4 Theorising regional planning
4.3 Regional spatial structure
4.3.1 Structuring the discussion
The spatial structures of regions are the products of a variety of forces, and have been and continue to be the subject of considerable academic debate, particu- larly by human geographers. Many years ago Garner (1967) noted a number of
premises which then underpinned most models of regional spatial structure.
These included:
• the spatial distribution of human activity rests on ordered adjustments to distance;
• locational decisions are taken to minimise the frictional effects of distance;
• some locations are more accessible than others;
• there is a tendency for human activities to agglomerate to take advantage of scale economies;
• the organisation of human activity is essentially hierarchical in character; and
• human occupance is focal in character.
The key models were central place theory, which sought to explain the distribu- tion of services in a hierarchy of centres in a region, and industrial and growth pole/centre theories which sought to explain clusters and agglomerations of more specialised activities such as manufacturing and mining. Patterns of trans- port connections provided the linkages in the spatial structure. All were clearly acknowledged to be partial models. Also, there were attempts to develop math- ematical models of spatial interaction.
Yet the nature of economic activities in advanced regions has changed greatly; manufacturing activity has shrunk, service activity has grown and diver- sified. Economic and social tendencies foster increasing mobility, in daily/week time and in lifespan time. Spatial patterns are influenced by concentrating and dispersing flows (DETR 2002). Also, it no longer makes sense to consider urban and rural areas as distinct self-contained territories; they are linked to nearby and distant areas in a variety of different ways – reflecting, for example, the growth in telecommunications discussed in section 4.2.
But extant spatial patterns also provide some constraints and rigidities in the system. From the previous discussion in section 4.2, it is clear that issues of hier- archies, of growth poles/clusters and agglomeration economies, and of transport and connectivity, are of continuing importance for the location of activities and for regional spatial patterns. As such these provide the structure to this section, which concludes with an exploration of the concept of polycentric development.
4.3.2 Hierarchies of activities and settlements
A common feature of regions and of regional plans is some element of spatial hierarchy of activities (e.g. of retail activities) and of settlements. The theo- retical underpinnings of the hierarchical approach date back to the writings of Dickinson (1934), Losch (1954), Berry and Garrison (1958) and, in particular, to the pioneering work of Christaller (1966 translation) on ‘The Central Places of Southern Germany’. The theory seeks to relate central places to their surrounding areas and defines a central place as a settlement providing services for its hinterland. From the voluminous literature on the subject, certain basic concepts can be abstracted.
Theorising regional planning: substantive 75
Service activities have hierarchies, population thresholds and market ranges.
With regard to hierarchies, ‘lower order services’ (e.g. a sub-post office or a primary school) may be found in most settlements from substantial villages upwards; but ‘higher order services’ (such as a general post office, technical college or a university) are found largely in major centres, such as large towns and cities. Service activities have different population thresholds – perhaps as low as 250 for a village shop, but as high as 150,000 for a theatre. The market range of a service is that distance which people are willing to travel to reach the service; further for a higher order service and much less for a lower order service. Range may be influenced by distance, time and cost factors. The spatial manifestation of such concepts was a nested set of central places. Christaller postulated a hexagonal structure with, for example, the higher order settlement (with key higher order services) having six sub-centres (with fewer higher order services), each of which had six smaller centres, and so on.
There has been much critique of and many modifications to the Christaller hierarchy approach (which, for example, assumed an even distribution of popu- lation), to incorporate more realism and flexibility. Yet empirical studies have shown the existence of hierarchies both in the inter-urban distribution of settle- ments, and in the intra-urban structure of towns and cities (see Carter 1965;
Hall et al. 2001). Central place theory has provided a valuable partial frame- work to the understanding of regional spatial structures, and its concepts have been used in regional planning; most notably in Dutch spatial planning (see Government of the Netherlands 1966), and in UK regional plans, and sector specific retail and tourism plans. But how relevant is the approach to the twenty-first century and to contemporary regional planning? It could be argued that the Internet has negated the impact of distance and the relevance of service centres, that large superstores in edge of town/semi-rural locations have undermined the centrality of cities, yet we continue to be attracted to and need to use centres for both higher order economic and social services. The hierarchy may have been weakened but it still exists as an important structuring element, and contemporary regional spatial planning makes good use of the hierarchical approach.
