This chapter explores how Nord-Vest can modernise land-use and spatial planning to better respond to demographic change, including urban growth in key cities and rural population shrinkage elsewhere. It highlights inefficiencies in land-use, fragmented planning, and housing market imbalances in Nord-Vest. The chapter outlines policy actions in four areas: modernising planning tools to reflect population trends, promoting compact urban growth, expanding affordable housing in dynamic areas, and improving land management in shrinking communities.
Preparing for Demographic Change in Nord‑Vest, Romania
Abstract
Demographic change necessitates a strategic reassessment of land-use and spatial planning in Nord‑Vest, for both urban and rural areas. Dynamic urban centres like Cluj-Napoca and Oradea are expanding due to economic growth which is increasing demand for housing, while many rural and remote areas continue to face population decline. Between 2000 and 2020, the urban population increased by 0.10%, while the rural population decreased by 4.65% (National Institute for Statistics, n.d.[1]). These contrasting trajectories are placing growing pressure on land-use and infrastructure. In spite of population decline, land consumption is increasing, even in areas where populations are shrinking.
Nord-Vest faces two distinct challenges relating to land-use and spatial planning. The first challenge is to support thriving urban areas to keep youth in the region by reducing housing pressure and improving planning coordination. Urban development in Nord-Vest is expanding rapidly around dynamic cities like Cluj-Napoca and Oradea, driven by strong economic growth and rising demand for housing. This has led to fast suburbanisation, rising housing prices, and stretched infrastructure in adjacent communes such as Florești. The shortage of affordable housing and weak coordination among municipalities hampers the provision of public services and sustainable urban growth. Moreover, spatial and urban planning frameworks are fragmented, outdated, and overly complex, limiting their ability to respond to demographic changes and densify urban development. Second, rural areas face population decline, land fragmentation, and underutilised housing stock. While residential development has also increased in rural areas, it is often dispersed and poorly integrated with infrastructure networks. Many dwellings remain vacant, particularly in counties like Sălaj and Maramureș, due to outmigration, inheritance complexities, and the prevalence of secondary homes. The high ownership rate limits housing mobility and market efficiency. Planning in rural areas is constrained by limited financial and technical capacity, and the lack of a complete land registry system hinders redevelopment and adaptation.
At the same time, these challenges offer a window of opportunity. Through smarter spatial and urban planning, the region can promote more efficient land-use, improve access to affordable housing in growth areas, and better manage the transition in shrinking communities. However, to seize this opportunity, Nord‑Vest must address the complexity, fragmentation, and outdated nature of its current planning framework, which currently limits its ability to respond effectively to emerging demographic realities.
This chapter examines how land-use patterns and spatial planning frameworks in the Nord-Vest region can adapt to demographic change. It begins by identifying key spatial development trends, such as suburbanisation, rural land fragmentation and housing market disparities. It then evaluates the efficiency of the current planning system and the implications for housing and land-use. The chapter concludes with policy recommendations to strengthen spatial governance, enhance housing access, and promote more coherent and adaptive land-use strategies.
The Nord-Vest region presents a diverse land cover structure that reflects its predominantly rural character. The region is largely dominated by forested and agricultural landscapes (Figure 3.1). Agricultural lands characterised by lowlands and rolling hills are widespread, especially in counties such as Bihor and Cluj County. Most of these are classified as non-irrigated arable land, with areas of permanent crops and pastures. Extensive agricultural activity underscores the region’s character as a predominantly rural territory. In addition, broad-leaved, coniferous, and mixed forests cover significant portions of the territory, particularly in the Apuseni Mountains and in Maramureș County. These forested zones play a crucial role in preserving biodiversity and supporting activities such as sustainable tourism and recreation.
Land cover in Romania (2018)
Source: European Union (2020[2]), “CORINE Land Cover 2018 (vector), Europe, 6-yearly”. Copernicus Land Monitoring Service information, https://doi.org/10.2909/71c95a07-e296-44fc-b22b-415f42acfdf0.
Centralised planning in the communist era has contributed to a low proportion of built-up areas in Nord‑Vest. Built‑up areas cover 1.9% of the region’s total land area (639.92 km²), which is below the European NUTS2 average of 2.67%. Built-up areas in the region are primarily concentrated in the county seats (capitals) of Cluj-Napoca, Oradea, Bistrita, Satu Mare, Baia Mare and Zalau (Figure 3.2). Current settlement patterns need to be viewed in the context of the legacy of the communist era when spatial planning was used as a “tool” to model the society by the central authority. During the communist era (1947-1989), spatial planning was highly centralised and aligned with the principles of a planned economy, prioritising urbanisation through standardised apartment blocks and balanced development across regions (Box 3.1). The fall of communism in 1989 marked a shift toward decentralised and market-driven spatial planning.
Under the “rural systematisation” law, issued in 1974, the government aimed to homogenise human settlements and reduce the number of villages from 13 129 to 10 000 by 2000. The reasons for its implementation were ideological, including prioritising the socialist agriculture and the insistence on developing a structured built environment (Turnock, 1991[3]).
A key policy was the so-called "built-up perimeter," which aimed to restrain the growth of rural and urban settlements, by limiting expansion and even reducing settlement sizes, particularly in rural areas where communities were traditionally spread along valleys and roads (Pascariu Gabriel, 2012[4]). The policy also introduced the concept of "regrouping" inhabitants, leading to the gradual disappearance of some localities and the relocation of residents to fewer, strategically placed and better-equipped villages.
The law ultimately failed due to economic and infrastructural constraints, as well as lack of long-term viability and was abolished in December 1989. Forced relocation into state-imposed housing led to the loss of individual freedom. Many Romanians suffered, displaced from traditional homes and deprived of rights, resulting in lasting social consequences, such as weakened community spirit, disconnection from tradition and a breakdown in shared values (Carjan, Idiceanu-Mathe and Banescu, 2017[5]).
Build-up areas per municipalities, 2020
Source: Pesaresi M., Politis P. (2023[6])“GHS-BUILT-S R2023A - GHS built-up surface grid, derived from Sentinel2 composite and Landsat, multitemporal (1975-2030)”, European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), https://doi.org/10.2905/9F06F36F-4B11-47EC-ABB0-4F8B7B1D72EA; OECD (2021[7]), OECD.Stat (database), https://stats.oecd.org/ (accessed on 14 April 2025).
Economic growth has coincided with increased land consumption in Nord-Vest
Despite population decline, land consumption has increased at a rapid rate as the region has experienced strong economic development and rising incomes. Built-up area increased by 7.5% between 2010 and 2020, significantly outpacing the 4.5% average growth observed across large regions (NUTS2) in the EU. Built-up area per capita has grown even more rapidly, with the region recording an 8.9% increase, one of the highest growth rates in the EU (Figure 3.3). Conversely, built-up area per unit of GDP decreased by 27.61% between 2015 and 2020, indicating GDP growth has outpaced the increase in built-up area.
Built-up area per capita (2020) and built-up area per capita growth rate (2015-2020) among European NUTS3 regions
Source: Pesaresi M., Politis P. (2023[6])“GHS-BUILT-S R2023A - GHS built-up surface grid, derived from Sentinel2 composite and Landsat, multitemporal (1975-2030)”, European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), https://doi.org/10.2905/9F06F36F-4B11-47EC-ABB0-4F8B7B1D72EA; OECD (2021[7]), OECD.Stat (database), https://stats.oecd.org/ (accessed on 14 April 2025).
Within the region, built-up areas expansion has been concentrated in the suburban areas surrounding county seats and within their functional urban areas (Figure 3.4). This trend has been driven by economic growth and the increasing attractiveness of these cities. The most pronounced suburban growth has occurred around Cluj-Napoca and Oradea, two of the most dynamic urban centres in the region. In the Cluj-Napoca area, neighbouring communes such as Florești, Apahida, and Baciu have experienced rapid demographic and spatial growth as households and businesses have moved beyond the city’s administrative boundaries. Between 2000 and 2019, the built-up area of Cluj-Napoca municipality nearly doubled, rising from approximately 11% to 20% of its total surface area (Dolean et al., 2020[8]). A similar pattern is observed around Oradea, where industrial areas and residential developments have expanded into surrounding rural areas, particularly along major transport routes. Although suburban development has occurred in a fragmented manner, the urban expansion in Cluj-Napoca and Oradea remains relatively compact when compared to the pace of population growth (Romania Urban Policy Washington, 2020[9]).
Built-up area change, 2010-2020 (sqm)
Source: Pesaresi M., Politis P. (2023[6])“GHS-BUILT-S R2023A - GHS built-up surface grid, derived from Sentinel2 composite and Landsat, multitemporal (1975-2030)”, European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), https://doi.org/10.2905/9F06F36F-4B11-47EC-ABB0-4F8B7B1D72EA; OECD (2021[7]), OECD.Stat (database), https://stats.oecd.org/ (accessed on 14 April 2025).
Growth has also been recorded in certain remote areas, particularly in the central and northern parts of the region due to residential and industrial development (Figure 3.4). While residential areas continue to account for the majority of total built-up land, non-residential development in rural areas is expanding at a faster pace. This trend underscores an increasing focus on the expansion of industrial and commercial infrastructure in less urbanised areas of the region. The localities of Sărmășag in Salaj County and Sighetu Marmației in Maramureș County serve as pertinent examples (Box 3.2).
