Developing Geographical Thinking Through The Swot Analysis Of Human Settlements

General observations

Firstly, to assess the students’ SWOT analyses of human settlements, evaluators had to have certain abilities and knowledge in the field of Human Settlement Geography , exact knowledge about the Geography of Romania and expertise in using this assessment instrument. If we compare students with teachers/researchers, the former analyse or scan a picture or a mental representation using specific language, while the latter employ more representations, based on successive readings or sporadic observations based on visual aid. Evaluators had a difficult task because they had to see the human settlements through a magnifying glass: the eyes of the students who had seen them.

The analyses performed by the students have a variable extension, some extremely brief, with very few aspects, some thoroughly structured and developed. The students with short analyses followed the instructions from the seminar and filled out the table based on their prior knowledge. Those who worked at home had the possibility to do some research from various sources and had a copious amount of time, which was why they found more useful information. As the activity was part of a didactics course, the aim was for students to learn to correctly use this analysis tool, based on a well-known concept, not to create a full analysis of a human settlement. The focus was on learning how to properly apply the method (“knowing how to do”), not on the geographic content (“knowing”), despite the fact that the correct usage of geographic information and scientific language was crucial.

Categories of geographic aspects mentioned by students

The study started with 16 SWOT analyses on 15 rural settlements from several counties in Romania: Alba (Bistra – 2 studies), Cluj (Poieni, Iara), Bistriţa-Năsăud (Ciceu-Mihaiești, Maieru), Galaţi (Ghidigeni), Gorj (Bustuchin), Maramureș (Șieu, Șurdești, Băița de sub Codru), Neamţ (Țibucani), Satu Mare (Călineşti-Oaș, Halmeu), Sălaj (Iaz), and Vâlcea (Șirineasa). These studies came from students with different backgrounds: Geography of Tourism (9), Geography (3), Cartography (1), Territorial Planning (2).

We will therefore analyse the four categories of aspects mentioned by students. The geographic location of villages was considered a strength compared to the other spatial components nearby (forest, city, town, medieval fortress, Roman castrum), indicating that they knew the importance of spatial as well as cause and effect relations (“secluded and quiet place”; “favourable for tourism”). The list of strengths also contained natural components (hills, mineral water, reservoir) or the decision was motivated through their quantitative and qualitative assessment (“plant diversity”, “rich flora/fauna”, “diverse relief”, “plateau climate with no excessive temperatures”). In terms of rural population strengths, there were several relevant aspects (“multimillennial continuity of habitation”, “available workforce”), but also elements which differed from one village to the next (“relatively homogenous ethnic structure”; “diverse ethnic structure, with a strong multicultural scene”). The rural road infrastructure was perceived as a strength in only three cases. In some cases, constructions associated with some services were mentioned as strengths (pharmacies, library, police, hairdresser, shops, medical facility, cultural office, mayor’s office, school, church), as well as some utilities (“water and sewage network”, “public lighting in all villages”, “drinking water”, “electricity”; “postal services”). Several man-made touristic sites (Ciceu Fortress, “Dormition of the Virgin Mary” Wooden Church in Șieu, an ethnographic museum, a village museum, Chrissoveloni mansion, Chrissoveloni family crypt in Ghidigeni, Galaţi County, wooden churches), “Mlaştina de la Iaz” nature reserve, ,,Floare mândră de pe Iza” folk festival, customs and traditions (carolling, “the Goat”) were all mentioned as strengths for the villages they inhabited.

Agricultural strengths were those represented by the potential of agriculture (“fertile farmland”, “rich pastures”, “fishing domains”). One case mentioned the existence of agricultural activity, while another presented land use for growing strawberries (Halmeu – “Strawberry Land”) and for producing wine – “among the most famous in Northern Transylvania” –, on relatively small areas in the Halmeu Hills. The industry, poorly represented in Romanian villages, was mentioned only three times (sand and rock quarries, properly managed oil, and gas deposits). Other aspects were considered strengths as well: “presence of multiple villages”, “a good connection with neighbouring settlements”, “good community involvement”, “good water, soil and air quality”. Table 1 contains the (categorised) strengths identified by students.

Most weaknesses (29) of rural areas referred to their population: lack of jobs (6 villages), old population (3 cases), increased mortality rates, decreased birth rates, young people migration abroad, low education level, decrease in population (Table 1 ). Natural conditions have the least identified weaknesses: “bad drinking water”, “shortage of wood as fuel or very high prices”, “danger of landslides, fewer rain and risk of drought”. In terms of man-made components, students identified infrastructure weaknesses (poorly developed, in disrepair, unpaved roads), environmental weaknesses (poor waste management systems, pollution, no proper landfills, excessive deforestation), as well as weaknesses in tourism (lack of touristic advertisement and capitalization, disregard for the true touristic potential, no investments in tourism).

