Geography Reference
In-Depth Information
CONCLUDING REMARKS
The discussion in this chapter has focused on theoretical approaches and other
relevant literature that - in combination with Chapter 2 - add depth to the theo-
retical understanding of the design, content and use of cartographic representa-
tions in strategic spatial planning in Europe. With regard to the context of
elaboration of cartographic representations in planning, the concept of the 'spatial
consciousness' (Healey, 2006) of different planning traditions can offer some first
explanations for the different approaches of planning cultures to the cartographic
representation of spatial policy. Maps influence people's conception of space, but
dominant conceptions of space likewise influence the style of cartographic
representations. The effect is one of mutual reinforcement, leading to a hegemonic
conception of the world, supported and influenced by a standardised image of the
territory. The two dominant conceptions of space - Cartesian and relational - have
fundamentally different implications for how space is perceived and depicted. A
Cartesian understanding sees space as a 'neutral container' that can be planned,
which results in two-dimensional, static and object-related representations. This -
it has been argued - largely neglects the dimension of time and social interactions.
The emerging new relational geography in contrast regards space as a network of
relations and functional interdependencies, in which proximity is less relevant than
'connectivity'. This has important implications for the cartographic representations
used in spatial planning processes, as many of the established spatial concepts in
planning (such as the 'compact city' in the Netherlands or the 'hierarchy of central
places' in Germany) are based on proximity. A relational understanding of space
thus implies that a dynamic representation of different viewpoints and different
functional relationships should be achieved. The depiction of network ideas in plan-
ning needs to be fundamentally different from 'traditional' policy maps such as
master plans, and needs to be more selective, by considering relations and
processes rather than objects and forms. It has been argued that this is a difficult
task, as traditional approaches to conceptions of space appear to be deeply
embedded in cartographic representations in planning today, albeit discourse has
often moved on to discuss network relations (cf. Graham and Healey, 1999). In this
context a link should be forged between the requirement to visually represent
network space in planning and the exercise of power through cartographic
representations (Harley, 1989), or the potential for distortion in communication, as
discussed by Forester (1989, see Chapter 2). 'Traditional' and seemingly scientific
cartographic representations have been accused of using certain rhetorical styles
and standardisation to reproduce power by presenting a standard image of the ter-
ritory, which in turn has led to a common perception of maps as correct
representations of the world (Harley, 1989). Relational representations, however,
