Public Facilities Assessment Methodology


  • Ana Opris University of Architecture and Urbanism Ion Mincu Bucharest, Romania
  • Andreea Necsulescu (Popa) University of Architecture and Urbanism Ion Mincu Bucharest, Romania



public amenities, public facilities, urban policies, masterplan, development


The paper presents the results of several substantiation studies concerning public facilities assessment for various Romanian municipalities, made in order to substantiate urban development plans. The study outlines main methodological steps for public amenities assessment emphasizing the importance of the territorial context, socio-economical context, as well the necessity of development of a compulsory legal frame at national level. The studies conducted by the authors tried to develop specific methodologies designated to assess public facilities provision at city level in order to propose their enhancement if case. The study compares different public facilities assessment conclusions for several cities in Romania and outlines that the average offer and need (public request) is generated by different elements (built and natural), not only the perceived urban barriers but also the unseen elements (as perceived neighbor hoods, sense of belonging of different urban areas). Also, one of the conclusions of this survey is that public amenities (green areas, education facilities, leisure, cultural health and transportation facilities) are one of the main features of urban structure that has to be addressed when planning development at urban or zone level. This focus on public amenities approach can substantiate development decisions at urban level, despite that it is the most disregarded element due to urban development pressures, especially within the new urban development areas. Assessment of public facilities provision at urban level should be subject of the urban development plans in terms of sustainable urban development.

Author Biographies

Ana Opris, University of Architecture and Urbanism Ion Mincu Bucharest, Romania

Assistant Professor. Department of Urban Design and Landscape Planning, University of Architecture and Urbanism Ion Mincu Bucharest, Romania


Andreea Necsulescu (Popa), University of Architecture and Urbanism Ion Mincu Bucharest, Romania

Associate Professor, Department of Urban Design and Landscape Planning, University of Architecture and Urbanism Ion Mincu Bucharest, Romania



Alexandru, M., & Machedon, F. (2015). Plan urbanistic general municipiul Ploiesti [Urban Masterplan of Ploiesti city]. Center for Research, Design, Building Evaluation and Consulting - “Ion Mincu” University of Architecture and Urban Planning, Bucharest.

American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). (1986). Urban planning guide, American society of civil engineers. American Society of Civil Engineers.

Berliant, M., Peng, S., & Wang, P. (2006). Welfare analysis of the number and locations of local public facilities. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 36, 207-226.

Chang, H. S., & Liao, C. H. (2011). Exploring an integrated method for measuring the relative spatial equity in public facilities in the context of urban parks. Cities, 28(5), 361–371.

Cox, K. R. (1973). Conflict, power and politics in the city: A geographic view. McGraw-Hill.

Gar-On, A., & Hong Chow, Y. M. (1996). An integrated GIS and location-allocation approach to public facilities planning - An example of open space planning. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 20(4–5), 339-350.

Government of Romania. (1996). Hotărârea de Guvern nr. 525 din 27 iunie 1996 pentru aprobarea Regulamentului general de urbanism [Government Decision No. 525 of June 27, 1996 for the approval of the General Masterplan Regulation]. Monitorul Oficial al României, 149, 1996, July 16.

Hodge, D. C. (1988). Fiscal equity in urban mass transit systems: A geographic analysis. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 78, 288 – 306.

Humphreys, B. R., & Zhou, L. (2015). Sports facilities, agglomeration, and public subsidies. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 54, 60-73.


Ianasi, L. (2010). Zece observatii privind interesul public si planificarea urbana [Ten Observations on pulic interest and urban planning]. Urbanismul, 4, 13-15.

Jia, P., Xierali, I. M., & Wang, F. (2015). Evaluating and re-demarcating the hospital service areas in Florida. Applied Geography, 60, 248–253.


Keeble, L. (1969). Principles and practice of town and country planning, The Estates Gazette Limited.

Kirby A., Knox P., & Pinch S. (Eds.). (1984). Public service provision and urban development. Taylor & Francis.

Lucy, W. (1981). Equity and planning for local services. Journal of the American Planning Association, 47, 447-457.

Luo, W., & Wang, F. (2003). Measures of spatial accessibility to health care in a GIS environment: Synthesis and a case study in the Chicago region. Environment and Planning B Urban Analitics and City Science, 30, 865–884.


Machedon, F. (2006). Metode de analiză morfologică a ţesuturilor urbane [Methods for morphological analys of urban patterns]. Editura Universitară" Ion Mincu".

Ministry for Municipality and Environment. (2017). Qatar National Master Plan. Community Facility Standards and Provision Guidelines. http://www.


Necşulescu, A., Machedon, F., & Opris, A. (2020). Plan Urbanistic General Municipiul Vaslui [Urban masterplan of Vaslui city]. Center for Research, Design, Building Evaluation and Consulting - “Ion Mincu” University of Architecture and Urban Planning, Bucharest.

Pacione, M. (1989). Access to urban services - The case of secondary schools in Glasgow. Scottish Geographical Magazine, 105, 12 -18.


Petrişor, A. (2006). Dezvoltarea durabilă a oraşelor: noi concepte europene [Sustainable development of cities: New European concepts]. Amenajarea Teritoriului si Urbanismul, 3-4, 8-10.


Rahaman, K. R., & Salauddin, R., (2009). A spatial analysis on the provision of urban public services and their deficiencies: a study of some selected blocks in Khulna city, Bangladesh. Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, 4(1S), 120-132.


Romanian Parliament. (2001). Legea nr. 350/2001 privind amenajarea teritoriului și urbanismul [Law no. 350/2001 on spatial planning and urbanism]. Monitorul Oficial al Romaniei, 373, 2001, July 10.

Romanian Register of Urban Planners. (2014). Recomandări rezultate în urma analizării unor bune practici pentru dimensionarea dotărilor necesare în echiparea teritoriului urban [Recommendations based on the analysis f best practices in planning of the public amenities necessary for urban territory fitting]. file:///C:/Users/RADUPA~1/AppData/Local/Temp/ghid%20


Song, Z., Chen, W., Zhang, G., & Zhang, L. (2010). Spatial accessibility to public service facilities and its measurement approaches. Progress in Geography, 29(10), 1217–1224.

Stan, A. (2013). Morphological patterns of urban sprawl territories. Urbanism. Architecture. Constructions, 4(4), 11-24.


Taleai, M., Sliuzas, R., & Flacke, J. (2014). An integrated framework to evaluate the equity of urban public facilities using spatial multi-criteria analysis. Cities, 40, 56–69.

Talen, E., & Anselin, L. (1998). Assessing spatial equity: an evaluation of measures of accessibility to public playgrounds. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 30(4), 595-613.

Tsou K. W., Hung Y. T., & Chang Y. L. (2005). An accessibility-based integrated measure of relative spatial equity in urban public facilities. Cities, 22(6), 424-435.

Wang, F., & Wei, L. (2005). Assessing spatial and nonspatial factors for healthcare access: Towards an integrated approach to defining health professional shortage areas. Health and Place, 11(2), 131–146.


Zahariade, A. M. (2011). Arhitectura in proiectul comunist. Romania 1944-1989 [Architecture in the Communist Project. Romania 1944-1989]. Simetria.




How to Cite

Opris, A. ., & Necsulescu (Popa), A. (2020). Public Facilities Assessment Methodology. Postmodern Openings, 11(4), 64-78.



Research Articles