Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
demonstrate that it seems to be very difficult to reach consensus on how to repre-
sent spatial policies for a transnational territory.
The ESDP was developed over a period of many years, and the most difficult
controversies in its development have been in relation to the visualisation of policy
options (Faludi and Waterhout, 2002). While there were 'policy maps' included in
earlier drafts of the ESDP (CSD, 1997, 1998a), and many more had been produced
during the process, the final document (CSD, 1999) does not include any carto-
graphic illustration of spatial strategy. The absence of policy maps makes the
ESDP a curious spatial policy document. Many would regard spatial concepts or
images as an integral part of spatial planning. However, it seems to be distinctly
more difficult to reach consensus about maps than about verbal concepts. Zonn-
eveld (2000: 275) has argued that 'seen from the perspective of conceptualization,
the ESDP is a disappointing document. The ESDP does not give any clue about
ways to look at the spatial structure of the European territory'.
Co-operation on spatial planning issues in Europe has also prompted the
increasing use of transnational spatial visions as a planning instrument, especially
as part of the Community Initiative Interreg IIC (1997-1999) and IIIB
(2000-2006). A comparison of the four spatial visions that have been established
under Interreg IIC, however, shows that very few use cartographic representations
to illustrate and communicate policy (Nadin, 2000). All documents contain numer-
ous maps showing the existing state of the economy, disparities, infrastructure, and
so on, but few illustrations showing policy options. Only two of the transnational
spatial visions, the first VASAB plan (VASAB 2010, 1994a, b) and the NWMA
Spatial Vision (NWMA Spatial Vision Group, 2000), attempt to communicate
policy through some form of visualisation. The two other spatial visions, NorVision
(for the North Sea Region) (Vision Working Group, 2000) and VisionPlanet (for the
CADSES Region) (BBR, 2000) do not include any spatial expression of policy for
the transnational territories. In the new generation of 'visions' or 'frameworks for
action' that are being prepared under Interreg IIIB (2000-2006), there also seems
to be a great reluctance to visualise spatial policy.
In terms of cartographic expression used in the VASAB plan and the NWMA
Spatial Vision, both documents focus on a representation of policies for the devel-
opment of the urban system and transport infrastructure. The first VASAB plan
(see Figure 1.4) illustrates the now famous 'pearls' (the urban settlement system),
'strings' (interlinking infrastructure) and 'patches' (selected types of non-urban
areas of distinct qualities) prominently. This image has not, however, been picked
up by the subsequent project, VASAB 2010 (VASAB 2010, 2001), which
does not include any illustration of the key policy themes. The 'Spatial Vision for
North-west Europe' includes a vision map for the sustainable and balanced devel-
opment of North West Europe, and outlines priorities for territorial development in