4.3.3 Growth poles, clusters and agglomeration economies
Growth poles, and the more recent manifestation of ‘clusters’, initially represen- ted a break away from the geographical concepts of the previous section – being much more economic in nature. The concept of growth poles owes much to French economists, and especially Perroux (1964) who believed that the basic fact of spatial, as well as industrial development, was that ‘growth does not appear everywhere and all at once; it appears in points or development poles, with variable intensities; it spreads along diverse channels and with varying ter- minal effects to the whole of the economy’. More specifically, Boudeville (1966) defined a regional growth pole as a ‘set of expanding industries located in an urban area and inducing further development of economic activity
throughout its zone of influence’. Perroux also recognised that growth poles would exist in geographical space, but his focus was on the economic dynamics.
From the various writings on growth poles, several basic economic concepts and their geographical dimensions can be identified. Leading industries and propulsive firms are at the core of the concept. They grow by polarisation – attracting other economic units which benefit from the various agglomeration economies (internal and external economies of scale). Over time there is a shift to trickling down or spread effects as the propulsive qualities of the growth pole radiate outwards into the surrounding space. It is the latter element which has been particularly attractive to regional planners, with the planting of growth poles being seen as an efficient way of generating long-term and wide-ranging effects to a much wider area than the original location. Well-known examples include the national policy of growth points or metropoles d’equilibre in France, the capital city of Brasilia, and the 1960s attempts to create growth poles in Central Scotland and in the North East of England.
The contemporary advocacy of clusters as drivers of growth and innovation draws on some of the elements of growth poles and of industrial location theo- ries (Hoover 1948), and in particular on agglomeration economies. Porter’s defi- nition (1990) is that ‘a cluster consists of industries linked through vertical (buyer/supplier) or horizontal (common customers, technology, channels) rela- tionships’. Clusters may be characterised by the significance of one sector or more usually may be multi-sector. There has been considerable debate around the importance of proximity for interaction in the cluster in a knowledge-based economy; can organisational proximity be substituted for geographical proxim- ity? (Boschma 2005). Some authors challenge the importance of geographical proximity, emphasising the importance of ‘communities of practice’ that produce, acquire and diffuse knowledge through the use of digital technology and temporary physical proximity, associated with business travel (Breschi and Lissoni 2002). Others, such as Morgan (2004), claim that geographical proxim- ity is very important for effective knowledge transfer. Markusen (1996) also notes the importance of geographical proximity, drawing a distinction between places that are ‘sticky’ or able to hold onto new ideas and translate them into industrial clusters, and places that are ‘slippery’ or not able to benefit in the long term from innovation and investment.
The recent and rapid rise of the high-tech economy of ‘enterprising’ Oxford- shire in the UK provides an example of a multi-sector spatially concentrated cluster of activities, including both high-tech services (e.g. computer services, consultancy) and high-tech manufacturing (e.g. biotechnology, motor-sports, medical engineering; Glassonet al. 2006). Key elements in the Oxfordshire ‘vir- tuous circle of activity’ include the R&D base of the universities, government laboratories and hospitals; the creative entrepreneurs (Florida 2002; Lawton Smith et al. 2005), and a network of supportive organisations, such as the Oxford Trust which pioneered business incubation in the UK. Co-location is important, as emphasised by Hentonet al. (2002) in their research findings on the ‘new economy’ in the USA:
Theorising regional planning: substantive 77
Place matters in the new economy because people matter. Ideas essential to innovation are generated and shared by talented people who choose to work and live in close proximity because of the power of networks in the innovative process. Some places seem to have a ‘buzz’ because that is where the most creative work is taking place. Talented and creative people want to be where the action is.
The economic success of places such as Oxfordshire, and well-known inno- vative clusters, such as Silicon Valley in California, USA, and Silicon Fen in Cambridgeshire, UK, has encouraged attempts to utilise the cluster approach in regional planning practice (see Chapter 8).
