Spatial, Socio-Economic Units and Societal Needs 1
CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
Spatial, Socio-Economic Units and Societal Needs—Danish Experiences in a Theoretical Context
Erik Stubkjær
18.1Introduction
18.1.1 The Need for Operational Definitions of Spatial, Socio-Economic Units
Socio-economic units are the result of processes constructed and controlled by humans. The definition of these units is by no means a trivial task. To illustrate the complexity, mention is made of the fact that the World Wide Web technology makes it possible to rent a room in a ‘Web-Hotel’ where one can present information on, e.g., company activities. The user company may be Danish, the company in charge of the Web hotel may be registered in the USA, and the computer where the home page, etc., is stored, may be located in Germany. The web hotel room is a spatial, socio-economic unit, but ‘where’ is it located, what are the boundaries of the unit, and in what legal system shall the definition of the unit be stated?
Definition issues are inherent in international deliberations. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is presently being supplemented with an ‘Agreement on Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks’. The resolutions on such ‘Highly Migratory Fish Stocks’ need an operational definition to be implemented. To establish such a definition seems to be a difficult task, taking into consideration that the fish stock is moving relative to ocean streams.
Maybe a less complex task is to account for the flowing water alone. This is in fact needed: The UN Conference on Water and the Environment, held 1992 in Dublin, stated that “Fresh water is a finite and vulnerable resource…” (The Dublin Water Principles, Principle No. 1), and a recent Report of the secretary-general states that “…there is already growing perception of water as an economic good and as a tradable commodity…” (UN/dpcsd/dsd, 1997, section 15). Bottled water is a common-place commodity, but here reference is made to more subtle socio-economic units, including “…major river basins, and groundwater aquifers (which) cross national boundaries.” (section 17). A statement calls for, among others, “water information systems, legal and institutional arrangements and water demand management” (UN SG/SM/6185 ENV/DEV/404 21 March 1997), that is: a GIS for water management with appropriate definitions of spatial, socio-economic units.
The remainder of the chapter treats the more moderate task of discussing the definition of spatial, socio-economic units that are related to the surface of the Earth, e.g., real estates, census tracts, and parishes. Such socio-economic, spatial units have been recorded at least since the age of the Northern Italian principalities and city-states. To illustrate some aspects of the chapter, Table 18.1 below renders the most important spatial SEUs in Denmark.
The dioceses, parishes, and court districts belong to the oldest layer of administrative subdivisions in Denmark. The unit ‘township’ was defined in the context of the establishment of the Danish fiscal cadastre. A ‘township’ was originally a corporation of farmers, rather than a contiguous area. However, a place name of the unit had to be available, too, to constitute a cadastral township. Therefore, you may find a cadastral township which included two geographically distinct corporations (Frandsen, 1976). The Municipalities were established through a municipal reform in the 1960s by amalgamation of parish communes. A variety of spatial units, including planning districts, were defined in these and subsequent years, mainly to serve the planning needs of the municipalities.
Table 18.1 Administrative subdivisions and other spatial units in Denmark
No. of unitsin Denmark / Jurisdictions / Other SEU
1–29 / Dioceses, Counties
30–300 / Court districts, Municipalities (from 1970)
103x 1.0..2.0 / Parishes (from ~1100)
104x 1.0..2.0 / Townships (from 1803)
105x 1.0..2.0 / Settlements,
Named roads, Planning districts
106x 1.0..2.0 / Real Estates, Dwellings
The relation among the units can be hierarchical: The Danish cadastral parcel reference number (Dale and McLaughlin, 1989: 39f) consisted of the elements: Parcel number and superscript letter (7a), Township, Parish, Court District, and County, until it was simplified as a consequence of the municipal reform. Generally, however, you cannot be sure that smaller administrative units fit into the framework of the larger units because different needs determine the geographical structure of the units.
