Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
administrative boundaries (cf. Plate 4). Many spatial concepts that are in use in the
Netherlands aim at the integration of spatial impacts, though there is also much
use of 'zoning' instruments (such as red contour) in some of the plans. The 'con-
nections' that are referred to frequently (ecological connections, development axis,
urban networks) are generally represented through arrow symbols. This means that
zoning instruments and more network-oriented ideas coexist in many Dutch plans
(cf. also Healey, 2006), which inevitably raises questions about the effective com-
bination of these two different conceptions of space.
In comparison, while in statutory German plans the surrounding territory at
Länder
level is represented through a topographic map base, there is no acknowl-
edgement of spatial interdependences with neighbouring areas on the actual 'plan
map', thus strictly reflecting the planning competences which end at the adminis-
trative boundary. The dominance of neoclassical and therefore ultimately static
spatial planning concepts leaves little room for the consideration of relational
aspects in the 'plan map' content and symbols used. The only possible exception
is the
LEPro RLP
(Plate 9) which identifies areas with development impulses
following the Bonn-Berlin compensation. Arguably, planners may have given a little
more thought to the underlying spatial structures, and how they could be visually
represented in this respect, and thus, within the regulatory framework, have begun
to deviate from their established 'scientific' representation of policies. The
ORA
,
being an informal instrument, is of course an exception to this, by showing the
German territory in a wider context on all four
Leitbild
illustrations.
In England, reflecting the overall heterogeneous approach to 'mapping', there
is variation in the representation of surrounding territories. In some of the key dia-
grams, the planning territory is represented as an 'island map' with surrounding
territories left white, while in others, which are 'frame maps', there is much variation
with regard to the depiction of connections with neighbouring areas. In some cases
there is for instance a continuation of transport connections into the neighbouring
areas (often shown using arrow symbols), while on other key diagrams there is no
depiction of planned - or even existing - objects outside the administrative bound-
ary. This lack of 'spatial positioning' (Williams, 1996: 97) in the majority of English
plans seems highly problematic, as one could argue that if planners are not familiar
with the wider context of planning, and the connections of their planning territory
with surrounding areas, then the consideration of national or even European con-
nections will pose an insurmountable challenge. Furthermore, the illustrations in
English key diagrams are overall strictly static - often focusing on a representation
of designations or certain locations - and there is no evidence that any considera-
tion has been given to the cartographic representation of functional relationships.
Thus, although overall functional interdependences and networks are
given increasing attention in policy text, the form and style of cartographic
