Code: ARC1049-1

Lead teacher-researcher

Start date: September 2026

Credits and workload

Number of credits: 4
Semester duration: 30 contact hours, in sessions of 3 hours each, for a total of 10 sessions, plus 80 hours of personal work per student.

Biography

Joëlle Chaftari is an architect and researcher who holds a doctorate and a master’s degree in engineering from the University of Tokyo (Department of Architecture), where she held a scholarship throughout her academic career.

During her seven years in Japan, she developed a research practice grounded in the analysis of regional geographies and territorial dynamics. As part of her laboratory work, she contributed to field research on territorial revitalisation in rural Japanese contexts. Her master’s thesis examined the spatial, climatic and social qualities of the engawa – the intermediate platforms of Japanese dwellings – and their contemporary transformations.

Her doctoral work, at the interface of geography, urban planning and disaster risk reduction (DRR), examines how territorial specificities, in interaction with social and cultural factors, shape population movements in times of crisis. Through a multi-scalar approach, she studied the capacity of certain mountain configurations, used as places of refuge, to form resilient refuge spaces, highlighting the role of self-sufficiency and community dynamics as determining factors.

She has close to ten years of experience in architecture and urban design and, in recent years, has been developing her own practice. Her approach rests on a close reading of territorial, climatic and environmental contexts, and seeks to combine analytical rigour with sensitivity to natural conditions, climate and materiality.

Introduction

Project context

Over recent decades, global contexts have been marked by an intensification of crises, linked to the convergence of conflicts, environmental transformations and the acceleration of natural hazards. In this context, disaster risk is increasing not only in frequency but also in complexity, with cascading effects on infrastructure, economies and social systems.

In the field of disaster risk reduction (DRR), disasters are now widely understood not as simple isolated events triggered solely by hazardous phenomena, but as the result of dynamic interactions between hazards, exposure, vulnerabilities and capacities. Contemporary approaches place increasing emphasis on the interdependencies between environmental systems, infrastructure, socio-spatial practices and governance conditions.

These different components of risk are embedded in particular territorial contexts. Exposure, vulnerabilities and capacities are built and transformed in relation to physical, environmental, social, economic, infrastructural and institutional characteristics that vary in space and time. Risk therefore has an intrinsically territorial dimension, as its configurations and effects may differ according to the characteristics of the territories concerned and the relationships established within them.

Lebanon is a particularly complex environment that reveals these dynamics. Recurring political and economic crises, deteriorating infrastructure and inadequate territorial planning have contributed to the emergence of fragmented and unevenly resilient socio-spatial systems, as well as to multiple and interconnected configurations of vulnerability.

Added to this already fragile context is the territory’s exposure to multiple hazards, both natural and human-made.

The recurring conflicts the country faces are a human-made hazard which, beyond its direct effects, helps to transform conditions of vulnerability, exposure and capacity, in particular by reconfiguring the dynamics of exposure through large-scale displacement and by intensifying the pressure on already fragile territorial and infrastructural systems.

At the same time, Lebanon is exposed to various natural hazards, including floods, earthquakes, landslides, forest fires and heatwaves, some of which are likely to be intensified by the effects of climate change.

The recurrence and overlapping of crises, the coexistence of multiple hazards and their interactions with multiple conditions of exposure and vulnerability and with weakened capacities for preparedness, response and recovery thus produce a complex and interconnected risk system. These different components interact and evolve over time and space, at different scales of the territory, and can contribute to the accumulation, amplification and redistribution of risk.

Despite these conditions, disaster risk prevention and resilience-oriented planning have historically received limited institutional attention, and responses to crises often remain reactive rather than anticipatory. In this context, local communities frequently rely on informal practices, situated knowledge and adaptive strategies to cope with recurring conditions of uncertainty.

Research questions

This atelier is built around one general question:

How do territorial configurations shape vulnerabilities, capacities and risk dynamics?

