Symbolic images
..

Thematic Atlas
..

Historical cartography
..

During the last thirty years (1970-2000) it has been a very intense research effort to produce such images, from both objective (scientific, rational) and subjective (artistic, creative) methods. Some of these images were powerful enough to provide a symbolic representation of the fundamental theoretical paradigms behind spatial development policies (e.g. Keeble “Center and periphery”, Reclus “Banane Blue” highlighting new axes of development, CEDRE “Road traffics” showing the networked structure of Europe).

The first antecendent, probably the better known, is the well-known image produced by Keeble in late seventies, visualising the so-called “Centre and periphery” development paradigm. Keeble maps represented the level of economic integration of each country, calculated simply in terms of geographic distance to other countries and relative trade. Once an image provides the visualisation required by the dominant paradigm, it becomes kind of policy icon. Before and after Keeble famous map, other attemps to develop indicators of the “Centre and periphery” paradigm, and produce images to visualise them, were carried out.

Firsts studies (Keeble, Bielh...), were based on exploring the regional accessibility to the European common market (in terms of interregional trade and distance) and the relative regional endowment of economic infrastructure. These studies identified the so-called “European center and peripheries”, and produce taxonomies of regions in relation to their development conditions.

All considered, geographic position was the explanatory factor: development declined with the distance to the center; central regions were much more integrated than peripheral ones. It was assumed that, because of the higher transport and communication costs of distant regions to access the common European market, less developed regions will likely have severe problems to catch up the central development level, and worse, development gaps risked to increase.

Indicators of agricultural productivity, natural transport conditions etc. were produced to illustrate the different preexisting development conditions across Europe. Not surprisingly, almost all of these “resource-indicators” identified the same area (London-Paris-Randstad-Rhur-Upper Rhine) as the most advantageous position and integrated regions. Starting from agricultural surplus and having intense maritime commerce, they were able to start early on the industrial revolution, develop advanced economic infrastructures and high social capital basis and, during the last decade, create multinational corporations and invest relatively high resources on research and development.

European Spatial Development pattern is often considered “unbalanced”. While there is a developed and densely urbanised area in the center, where most wealth and innovation is generated, many relatively poor peripheral regions remain. Increasing congestion costs in the center, and declining population and activities in the peripheries, are the expected consequences.

On the other hand, the provision of “social” and “territorial”egalitarian conditions is deeply rooted in European public policies. Besides long-term economic and environmental reasons, some purely political and ethical arguments remain in favour of transfering resources from richs to poors, from more developed to less developed regions. To what extend this transfer is efficient remains as an open question.

The frontiers of European “Nation-States” were key elements both integrating and unifying the territory within and segregating it from neighboring regions, destroying preexisting socioeconomic and cultural relations across the borders: The functional distance between cities both sides of a political border (few kilometers) is longer that the distance from each city to its national capital (few hundred kilometers). European political integration is reducing such artificial distances as well as converting cities and regions, peripheral from a national scale, more central at European scale.

A closer look into spatial patterns brings deeper understanding: it highlights the existance of new peripheries in the center (e.g. obsolete industrial zones and suburbs) and old centers in the peripheries (e.g. dynamic touristical regions, city capitals). The development gap within the center or the peripheries may be larger than it is between the center and the peripheries as a whole. Areas with the same geographic position and equivalent social capital endowment may have different development levels.

Studies made in line with Europe 2000 and Europe 2000+ inniciatives (as well as other programmes, such as all interregional co-operation inniciatives) gave deeper understanding of development patterns and emphasised both more prospective and policy-oriented aims. These studies took advantage of the fact that more data and cartography was available, openning people minds to the diversity of Europe development patterns (e.g. the firsts road traffic maps of Europe, NASA satellite maps of Europe at night, EUROSTAT/GISCO and CORINE land-use coverages...).

In a relatively developed territory such as EU, with ubiquous minimum level of social capital endowment, differences on social capital endowment would tend to become marginal. For instance, differences of transport costs between central and peripheral regions are unsignificant for most economic sectors.

Furthermore, new ICT were subverting the conventional vision of “geographic position” as the ultimate reason (and constrain) to explain spatial development gaps. ICT vanishing distances and stimulates decentralisation and diffussion in an “isotropic” space.

Many studies regarding the impact of lack of transport infrastructure in development conditions (and other structural problems) were produced, in most cases applying the classic accessibility formulation with some adaptation (distances from one place to other places –difficulty of travelling- measured by the relative importance of each place –interest of the trip-).

