Land Use Patterns and Small Investment Project Preferences in Participatory Budgeting: Insights from a City in Poland

Abstract

This article presents a spatial analysis of projects selected by city residents and implemented in five successive editions (2015–2019) of the participatory budgeting in Częstochowa, Poland. The study examines the relationship between the type of hard projects (small investments in public infrastructure and landscaping) and the pre-existing characteristics of the land use of each district. Kernel density estimation and Spearman correlation analysis were used. The highest spatial density occurred in projects related to the modernization of roads and sidewalks, recreation, and greenery, indicating a relatively high number of proposals within or near residential areas. Key correlations included the following: (1) greenery projects were more common in districts lacking green areas; (2) recreational infrastructure was more frequently chosen in areas with significant water features; (3) street furniture projects were mostly selected in districts with sparse development, scattered buildings, and postindustrial sites; (4) educational infrastructure was often chosen in low-density, but developing districts. The selected projects often reflect local deficits in specific land use or public infrastructure, but also stress the predestination of the recreational use of waterside areas.

1. Introduction

The development of cities based on spontaneous processes or based solely on economic market rules often leads to their unsustainable development, excessive land-take and social inequalities in access to public infrastructure [1,2,3,4]. To counteract these types of problems, various participatory spatial planning initiatives and the partnership management of local public resources are often used, open to the needs of the local community [5,6,7,8,9,10]. These methods include, e.g., participatory budgeting (PB), in which residents propose and select projects for implementation using different types of voting procedures [11,12]. PB was initiated in Brazilian cities at the end of the 20th century [11,13]. In the early 2000s, these methods have spread virtually throughout the world [14,15,16]. PB has also been developing voluntarily in Polish cities and towns since the 2010s [17,18,19,20], and has been obligatory (based on the law passed by the Polish Parliament) in 66 cities with county rights (poviat in the Polish language) since 2018 [21].

The source literature on PB is dominated by analyses of social and political issues related to participatory democracy and social participation in PB [12,18,19,22,23]. The authors often describe the types of projects proposed and implemented in PB, but most commonly do not provide a detailed analysis that addresses the reasons for such a choice [24,25]. There are only a few attempts to determine the relationship between the social and demographic characteristics of the residents in the district and the PB results [26,27]. Analyses that attempt to explain the relationship between current land use or public infrastructure development in urban districts, and projects proposed by their residents are very rare.

The main purpose of our paper is to analyze the spatial (geographical) distribution of the PB hard projects (related to public infrastructure and landscaping) in the studied city (Częstochowa in Poland) and their relation with the existing land use structure, by applying basic statistical methods. The main research questions are as follows:

RQ 1:

What is the spatial distribution of projects submitted in the city’s districts?

RQ 2:

Does the structure of current land use in city districts correlate with the type of project chosen by residents?

In this paper, we deliberately do not cover the issues of voting organization and general social activity in PB, although we refer to them in the discussion. The issues related to the organization of PB, and their social and political conditions have already frequently been addressed in the literature [16,22]. The novelty of our considerations is the attempt to find a relationship between land use and the type of projects chosen by residents.

The outcomes of our research may be useful to researchers in performing a comparative meta-analysis of project structures selected through PB procedures by residents in city districts and for planners and city officials as tips for more effective urban planning.

2. Possible Impact of Land Use and Infrastructure Development on PB Results

A general feature of the development of cities and regions in a market economy is uneven development, which can be analyzed on all geographical scales [28]. The development of city districts and neighboring suburbs often does not result from rational planning, but remains a characteristic of disorderly urban sprawl [1]. Urban development often results, above all, from the preferences of economic interest groups (e.g., developers and investors) or the spontaneous actions of the population migrating to the city [1,4,29,30]. Sometimes, the overexploitation of the assets of a public space by the economic sector is observed, neglecting other social needs [31]. In some areas, the needs of residents who wish to have access to both basic living infrastructure (e.g., water supply, sewage) and close access to the areas that passively provide them with various services (such as places for resting, recreation, sport activity, mobility, etc.) are not fully satisfied [32,33]. The need to use public spaces and infrastructure in a city also changes in the processes of historical, social, and functional transformation [1,34,35].