This question is explored through several lines of inquiry:

How are territorial vulnerabilities produced, and how do they manifest themselves, in contexts marked by multiple crises, and how are they shaped by the particular configurations of territories?
How are these dynamics experienced, perceived and negotiated in everyday spatial practices, and how do they take part in the relationships between populations and territories?
How can architectural, creative and spatial practices contribute to observing, documenting, analysing, interpreting and representing territorial configurations of vulnerability and risk?
How does an interdisciplinary and multi-scalar approach broaden the ways in which the relationships between regionality, vulnerability, capacities and risk are understood, analysed and communicated?

As part of the application to heritage developed in this edition of the ARC:
How does territorial configuration shape the vulnerabilities and capacities of heritage in the face of the hazards to which it is exposed?

Problem statement

In the Lebanese context, characterised by overlapping recurring crises, exposure to multiple hazards and weakened institutional and infrastructural capacities, understanding vulnerabilities is a central issue for disaster risk reduction. Insufficiently detailed and territorialised knowledge of these vulnerabilities limits the ability to identify the conditions that produce risk, to anticipate how they evolve and to guide prevention, preparedness, response and recovery strategies suited to the specificities of each territory.

This difficulty points to a more general scientific problem. While contemporary approaches to disaster risk have gradually incorporated systemic and interdisciplinary perspectives and widely recognise the multidimensional nature of vulnerability, technical, institutional and quantitative frameworks alone do not always make it possible to grasp its fine-grained, situated and experiential dimensions. They also tend to leave less visible the relational and socio-spatial mechanisms through which the different dimensions of vulnerability interact, are built and change within particular geographical configurations.

The problem therefore lies not only in identifying vulnerability factors, but in understanding their interactions and their territorial inscription: how do physical and human characteristics combine, reinforce or offset one another within a given territory, and how do these configurations interact with exposure, capacities and hazards to produce differentiated risk situations?

From this perspective, regionality – understood as the particular configuration of physical and human characteristics and of their relationships that distinguishes one territory from another – raises a specific issue: understanding to what extent these territorial configurations can explain differentiated forms of vulnerability, capacity and risk, including between territories facing comparable hazards.

In this edition of the ARC, this problem will be explored through heritage. Heritage will be considered not as an isolated object, but in its territorial inscription, by relating its own characteristics, those of the territory in which it is located and the hazards to which it is exposed. The atelier will thus seek to explore how different territorial configurations can help to shape the vulnerabilities and capacities of heritage in the face of hazards.

Research hypothesis

Statement of the hypothesis

This atelier is based on the hypothesis that vulnerabilities, capacities and risk configurations do not result solely from isolated factors, but from the combination of and interactions between the physical and human characteristics specific to each territory. Studying these territorial configurations through an interdisciplinary and multi-scalar approach makes it possible to produce finer-grained and more situated readings of vulnerabilities and to better understand the dynamics through which disaster risk forms in contexts marked by multiple crises.

As part of the application to heritage developed in this edition of the ARC, this hypothesis leads to considering that the vulnerability and capacities of a heritage element in the face of a hazard depend not only on its own characteristics, but also on the territorial configuration in which it is located.

Justification of the hypothesis

This hypothesis draws on contemporary approaches to risk that recognise the multidimensional, dynamic and relational nature of vulnerability. The MOVE framework (Birkmann et al., 2013) highlights in particular the interdependence of different dimensions of vulnerability and capacity, while the PAR model (Blaikie et al., 1994) underlines the processes through which root causes, dynamic pressures and unsafe conditions contribute to producing vulnerability.

These frameworks provide a theoretical basis for going beyond a reading of vulnerability as a mere accumulation of factors and for approaching it through the relationships and processes that produce it. Regionality extends this reading by questioning their territorial inscription and the way in which physical and human characteristics and their relationships are configured within particular territories. It thus makes it possible to examine how these configurations can help to produce, amplify or reduce different forms of vulnerability and capacity.

The multidimensional and relational nature of these configurations also justifies an interdisciplinary and multi-scalar reading. Bringing together different modes of observation, documentation, analysis, interpretation and representation makes it possible to grasp complementary dimensions of the territory and the relationships established between them. Architectural, creative and spatial practices can in particular help to articulate quantitative, qualitative, spatial and experiential data and to make visible certain relationships that are difficult to grasp through a single disciplinary approach.