Sărmășag
Sărmășag, located in the Salaj County, has undertaken notable steps towards industrial development. Although it does not yet host a large-scale industrial park comparable to those found in more urbanised settings, the commune has garnered interest due to its investments in energy infrastructure and the emergence of localised industrial activities. The availability of land and its strategic location near regional road networks position Sărmășag as a viable candidate for future industrial expansion.
Sighetu Marmației
Sighetu Marmației, situated in Maramureș County near the Ukrainian border, presents a case of a locality with a longer-standing industrial tradition. Historically known for its wood processing and furniture manufacturing sectors, the town’s industrial landscape has diversified over time. It now accommodates a range of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), operating in fields such as metalworking, construction materials and light manufacturing. While the town does not currently feature a formalised industrial park, it benefits from an established industrial base, a skilled workforce and logistical advantages, including access to both domestic and cross-border markets.
Source: Energynomics (2024[10]), Enery inaugurated the photovoltaic park in Sărmășag (Sălaj), with an installed capacity of 51.4 MW and battery storage, https://www.energynomics.ro/en/enery-inaugurated-the-photovoltaic-park-in-sarmasag-salaj-with-an-installed-capacity-of-51-4-mw-and-battery-storage (accessed on 10 April 2025).; Renewable Market Watch (2024[11]), Enery Launched in Commercial Operation the Sarmasag PV Power Plant in Romania with 51.4 MWp Capacity and 22 MWh battery energy storage system (BESS), https://renewablemarketwatch.com/news-analysis/574-enery-launched-in-commercial-operation-the-sarmasag-pv-power-plant-in-romania-with-51-4-mwp-capacity-and-22-mwh-battery-energy-storage-system-bess?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed on 10 April 2025).; Dun and Bradstreet (n.d.[12]), Architectural and Structural Metals Manufacturing Companies in Sighetu Marmatiei, Maramures, Romania, https://www.dnb.com/business-directory/company-information.architectural_and_structural_metals_manufacturing.ro.maramures.sighetu_marmatiei.html (accessed on 10 April 2025).
Built-up areas with decomposition between residential and non-residential 2020, growth rate 2010-2020
Note: The variable “Metropolitan cities” groups core cities (with county seat) and first ring cities (with county seat). The variable “Core cities” groups core cities with county seats and core cities without county seats.
Source: Pesaresi M., Politis P. (2023[6]). “GHS-BUILT-S R2023A - GHS built-up surface grid, derived from Sentinel2 composite and Landsat, multitemporal (1975-2030)”, European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), https://doi.org/10.2905/9F06F36F-4B11-47EC-ABB0-4F8B7B1D72EA; OECD (2021[7]), OECD.Stat (database), https://stats.oecd.org/ (accessed on 14 April 2025).
The density of development in Nord-Vest is relatively low
The Nord-Vest region is experiencing low-density development, a pattern that has contributed to accelerated land consumption. This trend reflects a continued expansion of the built environment, accompanied by a lack of corresponding increase in vertical construction. As of 2020, the average building height in Nord-Vest stood at 3.7 meters, one of the lowest across Europe, and has declined by 2.6% since 2010. Density levels remain highest in the core cities, as anticipated, yet have shown a consistent decline since 2011 (Figure 3.6). In contrast, surrounding metropolitan areas have recorded moderate increases in density. This shift indicates a suburban expansion that, while exhibiting elements of fragmentation, continues to follow a relatively compact development pattern.
Population density per km2 (2021) and growth rate (2011-21)
Note: The variable “Metropolitan cities” groups core cities (with county seat) and first ring cities (with county seat). The variable “Core cities” groups core cities with county seats and core cities without county seats. Mean population density is computed as a mean of population density values within each category according to said specification.
Source: Pesaresi M., Politis P. (2023[6]). “GHS-BUILT-S R2023A - GHS built-up surface grid, derived from Sentinel2 composite and Landsat, multitemporal (1975-2030)”, European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), https://doi.org/10.2905/9F06F36F-4B11-47EC-ABB0-4F8B7B1D72EA; OECD (2021[7]), OECD.Stat (database), https://stats.oecd.org/ (accessed on 14 April 2025).
Despite ongoing depopulation, both the dwelling stock and house prices have continued to rise since 2018. These increases reflect persistent mismatches in a fragmented housing market, particularly between urban and rural areas.
Average housing prices have increased gradually
In Nord-Vest, property prices have gradually risen over the past decade. In nominal terms, property prices grew by 50 percent between 2013 and 2022. When adjusted for inflation, the picture is clearer, with a real growth rate of 3.6 percent over the same period. More specifically, housing prices peaked in 2015 and slowly declined for the next three years (Figure 3.7). Since 2018, there has been a consistent and growth trend, continuing until 2022. These numbers mask a heterogeneous reality within the region, as is discussed further below.
Property prices and annual growth rate adjusted for inflation, 2013-2022
Note: The graph portrays real prices, calculated by adjusting nominal prices for inflation using the House Price Index (CPI), with nominal year 2015.
Source: North-West Regional Development Agency, Eurostat (prc_hpi_a__custom_15734656)
The housing sector in Romania is characterised by a high ownership rate and negligible private rental sector. In 2023, the ownership rate in Romania reached 95.6%, one of the highest among EU countries (Figure 3.8). This trend stems largely from the post-communist mass privatisation of housing in the 1990s when the share of privately owned housing stock grew from 67.35% in 1990 to 79.2% in 2002 (Alpopi, Iacoboaea and Andrei, 2014[13]). During this period, many Romanians were able to acquire properties below the market price (Pittini, 2011[14]). Additionally, the increasing prices can be related to the observed decline in the interest rate on mortgages between 2010 and 2020 and the consequent growth of residential loans to households of 151% between 2010 and 2020 (European Construction Sector Observatory, 2022[15]).
Property ownership rate, 2023
Source: Eurostat, Distribution of population by tenure status, type of household and income group (ilc_lvho02)
Rising demand for urban housing is driving urban expansion
The economic dynamism of urban areas, most notably in Cluj-Napoca and Oradea, has increased their attractiveness, intensifying demand for real estate and driving up housing prices. Cluj-Napoca has experienced the most significant growth in house prices in the country since the 2008-2009 economic crisis. According to the Real Estate Transactions Guide, the total value of real estate transactions in Cluj-‑Napoca reached EUR 679 million in 2019, more than double the EUR 284 million recorded in 2014 (Bândea et al., 2020[16])(Bândea et al., 2020[8]).
The shortage of affordable housing in urban cores has pushed many residents toward suburban areas, contributing to significant suburban expansion. The rising housing costs could lead to socio‑economic issues, particularly by limiting access to housing for the most vulnerable populations. A substantial number of low-income urban families have been displaced from the social rented sector, leaving them with no choice but to seek housing in the private rental market or in more remote areas outside urban centres (Habitat for Humanity, n.d.[17]).
In Nord-Vest region, the share of new dwellings in total dwellings has increased from 0.52% to 0.75% between 2007 and 2020 (Chițea, 2022[18]). Following the demand, the most significant increase in dwelling stocks between 2010 and 2020 can be observed in FUAs of Cluj-Napoca, Bistrița, Oradea, Satu Mare and Baia Mare (Figure 3.9). New housing is being built mainly in urban areas (INSSE, 2022), where the development of new stock is predominantly vertical.
Growth rate of the dwelling stock in Nord-Vest, 2010-20
Source: National Institute of Statistics, TEMPO: LOC101B, Dwellings stock at the end of the year by type of ownership, counties and localities. FUA: Functional Urban Areas.
Underused dwellings are highly prevalent in rural areas
The demographic shift coupled with an increasing housing stock has led to vacant or underused properties in rural areas. In rural areas, the dwelling stock has been growing with a predilection for horizontal development. While there is no comprehensive data on dwelling vacancy region-wise, the data from individual counties demonstrate, that the issue is particularly prevalent in Sălaj and Maramureș. For instance, in Sălaj County, the vacancy rate rose from 15% in 2008 to 18% in 2018 and is expected to exceed 20% by 2030, even under the most optimistic scenario (Consiliul Județean Sălaj, 2023[19]). The presence of underused dwellings has a negative impact on the built environment, infrastructure and supply networks, affecting the quality of life and living standards.
Persistence of vacant or underused dwellings, particularly in rural and peri-urban areas, is further enhanced by the high rate of home ownership. A significant share of vacant housing in Romania is owned by individuals with multiple properties, including secondary homes (World Bank, 2021[20]), or potentially inherited parental houses, or investment properties (Consiliul Judeţean Maramureş, 2009[21]) that remain unoccupied. Some rural areas can serve as weekend retreats for city residents. A clear example of the significant presence of this phenomenon can be seen in the mountainous areas of Cluj County, where despite the declining population the number of owners of secondary residences, and recreational houses has been increasing (World Bank, 2020[22]). Since these dwellings remain unoccupied during the majority of the year, the vacancy rate in some of the Cluj County exceeds 50% (World Bank, 2021[20]). The share of vacant properties is also a result of international migrants purchasing housing to invest their repatriated capital and where they are planning to move back in the future (Chițea, 2022[18]). The trend is particularly true in counties with a high share in international immigration, such as in Maramures as reflected in the strategic objectives of PATJ Maramures (Consiliul Judeţean Maramureş, 2009[21]).