18.1.2 Emerging Concern for the Definition Issue
The practice of defining spatial, socio-economic units has been embedded in the socio-economic regimes, or the legislation, of the different nations, with the outcome that transfer of data and experiences across regimes was rudimentary. A universal and formal description of the definition practice is still to be developed. The following mentions some of the initiatives and research that have been made in this direction.
The growing need for international comparisons after World War II raised the issue of common definition for statistical units. For example, the Nordic Conference of Statistical Agencies (‘nordiske statistiske chefmøde’) in 1960 adopted a common definition of the spatial unit of a ‘locality’ or urban district (Danish: ‘bymæssig bebyggelse’) to be used for the 1960 population census. This was made in accordance with deliberations of the UN Statistical Commission (Danmarks Statistik, 1968). This definition is independent of references to the administrative structures mentioned above, as it refers to the number of persons (200) and distances between buildings (200 m). By 1970 the definition was further supported by the UN Economic Commission for Europe (Danmarks Statistik, 1975).
The need for common definitions, etc., is especially urgent for countries that establish comprehensive trade agreements, or agree on common policies, like the EU countries. The development of joint statistical definitions in the field of agriculture, forestry and environment, may be traced through the EU Commission’s General Report. In 1994, programmes were adopted for environmental statistics and for agricultural statistics, respectively (EU, 1994, clauses 88 and 90).
The introduction of the computer during the last decades made it more generally acknowledged that general and formal descriptions of spatial SEU were needed and also possible. Data base theory, and research on spatial topological relationships (Egenhofer and Herring, 1991), among others, has supported this expectation, and recently the issue of formal modelling has been addressed (Frank, 1996). Also, the more administrative approach for defining standards in the field of GIS contributes in this effort (Mark, 1993; Skogan, 1995; David et al., 1996). However, some of the mentioned research has focused on information systems, that is, on rather formalised representations of phenomena, rather than on the phenomena themselves. Geographical information systems must account for changes in the geographical reality. However, to represent such changes in the formalised context of an information system, you need an understanding of reality and perception that is deeper than available in present research, cf. the introductory chapter of the present volume.
18.1.3 Outline of Chapter Content
The present chapter aims at addressing the definition of socio-economic, spatial phenomena. The phenomena can be addressed only through some language that is used by those who are concerned with the phenomena. Burrough and Frank mention five GIS user groups and conclude, among others, that “methods of handling spatial information must be linked to the paradigms of the users’ disciplines...” (Burrough and Frank, 1995, p. 114). Likewise, Ferrari concludes that “…the description, and consequently the identification and delimitation, of geographic objects is more strictly related to the corresponding concept or cognitive model than to perceptive reality” (Ferrari, 1996, p. 107). David Mark addresses the definition problem explicitly, and, pointing to the relation between conceptions and natural language, he quotes Benjamin Lee Whorf: “We dissect nature along lines laid down by our native languages”. These languages refer to different ‘speech communities’ (Mark, 1993, p. 272).
The first main part of the chapter takes its point of departure in natural language, more specifically in the linguistic notion of ‘sublanguage’ (Kittredge, 1983; Stubkjær, 1994). It is posited that each of four sublanguages has corresponding socio-economic, spatial units. The formal notions of mathematics go beyond natural language. However, for the purpose of the chapter it is not necessary to mark a boundary, and hence the notions of mathematics are counted as a fifth sublanguage.
In a following section the ontology of these units is discussed on the basis of the dichotomy of Barry Smith between ‘bona fide’ and ‘fiat’ boundaries (Smith, 1995). The concept of real estate is devoted special treatment, and it is posited that ownership is a three-category entity of land, person, and society, respectively.
The second main part of the chapter presents Danish evidence on the use of one of the sublanguages: the administrative sublanguage. From the 1960s to the early 1980s Denmark had a construction boom. In order to manage this boom (in terms of urban planning) an administrative procedure, a development inquiry, was put into effect. The spatial unit of this development inquiry is presented and discussed. In a further section, the life cycle of the inquiry is discussed. As the SEUs themselves have a life span, from creation to deletion (cf. Opening Chapter), so the definition of the SEU develops, as the above-mentioned account of Danish administrative practice shows. A conclusion closes the chapter.
