Multi-, trans-and inter-disciplinarity, essential conditions for the sustainable development of human habitat

Abstract

While the hierarchy of inter-, trans- and multi-disciplinarity is not commonly agreed upon, the vast majority of authors emphasize the utility of integrating to more or lesser extent different disciplines in research. The paper analyzes the particular case of the disciplines dealing with the design of human habitat, in order to prove that a supra-disciplinary approach is an essential condition for a sustainable output. The results indicate that, in addition to the need for crossing disciplinary borders, a multi-scale approach is also required.

Full text

Urbanism
Multi-, trans- and inter-disciplinarity, essential conditions for
the sustainable development of human habitat • A.-I. Petrişor
43
M
ULTI
-,
TRANS
-
AND INTER
-
DISCIPLINARITY
,
ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS FOR THE SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT OF HUMAN HABITAT
Alexandru-Ionuţ PETRIŞOR
Assistant Professor, PhD (Ecology), PhD (Geography), “Ion Mincu”
University of Architecture and Urbanism and NR&DI URBAN-INCERC,
e-mail: aleaxandru_petrisor@yahoo.com
Abstract. While the hierarchy of inter-, trans- and multi-disciplinarity is not
commonly agreed upon, the vast majority of authors emphasize the utility
of integrating to more or lesser extent different disciplines in research. The
paper analyzes the particular case of the disciplines dealing with the design
of human habitat, in order to prove that a supra-disciplinary approach is an
essential condition for a sustainable output. The results indicate that, in
addition to the need for crossing disciplinary borders, a multi-scale
approach is also required.
Key words: spatial planning, territorial planning, urban planning, systemic
1. Introduction
Modern research implies the transfer of
concepts and methods among different
disciplines. While the exchanges were
initially occasional, in time they tended to
be sought for and were performed into an
organized fashion. The new trend gave
birth to new concepts and methods, such
as Haken’s synergetics. However, most
authors commonly agree that the
exchanges between sciences form a
hierarchy consisting of several concepts,
though the understating of levels varies.
At the bottom of it, when only one
discipline is involved, the term used is
‘disciplinarity’ (Nicolescu, 2001), ‘single
disciplinarity’ (Iordache, p. 265), or ‘mono-
disciplinarity’ (Antrop, 2003). These terms
are seen as different from
‘unidisciplinarity’, meaning that some
disciplines cannot be separated, as they
form a whole (Wallerstein, 2004, p. 98), or
identical to it (O’Campo et al., 2011).
The next stage involves several disciplines.
According to Salmons and Wilson (2007),
when concepts and/or methods from more
disciplines are used together, the approach
is ‘multidisciplinary’. When in addition to it
concepts and/or methods are coordinated,
it becomes ‘cross-disciplinary’. If the borders
of disciplines are also crossed, the
approach is called ‘transdisciplinary’ and, if
crossing the borders leads to combining
disciplines, it becomes ‘interdisciplinary’.
However, François (2006) considers that
inter-disciplinarity consists of a “specific
more or less integrative interrelation between
two disciplines” (e.g., biochemistry), multi-
disciplinarity involves the harmonization

