Rezumat/Abstract. Spatial policies are meant to ensure a balanced and sustainable development at different territorial levels. Although numerous studies were carried out, consensus was not achieved on the importance of different levels of policies (local, regional, national, European) on the development process, and whether regulated interventions can stimulate development better than the intrinsic mechanisms of territorial processes. This study aims to assess the development of Romania at the level of metropolitan areas, using GIS in conjunction with the statistical and mathematical modeling of territorial dynamics. The results strengthen the importance of the local level in monitoring the efficiency of spatial development policies.

Cuvinte cheie/Key words: spatial planning, regional development, ESPON, territorial development, growth poles, spatial policies, functional urban areas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54508/rsdu.2020.04

Bibliografie/References

1. Adell, G. (1999), Theories and models of the peri-urban interface. A changing conceptual landscape, strategic environmental planning and management for the peri-urban interface – research project, Development Planning Unit, University College, London, UK, DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351165402-2.
2. Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W. (1984). “Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis” Management Science, 30 (9), 1078-92, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.30.9.1078.
3. Barkley, D. L. (2008). “Evaluations of regional competitiveness: Making a case for case studies” The Review of Regional Studies, 38 (2), 121-43, DOI: https://doi.org/10.52324/001c.8260.
4. Chao, F.U. (2017). “The Evaluation of Rural Territorial Functions: A Case Study of Henan, China” Journal of Resources and Ecology, 8 (3), 242-50, DOI: https://doi.org/10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2017.03.004.
5. Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., Rhodes, E. (1978). “Measuring the efficiency of decision making units” European Journal of Operational Research, 2 (6), 429-44, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0377-2217(78)90138-8.
6. Converse, P. D. (1949). „New Laws of Retail Gravitation” Journal of Marketing, 14, 379-84, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1248191.
7. Cook, W. D., Seiford, L. M. (2009). “Data envelopment analysis (DEA)–Thirty years on” European Journal of Operational Research, 192 (1), 1-17, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2008.01.032.
8. Coombes, M., Wong, C. (1994). “Methodological steps in the development of multivariate indexes for urban and regional policy analysis” Environment and Planning A, 26 (8), 1297-316, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1068/a261297.
9. Duhr, S. (2007). The visual language of spatial planning – Exploring cartographic representations for spatial planning in Europe. Routledge, New York, NY, USA, DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203965818.
10. E.U. Territorial Cohesion and Urban Matters Workgroup (2010). Thematic subgroup "Urban and development sprawl". Final report. Publications Office of the EU, Luxembourg, Luxembourg, https://www.institut-destree.eu/wa_files/tcum_urban-development-sprawl_201007.pdf.
11. Faludi, A. (Ed.) (1973). A reader in planning theory. Pergamon Press, Oxford, UK, DOI: 10.1016/C2009-0-10937-6.
12. Florida, R. (2004). The rise of the creative class. And how it's transforming work, leisure and everyday life. Basic Books, New York, NY, USA, https://creativeclass.com/richard_florida/books/rise-of-the-creative-class/.
13. Friedmann, J. (1967). A general theory of polarised development. Ford Foundation, Urban and Regional Advisory Program in Chile, Santiago, Chile, https://books.google.com/books/about/A_General_Theory_of_Polarized_Developmen.html?id=BfNPAAAAMAAJ.
14. Ginevičius, R., Podvezko, V. (2009). “Evaluating the changes in economic and social development of Lithuanian counties by multiple criteria methods” Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 15 (3), 418-36, DOI: https://doi.org/10.3846/1392-8619.2009.15.418-436.
15. Goschin, Z., Constantin, D. L., Roman, M., Ileanu, B. (2008). “The current state and dynamics of regional disparities in Romania” Romanian Journal of Regional Science, 2 (2), 80-105, http://rjrs.ase.ro/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/V22/V224.Goschin.pdf.
16. Hall, P. (1988). Cities of tomorrow. Blackwell Publishers, New York, NY, USA, https://books.google.com/books/about/Cities_of_tomorrow_an_intellectual_histo.html?id=8R8wngEACAAJ.
17. Hall, P. (2000). Urban and Regional Planning. 4th edition. Routledge, London, UK.
18. Hall, P., Pain K. (Eds.) (2006). The Polycentric Metropolis Learning from Mega-City Regions in Europe. Earthscan London, UK, http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/48810/1/53.pdf.
19. Ianoş, I., Petrişor, A.-I., Stoica, I. V., Sârbu, C. N., Zamfir, D., Cercleux, A. L. (2011). „The different consuming of primary eco-energies and their degradation in territorial systems” Carpathian Journal of Earth and Environmental Sciences, 6 (2), 251-60, https://www.cjees.ro/actions/actionDownload.php?fileId=243.