The quality of housing stock is low
Romania is facing poor-quality housing in declining rural areas and in less well-off urban neighbourhoods (Permanent Mission of Romania to the UNON, n.d.[23]). In Romania in 2020, 21.2% of the population lacked a toilet, shower and bath, well above the EU average (1.5% of the population). Urban areas are better endowed with utilities with 96.3% of dwellings having a bathroom or shower in 2020, compared to 56.7% in rural areas. However, the rural areas have seen significant progress in the area with a growth rate of 177.9% since 2007 (Chițea, 2022[18]).
Nord-Vest has one of the largest living areas per inhabitant compared to other Romanian regions. Between 2007 and 2020, the living area per inhabitant has increased in all regions, indicating rising quality of housing (Figure 3.10). The living area per inhabitant is slightly lower in rural areas, as urban areas have a larger share of new dwellings, indicating their better quality (Chițea, 2022[18]).
Nord-Vest has the fourth highest living area per inhabitant value among all Romanian regions
Note: The growth rate was calculated as absolute growth rate between 2007 and 2020.
Source: NIS online (2022), as cited in Chițea, L. (2022[18]),“Housing conditions in the Romanian rural household in the 21st century”, Rodino, Steliana Dragomir, Vili (Ed.): Agrarian Economy and Rural Development - Trends and Challenges. International Symposium, pp. 299-306, https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/301738/1/ICEADR-2022-p299.pdf (accessed on 3 April 2025).
Housing quality in Romania is closely linked to the aging housing stock. According to Eurostat, 70.3% of dwellings in Romania were built before 1980, compared to 66.4% across the EU. The quality of newly built homes is significantly higher. Data from 2010 to 2018 show that 99.66% of newly constructed houses in Romania are connected to electricity, 87.27% have access to running water, 72.85% are connected to a sewerage network and 96.08% are equipped with central heating. However, 17.97% of these homes still rely on solid fuel stoves for heating. Notably, there is a significant disparity between urban and rural areas, with urban homes being generally better equipped than rural regions (Lăzărescu and Diacon, 2020[24])
Roma communities, who experience disproportionately high rates of poverty, often live in substandard housing conditions with limited or no access to basic infrastructure. As of 2021, two out of three Roma were living in inadequate housing, many in overcrowded spaces or in homes without access to running water. The absence of formal land titles further compounds their housing insecurity. Without legal recognition of property ownership, connecting homes to essential utilities, particularly in remote areas, becomes significantly more difficult (OECD, 2024[25]).
In the context of the ongoing demographic change in Nord-Vest, marked by depopulation in remote areas and continued urban development, effective urban and spatial planning that meets future population needs will be essential to promote sustainable land-use and housing development. It will also be essential to support the retention of youth, in particular by ensuring the attractiveness of cities such as Cluj-Napoca and Oradea. Effective spatial and urban planning can also support the development of regional and local service centres to efficiently concentrate public services, infrastructure and job opportunities.
Romania has a complex and fragmented spatial and urban planning system
Adapting land-use to demographic change depends on having an effective spatial and urban planning system. Romania’s spatial planning and urban development are governed by the law on spatial planning and urban planning (Law No. 350/2001), originally enacted in 2001. The law establishes a hierarchical, multi-level planning framework designed to ensure coherence and coordination across national, regional, county and local levels. This system integrates spatial development strategies, sectoral policies and urban regulations to promote territorial cohesion and sustainable growth. At the national level, the Ministry of Development, Public Works and Administration holds primary responsibility for overseeing the spatial and urban planning system.
Romania’s accession to the European Union in 2007 marked a significant turning point in the evolution of the spatial planning system (Munteanu and Servillo, 2014[26]). EU membership prompted institutional and policy reforms aimed at aligning national planning approaches with European principles and frameworks. A key development in this context was the development of the National Spatial Development Strategy (Strategia de Dezvoltare Teritorială a României – SDTR) by the Romanian Government in 2016. The SDTR provides a long-term strategic framework for territorial development, extending to 2035. It aims to promote balanced, sustainable and integrated development across the country’s diverse territories while strengthening alignment with the EU’s Territorial Agenda and Cohesion Policy objectives.
A complex spatial planning and urban planning system
The legislative and institutional framework governing spatial and urban planning is complex and multi‑layered. The law on spatial and urban planning (Law No. 350/2001) provides a clear distinction between spatial planning, which establishes the strategic vision for territorial development, and urban planning, which ensures the practical implementation of that vision at the local level (Evers et al., 2020[27]; Benedek, 2013[28]). Spatial planning is structured across several territorial levels, including the national level through the National Land Use Plan (Planul de Amenajare a Teritoriului Național, PATN), the regional level via the Regional Spatial Planning Plan (Planul de Amenajare a Teritoriului Zonal Regional, PATZR), the county level through the County Land Use Plan (Planul de Amenajare a Teritoriului Județean, PATJ), and, where relevant, the metropolitan and peri-urban levels through the Metropolitan Area Land Use Plan (Planul de Amenajare a Teritoriului Zonal Metropolitan, PATZM) and Peri-urban Area Land Use Plan (Planul de Amenajare a Teritoriului Zonal Periurban, PATZP) respectively. The national strategic plan primarily serves as a guiding framework, comprising various plans with a sectoral focus, often addressing specific domains such as critical infrastructure, environmental protection and natural risk management. At the local level, urban planning is governed by three main instruments: the General Urban Plan (Plan Urbanistic General – PUG), the Zonal Urban Plan (Plan Urbanistic Zonal – PUZ), and the Detailed Urban Plan (Plan Urbanistic de Detaliu – PUD). In addition, SIDU (Strategii Integrate de Dezvoltare Urbană) are developed in parallel at the local level to guide strategic investments and complement regulatory urban planning tools. These instruments are operational in nature and serve to implement the overarching goals of spatial planning at the municipal level.
At the national level, the process for approving PATN is lengthy
The PATN guides regional and local planning. The PATN is composed of six sectoral plans, such as transport, natural resources and heritage conservation, each of them developed with coordination by the Ministry for Development, Public Works and Administration. Each PATN section is adopted as law by the Romanian Parliament (Benedek, 2013[28]). The adoption or amendment of the PATN is therefore a long administrative and political process. While this system ensures stability and protection of the spatial plan, it can also result in rigidity and delayed responsiveness. The latest update of the PATN has been launched for public consultation but has not yet been formally approved by the government or parliament. The legislation does not specify the frequency with which the PATN has to be updated, unlike spatial plans on lower levels.
At the regional level, the PATZR is underused
The PATZR provides strategic guidelines for territorial transformation and spatial planning across administrative units within or across counties. Although they are listed as mandatory in the spatial and urban planning law, in practice these documents have served more of a guiding or consultative role, largely due to the lack of clarity regarding which institution is responsible for their implementation (Ionescu-Heroiu et al., 2013[29]). In the Nord-Vest region, the last plan was developed in 2003. The plan focuses on expanding transport networks, revitalising declining areas, improving public services, and fostering regional cooperation (Pompei Cocean, 2004[30]).
At the county level, the PATJs are heterogeneous
PATJs govern planning across localities within a single county. County councils are tasked with drafting and implementing these plans, which guide land-use, infrastructure, building regulations and environmental management. The PATJs aim to balance top-down national strategies with bottom-up local priorities, promoting regional cohesion and sustainable development. By law, these plans must be updated every ten years, though the process can take two to three years, and sometimes five years. While the mandatory updates allow for addressing recent challenges, such as demographic shifts, and for modernising the plans through new technologies like geospatial data, the complex and lengthy approval process places a significant burden on the county councils.
Within Nord-Vest, County Spatial Plans (PATJs) exhibit significant variation in scope and level of detail, largely reflecting disparities in financial, administrative and technical capacities across the six counties. More urbanised and better-resourced counties, such as Cluj, benefit from stronger financial, administrative and technical capabilities, which enable the development of more comprehensive planning documents. Cluj County’s PATJ is informed by an extensive study conducted by the World Bank and comprises multiple supporting analytical documents (Grupul Banca Mondială în România, 2020[31]; Apostol, 2022[32]). In contrast, counties such as Sălaj and Bihor have more limited spatial plans, each consisting of a single document of approximately 300 and 450 pages, respectively (Sălaj, 2023[33]; Apostol, 2022[32]). Furthermore, accessibility and digitalisation of these documents remain inconsistent. In some cases, such as Satu Mare and Bistrița-Năsăud, the PATJs are not publicly available or lack digital formats (Consiliul Judeţean Bistriţa-Năsăud, 2022[34]; Consiliul Judeţean Satu Mare, 2024[35]). For Maramureș, only an outdated version of the PATJ from 2009 is publicly accessible (Pompei Cocean, 2009[36]).
The six PATJs acknowledge the current demographic situation and several include demographic data. However, population statistics are primarily used to analyse existing trends rather than to actively guide future planning decisions. All PATJs emphasise strategies for retaining and attracting population. While such approaches may foster economic growth in key urban areas, excessive competition among counties can be counterproductive, as in the short term, population attraction is often a zero-sum game at the regional level. In this context, the PATZR could serve as a coordinating framework to identify regional centres and prioritise areas that require repurposing or adaptation to population decline.
