Learning Challenges And Benefits During The International Workshop On Urban Regeneration

Abstract

We analysed university students’ opinions about their gained educational and personal benefits and challenges faced during an international and interdisciplinary workshop on urban regeneration, organised with the collaboration of Babeș-Bolyai University, in Cluj-Napoca, Romania, in the period 31^st May-2^nd June 2018. The M.Sc. and Ph.D. students taking part at this workshop were from Romania, Estonia and Italy. Besides these students, participants were researchers, practitioners, activists, public authorities’ representatives, senior planning officials, community leaders, academics, private stakeholders interested in city development, policy makers, investors/entrepreneurs, urban planners, etc. from Romania, Italy, Russia, Estonia, and Poland. Their fields of study were also different: Geography, Sociology, Architecture, and Urban Planning. To find out the learning challenges and benefits these students experienced during the workshop, we collected data by administering a questionnaire. We questioned them about their motivation to participate at the workshop, their interest level in urban regeneration, the sources of their knowledge about urban regeneration processes, their satisfaction degree about participating at the workshop, the challenges they had to cope with during the proceedings, the participation benefits for their professional and personal development, etc. We assessed their learning experience and suggested ways to improve it.

Keywords: University students; learning; interdisciplinarity; transculturalityterritorial development

Introduction

In the educational sphere, the Romanian post-socialist context required curricular changes in the field of Geography, both in the pre-university system (Jucu, 2012; Ilovan et al., 2018) and in the university one (Dulamă & Ilovan, 2016; Jucu, 2014). However, this focus on improving geographical education was not singular, the entire Romanian educational system requiring amendments, from very diverse perspectives: competence-based curriculum (Andronache, Bocoș, & Neculau 2015; Peculea, Andronache, & Bocoș, 2017), learning styles and development of professional skills (Catalano & Chiș, 2016; Chiș & Grec, 2017), didactic communication (Cuc, 2013b, 2014), assessment (Stan & Manea, 2015), cultural diversity (Cuc, 2013a), educational management (Manea, 2014; Precup & Chiș, 2017), etc.

On urban regeneration/redevelopment, there is a vast amount of published papers and books. There is a general reference to urban regeneration in the specialised literature as the large-scale process of adapting the built environment to the rigours of the state (Jones and Evans, 2008, p. 2). Jones and Evans (2008) focus on the emergence of urban regeneration as a policy domain, urban economic regeneration, issues of sustainability, of design and cultural elements of regeneration. Other authors review the concept of cultural quarter and of making a typology (Montgomery, 2003, 2004). In Romania, redevelopment is discussed related to territorial identity (Ilovan, Jordan, & Havadi-Nagy, & Zametter 2016a; Ilovan, Scridon, Havadi-Nagy, & Huciu 2016b; Nicula, Stoica, & Ilovan 2017; Scridon & Ilovan, 2016), to resilience (Bănică & Muntele, 2015, 2017; Bănică, Istrate, & Muntele, 2017), to social economy (Drăgan & Popa, 2017), to spatial restructuring (Jucu, 2016) or to industrial restructuring (Voiculescu & Jucu, 2016).

In international scientific literature, urban regeneration was discussed also from the necessity of having qualified professionals that aim at improving our cities in a sustainable and creative manner (Stangel & Twardoch, 2016). Therefore, field trips proved to be essential for stimulating university students’/citizen’s “involvement, critical thinking and sensitivity to place” (Stangel & Twardoch, 2016, p. 58). In this context, a series of educational experiments were realised recently, involving university students into urban regeneration projects (Buzasi & Csete, 2017; Caneparo & Bonavero, 2016; Fumo, Violano, & Castelluccio, 2017; Higueras, Gonzalez, & Lamiqiuiz, 2016; Sassano, Graziadei, Amato, & Murgante, 2017; Stangel & Witeczek, 2015; Stangel & Twardoch, 2016), with a strong emphasis on participants’ interdisciplinary cooperation for urban identity recovery, while answering the needs of the local community (i.e. empowering it and involving it in urban planning choices).