To meet the previously unmet and newly emerging needs of residents, various types of public consultations and dialogue, including participatory budgeting (PB), are organized. PB is intended to increase interest in city problems, make the residents more active, meet their needs for small-scale infrastructure, and help identify spatial planning needs [5,36]. PB often includes infrastructure investments (hard projects) and resident activity or public services (soft projects) [25]. In PB, local inhabitants propose missing infrastructure elements and land development methods, followed by voting on which proposals should be allocated with public funds. Research indicates that PB has a positive impact on social justice and well-being [27,37,38] and increases the effectiveness of public funds in meeting the needs of residents [39]. PB also shows the potential to counteract the shortcomings of the top–down approach in urban planning [40].

The creation of PB is of particular interest in less developed countries with an average democratic culture and relatively low trust in the authorities [41]. In rich democratic countries with high traditions of social participation, such as the European Nordic countries, PB is not so popular [42]—probably due to the high transparency of the local authorities’ policies that take into account resident needs using other forms of social dialogue and consultations [16,43].

In the opinion of Szczepańska et al. [44], the scope of PB projects is most often for addressing the immediate needs of residents, and, therefore, they are predominantly implemented in their neighborhood. In Poland, projects concerning the development of urban infrastructure were among the most reported by residents in many cities [20]. Descriptive analyses suggest that the type of PB projects selected and their location are related to the characteristics of land use and the shortage of desirable local infrastructure [45].

In underdeveloped regions, PB helps meet the basic needs of the poorest social classes, including access to water pipes, sewage networks, or roads in poorer districts [15,33]. In Brazil, the adoption of PB increased public expenditure on sanitation, in line with demands in participatory forums, and was an important tool to reduce inefficiency in the allocation of public expenditure [46]. In Belo Horizonte, fragmented or inequitable infrastructure distributions, such as underdeveloped sewage or sidewalk networks, forced lower-income neighborhoods to focus on essential public works during PB cycles [47]. Similarly, in Porto Alegre, PB was also successful in providing basic infrastructure and housing for informal settlements [13,33].

In more developed countries, projects related to leisure, sports, recreation, and educational institutions are more popular because cities are better equipped with basic living infrastructure [38,48,49,50]. In Chengdu, China, recognition of current infrastructure investments led rural residents to use PB mechanisms to propose connectivity and basic amenities in newly integrated peri-urban zones [51]. Bernaciak and Kopczyński [52] found that, in less developed cities in eastern Poland, inhabitants preferred hard projects that raised the level of social and economic development, whereas in developed, highly urbanized regions, they preferred greenery for leisure. This indicates that PB results can be related to the level of infrastructure and economic development in a given district. Similarly, Martela [53] noted in the analysis of PB in cities in Poland that citizens prefer to vote for investment in public spaces (hard projects). Citizens were less interested in noninvestment (soft) projects, such as the organization of cultural or educational activities. He concluded that in Poland, PB functioned primarily as a tool for citizens and local authorities to make joint decisions on public space.

In contrast, in relatively affluent and centrally located areas characterized by high levels of development and social capital, PB initiatives tend to focus on projects that “beautify” the space, for example, on greenery, flower squares, art installations, murals [54]. However, such interventions are frequently small in scale and narrowly focused, which may inadvertently contribute to the fragmentation of urban space. This may exacerbate existing differences in the quality of public spaces and the level of development between different parts of the city. Ahn et al. [45] compared the densely built-up and densely populated central Margareten district, with the more peripheral and less built-up Simmering district in Vienna, Austria. The Margareten district showed a greater interest in environmental projects (including greenery) and a markedly greater interest in social-type projects (e.g., cultural events, sports facilities, seating). In contrast, the Simmering district showed greater interest in urban traffic projects (e.g., public transportation, bike paths, and traffic regulation).

Research on PB in cities in Poland most frequently found the following needs: (1) to expand the infrastructure related to the mobility of residents (roads, sidewalks, separated bicycle paths); (2) to develop green areas, where additional recreational infrastructure is often located (resting areas, playgrounds, etc.); and (3) to develop sports and recreational areas, mainly for children and youth, often next to educational institutions [21,25,44,49,53]. Numerous case studies suggest that the type of project selected depends on the characteristics of current developments in a given city district. The most basic principle concerns the frequent location of projects close to the place of residence, so in old residential areas [24]. According to Kociuba and Rabczewska [24], in Lublin (Poland), green projects were also implemented to reduce noise and the spread of exhaust fumes in areas that have a large share of the main communication arteries. In old post-industrial districts, investments were made in multigenerational meeting places. Projects related to recreational and leisure infrastructure, as well as greenery development, were also common in housing estates with numerous multi-family buildings. In the analysis of PB in Wrocław (Poland), a spatial concentration of projects referring to the development of backyards was observed in old, depreciated districts around the center, which posed a high risk of marginalization [55,56,57]. In turn, projects related to road and sidewalk modernization or construction were consistently selected in new peripheral districts characterized by a scattered expansion of housing estates, without the appropriate development of communication areas [56].