Opportunity is defined as a “favourable situation, occasion”, and the term opportune means “which happens or takes place at the right time and place; suitable to the situation; suitable, convenient, favourable” (Academia Română, 2009). Based on these definitions, we will view opportunities as external situations, conditions, factors or influences favourable for the rural settlement (Dulamă, 2008, p. 298). Opportunity assessment presented by students was difficult as their presentation had been partial. From the list of 59 statements (Table 1 ), we have chosen only eight opportunities which were certain: “Rodnei Mountains provide opportunities for tourism development”; “Western winds”; “European funds”; “existence of non-governmental organisations (NGOs)”; “tourists”; “natural potential (forests)”; “young family support social policies”; “Valea Mare river provides water for people”.

Some aspects were in fact strengths: “touristic potential”; “man-made touristic potential (traditional houses)”; “climate favourable for rest and relaxation”. The other aspects were more like objectives or goals (“attracting investors”, “initiate ecotourism”, “extending orchard farming”, “job creation”, “rehabilitation of Ciceu fortress”, “promoting customs and traditions”, “accessing European funds”, “developing touristic paths”, “road modernisation”, “organisation of folk shows”, “festival organisation”, “fair organisation”, “professional formation centres”, “creating agricultural product processing plants”, “developing wine and fruit products”, “agricultural development”, “creating social events in the community”; “updating the Zonal Urban Plan (ZUP)”; “updating the General Urban Plan (GUP) with the inclusion of new strategic directives”; “job creation and quality of life improvement”; “capitalizing the cultural heritage through sustainable tourism”. To be classified as opportunities, these situations should be presented in such a way that the reader is able to understand that they are real and can act as positive factors in village development. Formulating opportunities must be done alongside data about the moment, duration and place of the activity or action, to be perceived as inputs or information, energy, and matter flows that enter a system and lead to positive effects. Since opportunities may be temporary (seasonal, periodical, annual), it is crucial for students to recognize them in order to capitalize upon them.

The list of 51 risks (Table 1 ), which threaten rural communities, contains aspects which have already been mentioned in the weaknesses list (“decrease in number of inhabitants”, “the young migration towards urban areas or abroad”, “declining birth rates”, “unpaved roads”, “old population”, “loss of traditions and customs”, etc.). Within SWOT analysis, threats are external factors which act or may act in a negative manner upon the rural system, through disruptive energy, information or matter inputs, either large or small. Students classified as threats some “foreign investments”, “deforestation” and “forest disappearance” from many locations, “flooding during spring and autumn” caused by a river flowing through a village, air pollution, as well as water pollution from external sources.

SWOT analyses for cities have been undertaken by students from various fields of study: Geography (12), Geography of Tourism (10), Cartography (3), Territorial Planning (2), Hydrology-Meteorology (2). They developed 30 SWOT analyses on 18 urban settlements: Cluj-Napoca (7), Baia Mare (5), Brad (2), Zalău (2), Arad, Bistriţa, Covasna, Deva, Hunedoara, Miercurea Ciuc, Piatra-Neamţ, Petrila, Sibiu, Satu Mare, Sighişoara, Slatina, Turda, and Uricani. Similarly to countries, city elements and aspects are more numerous and more diversified, therefore 176 strengths were identified. These were less nature-focused, and more man-made centric. As in the case of villages, strengths were listed (theatres, malls, museums, universities, concerts and festivals, hospitals, famous houses, sports areas, viewpoints, sport events, cultural events such as festivals, concerts, etc., medieval castles, airport, parks), had an attribute (multiple communication routes; low unemployment; extended pedestrian area) or even a wider presentation (“a diverse topography which ensures landscape diversity”; “diversity of economic firms and domains”).

The presentation of weaknesses (137) was similar to that of strengths. Students put forward visible components of the urban spectrum (“dilapidated building facades”, “lack of green areas”, “old blocks of flats”, “defacing historical monuments”, “beggars, stray dogs”) and characteristics of urban space (“urban agglomeration”, “heavy traffic”, “urban pollution”, “insufficient parking spaces”). They realized that the city and its citizens directly faced considerable problems: high rents, lack of job opportunities, high unemployment rates.

From the 100 opportunities listed by students, we selected only 11 that corresponded with the previously mentioned criteria: foreign investment, the Ukrainian and Hungarian border nearby, students from Romania and abroad, the Arieş river, the glacial landforms of the Parâng Mountains and the karstic landforms of the Șureanu Mountains, the return of people who left for work abroad, partnerships with prestigious European and US universities, the Nădlac-Arad-Timișoara-Sibiu highway, closeness to railway lines. The other aspects mentioned as opportunities were actually strengths. From the 101 threats mentioned by students, only nine were external negative factors (“tailing pond accidents”; “mining pollution”; “Cluj growth pole”; “touristic offer of cities larger than Oradea, alongside better accessibility”; “students from rural areas”, “excessive deforestations”; “collapse of old mine tunnels”; “mine closure”; “pollution sources near Deva: Mintia Power Plant and S.C. Carpatcement S.A. Chișcădaga”), the rest being weaknesses.

