Advertisement

Visualizing Planning Intentions: From Heterogeneous Information to Maps

  • Gaëtan PalkaEmail author
  • Simona R. Grădinaru
  • Gertrud Jørgensen
  • Anna M. Hersperger
Article
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Innovative approaches, tools and visualization techniques for analyzing land use structures and dynamics of cities and regions

Abstract

The future development of urban regions is frequently envisioned through strategic spatial plans. The main objectives and means of spatial development contained in these documents, called planning intentions, can be fragmented and are commonly presented throughout the planning document in text, graphs, tables, diagrams, and maps. Presentation of the information rarely allows for clear visualization of each planning intention and of how the synthesis of all planning intentions builds an overall spatial development strategy. In this paper, we present a method to translate planning intentions into maps in order to better understand their spatiality. Focusing on the case study of Copenhagen, we conduct an analysis of the content of the urban region’s latest strategic spatial plan (i.e., the Fingerplan 2013) in order to identify the main planning intentions. For each of these planning intentions, we systematically collect all information contained in the plan, such as details on location, extent, and fuzziness. We then transform the main planning intentions into pixel-based maps to visualize the planning intentions. Finally, a map of the composite planning intention is presented. This paper contributes to a better understanding of the spatiality of strategic planning.

Keywords

Planning intention Copenhagen Fingerplan Spatiality Visualization of planning 

Notes

Funding

This work was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation (ERC TBS Consolidator Grant number BSCGIO 157789).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

This article respects the ethical standards of Springer.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. Allmendinger P, Haughton G (2009) Soft spaces, fuzzy boundaries, and metagovernance: the new spatial planning in the Thames gateway. Environ Plan A 41:617–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dühr S (2004) The form, style, and use of cartographic visualisations in European spatial planning: examples from England and Germany. Environ Plan A 36:1961–1989CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dühr S (2007) The visual language of spatial planning: exploring cartographic representations for spatial planning in Europe: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Dühr S, Müller A (2012) The role of spatial data and spatial information in strategic spatial planning. Reg Stud 46:423–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Erhvervsstyrelsen (2017) Fingerplan 2017, Landsplandirektiv for Hovedstadsområdet. https://planinfo.erhvervsstyrelsen.dk/sites/default/files/media/fingerplan_2017_26072017.pdf [accessed on 01.03.2018]
  6. Grădinaru SR, Hersperger AM (2018) Green infrastructure in strategic spatial plans: evidence from European urban regions. Urban For Urban Green  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.04.018
  7. Hersperger AM, Oliveira E, Pagliarin S, Palka G, Bolliger J, Grădinaru SR (2018) Urban land-use change: the role of strategic spatial planning. Glob Environ Chang 51:32–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Jones C, Baker M, Jay S, Short M, Wood C (2005) Strategic environmental assessment and land use planning: an international evaluation. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  9. Jørgensen G, Vejre H, Caspersen OH, Sehested K, Winther L, Højgaard Jensen E (2017) Hovedstaden 2030: Fremtidens udfordringer for planlægning i hovedstadsområdet. Dansk Byplanlaboratorium, FrederiksbergGoogle Scholar
  10. Kaplan S, Popoks D, Prato CG, Ceder A (2014) Using connectivity for measuring equity in transit provision. J Transp Geogr 37:82–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Koomen E, Koekoek A, Dijk E (2011) Simulating land-use change in a regional planning context. Appl Spatial Analysis Policy 4:223–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lambin EF, Geist, HJ (2008). Land-use and land-cover change: local processes and global impacts. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  13. McCosker A, Searle G (2016) Toward a classification of world metropolitan spatial strategies: a comparative analysis of ten plans. Town Planning Rev 87:655–680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Oliveira E, Hersperger AM (2018) Governance arrangements, funding mechanisms and power configurations in current practices of strategic spatial plan implementation. Land Use Policy 76:623–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Paasi A, Zimmerbauer K (2015) Penumbral borders and planning paradoxes: relational thinking and the question of borders in spatial planning. Environ Plan A 48:75–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Poelmans L, Van Rompaey A (2010) Complexity and performance of urban expansion models. Comput Environ Urban Syst 34:17–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Richter B, Behnisch M (2018) Integrated evaluation framework for environmental planning in the context of compact green cities. Ecol Indic.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2018.05.025
  18. Tetraplan (2013) Trafikudviklingen i Region Hovedstaden 2010- 2030. Tetraplan a/SGoogle Scholar
  19. van Duinen L (2013) Mainport and corridor: exploring the mobilizing capacities of Dutch spatial concepts. Planning Theory Practice 14:211–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Swiss Federal Research Institute WSLLand Change Science GroupBirmensdorfSwitzerland
  2. 2.Centre for Environmental Research and Impact StudiesUniversity of BucharestBucharestRomania
  3. 3.Department of Geosciences and Natural Resource ManagementUniversity of CopenhagenFrederiksberg CDenmark

Personalised recommendations