This review of the literature suggests that the types of project selected for implementation in PB may depend on the previous structure of land use in districts and the development of public infrastructure, thus expressing local social needs to reduce the deficiency in desirable types of public spaces. However, the literature lacks studies on how current land use affects the type of projects preferred by residents. In our case study, we use basic statistical methods to prove or challenge the hypothesis of possible correlations.

3. Materials and Methods

We have conducted research on the example of the city of Częstochowa (Poland). It is a city with significant industry (30% of the workforce in 2023) and a national center for religious tourism [58,59]. Częstochowa experienced social and economic problems related to limiting traditional heavy industry and the loss of regional (voivodship) capital city rights [60]. These changes led to the disappearance of some administrative functions [61] and to the depopulation from 259,135 inhabitants in 1995 to 203,615 inhabitants in 2024 [62]. The city government has been trying to introduce participatory methods of urban spatial policy for many years, including PB since 2015 [26,63,64]. Częstochowa has 20 districts in which the surveyed projects were submitted, of which the densely built and most populated are the districts located on the historical communication axis, approximately meridianally [60] (Figure 1).

In this paper, we use historical data of the projects proposed and selected for implementation in the five subsequent editions of PB in the districts of Częstochowa (2015–2019). Our goal is not to describe the city’s current development, but rather to explore the relationship between land use and the specific projects residents choose to implement. In this context, the use of historical data is justified. The list of proposed and implemented projects in the districts was obtained from the City Hall of Częstochowa. The projects had to be completed in one year and had relatively low cost limits, which reduced their scope. Detailed organizational procedures for preparing and selecting projects have already been described in the source literature [26,63,65]. The projects were prepared and submitted by groups of city residents. After formalization, adoption by the city council, and public announcement, the city council organized a vote in which all residents could choose their preferred projects. On this basis, a ranking of projects was created. The projects with the most votes were qualified for implementation until the available budget was exhausted. The projects were implemented in the following year.

For analysis, we selected only the projects selected in district competitions. In the case of city-wide projects, where we did not have precise information about the location of individual activities, it would not be possible to analyze the correlation between the land use structure in a given district and the projects selected in that district. The division into city-wide and district-wide projects is typical in PB in Polish cities [66].

We have selected only hard district projects for the analysis (land development, modernization, or construction of infrastructure). We deliberately omitted soft projects associated with public services, events, training, and educational activities. We omitted soft projects because they do not involve land use or infrastructure development. The division into hard and soft projects is justified in the literature on research methodology [67] and has already been used in PB analyses [66].

In this paper, we use the same division into project types as in the article by Kołat et al. [26], in which the relationships between PB projects and the demographic structures of district populations was evaluated. That typology was created based on the project descriptions, assigning them to eight main research types: (1) road infrastructure; (2) pedestrian infrastructure; (3) bicycle infrastructure; (4) sports infrastructure; (5) recreation infrastructure and areas; (6) educational infrastructure; (7) development of urban green areas; (8) street furniture (so-called small-scale architecture, e.g., bins, benches, information boards, and lighting); and (9) an additional category “other”, which included projects featuring different, unusual characteristics (they were not analyzed, e.g., city surveillance). Detailed criteria for assigning projects to a particular type are explained in Appendix A. We emphasize that this is a typology, not a classification. This stems from the fact that some projects may have included small scopes of investment work characteristic of other types. The assignment to a type was based on the characteristics of the dominant work in the project based on the project description. The typology adopted in this article is supported by the literature, particularly in Poland. For example, Madej [55] considers projects that involve the construction or modernization of roads, backyards, historic buildings, as well as pedestrian and bicycle projects in his analysis. Środa-Murawska et al. [34] distinguished the main types of projects such as safety, security and order, road infrastructure, culture and education, sport and recreation, environment and others.