20. Ianoş, I., Petrişor, A.-I., Zamfir, D., Cercleux, A. L., Stoica, I. V., Tălângă, C. (2013). “In search of a relevant index measuring territorial disparities in a transition country. Romania as a case study” Die Erde–Journal of the Geographical Society of Berlin, 144 (1), 69-81, DOI: https://doi.org/10.12854/erde-144-5.
21. James, P. (2015). Urban Sustainability in Theory and Practice: Circles of sustainability. Routledge, London, UK, DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315765747.
22. Kates, R. W. (2012). „From the Unity of Nature to Sustainability Science: Ideas and Practice” in: Sustainability Science, M. Weinstein, R. Turner, Eds., Springer, New York, NY, USA, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3188-6_1.
23. Kwiatek-Sołtys, A., Mainet, H. (2014). “Quality of life and attractiveness of small towns: a comparison of France and Poland” Quaestiones Geographicae, 33 (2), 103-13, DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/quageo-2014-0019.
24. Liu, W. B., Zhang, D. Q., Meng, W., Li, X. X., Xu, F. (2011). “A study of DEA models without explicit inputs” Omega, 39 (5), 472-80, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omega.2010.10.005.
25. Lovell, C. K., Pastor, J. T. (1999). “Radial DEA models without inputs or without outputs” European Journal of Operational Research, 118 (1), 46-51, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0377-2217(98)00338-5.
26. Manole, S. D. (2017). “Polycentricity issues of Romania’s South-East Region” Management Strategies, 34 (1), 411-419, http://www.strategiimanageriale.ro/images/images_site/categorii_articole/pdf_categorie_9e720c523a7c11fa6494ee8ccde30c97.pdf.
27. Manole, S. D., Petrişor, A.-I., Tache, A. V., Pârvu, E. (2011). “GIS assessment of development gaps among Romanian administrative units” Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, 6 (4), 5-19, https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/24873298.pdf.
28. Manole, S. D., Tache, A. V., Meiţă, V., Petrişor, A.-I. (2019). “Analysis of Romanian polycentricity based on functional urban areas identified by approximation with the Potential Urban Strategic Horizons” Mitteilungen der Osterreichischen Geographischen Gesellschaft, 161, 160-188, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1553/moegg161s161.
29. Manole, S. D., Tache, A. V., Petrişor, A.-I., Pârvu, E. (2012). “Geographical Information Systems Assessment of Development Disparities among Romanian Regions of Development” Romanian Review of Regional Studies, 8 (1), 3-16, https://rrrs.reviste.ubbcluj.ro/site/arhive/Artpdf/v8n12012/RRRS801201201.pdf.
30. Manole, S. D., Tache, A. V., Popescu, O. C. (2018). ”Evaluating the Romanian polycentricity using the functional urban areas determined on the basis of statistical indicators” Romanian Statistical Review, 66 (S2), 159-77, https://www.revistadestatistica.ro/supliment/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/RRSS_02_2018_A8_EN.pdf.
31. Musson, A. (2010). “Revue de littérature sur les indicateurs d’attractivité et de développement durable: vers un indicateur d’attractivité durable (Survey of attractiveness and sustainable development indicators. Towards an indicatorof sustainable attractiveness)” Géographie, économie, société, 12 (2), 181-223, https://shs.cairn.info/article/GES_122_0181.
32. Natário, M., Braga, A., Couto, J., Tiago, T. (2012). “Territorial standards for innovation: analysis for the regions of Portugal” Revista de Estudios Regionales, 95, 15-38, https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/755/75525394007.pdf.
33. Perroux, F. (1955). “Note sur la notion de pole de croissance?” Economie Applique, 8, 307-20, https://www.persee.fr/doc/ecoap_0013-0494_1955_num_8_1_2522.
34. Petrişor, A.-I. (2017). “A diversity-based approach to the spatial development of socio-ecological systems” Urbanism Architecture Constructions, 8 (2), 143-62, https://uac.incd.ro/Art/v8n2a04.pdf.
35. Petrişor, A.-I., Ianoş, I., Tălângă, C. (2010). “Land cover and use changes focused on the urbanization processes in Romania” Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, 9 (6), 765-71, DOI: https://doi.org/10.30638/eemj.2010.102.
36. Petrişor, A.-I., Grigorovschi, M., Meiţă, V., Simion-Melinte, C. P. (2014). “Long-term environmental changes analysis using CORINE data” Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, 13(4), 847-60, DOI: https://doi.org/10.30638/eemj.2014.089.