Urbanism. Arhitectură. Construcţii • Vol. 4 • Nr. 2 • 2013 •
44
of differences between more sciences
coming together, and the final stage is
trans-disciplinarity, when a global theory
is finally derived. O’Campo et al. (2011)
distinguish a scale starting from one
discipline (called ‘uni-disciplinarity’),
continuing with ‘multi-disciplinarity’, and
ending with ‘inter-disciplinarity’.
On a finer-tuned scale, Kötter and Balsiger
(1999) distinguish a ‘spectrum’ starting with
co-disciplinarity (strong collaboration of two
disciplines), continuing with cross-
disciplinarity (as a first supra-disciplinary
stage), con-disciplinarity (goal-oriented
supra-disciplinary effort), infra-disciplinarity
(cooperation which finds comparable kinds
of problems in different disciplines), intra-
disciplinarity (collaboration of disciplines
with the same theoretical level of
integration), pluri-disciplinarity (first step of
unregulated collaboration among various
disciplines), multi-disciplinary (unspecified
collaboration), and inter-disciplinarity
(supra-disciplinary collaboration where
different disciplines keep their autonomy
when solving a given problem), to end with
trans-disciplinarity (joint collaboration
between scientists and practitioners in the
resolution of a problem raised from outside
of the scientific context).
Last but not least, Bruun et al. (2005)
consider that multi-disciplinary juxtapose
disciplinary perspectives speaking as
separate voices; they are united in inter-
disciplinarity, while the term ‘trans-
disciplinarity’ is used to coin an
“overarching and unifying synthesis”. The
same scale is used by Lattanzi (1998, pp.
18), Besselaar and Heimeriks (2001), Choi
and Pak (2006, 2007, 2008), Zaman and
Goschin (2010), and also by Nicolescu
(2005), who adds ‘disciplinarity’ as a first
step preceding multi-disciplinarity.
The model presented in this paper
combines all the above, starting with
single-disciplinarity, followed by multi-,
cross- and trans-disciplinarity to end with
inter-disciplinarity (Fig. 1). The model is
used to test the hypothesis according to
which all fields dealing with the design of
human habitat, starting with the spatial
planning of larger territories, continuing
with urban and rural planning of human
settlements, architectural design and
construction details are essentially multi-,
inter-, or trans-disciplinary, and this is an
essential condition of sustainable
development.
Fig. 1. Most commonly agreed view on single,
multi-, cross-, trans- and inter-disciplinarity
2. Case study: constructions, archite cture
and spatial planning
The theoretical disciplines dealing with
the human habitat – spatial planning,
urbanism, architecture and constructions,
but also their applicative sides –
territorial and urban planning
(particularizing spatial planning at
different spatial scales in some EU
countries, such as Romania of France –
Petrişor, 2010), architectural and
construction design have tight,
indissoluble connections making them act
as a whole.

Urbanism
Multi-, trans- and inter-disciplinarity, essential conditions for
the sustainable development of human habitat • A.-I. Petrişor
45
2.1. The interdisciplinary character of spatial
planning and urbanism
The Charter of Torremolinos (1983)
defines spatial planning as “geographical
expression to the economic, social, cultural and
ecological policies of society”, and state that
“it is at the same time a scientific discipline, an
administrative technique and a policy
developed as an interdisciplinary and
comprehensive approach directed towards a
balanced regional development and the
physical organization of space according to an
overall strategy” (Déjeant-Pons, 2010, p. 22).
Different definitions regard urbanism as
an activity or its product, a science or an
art, or a system of regulations (Petrişor,
2010). Occasionally, the planning side is
coined by ‘urban planning’. Choay’s
definition (1965) is in place when
describing the final product: civil
engineering works, plans of cities, and
urban forms. According to other
definitions, urbanism is the science and
theory of human settlements, a discipline
derived from arts, but different through
its reflexive and critical character, making
it a science (Péchoin, 1995). Legislative
definitions place urbanism among
regulations – set of rules governing the
birth, development and management of
urban areas or activities – operational,
integrative and normative activity aimed
at stimulating the complex evolution of
settlements through short, medium, and
long term strategies of development
(Petrişor, 2010). The methods used in
urbanism include strategic planning,
urban composition, participatory,
management and communication
urbanism (Lacaze, 1990).
If the definitions of urbanism and spatial
planning reveal their inter-disciplinary
character in theory and methodology,
only few definitions of architecture do the
same: “making of a place by the ordering and
definition of meaningful space, as developed
in response to a need or program” (Ching,
1979, p. 10) does not necessarily imply
inter-disciplinarity, “expression of culture,
of public interest” (AERES, 2012, p. 2) does
it to some extent, but “expression of society
or culture in spatial, experiential form”
(Campbell, 1996) suggests at least a link
between social sciences, cultural studies
and arts. The science of constructions – or
civil engineering – includes “several
distinct specializations, such as structures,
construction, foundation, transportation,
sanitation, and hydraulics”, and, more
recently, “planning and management,
remote sensing, landscape, environment,
energy facilities, water management, and
infrastructure systems, including national
and regional planning, urban planning,
telecommunication systems, and disaster
prevention systems” (Horikawa, 2009).
2.2. Planning for the human habitat – a
multi-scale approach
The connections between the disciplines
result into inter-conditions expressed
during the planning process. In order to
raise a house, a building permit and an
architectural project are required. Projects
must be integrated in the context specific
to the zone, defined by urban plans
(conditioning also the issuance of a
building permit), subordinated in their
turn to the spatial plans of the broader
area. However, projects must embed
constructive details, specifying civil
engineering details. Such particularities
can be dictated by the specific local
conditions or aim for better fitting to the
ambient.
The separation between spatial and urban
planning is not based only on the scale
difference, but also on their scope. Urban
plans set very specific, operational rules,
while spatial plans provide general
guidelines, offering a framework that