Applied to heritage, this hypothesis leads to considering heritage not as an isolated object, but in the relationships it maintains with its territorial context and with the hazards to which it is exposed. Comparing different heritage–territory–hazard configurations thus makes it possible to examine how territorial specificities can help to shape the vulnerabilities and capacities of heritage.

Description

This atelier explores territorial vulnerabilities and the dynamics through which disaster risk forms, through the geographical characteristics specific to each territory. Regionality is therefore the atelier’s central interpretive framework: it makes it possible to examine how physical and human characteristics and their relationships produce particular territorial configurations, likely to shape vulnerabilities, capacities and risk in different ways.

Through an interdisciplinary and multi-scalar approach, architectural, creative and spatial practices help to bring together different modes of observing, documenting, analysing, interpreting and representing the territory, and are seen as complementary modes of inquiry and knowledge production.

In this edition, this problem is explored through heritage. In conjunction with a collective project to survey and document heritage in Lebanon, the building and structuring of a heritage corpus provide an empirical basis for exploring how the territorial configurations in which heritage is located help to shape its vulnerabilities and capacities in the face of the hazards to which it is exposed.

Keywords: territorial vulnerabilities, disaster risk, regionality, territorial configurations, capacities, resilience, socio-spatial processes, heritage, interdisciplinarity, situated knowledge, creativity

Learning outcomes

In this atelier, the learning outcomes are aligned with the educational objectives defined by ALBA and aim to develop analytical, critical and creative skills through an interdisciplinary reading of territorial vulnerabilities and risk.

By the end of this ARC, the student will be able to:

Identify the main concepts and theories related to the subject.
Critically interpret relevant works and documents.
Assess the different perspectives and approaches related to the research field.
Analyse complex issues related to the subject.
Solve practical problems by applying the knowledge acquired during the ARC.
Design innovative and creative solutions by integrating the concepts acquired.
Plan and organise projects using the skills acquired.
Carry out practical work demonstrating mastery of the skills acquired.
Produce high-quality reports or presentations, using clear communication.
Apply the skills acquired in professional contexts relevant to the research field.

In the specific context of this ARC, these outcomes translate in particular into the ability to characterise territorial configurations at different scales, to relate the different dimensions of vulnerability and capacities, to use regionality as an interpretive framework and to develop an interdisciplinary analysis of the relationships between territory, hazards and risk.

Methodology

Research and creation framework

The ARC adopts an interdisciplinary and multi-scalar approach, combining methods drawn in particular from architecture, geography, the arts and the social sciences. The research combines data collection and structuring, geographical and spatial analysis, quantitative and qualitative methods, mapping, and architectural, visual and creative modes of representation suited to the issues studied.

The approach is progressive and iterative: exploring and relating the data brings out observations, questions and hypotheses, from which the relevant variables, indicators and methods of analysis are defined. The results are then analysed and interpreted at different scales, and presented in forms suited to the nature of the research and to the disciplines involved.

In this edition, this approach is applied to heritage and is linked to a collective project to survey and document heritage in Lebanon, a first study area of which concerns South Lebanon.

Data collection methods

Data collection methods are adapted to the issues studied and may combine:

documentary research and consultation of libraries, archives, databases and institutional collections;
collection and structuring of existing data, in particular heritage data;
photographic and audiovisual documentation;
surveys and spatial observation;
mapping and georeferencing;
exploratory interviews;
collection of geographical and contextual data, both quantitative and qualitative.

In this edition, given that the study area is located in South Lebanon, building the heritage corpus will rely mainly on identifying and collecting existing sources and data rather than on direct fieldwork observation. Students will take part in identifying, assessing, structuring and, where the nature of the data allows, georeferencing these data, in order to gradually build a shared documented corpus on heritage in South Lebanon. Additional data may then be sought according to the questions and hypotheses that emerge from this first exploration, in particular through qualitative sources or testimonies where these are accessible and relevant.