In other countries, different divisions of project types were used. For example, in Chengdu, China, the projects were divided into four categories: (1) infrastructure and activities related to social needs (for example, culture, literacy, entertainment and fitness); (2) infrastructure for local economic development (for example, roads, drainage, irrigation, and water supply); (3) training in agricultural and business skills, and (4) village security, governance, and public services (including sanitation and solid waste collection). In a PB study in two districts of Vienna, Austria, Ahn et al. [45] distinguished between projects related to (1) environment (related to greenery and dog waste), (2) social (related to events, sports facilities, children’s playgrounds, public toilets, social care services) and (3) traffic (public transport, traffic regulations, bike paths and parking lots). Chovanecek et al. [68] picked out 11 types of project, listing many more detailed examples of the scope of activities, but also combining projects related to services and infrastructure. Similarly, in Poland, Szczepańska et al. [44] analyzed hard and soft projects for Polish provincial capitals in categories such as: animal care, land management/public facilities, surveillance, lighting, transport, culture/entertainment; revitalization; playgrounds; sports/recreation; and urban greenery. Such divisions, which thematically combine hard and soft projects, would not be suitable for the purposes of our study, which focuses on the development of infrastructure elements and the development of public areas. Therefore, we used our own typology, which is more appropriate for the analysis and conditions of the city under study.

In the spatial analysis of the project locations (reflecting the local needs of many residents), we took into account all submitted projects (analysis related to RQ1). We applied the kernel density estimator (KDE) method to analyze the distribution and maximum spatial density of the proposed projects [69,70]. The KDE method reports where there are distinct clusters in the spatial data set of the location of projects implemented in the study area and has several advantages. KDE transforms discrete event locations (such as project locations) into smooth and continuous surfaces of density values [69,71]. This helps identify hot points and spatial patterns independent of administrative boundaries. Unlike choropleth density maps based on district borders, the KDE is not limited by arbitrary zones. It creates density surfaces that better reflect real spatial variations, which is particularly useful in assessing whether projects are distributed or clustered in an urban space [72]. The detailed principles and mathematical formulas of this method have already been described in detail in the literature [73,74,75] and we will not repeat them. This method is often applied in geographical studies that address the density of various types of infrastructure or the location of community projects [76,77,78].

The ArcGIS Desktop (ArcMap 10.7) program and its algorithms were used for the analysis [79]. The search radius (bandwidth) was computed specifically for the input data set using a spatial variant of Silverman’s rule of thumb that is robust enough for spatial outliers (when some points are far away from the rest of the points) [70]. The search radius can affect statistical results by controlling the smoothness of the estimated density. Too long a search radius leads to too many generalizations; too small a search radius over-emphasizes local variation. Therefore, the search radius should vary depending on the density of points and the spatial scale of the investigation [72,74]. For this reason, individual maps in the result section should not be directly compared; they are separate analyses for each type of project.

For detailed correlation analysis, we downloaded data on land use from the European Urban Atlas (EUA). We used the data for year 2012 [80], that is, from the last available year before the first analyzed PB (later, the data from this source came only from 2018). We assumed that the structure of land use in the district (for instance, percentage share of communication areas, percentage share of densely built areas, percentage share of greenery) before the announcement of PB in 2015 may have had the main influence on the PB voting results.

The EUA provides reliable, intercomparable, high resolution land use and land cover data for 785 functional urban areas in 38 states of Europe, including Poland and Częstochowa. The minimum mapping width (MMW, narrowest detectable features) is 10 m wide, when the minimum mapping unit (MMU) in urban classes is 0.25 ha [80]. The use of EUA data, instead of national geodetic data, is justified so as to be able to compare the results with studies carried out in other European countries. Due to the scale of the study (the entire city), the level of EUA generalization is appropriate for the analyses carried out in our paper. High-resolution data used for geodetic purposes are not necessary. The use of EUA data is also justified in the literature and is used in studies carried out in many European countries [3,30,81]. A list of EUA land use types found in Częstochowa are listed in Appendix B. Only for the initial overview map, we used highly generalized data on land use types from the City Office, because showing all EUA types would be illegible with the scale used.

Shapiro–Wilk tests showed that some of the data did not have a normal distribution (Appendix C). For this reason, a Spearman correlation analysis was performed, which is also more robust to outliers [82]. Furthermore, Spearman’s correlation gives correct results even for very small samples [83,84]. The Spearman correlation coefficient (r_s) was calculated for the percentage of a given land cover and the percentage of projects of a given type finally selected for implementation in the same district (N = 20 districts, analysis related to RQ2). Only correlations with statistical significance of at least p = 0.05 were taken into account for the analyses. The full table of correlation coefficients is shown in Appendix D.

