ABSTRACT

In contemporary planning, the development of soft regions through inter-municipal collaborations plays an increasingly important role. However, as previous research has shown, local borders and local jurisdiction are likely to remain as part and parcel of the new region. This paper argues the need to consider the geography of such local borders, to reveal asymmetries which could weaken the opportunities for inter-municipal collaboration. Following relational geography, we argue that the municipalities don’t necessarily share the same border; if understood as a relational effect, the border plays different roles for each municipality. With this in mind, we offer a case study of how a Swedish local border is being negotiated within planning. The case of Kumla and Hallsberg reveals how one municipality is active in trying to negotiate the border, whereas the other procrastinates around any action which do not lie in their interest. The result is a border haunted by decades of poorly coordinated, even provocative, planning actions. Our study opens up for a discussion on asymmetries and a relational understanding of the geography (and history) of planning, as well as for further studies of the interplay between the renegotiation of the local borders within emerging soft regions.

摘要

在当代规划中，通过城市间合作开发软区域发挥着越来越重要的作用。然而，正如之前的研究表明的那样，地方边界和地方管辖权可能仍然是新地区的重要组成部分。本文认为有必要考虑此类地方边界的地理特征，以揭示可能削弱城市间合作机会的不对称性。根据关系地理学，​​我们认为城市不一定共享相同的边界；如果将边界理解为一种关系效应，那么边界对每个市镇起着不同的作用。考虑到这一点，我们提供了一个案例研究，说明瑞典当地边界是如何在规划中进行谈判的。Kumla 和 Hallsberg 的案例揭示了一个城市如何积极尝试谈判边界，而另一个人则拖延任何不符合他们利益的行动。其结果是边界被数十年协调不力，甚至是挑衅性的规划行动所困扰。我们的研究开启了对不对称性的讨论和对规划地理（和历史）的相关理解，以及对新兴软区域内局部边界重新谈判之间相互作用的进一步研究。