 45.9% stated that no changes to the park are necessary (Table 4, No. 4).

The final question assessing users’ current perceptions examined whether the Memorial Park is experienced as a green urban oasis. This item sought to evaluate the extent to which the park is regarded as an ecologically and recreationally valuable asset—one that provides ample open space for outdoor activities and holds everyday relevance beyond its commemorative function. In this regard, 66.3% of respondents indicated that the park’s vegetation substantially mitigates urban heat, perceiving temperatures within the park to be 5–10 °C lower than in the city center. An additional 31.1% perceived a moderate cooling effect (up to 3 °C lower), while only 2.6% believed that the park’s greenery has no noticeable impact on local temperature conditions (Table 4, No. 5).

3.2.2. Visions in the Near Future and the Need for Additional Content

Respondents identified children’s playgrounds (129 out of 212 respondents) and cycling paths (126 out of 212 respondents) as the most suitable new features for future development of the Memorial Park. A total of 40% of respondents considered adding sports fields appropriate, while 32.9% supported the inclusion of outdoor gyms. Smaller proportions identified designated areas for dogs (21%) and commercial facilities (12.9%) as appropriate park additions.

Conversely, 15.2% of all respondents believed that no additional facilities were suitable for the park area. To gain a clearer picture, these responses were cross-tabulated with demographic variables to determine whether there was any association between the need for new content and respondents’ profiles. The analysis showed that the need for a greater variety of facilities is related to residential proximity—the closer respondents live to the park, the stronger their expressed need for diverse activities (Table 3, No. 4). The lowest level of interest was recorded for commercial facilities, while children’s playgrounds consistently stood out as the most desired across all respondent groups. As the distance of residence from the park increases, differences in preferences become more pronounced, particularly regarding the need for children’s playgrounds compared to other proposed amenities (Figure 3). The relationship between the perceived suitability of new facilities and the presence of children in the household was also analyzed. Regardless of whether respondents had children, playgrounds were considered the most appropriate type of new facility (Table 3, No. 5).

The only notable difference was in attitudes toward commercial uses—respondents without children were twice as likely to view commercial facilities as appropriate. However, the overall percentage remained low compared to other options (Figure 3).

Respondents were also asked to indicate, on a Likert scale, which zones (as defined in Figure 1) new facilities should or should not be introduced into. The highest support for new interventions was recorded in Zone 5 (Table 4, No. 10), followed by Zone 3, which comprises landscaped greenery and the Botanical Garden (Table 4, No. 8). The lowest support was observed for Zone 4, representing the central forest area (Table 4, No. 8), and Zone 6, which contains the largest number of memorial monuments dedicated to wartime executions (Table 4, No. 11).

Respondents also evaluated, on a Likert scale, the appropriateness of proposed interventions for improving the park. A large majority (83.5%) agreed that the memorial content should be expanded to include events predating World War II (Table 4, No. 15). Additionally, 75.5% of respondents believed that all initially planned memorial figures should be completed (Table 4, No. 12). 71.7% thought the park would benefit from introducing new children’s facilities, while 61.8% considered the creation of picnic and barbecue areas inappropriate for this site (Table 4, No. 16).

Opinions on the introduction of sports facilities were nearly divided: 40.1% viewed them as undesirable, 44.8% as desirable, and 15.1% remained undecided (Table 4, No. 17).

3.2.3. Users’ Willingness to Participate

Respondents’ opinions on maintaining Memorial Park provide insight into their willingness to engage in its management. As many as 63.2% of respondents believe that the park is not adequately maintained and should be cared for more regularly. They noted poor path conditions, irregular mowing, and inadequate landscape upkeep. A further 18.9% felt that the park was not regularly maintained, but suggested that introducing new amenities could indirectly improve its condition by encouraging users to take greater responsibility for the space. Only 17.9% of respondents considered the park to be adequately maintained (Table 4, No. 18).

