User:Sonicpn/European Concept of Polycentric Development
European Concept of Polycentric Development
[edit]The European Spatial Development Perspective states with regard to the ‘concept of polycentric development’ (itself not defined) that the ‘creation of several dynamic zones of global economic integration, well distributed throughout the EU territory and comprising a network of internationally accessible metropolitan regions and their linked hinterland (towns, cities and rural areas of varying sizes), will play a key role in improving spatial balance in Europe.’ [1]. Other commentators have defined polycentricity primarily in terms of spatial organisation, but with some reference to functional interconnectedness [2]
Polycentricity as it is envisaged in the ESDP and elsewhere can thus be seen as a combination of spatial topography and interconnectedness: a polycentric region might be conceived of as a network of settlements, although it is important to note that polycentricity makes no specific reference to scale. However, the notion that polycentricity is a scalable concept is implicit in the ESDP’s statement, and any formal definition of polycentricity should likewise be scalable.
Polycentricity is not therefore an absolute; it is not something that either does or does not exist. At a general level, networks can be more or less dense, and of course physical spaces vary both in size and in the number of settlements they contain. More specifically, there is not just one kind of network. Networks comprise actors and relations between those actors, and they are in consequence aspatial. Actors may be cities, people, businesses, charities, telephones, computers: in short, anything capable of being connected to Paper.
something else. Relations take the form of linkages: roads, friendships, telephone lines and business partnerships are all examples of linkages. The relations between actors are thus functional in nature, and if we return to the notion set out above – that polycentricity as it is envisaged in the ESDP is a combination of spatial topography and interconnectedness – we can argue that while the word ‘polycentricity’ addresses spatial topology, it does not address function, and a qualifying term, ‘functional’ is added to create the more specific term, ‘functional polycentricity’.
References
[edit]http://128.40.111.250/cupum/searchpapers/papers/paper134.pdf