Data analysis

The analysis combines qualitative, quantitative, spatial and visual methods, depending on the nature of the data and the issues studied. It consists in particular of:

Identifying and characterising the territorial situations and configurations studied;
Comparing different territorial situations and configurations in order to bring out their similarities, differences and variations;
Cross-referencing and relating documentary, geographical and contextual data;
Analysing the data spatially at different scales through mapping and geographical tools;
Describing and comparing the data quantitatively where their nature allows;
Representing and summarising the results through maps, tables, graphs, diagrams and other suitable forms of representation;
Interpreting the relationships, variations and contrasts observed in the light of regionality, vulnerabilities, capacities and risk.

The analysis gradually aims to bring out significant relationships, to formulate questions and hypotheses, and then to examine them using the available data. The interpretation then relates the results to the notions of regionality, vulnerability, capacities and risk, while taking into account the limits and uncertainties of the data.

As part of the application to heritage, this approach will make it possible to explore and compare the relationships between heritage, territory and hazards, in order to understand how the territorial configurations in which heritage is located can help to shape its vulnerabilities and capacities in the face of the hazards to which it is exposed.

Assessment

Assessment is based on the students’ ability to develop an interdisciplinary research approach combining territorial observation, critical analysis and spatial or creative production.

It comprises the following elements:

Attendance and active participation (10%)
Participation in the CRC lecture series (20%)
Mid-term submission (30%)
This submission takes the form of a documented territorial reading file, including the corpus and data used, maps, preliminary analyses of vulnerabilities and a first interpretation of territorial dynamics.
Final submission (40%)
The final submission comprises the corpus built and structured as part of the survey work, together with an interdisciplinary production combining analysis and creation (installation, spatial project, visual narrative, mapping or another format), developed from the research approach. The whole is accompanied by an explanatory document presenting the approach, the results and the interpretations developed.

References

List of references

Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., Davis, I., & Wisner, B. (1994). At risk: Natural hazards, people’s vulnerability and disasters. Routledge.
Birkmann, J., Cardona, O. D., Carreño, M. L., Barbat, A. H., Pelling, M., Schneiderbauer, S., Kienberger, S., Keiler, M., Alexander, D., Zeil, P., & Welle, T. (2013). Framing vulnerability, risk and societal responses: The MOVE framework. Natural Hazards, 67, 193–211.
Corner, J. (1999). The agency of mapping: Speculation, critique and invention. In D. Cosgrove (Ed.), Mappings. Reaktion Books.
Holling, C. S. (1973). Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1–23.
Ide, T., Schilling, J., Link, J. S. A., Scheffran, J., Ngaruiya, G., & Weinzierl, T. (2023). On exposure, vulnerability and violence. Global Environmental Change, 78.
Rendell, J. (2006). Art and architecture: A place between. I.B. Tauris.
UNDRR (2022). Global assessment report on disaster risk reduction. United Nations.
Wisner, B., Blaikie, P., Cannon, T., & Davis, I. (2004). At risk (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Summary of previous studies

Research in disaster risk reduction has gradually moved towards a systemic understanding of risk, integrating the interactions between hazards, exposure, vulnerabilities and capacities. Foundational works such as Blaikie et al. (1994) highlighted the structural processes through which vulnerability is formed, while more recent frameworks such as MOVE (Birkmann et al., 2013) stress its multidimensional nature. Contemporary research also highlights the importance of territorial dynamics, systemic interdependencies and cascading impacts.

Geographical approaches to risk have, at the same time, shown the importance of the characteristics specific to territories and of their relationships in producing differentiated forms of vulnerability and capacity. They thus invite us to consider the territory not as a mere spatial support, but as a configuration of physical and human factors whose interactions contribute to the construction of risk.

In parallel, contributions from critical geography, architecture and artistic research have explored the role of observation, mapping and spatial and creative practices as modes of analysing and representing the territory. These approaches help in particular to reveal fine-grained, sensitive and situated dimensions of territorial dynamics.

Gaps in the literature with regard to the present project

Despite these advances, relatively little attention has been paid to the socio-spatial processes through which vulnerabilities are experienced, negotiated and expressed in everyday territorial conditions, particularly in contexts marked by multiple crises and prolonged instability.