Out of all respondents, 65.6% stated that they would be willing to participate in decision-making processes related to the park; for example, by contributing to official working groups involved in the preparation of planning documents or engaging in strategic and regulatory frameworks. Meanwhile, 13.2% believed that citizens lack the expertise to participate meaningfully, and 21.2% expressed unwillingness to participate, believing that citizen proposals would not be adopted without political support (Table 4, No. 19). Responses to this direct participation question were cross-tabulated with selected demographic data to assess whether there is a relationship between respondent profiles and willingness to participate. No statistically significant association was found between residential proximity and willingness to engage. Although residents living near the park expressed slightly greater readiness, the difference was not statistically significant. The relationship between education level and awareness of the importance of participation was also examined. The results show no statistically significant association. Responses from those with only primary education, representing 0.5% of the total sample (one respondent), were considered statistically negligible (Figure 3).

4. Discussion

4.1. Survey Findings

4.1.1. Balancing Preservation and Activation

According to the survey findings, respondents had previously assessed which zones were more or less appropriate for introducing new facilities, with Zones 2 and 5 standing out in particular. In Zone 2, opinions are generally balanced, reflecting both an openness to introducing new programs and a concern for preserving the park’s existing character. In contrast, Zone 5 stands out with a noticeably higher level of support for new facilities. From a professional perspective, this area also holds the most substantial development potential due to its location near the lake and its designation for recreation in urban planning documents. Interestingly, both of these zones are located in the immediate vicinity of the area first defined in the 1991 General Urban Plan [49] as a protective belt of about 195 hectares, intended to buffer the contact between the memorial core and the surrounding urban fabric. The same concept was reaffirmed in the General Urban Plan of 2015 [50], which maintained the area’s designation as a transitional zone within the broader structure of the city park. This continuity suggests that citizens intuitively recognize the area’s role as a buffer zone. Within this space, moderate activation and everyday use can occur without compromising the park’s serene atmosphere or the commemorative integrity of its central memorial core.

The introduction of new facilities in the Memorial Park Šumarice, starting from the 1960s, marked a clear move toward multifunctionality, in line with contemporary global trends at the time that promoted the integration of leisure and education into commemorative environments [55]. Apart from merely following trends, this past move was also a way to integrate the Memorial Park and preserve its territory from unplanned construction and negligent use. However, years later, this strategy proved ambivalent: although it was intended to activate underused areas and protect the park from urban encroachment, such programs also risked diluting its symbolic focus. This tension between preservation and diversification remains visible in subsequent planning phases and in citizens’ perceptions today. As survey results show, respondents’ views on the need for additional facilities within individual zones of the Memorial Park are somewhat divided. The commercial use of content is still recognized as the least desirable addition to the park.

When asked whether any changes to the park are currently necessary, respondents expressed predominantly conservative views. Although this direct question suggests a rather conservative stance, many respondents, in other parts of the questionnaire, identified specific ways to improve the park or proposed new features that would enhance comfort and everyday usability. This apparent contradiction does not necessarily negate their earlier responses; rather, it reflects a protective attitude toward the park’s primary memorial function and a sense of reverence toward the victims to whom it is dedicated.

Differences in opinions also appear across user groups. Pet owners, for instance, expressed a higher proportion of positive responses regarding the introduction of new facilities in certain areas, suggesting a stronger need for designated spaces to spend time with their animals—particularly relevant given that dog walking ranked among the least common activities in the park. At the same time, respondents expressed a strong preference for children’s playgrounds and open recreational areas—amenities that remain insufficiently represented within the existing spatial structure of the park. This pronounced need for playgrounds and various open spaces is directly aligned with the interpretation of planning documents describing the memorial park as a space that obliges us to “respect both sides of life, but where with due reverence, life does not come to a halt” as it says in General Urban Plan Kragujevac 2005 [49]. All responses, however, remain framed within a general heritage-oriented mindset, where symbolic and ethical considerations consistently outweigh all other needs in shaping respondents’ attitudes toward spatial interventions.

