Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
decidedly not 'comprehensive' in its approach. It needs to be highly selective,
focusing on the distinctive histories and geographies of the relational dynamics
of a particular place. It may recognize borders and cohesions, but also the
tensions, exclusions and conflicts which these generate. It needs to be able to
identify the different timescales of different kinds of relations, to mix fixities and
fluidities, while recognizing the multiplicity of 'citizenships' and forms of 'stake'
which all kinds of people, groups and interests have in a place.
Graham and Healey (1999) have argued that planning should consider relations
and processes rather than objects and forms, and stress the multiple meanings of
space and time. This, Graham and Healey (1999: 642) recognised,
requires careful attention to the representation of policies and projects in map
form, and the expression of time periods. Where two-dimensional representation
and fixed time periods (for example the '5 year plan', the 'structure plan period')
are used, clarity is needed with respect to whose space and time this is and why
it is helpful to use the particular form of expression.
What is more, in order to attempt to capture the multiple, dynamic and contingent
worlds of places, several authors have stressed the need for maintaining multiple
perspectives of the territory simultaneously (Harvey, 1996; Shields, 1995). This
task is facilitated through parallel developments in GIS and computer visualisation
and the use of computer animation techniques which allow the fast and easy
representation of a number of spatial alternatives (cf. MacEachren and Taylor,
1994). Planning practice also needs to
represent places as multiple layers of relational assets and resources, which
generate a distinctive power geometryof places. This emphasizes the need to
recognize that privileging one experience of space and time (for example TGV
stations, optic fibre grids, mega airports etc.) may necessarily undermine other,
equally important, but less powerful interests. The multiple layering is thus
neither neutral nor value-free. (Graham and Healey, 1999: 642)
In order to explore how cartographic representations in contemporary spatial strat-
egies express 'network complexity' ideas, Healey (2006) suggested considering
two qualities: scalar consciousness and relational dynamics. Scalar consciousness
is described as the way in which the 'area' or 'territory' on which attention is
focused is conceptualised, in relation to both its external positioning and its internal
differentiation. With this, Healey primarily picks up on the difference between
placing a spatial strategy within contained (usually legal-administrative) borders