37. Planning - Ljubljana, Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization - Polish Academy of Sciences, Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, National Technical University of Athens, Spiekermann & Wegener - Urban and Regional Research, Austrian Institute for Regional Studies and Spatial Planning, Global Urban Development, Centre for Urban and Regional Development Studies, IRER - University of Neuchâtel, Karelian Institute - University of Joensuu, TNO Inro, Hungarian Public Nonprofit Company for Regional Development and Town Planning, Nordregio, Swedish Institute for Growth Policy Studies (2005). ESPON project 1.1.3. Enlargement of the European Union and the wider European Perspective as regards its Polycentric Spatial Structure. Final Report. ESPON Monitoring Committee, Luxembourg, Luxembourg.
38. Russo, A., Smith, I., Atkinson, R., Servillo, L. A., Madsen, B., Van den Borg, J. (2012). ESPON ATTREG, The Attractiveness of European regions and cities for residents and visitors. Scientific Report. Nordregio, Sweden, https://archive.espon.eu/programme/projects/espon-2013/applied-research/attreg-attractiveness-european-regions-and-cities.
39. Săgeată, D.-R. (2014). The Urban Systems in the Age of Globalization. Geographical studies with focus on Romania. Lamberg Academic Publishing, Saarbrucken, Germany, https://www.morebooks.shop/shop-ui/shop/product/978-3-659-59851-7.
40. Scridon, I., Ilovan, O.-R. (2016). “The Zipsers' ethnic identity in Viseu de sus/Oberwischau, Romania, in the context of inter-ethnic relationships” Mitteilungen der Osterreichischen Geographischen Gesellschaft, 157, 151-68, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1553/moegg157s151.
41. Scridon, I., Ilovan, O.-R. (2016). “Approaching the Other in the Zipser Community Identity Issues and Methodological Insights into Geographical Cross-Cultural Research” Transylvanian Review, 25(1), 55-73, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303008584_Approaching_the_Other_in_the_Zipser_Community_Identity_Issues_and_Methodological_Insights_into_Geographical_Cross-Cultural_Research.
42. Servillo, L., Atkinson, R., Russo, P. (2012). “Territorial Attractiveness in EU Urban and Spatial Policy: A critical review and future research agenda” European Urban and Regional Studies, 19 (4), 349-65, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776411430289.
43. Simmie J. (2005), Innovation and space: A critical review of the literature, Regional Studies 39(6): 789-804, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400500213671.
44. Tache, A. V., Manole, S. D., Petrişor, A.-I. (2018). “Metropolization of large urban centers in Romania: Analyses and solutions” Algerian Journal of Engineering, Architecture and Urbanism, 2 (1), 8-17.
45. Tache, A. V., Petrişor, A.-I. (2017). “GIS-based IT model for assessing territorial accessibility in Romania” International Journal of Human Settlements, 1 (2), 13-23.
46. Tache, A. V., Popescu, O. C., Manole, S. D., Petrişor, A.-I. (2018b). “Methodology for assessing the Romanian functional urban areas using GIS and LAU 2 territorial indicators” Territorial Identity and Development, 3 (1), 24-37, https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=755738.
47. Tache, A. V., Popescu, O. C., Tache, M. M. (2017). “GIS mathematic model analyzing the attractiveness of the Romanian settlements network, assessing the competitiveness factors at national level” Romanian Statistical Review, 65 (S9), 83-102, https://www.revistadestatistica.ro/supliment/2017/09/revista-romana-de-statistica-supliment-92017/.
48. Tache, A. V., Tache, M. M. (2016). “A methodology for the evaluation of functional urban areas in Romania” Romanian Journal of Geography, 60 (1), 73-83, http://www.rjgeo.ro/issues/revue%20roumaine%2060_1/tache,%20tache.pdf.
49. Tache, A., Manole, S. D., Tache, M. M., Petrişor, A.-I. (2016). “Analysis of the polycentricity of Romanian county residences” Urbanism Architecture Constructions, 7 (4), 301-20, https://uac.incd.ro/Art/v7n4a03.pdf.
50. Voineagu, V. (Ed.) (2007). 2007 Romanian Statistical Yearbook. National Institute of Statistics, Bucharest, Romania.
51. Wang, Y. M., Chin, K. S., Poon, G. K. K. (2008). “A data envelopment analysis method with assurance region for weight generation in the analytic hierarchy process” Decision Support Systems, 45(4), 913-21, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2008.03.002.
52. Warleigh, A. (2002). “The Committee of the Regions” in: Understanding European Union Institutions, Warleigh A., Ed., Routledge, London, pp. 177-90, DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203470909.
53. Yang, G., Shen, W., Zhang, D., Liu, W. (2014). “Extended utility and DEA models without explicit input” Journal of the Operational Research Society, 65 (8), 1212-20, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2013.68.

Text integral/Full text