Urbanism. Arhitectură. Construcţii • Vol. 4 • Nr. 2 • 2013 •
46
directs the elaboration of urban plans.
Both plans are elaborated by teams
consisting of specialists with different
backgrounds, such as architectural or
urban planning, sociology, ecology,
economy, geography, engineering etc.
(Petrişor, 2010) – Fig. 2.
These statements can be illustrated by:
1. Buildings in earthquake-prone areas.
Analyzing the destructive effects of
Romanian earthquakes, Georgescu (2010)
shows that the separation between civil
engineering, architectural and urban
planning leads to a “critical and unwanted
situation” and pleads for a close
collaboration between civil engineers,
architects and urban planners, resulting
into safe architecture, multi-criteria urban
planning, multi-hazard structural
engineering focused on seismic issues.
2. Building in protected areas containing
natural and cultural heritage sites.
Sustainable development of large areas,
such as biosphere reserves, involves not
only preserving species and habitats, but
also cultural values. The cultural heritage
is reflected by traditional architecture
based on using construction materials
specific to the area (Meiţă, 2010), but also
other details, such as their placement,
color, height etc. Preservation the
requirements of traditional architecture
can be ensured by their inclusion in
urban regulations applicable to the area,
so that the restrictions are uniformly
observed.
3. Building s from vulnerable areas.
Coastal zones are vulnerable not only
because in some cases they are
classified as ecologically fragile (e.g.,
the European Union), or due to their
high biodiver sity, but also due to some
geological processes affecting them,
such as the erosion. The erosion is
amplified by the increased urban
pressure (EEA, 2006), and even more
when their volume grows due to the
height and density of buildings. The
solutio n consists again o f urban
planning restrictions b ased o n civil
engineering studies aime d at
identi fying the conditions required to
reduce the crushing risk or dimini sh
the i ntense corrosion due to the m arine
environment etc.
Fig. 2. Planning for the human habitat at different scales