During this period, interregional zones facing common development problems (e.g. mediterranean, atlantic, islands, mountain zones such as the Pyreness...) organised themselves and were active lobbying at national and European scale in their own interest. The “spatial integration” of these regions was driven by mostly political forces; still remoteness and peripherality were top arguments but deeper understanding of endogeneous problems and opportunities of regions in the wider European scenario were already emerging.

Distance and proximity between places has to be therefore redefined. Nowadays, in developed areas, it is more the “distance to the networks” (in terms of time and/or cost of access) and the “utility” provided by the networks (the capacity to generate and disseminate added-value activities within the network) what matters.

At the same time the place is loosing its value in terms of “geographic position”, it is recovering its value in terms of environmental quality, social and cultural richness. In order to attract high-added value activities, “places”, once minimum accessibility conditions are achieved, compete in terms of services and overall business, cultural and natural environment. O the other hand, “position” remains a cultural value (e.g. in Europe “center” has a positive meaning –equilibrium, order- while in America “frontier” has the positive meaning –independence, freedom-).

It is “Geographical position” expressed nowadays (or will be soon expressed) as “Network connectivity”?.

Is “Spatial integration” expressed nowadays as “real-time interactivity” between services and products generated anywhere?. If it is, development opportunities will depend on the efficiency of any activity to obtain inputs from the networks and take advantage of local relative advantages to add value to them and, finally, bring them back to the network, “just-in-time”. More economic and technologic integration at global scale may reinforce more cultural and social diversity at local scale. From the “Territorial borders” (integrating the activities within and excluding foreigners, making homogeneous national cultures) are we moving towards a borderless and inclusive “Space of flows”?

Other indicators including non-specific transport variables (e.g. the capacity of people to speak foreign languages, the availability of hotels and conference centres...) have been developed as well. Information concerning interregional traffic flows and other relevant measures of spatial integration has been produced within the European research programme.

Jones, Steve (1996) In the Blood. God, Genes and Destiny. HarperCollins Publishers. P.164

In Europe -in spite of its long history of political separatism- the most obvious feature of the Common Market and its neighbours is that most people are much the same. There is much less genetic differentiation than there is in, for example Africa. However, some trends are apparent. There is a wave, shaded red, of shared similarity tracking across north-west Europe; and a similar pattern of common ancestry, coloured green, pointing west along the north shores of the Mediterranean.

These might represent two branches of a surge of farmers from the Middle East, penetrating the original hunting population. The orange wave in central Europe may be the relics of a separate immigration of nomads from the steppes. None of these trends is very striking, and because of the genetic homogeneity of Europe other interpretations are possible. Sardinia-not shown on this map-is, for unknown reasons, very different from the rest of Europe.

Source: Drewe Paul (1999) The Internet -Beyond the “Hype”: How to position the Randstad Holland. Faculty of Architecture. Delft University of Technology.

red (very low); yellow (average); green (high)

Source: Eurostat, GISCO

Source: ICM-ERF

Source: Strategy Report Berlin-Brandenburg

Van Valkenburg (1970)

Peter R. Gould, Spatial Diffusion, Washington D.C. Association of American Geographers

Based on GDP in ECUS at current exchange rates (1983)

Marcial Echenique and Partners (1992)

Seers-Schaffer Kilfmen (1979)

The Development

Unknown author (1980s)

Unknown author (1980s)

Development axes in the EU

Sáenz de Buruaga (1988)

Prospective des Territoroires: Zones et Axes

LAD-CESA (1991)

L’Europe Sous-Jacente: Structures et Dynamiques

R. Brunet (1990)

Mcrit (CEDRE, DG XVI, 1991)

Mcrit

Mcrit

Indicador de Conexión a las Redes ICON, Mcrit (1993)

Indicador de Conexión a las Redes ICON, Mcrit (1993)

Indicador de Conexión a las Redes ICON, Mcrit (1993)

Source: Annuaires de Compagnies Ferroviaires (France)

H. Reymond, N.Barthelemy-M.Deblanc (1991)

RECLUS (Université Louis-Pasteur de Strasbourg, 1989).

European Market (FreC(B))

Number of inhabitants reached in day “B”

European Market (FreR(EU))

Difference of Absolute cost between network 1995 and network 2010

C.Cauvin (1992)

IRPUD (1998)

LAD-CESA (1991)

Bars represent CON(T) increases relative to EU average

UTS Study (DGVII, 1996) Mcrit/INRETS

UTS Study (DGVII, 1996) Mcrit/INRETS

UTS Study (DGVII, 1996) Mcrit/INRETS