Moreover, while the different dimensions and factors of vulnerability are now widely identified, studying them does not always make it possible to understand how they combine and interact within particular territorial configurations. Greater attention can therefore be paid to the relationships between physical and human characteristics and to the way in which their combinations can produce differentiated forms of vulnerability, capacity and risk depending on the territories and hazards considered.

In this respect, architectural, spatial and creative practices, combined with geographical, quantitative and qualitative approaches, offer complementary modes of observation, analysis and representation that are still relatively little connected in the study of risk. This atelier aims to help fill these gaps by developing an interdisciplinary and multi-scalar reading of territorial configurations.

In this edition, this reflection is applied to heritage in order to explore it not as an isolated object, but through the relationships between its own characteristics, its territorial context and the hazards to which it is exposed.

Expected results

This atelier aims to produce a set of results combining territorial analysis, interdisciplinary exploration and creative production.

Students are asked to develop:

Documented territorial readings, cross-referencing different sources and data in order to characterise territories, their vulnerabilities and their capacities;
A structured and documented corpus, contributing, in this edition, to the survey and documentation of heritage;
Multi-scalar maps and spatial representations making it possible to locate, characterise, cross-reference and compare different territorial configurations;
Quantitative, qualitative, spatial and visual analyses, represented through tables, graphs, maps, diagrams or other suitable forms;
Critical and analytical reflections on the relationships between regionality, vulnerabilities, capacities and risk;
Interdisciplinary productions, which may use architectural, visual, cartographic, audiovisual or hybrid forms to document, analyse or communicate the results of the research.

In this edition of the ARC, a first expected result is the building and structuring of a documented corpus on heritage in South Lebanon, based on the identification, collection, assessment and, where possible, georeferencing of existing data, possibly supplemented by additional data according to the needs of the research. This corpus will contribute to the collective project to survey and document heritage in Lebanon and will help to enrich the knowledge and data available at ALBA.

This corpus will at the same time form the empirical basis of the research developed in the ARC. Studying heritage in its territorial inscription will make it possible to relate its own characteristics, the territorial configurations in which it is located and the hazards to which it is exposed, in order to explore the resulting vulnerabilities, capacities and risk dynamics.

Some of the work may be developed as editorial contributions (texts, maps, visual analyses or hybrid forms) with a view to possible publication in the ALBA journal.

Discussion and conclusion

This atelier proposes to explore how an interdisciplinary and multi-scalar reading of the territory can help to deepen the understanding of vulnerabilities, capacities and disaster risk. By placing regionality at the heart of the analysis, it seeks to go beyond identifying factors considered in isolation in order to examine how physical and human characteristics combine and interact within particular territorial configurations.

The approach developed highlights the potential of interactions between disciplines in producing situated knowledge. It combines documentary research, geographical and spatial analysis, quantitative and qualitative methods and, where relevant, architectural, visual and creative practices in order to document, analyse, interpret and represent the territorial dynamics of risk.

In this edition, the application to heritage puts this approach to the test of a concrete object, by considering heritage in its territorial inscription and in its relationships with the hazards to which it is exposed. It also contributes to building and structuring knowledge on heritage in Lebanon.

The atelier thus opens up perspectives for developing interdisciplinary approaches capable of linking research, the understanding of territorial configurations and suitable modes of representation, whose principles may be used to study other objects, territories and risk situations.

Facilitators

Facilitators may be invited on an occasional basis during the semester to lead workshops or specific sessions related to the themes of the atelier. They may include architects, artists, designers or professionals from related disciplines, depending on the lines of work developed within the atelier.

Lecturers

Students will take part in the lecture series of the Centre for Research and Creation (CRC), which brings together speakers from different disciplines around the cross-cutting themes of the centre and of the atelier.

