The article originates in an empiric research blocked at the level of theory. The present work deals with two types of arguments: semantic and case-based, questioning the adoption of a neologism: the concept of “frişa1”. Although the domain aimed at is geography, the new term could be transferred towards all research domains that have in common the phenomenon represented by abandoned fields and buildings, that is urbanism and planning, sociology, economy, ecology, culture, defense, etc. Methodologically speaking, there had been three stages. After the semantic analysis of the main terms in French, English and Romanian, we identified the theoretical grounds of the phenomenon they designate. In order to have a proper view upon the present day perception of the phenomenon we looked for information both in the research field and in that of economy, politics and local administration. Our personal survey can be added to these sources and one can say that they all allowed the selection of case study examples that can support the authors’ intention. The source of confusion that inevitably appears in the context of the present article is due to the difficulty in choosing a truly solid concept that could the best choice among all the other Romanian subject-versions. We need to adopt a unifying concept to define all these phenomena presented only as a succession of examples. Although they are apparently different manifestations, they are ultimately focusing upon the same thing: a material understructure that is not used and thus becomes degraded. We may speak about the simultaneity of these phenomena and therefore we could establish a certain typology, which is another stage in our preoccupations with this new, yet not exclusively unifying concept.