| dc.description.abstract | Access to nature and green areas is a real battle in many cities around the world. However, these battles can be very different in nature, resulting in various outcomes depending on the context and the actors. This thesis examines a case from Hungary, namely the Ligetvédők movement. The aim of this qualitative study is firstly, to provide a case study about the strategies, narratives and impact of the movement. Secondly, to explore and understand how the contemporary Hungarian political context has influenced the functioning, narrative and strategy of the movement. Thirdly, to understand how the movement relates to some similar environmental movements of the past and present, and what are the main links with these movements. The thesis draws theoretical frameworks from theories related to both social movements and civil society: framing theory, political opportunity structures theory and monitory democracy theory. Accordingly, the Ligetvédők movement is examined from several perspectives, the micro and meso levels of the movement, and the macro aspects. I present the broader historical context of the movement as well, to which I go back to the time before 1989, when the Soviet repressive regime determined the life not only of Hungary but of the whole of CEE region. In addition, I compare the challenges of the Ligetvédők movement with the Gezi Park movement and the Tree movement in the “age of upgraded authoritarianism”. The findings from this research reveal that the movement carried several frames: an environmental frame, a radical left frame, and a more moderate civic frame thematising the ‘right to the city’, besides the political framing of the project. The confluence of these frames created the ecopolitical master frame, which for a short period of time resulted in the frame resonance with the experiences of broad social groups. As a result, the movement could successfully mobilise large masses on two occasions. Nevertheless, the counter-frames developed by the Városliget Ltd. were successful in weakening and discrediting the movement. Moreover, the specificities of the political system and the scarcity of political opportunity structures in the country made it even more difficult for the movement to mobilise effectively, while the movement has been steadily weakened by internal processes and conflicts too. For these reasons, the movement has only partially fulfilled the three examined civil society functions: to build community, advocate and engage in public communication and monitor accountability. | eng |