The paper does not analyze the dependence on the type of land use inside the area in which the project was located, but rather the predominance of the type of projects selected in relation to the land use characteristics of the entire district of the city. Such an assumption is due to the mobility of residents, who can use a given type of infrastructure in many places close to where they live.

4. Results

Our research included 1224 hard (related to infrastructure or land development) projects submitted in districts. Of these, 349 projects were selected by voting procedures, as the most important to residents (Figure 2). The largest number of district projects in the period analyzed was submitted in densely built-up and densely populated central districts on the strip of the main historical north–south communication route (Tysiąclecie—136 projects; Śródmieście—89; Raków—87). Most of the projects are clearly located near residential areas. The largest number of projects was selected for implementation in the Tysiąclecie (31 projects), Północ (28), and Częstochówka-Parkitka (27) districts (complete data are provided in Appendix A).

The largest number of hard projects was submitted in the categories of road, recreational, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, but as a result of the vote, the road, educational and recreational infrastructures were identified as priorities (

Table 1. The analyzed PB projects submitted and selected for implementation.

No.	Type	Submitted 2015–2019	KDEmax of Submitted	Selected for Implementation	Percentage
1	Road infrastructure	397	20.54	90	22.7
2	Recreational infrastructure	177	13.05	45	25.4
3	Pedestrian infrastructure	128	13.84	30	23.4
4	Bicycle infrastructure	120	5.79	33	27.5
5	Educational infrastructure	113	5.38	54	47.8
6	Greenery	100	11.95	34	34.0
7	Street furniture	89	4.77	30	33.7
8	Sports infrastructure	36	2.95	11	30.6
9	Other (not classified)	64	7.52	22	34.4
	Total:	1224	-	349	28.5

Source: Authors’ calculations based on the data from Częstochowa City Hall.

).

The highest number of projects proposed was in the category of road infrastructure. The maximum density index for this category was KDE_max = 20.54. Road infrastructure projects were proposed in all districts of the city, especially in central districts of dense construction (Figure 3a). However, this type of project was less frequent in areas with a high share of “other roads and associated land” (r_s = −0.49; p = 0.028), i.e., in areas where road density was already high.

The high density in the built-up areas (KDE_max = 13.84) was also recorded in the case of proposed projects with respect to the construction and modernization of pedestrian infrastructure. The map shows that most of these types of projects were implemented in densely built-up and populated central districts (Figure 3b). However, the number of projects selected for implementation was not related to the land use structures in the districts (no statistically significant correlations).

The recreational infrastructure projects proposed by the residents also had a relatively high maximum density (KDE_max = 13.05). They were implemented in all districts, however, especially in the densely built-up central districts (Figure 3c). They were selected for implementation more frequently in districts with a high share of “water” areas (r_s = 0.557; p = 0.00), and much less frequently in the districts with a high share of “discontinuous dense urban fabric” areas (r_s= −0.547, p = 0.01).

Projects related to the development of green areas were selected in 15 districts, more frequently in districts with a high share of “other roads and associated land” (r_s = 0.581; p = 0.00), “railways and associated land” (r_s = 0.624, p = 0.06), while less often in the areas with a high share of “pastures” (r_s = −0.465, p = 0.039) and “forest” (r_s = −0.553, p = 0.01). Therefore, it is clear that the need for the development of greenery was expressed with great interest in the central areas with a low share of greenery, which is clearly visible in Figure 3d. Probably, unused land near transportation routes was especially developed.

All other type of projects had a visibly lower maximum density (Figure 4). The projects in the cycling category (KDE_max = 5.79) and sports infrastructure (KDE_max = 2.94) did not show any connection with the current development of the area (lack of statistically significant correlations). The cycling infrastructure was developed in all districts of Czestochowa (Figure 4a). In contrast, sports infrastructure (e.g., football pitches) requiring relatively large free areas was developed only in 10 districts (Figure 4b).

The projects focused on the development of areas related to educational facilities (usually related to schools and kindergartens) had a relatively low maximum density (KDE_max = 5.38), as they are among the basic services that are regularly located close to residential areas. Such projects were implemented in 18 districts (Figure 4c). These projects were selected more frequently in districts with a high share of “discontinuous very low-density urban fabric” (r_s = 0.489; p = 0.029) and rarely in peripheral districts with a high share of “land without current use” (r_s = −0.567; p = 0.009).

