Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
With regard to the quest for consistent methodologies for documenting
spatial characteristics that would be appropriate for any level of scale or any part of
the territory, which equally applies to their cartographic representation, Bengs
(2002) has pointed out practical problems arising from the significant differences
in spatial characteristics across the EU territory, as well as the different interests
associated with these characteristics. For example, the vast forests of northern
Europe could for Western European planners be conceived as land reserves for
European recreational needs, whereas for northern countries these areas are the
basis of the forestry industry, and thus of great significance to the northern
economies. These different perceptions of parts of the EU territory by 'insiders'
versus 'outsiders' have also been an issue during the ESDP process, when the
Alps were depicted as a 'barrier' in one of the draft illustrations prepared under the
Dutch presidency, which prompted the Austrian delegation to point out that this
mountain range is actually an important living environment for many European cit-
izens. Another challenge is the appropriate representation of spatial characteristics
at EU level. Bengs (2002: 14) argued that a generic approach to the differentiation
of urban characteristics might be useful in the densely populated areas of the EU,
but tends to
flatten out essential differences in the sparsely populated areas of Northern
Europe. A more sensitive instrument with respect to Northern differentiation,
would however simply have turned the graphic representation of central Europe
into an indigestible porridge. Obviously variety in its totality cannot be
encompassed by a uniform scale or by applying a uniform set of classification
criteria. Therefore the requirement that 'all projects should aim at the
observation of the whole European territory' actually implies a set of other
prerequisites, including a flexible application of criteria and scale.
Besides the lack of experience of considering the spatial differences across the EU
territory, there is also generally an 'urban bias' of spatial perspectives. The experiences
at EU level, in this respect, are in many cases just a reflection of national planning tradi-
tions, and the relative emphasis given there to urban areas to the detriment of under-
represented peripheral and rural areas (cf. Chapter 4). The discussions surrounding
the lack of comparable data on the natural and cultural heritage, and the definition of
the spatial issues for the EU territory and related indicators, show this often unre-
flected understanding of spatial development from an urban perspective.
The ESDP process has furthermore shown some interesting interplay
between micro- and macro-politics. One could argue that the initiatives to visualise
spatial policies for the European territory could be more 'daring' at the beginning of
the process, when the audience was rather limited, the document was still a draft