Urbanism
Multi-, trans- and inter-disciplinarity, essential conditions for
the sustainable development of human habitat • A.-I. Petrişor
47
4. Mitigation of climate change. Recent
studies have proven that during the
warm seasons, particularly during the
heat episodes, extreme temperatures are
amplified by built-up zones, which
become ‘heat islands’ (Cheval et al., 2009).
In the particular case of specific
buildings, the choice of construction
materials, orientation and other
engineering details can amplify the effect.
At the same time, certain urban planning
restrictions, such as the presence of green
spaces, water, design of roads and trees
along their sides can reduce the heat
stress. At a different scale, territorial
planning can regulate and optimize land
use, related in its turn to the energy
balance and climate changes (Dale et al.,
2011). Only integrated studies can
substantiate an integrated regulation
system aimed at better adapting the built
environment to climate changes and
increasing the quality of human life.
2.3. Inter-disciplinary planning for
sustainable development
When dr. Brundtland (1988) coined
sustainability as “development that meets
the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs”, she
actually meant balancing three traditional
pillars – economic, social and
environmental (Bugge and Watters,
2003), to which a fourth cultural one was
added later (Déjeant-Pons, 2010, p. 15).
The definition emphasizes the inter-
disciplinary character of sustainability,
tying it to the Torremolinos definition of
spatial planning. In fact, inter-
disciplinary sustainability can be
achieved in a spatial context only through
inter-disciplinary spatial planning, or, in
brief, sustainable spatial development is
the spatial expression of sustainability.
On a similar line, the Leipzig Charter or
Toledo Declaration, among other
European documents, emphasize the
need for integrated planning – involving
inter-disciplinarity – in order to develop
sustainable urban planning approaches.
Landscape is, by itself, an inter-
disciplinary concept. Introduced by a
geographer, Zonneveld (Wu and Hobbs,
2007), it is currently used by ecologists,
botanists, soil scientists, climatologists,
economists, agriculture and forestry
scientists, geologists, artists, architects,
engineers, and many other professionals
in addition to geographers, each
discipline defining it in a different way.
There is no surprise that landscape issues
cross not only the borders of close
disciplines, but also bridge natural and
human sciences, especially when the aim
is to manage landscapes (Tress et al.,
2001a, b; Stokols, 2011).
Similarly, urban studies require a trans-
disciplinary approach, especially if
planning needs to “be effective, looking for
coherence versus paradoxes” (Ramadier,
2004). Specific urban issues, situated at
the interference with other fields, require
trans-disciplinarity even more, especially
when Principle One of the Rio
Declaration states that “human beings are
at the centre of concerns for sustainable
development” (UNEP, 2012); this is the
case of urban health, for example
(O’Campo, 2011), particularly provided
that health sciences require trans-
disciplinarity as well (Choi et al., 2006,
2007, 2008). Acknowledging that urban
planning is trans-disciplinary, Després et
al. (2011) suggest that the trans-
disciplinarity expands to architecture as
well, especially when narrowing the gap
between research and practice or working

Urbanism. Arhitectură. Construcţii • Vol. 4 • Nr. 2 • 2013 •
48
on specific issues, such as the ecological
architecture.
2.4. The need for a holistic approach
The investigation of tr ans-
disciplinarity withi n the disciplines
dealing with the human habitat
reveals their tr ans-disciplinary
character, and intrinsic co nnections
among them. If all details are
assembled, human habi tat can be seen
as a complex system (geographical,
ecological, social etc.), and only a
holisti c, trans-disciplinary approach
can understand it i n full or manage its
sustai nable developme nt. Such an
approach is consistent with Gaia
Theory (Lovelo ck, 1979), stating that
actually the entire plane t is organized
and work s as a whole – Fig. 3.
Fig. 3. Sustainability implies trans-disciplinary planning
3. Conclusions
The paper examined disciplines dealing
with the human habitat in theory –
spatial planning, urbanism, architecture
and civil engineering, and practice –
territorial and urban planning,
architectural design, and the design of
constructions, in an attempt to prove
their trans-disciplinary character. For the
disciplines acting at a smaller spatial
scale, covering larger territories, this
character is revealed by their definition
and difficulty to place them in a clear
category (art, science, regulation, etc.); for
the others, trans-disciplinary is required
when working on specific issues.
However, when sustainability is
accounted for, the different disciplines,
acting at different scales, must come
together in a trans-disciplinary effort to
improving the living conditions for
humans. This effort must be made in
research as well as in practice.
REFERENCES
Agence d’évaluation de la recherche et de
l’enseignement supérieur – AERES (2012),
Rapport de synthèse de l’évaluation des cursus
menant au Diplôme d’Études en Architecture
(DEEA) conférant grade de licence et au
Diplôme d’État d’Architecte (DEA) conférant
grade de master, 8 pp.

