Dynamics of urban networks as basis for the re-development

of layer approaches

Jeroen van Schaick / Ina T. Klaasen

Chair of Spatial Planning, Dep. Urbanism, Faculty of Architecture.
Delft University of Technology.
Berlageweg 1, 2628 CR, Delft.
j.vanschaick@tudelft.nl / i.t.klaasen@tudelft.nl

Abstract
The conceptual model lagenbenadering (layer approach), the past decade embraced by spatial
planners and designers in the Netherlands, has proven to be quite influential in setting agendas and
shaping spatial policy documents at national, provincial and municipal levels. The distinction between
layers has been based on presupposed differences in transformation cycles between the subsystems
substratum, networks and occupation. However, although the layer approach concept has its values
in terms of interdisciplinary communication, discovery of conflicting and common interests and of
opportunities for spatial development, the approach is questionable because of the conceptual models
of space and society it is commonly based on. The layer approach can be criticized for its lack of
understanding of transformation processes, lack of attention for daily life and its failure to acknowledge
the nature of networks. After setting the scene in section 1, in section 2 of the paper we describe
conceptual layer models used in urban planning design, explaining why we criticise these models.
Section 3 provides the building blocks to redevelop layer approaches in answer to this critique. We
conclude the paper with suggestions for integrating these building blocks in layer approaches.

1. Setting the scene

1.1 The layer approach in the Netherlands

The conceptual model lagenbenadering, which approaches spatial planning and design tasks by
separating the different aspects of these tasks in layers, usually a substratum layer, a networks one
and an occupation one, is based on the supposed differences in their rate of change (figure 1). It is
extensively used for spatial planning in the Netherlands and has proven to be quite influential in shaping
spatial policy documents on national, provincial and municipal levels. Following the basic lay-out of the
Fifth Policy Paper on Spatial Planning in the Netherlands (Ministerie VROM 2000), the Nota Ruimte
(translates to National Spatial Strategy; Ministerie VROM 2006) adopted the layer approach as spatial
planning and analysis strategy. Since the 1990s the layer approach as such has been implemented in
the development and analysis of regional spatial visions and municipal spatial visions throughout the
Netherlands (see e.g. Provincie Noord-Holland 2002; dRO Amsterdam 1996; Hoog, Sijmons &
Verschuuren 1998). In addition, the layer approach has been adopted as a means to influence and even
set policy agendas, especially from the angle of earth sciences, ecological sciences and to a lesser
extent cultural history (see Dauvellier 2001). Werksma (2003) states: the layer approach offers a basis
for cooperation, for investment, for accountability, for spatial principles as well as for spatial quality while
it can help building bridges between different actors.
2

Figure 1:
The layer approach as it has been widely adopted in the Netherlands. From bottom to top the
following layers have been identified: substratum (or blue-green layer), networks (or
infrastructure) and occupation.
Source: Provincie Noord-Holland (2002)

1.2 Grounding the layer approach

The Ministry of Spatial Planning in the Netherlands published their Ruimtelijke Verkenningen 2000 in
June 2001 (this translates to Spatial Explorations 2000, RPD 2001). This document contextualizes the
layer approach in the Netherlands. It shows that the layer approach is historically grounded in a fusion of
theoretical frameworks from physical geography and social geography, on the basis of ecological theory.
From two corresponding basic principles, the first idea - distinguishing layers based on transformation
dynamics - has prevailed in the layer approach in the Netherlands. The second idea has been
marginalized in spatial planning applications. Based on the work of the geographer Paul Vidal de la
Blache (1845-1918), this second idea looks at the world in a holistic way as a system constituted by the
relation between people and their environment. In his Principes de Geographie Vidal de la Blache
(1922) distinguishes (a) la repartition hommes sur globe, (b) les formes des civilization and (c) la
circulation. According to Anne Buttimer (1971) this translates to a research agenda for social geography
following a three-tier structure: (a) the analysis of density, dispersal and mobility of populations, (b) the
analysis of the way in which the human species adapts its natural environment to its existential needs
and (c) the analysis of transport and communication.