At the local level, the process of updating PUG and SIDU is complex
At the local level, urban planning in Romania is structured around three main instruments: the PUG, the PUZ, and the PUD. These instruments collectively shape land development and spatial organisation, with the PUG being the only legally mandatory plan. The PUG establishes the overarching framework for land-use at the level of a town or commune. It regulates functional zoning, transportation networks, infrastructure provision and the protection of historical monuments, and it sets limits on the maximum built-up area. The PUZ applies to specific zones within the urban territory and must align with the provisions of the PUG, but it can change some regulations of the PUG for the zone covered (e.g. change to built area).. The PUD, which covers the smallest territorial units, provides further detail and refinement of the regulations outlined in both the PUG and PUZ.
In addition, localities could develop Integrated Urban Development Strategies (SIDU), strategic planning documents mandated under EU regional funding frameworks. These strategies are developed by local authorities, particularly county-seat municipalities (for which SIDU are mandatory), to coordinate and prioritise urban investment projects in a coherent and forward-looking manner. To ensure consistency and quality, local authorities should follow the official guidance outlined in the Ghid pentru elaborarea Strategiilor Integrate de Dezvoltare Urbană (SIDU), developed by the Ministry of Development, Public Works and Administration in collaboration with the World Bank (MDPWA, 2020[37]). Through the implementation of the National Urban Policy, SIDUs define concrete actions tailored to the specific needs of both declining and growing cities. While SIDU serve a strategic function and cover a broad range of urban development priorities, they must align with the spatial and regulatory framework set out in the PUG. For instance, projects related to urban regeneration or housing development included in a SIDU must be feasible and permissible within the zoning and land-use designations defined by the PUG. In the Nord-Vest region, all six county-seat municipalities, Cluj-Napoca, Oradea, Baia Mare, Satu Mare, Bistrița, and Zalău, have developed SIDU for their respective functional metropolitan areas.
In practice, the urban planning process is subject to strong pressure from landowners, particularly in major cities and rapidly growing suburban areas such as in Cluj-Napoca and Oradea, who seek to expand the permissible built-up area. In most cases, these pressures result in the adaptation of the PUG to accommodate the evolving dynamics of land ownership and urban development. As a result, although the planning framework is legally binding, it often operates in a discretionary manner, with decisions influenced by context-specific factors and individual development behaviours. This reflects a broader tendency toward the continuous adjustment of planning instruments in response to changing local realities (Benedek, 2013[28]).
The process of updating a PUG in Romania is complex and time-intensive, involving several sequential stages, including the preparation of a summary of the existing plan, diagnostic analyses, supporting technical studies, and the acquisition of necessary permits and approvals (Advisory Services Agreement on the Constanța Urban Development Program, 2019[38]; Ungureanu and Șoimoșan, 2023[39]). Rural localities frequently lack the financial, technical, and administrative capacity required to undertake such detailed and resource-intensive planning processes. As a result, many PUGs remain outdated and are often misaligned with higher-level spatial planning instruments such as the PATJ and the PATN (Ionescu-Heroiu et al., 2013[29]). Furthermore, the procedural complexity of updating PUGs hinders the timely integration of emerging challenges, such as demographic change, into local urban planning frameworks.
The urban and spatial planning system is fragmented
Coordination mechanisms between actors involved in spatial and urban planning are either weak or lacking altogether. The fragmented institutional arrangement is characterised by limited vertical communication and inconsistent coordination across levels of government. The limited vertical communication contributes to inconsistencies in terminology across planning documents and levels complicate the regulatory environment (Nowak et al., 2022[40]). As highlighted in the previous section, multiple institutions are involved in Romania’s spatial and urban planning system, including central ministries, regional development agencies, county councils and local authorities. For example, the elaboration and oversight of PATJs fall under the authority of county councils, while PUGs and SIDUs are managed by local authorities. In practice, many PUGs, SIDUs and PATJs are developed independently and follow uncoordinated timelines, leading to frequent misalignments between local, county and national objectives. When PUGs are outdated or lack integration, local development initiatives may diverge from broader spatial strategies, thereby undermining the efficiency, coherence and long-term sustainability of the planning process.
Fragmented institutional arrangements are also indicated by limited horizontal coordination on spatial planning. The increasing attractiveness of Cluj-Napoca and Oradea has led to their expansion beyond core urban areas. However, this growth, particularly Cluj-Napoca and Oradea, has often occurred without adequate coordination of core cities with their neighboring localities, resulting in unplanned development and poor transport connections to the core (Horeczki et al., 2023[41]). This lack of strategic oversight reduces accessibility to public services and increases congestion. One of the most striking examples is Florești, a locality adjacent to Cluj-Napoca, which has experienced rapid and under-regulated suburban expansion that has created significant congestion of public infrastructure. This case underscores the necessity of establishing a comprehensive spatial planning framework at the metropolitan level to ensure balanced and sustainable growth (Box 3.3).
Floresti is a peri-urban suburb of Cluj-Napoca. Although closely integrated with the economic life of Cluj-Napoca, located just 4 kilometres away, Florești remains administratively an independent commune still categorised as rural. Florești accounted for the largest share of local GDP among the localities in the Cluj Metropolitan Area (excluding Cluj-Napoca) in 2018. Between 1990 and 2012 the population of Floresti has quadrupled, making it larger than 3 of the 6 designated urban areas in Cluj County. During the 2008 real estate boom, Florești saw the highest increase in housing units among all localities in Romania, surpassing even București.
Urban planning has struggled to keep pace with the population growth in terms of coherent urbanisation, resulting in deficiencies in urban mobility and quality of life. Urban planning failed to anticipate higher demand for amenities, leading to a lack of essential facilities, including educational centres, sport centres, commerce, services and green areas. Many Floresti residents commute from their homes in the commune to the city, as most of them are former city dwellers who have relocated. The infrastructure connecting the two Cluj-Napoca and Floresti remains insufficient. The road between Floresti and Cluj‑Napoca has the highest concentration of road accidents in the country.
Source: World Bank, (2013[42]). , Competitive cities: Reshaping the Economic Geography of Romania, https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/pt/664361468093270286/pdf/Full-report.pdf (accessed on 25 February 2025).;
World Bank, Local Council Cluj- Napoca (2021[43]), “Integrated Urban Development Strategy for the Municipality of Cluj-Napoca and its Metropolitan Area” https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099848210282223121/pdf/P1723840e027c30360a8be0c93fd4db9e69.pdf (accessed on 25 February 2025).
Recent reforms have introduced shared administration of metropolitan areas, enabling local governments to pool resources and share expertise. In 2022, legislation (Law No. 246/2022) was implemented to strengthen the governance of metropolitan areas, stipulating a 5% budget allocation from income tax revenues to support the development of metropolitan areas with integrated urban plans. However, implementation has been postponed. Without adequate financial support, metropolitan governance remains weak, hindering efforts to establish integrated, strategic and sustainable urban growth. Metropolitan areas like Cluj and Oradea have taken steps toward regional cooperation, receiving Special Metropolitan Area status. However, without a proper budget and alignment of incentives, collaboration remains limited, with public transport being the primary area of effective joint governance. Chapter 4 will explore key aspects of metropolitan governance.
Although the legal framework in Romania explicitly mandates that spatial planning should serve as a coordinating tool for sectoral policies, in practice, spatial plans are frequently developed in isolation. A notable example is the limited integration between spatial and mobility policies, despite their significant interdependence, particularly in shaping urban expansion and regional connectivity (Cadar, Boitor and Dragomir, 2024[44]). This disconnection is especially evident in Cluj-Napoca, where the PUG is not aligned with the city’s Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan (SUMP). The SUMP, which aims to modernise transport infrastructure and promote environmentally sustainable mobility solutions, has significant spatial implications and should be closely coordinated with spatial and urban plans.
Land fragmentation and unresolved property rights pose further challenges for efficient spatial planning
Ensuring efficient use of existing land and buildings with a smaller population will require facilitating an efficient real estate market. Romania, including the Nord-Vest region, faces persistent challenges related to land fragmentation and unresolved property rights disputes (Hartvigsen, 2014[45]; Dolean et al., 2020[8]). The implementation of Land Law 18/1991 led to the restitution of land in numerous small, scattered plots. This fragmentation has created approximately 50 million parcels, with one-third of all agricultural land owned by individuals who reside outside rural areas. Moreover, the post-1989 transition from collective to private ownership led to prolonged land title disputes, leaving many rural and agricultural plots unregistered.
Many homes are left vacant due to unclear ownership titles. Properties previously owned by deceased individuals without heirs often remain unoccupied, as unclear ownership records and incomplete succession processes hinder transactions. Co-ownership structures further limit market activity, requiring full consensus for transactions, which often discourages minority owners from engaging in land consolidation or sales. These factors create structural inefficiencies in the housing market and hamper efficient spatial planning.
The National Agency for Cadastre and Land Registration (ANCPI) has progressively enhanced the efficiency, transparency and legal security of land registration. The National Cadastre and Land Book Program (PNCCF), launched in 2015, aims to systematically register all properties in Romania within an integrated cadastre and land registry system. This initiative seeks to clarify property boundaries, resolve ownership disputes and improve land administration efficiency (EuroGeographics, 2023[46]). This is essential for property transactions, such as buying, selling or transferring land, as well as for securing mortgages or other rights tied to land ownership. While progress has been made, significant challenges persist, particularly in remote areas where many properties remain unregistered. In August 2023, around 45% of properties remained unregistered in Romania (Radu, 2023[47]).
