- Urban Planning and Territorial Development
- Course Leader:
- lect.dr.geogr Andrei Schvab
- Learning outcomes:
- Developing the ability to integrate and make use of concepts /principles /methods from Geography into Urban Planning and Regional Development field and stimulate the development of a complex and interdisciplinary thinking and approach in the elaboration and implementation of spatial planning policies. The discipline aims to get students familiar with a trans-disciplinary and multi-scalar approach of the social, economic, historic, cultural, environmental dimension of human settlements and space and to develop horizontal competencies such as: taking part in complex activities as a member of an interdisciplinary research team or as coordinator in urban planning aiming to promotion of new concepts, techniques, innovative methods in urban planning decisions making, coordination, mediation and leadership in interdisciplinary team projects and also the continuous evaluation and self-evaluation through active involvement in research and development activities.
- Content of lectures:
1. Geography as an integrative science and its complementarities with urban planning
2. Territorial systems. Concepts and characteristics
3. Complexity of territorial systems
4. The limits and the individualization of territorial systems
5. Laws and principles used in the analysis of territorial systems
6. Basic notions associated with territorial systems (I)
7. Basic notions associated with territorial systems (II)
1. The use of the territorial systems concept in spatial planning and analyses.
2. Regional resilience and its impact on regional development
3. Vulnerability and adaptive capacity of territorial systems in relation to territorial development.
- Teaching Method:
- lectures, inter-active presentations, debates and text analyses
- evaluation tests during the semester, final paper and presentation during the final session
- 1. Ianoș, I., 2000. Sisteme Teritoriale- o abordare geografică (Territorial Systems – A Geographical Approach). Editura Tehnică, București.
2. Christopherson, S., Michie, J., Tyler, P., 2010. Regional resilience: theoretical and empirical perspectives. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3(1): 3-10.
3. Ciliers, P., 2005. Complexity, deconstruction and relativism. Theory, Culture and Society, 22: 255-267.
4. Folke, C., 2006. Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social-ecological system analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16(3): 253-267.
5. Gallopin, G., 2006. Linkages between vulnerability, resilience, and adaptive capacity. Global Environmental Change, 16: 293-303.
6. Gunderson, L., 2000. Ecological resilience – in theory and application. Annual Reviews of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 31: 425-439.
7. Kiel, D., 1991. Lessons from the Nonlinear Paradigm: Applications of the Theory of Dissipative Structures in the Social Sciences. Social Science Quarterly, 72(3): 431-442.
8. Manson, S., O’Sullivan, D., 2006. Complexity theory in the study of space and place. Environment and Planning A, 38(4): 677-692.
9. Martin, R., Sunley, P., 2003. Deconstructing clusters: chaotic concept or policy panacea? Journal of Economic Geography, 3(1): 5-35.
10. Martin, R., Sunley, P., 2006. Path dependence and regional economic evolution. Journal of Economic Geography, 6(4): 395-437.
11. Martin, R., Sunley, P., 2007. Complexity thinking and evolutionary economic geography. Journal of Economic Geography, 7: 573:601.
12. Porter, M., 2003. The economic performance of regions. Regional Studies, 37: 289-310.
13. Thrift, N., 1999. The place of complexity. Theory, Culture & Society, 16(3): 31-69.
14. Urry, J., 2005. The complexity turn. Theory, Culture & Society, 22(5): 1-14
- Minimal conditions for promotion: minimal course attendance, at least one evaluation test submitted, elaboration and presentation of a final scientific paper during the exams session.