Urbanism
Multi-, trans- and inter-disciplinarity, essential conditions for
the sustainable development of human habitat • A.-I. Petrişor
49
Antrop M. (2003), Expectations of scientists towards
interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary
research, in: Tress B., Tress G.,Valk A. v.d.,
Fry G. (Eds), Interdisciplinarity and
transdisciplinarity in landscape studies:
Potential and limitations, Delta series 2,
Wageningen, NL, 192 pp., ISBN
9080763713, pp. 44-54.
Besselaar P. v. d., Heimeriks G. (2001), Disciplinary,
Multidisciplinary, Interdisciplinary - Concepts
and Indicators, Paper for the 8th conference
on Scientometrics and Informetrics –
ISSI2001, Sydney, Australia, July 16-20,
2001.
Brundtland G. H. (1987), Our Common Future,
WCED, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Bugge H. C., Watters L. (2003), A Perspective on
Sustainable Development after Johannesburg
on the Fifteenth Anniversary of Our Common
Future: An Interview with Gro Harlem
Brundtland, Georgetown International
Environmental Law Review 15:359-366.
Bruun H., Hukkinen J.,Huutoniemi K., Thompson
Klein J. (2005), Promoting Interdisciplinary
Research: The Case of the Academy of
Finland, Edita Oy, Helsinki, FI, 204 pp.,
ISBN 9517155581.
Campbell D. A. (1996), Design in Virtual
Environments Using Architectural Metaphor.
A HIT Lab Gallery, Master of Architecture
Thesis, University of Washington,
Washington, DC.
Cheval S., Dumitrescu A., Bell A. (2009), The urban
heat island of Bucharest during the extreme
high temperatures of July 2007, Theoretical
and Applied Climatology 97(3-4):391-401.
Ching F. D. K. (1979), Architecture: Form, Space &
Order, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New
York, NY, 394 pp., ISBN 9780442215347.
Choay F. (1965), L'urbanisme, utopies et réalités: une
anthologie, Aux Éditions du Seuil, Paris,
348 pp., ISBN 20200583284.
Choi B. C. K., Pak A. W. P. (2006),
Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and
transdisciplinarity in health research, services,
education and policy: 1. Definitions,
objectives, and evidence of effectiveness,
Clinical & Investigative Medicine 29(6):
351-364.
Choi B. C. K., Pak A. W. P. (2007),
Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and
transdisciplinarity in health research, services,
education and policy: 2. Promotors, barriers,
and strategies of enhancement, Clinical &
Investigative Medicine 30(6): E224-E232.
Choi B. C. K., Pak A. W. P. (2008),
Multidisci plinarity, interdisciplinarity and
transdisciplinari ty in health re search,
services, education and policy: 3. Discipline,
inter-dis cipline distance, and selection of
discipline, Clinical & Investiga tive
Medicine 31(1):E41-E48.
Dale V. H., Efroymnson R. A., Kline K. L. (2011),
The land use–climate change–energy nexus,
Landscape Ecology 26:755-773.
Déjeant-Pons M. (2010), Council of Europe
Conference of Ministers responsible for
Spatial/Regional Planning (CEMAT). Basic
texts 1970-2010, Territory and landscape,
3, Council of Europe Publishing,
Strasbourg, FR, 318 pp., ISBN
9789287165855,
Després C., Vachon G. Fortin A. (2011), Implementing
Transdisciplinarity: Architecture and Urban
Planning at Work, in: Doucet I., Janssens N.
(Eds.), Transdisciplinary Knowledge Production
in Architecture and Urbanism, Springer, New
York, 152 pp., ISBN 9789400701038, pp. 33-49.
European Environment Agency – EEA (2006),
Urban sprawl in Europe. The ignored
challenge, Office for Official Publication s
of the European Communities,
Luxemburg, 56 pp., ISBN 9291678872.
François C. (2006), Transdisciplinary unified theory,
Systems Research and Behavioral Science
23:617-624.
Georgescu E.-S. (2010), Urbanism, arhitectură şi
construcţii în zonele seismice din România -
de la blocul Carlton la faţadele cortină,
Urbanism. Arhitectură. Construcţii
1(1):37-50.
Horikawa K. (2009), Civil Engineering, in:
Horikawa K. (Ed.), Knowledge for
Sustainable Development. An Insight into the
Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems, vol. 1,
EOLSS Publishers, 420 pp., ISBN
9781848269736, pp. 865-877.
Iordache O. (2010), Polystochastic Models for
Complexity, Springer, Berlin, Germany,
298 pp., ISBN 9783642106538.
Kötter R., Balsiger P. W. (1999), Interdisciplinarity
and Transdisciplinarity: A Constant
Challenge To The Sciences, Issues in
Integrative Studies 17:87-120.
Lacaze J.-P. (1990), Les méthodes de l'urbanisme,
Deuxième edition corigée, Presses
Universitaires de France, Paris, 127 pp.,
ISBN 9782130452140.
Lattanzi M. (1998), Transdisciplinarity: stimulating
synergies, integrating knowledge, UNESCO
Division of Philosophy and Ethics, Paris, 82 pp.
Lovelock J. E. (1979), Gaia: A new look at life on
Earth, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
157 pp., ISBN 0-19-217665-X.