General and specific aspects mentioned by students

SWOT analyses of certain countries contain many exact data, mostly geographic names which allow the individualization of the respective country and its distinction from other states (Dulamă, 2008). The analyses developed by students on their hometowns had a predominance of general aspects, not particular elements. Students who worked during the seminar provided few exact information (Brad Gold Museum, which is unique in the world), in contrast to those who worked from home and sent their solved tasks by email. The latter provided more particular data (Șieu “Dormition of the Virgin Mary” Wooden Church; the mountain train from the Vaser Valley, close to the town of Vișeul de Sus; “Floare mândră de pe Iza” Festival; Chrissoveloni family crypt and mansion from the village of Ghidigeni, Galaţi County; Tailors’ Tower, Village Museum, Art Museum, Cluj-Napoca National History Museum; Citadela Festival and Deva Fortress; the Olt River, the Meseș, Parâng and Șureanu Mountains). These names were important as they were associated with a particular spot / place (village or city), often highly illustrative and symbolic of it.

Operations essential to thinking exercised by students during SWOT analysis

Psychology papers mention six fundamental operations of thinking: analysis and synthesis, abstractization and generalization, comparison, and logical concretization (Zlate, 1999). Firstly, to establish which were strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats, students analysed the components of their hometowns, compared them, and devised the abstractization operation, as they had only extracted certain elements from an ensemble of components. Thus, the students assessed and classified them.

Types of thinking exercised in SWOT analyses

Despite the fact that, within this method, information must be classified into four categories, which may lead to the impression of an algorithmic thinking, within the actual category, each student had the possibility to organise information using a heuristic technique. In general, SWOT analysis requires heuristic strategies to solve tasks. Creating an in-depth and comprehensive analysis involves productive thinking, as it “leads to the combination of disjointed facts, elements and events in a new structure” (Zlate, 1999, p. 278), in our case, a human settlement. Developing the SWOT analysis contributes to critical thinking development, which aims “to test and evaluate possible solutions and explorations” (Moore et al., 1985, p. 5). Furthermore, it helps develop divergent thinking as the search for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats represents a long list of solutions, but all this must be filtered through critical thinking. As they develop their SWOT analysis, students use inductive thinking, but also deductive thinking, as they go from concrete, specific to general, and to abstract, but also from abstract to concrete. If we disregard the names of human settlements and the other geographic markers used by students, we observe that they operate with general aspects that they attribute to the analysed settlements. For example, when analysing cities, under strengths, many mention museums, factories, theatres, festivals, sport, and cultural events, while under weaknesses, overcrowding, pollution.

Language used in the presentation of SWOT analyses

A geographic ability that geography students must acquire and develop is using scientific language, which entails the correct usage of geographic terms. We observed that students made use of concepts specific to geography (economic pole, polarisation area, national growth pole, infrastructure) and numerous informational structures (“polarisation of a cross-county rural area”, “existence of a mono-industrial area”, “lack of cohesion and coordination in sectorial strategies”, “low efficiency of road transit”, “low urbanisation index”) that they had probably not picked up in high school. Likewise, scientific geographic language is used in combination with colloquialisms (“rich pastures”, “beautiful landscapes”, “rich flora”, “rock pit”), and English words (the opportunity of developing a transit “ hub ”).

Even though students refer to a single locality, we believe that they should offer more information about the place they are investigating. For instance, if one mentions “tourism development” as an opportunity, the reader may believe that it implies the development of tourism in that particular town or village and therefore it is a strength, not an opportunity. If it means the development of tourism at national level due to certain policies, strategies, or programmes, then it is an opportunity. Another incomplete statement – “road rehabilitation” – creates problems for readers as they do not know if it is the streets in a particular city, county roads, national or European roads. In general, students correctly use scientific language and rarely employ wrong expressions (e.g. “accumulation dam”).

Abilities developed by using SWOT analyses in studying rural and urban geographic systems

Creating a SWOT analysis requires an ensemble of information and knowledge as well as navigating a cognitive and data processing path for which most students do not have a rigorous plan, which is why such an ability is productive in nature. Since they assess and classify geographic elements and processes based on certain criteria, they develop their own ability to rationalize, to think critically. The analysis uses written language, so students develop their competence for writing. Listing competences specific to geography developed through such a tool is more difficult as there is no consensus on the matter in the scientific world. However, we believe that students develop many such competences: to decipher space organisational forms, analyse the geographic surface, identify the components of a territory or the elements of a problem, classify geographic aspects, solve a geographic problem and many more. Creating and developing such abilities requires using/training geographic thinking.