However, the everyday use of space does not diminish its memorial meaning; instead, it deepens it through personal engagement and frequent presence. Most respondents show a high degree of respect toward the place and emphasize that the park should be improved by expanding remembrance to include the suffering that preceded the Second World War, thereby confirming that memory represents one of the site’s core values. This relationship with Šumarice transcends the realm of piety and extends into that of identity: the citizens of Kragujevac perceive the Memorial Park not merely as a site of tragedy, but as a central symbol of their city and a cornerstone of collective memory. As noted by Vera Backović and Ivana Spasić, the identity of Kragujevac significantly relies on Šumarice, identified by research as the most important symbol of the city (29.3%), far ahead of religious and industrial landmarks [56]. These findings demonstrate that past events and the preservation of memory form an integral component of Kragujevac’s citizens’ collective identity. In this sense, everyday presence in the park becomes a way through which remembrance is transmitted, reaffirmed, and embedded into the identity of the place. In this manner, the survey findings reaffirm that respect for memorial heritage remains the guiding principle: activation is welcomed, but only insofar as it reinforces, rather than undermines, remembrance.

4.1.2. Management Structures and Participatory Potential

When it comes to maintenance, respondents generally perceive it as insufficient, calling for more regular care such as mowing, cleaning, and path repairs. Several point out that new facilities could indirectly contribute to better upkeep through more active and engaged use of the park. These views indicate that citizens directly associate maintenance with vitality and the presence of activities in space; in their understanding, a park that is used is, at the same time, a park that is preserved.

Initially governed by the “Memorial Park Institution,” the park operated under the Decree on Institutions with Independent Financing, which defined its tasks in construction, landscape works, and maintenance. Over the decades, this structure evolved into a complex governance system that today includes the Steering Board, Supervision Board, and the Head, alongside subordinate units such as the Museum and Gallery Services. While this model provides clear accountability and professional oversight, it reflects a top-down administrative tradition, with limited channels for direct citizen involvement.

The survey data demonstrates a pronounced public interest in participating in decision-making processes. Among residents living in the immediate vicinity of the park, a large majority expressed a willingness to participate in formal processes related to its planning and management. This interest remains strong even among those living further away, suggesting a broad civic awareness of the park’s importance as a shared cultural asset. Negative responses were rare and mostly rooted in skepticism toward institutional responsiveness rather than disinterest. Some respondents stated that citizens are “not sufficiently competent” or that local authorities “would not listen without political support.” A notable correlation appears between education level and participatory attitudes: all respondents holding doctoral degrees (100%) expressed readiness to participate, while lower levels of education correspond with more cautious or skeptical attitudes. This finding points to a need for cultivating participatory culture and building trust in local governance mechanisms.

Although no formal participatory mechanisms currently exist, informal and symbolic forms of participation persist. For decades, youth clubs and civic associations have organized traditional volunteer clean-up initiatives before the annual commemoration of the “Great School Lesson,” thereby reaffirming a collective commitment to the preservation of the memorial landscape. In 2019, enhanced afforestation activities were carried out with the participation of volunteers and the City of Kragujevac, signifying a renewed phase of collaborative stewardship. These initiatives illustrate that residents are actively involved in the maintenance and improvement of the park, even in the absence of formal institutional frameworks. However, the survey also revealed that most respondents have a limited understanding of the park’s management hierarchy. These results underscore the importance of strengthening transparency and fostering more effective communication between Memorial Park’s governing bodies and the wider public. Establishing participatory councils or consultative workshops (aligned with European standards) could help bridge this gap. Introducing participatory governance in such a sensitive memorial context should be performed with caution. Therefore, the current governance model could develop into a hybrid system that merges professional management with community participation. Involving citizens in maintenance and programming would turn the park into a living space of shared remembrance that evolves with its users, honoring memory.

4.2. Everyday Use and Symbolic Preservation

Through the intersection of planning documents and institutional decisions, the gradual transformation of “October in Kragujevac” (Šumarice) from a peripheral memorial zone into a central city park is evident. The cross-referential analysis indicates that this development did not constitute a linear expansion, but rather a gradual process of translating memory into everyday life.

