CHAPTER III: Linking Water Scarcity to Mental Health: Hydro–Social Interruptions in
2. Hydro–Social Interruptions
environment; by fostering a ‘vibrant’ cultural scene with art galleries, restaurants, pubs, and cafes...JTC [,the master developer of one-north,] attempted to enhance existing bohemian spatial qualities so as to attract more creative talents who would in turn further contribute to the ‘innovative milieu’ at one-north (Wong and Bunnell 2006, 76, 78).
However, the concept of quality of place is very abstract and can be interpreted in different ways. Spatial demands and preferences of different groups of knowledge workers may vary according to their life stages, nationalities, professions, and so forth, so for planners and designers to fit all the potential demands of knowledge workers often becomes a commonly used strategy. This results in a compact, diverse, mixed-use urban form with a variety of sufficient facilities and amenities.
§ 2.3.4 Remarks
In the previous sections, I discussed a set of spatial strategies that are expected to make a contribution to the three principal components of high-tech development. The spatial strategies and their spatial implications are summarised in Table 8. Two types of spatial implications can be identified, including 1) land supply for accommodating R&D, knowledge-based production, training and/or education activities, and 2) particular
spatial conditions for inducing knowledge generation and application, for supporting
production activities, or for attracting and retaining human resources. The former is more visible than the latter.Principal
Components Spatial Strategies Spatial Implications
R&D Capital – Knowledge infrastructures:
universities, R&D institutes, and technology centres/incubators
– Land supply for accommodating R&D and other knowledge-based production activities
– Spatial conditions for inducing knowledge generation and application
– International and internal accessibility (e.g. Airport, highway,
ICT infrastructure, etc.)
– Spatial conditions for supporting knowledge-based production activities
Human Capital – Education and training institutes (including international schools)
– Land supply for accommodating education and training activities – A variety of sufficient facilities,
amenities, commercial and business service centres and housing choices;
landmarks
– Spatial conditions for attracting and retaining human resources
Table 8
Spatial strategies for enhancing the principal components
However, it is important to highlight that in many studies the spatial elements are considered as preconditions for a high-tech space, but their presence does not guarantee the success of the development, because synergy between physical (e.g. the establishment of knowledge infrastructures and science/technology parks, etc.) and non-physical developments (e.g. R&D capacity, quality of human resources, etc.) is key. This implies the importance of linking the governance activities of the territorial innovation system with the planning activities of high-tech spatial development.
3 Institutional Variables of Spatial Planning Systems
§ 3.1 Introduction
In the previous chapter I identified the three principal components of high-tech development and their correlated spatial elements based on the theories of high-tech development. But few of the theories draw attention to the role of spatial planning and governance in the high-tech development process. The concept of spatial planning encompasses more than land use planning and development control. Although the term ‘spatial planning’ is considered a ‘Euro-English’ concept that has been formidably advocated by the European Community since the 1990s (Thompson 2000; Harris and Hooper 2004), there are two reasons why the term particularly fits the domain of this research. First, spatial planning can be used as a generic term to name different sorts of ‘governance system[s] for managing spatial development and/or physical land use in a particular place’ (Dühr et al. 2010, 26). Its generic nature is useful for cross-country comparison, because the term is not specific to a particular cross-country. Second, the term spatial planning is often used to describe a specific spatial approach that focuses on policy coordination and spatial cohesion, so it can be used to address the ‘spatial’
concern of this research on the policy of high-tech development and its implications for managing the organisation of space.
In this research, I understand the key function of spatial planning to be managing spatial development and organisation in a particular place in order to provide sound space and place qualities for a range of economic and socio-cultural purposes. Spatial planning includes a set of governance practices not only ‘for developing and implementing [spatial] strategies, plans, policies and projects, and for regulating the location, timing and form of development.’ (Healey et al. 1997, 4), but also for mediating the tensions and contradictions among sectoral policies (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 2008). Specifically, in the development process of a high-tech economy, spatial planning needs to play a role either in providing sound space and place qualities for the purpose of high-tech development, and/or in mediating the tensions and contradictions between high-tech development and other sectoral policies at different scales. The question is what are the major factors that lead different countries to adopt different spatial planning and governance approaches to high-tech spatial development?
Learning from previous comparative research of spatial planning systems and practices (e.g. Davies et al. 1989; Newman and Thornley 1996; Commission of the European Communities 1997; Ng 1999; Sanyal 2005; Farinós Dasí 2007; Nadin and Stead 2008a;
Knieling and Othengrafen 2009a; Booth,2011; Ernste 2012; Getimis 2012), I identify six groups of variable that may affect the operational situations of spatial planning and governance practices, including 1) model of society, 2) legal system and constitutional law, 3) property relations, 4) administration system, 5) planning doctrine, and 6) spatial planning system (see Figure 14).
Figure 14
Institutional variables of spatial planning and governance.
According to the concept of multiple layers proposed by Ostrom (2005), rules at a deeper level are more difficult and costly to change, but what can be done and/or changed at a lower level is defined by the rules at that level and deeper levels. This implies that it is important to distinguish different levels of institutional variables, whether the purpose of research is to understand the origin of the rules at one level, or to identify the causes of policy problems with an intention to solve the problems by changing institutions. Since in this research I aim to explore the major institutional factors that shape the practices of spatial planning and governance in the development process of high-tech city-regions, it is necessary to clarify the relationships between different groups of variables.
Hence, I divide six groups of variables into two analytical levels, including the constitutional level and the collective-choice level, and assume that they will cumulatively shape the rules-in-use at the operational level: the mechanisms of spatial planning and governance of high-tech development. Besides, regional cultures (cultural attributes of community) and spatial organisation (physical world) are recognised as the other two major elements that will affect the operational arenas and action situations of high-tech city-regional development according to Ostrom’s framework. In the following sections I explain the implications of the six groups of variable for spatial planning practices by reviewing theoretical concepts and typologies corresponding to the variables on the basis of previous comparative research. In the end of this chapter, I propose a typology of spatial planning and governance approach as a generic analytical tool to position and characterise spatial planning practices in particular places and measure their trends and direction of change.