Assessing Geo-demographic Dysfunctionalities within the Urban-rural Interface. Case Study: The Cities of Botosani County

Author: , and
Key words: , , ,
Issue: Volume 5, Issue 2, 2011
Full text .pdf | doi: 10.5719/hgeo.2011.52.79

Author Affiliations

Daniela Zamfir, Cristian Tălângă*, Ilinca Valentina Stoica
University of Bucharest, The Interdisciplinary Centre for Advanced Researches on Territorial Dynamics (CICADIT), Bucharest, Romania
*Corresponding author: Email:


The main objective of this study does not focus on analyzing exhaustively the urban – rural relations, but it is trying to emphasize both a theoretical interpretation and the applicability of the concept of rural-urban interface by pointing out the ways of determining the dysfunctionalities in the evolution and population structure of an administratively defined area. In order to point out these dysfunctionalities, analyses were performed at Botoşani county level, considering all the geodemographic indicators regarding the population dynamics, natural and migratory balance, and population structure. The study is based on data provided by population censuses and the statistical records of the basic territorial administrative units (communes and towns), for the period 1990‐2008. Out of these indicators only those significant for the characterization of the human potential of the urban-rural interface and for an assessment of the polarization capacity of the seven cities in the county were selected: the size of the territorial administrative unit in 2008, the population dynamics during 1990 and 2008, and the human potential standardized index. The results showed differences between the complexes(interfaces) urban-rural from the western part of the county (Botoșani, Dorohoi and Bucecea) and the Eastern one (Darabani, Săveni, Ștefănești and Flămânzi), which should promote the concept of treating the two areas (urban and rural) as a whole through the implementation of programs / projects of cooperation between local governments and various internal and external partners, the main objective being diminishing the differences (not only the demographic ones) between the two parts of the county.


Allen, A 2003, ‘Environmental planning and management of the peri-urban interface: perspectives on an emerging field’, Environment&Urbanization, 15.1, pp. 135-147.
Consiliul Judeţean Botoşani, 2008, ‘Strategia de dezvoltare economico-socială a judeţului Botoşani’, 2008-2013’, (Botoşani County Development Strategy, 2008-2013), Botoşani.
Consiliul Judeţean Botoşani, 2010, ‘Studiu de fundamentare. Evoluţia populaţiei, Actualizarea Planului de Amenajare a judeţului Botoşani’ (The evolution of population. Update of Botoşani County Territorial Physical Plan),, Botoşani.
European Commison 2008, The Green Paper on Territorial Cohesion, viewed on May 2011,
Goodal, B 1987, Dictionary of Human Geography, Penguin Books, London.
Institutul Naţional de Statistică 2009, Anuarul statistic al judeţului Botoşani (Statistical Yearbook of Botoşani County), 2009, Direcţia judeţeană de statistică Botoşani.
Institutul Naţional de Statistică 2009, Fişele statistice al comunelor şi oraşelor pe perioada 2000-2008, (Statistical records of communes and cities during 2000-2008), Bucureşti.
Institutul Naţional de Statistică, Recensămintele populaţiei şi locuinţelor din 1992 şi 2002 (Census of population and dwellings, 1992 and 2002), Bucureşti.
Pascariu, G 2010, ‘Evolution of the urban system of Botoşani County’, Journal of Urban and Regional Analysis, II, 1, pp.39-60.
Rauws, W, Roo, de G & Timmermands, W 2009, ‘Peri-urban transition processes’, Plurel newsletter. 5, pp. 1-3.
Stoica, IV, Tălângă, C & Zamfir D 2010, ‘Urban-rural interface: general remarks. Application in the Romanian system of settlements’, Analele Universităţii din Oradea – Seria Geografie, pp.238-245.

This post has already been read 1659 times!