Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
'vignettes' or 'icons' (Figure 5.3) in the final ESDP are an example of a generic (or
non-territorial) and highly abstract representation of spatial policies - with the only
spatial aspect in representing the EU territory being a highly generalised nose-
shaped outline of Europe. While the use of 'geodesign' or abstract cartographic
representations in planning at higher spatial scales is undoubtedly important to get
informal planning strategies accepted, Kunzmann (1993) also pointed out their
manipulative potential, by offering highly simplistic and therefore subjective and
biased interpretations of spatial development trends.
THE USE OF CARTOGRAPHIC REPRESENTATIONS IN
TRANSNATIONAL PLANNING PROCESSES
There are significant differences between the informal planning processes at trans-
national and European levels and processes aimed at the preparation of legally
binding plans within a sovereign state. These differences in function of planning
strategies, different audiences and different mechanisms for the implementation of
the plan objectives also affect the cartographic representation of spatial policy.
Planning theory offers limited explanations for this changing context of planning (cf.
Chapter 2). This section will therefore give an overview of relevant previous work
that explicitly considers the function of spatial planning in transnational and cross-
border contexts.
One of the few examples of an application of planning theory to a cross-
border or transnational context is the work by De Vries (2002). He argued that
planning theory assigns two primary functions to planning: co-ordination and steer-
ing. Spatial planning as co-ordination is concerned with the prevention of conflicts
between social actors, which arise from multiple claims on space. Spatial planning
as steering is aimed at achieving spatially formulated objectives, such as establish-
ing a 'main ecological structure'. According to De Vries, a continuum exists
between the co-ordination and steering functions of planning, as neither in theory
nor in practice is it always easy to determine exactly where one kind of planning
begins and the other ends.
The operational aspects of planning, i.e. the relationship between the plan-
ning subject (those responsible for making plans) and the object of planning (the
decision-making process), can be conceptualised in two ways: as communication
and as programming. Planning as
programming
refers to the ambition to actively
implement spatial plans. A necessary precondition for this is the availability of
instruments that give form and substance to the implementation of the plan. If plan-
ning is perceived as
communication
, then the main function of spatial planning is
the provision of interpretative frameworks. The effect of planning must then mainly