The street furniture was implemented in 19 districts (Figure 4d) and they were characterized by relatively low density (KDE_max = 4.77). The projects were chosen more frequently in districts with a high share of “mineral extraction and dump sites” (r_s = 0.726; p = 0.00), “isolated structures” (r_s = 0.653; p = 0.00), “discontinuous medium-density urban fabric” (r_s = 0.609; p = 0.00) and “discontinuous very low-density urban fabric” areas (r_s = 0.577; p = 0.00). “Mineral extraction and dump sites” are associated with the existence of former quarries and limestone pits, which are being developed for recreational and tourist purposes, including walking paths [85].

5. Discussion

We observed clear differences between the spatial density of proposed projects in city districts, which can result from the typical characteristics of densely built-up central districts and yet-to-be-developed, sprawling peripheral neighborhoods with larger areas of greenery. Traditionally, mobility-related issues constitute a major challenge in urban areas (roads and sidewalks). Residents also need public places for recreation. These projects were frequently reported in Częstochowa, reaching high density near residential areas, especially in central districts (response to RQ1).

However, a correlation analysis of the district land use patterns and the project structure selected for implementation reveals relationships that are not visible by analyzing the distribution of projects on the map. Our research confirms that some types of project selected by voters are correlated with the land use structure of the districts (response to RQ2). However, it can be related not only to the deficiency of some urban infrastructure in the districts, but also to the availability of areas for which it can be used in a specific way. In detail, we would like to highlight five main dependencies, which we also discuss in relation to the results of other authors’ work. However, a comparison between the results of PB in Częstochowa and PB in cities in other countries may be difficult due to different historical, economic and cultural conditions for the development of cities [1].

Firstly, we have found that projects related to the development of green areas were selected more often in densely built-up districts with a deficiency in greenery. For the purpose of public greenery, wasteland near transportation routes was often developed. Green areas can be important as buffers against the adverse effects of transport (noise and exhaust fumes). It was also observed in other cities in Poland [24]. The excessive density of development in city centers resulting from economic factors (land prices) was also an incentive to develop recreation and meeting areas among greenery. Developers typically maximize development with buildings to make sales profits and are less interested in financing other infrastructure around such areas [1,19]. Municipal authorities in Poland, in order to obtain the highest possible tax revenues or to reduce costs, often allow the stimulation of investment, by including the commercial use of former green areas [4,86,87]. This is a typical problem for many fast developing cities in the world [1,88]. Public greenery and free recreational areas do not generate income, so they have been sometimes overlooked in urban development due to the strong influence of market forces [89]. Citizens try to solve these problems within the framework of PB, proposing and voting for the development of green areas (including city parks), as observed in many other cities [22,44,90]. Consequently, sometimes even a thematic “Green PB” is organized [40,55]. However, these actions are not always effective. Analyses of various urban development scenarios have shown that even in the scenario of ecological protection planning and control, urban growth can easily break through the ecological protection boundary [2]. In the years 2010–2018, the access to green spaces in large Polish cities decreased [91]. On the other hand, even small-scale, but carefully targeted green interventions can significantly improve quality of life in urban areas [92]. Interest in “green projects” indicates a growing demand among local communities for “nature-based solutions” [93,94]. Meanwhile, in many studies, relatively close access to wooded areas (parks and forests) is very important to residents [95]. A similar relationship was described in the comparative analysis of Vienna’s districts, where in the densely populated and built-up central district, more greenery projects were reported than in the more peripheral district with less dense development [45]. However, these authors used the indicator of the amount of green space per inhabitant, not its share in a given district. In Lisbon, preference was given to projects that helped create a more sustainable, resilient and environmentally friendly city [40]. Such bottom-up processes can support and improve public management and ensure more responsive and sustainable public spaces that can serve as public goods.

Second, projects related to recreational infrastructure were selected more frequently in areas with a relatively high share of reservoirs and waterways. It confirms the significant role of areas that offer open water for leisure purposes. However, the limited possibility of developing other infrastructure in river floodplains may also be important. The restoration of riverside areas in Częstochowa has become of increasing importance in recent years [96]. Similar trends were observed in other Polish cities, where special attention was also paid to the “blue infrastructure” [97,98,99]. Riverside areas are often flood-prone areas, so it makes sense to create recreational and green spaces near them. Unfortunately, due to high land prices, cities allow dense development of such areas, which then increase the risk of flood damage [100].