Expropriation procedures are lengthy and costly
Despite its strategic relevance for adapting the housing stock to demographic change, expropriation remains a complex and challenging process in Nord-Vest due to lengthy procedures, legal ambiguities and resistance from property owners. Ensuring fair compensation is crucial to maintaining public trust and minimising disputes. Addressing these challenges through transparent, predictable and efficient processes is essential for enabling timely infrastructure development, redevelopment of abandoned land and buildings as well as fostering regional economic growth.
The history of expropriation in Romania is marked by deep societal trauma, particularly due to the widespread and often arbitrary nationalisations during the communist era. Beginning with the 1948 nationalisation law, the state confiscated vast amounts of private property, land, housing, and businesses, without fair compensation or legal recourse, leading to long-term distrust in public authorities and a collective memory of injustice. This legacy still shapes public perceptions today, making expropriation a highly sensitive issue, especially in urban development contexts. Post-1989, Romania shifted focus toward restitution and legal reform which introduced clearer procedures, public utility declarations, and market-based compensation to align with democratic standards and EU legal norms (e.g., Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights)
In Nord-Vest, the expropriation framework faces significant challenges that limit both its efficiency and effectiveness. While expropriation is governed by established legislation (Box 3.4), the practical implementation often proves problematic for several reasons. The lack of a complete cadastre, mentioned in the previous section, significantly slows down or even paralyses the process (Bertelsmann, 2024[48]). Similarly, the absence of land ownership documentation means that residents of informal settlements are not eligible for compensation when affected by expropriation (Transgaz, n.d.[49]).
The procedure tends to be lengthy and costly, largely due to the extensive technical and economic documentation required and the involvement of multiple stakeholders (Ministry of Justice, 2023[50]). Additionally, numerous expropriation cases result in legal disputes, frequently arising from absentee property owners or disagreements over the compensation amounts (Bertelsmann, 2024[48]). Consequently, the expropriation process primarily facilitates larger-scale projects, such as a recent highway development that required the expropriation of 154 private properties, while offering little assistance to smaller initiatives like the redevelopment of abandoned buildings.
Romania has a complex and painful legacy of expropriation due to mass nationalisations during the communist regime. Today, the inviolability of private property is stated in the constitution and expropriation procedures are governed by 2 main regulations, in line with the EU acquis. The first one defines the broad rules (Law No. 33/1994) and another one streamlines and simplifies the process for large-scale public infrastructure that falls under national strategic importance (Law No. 255/2010).
This legal framework empowers the state and public authorities to acquire private property for infrastructure development, public buildings, urban renewal and environmental initiatives, provided that public interest is demonstrated and fair compensation is ensured. Expropriation plans and land-use documentation must be revalidated under specific conditions if a public utility declaration ceases.
Expropriation procedures in Romania follow a structured process involving several key steps. First, a competent authority issues a declaration of public utility, establishing the necessity of the expropriation in the public interest. Affected property owners are then formally notified of the intent to expropriate. The property is subsequently valued to determine fair compensation, followed by a negotiation phase where owners can discuss the proposed amount. Once negotiations conclude, the authority issues a formal expropriation decision, which owners have the right to challenge in court. Finally, after completing all legal steps and securing payment, ownership is transferred to the public authority.
Source: Nartea Partners (2024[51]), Expropriation: An analysis of the concept and its implications, Expropriation: An analysis of the concept and its implications | NARTEA & PARTNERS law office(accessed on 14 April 2025).
Limited implementation of Land Value Capture instruments
To support the adaptation of land-use to demographic changes in Nord-Vest, Land Value Capture (LVC) instruments offer a promising policy tool. When effectively implemented, LVC instruments can enable municipalities to better manage urban expansion, while generating revenue to finance investment, including for affordable housing. Moreover, these instruments can facilitate land consolidation and encourage the redevelopment of underused or abandoned sites, thereby reducing the need for complex and often contentious expropriation procedures. The law on spatial planning and urban planning (Law No. 350/2001) establishes mechanisms for capturing the increase in land value resulting from public investments. Despite being included in the legal framework in Romania, these instruments remain largely underused.
The OECD-Lincoln taxonomy standardises the terminology and definitions for the following LVC instruments, allowing for meaningful cross-country comparisons while minimising confusion.
Infrastructure levy: taxes or fees levied on landowners possessing land that has gained value due to government-initiated infrastructure development
Developer obligations: cash or in-kind contributions that defray costs for additional infrastructure or services that need to be provided due to private development
Charges for development rights: cash or in-kind contributions payable in exchange for development rights or development potential above a set density baseline
Land readjustment: the practice of pooling fragmented land parcels for joint development, with owners transferring a portion of their land for public use
Strategic land management: the practice of governments actively buying, developing, selling and leasing land to advance public needs and recoup value increments borne through public action.
Source: OECD/Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, PKU-Lincoln Institute Center (2022[52]), Global Compendium of Land Value Capture Policies, OECD Regional Development Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4f9559ee-en.
Land Value Capture (LVC) instruments can play a critical role in regulating urban expansion by promoting compact, well-planned and sustainable development. In the Nord-Vest region, rapid and often uncoordinated urban growth, particularly around major cities, has frequently taken place without adequate integration of infrastructure planning or consideration of public service accessibility. Developer obligations, known locally as obligații de dezvoltator or obligații urbanistice, represent an important mechanism to ensure that private developers contribute to the provision of public infrastructure, services and affordable housing. For each major development, the approval of a Zonal Urban Plan (PUZ) and a building permit is required. These planning instruments offer municipalities a strategic opportunity to include specific provisions obliging developers to deliver or finance public facilities and infrastructure. In the Nord-Vest region, the use of developer obligations has historically been limited. However, local authorities are increasingly beginning to implement them. A notable example is the urban regeneration project in Cluj‑Napoca led by IULIUS and Atterbury Europe, which aims to transform a former industrial site into a cultural hub (CIJ Daily Newsletter Europe, 2024[53]). As part of the planning approval, developers are required to provide key infrastructure, including a four-lane road bridge and dedicated bicycle lanes. Developer obligations and fees could also serve for affordable housing provision. However, there is limited evidence that municipalities are currently utilising these instruments.
Land readjustment and strategic land management instruments, such as land banking, also offer valuable opportunities for facilitating land consolidation, urban redevelopment and the demolition or repurposing of abandoned structures. Land readjustment enables property owners to contribute parcels to redevelopment projects in exchange for upgraded infrastructure and enhanced urban amenities. Land banking involves the acquisition and holding of underused or abandoned land for future development or resale (OECD, 2023[54]). Despite potential benefits of these instruments, both approaches remain underused in Romania, where their application has been limited to date.
Several legislative instruments regulate the housing sector in Romania. The legal framework governing the housing sector in Romania is primarily established through the Housing Law (No. 114/1996), which defines the concept of adequate housing and sets the foundation for housing-related policies and interventions. The Administrative Code outlines the responsibilities of public authorities and provides the legal basis for the delivery of public services of local interest, including housing and social housing. Housing is also mentioned within the broader framework of urban development through spatial planning and urban planning law (Law No. 350/2001). Additionally, the National Housing Strategy 2022–2050 serves as a strategic policy document, guiding long-term objectives and priorities for improving housing conditions and expanding access to affordable and adequate housing across Romania.
Public administration authorities in the field of housing include central public administration authorities and local public authorities. As described in Chapter 2, the central public authorities are responsible for the strategic and legislative framework and the management of funding programs (MDPWA, National Housing Agency, NHA). Local public authorities fulfill duties related to the construction of social housing and other housing units owned by administrative-territorial units or under their administration, they also define the criteria for the allocation of social housing and housing utilities owned or managed by them.
Local public authorities in Romania often adopt an opportunity-driven approach to housing policy, prioritising projects that align with available funding streams rather than those based on a comprehensive assessment of local needs. Housing interventions included in local development strategies frequently focus on initiatives eligible for EU funding, such as thermal insulation programmes, or on construction projects supported by national schemes (e.g. MDPWA construction programmes, thermal rehabilitation programmes). However, these projects are not always aligned with local housing priorities, particularly with regard to the provision of social housing. In response to the affordable housing crisis, the European Commission has made housing affordability a top priority, encouraging regions to leverage Cohesion Policy funds to expand the supply of affordable housing.
In the context of housing crisis and the European Affordable Housing Plan, the Commission will support and allow Member States to double their planned cohesion policy investments in affordable housing in the next years. The Commission’s proposal on the mid-term review package has taken an important step in this regard, with tailored amendments to Cohesion policy legislation, including flexibilities and incentives for Member States and regions to direct funding to affordable housing (including social housing), for example increased prefinancing and co-financing. In parallel with the legislative proposal, the Commission published a model for financial instruments for affordable housing aiming to help the managing authorities to set up financial instruments contributing to support for housing. In the mid-term review communication, the Commission urged Member States and regions, when reprogramming under the mid-term review, to:
Double the funding allocated to affordable housing
Leverage such funding through financial instruments, including through the forthcoming pan-European Investment Platform for affordable and sustainable housing and a new financial instrument prepared jointly by the European Commission and the European Investment Bank (EIB)
Accelerate and streamline permitting and planning rules at local and city level to accelerate delivery of affordable housing investments
Support housing projects consistent with the New European Bauhaus (NEB) initiative.