Such an educational experiment, apart from its strong research aim, was the international three-day urban regeneration workshop that we organised in Cluj-Napoca, Romania, in the period 31^st May-2^nd June 2018, where the participants were exposed to four different case studies with obvious social and economic benefits of urban renewal. According to its Call for papers, this workshop aimed at:

“exploring the challenges and issues of urban regeneration in shrinking cities world-wide (setting the scene for the following debate on post-socialist cities); sharing critical views and research results (theoretical and empirical) of current issues on urban regeneration in post-socialist cities, theoretical discussions and developments among researchers coming from different countries and scientific background, who demonstrate a critical engagement with urban regeneration policies; creating a network among participants with common research and urban development interests and, thus, enabling the submission of research projects with national and EU funding; facilitating know-how and experience transmission to public administration; connecting the academic ideas to the practitioners’ area in a joint experience of collaboration; engaging the associations and practitioners involved in sustainable urban projects, that have innovative ideas and want to share their experience (chances and challenges) and methods, and to come with ideas and support for their colleagues; bringing in public institutions, sharing and exchanging experiences, because the public administration (first of all the local government) has strategic relevance for development at diverse territorial levels (local, regional, national) and it is crucial for the sustainability of regeneration initiatives, based on culture, new welfare services, economic activities, and ways of providing housing for low-income and vulnerable families and so on; covering a range of issues on “urban mainstreaming”, such as: urban design, territorial and environmental development, community participation, local/strategic planning, smart cities, urban renewal and resilient cities, urban gardening, community action in the regeneration process, urban development, and management strategies.” (Ilovan & Havadi, 2018).

The proposed topics of interest in the context of post-socialist cities were the following: “urban regeneration and community development; urban regeneration processes and regional development; research methodology for the study of urban regeneration; social inclusion and cultural innovation; sustainable urban regeneration through multicultural heritage; (re)inventing urban (re)generation: building the present by (re)constructing the past; urban renewal and resilience: a comparative perspective; fragmented cities: governance and urban renewal; urban regeneration as displacement; innovative approaches to urban regeneration in the EU; urban regeneration and territorial planning; urban regeneration and public policy. Type of public to engage : researchers, practitioners, activists, public authorities, senior planning officials, community leaders, academics, university students, private stakeholders interested in city development, policy makers, investors/entrepreneurs, urban planners, professional organisations, cultural associations, political party representatives, etc.” (Ilovan & Havadi, 2018).

This international workshop was supported by WeRise (Urban Regeneration Collective), Italy, U-RISE (Urban Regeneration and Social Innovation Master), IUAV University of Venice, Italy, and by Territorial Identity and Development Journal (Ilovan & Havadi, 2018).

Besides scientific paper presentations during the diverse workshop sections, it included field trips to four locations representative for the diversity of urban regeneration initiatives in Cluj-Napoca. The first was Liberty Technology Park: a private, investment intensive, economic initiative for the regeneration of a former industrial derelict space, which turned a brown-field into a modern, ecologically friendly office area used by different stakeholders, and with various services offered to them by the management). La Terenuri [At the Playgrounds] – Mănăștur is an initiative developed and led by the local community, in a residential area: a group of activists and residents use a green area and adjacent rather derelict sport area for community activities. They try to raise awareness, to involve the population in activities and decision-making applying the principles of participative bottom-up approaches. H33 is a grass-root initiative of industrial reconversion of a former distillery into a space for cultural and other activities, and the Paintbrush Factory is a contemporary artists’ regeneration initiative for a former derelict industrial space through cultural activities.

Problem Statement

The problem was the little knowledge about the impact of scientific workshops on M.Sc. and Ph.D. students’ educational and personal development (i.e. Urban Regeneration Workshops).

Research Questions

What are the university students’ opinions and impressions about their educational and personal benefits and challenges participating at scientific workshops? What are the results of assessing their experience?