Immediately after the Second World War, the erection of memorials was part of a broader popular movement and an important element of people’s everyday practices. In the first ten years, almost 80% of all memorials were built in a highly spontaneous manner. Art historians define this type of memorial center as a “people’s architectural monument.” [57]. Most modernist memorials were erected on historical sites of suffering or resistance and were therefore almost always located outside settlements, situated in open nature.

From the very beginning, Memorial Park in Kragujevac retained a pronounced recreational function, which was nurtured through planning documents. The plans from the 1950s envisaged areas for rest and outdoor recreation to preserve the existing practice of citizens spending their free time in this space and cultivating a culture of excursions. The survey results confirm the continuity of such use: the dominant reasons for visiting are walking and recreation, followed by socializing with family and friends. The frequency of park visits suggests that the park sustains a stable social and recreational role in the everyday life of the city. The further development of the Memorial Park Šumarice followed global tendencies and contemporary interpretations of the role of memorial parks, both in Yugoslavia and internationally. The transformation during the 1960s and 1970s illustrates a broader shift in the conception of memorial landscapes, which were initially envisioned as contemplative green spaces and gradually incorporated additional recreational, cultural, and hospitality functions. Such a tendency belongs to the currents of memorial modernism dominant during the 1960s [58]. Alongside the network of symbols, the memorial parks of that period often contained hospitality and service facilities adjacent to museums, or at least amphitheaters that served as open-air classrooms.

Considering the lack of resident participation in the planning and management of the park, it is possible that in the coming period, the Kragujevac October Memorial Park will begin development based on protection policies developed during the 21st century. UNESCO and a group of experts developed HUL recommendations [59,60,61] that emphasize the maintenance and preservation of social, economic, and cultural heritage within the urban context [62]. HUL’s approach has six steps in achieving sustainable development of heritage sites: (1) mapping resources, (2) reaching consensus, (3) assessing vulnerability, (4) integrating into the city development framework, (5) prioritizing actions, and (6) establishing local partnerships. This concept is ideal for urban parks/gardens or for rural areas [63].

One of the activities that can contribute to better management in the coming period is raising the importance and visibility of the memorial park in the international framework by proposing it to one of the international lists of protected cultural heritage [64]. In this way, greater attendance would be ensured, but on the other hand, it could lead to conflict in use with the local population, considering possible overlaps in the way the space is used.

For the redesign and enhancement of Memorial Park “October in Kragujevac”, and other existing memorial heritage sites in Serbia, the following policy should be taken into consideration:

• Greenery should be of great importance and deserves great attention, not only as an element of the landscape and landscape, but as part of the integrated Green System in the city, which is a response to the ecological needs of the city in terms of reducing heat extremes, influences activities in terms of the choice of transportation, recreation and rest, and also represents the basis for the development of biodiversity in the city. Greenery fosters interaction among people from diverse social backgrounds within the memorial park, thereby promoting social integration. The further development of the Botanical Garden should contribute to the new development cycle in the development of the memorial park October in Kragujevac.
• Increasing urban mobility by building new bicycle and pedestrian paths, new pedestrian access points in Memorial Park, and rental points for electric vehicles: Segways, electric scooters, bicycles, etc., is also a necessary element to achieve the connection between Memorial Park and the city. The construction of a new Visitor Center and several bus parking lots to accommodate different groups of visitors would significantly improve the functioning of the park.
• A scientific comprehensive approach should be maintained in the assessment of valuable regional resources, but a mechanism must be developed that also recognizes the need to adapt certain areas under greenery to people, enabling basic catering services but preserving the emotion of the victims. The key is to achieve a high degree of integration of place memory, culture, art, and recreation.
• Develop a wider network of tourist trails and road paths, considering the regional and international aspects of the famous places dedicated to the victims of the First and Second World Wars.
• Establish professional management that will ensure a sustainable model of financing the maintenance of the space, which will ensure private–public cooperation, the participation of citizens, artists, experts, historians, and others in the maintenance of the memorial park.
• High-quality new construction development and landscape design of memorial spaces based on contemporary world principles would be made possible by the adoption of the proper national regulations for the development of special urban regulation plans for protected cultural heritage, including guidelines for defining protective zones with the mandatory participation of citizens and pertinent stakeholders.