18.2Four categories of socio-economic units
How can you discern sublanguages within a natural language when languages are so difficult to describe? A method is to refer to ‘prototypes’ rather than to formal definitions. In search for ‘Geographic Entity Types’ David Mark refers to categories modelled at mathematical sets. He quotes Cassirer for an early critique of this model, and points to ‘prototypes’ of cognitive categories as a fertile basis for work in cognitive models of geographic space (Mark, 1993, pp. 271–272).
In this line it is posited that sublanguages concerning geographical matters can be discerned on the basis of the spatial unit(s) applied. Furthermore, that there exist at least four classes of socio-economic, spatial units: The jurisdiction, the place, the region, and the district. These classes are defined with reference to their social implications (Raper, this volume).
18.2.1 The Jurisdiction
The jurisdiction is the term for a spatial unit that denotes a domination. The prince has command over his principality. The bishop rules in his diocese, and the owner of a real estate disposes of all rights of his or her property. The way the ruler dominates, the ‘content’ of domination differs among the examples. Common is, however, that real world domination—or, in other words, social control is in effect. The borders of the dominated area may fluctuate or be firmly established, depending on the kind of society and the technology available.
The best known unit within this category, that is the prototype, is likely to be the country or nation. Within the national boundaries the complex, modern society has established many jurisdictions, almost one hierarchy of units for every ministry of government. Some countries look for that many jurisdictions share boundaries, e.g., boundaries of local governments (municipalities) or parishes.
18.2.2 The Place
The place is the term for a spatial unit that is denoted by a place name. The urban square or marketplace, or the town are likely to be the prototypes. However, the term applies to the spatial units to which we refer in ordinary conversation: towns and streets of all kind and sizes, parks and other objects described, e.g., by Kevin Lynch (1960): The Image of the City, or more recently by Tuan and Johnson (cf. Raper et al., 1992: Reactions to positivist…).
The diverse use of place names appears from the Swedish handbook on the decimal classification system for the research libraries (Tekniska Litteraturselskabet, 1977). The handbook puts place names, parcel reference numbers, street names, and names of nations within the same clause: 801.311, that is, within Language Science (800). Referring to this, Stubkjær (1992) proposed a distinction between ‘natural place names’ and ‘technical place names’ like cadastral designations, address codes, etc. The former develop from the talk of the town (as permitted by the ruler), while the latter are established through an administrative procedure. The conception of place names which is proposed here puts emphasis on who generates the place name rather then on the use of the name. This is consistent with the overall position that an understanding of socio-economic units should be achieved through investigation of language use, but refines the position to include a concern for change of language elements, e.g., the introduction of new vocabulary.
The jurisdictions mentioned above need a place name, unless they carry the name of the ruler. The distinction between the two categories, jurisdiction and place, is blurred when place names are used by the ruler to impose his world view on everyday affairs: The naming of Ho Chi Minh City (former Saigon), or some Stalin Avenue may serve as example of how the relationship between controller and controlled is influenced through means of territoriality (Sack, 1986; Malmberg, 1980; Stubkjær, 1992).
Finally, it is noted that the relation between the place (the real-world phenomena) and the place name has a more technical function for way finding, route descriptions, etc. During the last decennia rationalization of mail services and the use of computer technology have motivated a coding of place names in terms of post codes, street coding, etc. (Raper et al., 1992).