Purpose of the Study

The aim was assessing students’ learning experience and finding solutions for improving it. Secondly, it was gaining insight from the participants for a more effective organisation of future workshops.

Research Methods

Research took place during and after the international workshop on Urban Regeneration, in May and June 2018. Details about data collecting and processing, participants, and research material are presented below.

Findings

Findings are based on the analysis of students’ feedback (i.e. their answers to the online questionnaire). The foreign participants attended all the events (presentations and field trips) during the Urban Regeneration Workshop or participated at least at 80% of this scientific event. Romanian participants’ level of participation was lower, ranging from 40 to 80%, whereby it is important to mention that most of them volunteered in the event organisation and could not attend the entire manifestation due to organisational duties.

Over 85% of the respondents had a high satisfaction level with the event, being very content (57%) or content (28%). 14% of the respondents noticed some pleasing aspects, but, at the same time, considered that some organisational issues needed improvement.

Regarding their decisive reasons for attending this event, the respondents named the possibility to meet and interact with specialists in different fields (78%), followed by the possibility to learn new ideas (64%) as a very important motive for attending the workshop. The chance to present their own ideas to others seemed to be less important, for 14% even not important at all. The internationality of the event, the chance to learn about urban regeneration chances and challenges from different regions and countries were also quite important (35%) or very important (57%) for most of the respondents.

The three-day full workshop programme, with presentations and field trips, seems to be differently challenging for the participants (Table 1 ), where 35% considered it challenging and 7% as not challenging at all. We also must consider, that not all the respondents had a 100% participation level. In this context, 42% of the respondents had difficulties in understanding the differences between the cultural backgrounds that make for different urban regeneration in different countries, explained probably by a lack of socio-cultural background information about the case study countries. Most of the participants had certain difficulties to understand what the specialists were trying to communicate, problem which could be rather connected to the presenter’s skills, his or her elocution, or to the quality of the PowerPoint presentation. Presentations in English were not challenging for the respondents, meaning that at this study level (Ph.D. and M.Sc.) the students were proficient English users. This could be also explained by a larger experience in attending international conferences.

Students were also asked to grade the most rewarding aspects during the workshop. The general chance to learn was rewarding (56%) and very rewarding (21%) for a large share of the respondents. Over 90% of the respondents considered meeting people and establishing connections for the future as rewarding and very rewarding as well. This was complemented by the aspect of learning about possible further cooperation possibilities and scientific conferences on the topic , appreciated by 70% of the respondents as rewarding. The fun factor was also important, so it would be appropriate to apply the principles of edutainment when planning and conducting such events. Practising English and speaking in public was also considered a positive side effect of participating at this kind of events.

They also wrote concerning the aspects about urban regeneration that were most interesting for them. The most interesting topics for the respondents in connection with urban regeneration were the cultural activities (85%) and the temporary uses (92%) as regeneration potentials. The topic of urban regeneration processes initiated by private investors is less popular than the bottom-up practices or the top-down policies.

The respondents also named the fieldtrips, which illustrated their focus of interest: social innovation or collective work for H33, reconversion of industrial areas for the Liberty Park, or bottom-up initiatives related to La Terenuri [At the Playgrounds] – Mănăștur and to the Paintbrush Factory. Important to point out might be one student’s affirmation that: Field trips say sometimes more than presentations about these things , affirmation which illustrates the importance of field trips for scientific events. The respondents named either all the four field trip destinations, or one of them reasoning their choice. Three respondents did not answer this question.

The field trips illustrated effectively the topic of the event, gave opportunity to discuss with local people involved in urban regeneration initiatives and pointed out the differences between various approaches. Further on, the visits enabled interesting debates about the peculiarities and limitations/difficulties of urban regeneration processes. Students also had the opportunity to experience similarities and differences of urban regeneration initiatives compared to those from their home country.

