Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
sub-regions of the co-operation area, which have been defined as 'Inland Zone',
'Central Zone', 'Open Zone' and 'Island Zone' (see Figure 1.5). In the NWMA
Spatial Vision process, there was considerable difficulty to reach agreement about
the vision diagram, and the undertaking has even been described as a 'rather risky
exercise' (Doucet, 2002: 71). Reasons for these difficulties were again political
sensitivities about, for instance, how to present certain cities in the urban hierarchy,
or how to categorise parts of the territory.
One explanation for this lack of commonly accepted policy maps for the EU
or transnational territories is surely that European spatial planning is, after all, still in
its infancy, and how to conduct it best is still under discussion. Furthermore, the
capacity to conceptualise territories within the spatial structure of Europe as a
whole is a skill that needs to be developed. Williams (1996: 97) suggested the
term 'spatial positioning' for this process that would help to identify opportunities
and comparative advantages, and generally make it possible to grasp spatial rela-
tionships in a wider territory than the own nation-state or region. The changing
spatial structure of the EU is an additional complication for the conceptualisation of
European space. Successive enlargements in combination with major infrastruc-
ture developments (e.g. the Channel Tunnel or the Öresund Bridge) or locational
decisions (e.g. the decision to move the capital of Germany from Bonn to Berlin in
1991) all contribute to a rapidly changing 'map of Europe' which makes it difficult
for even the most experienced planner to 'think European'.
So far, therefore, there is no such thing as a 'European Spatial Planner' (Faludi,
2002a: 19), and the skill of spatial positioning is not necessarily well established
amongst planners in European member states. Rather, planners from the EU member
states involved in transnational spatial planning processes come from different plan-
ning traditions that may use or interpret policy maps differently. It has been suggested
by various authors that the potential for conflict inherent in the debates on policy maps
for the EU or transnational territories might be a result of different planning cultures,
and national and regional differences in visualising policies (Faludi, 2000; Zonneveld,
2000; Dühr, 2003). At the heart of the problem, however, lie differences of opinion
about spatial policy in the European Union and concerns about the representation of
core and periphery, economically strong and weak regions. In addition, there continues
to be limited understanding and lack of agreement across Europe about the appropri-
ate agenda for planning at the transnational scale. In discussing the development of
the Spatial Vision for North West Europe, which was prepared under the Community
Initiative Interreg IIC, Nadin (2002: 31) has commented that the 'transnational dimen-
sions of spatial development are to some extent self-evident, but that there is still con-
siderable scope for different interpretations on what issues should be addressed in
transnational co-operation (even if the outputs have no formal status), and which
should remain solely the concern of national and regional governments'.
