Somaiyeh Nasrollahzadeh (p), Turgay Kerem Koramaz

Urban areas are undoubtedly influenced by the development of their neighboring areas, which always depends on the socio-economic context of the neighborhoods, the scale and type of projects being developed. Apart from the positive changes that such developments can have on the range, there are also negative effects that vary depending on the host environment. One of the negative results is eviction of vulnerable households that are socially and economically weaker than other households and their maintenance is not economically and socially justified. Such a kind of mobility is defined as forced mobility which force a group of households to leave neighborhood. Holding the globalized city brand, Istanbul endeavors to develop service sector in marketing, banking and finance, engineering etc. Nevertheless, economic motions flowing towards Istanbul are welcomed always. Istanbul has been the focus of large-scale projects in recent years like the new airport, the third Bosporus Bridge, new connection roads, the canal Istanbul and Marmaray motorway, which has been discussed in terms of their effects on the development processes of neighboring areas. Aim of this paper is to analyze socio-economic characteristics of households in order to explore the segregation status of residential areas from one side, and land value fluctuations throughout the case study from another side, to distinguish critical areas where residents are likely to be expelled referring to the Three large-scale projects. Having placed close to large-scale projects from one side and holding enclosed low-income residences of informal settlements (Gece Kondu), and prosperous parts of society (gated communities) from another side make Göktürk neighborhood a suitable case to examine the large projects’ impacts on its development pattern. The present discussion seeks to identify residential areas of Göktürk neighborhood where are at risk of expelling and evacuating households based on vulnerability factors.
'see extended abstract'

Izabella Szakálné Kanó (p), Imre Lengyel

In our study, we analyse the economic growth of NUTS3 regions of the four Visegrád countries that joined the European Union in 2004, the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary and Slovakia, between 2000 and 2016. Based on chain linked GDP per capita data on NUTS3 level regions, we aim to investigate the convergence paths of these regions and the influencing factors of these.
In more detail, our examination is as follows: First, we apply log t test proposed by Phillips and Sul (2007) on data between 2000 and 2016 in order to gain convergence clubs of NUTS3 regions of Visegrad countries. Afterwards, we analyse the role of economic structure (based on GVA data) in an ordered logit panel model, to answer the following questions:
1. What characteristics can describe the different convergence clubs identified by the log t test procedure?
2. What kind of convergence paths do the different clubs follow?
3. Which of the groups of economic activity sections tend to boost performance of NUTS3 regions?
According to our preliminary results, there are five convergence clubs that can be described as follows: Club 1: Metropolitan regions with service sectors; Club 2: Industrialized regions with second-tier service cities; Club 3: Industrialized regions with smaller cities; Club 4: Peripheral industrialized regions; Club 5: rural counties. The regions with higher weight in Financial and insurance activities; real estate activities (K, L) and Construction (F), had better performance, while higher weights in basic service activities, like sections M-U and in Agriculture hindered economic growth.

Reference:
Peter C.B. Phillips & Donggyu Sul, 2007. "Transition Modeling and Econometric Convergence Tests," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1595, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.

Giulia Fini (p)

The contribution lies in the intertwining of two areas of study of the territory and urban planning: on the one hand the research on “peri-urban spaces”, on the other the reflections on “specialized peripheral settlements” of activities, often indicated in literature in various ways such as functional poles, specialized clusters, citadels. It is possible to observe how peri-urban areas have often been investigated focusing on the open space, and permanence of natural and rural elements, tackling instead in a less systematic way the presence of important specialized activities (with an economic role and catalyst for intangible flows, goods, people): logistics and infrastructural spaces, entertainment and large commercial activities, up to campuses and tertiary services.

The contribution aims to focus on specialized peri-urban areas and “functional poles” (as these are specifically named in this specific context), observing how they were conceived by the planning tools of the Bologna Province and Metropolitan City.
In the first part (I), the aim is to highlight the principles of cluster’s planning and design within wider strategies, but also to reflect on the results of planning tools and their current conditions. In the second part (II), the contribution enters into the details of some specific agreements (“Accordi di Programma”), recently redefined by the Bologna Metropolitan City, as the result of consultations between local authorities, public entities and private operators. The territory under investigation is the northern part of the metropolitan area of Bologna: an urban-rural area that opens up to the agricultural areas of the Padana Valley but that is also characterized by the presence of important specialized settlements.

The contribution is inspired by a collaboration developed with the Metropolitan City of Bologna for the definition of new guidelines for the agreements of the metropolitan functional poles. In that experience, they tried to introduce new themes for their definition. In addition to more traditional elements (public accessibility, charges and endowments), there were new challenges related to habitability, regeneration and spatial and functional articulation, through actions such as encouraging forms of sustainable mobility, journeys and connections with the territory, qualification of open spaces, environmental comfort etc.
Downstream of the definition of the new agreements, the paper wants to observe if it was possible for the Administration to introduce these new themes and in what form they are present, both at a strategic and planning level and as elements of consultation with private subjects.

Daniela-Lumita Constantin (p), Cristina Serbanica

According to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, making cities and human settlements „inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable” (UN, 2015, p.26) represents one of the major goals, pointing out the close relationship between resilience and sustainability, which work together for the well-being of a system. City/urban resilience contributes to this paradigm „the capacity of individuals, communities, institutions, businesses, and systems within a city to survive, adapt, and grow no matter what kinds of chronic stresses and acute shocks they experience” (100 Resilient Cities, 2019, p.1). It is already considered an increasingly relevant topic for international development and urban studies, becoming a “framework for thinking” and a background for planning, development and management of “any plausible shock or stress” (UN Habitat, 2017, p.6). The resilient city concept is relating to other concepts like ‘sustainable city’, ‘smart city’, ‘eco city’, ‘liveable city’, etc. and systematic explorations of these connections and their significance for urban development policy and practice are still required. This paper aims to examine the smart city - resilient city nexus, seeking answers to the following questions: How do ’resilient cities’ relate to ’smart cities’? How can ’smart solution’ address ’resilience challenges’? What are the synergies and trade-offs between smart and resilient cities? Based on a starting point that acknowledges the diversity of urban resilience challenges, the role played by the contextual factors and the emphasis on innovation and smart solutions when it comes to solutions to resilience challenges, the paper proposes a three-step research methodology, using the database of the 100 Resilient Cities (100RC), as follows: first, the most frequent resilience challenges are identified and a taxonomy is created by means of hierarchical cluster analysis; second, the smart solutions proposed within the framework of the “Urban Resilience Strategies” for 74 cities participating in the 100RC are pointed out using the content analysis with ‘smart’ and ‘digital’ as search queries; third, the ‘smart solutions’ are connected to ‘resilience challenges’. The results have made it feasible to integrate the city resilience framework with the smart city framework, highlighting the synergies between the two concepts. At the same time, the trade-offs are discussed, emphasizing additional resilience challenges that can be brought in by smart cities and the fact that smart technologies can improve outcomes before, during, and after shocks and stressors occur but “smart cities solutions are not a panacea for all urban sustainability and resilience issues” (Hurley, 2019).