Answering the question about which presentation they enjoyed the most , the respondents named various presentations, and argued with their field of interest, the innovative methodology applied by the presenter, the practicability of the addressed topic, clarity and message that had been delivered, while the presenter’s elocution was also a possible answer. Not only the addressed topic, but also the authors’ presentation skills contributed to the success of a paper.

About how much they were directly involved in urban regeneration projects, these students answered that they studied urban regeneration for the Ph.D. thesis (1), worked in urban regeneration projects led by municipalities (3), worked in urban regeneration projects led by NGOs (4), not directly involved at all (5 Romanian students), did internship (1), and participated in a workshop (1). Most of the Romanian respondents are not actively involved in urban regeneration projects. This could be explained by the fact that their focus of study was only partly related to urban regeneration, but could express also a shortcoming of the educational system. The respondents whose study focused on urban regeneration were more involved in this kind of projects, either initiated by municipalities or by NGOs. This could also reflect their field of interest related to urban regeneration.

About the sources of their knowledge on urban regeneration processes, students gave several variants: focus of their studies (50%), scientific literature/research (64%), conferences (64%), workshops (1 student), project participation (50%), internships (1 student). Being M.Sc. and Ph.D. students, the respondents used various and usually multiple sources to gain information about urban regeneration processes. Scientific literature and research is a common source of knowledge for students, being confirmed also by the respondents. For most of the Italian and Estonian respondents, urban regeneration was the focus of their studies. This was true only for two of the Romanian participants. About half of the respondents had also applied experience in urban regeneration, either by participating in urban regeneration projects or attending internships in this field.

Dependent on the level of involvement in urban regeneration projects (complemented by the focus of their study), there were noticeable differences between students concerning the source of knowledge about urban regeneration processes: those who were directly involved in urban regeneration initiatives, indicated project participation as main source of their knowledge in the field. The others gained information mainly through literature research and conferences.

The input, which the participants gained during the workshop can have various and multiple further uses. Writing about their intention to use/apply the gathered input , students chose cooperation in projects with the workshop attendees (64%), cooperation in publications with the attendees (42%), maintaining the relationship with the representatives of the visited urban regeneration initiatives (57%), applying the input into ongoing projects (50%), and attending further conferences (50%). The answers reflected the usefulness of this kind of events to the professional and personal development of the participant young academics, and, at the same time, their desire to follow up or get involved in practice in urban regeneration projects.

Conclusion

The proposed activities, involving the members of the academic community going on field trips and interacting with the local community, promoted a series of highly valuable results for the educational process: education centred on forming active citizens, for the benefit of the society; cognitive transfer and outreach, characteristic for learning and teaching in a Humboldtian university; initiating collaboration among participants and between them and representatives of the local social and economic environment, thus strengthening knowledge transfer and this relationship. The Humboldtian model is completed by the entrepreneurial one, enabling involvement in solving societal problems. These results are to be included under didactic excellence enabling the academic community’ sustainability and civic empowerment.

Solutions for improving students’ learning experience during such a scientific event include the following: a student-centred educational process, students’ more frequent active involvement in such activities, students’ direct involvement in urban regeneration actions, and raising students’ awareness about the opportunities to get involved at the beginning of their Bachelor’s studies.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the students’ contribution of participating in our survey. We would also like to gratefully acknowledge our hosts' significant contribution to the success of the four field trips: the representatives of Liberty Technology Park, La Terenuri - Mănăștur, H33 and of The Paintbrush Factory. We thank them very much indeed for warmly welcoming us, for their time and effort. H33 also hosted in their precinct one of our afternoon sessions and we thank them for finding the time for us in their busy schedule. The research for this article was supported by a STAR-UBB Institute Fellowship (The Institute of Advanced Studies in Science and Technology, belonging to Babeș-Bolyai University of Cluj-Napoca, Romania) won by Associate professor Oana-Ramona Ilovan, Ph.D., during the 2018-2019 academic year (for the October-November 2018 period): Excelență didactică pentru sustenabilitatea comunității academice și responsabilizare civică [Didactic excellence for a sustainable academic community and its civic empowerment] (Ilovan, 2018).

