Contested Spaces? The Use of Place Concepts to Communicate Visions for Peri-Urban Areas

Abstract

In Dutch planning, there has always been an important role for spatial concepts. Their role has arguably changed with the recent decentralisation of planning to the regional and local level. At the national level, guiding concepts of a more procedural nature have replaced the more substantive and place-based spatial concepts, leaving more room for regional and local interpretation. At the regional and local level, spatial concepts are still in use, but this seems to be in a more communicative, negotiating and developing role than before. In this paper, we analyse how place concepts are used to exercise power, mobilize resources and frame meaning over the use of the peri-urban areas, in the changing Dutch planning context. This paper focuses on two competing place concepts for overlapping green urban fringe areas in The Hague Region, which have been promoted by different actor constellations and which represent different visions about the meaning of these peri-urban areas. The case study allows conclusions about the changing role of spatial concepts in Dutch spatial planning.

The role and evolution of boundary concepts in transdisciplinary landscape planning

“…Spatial concepts express in words, and often in schematic maps, the desired future of an area, such as the "Compact City" or the "Green Heart". Where spatial concepts in the past were mainly used by policy-makers to reach and maintain consensus about the desired spatial layout of an area, they are increasingly used by local actors to frame meaning for their landscape (Westerink, Lagendijk, Dühr, Van der Jagt, & Kempenaar, 2013a). Spatial concepts can help to express meaning, to gain support and to exercise power (Hagens, 2010;Van Duinen, 2013;Westerink et al, 2013a).…”

Open Concepts as Crystallization Points and Enablers of Discursive Configurations: The Case of the Innovation Campus in the Netherlands

“…Recent work by Hagens (2010) focuses on the performance of spatial concepts in bringing together interests of different agents (Hagens, 2010). Yet, while all these functions manifest themselves in concrete planning practices, the overriding ambition is instrumental, that means, organising space (Westerink et al, 2012, Zonneveld, 1991b. The latter is not without its merits.…”

Making a difference : boundary management in spatial governance

“…Spatial concepts express in words, and often in schematic maps, the desired future of an area, such as the 'Compact City' or the 'Green Heart'. Where spatial concepts in the past were mainly used by policy makers to reach and maintain consensus about the desired spatial layout of an area, they are increasingly used by local actors to frame meaning for their landscape (Westerink et al, 2013a). Spatial concepts can help to express meaning, to gain support and to exercise power (Hagens, 2010;Van Duinen, 2013;Westerink et al, 2013a).…”

“…Where spatial concepts in the past were mainly used by policy makers to reach and maintain consensus about the desired spatial layout of an area, they are increasingly used by local actors to frame meaning for their landscape (Westerink et al, 2013a). Spatial concepts can help to express meaning, to gain support and to exercise power (Hagens, 2010;Van Duinen, 2013;Westerink et al, 2013a). Kooij et al (2014) proposed to use the term 'open concept' to stress the role of spatial concepts to bring different discourses together in a 'middle ground'.…”

“…All these theoretical concepts have dimensions that align with boundary theory. Spatial concepts always involve physical boundaries because they address the meaning of places (Westerink et al, 2013a). Collaborative governance implies cross-boundary activities because of the multiplicity of actors involved in collaboration (Emerson et al, 2012).…”