Materials required by the CRC

Access to mapping and spatial analysis tools (such as ArcGIS or equivalent), if available
Classroom equipped for presentations (projector, screen)
Access to collective workspaces
Possibly an exhibition or presentation space at the end of the semester

Materials required by the student

Personal laptop
Documentation equipment (smartphone or camera)
Notebook or other note-taking medium for fieldwork
Representation and mapping tools (analogue or digital)
Basic drawing, layout or visual editing software
Simple production materials (printing, models, presentation media), according to the needs of the projects

Action plan

The atelier follows a structured progression combining conceptual input, territorial exploration and documentation, construction of the research problem, interdisciplinary analysis and presentation. The approach is progressive and iterative: the data collected and the first observations bring out questions and hypotheses, which in turn guide the research and the analysis.

It is organised in four main phases:

Phase 1: Exploration and construction of the research problem
Introduction to the fundamental notions of hazard, risk, vulnerability, regionality and territorial reading, through theoretical input, case studies and collective discussions. In parallel, identification, collection, assessment and structuring of the available data, as well as, where their nature allows, their georeferencing and mapping. Exploring and comparing these data gradually makes it possible to characterise the situations studied, to relate different territorial characteristics and to bring out research questions and hypotheses.
Phase 2: Construction of the research protocol
Based on the questions and hypotheses formulated, definition of the variables, indicators, data and methods needed to examine them. This phase guides the search for additional data and the construction of an analytical approach suited to the issues studied.
Phase 3: Analysis and interpretation
Qualitative, quantitative, spatial and visual analysis of the data according to their nature, in order to identify, compare and relate different territorial configurations. The results are then interpreted in the light of regionality, vulnerabilities, capacities and risk, taking into account the different scales of analysis.
Phase 4: Conclusion and presentation
Synthesis and discussion of the results in order to answer the research questions and examine their limits. The work is presented in suitable forms – maps, tables, graphs, diagrams, visual, spatial or other interdisciplinary productions – that communicate the results of the research.

Schedule

The schedule combines theoretical input with the gradual progress of the research work, following the four phases of the methodological approach: (1) exploration and construction of the problem, (2) construction of the protocol, (3) analysis and interpretation, and (4) conclusion and presentation. These phases are methodological landmarks but are not strictly linear: collection, observation, mapping, comparison and analysis may continue and overlap throughout the semester.

Phase 1: Exploration and construction of the problem

Session 1: Hazard, risk and disasters | Launch of the exploration and collection

Introduction to the atelier, its objectives and the methodological approach of the research.
Introduction to the notions of hazard, exposure, risk and disaster.
Presentation of the application to heritage and launch of the identification and collection of existing sources and data.
First critical observation of the materials collected: nature of the data, heritage documented, location, observable characteristics and first questions about the territory, hazards, vulnerabilities and capacities.
Number of hours: 3 hours per session
Independent work: 8 hours per session

Session 2: Vulnerability, capacities and resilience | Collection, structuring and first observations

Introduction to the different dimensions of vulnerability and capacities and to the main conceptual frameworks used, in particular the PAR model (Blaikie et al., 1994) and the MOVE framework (Birkmann et al., 2013).
Continued collection, assessment and structuring of the corpus.
Location, georeferencing and first maps where the nature of the data allows.
Continued observation and first connections between the characteristics of heritage, territory and hazards.
Number of hours: 3 hours
Independent work: 8 hours

Session 3: Regionality and territorial vulnerability | Mapping, characterisation and connections

Introduction to regionality and to the relationships between physical and human characteristics in the construction of particular territorial configurations.
A multi-scalar approach to vulnerabilities, capacities and risk dynamics.
Continued collection, structuring and mapping of the corpus.
Characterisation and comparison of the first situations observed; search for relationships, contrasts and regularities between heritage, territory and hazards.
Number of hours: 3 hours
Independent work: 8 hours

Session 4: Heritage, territory and risk | Comparison and emergence of the research problem

Deeper exploration of the relationships between heritage, territory, hazards, vulnerabilities and capacities.
Review of the corpus built and of the first maps.
Comparison and connection of the observations made from the different materials available.
Identification of relationships, contrasts, regularities, gaps or particular situations.
Gradual emergence and formulation of problem statements, research questions and hypotheses.
Number of hours: 3 hours
Independent work: 8 hours

Phase 2: Construction of the protocol

Session 5: Construction of the protocol | Question, hypothesis, variables and indicators