References

1. Andronache, D., Bocoș, M. & Neculau, B.C. (2015). A systemic-interactionist model to design a competency-based curriculum. 6th International Conference Edu World 2014: Education Facing Contemporary World Issues, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 180, 715-721.
2. Bănică, Al. & Muntele, I. (2015). Urban vulnerability and resilience in post-communist Romania (Comparative case studies of Iași and Bacău cities and metropolitan areas). Carpathian Journal of Earth and Environmental Sciences, 10(4), 159-171.
3. Bănică, Al. & Muntele, I. (2017). Urban transitions and resilience of Eastern European Union cities. Eastern Journal of European Studies, 8(2), 45-69.
4. Bănică, Al., Istrate, M. & Muntele, I. (2017). Challenges for the resilience capacity of Romanian shrinking cities. Sustainability, 9(12), Article Number 2289.
5. Buzasi, A. & Csete, M.S. (2017). Ex-ante assessment of urban development projects. European Journal of Sustainable Development, 6(4)SI, 267-278.
6. Caneparo, L. & Bonavero, F. (2016). Neighborhood regeneration at the grassroots participation: Incubators’ co-creative process and system. ARCHNET-IJAR International Journal of Architectural Research, 10(2), 204-218.
7. Catalano, C. & Chiș, O. (2016). Comparative study between students’ teaching practice activities in Hungary and Romania. 4th ERD Conference, European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences, 18, 74-78.
8. Chiș, O. & Grec, C. (2017). Valuing student’s learning styles in the development of professional skills. 4th ERD Conference, 81-85.DOI:
9. Cuc, M.C. (2013a). Educational strategies to promote cultural diversity. Lumen 3rd International Conference on Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty (LUMEN) - Current Paradigms in Social Sciences, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 92, 220-224.
10. Cuc, M.C. (2013b). Ways to streamline didactic communication. Lumen 3rd International Conference on Logos Universality Mentality Education Novelty (LUMEN) - Current Paradigms in Social Sciences, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 92, 225-230.
11. Cuc, M.C. (2014). Development of a communication system for capitalizing cultural diversity. 3rd Cyprus International Conference on Educational Research (CY-ICER), Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 143, 63-67.
12. Drăgan, Al. & Popa, N. (2017). Social economy in post-communist Romania: What kind of volunteering for what type of NGOs? Journal of Balkan and Near Eastern Studies, 19(3), 330-350.
13. Dulamă, M.E. & Ilovan, O.-R. (2016). How powerful is feedforward in university education? A case study in Romanian geography education on increasing learning efficiency. Educational Sciences-Theory & Practice, 16(3), 827-848.
14. Fumo, M., Violano, A. & Castelluccio, R. (2017). Experimental design on field: teaching methodology and educational experience. 11th International Conference on Technology, Education and Development (INTED), INTED Proceedings, 2765-2775.
15. Higueras, E., Gonzalez, I. & Lamiqiuiz, F. (2016). Learning for parallel virtual urban workshop: An innovate method for teaching planning. World Multidisciplinary Civil Engineering-Architecture-Urban Planning Symposium (WMCAUS), Procedia Engineering, 161, 1806-1812.
16. Ilovan, O.-R. & Havadi-Nagy, K. X. (2018). International Workshop on Urban Regeneration. Recycling Urban Voids in Post-Socialist Cities – Methods and Actions to Achieve Urban Regeneration. (2018, June 27). Retrieved from http://territorial-identity.ro/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/UR_2018-programme-.pdf
17. Ilovan, O.-R. (2018). Excelență didactică pentru sustenabilitatea comunității academice și responsabilizare civică [Didactic excellence for the sustainability of the academic community and civic awareness]. (2018, June 27). Retrieved from http://territorial-identity.ro/urban_regeneration/
