A. Software Creation: Development of independent software or modular, independent modules integrated into Building Information Modelling (BIM) applications that correlate, measure, index, and rate (assign a rating) based on the qualitative/quantitative level of ecosystem service provision, the level of materials, subassemblies, and component constructions.

B. Database Support: These applications should be supported by databases of ecosystem services correlated with primary and derivative or composite construction materials, as well as subassembly components included in BIM applications and/or integrated modules – standard or customized indicators, or updatable/self-updating information (potentially through artificial intelligence).

C. Local Adaptation Factors: The application should be correlated with local adaptation factors – atmospheric conditions like temperatures (annual, monthly, variations, averages, etc.), humidity (multiple factors, see temperature), intensity, type, direction, and origin of winds, zonal sunshine and local ambient shading, atmospheric quality data, composition, pollution – urban and local levels of CO2, NO2, NO3, SO3, SO4, ozone levels, data on local vegetation, etc.

D. Biodiversity Databases: As an extension, databases on local biodiversity are needed, per locality and/or habitat – involving faculties of geography, biology, USAMV (Universities of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine), etc.

E. Accessible Databases: These local, updatable databases (continuously updated, potentially through doctoral students from accredited universities) should be downloadable in module form, potentially free of charge, from the websites of city halls, local, county, regional councils, the Ministry of Environment, environmental agencies, universities, and research institutes.

F. Evaluation Application: An application for evaluators of the “energy audit” type, but for indexing ecological products and materials, ecosystem services, and natural capital.

G. Legislative Regulations: Need for legislative regulations of the European Union and Member States, on the model of the NZEB Directive (with reference to what Janine Benyus said about new criteria for evaluating buildings based on ecological, ecosystem, and biomimetic considerations).

The latest series of doctoral events I attended was the workshop and conferences: “Context for Humanity – Bionics as a Solution for Sustainable Living,” coordinated by Prof. Dr. Arch. Rosa Cervera, University of Alcala de Henares, Spain – in Bucharest (May 27-28, UAUIM) and Tulcea (May 29-31, Vernacular Center), organized by UAUIM through the Doctoral School of Architecture and the Faculty of Interior Design, together with the Tulcea City Hall and the Context for Humanity Association (Tulcea).

During the conferences, I gave the following presentations in English: “Linking Bionic Architectural Interfaces with Ecosystem Services,” a summary of the report no. 3 and chapter III of the dissertation – Biomimetic and bionic ecosystem interfaces, at the Bucharest conference “Bionics, a Solution for Sustainable Living” and “Methods of Ecosystemic Research in Architectural, Landscape and Urban Design.”.

I also drafted the event poster and applicant poster layout and was part of the organizing team.

The purpose of the workshop was to identify ideas for micro-actions regarding urban ecological actions. The group\’s proposal I was part of involved incorporating spaces for composting systems and waste recycling/separation into building designs for tenants\’ associations or communities, and organizing graphic dissemination events and contests to spread this idea.

On March 11, 2018, I participated in another thematic working group meeting, organized by the Better initiative (Florin Enache), with architects, engineers, urban planners, and other specialists at #reConstruim 2018, within ConstructExpo, on day number 4 – Green & Smart (moderated by architect Sergiu Petrea, one of the most recognized promoters of ecological architecture in Romania). I was part of the NZEB group coordinated by architect Radu Andone and presented our team\’s pitch.

The online environmental news platform Green Report published an article about the event (reporter Irina Breniuc): \”Adrian Ibric and his team of architects proposed using temporarily abandoned land in cities. One idea would be to create sustainable parking areas with photovoltaic or green roofs to temporarily solve the parking problem in cities. Another would be to green or decorate fences at the edge of abandoned properties, fences whose appearance discourages citizens from passing by them.”

The core idea behind the \”Filling Voids is Making Money\” presentation was that local authorities, neighborhood communities, and landowners of vacant lots that lack maintenance options should form action groups based on the \”win-win\” principle. With minimal interventions, these vacant or abandoned urban lots, including their boundaries, could be used as temporary interfaces, products, and functions to increase ecological mobility and offer community services, in exchange for reduced taxes and other incentives for private landowners.

This paradigm, focused on minimal intervention to make use of repurposed space, is based on the broken windows theory. This theory suggests that a clean, orderly, and socially positive urban environment discourages anti-social behavior.

