6 Urban-Rural Interrelations—A Challenge for Sustainable Land …
117
land use issues (Nölting and Mann 2018), although knowledge about new types of
“governance” has been developed and used more frequently since the 1990s.
Whereas in the past the (national) state was regarded as an (assumed) central
actor that influences and controls land use and spatial development, various different
actors and their interactions are now coming to the fore. The key aspects are the
varying forms of interaction and coordination of different social actors from the
state, economy, civil society and science (Benz et al. 2007, p. 13). Consideration is
therefore given to the entire organisational and regulatory system, which coordinates
interaction between actors of all kinds. “It is … about how we establish goals, how
we define rules for reaching the defined goals, and finally how we control outcomes
following from the use of these rules” (Vatn 2010, p. 1246).
The introduction of collectively effective regulations will lead to the minimisation
of land use conflicts and to the achievement of common goals. This means ensuring
a target-oriented perspective for action that includes a process-oriented view of the
various steps from policy formulation to implementation and the analysis of effectiveness (Ostrom 2011). The complexity of governance results especially (1) from
vertical interconnectivity, the “multi-level system” (Benz 2009) and (2) consideration
of cross-sectoral horizontal interconnections. This is in part represented by spatial
planning at the national, regional and regional level, municipal land use planning,
environmental planning and various forms of sectoral planning (e.g. transport, waste)
in Europe (Reimer et al. 2015). In addition, regional development approaches (e.g.
development concepts, networks), financial subsidies (e.g. tax incentives, Common
Agricultural Policy) and other project-driven activities need to be included.
In the context of land use, Gentry et al. (2014) additionally request that the
perspective is opened for international governance instruments since distant relationships often cross international borders. In the light of the original notion of the
telecoupling concept—the distance between the interrelated systems—the need to
develop governance instruments becomes even more urgent so that their increased
tasks can be matched. There have also been calls for greater consideration of flows
especially, between urban and rural areas, as a proper component of this analytical
concept (Gentry et al. 2014). Land use changes in one place can be induced by social,
economic or political processes and changes elsewhere.
At the same time, this perspective refers to the dimension of functional governance, which goes hand in hand with functional relations, complementing traditional
forms of place-based and territorial governance. For this reason, the “construction
of space by governance” has also been coined (Kilper 2010: 16). Functional governance takes up the above-mentioned forms of spatial interrelations in a space of
flows (Massey 2005), and has so far been regarded primarily as a challenge without a
comprehensive solution (cf. also Friies and Nielsen 2014). The interrelations themselves may influence land differently and may change over time, e.g. due to feedback
loops. Hence, dynamics are an additional challenge.
The discussion of dynamics is quite often linked to debates about innovation and
transition. Since spatial activities in one system can cause pressure in other systems,
reactions such as change or rejection must be expected. In addition to unintended
flows, explicit and intended flows of knowledge (e.g. about effects, impacts, etc.) may
117
land use issues (Nölting and Mann 2018), although knowledge about new types of
“governance” has been developed and used more frequently since the 1990s.
Whereas in the past the (national) state was regarded as an (assumed) central
actor that influences and controls land use and spatial development, various different
actors and their interactions are now coming to the fore. The key aspects are the
varying forms of interaction and coordination of different social actors from the
state, economy, civil society and science (Benz et al. 2007, p. 13). Consideration is
therefore given to the entire organisational and regulatory system, which coordinates
interaction between actors of all kinds. “It is … about how we establish goals, how
we define rules for reaching the defined goals, and finally how we control outcomes
following from the use of these rules” (Vatn 2010, p. 1246).
The introduction of collectively effective regulations will lead to the minimisation
of land use conflicts and to the achievement of common goals. This means ensuring
a target-oriented perspective for action that includes a process-oriented view of the
various steps from policy formulation to implementation and the analysis of effectiveness (Ostrom 2011). The complexity of governance results especially (1) from
vertical interconnectivity, the “multi-level system” (Benz 2009) and (2) consideration
of cross-sectoral horizontal interconnections. This is in part represented by spatial
planning at the national, regional and regional level, municipal land use planning,
environmental planning and various forms of sectoral planning (e.g. transport, waste)
in Europe (Reimer et al. 2015). In addition, regional development approaches (e.g.
development concepts, networks), financial subsidies (e.g. tax incentives, Common
Agricultural Policy) and other project-driven activities need to be included.
In the context of land use, Gentry et al. (2014) additionally request that the
perspective is opened for international governance instruments since distant relationships often cross international borders. In the light of the original notion of the
telecoupling concept—the distance between the interrelated systems—the need to
develop governance instruments becomes even more urgent so that their increased
tasks can be matched. There have also been calls for greater consideration of flows
especially, between urban and rural areas, as a proper component of this analytical
concept (Gentry et al. 2014). Land use changes in one place can be induced by social,
economic or political processes and changes elsewhere.
At the same time, this perspective refers to the dimension of functional governance, which goes hand in hand with functional relations, complementing traditional
forms of place-based and territorial governance. For this reason, the “construction
of space by governance” has also been coined (Kilper 2010: 16). Functional governance takes up the above-mentioned forms of spatial interrelations in a space of
flows (Massey 2005), and has so far been regarded primarily as a challenge without a
comprehensive solution (cf. also Friies and Nielsen 2014). The interrelations themselves may influence land differently and may change over time, e.g. due to feedback
loops. Hence, dynamics are an additional challenge.
The discussion of dynamics is quite often linked to debates about innovation and
transition. Since spatial activities in one system can cause pressure in other systems,
reactions such as change or rejection must be expected. In addition to unintended
flows, explicit and intended flows of knowledge (e.g. about effects, impacts, etc.) may