A second line that grounds the layer approach in spatial planning is the process of specialization and
related prioritization in policy making. Several fields of policy making are involved with the spatial
development of urban and/or rural structures. Infrastructure policies, economic policies, ecological
policies and agriculture policies are complemented by integrative spatial policies. Taking the role of
integrating policy field, spatial planning policies occupy a peculiar position in policy making (Hoog,
Sijmons & Verschuuren 1998). Spatial planning maps and prioritizes spatial choices from different
angles. On the one hand spatial intervention tasks can be formulated with regard to a specific layer, but
it is also possible to prioritize, making strategy choices between interventions in different layers. On the
other hand, spatial planners feel the need to create synergies between spatial interventions, both within
one layer and between layers. From this perspective the layer approach is basically not much different
from the traditional sectoral approach of spatial planning and its integration problems, that have their
origin for a large part in the fact that spatial interventions are financed through sectoral departments.
3

There is a third point of departure in the contemporary use of the layer approach, which so far has not
been mentioned in literature on the layer approach in spatial planning. Since the 1990s both geography
and spatial planning has seen a growing influence in using computational tools in spatial analysis and in
spatial design, in particular Geographic Informations Systems (GIS) and Computer Aided Design (CAD).
Both software families use the principle of layers as organizing structure of data and maps. It is naive to
think that this representational characteristic and also specifically the relative ease with which multiple
layers can be developed and combined, has not influenced thinking in spatial planning and design (see
Klaasen 2004: 75). While the two other grounding principles of the layer approach give an indication of
the choices to be made in selecting the layers to be represented, the main contribution of this last point
of departure is not content, but the principle of superimposition itself. This principle offers a range of
possibilities to develop visual relations between spatial elements and to deconstruct and recombine
spatial phenomena into as many layers as necessary to extract relevant information on individual
situations.

However, the use and application of the layer approach is far from consistent. The layer approach is
seen as, respectively, (a) a visual model, (b) a hierarchical policy model, (c) a propositional model of
man-environment relations, (d) a theoretical model of transformation dynamics, (e) a theoretical model
of relations between urban subsystems, (f) a model of stakeholder relations in spatial planning and (g)
as planning concept to formulate planning tasks. Moreover, the debate [on the layer approach as
discourse] does not distinguish sharply between a descriptive/explanatory model and a planning model,
between understanding and intervening. [] The layer approach is a complex concept that re-emerges
again and again in the debate on us intervening in the physical environment. (RPD 2001: 47) Recently,
the Ruimtelijk Planbureau (this translates to The Netherlands Institute for Spatial Research) explicitly
chose not to use the layer approach to formulate spatial questions of the future for the current policy
agenda. (Schuur, Janssen, Klaver, Pieterse & Snellen 2007) The authors of that explorative document
gave two reasons. Firstly, despite cartographic and stylistic advantages in particular in design
processes, there is no direct relation between the layer on which a development occurs and its urgency
in policy making. According to the authors, this makes it difficult to develop policy recommendations
from a layer approach. The applicability of analyses based on the layer approach proved to be limited
for this reason. Secondly, the layer approach complicates matters, because it simplifies functional
distinctions, hierarchical relations between layers and the differences in rate of transformation. For this
reason it offers little room, the authors claim, to think about future spatial questions in the long term.

2. Developing a critique on the choice of layers in layer approaches

2.1 The ingredients of the layer approach in spatial planning

The layer approach as it has been adopted in spatial planning in the Netherlands usually consists of
three layers: substratum, networks and occupation. But although the layer approach concept has its
values in terms of interdisciplinary communication, discovery of conflicting and common interests and of
opportunities for spatial development, the approach is questionable because of the conceptual models
of space and society it is commonly based on. Teunissen (2002) formulates the following points of
attention for the further development of the layer approach: (1) spatial quality and the layer approach,
4

(2) interactions on and between layers, (3) complex interaction of high dynamic and low dynamic layers,
(4) the layer approach as instrument for plan development and the shaping of coalitions, and (5) the fit
of development planning (ontwikkelingsplanologie) and the layer approach. In this paper we go a step
further. In the following subsections we formulate explicit criticism on the layer approach. Firstly , the
layer approach can be criticized for the limited view on the role of time in the layer approach. The
notions high and low dynamic refer to processes within the different distinguished layers, focused on
transformations of the systems represented by these layers. In other words only linear processes that
take a relatively long time (years, decades, centuries and more) are taken into account. Priemus (2004)
already criticized the perception of the relative speed of transformations processes in the different
layers. Secondly, the layer approach fails to acknowledge the nature of networks as ubiquitous, dynamic
structures consisting of nodes and links with a specific logic of evolution (see Barabsi 2002; Dupuy
1991 & 2000). Thirdly, we add to this our criticism of the lack of attention for the cyclic societal and
ecological processes characterized by a daily and weekly, and sometimes yearly, rhythm (see Klaasen
2004 & 2005).