18. Ilovan, O.-R., Dulamă, M.E., Botan, C.N., Havadi-Nagy, K. X., Horváth, C., Nițoaia, A., Nicula, S. & Rus, G.M. (2018). Environmental education and education for sustainable development in Romania. Teachers’ perceptions and recommendations. Journal of Environmental Protection and Ecology, 19(1), 350-356.
19. Ilovan, O.-R., Jordan, P., Havadi-Nagy, K.X. & Zametter, T. (2016a). Identity matters for development: Austrian and Romanian experiences. Transylvanian Review, 25(Supplement 1), 261-276.
20. Ilovan, O.-R., Scridon, I., Havadi-Nagy, K.X. & Huciu, D. (2016b). Tracing the Military Frontier District of Năsăud. Territorial identity and regional development. Mitteilungen Der Osterreichischen Geographischen Gesellschaft, 158, 215-244.
21. Jones, P. & Evans, J. (2008). Urban regeneration in the UK. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
22. Jucu, I.S. (2012). Rethinking geography in Romanian schools: curricular changes in geography learning in post-socialist Romania. 4th World Conference on Educational Sciences (WCES-2012), Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 5440-5448.
23. Jucu, I.S. (2014). The role of Regional Geography in the Romanian students’ training, as future specialists in tourism. 4th World Conference on Learning, Teaching and Educational Leadership (WCLTA-2013), Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 141, 551-555.
24. Jucu, I.S. (2016). Recent issues of spatial restructuring in Romanian medium-sized towns: Spatial conversion and local urban regeneration. Ecology, Economics, Education and Legislation Conference Proceedings, SGEM 2016, vol. III, International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference-SGEM, 493-500.
25. Manea, A.D. (2014). Promoting interculturalism at the level of management in educational establishments. 2nd International Conference on Globalization, Intercultural Dialogue and National Identity, Globalization and Intercultural Dialogue: Multidisciplinary Perspectives - Economy and Management, 508-512.
26. Montgomery, J. (2003). Cultural quarters as mechanisms for urban regeneration. Part 1: conceptualising cultural quarters. Planning, Practice & Research, 18(4), 293-306.
27. Montgomery, J. (2004). Cultural quarters as mechanisms for urban regeneration. Part 2: a review of four cultural quarters in the UK, Ireland and Australia. Planning, Practice & Research, 19(1), 3-31.
28. Nicula, Al.-S., Stoica, M.S. & Ilovan, O.-R. (2017). The cultural-historical and political spheres of influence of Alba Iulia. Transylvanian Review, XXVI, Supplement 2, 299-315.
29. Peculea, L., Andronache, D. & Bocoș, M. (2017). Independent learning and reflective thinking of the future teachers. 7th International Edu World Conference (Edu World), European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences, 23, 798-806.
30. Precup, A. & Chiș, O. (2017). Educational marketing – academic action and identity. 5th ERD Conference, European Proceedings of Social and Behavioural Sciences, XLI, 685-691.
31. Sassano, G., Graziadei, A., Amato, F. & Murgante, B. (2017). Involving citizens in the reuse and regeneration of urban peripheral spaces. Local Government and Urban Governance in Europe, Urban Book Series, 193-206.
32. 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.
33. Stan, C. & Manea, A.D. (2015). The divergent relationship between assessment and self-assessment in higher education. Experimental results. 3rd ERD Conference, Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 209, 497-502.
34. Stangel, M. & Twardoch, A. (2016). Students and the city. Real-live urban analysis and evaluation in urban design education. 8th Architecture in Perspective Conference, 58-60.
35. Stangel, M. & Witeczek, A. (2015). Design thinking and role-playing in education on brownfields regeneration. Experiences from Polish-Czech cooperation. Architecture Civil Engineering Environment, 8(4), 19-28.
36. Voiculescu, S. & Jucu, I.S. (2016). Producing urban industrial derelict places: The case of the Solventul petrochemical plant in Timișoara. European Urban and Regional Studies, 23(4), 765-781.