Urbanism. Arhitectură. Construcţii • Vol. 4 • Nr. 2 • 2013 •
50
Meiţă V. (2010), Materiale ecologice pentru
construcţiile din Delta Dunării, Urbanism.
Arhitectură. Construcţii 1(1):31-36.
Nicolescu B. (2005), The transdisciplinary evolution
of learning, Centre International de
Recherches et d’Etudes
Transdisciplinaires (CIRET), Paris,
http://perso.club-internet.fr/nicol/ciret.
O’Campo P., Kirst M., Schaefer-McDaniel N.,
Hwang S., (2011), Introducing a
Transdisciplinary Approach to Applied Urban
Health Research, in: Kirst M., Schaefer-
McDaniel N., Hwang S., O'Campo, P.
(Eds.), Converging Disciplines: A
Transdisciplinary Research Approach to
Urban Health Problems. 1st Edition, 172 pp.,
ISBN 9781441963291, pp. 3-11.
Péchoin D. (1995), Le petit Larousse en couleur [in
French], Larousse, Paris, 1784 pp., ISBN
2033013316.
Petrişor A.-I. (2010), The Theory and Practice of
Urban and Spatial Planning in Romania:
Education, Laws, Actors, Procedures,
Documents, Plans, and Spatial Organization.
A Multiscale Analysis, Serbian
Architectural Journal 2(2):139-154.
Ramadier T. (2004), Transdisciplinarity and its
challenges: the case of urban studies, Futures
36(4):423-439.
Salmons J., Wilson L. (2007), Crossing a Line: An
Interdisciplinary Conversation about Working
Across Disciplines, Models and Notes, A
Trainerspod Webinar, August 23, 2007.
Stokols D. (2011), Transdisciplinary Action Research
in Landscape Architecture and Planning:
Prospects and Challenges, Landscape
Journal: design, planning, and
management of the land 30(1):1-5.
Tress B., Tress G., Décamps H., d’Hauteserre A.
M. (2001a), Bridging human and natural
sciences in landscape research, Landscape
and Urban Planning 57(3-4):137-141.
Tress B., Tress G.,Valk A. v.d. (200 1b),
Interdisciplin arity and trans disci plinarity
in landscape studies – the Wageningen
DELTA approach, in: Tress B., Tre ss
G.,Valk A. v.d., Fry G. (Eds),
Interdisciplin arity and trans disci plinarity
in landscape studies: Poten tial and
limitations, Delta series 2, Wageningen,
NL, 19 2 pp., ISBN 9080763713, pp. 8-15.
United Nations Environmen t Programme –
UNEP (2012), Rio Decl aration on
Envir onment and Devel opmen t,
http://www.unep.org/
Documents.Multilingual/Default.a sp?
documentID=78&articleID=1163
Wallerstein I. (2004 ), World-Sys tems Analysis:
An Introduction, Duke Unive rsity,
Durham, NC, 128 pp., ISBN
9780822334422.
Wu J., Hobbs R. J. (2007 ), Ke y Topics in
Landsc ape Ecology, C ambri dge
University Press, Camb ridge, U K, 29 7
pp., ISBN 9780 5112 95607.
Zaman G., G oschin Z. (2010),
Multidisci plinarity, Interdisci plinarity
and Transdis ciplin arity: The oretical
Approaches and Implicati ons for the
Strategy of Post-Crisis Sustainable
Devel opment, Theoretical an d Ap plied
Economics 12(553 ):5 -20.
Received: October 6, 2012 • Accepted in final format: October 14, 2012