2.1.1 A critique of the interpretation of dynamics and transformation

The distinction between layers has been based on presupposed differences in transformation processes
between the subsystems substratum, networks and occupation, arranged from supposed low dynamism
and high dynamism. But spatial dynamics are more complex. With regard to occupation and substratum
Priemus (2007: 670) states that the relationship between the above-mentioned occupational pattern
and the construction cycle comes as a bolt from the blue and is totally unsubstantiated and that [the
substratum] is sometimes relatively easy to change. Transformations are processes - artificial or
primarily natural - in systems. The demarcations of systems differ with the type of processes taken in
consideration. An ecologically relevant system demarcation tends to be different from a system
demarcation that is relevant from an urbanization perspective (see Klaasen 1993).

Furthermore, networks answer to dynamics of adaptation of network structures, kinetics in terms of

movement of people, information and goods and topological dynamics that push for direct and
ubiquitous relations in networks (Dupuy 2000). Also, transformation processes do not occur on specific
time scales in specific spatial subsystems. In a technology-driven society they become more and more
complex. For example, time-space compression, time-space convergence, time-space flexibilization and
time-space individualization are at the same time a kinetic and an adaptation process, which (1) occur
simultaneously on micro, meso and macro levels and (2) affect both spatial and temporal reclustering
and declustering of urban centralities (Schaick 2007).

The logic of the dynamics as proposed in the layer approach only serves the purpose of establishing a
hierarchical decision making structure between policy sectors within a single framework (RPD 2000). It
can be relevant in inter-sectoral planning processes, especially for supposedly marginal sectors such as
those responsible for substratum. However, the way the layer approach deals with dynamics leads to
oversimplification and to a fixation on the conflicts between layers rather than on the possibilities.

2.1.2 A critique on the definition of networks

Networks consist of nodes and relations. In the layer approach this characteristic of networks is hardly
present. In the application of the layer approach it is either the pattern of roads and rail infrastructure or,
in combination with occupation patterns, the polynuclear pattern of urban areas that dominates the
5

definition of networks. However, regarding a network as a formal pattern neglects the nature of
networks. Networks are inherently dynamic in terms of movement and continuous adaptation. Moreover,
they are not primarily dynamic in terms of linear transformation. In the context of urban systems,
networks are integrated and complex social-technical systems (compare Klaasen 2004). But in the layer
approach adopted in spatial planning in the Netherlands, networks are primarily technical systems.

2.1.3 A critique of neglecting daily life and temporal-spatial use

Although the term occupation seemingly incorporates the use of time and space the occupation of
space by people - occupation in the layer approach has more to do with functions than with people.
Occupation is simply another word for land use. Networks in the layer approach suffer from the same
technocratic characteristics. The layer networks is generally interpreted as infrastructure in terms of
roads, rail and in some cases ICT-infrastructure. This cannot only be blamed to the layer approach, but
also to its use. The application of layer approaches in spatial planning processes has hardly resulted in
a critical examination of use aspects on the occupation level, although some mobility issues have been
represented through the network layer. The latter application has mainly focused on capacity issues of
infrastructures and other performance indicators.

Relevant from the perspective of users of space is how they can effectively reach their day-to-day aims
(and their life goals), in other words: which societal (and ecological) processes can be accommodated -
given their time budget (Klaasen 2004); a time budget that is limited by biological, social and technical
constraints (Hgerstrand 1970). A parallel argument could be made for companies. However, this
dimension of occupation and networks, which can be concretized with the term potential temporal-
spatial activity patterns, is not part of the layer approach. Quoting Lynch (1972: 73): a proposed
environment [should] be seen as a spatiotemporal whole. Referring to Trsten Hgerstand (1970) we
can ask: what about people in the layer approach?

Looking at the practical application possibilities of the layer approach (a) users are not part of the
equation in spatial planning processes (b) a primarily macroscopic, top-down view dominates in spatial
planning processes and (c) it is not clear if spatial interventions create the conditions for desired spatial
behaviour, which is often claimed in planning processes.