Furthermore, it is advised that a minimum regulatory framework is put in place to ensure housing investments are conducted in healthy regulatory environments, with existing plans and transparent fair and inclusive allocation mechanisms (for the allocation of affordable housing units to households) and avoiding speculative behaviors. The EIB financial instrument model listed above provides a set of well-defined rules to be considered.
These reforms offer a timely opportunity to accelerate the renovation of building stock, enhance energy efficiency, and create quality, affordable housing. In doing so, they can help make the region more attractive to talent, support demographic renewal, and lay the foundations for long-term social and economic resilience.
Source: (European Commission, 2025[55]), A modernised Cohesion policy: The mid-term review, communication-mid-term-review-2025_en.pdf (accessed on 18 June 2025).
Local authorities in Romania face significant limitations in developing and implementing effective housing policies. While housing is referenced in the spatial and urban planning law as well as in all six PATJs, the National Housing Strategy 2022–2050 highlights persistent gaps in the integration of housing policy with urban planning and land management frameworks. Urban and spatial planning instruments have not adequately addressed housing needs, particularly in the peri-urban areas surrounding cities. This is partly due to the expansion of urban settlements beyond local administrative boundaries, where coordinated planning and service provision often require inter-municipal cooperation. Moreover, the lack of granular and disaggregated data in official statistical systems hinders the ability of local authorities to accurately identify and respond to housing needs.
The real estate market in Romania faces a range of structural inefficiencies that hinder the effective allocation of housing. As previously noted, the national cadastre remains incomplete, limiting legal clarity over land and property ownership and constraining development opportunities. The permitting process for new construction is often lengthy, lacks transparency and poses significant administrative burdens for developers and local authorities (OECD, 2024[25]). The rental sector is small and highly informal, arising from rather liberal regulations. A reliance on cash transactions in the housing market only further restricts mobility for various social groups (Habitat for Humanity, n.d.[17]). Addressing these market inefficiencies is essential for promoting a more inclusive, responsive and well-functioning housing system in Nord-Vest.
Fostering more attractive, well-serviced and inclusive urban environments can contribute to retaining and attracting younger populations, helping to mitigate demographic imbalances and support long-term regional vitality. The following recommendations aim to enhance the responsiveness of spatial and urban planning to demographic change, promote compact urban development, support a more inclusive housing market, and improve land-use efficiency in both urban and rural areas.
Streamline the spatial planning framework to support a coordinated response to demographic change
Spatial and urban planning play a critical role in enabling an efficient and coordinated response to help efficiently create attractive and family friendly places for people to live and work. However, in Nord-Vest, the planning framework is marked by overlapping mandates, institutional fragmentation and limited inter-institutional coordination. These shortcomings contribute to policy inconsistencies and, at times, conflicting development objectives. Some key policy avenues are as follows:
Coordinate county spatial plans to better plan the adaptation to demographic change. The county councils, in cooperation with the RDA and the MDPWA, could develop an updated Zonal Regional Spatial Plan (PATZR). This updated regional spatial plan could then serve as a coordination framework for aligning the county spatial plans (PATJ) across Nord‑Vest. County and local authorities could also better ensure spatial and urban plans are regularly updated through a structured consultation and approval process involving all relevant county councils and the RDA. The RDA should ensure that investments they fund are integrated in regional spatial plans (PATZR), county spatial plans (PATJ) and urban plans/urban strategies (PUG/ SIDU).
Strengthen coordination between local urban plans at the metropolitan level to promote more integrated and sustainable development with urban-rural linkages. Local authorities within the same metropolitan area, especially in growing metropolitan areas such as Cluj-Napoca or Oradea, could prioritise development of an integrated metropolitan urban plan. This plan could serve as a strategic framework to guide and align individual General Urban Plans (PUGs), helping to avoid overlaps, ensure coherent territorial development and reduce urban planning costs through shared resources and coordinated efforts (Box 3.7). Alternatively, MDPWA could consider exploring legislative changes to simplify the planning framework for metropolitan areas. The metropolitan urban plan should be developed based on, and in alignment with, the SIDU of the metropolitan area to ensure strategic and spatial coherence. Cohesion funds could be used to finance projects that are included in both the SIDU and the metropolitan plan. The metropolitan urban plan should be developed based on, and in alignment with, the SIDU of the metropolitan area to ensure strategic and spatial coherence.
Digitalise spatial and urban planning to gain efficiency and integrate demographic data. The MDPWA and the National Statistics Institute (NIS) could facilitate better spatial planning by digitalising maps and establishing a comprehensive GIS database, which could also incorporate demographic projections at the local level. The RDA could support county-level projects to enhance urban planning capacity at the local level, building on examples such as the GIS database developed by Cluj County or the town planning certificate issuance software implemented in Bistrița-Năsăud. The RDA could promote and support the establishment of a dynamic data collection system at the regional-level to support up-to-date and evidence-based planning and the development of strategic documents. Additionally, given its role in the allocation of EU funds, the RDA could directly assist selected local authorities by providing targeted funding to develop digital tools, update urban plans and integrate demographic projection data into planning processes (while ensuring value for money in the investment appraisal process).
The Schéma Directeur de la Région Île-de-France Environnemental (SDRIF-E) is the strategic spatial planning framework guiding the development of the Paris metropolitan region up to 2040. Adopted by the Regional Council in September 2024, the SDRIF-E aims to balance urban growth, economic competitiveness, environmental sustainability and regional cohesion. The key objectives of the SDRIF‑E are to contain urban expansion and enhance public transport. The plan promotes compact, transit-oriented development to limit urban expansion into rural and natural areas. This approach encourages higher-density housing and mixed-use developments near public transport hubs. A significant component is the integration and expansion of public transport networks, notably through projects like the Grand Paris Express, a large-scale metro expansion designed to improve connectivity between suburban areas and reduce reliance on private vehicles.
The SDRIF-E fosters coordination in several ways:
Common spatial vision: It offers a shared long-term vision for land-use, housing, and transport infrastructure, which guides municipal planning decisions and reduces policy fragmentation.
Integration through transport: Major infrastructure projects like the Grand Paris Express are coordinated at the regional level but implemented across multiple jurisdictions. This enables municipalities to synchronise development around new transport hubs, encouraging densification and reducing car dependency.
Harmonisation of zoning and density targets: The SDRIF-E proposes common principles for zoning, particularly around priority development areas, enabling municipalities to coordinate land-use planning and avoid competition or duplication of functions.
Environmental coherence: The plan identifies protected natural areas and ecological corridors across municipal boundaries, requiring inter-municipal collaboration to maintain environmental continuity and manage urban expansion responsibly.
Source: Région Île-de-France (n.d.[56]), Le SDRIF-E : Île-de-France objectif 2040, https://www.iledefrance.fr/participer-la-vie-citoyenne/je-participe-la-vie-de-la-region/le-sdrif-e-ile-de-france-objectif-2040 (accessed on 14 April 2025).
Enhance access to housing in urban areas
The economically dynamic cities of the Nord-Vest region, particularly Cluj-Napoca and Oradea, serve as important engines of growth and key attractors for young people. However, their success has also contributed to a sharp increase in housing costs, limiting access to affordable housing, especially for young talent and early-career professionals. Strengthening affordable housing policies will be critical to ensuring inclusive urban growth and attracting and retaining younger populations in the region. For this, some of the measures that could be taken are the following:
Facilitate increased development of housing in areas facing rising demand and with good public service and infrastructure access. County governments should ensure that PATJs provide guidelines for local authorities in the growing urban cores of metropolitan areas to allow higher density development, including through density bonuses awarded to developers in exchange for the commitment to provide housing at below‑market price and by promoting flexibility in zoning regulations within PUGs. Zoning restrictions such as building restrictions or greenbelts, could also be introduced or strengthened to prevent development in areas that lack adequate infrastructure or access to essential services. As identified in the mid-term review of the European Commission, local governments in urban cores would also benefit from reviewing their permitting procedures for renovation to support simplification, for example by implementing fast‑‑track approval processes for affordable housing projects.
Direct funding to social and affordable housing to better accommodate youth in high‑demand places. Local authorities in growing urban areas could update land use regulations to capture uplift in land-value from any regulatory changes (e.g., change in building hight limits or new public transport facilities), for example by requiring developers to provide affordable housing through developer obligations. Building on the European Commission’s mid-term review and the renewed prioritisation of affordable housing at the EU level, the North-West RDA could also facilitate local authorities in areas facing housing pressure to benefit from Cohesion Funds (e.g., ERDF)) and the new EIB financial instrument to support them with the renovation of high‑quality social housing in high demand places. Cohesion funds could also be used to finance urban regeneration, including public spaces that could support the provision of attractive affordable housing close to urban centers. In addition, the RDA could facilitate access to funding for areas in need through the pan-European Investment Platform for Affordable and Sustainable Housing.
Facilitate the absorption of EU funds for the renovation of multi-owner residential buildings to expand the stock of quality housing. When projects are eligible for co-financing through EU funds, local authorities should ease procedural barriers, particularly by waiving the requirement for unanimous consent, when it is required, and applying the standard threshold of two-thirds of ownership shares in favour. The RDA and local authorities should also strengthen outreach efforts to inform homeowners about available EU funding opportunities for energy-efficiency renovations, the possibility of financial contribution exemptions for vulnerable households, and the potential benefits for owners, including increased property value.
