Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
logical innovation in transport management has resulted in the speeding up of
movement and the 'shrinking of space', though sometimes with large interregional
differences. This notion of 'shrinking space' has been visualised in time-space
maps by Spiekermann and Wegener (1993) for the impact of high-speed train
networks in the European Union (see Figure 3.1). The emergence of telematics
and increasing use of modern information and communications technologies (ICT)
has led to a revolutionary change in the organisation of production processes,
allowing for a spatial separation of functionally interdependent activities through
complex logistics systems, thus contributing further to the erosion of proximity.
Since distances are increasingly measured in time, 'locational strategies tend to
opt for places that are optimal in terms of “connectivity”' (Hajer and Zonneveld,
2000: 348), i.e. places well connected in terms of logistics and transport technolo-
gies. This poses a significant challenge for key planning concepts in European
countries, which use spatial proximity as their organising principle, such as the
'Theory of Central Places' (Christaller, 1933), one of the main organising spatial
concepts in German planning, which aims at providing goods and services in a
hierarchy of settlements based on spatial proximity.
THE CARTOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATION OF 'NETWORK SPACE'
The ability to represent space schematically is influenced by the existence of
signs and symbols to visualise that space. Spatial policies are represented in
certain ways in a Euclidean-oriented understanding of planning, where proximity is
the guiding principle. The dominant diagrammatic expression for different patterns
in a Cartesian representation are point, line and area symbols. The cartographic
representation of spatial policies in 'network space', however, has to take on a dif-
ferent appearance. This presents problems for the in many cases still scientific-
rationally dominated cartographic representation of spatial policy, and raises
questions about how to represent functional relationships, dynamic aspects of
planning and planned objects, and connectivity. These questions have until
recently been largely ignored in the planning literature, and there are only a few
exceptions that have discussed the cartographic representation of 'network
space'.
Graham and Healey (1999), for instance, have pointed out that a relational
theory of space regards space as a field of opportunities which are defined in rela-
tion to actors that use and modify the territory for their purposes. Hence, the carto-
graphic visualisation of such a viewpoint of space needs to be necessarily different
from the traditional master plan. The spatial representation will take the form of a
key diagram or suchlike, identifying opportunities but leaving areas, where no
opportunities have been identified, blank. Healey (2006: 542) has argued that stra-
tegic spatial planning informed by ideas of 'network complexity' is