Third, projects on so-called street furniture (small-scale infrastructure) were more common in peripheral districts with high-share mineral extraction and dump sites and sparsely built areas. These areas are often poorly developed, frequently peripheral, and characterized by the underdevelopment of such amenities. Green areas and low-quality communication routes that require the development of various types of street furniture are more popular there than in highly developed central districts [97]. In Częstochowa, this type of projects were especially associated with the revitalization of former limestone quarries, which were developed for recreational and tourist purposes [85,101].

Fourth, educational infrastructure projects were more popular in districts with a high share of discontinuous very low-density urban fabric, so relatively often in developing districts. The new apartments in the developing districts of Częstochowa are probably bought by relatively young families with children, which explains the need for infrastructure related to children and youth [26]. Furthermore, the age group of residents with children is often particularly active in PB and is also mobilized by schools to vote for PB [34].

Fifth, the selection of local road projects was negatively correlated with the share of transport (communication) areas. In cities, the need for public transport, including safe and convenient traffic areas, is one of the basic, most important, and obvious needs of residents [1,102,103]. Mobility projects are commonplace throughout the world in PB scenarios [15].

In the remaining cases (sidewalks, bicycle paths), we did not confirm correlations between land use and the projects selected for implementation in the PB procedures, although they seemed to be closely related in the densely built-up districts. Therefore, the need for their expansion actually occurred throughout the city area.

The main limitation of our results concerns the fact that correlation analysis does not conclusively indicate cause-and-effect relationships, so the mere fact that there is a statistical correlation does not mean that the land use structure in a given neighborhood was a major influence on the selection of the project. The needs of the residents may depend not only on the current state of development of the area, but also on the demographic and sociocultural characteristics of the population that resides in a given area [26,27]. The authors also emphasize that the structure of project types is influenced by the limitations of their material scope and the time period imposed by the city authorities in the PB rule; therefore, there is no full freedom to propose projects [104].

Municipal spatial planning regulations (urban development plans) in Poland can also play an important role in shaping the types of hard projects that residents propose and support in PB. PB procedures encourage the implementation of projects in line with the urban development plans. These planning frameworks determine land use designations, infrastructure priorities, and technical feasibility [100,105], directly influencing which citizen-proposed projects are admissible. When planning documents are clear and well prepared, they enable residents to propose realistic projects (such as greenery, roads or bike lanes) that align with municipal goals. In contrast, a lack of up-to-date or detailed urban development plan can limit feasible project areas and diminish civic participation, or lead to the original proposed projects not being admitted to the competition for formal and legal reasons. Kamrowska-Zaluska [106] highlighted that PB in Polish cities can be undermined by the goals of local government policy. Rogatka et al. [107] found that in small towns of the Kujawsko-Pomorskie Voivodeship in Poland, the spatial planning rules limited the effective use of participatory mechanisms due to the lack of adequate citizen knowledge on spatial planning. Szczepańska et al. [44] emphasized that PB often overlaps with spatial plans to improve public spaces, but their implementation depends on how these plans guide municipal investment priorities. When the project proposals align with municipal regulations, they are more likely to be selected.

The authors also point out that PB inputs in Poland actually have a negligible impact on solving the main deficits in the development of public infrastructure in cities, as they are usually allocated between 0.5% and 1% of cities’ annual budgets. Rather, they serve to increase the activity and interest of residents in urban development issues and to stimulate their activity [106].

The results may also not fully reflect the needs of the majority of residents, but may be the result of irregular initiatives taken up by the most active social (interest) groups [15,19,44,55]. This means that the analysis of the projects selected for implementation may not be the best indicator to identify the actual and real structure of the needs of residents. In New York City, districts inhabited by relatively wealthy and educated residents were found to be particularly active, which does not make it easier to eliminate the city’s biggest problems using PB [108]. For this reason, it is important to allocate separate funds for individual districts, e.g., in proportion to the number of inhabitants, to avoid PB funds being consumed only by the most socially active districts. In Indonesia, the authors highlighted the significant role of access to spatial information among urban residents. They believe that this can influence the scope of social participation and the activities proposed by residents [109]. Therefore, the education of residents can influence the structure of implemented projects.