Promote the use of land value capture mechanisms to support public facilities provision in growing areas. The North-West RDA would benefit from promoting the wider adoption of land value capture mechanisms such as developer obligations, in growing urban areas (Box 3.8). For example, the RDA could require that large investment projects consider the potential for an infrastructure levy on nearby residents to help repay construction costs in their appraisal process. Local authorities in suburban areas of growing metropolitan areas, for instance, around Cluj-Napoca or Oradea, would also benefit from implementing a more systematic approach to enforcing developer obligations related to the provision of public facilities and public transport infrastructure.
Expand the rental market to enhance the availability of affordable housing. National authorities should promote the formalisation of the rental sector by introducing a standardised rental contract template and offer targeted tax incentives, such as reduced property tax rates for landlords who officially register and declare rental income. In parallel, central authorities should invest in improving rental market data collection and dissemination to increase transparency, support policymaking, and build trust among tenants and landlords.
Prioritise urban regeneration to support compact and sustainable development. Urban regeneration projects include housing development, the enhancement of public spaces, and investment in active mobility infrastructure, such as pedestrian and cycling networks. Urban regeneration projects should be prioritised by both the North-West RDA, with the use of EU funds, and by local authorities through urban plans and building permit procedures. This is particularly important in urban areas and rural localities where industrial sites are developed. To accelerate implementation local authorities should simplify and streamline permitting processes, for instance, by introducing fast-track approval mechanisms specifically designed for urban regeneration initiatives, which can be expected to have minor environmental impacts.
Germany
In Germany, developer obligations are formalised through urban development contracts (städtebauliche Verträge), governed by Section 11 of the Federal Building Code (Baugesetzbuch, BauGB). Municipalities widely use these contracts to ensure that private development projects contribute to public infrastructure, services and community needs. When a developer seeks approval for a project that requires changes to land-use plans or additional planning permissions, municipalities can negotiate a legally binding agreement. Through this contract, the developer may be required to provide affordable housing within the project or to finance or construct public infrastructure (e.g. roads, schools, utilities). These obligations must be directly related to the development and proportionate to its scale and impact, ensuring transparency and legal compliance.
Bogotá (Colombia)
Bogotá has implemented developer obligations (contribución de valorización) as a key financing tool for public infrastructure projects. This system requires property owners benefiting from infrastructure improvements to contribute financially, ensuring that development costs are equitably shared rather than solely borne by the city. In sprawling suburban areas, betterment levies help cover the costs of new roads, utilities and public services, preventing uncontrolled expansion and promoting more efficient land-use. In declining neighborhoods, these funds are used for redevelopment projects, infrastructure upgrades and public space improvements, making these areas more attractive to residents and businesses.
Source: OECD/Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, PKU-Lincoln Institute Center (2022[52]), Global Compendium of Land Value Capture Policies, OECD Regional Development Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4f9559ee-en., Hartmann, T. and F. Wenner (2025[57]), “Land Policy in Germany: Waiting for the Owner to Develop”, in Land Policies in Europe, Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-83725-8_8.
Support efficient adaptation of land-use and buildings as the population shrinks
In Nord-Vest, a significant proportion of the building stock remains vacant, a trend that is expected to intensify in the context of ongoing population decline. Inefficient land and property use is often driven by the prevalence of secondary residences, unoccupied inherited homes, and the abandonment of properties linked to outmigration. In many cases, properties remain unused due to legal uncertainties, such as unclear title deeds or unresolved inheritance procedures. For this, some of the measures that could be taken are the following:
Enhance building and property transaction data to get information on underused or abandoned buildings and better tailor policies to the demographic situation. The MDPWA could benefit from supporting initiatives aimed to help a comprehensive and publicly accessible building real estate database. The database—or other linked databases—could include detailed information on transactions, secondary homes, vacant properties, quality of dwellings and historical property data. The North-West RDA could also support the development of a real estate database and ensure that the data is made publicly accessible.
Use fiscal instruments to encourage more efficient use of properties, in depopulating areas and in urban areas to boost housing supply. Local authorities would benefit from increasing property tax rate on secondary residences and introduce taxes on vacant properties to encourage the integration of houses without productive use into the active housing market (Box 3.9). Developing these fiscal incentives requires reliable data on vacant houses and secondary residences The North-West RDA could potentially also support localities in accessing ERDF programmes to rehabilitate vacant and low-quality buildings, while ensuring long-term benefits of these programmes. Developing these fiscal incentives will require reliable data on vacant houses and secondary residences.
Complete the national cadastre to enhance real estate market efficiency and reduce property vacancies. The ANCPI should continue to complete of the national cadastral and land registry system. A fully functional cadastral and land registry system will significantly enhance market transparency, reduce transaction times, and mitigate property disputes, thereby improving overall market efficiency. A complete cadastre and land registry is also relevant for expropriation of unclaimed and vacant properties.
Simplify the expropriation process to encourage adaptation and demolition of buildings in depopulating areas. Transparent procedures and fair compensation are essential to rebuilding public trust and ensuring legitimacy in the expropriation process. The MDPWA could consider simplifying expropriation procedures by reducing documentation, especially for small-scale projects and when they have support from local governments. Additionally, the MDPWA could look to establish a clear legal framework for managing unclaimed properties to mitigate challenges associated with absentee or non-responsive property owners.
The City of Vancouver created the Empty Homes Tax (EHT) to address housing affordability and availability challenges by increasing the rental housing supply. The policy requires property owners to submit an annual property status declaration to determine whether their property is subject to the tax. The tax applies to homes that are left vacant for more than six months in a year, unless they serve as a principal residence, are rented for at least six months in 30-day increments, or meet specific exemption criteria. This measure has had a significant impact on improving housing availability and promoting a shift toward long-term rentals. It also encourages better use of existing housing stock and discourages speculative ownership. The revenues generated by the tax have been reinvested in affordable housing programmes, further supporting local housing policy objectives. The EHT is now viewed as a policy tool with strong potential for replication in cities facing similar challenges around housing scarcity and vacancy.
Since its introduction, Vancouver’s EHT has had a measurable impact on the city’s housing market. Between 2017 and 2023, the number of vacant properties fell by 58%, reflecting improved housing utilisation. The EHT also generated CAD 169.8 million in revenue, which was directed toward affordable housing initiatives, helping to expand access for residents. Notably, in just one year following the tax's introduction (2018-2019), approximately 5 920 condominium units were added to the long-term rental market, contributing to increased housing availability in the city.
Source: (City of Vancouver, n.d.[58]), Why an Empty Homes Tax? https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/why-an-empty-homes-tax.aspx (accessed on 18 March 2025).
References
[38] Advisory Services Agreement on the Constanța Urban Development Program (2019), Metropolitan Spatial Planning Measures - Updating the General Urban Plan of Municipality, and Elaborating the Metropolitan Masterplan, World Bank Group.
[13] Alpopi, C., C. Iacoboaea and S. Andrei (2014), “Analysis of the Current Housing Situation in Romania in the European Context”, Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, Vol. 10/43, pp. 5-24.
[32] Apostol, D. (2022), Elaborare Strategie și Plan de Acțiune pentru P.A.T.J. Bihor, Consiliul Judeţean Bihor.
[16] Bândea, P. et al. (2020), Real Estate Transactions Guide, Veridio.
[28] Benedek, J. (2013), The spatial planning system in Romania, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306153384.
[48] Bertelsmann, S. (2024), BTI 2024 Country Report — Romania, Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung, https://bti-project.org/fileadmin/api/content/en/downloads/reports/country_report_2024_ROU.pdf (accessed on 8 April 2025).
[44] Cadar, R., R. Boitor and M. Dragomir (2024), “LAND-USE AND TRANSPORT INTEGRATED PLANNING AND MODELLING IN CLUJ-NAPOCA, ROMANIA”, JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING SCIENCE, Vol. 30/4, pp. 93-110, https://doi.org/10.52326/jes.utm.2023.30(4).08.
[5] Carjan, R., D. Idiceanu-Mathe and O. Banescu (2017), “Rural Systematization as an Instrument of Political Control of the Communist Regime in Romania”, IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Vol. 245, p. 052053, https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/245/5/052053.
[18] Chițea, L. (2022), “Housing conditions in the Romanian rural household in the 21st century”, Rodino, Steliana Dragomir, Vili (Ed.): Agrarian Economy and Rural Development - Trends and Challenges. International Symposium, pp. 299-306, https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/301738/1/ICEADR-2022-p299.pdf (accessed on 3 April 2025).
[53] CIJ Daily Newsletter Europe (2024), The largest urban reconversion investment in Romania was approved by the Cluj-Napoca Local Council, https://cijeurope.com/en/the-largest-urban-reconversion-investment-in-romania-was-approved-by-the-cluj-napoca-local-council/post.html (accessed on 14 April 2025).
[58] City of Vancouver (n.d.), Why an Empty Homes Tax?, https://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/why-an-empty-homes-tax.aspx.
[34] Consiliul Judeţean Bistriţa-Năsăud (2022), Elaborarea Planului de Amenajare a, Consiliul Judeţean Bistriţa-Năsăud.
[21] Consiliul Judeţean Maramureş (2009), REACTUALIZARE PLAN DE AMENAJARE A TERITORIULUI JUDEŢEAN-PATJ-JUDEŢUL MARAMUREŞ PRIORITĂŢI. STRATEGIA DE DEZVOLTARE.
[19] Consiliul Județean Sălaj (2023), PATJ Sălaj.
[35] Consiliul Judeţean Satu Mare (2024), Hotǎrârea NR.12/2024.