4.3.4 Transport and connectivity
The importance of transport and communication links for the competitiveness of a region or sub-region has already been discussed in section 4.2. Transport influences spatial accessibility, which can be seen as ‘the inherent characteristic (or advantage) of a place with respect to overcoming some form of spatially operating source of friction (for example, time and/or distance)’ (Ingram 1971).
The improvement of transport links – new motorways/high-speed rail links – has been an important element of regional planning and development from the sub-regional to European scale – exemplified by the Trans-European Network investment in the EU. But Gwilliam (1970) has reminded us that transport investment can be a two-edged sword. Inter-regionally, unless a region enjoys a comparative advantage in particular markets, improved transport links may make it more vulnerable to extra-regional competition. Intra-regionally, however, transport improvements, such as new light rail systems, are invariably positive, improving the efficiency for the local public and for local firms.
Transport is also important in its own right in the discussion of hierarchies and clusters and in regional spatial structures. Transport ‘hubs and spokes’, cor- ridors, networks and hierarchies, are inter-related with the spatial structure of settlements in a region. Some forms of infrastructure with more limited access, such as airports, may encourage activity concentration; others with easier access may have a more dispersed effect. Transport in regional planning is discussed further and more fully in Chapter 10. Finally it should be noted that the impacts of transport improvements can be transitory. As a transport system fills out, a region having an initial advantage of good links may find its relative advantage being eroded.
4.3.5 Polycentric development
Polycentricity is ‘One of the most central yet least clear concepts in the ESDP (European Spatial Development Perspective)’ (Davoudi 1999). The ESDP and the application of the polycentricity concept at the level of the EU will be dis- cussed in Chapter 13; the focus here is on polycentricity at the regional level.
According to Hague and Kirk (2003), the underlying concept is simpler than the pronunciation! In a Scoping Reportfor the UK Government, they offer the following definition:
Polycentric development is an important concept in spatial planning. It means connecting a number of places so that they form a network. By oper- ating together they achieve a new critical mass that can sustain and grow businesses, services and facilities. Polycentric development means forging new connections by overcoming historical barriers, such as those caused by national boundaries, local rivalries or distance/poor communications. The links in the network may be improved transport channels, but this is not the only possibility. Links may be virtual connections using information technology, or joint working or simply a newly focused and active co-opera- tion. Polycentric development offers an alternative to mono-centric devel- opment in which one city or metropolitan region dominates all others.
Polycentricity is an alternative to the traditional core/periphery develop- ment model.
Hague and Kirk provide a diagrammatic representation of the differences between mono-centric and polycentric development (Figure 4.4). In the mono- centric case, the declining pit settlement, and the village and small town, are very much dependent on the big settlement, with, for example, the village becoming a dormitory settlement; the other town is cut off by an administrative boundary. In the same imaginary area, in the polycentric model the parts are connected to each other and their roles are now complementary. For example, the small town has space for a high-amenity site, which provides a facility for all the other settlements. The administrative boundary is no longer a barrier.
But how can the polycentric region be identified and demarcated? In his
‘closer inspection’ Parr (2004) seeks to specify the essential characteristics of a Polycentric Urban Region (PUR)as a cluster of centres having: a pattern which may have a variety of forms – including circular, polygonal and linear; upper and lower limits of separation – no more than an hour’s travel time between neighbouring centres, but separate enough not to be a conurbation; a more evenly spaced structure than in a benchmark region; no one centre having a population dominance over the others; a higher level of interaction than would normally be expected; and high indices of centre specialisation. The nature of interaction is particularly important. In some contrast to the earlier discussion on hierarchies, trade here is not hierarchically restricted. So a centre of medium size, for example, may export goods and services not simply to a smaller centre but also to centres of similar or greater size (as in the example of Figure 4.4).
The PUR would generally benefit from the advantages of regional externalities, such as regional workforce skills, and commercial, cultural and social facilities.
Examples of PURs can be found in various guises/scales around the world; for example, Randstad (Holland) and Emilia-Romagna (Italy) in Europe; and the Kansai region in Japan. The approach appeals to regional planners, and ‘instead Theorising regional planning: substantive 79
of being used to describe an existing or emerging reality, the concept is coming to determine that reality’ (Davoudi 2002).