Furthermore, the results of our case study may not be entirely universal, as they refer to a period with a specific level of infrastructure development and urban development. For example, using the example of Toruń, Środa-Murawska et al. [34] demonstrated that the percentage of infrastructure modernization projects was gradually decreasing in favor of new investments and soft projects. This behavior, according to the authors, was related to Maslow’s pyramid of human needs model [110]. Initially, hard projects related to repairs or renovations were carried out. Only with time did the nominated projects concern the integration of local society and the personal development of the district’s inhabitants. In Katowice, Poland, it was observed that in successive editions of PB, the percentage of projects related to renovations and repairs gradually decreased in favor of proposing new investments and soft activities related to the activity of residents [111]. In some Katowice districts, a decrease in the number of projects submitted was observed over time. In Wrocław, Poland, an unfavorable phenomenon was also the decrease in the interest of citizens in PB after several years of its existence [49]. This may mean that the most pressing needs of residents have been met or that public interest in participating in the creation and selection of projects for implementation diminishes over time.

The differences in the structure of project types in better and less developed areas reveal the adaptive dimension of PB. It reveals its ability to respond to local needs. In many cases, it reflects existing differences in the development and quality of urban space.

6. Conclusions

The research findings indicate that participatory budgeting is a practical tool that allows residents to reorganize space according to their needs. In this way, residents assume an active role as co-creators not only of the physical space but also of its social function [112]. Empirical research consistently demonstrates that the typology and orientation of participatory PB reflect the sociospatial disparities within cities.

The popularity of PB in many cities shows that the residents’ needs in terms of access to some type of public space often were not met—either due to spontaneous urban sprawl or the ineffectiveness of spatial planning by city officials. Based on our analysis of participatory budgeting (PB) outcomes in Częstochowa, four key recommendations emerge to improve spatial planning policy in Polish cities.

• First, municipal plans should prioritize the preservation and strategic development of green spaces, especially in densely built districts with low greenery availability. Urban planning must protect the remaining natural areas and promote the conversion of underutilized land near transport routes into greenery.
• Second, cities should better integrate blue infrastructure, such as rivers, reservoirs, and floodplains, into land use planning. These areas have high recreational value and are often chosen by residents for development through PB, but are often overlooked in formal spatial frameworks. The prioritization of the development of green spaces and recreational areas in riverside areas also stems from the threat of flooding.
• Third, spatial plans must address infrastructure gaps in peripheral and postindustrial districts, where residents commonly request small-scale infrastructure such as information boards, benches, lighting, and sidewalks. These needs highlight the neglect of basic amenities in low-density or marginalized areas.
• Finally, planning policies in new housing zones should anticipate demographic changes and include provisions for educational and childcare infrastructure. New suburban neighborhoods often attract young families, whose participation in PB reflects a strong demand for facilities for children and youth.

The projects submitted by residents that are not selected could be part of public consultations and incorporated into larger city projects. This action could increase the effectiveness of city policies in meeting the needs of residents, as well as increase the efficiency of local authorities, which is an important factor in local development [113].

We agree that PB is not a perfect tool; it has both advantages and disadvantages [12,20,48]. The growing expectations of residents may be difficult to meet through their formula, for example, large infrastructure investment [22]. However, it can offer an auxiliary tool to examine needs and activate residents, thus increasing their interest in urban planning. We would also like to add that cities should ensure that their urban development plans are up to date and of high quality. Up-to-date and accessible planning documents improve the effectiveness of PB by allowing residents to propose feasible projects, while outdated or overly rigid plans risk disqualifying community-supported initiatives.

Our findings contribute meaningfully to the international discourse on PB by revealing how spatial patterns and land use structures influence residents’ choices. We show that analyzing the location of PB projects can uncover infrastructure deficiencies overlooked by traditional planning, both in peripheral sprawling and central densely built-up districts. The findings also highlight the consistent preference for green and recreational spaces, particularly near water, strengthening calls for environmentally conscious urban planning. This research supports the argument that PB offers more than democratic participation; it provides insight into sustainable urban needs. While such a universal recommendation seems obvious, our PB analysis indicates that such needs in a case-study city have not yet been sufficiently met. This stems from the focus of local government and the economic sector being on economic growth.

Our article can contribute to the international literature as a relatively new analysis, comparing the characteristics of current land use with the need for additional investments reported by residents. Such analyses have been extremely rare to date. In the future, it would be valuable to create a statistical model of the correlations between the needs of residents expressed in PB, land development, and the sociodemographic characteristics of residents based on research conducted in several cities, as well as international comparisons.