Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
are now on the agenda, such as 'knowledge society' or social infrastructure, are
difficult to depict. The 'relational turn' in planning and the spatial implications of the
network society are currently not reflected in 'policy instruments' in EU member
states, and neither has the debate at transnational levels been able to make
progress on this. While in the current understanding of planning, many of the policy
options appear to lack a locational reference that would make them easy to depict
in a 'traditional' way, planning theory and practice may have to move on to consider
more relational approaches to visualise spatial policy. This would require discus-
sion of many of the underlying principles of spatial planning, such as proximity as
the guiding principle for many spatial concepts, and would instead call for a
consideration of 'connectivity' aspects (cf. Chapter 3).
Likewise, there is evidence of an 'urban bias' in how spatial development is
perceived and discussed, both within the national planning systems investigated in
this topic as well as at transnational level. The emphasis on urban areas, transport
infrastructure, environment and economic development designations reflects both
a certain perception of the world from an urbanised perspective, as well as a con-
centration on static aspects and objects that can be easily delineated. This is what
Söderström (1996) has described in his historical analysis of zoning maps as only
those elements are 'planned' which can be expressed in graphic terms. The urban
bias has been strongly criticised by countries and regions in the more peripheral
and rural parts of the EU territory, who feel that categories which appropriately rep-
resent the urbanised core of Europe tend to flatten out the differences in the more
peripheral parts of the territory. Besides the need to reconsider the Cartesian and
static representation of spatial policy, there is therefore a need to discuss the
appropriate perspective on European spatial development, and indicators that
reflect the diversity of the EU territory appropriately. However, as long as 'eco-
nomic competitiveness' is the guiding principle for spatial development in Europe,
cities are seen as the engines of the economy, and geographical accessibility as a
guarantor of economic success, a wider and more varied debate on European
spatial policy is unlikely.
Many of the problems experienced with the cartographic representation of
spatial policy in informal transnational policy processes have their roots in a Carte-
sian understanding of planning, and the continuation of a static 'rational-scientific'
representation of spatial policy in many formal planning instruments. Like planning
theory, which has now begun to consider relational aspects of planning, this
change in understanding also needs to be expanded to include the visual commu-
nication media in planning. Furthermore, the 'division of labour' between policy-
makers and cartographers in many planning departments at national, regional and
local levels means that those planners who find themselves on a transnational com-
mittee are to a certain degree stumped at being expected to cover the wide range