18.2.3 The Region
The region is considered the prototype within geographic and other spatial research. Terms like ‘zone’ or ‘field’ are frequently applied instead of ‘region’. According to Bunge geographic regions may be uniform, experimental, nodal, or applied (Bunge, 1962: 14ff.). The conception of ‘region’ has developed substantially since to include, among others, a reflection of perception, representation, language, code, and implementation of code (Burrough and Frank, 1995; cf. Raper, this volume). The term ‘region’ is used here to denote the analytic, spatial unit that the researcher uses as a base for empirical or theoretical statements on geographical phenomena. The ‘region’ may be delimited by physical features, or by the product of power relations; it may be conceived as an object or a field. It is only decisive that the unit is defined and used by the scientific community for the purpose of scientific inquiry.
By definition ‘region’ is outside the realm of domination. Etymologically, the term regio refers to direction, visible boundary, or tract. It may, however, be related to regius, royal (Worboys, 1995). ‘Region’ has no relation to place names.
18.2.4 The District
The district is the term proposed for an area unit that is defined and used by an administration to perform or improve its functions. Census tract and planning zone or planning district count among the prototypes. Used by a governmental body, defining ‘districts’ for land use zoning has a flavour of governmental dominance, but a ‘district’ differs from a ‘jurisdiction’ in that a ‘district’ does not denote the spatial demarcation of an authority. Furthermore, a transportation company, or a sales department, divides its territory in ‘districts’ to rationalise their tasks.
‘District’ has common traits with ‘region’. This is not surprising as administrations apply scientific knowledge to fulfil their task. Whether the application of ‘Broadbent’s rule’ and ‘zone design’ methodologies (Raper, this volume) will result in ‘regions’ or ‘districts’ is eventually determined by the purpose: Searching for new knowledge, or solving an administrative task, respectively.
18.2.5 Summary and Discussion
Four classes of socio-economic, spatial units have been presented: The jurisdiction, the place, the region and the district. The main discerning criteria was the ‘actor’ or body who applied the unit: The ruler, the public, the scientist, and the officer or company staff, respectively. This may be considered an interpretation of Habermas’ position, which states that human interests structure knowledge and that different epistemologies are appropriate for each (Raper, this volume). For example, public administration, at least in its classical, bureaucratic form, takes an instrumental or ‘technical’ interest in the world and, consequently, positivist assumptions are maintained. The real estate, which from the owner’s point of view is a ‘jurisdiction’, becomes, through the eyes of many European cadastral officers, a ‘district’ with clear cut boundaries for which the officer, and not the owner, takes responsibility.
A fifth class, labelled by the term area, may be counted, although this is a mathematical and not a socio-economic unit. ‘Area’ is similar to ‘region’ as both are used by scientists, but ‘region’ refers to the surface of the Earth while ‘area’ may refer to any delimited surface. Therefore, ‘area’ is probably used as the most general term for spatial units. Different disciplines of mathematics each coin their terms. Analytic geometry conceives ‘area’ as the well-known (metric) measure of extent of a plane surface. The discipline of graph theory is not concerned with metric properties (part of it may be called ‘rubber sheet geometry’). The different conception of a delimited surface is denoted by the term ‘face’ (e.g., Wilson, 1985; and for applications in GIS: Bartelme, 1989; Laurini and Thompson, 1992).
18.3The ontology of socio-economic, spatial units (SEU)
Socio-economic units are not easy to comprehend; they do not contrast to their surroundings as a moving object like a person or a car. Therefore, one has to ask what kind of existence the SEUs have, and what calls them into being, in other words, to investigate their ontology.
18.3.1 Fiat Objects
In a recent paper Barry Smith presents a typology of spatial boundaries, which is based on an opposition between bona fide or physical boundaries on the one hand, and fiat or human- demarcation-induced boundaries on the other hand (Smith, 1995).
The physical boundaries are boundaries in the things themselves. They exist independently of all human cognitive acts. They are “a matter of qualitative differentiation or discontinuities in the underlying reality” (Smith, 1995, p. 476).
The ‘fiat’ boundaries owe their existence to acts of human decision or fiat, to laws and political decrees, or to related human cognitive phenomena, so “(f)iat boundaries are boundaries which exist only in virtue of different sorts of demarcations effected cognitively by human beings” (p. 477).