Consolidation of the observations and comparisons made during the exploratory phase.
Formulation and refinement of the research questions and hypotheses.
Selection of the relevant characteristics and variables to be related or compared.
Definition of the indicators, data needed and methods for examining the hypotheses.
Identification of missing data and launch of a targeted additional collection.
Number of hours: 3 hours
Independent work: 8 hours

Phase 3: Analysis and interpretation

Session 6: Implementation of the protocol | Targeted collection and first analyses

Continued targeted collection according to the variables, indicators and data defined.
Structuring, coding and preparation of the data according to their nature.
Analysis of the selected variables and indicators.
Comparison of the situations and configurations studied.
Cross-referencing and connection of the data at different scales.
Implementation of the first qualitative, quantitative, spatial, visual and/or other forms of analysis suited to the materials and disciplines involved.
Adjustment of the protocol where the available data require it.
Preparation of the mid-term submission.
Number of hours: 3 hours
Independent work: 8 hours

Session 7: Mid-term presentation | Analysis, discussion and direction of the research

Presentation of the mid-term submission: corpus built, research question and hypothesis, protocol developed, data used and first analyses.
Presentation of the first analytical, spatial, visual or creative representations and productions developed.
Collective critical discussion of the analyses, of the relationships highlighted and of the approaches developed.
Identification of the analyses to be deepened, of possible adjustments to the protocol and of additional data to be collected.
Direction of the work for the continuation of the research.
Number of hours: 3 hours
Independent work: 8 hours

Session 8: Deepening the analysis and interpretation | Development of the productions

Consolidation and deepening of the analyses, comparisons and connections between the data.
Identification of the relationships, variations, contrasts and configurations highlighted.
Interpretation of the results in the light of the research questions and hypotheses and of the notions of regionality, vulnerability, capacities and risk.
Production and development of maps, tables, graphs, diagrams, spatial and visual representations, illustrations, audiovisual productions or other creative forms suited to the disciplines and issues studied.
Exploration of how these different modes of representation and creation can help to analyse, interpret and communicate the results of the research.
Identification of limits, uncertainties and any additional data needed.
Number of hours: 3 hours
Independent work: 8 hours

Phase 4: Conclusion and presentation

Session 9: Conclusion and synthesis | Finalising the analysis and developing the productions

Finalisation and synthesis of the analyses and interpretations.
Return to the research questions and hypotheses and formulation of the conclusions that can be drawn.
Discussion of limits and uncertainties.
Development and finalisation of the analytical, cartographic, spatial, visual, audiovisual or creative productions intended to present and communicate the results of the research.
Number of hours: 3 hours
Independent work: 8 hours

Session 10: Final presentation | Presentation and discussion of the research

Final presentation of the work and collective presentation.
Presentation of the corpus built, the methodological approach and the protocol developed.
Presentation of the maps, analyses and analytical, spatial, visual, audiovisual or creative productions carried out.
Presentation and discussion of the results, interpretations and conclusions that can be drawn depending on the progress of the research.
Critical discussion of the limits, of any data still to be collected and of the possibilities for continuing the research.
Number of hours: 3 hours
Independent work: 8 hours

In this edition of the ARC, this progression is an intended methodological framework whose implementation will be adapted to the nature, quantity, quality and accessibility of the available data. As the heritage survey and documentation project is itself still being built, a significant part of the semester may be devoted to identifying, collecting, assessing, structuring, georeferencing and mapping existing data. These operations are in themselves a stage of the research and will gradually determine which analyses can be carried out. The phases of analysis, interpretation and presentation may therefore be developed to different degrees depending on the progress of the corpus.

Group size

12-15 students maximum

Potential partnerships

Partnerships may be considered with local, institutional or community actors connected with the territories studied, as well as with professionals or researchers from related disciplines.

Language of instruction

French (with use of resources and references in English)

Other details

The atelier may lead to a public presentation (exhibition, talk or screening), encouraging discussion of the work developed.

Semesters

2026-2027. Semester 1Course sheet – 2026-2027. Semester 1 (PDF, 127 KB)

ARC Regionality, Territorial Vulnerabilities and Risk x Heritage