[8] Dolean, B. et al. (2020), “Evaluation of the Built-Up Area Dynamics in the First Ring of Cluj-Napoca Metropolitan Area, Romania by Semi-Automatic GIS Analysis of Landsat Satellite Images”, Applied Sciences, Vol. 10/21, p. 7722, https://doi.org/10.3390/app10217722.
[12] Dun and Bradstreet (n.d.), Architectural and Structural Metals Manufacturing Companies in Sighetu Marmatiei, Maramures, Romania, https://www.dnb.com/business-directory/company-information.architectural_and_structural_metals_manufacturing.ro.maramures.sighetu_marmatiei.html (accessed on 10 April 2025).
[10] Energynomics (2024), Enery inaugurated the photovoltaic park in Sărmășag (Sălaj), with an installed capacity of 51.4 MW and battery storage, https://www.energynomics.ro/en/enery-inaugurated-the-photovoltaic-park-in-sarmasag-salaj-with-an-installed-capacity-of-51-4-mw-and-battery-storage (accessed on 10 April 2025).
[46] EuroGeographics (2023), “Romania-Annual-Review-2023”.
[55] European Commission (2025), A modernised Cohesion policy: The mid-term review.
[15] European Construction Sector Observatory (2022), Country profile Romania, European Construction Sector Observatory.
[2] European Union (2020), CORINE Land Cover 2018 (vector), Europe, 6-yearly - version 2020_20u1, https://doi.org/10.2909/71c95a07-e296-44fc-b22b-415f42acfdf0.
[27] Evers, D. et al. (2020), SUPER-Sustainable Urbanisation and Land Use Practices in European Regions On the basis of contributions from, http://www.espon.eu.
[31] Grupul Banca Mondială în România (2020), STRATEGIA DE DEZVOLTARE TERITORIALĂ A JUDEȚULUI, Consiliul Județean Cluj.
[17] Habitat for Humanity (n.d.), Country Fiche, https://www.habitat.org/sites/default/files/documents/COUNTRY%20FICHE_RO.pdf (accessed on 4 April 2025).
[57] Hartmann, T. and F. Wenner (2025), “Land Policy in Germany: Waiting for the Owner to Develop”, in Land Policies in Europe, Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-83725-8_8.
[45] Hartvigsen, M. (2014), “Land reform and land fragmentation in Central and Eastern Europe”, Land Use Policy, Vol. 36, pp. 330-341, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.08.016.
[41] Horeczki, R. et al. (2023), “Evolution of urbanisation and metropolitan development in Romania”, Deturope, Vol. 15/2, pp. 28-47.
[29] Ionescu-Heroiu, M. et al. (2013), Romania - Enhanced spatial planning as a precondition for sustainable urban development (Romanian)., Romania regional development program,Romania Spatial and Territorial Strategy,Enhanced spatial planning as a precondition for sustainable urban development Washington, D.C. : World Bank Group, http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/511271468094454416/Raport-complet (accessed on 3 February 2025).
[24] Lăzărescu, L. and D. Diacon (2020), “A Comparative Analysis of the Housing Affordability in Romania and the European Union from the Perspective of the Housing Costs”, Lumen Proceedings: Vol. 13. 16th Economic International Conference NCOE 4.0 2020, Vol. 13, pp. 93-104, https://proceedings.lumenpublishing.com/ojs/index.php/lumenproceedings/article/view/321/340 (accessed on 9 April 2025).
[37] MDPWA (2020), Ghid pentru elaborarea STRATEGIILOR INTEGRATE DE DEZVOLTARE URBANĂ POLITICA URBANĂ A ROMÂNIEI.
[50] Ministry of Justice (2023), Resettlement Action Plan: Land Acquisition Plan for the Romania Justice for Sustainable Urban Transformation Project.
[26] Munteanu, M. and L. Servillo (2014), “Romanian Spatial Planning System: Post-Communist Dynamics of Change and Europeanization Processes”, European Planning Studies, Vol. 22/11, pp. 2248-2267, https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2013.830696.
[51] Nartea Partners (2024), Expropriation: An analysis of the concept and its implications, https://nartea.ro/en/2024/04/01/expropriation-an-analysis-of-the-concept-and-its-implications/?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed on 14 April 2025).
[1] National Institute for Statistics (n.d.), “Tempo Online”, POP107A - LEGALLY RESIDENT POPULATION, by age group and age, sex, urban/ rural area, macroregions, development regions and counties, at January 1st, http://statistici.insse.ro:8077/tempo-online/#/pages/tables/insse-table (accessed on April 2025).
[40] Nowak, M. et al. (2022), “The Role of Spatial Plans Adopted at the Local Level in the Spatial Planning Systems of Central and Eastern European Countries”, Land, Vol. 11/9, p. 1599, https://doi.org/10.3390/land11091599.
[25] OECD (2024), OECD Economic Surveys: Romania 2024, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/106b32c4-en.
[54] OECD (2023), Financing Cities of Tomorrow: G20/OECD Report for the G20 Infrastructure Working Group under the Indian Presidency, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/51bd124a-en.
[7] OECD (2021), OECD.Stat (database), https://stats.oecd.org/ (accessed on 14 April 2025).
[52] OECD/Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (2022), Global Compendium of Land Value Capture Policies, OECD Regional Development Studies, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/4f9559ee-en.
[4] Pascariu Gabriel (2012), Overview of Romanian Planning Evolution, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301731689_Overview_of_Romanian_Planning_Evolution (accessed on 12 March 2025).
[23] Permanent Mission of Romania to the UNON (n.d.), NATIONAL STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT OF ROMANIA, https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/2023/06/national_statement_ro_un_habitat_assembly.pdf (accessed on 9 April 2025).
[6] Pesaresi M., P. (2023), GHS-BUILT-S R2023A - GHS built-up surface grid, derived from Sentinel2 composite and Landsat, multitemporal (1975-2030), European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), https://data.jrc.ec.europa.eu/dataset/9f06f36f-4b11-47ec-abb0-4f8b7b1d72ea (accessed on 11 April 2025).
[14] Pittini, A. (2011), Housing Europe Review 2012. The Nuts and Bolts of European Social Housing Systems, CECODHAS Housing Europe’s Observatory, Brussels.
[36] Pompei Cocean (2009), REACTUALIZARE PLAN DE AMENAJARE A TERITORIULUI JUDEŢEAN – PATJ – JUDEŢUL MARAMUREŞ, CONSILIUL JUDEŢEAN MARAMUREŞ.
[30] Pompei Cocean (2004), “PLANUL DE AMENAJARE A TERITORIULUI REGIUNII DE NORD-VEST (PATR)”.
[47] Radu, O. (2023), Implementation of the specific activities of the systematic cadastre in Romania.
[56] Région Île-de-France (n.d.), Le SDRIF-E : Île-de-France objectif 2040, https://www.iledefrance.fr/participer-la-vie-citoyenne/je-participe-la-vie-de-la-region/le-sdrif-e-ile-de-france-objectif-2040 (accessed on 14 April 2025).
[11] Renewable Market Watch (2024), Enery Launched in Commercial Operation the Sarmasag PV Power Plant in Romania with 51.4 MWp Capacity and 22 MWh battery energy storage system (BESS), https://renewablemarketwatch.com/news-analysis/574-enery-launched-in-commercial-operation-the-sarmasag-pv-power-plant-in-romania-with-51-4-mwp-capacity-and-22-mwh-battery-energy-storage-system-bess?utm_source=chatgpt.com (accessed on 10 April 2025).
[9] Romania Urban Policy Washington, D. (2020), OUTPUT 1. COMPANION PAPER 4 The Growth and Shrinkage of Romanian Cities: A Spatial Analysis, World Bank, http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/099230501242225314/P17117607dcc5602708f2c053fa22670f58 (accessed on 28 January 2025).
[33] Sălaj, C. (2023), PATJ Sălaj.
[49] Transgaz (n.d.), Land Acquisition Framework, https://www.eib.org/attachments/registers/79724294.pdf (accessed on 8 April 2025).
[3] Turnock, D. (1991), “The Planning of Rural Settlement in Romania”, The Geographical Journal, Vol. 157/3, p. 251, https://doi.org/10.2307/635500.
[39] Ungureanu, T. and T. Șoimoșan (2023), “An Integrated Analysis of the Urban Form of Residential Areas in Romania”, Buildings, Vol. 13/10, p. 2525, https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings13102525.
[20] World Bank (2021), Cluj-Napoca Housing Strategy, Worlds Bank, https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099115110282231024/pdf/P17238404d146f0f508eb0094ba6c1f9dff.pdf (accessed on 3 April 2025).
[22] World Bank (2020), Substantiation Study on settlements network, World Bank, https://www.patjcluj.ro/en/the-project-results/the-substantiation-studies/substantiation-study-on-settlements-network.html (accessed on 14 April 2025).
[43] World Bank, Local Council Cluj-Napoca (2021), “Integrated Urban Development Strategy for the Municipality of Cluj-Napoca and its Metropolitan Area”, https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/099848210282223121/pdf/P1723840e027c30360a8be0c93fd4db9e69.pdf (accessed on 25 February 2025).
[42] World Bank, E. (2013), Competitive cities: Reshaping the Economic Geography of Romania, https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/pt/664361468093270286/pdf/Full-report.pdf (accessed on 25 February 2025).