5. Conclusions

Both analytical perspectives—the programmatic and the managerial—demonstrate that the Memorial Park October in Kragujevac functions as a dynamic interface between the past and present. Its evolution from a landscape of mourning to a landscape of living memory reflects broader transformations in urban governance, collective identity, and the contemporary use of public space. The park’s enduring mission—to preserve the memory of the tragic events, to foster awareness, and to educate future generations so that such atrocities are never repeated—remains at the core of its existence and societal value.

Due to their dual role as spaces of both mourning and commemoration, memorial parks were historically conceived as hybrid complexes integrating recreation with education, architecture with sculpture, and built structures with the surrounding landscape [55,57]. The case of Kragujevac exemplifies this hybrid nature: a memorial landscape that simultaneously invites reverence and everyday engagement. This synthesis between symbolic preservation and daily use ensures that memory does not remain static but is continually renewed through lived experience.

The findings reveal that Memorial Park’s strength lies in its ability to balance its commemorative role with the needs of contemporary urban life. The spatial, social, and managerial analyses collectively emphasize that everyday use does not threaten remembrance; rather, it sustains it by embedding memory into the city’s rhythms and into the citizens’ sense of identity. However, maintaining this balance requires responsive governance that acknowledges the park’s cultural sensitivity while promoting inclusive participation.

In this respect, future development of the Memorial Park October should focus on establishing transparent and participatory management frameworks, enabling citizens to co-create, maintain, and interpret the space. Such an approach aligns with European principles of participatory heritage governance and reflects the evolving understanding of memorial landscapes as living, adaptive systems. By integrating professional oversight into civic engagement, Memorial Park October in Kragujevac can continue to embody both remembrance and renewal, not only as a testimony to the past but as an active space of education, resilience, and collective belonging.

Future research should build upon the insights gained from this study by further exploring the dynamic relationship between memorial preservation, everyday use, and participatory governance. One of the key directions lies in developing integrated models of participatory management for memorial landscapes. Given the findings that citizens express a strong willingness to participate in the park’s maintenance and development, but lack formal mechanisms to do so, future studies should examine how a hybrid governance model combining institutional oversight with community engagement could be implemented effectively in memorial contexts. Comparative analyses with similar memorial parks in Europe, especially those that have successfully institutionalized participatory frameworks, would provide valuable benchmarks.

Another important avenue of research concerns the application of the Historic Urban Landscape (HUL) approach to memorial parks. Further investigation is needed to assess how HUL’s six-step methodology—mapping resources, reaching consensus, assessing vulnerability, integrating heritage into urban frameworks, prioritizing actions, and establishing partnerships—can be adapted to the specific cultural and emotional sensitivities of sites of remembrance. Longitudinal studies could evaluate how this framework contributes to both heritage preservation and the quality of everyday public life.

Future studies should also address the spatial and social dimensions of activation within memorial parks. While this research identified zones suitable for new programs, further spatial analysis using GIS, behavioral mapping, or participatory design workshops could clarify how different forms of use influence collective memory, perception of space, and environmental quality. Special attention should be given to reconciling symbolic preservation with ecological regeneration, exploring how vegetation, biodiversity, and green infrastructure can strengthen both remembrance and sustainability.

In addition, research should investigate the interpretive and educational potential of memorial landscapes. Exploring innovative forms of storytelling, digital tools, and interactive installations could enhance visitors’ engagement without compromising the solemnity of the place. This aligns with the broader European discourse on the social role of heritage and the New European Bauhaus initiative, which emphasizes beauty, sustainability, and inclusion.

Finally, future studies should assess the socio-economic implications of integrating memorial sites into broader urban and regional networks of cultural tourism. While international recognition could enhance visibility and funding opportunities, it may also create tensions between local use and global heritage tourism. Therefore, interdisciplinary research—combining urban planning, sociology, cultural heritage studies, and environmental psychology—is essential for developing adaptive, inclusive, and context-sensitive strategies for the sustainable future of memorial landscapes, such as “October in Kragujevac.”