The proposal was structured in the classic Climathon format:

• DEAL – Business, Understanding: Utilizing abandoned spaces for community purposes.
• CLIENTS – Potential Clients: Public/private owners of vacant urban parcels, local administrations, business angels (for new services), and entrepreneurs/ecopreneurs.
• MARKET – Market and Potential Business Types: Parking services, advertising agencies, marketing departments, and local administrations.
• PRODUCT – Offered Products: Transforming vacant spaces into architectural interfaces / Providing eco-mobility services on LOT (Ecological parking with photovoltaic/green roofs) and LIMIT (Interactive, creative, media, or green fences, even urban agricultural) and new URBAN POLICIES for (re)defining the regulation of unused interstitial space and urban boundaries (collages with examples are included on the following pages).
• FINANCIALS – Financial Aspects: Potential for higher income for the Local Administration through the taxation of new services, the possibility of selling adjacent properties (yards, houses, and apartments) at a higher price due to increased neighborhood image and comfort, and again, higher income for the administration. On the other hand, lower local taxes for owners of vacant parcels make these spaces available and, where possible, rent them to potential mobile, seasonal, or temporary businesses.
• CLIMATE IMPACT – Environmental Impact: Reducing unauthorized parking and freeing up sidewalks and alleys or side lanes, which leads to faster, less polluting auto (lighter and faster traffic), bicycle, and pedestrian mobility (green energy, more green spaces), and environmental education for the community, especially for new generations, through an example of good practice.
• COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE, NEEDS, ISSUES – Competitive Advantage: Transforming problems such as unkempt, abandoned, neglected, unused, unproductive, unsightly spaces, and potentially problem-generating urban areas (foci of infection, dirt, garbage) into opportunities – modernized spaces, vibrant, inexpensive-to-rent interfaces (for entrepreneurs), street promotion for neighborhoods and administrations, energy production, green areas, recreation spaces, or urban gardening – particularly useful in areas without parks, so residents don\’t have to travel by car to reach them. It was also proposed to use some voids for temporary neighborhood parking (as already exists, especially in the city center), although this proposal provoked a lively debate among the audience and jury members, given that it could lead to increased traffic and continued congestion, despite the advantage that parking would be equipped with solar, photovoltaic, or green roofs.
• TEAM & FOUNDER’S DREAM – Team Vision: \”Improving our cities by converting ugly voids into better, greener, more communicative urban areas.\”
• MOBILITY / INDIVIDUAL PROBLEMS – Mobility and Individual Problems: The possibility of legal parking without occupying sidewalks, reducing pollution and unproductive traffic generated by waiting and the stress, time, and money spent in a car, and increased contact with green space.
• SOCIAL & CULTURAL ADVANTAGES – Social and Cultural Advantages: Passion for urban regeneration, new splashes of color, new businesses, involved locals, neighborhood events, a more united community, and a change from traditional somber clichés – 3-meter-high rusted fences for abandoned construction sites or unkempt bushes where dogs or street people gather.
• BUSINESS PLAN – Business Plan: A viable business plan for this idea was a mobile and internet APPLICATION, with mapping of the relevant land – a complete map of the city of Bucharest (but the concept can be applied globally), following the model of Calup (which subsequently led to the creation of NOD Makerspace) or the Yplan Geoblog Android application for public spaces. The online solution could connect owners with citizens, communities, tenants\’ associations, or entrepreneurs, all of whom would be part of an administrative program to benefit from potential subsidies/reductions/deductions/incentives, etc. There’s a foreign website dedicated to abandoned sites for photographers seeking such backgrounds or settings for their sessions – SHOT HOTSPOT.

In April 2016 (20-24), I participated in the organization of the international workshop \”Confronting Wicked Problems – Adapting Architectural Education to the New Situation in Europe\” at Dealu Frumos, a Transylvanian Saxon settlement in Sibiu county, as part of the omonymous Erasmus+ project carried out by a consortium of 8 European universities and the organizations EAAE (European Association for Architectural Education) and ACE (Architect\’s Council of Europe), lasting for a period of 3 years (2015-2017).

Activities included drafting the workshop\’s annual theme – \”Depopulation as a Thorny Problem / Depopulation as a Wicked Problem,\” delivering a presentation with the same title, and contributing to the drafting of the synthesis report for the UAUIM activity under the coordination of Prof. dr. arh. Ana Maria Dabija / prof. dr. arh. Zeno Bogdănescu, together with a colleague conf. dr. arh. Mihaela Hărmănescu.

I also participated in guiding teams of architecture students (Romanian – UAUIM, Dutch – TU-DELFT, and Italian – Politecnico di Milano). A survey conducted by me among participants (including mentors) revealed divergent positions regarding the impact of depopulation of settlements, as positive, negative, or neutral – these, along with other results and information from the workshop, were integrated into the introductory chapter of the thesis regarding sustainability.