2.2 The ingredients of layer approaches in urban design

In the field of urban design a layer approach has been adopted that differs slightly from the layer
approach in spatial planning. Heeling, Meyer & Westrik (2002), for instance, distinguish the layers urban
ground plan, public space, buildings and use. The tension between public and private space and the
tension between open and closed space play a dominant role in these approaches. Use (as in land
use) and substratum (the slightly broader term territorium is used in Dutch) are both seen as contextual
to these tensions which so is claimed can be solved in urban designs and plans.

While in spatial planning the choice to include three layers is based on an institutional perspective,
layers in urban design are tools in deconstructing a spatial situation to look in detail at specific
phenomena or patterns. Although the urban design task, i.e. proposing coherent spatial interventions,
remains central (see Heeling, Meyer & Westrik 2002), it is not uncommon to extend the number of
layers and also collapse specific selections of layers in a dynamic way during spatial analyses and
design processes.
6

2.2.1 A critique on regarding the design as a closed system

In a layer approach a designer extracts from a certain area the layers he or she supposes to be
relevant. By emphasising the deconstruction in layers, the designers always risk treating their design
site as a closed or semi-closed system. In architecture, a building may be treated as a semi-closed
system, linked to its environment. A built-up area, however, is embedded in a lot of other systems of
equal and higher orders (Klaasen 2004: 50 ff.). Treating a design area as a semi-closed system also
encourages the shifting of problems onto neighbouring areas, e.g. by the displacement of
environmentally detrimental industry (ibid.). By emphasising the deconstruction in layers, and so
emphasising different kinds of systems with different relevant demarcations, increases the negative
effects of short-sighted demarcations. Therefore, the application of a layer approach in urban design
runs a high risk of making scale errors and system errors.

2.2.2 A critique on the use of the concepts value and quality in urban design

Following Vitruvius, spatial quality can be based on criteria: use value, experiential value and future
value. It is a mistake that time only comes into play in future value. Also use value and experiential
value have both a spatial and a temporal dimension, albeit on other temporal and spatial scales than
future value. While layer approaches in spatial planning show a prevalence of future value over use
value and experiential value, layer approaches in urban design show a dominance of experiential value
over use value. As such, spatial quality in urban design is a primarily aesthetic, formal concept.
However, the spatial intervention of urban designs has a significant impact on the immediate and future
use value of the physical urban fabric. Still, urban design fails to a large degree to integrate knowledge
on activity patterns of people in its theoretical frameworks, design instruments and design products
(Klaasen 2004 & 2005; Schaick 2005). Moreover, the multiplicity of time scales in a comprehensive use
of quality criteria implies that the layer approach in focusing on future value fails to offer a consistent
framework for spatial quality.

3. Shifting perspectives in layer approaches: potential for new relations

After establishing a line of critique for existing layer approaches in spatial planning and in urban design,
in this section we look at layer models in a different way. The goal here is to develop building blocks for
answers to the critique on layer approaches with regard to (a) its understanding of transformation
processes, (b) its lack of attention for people and daily life, i.e. the user angle, (c) its failure to
acknowledge the nature of networks, (d) the risk of regarding a design site as a closed system and (e)
the dominance of experiential and future value over use value.

3.1 Shifts in vocabulary and visualization

Previous work (Schaick 2005) shows that a shift from primarily technical-spatial vocabulary to a
combined technical-spatial and socio-spatial vocabulary is better supported in network-based
conceptual models. This study drew on the work of Castells (1996), Lefebvre (1974), Dupuy (1991) and
Heeling, Meyer and Westrik (2002). Comparing their conceptual models of the relation between social
and technical aspects of urban systems shows that network approaches put more emphasis on relations
between layers and on user dynamics. Especially the shift from a spatially oriented layer approach
towards a network approach, giving attention to relations between layers is supported by the analysis of
7

Dutch spatial planning methods in the work of Priemus (2004 & 2007). However, Priemus (2004 & 2007)
still leaves the user dimension largely out of his analysis.
In spatial planning and design 2 or 3-dimensional imagery or visualizations are much more important
then words and vocabulary (Klaasen 2002). The problem with these visual representations of reality or
planned reality is the difficulty of incorporating time, and therefore processes, in these representations.
Visualizations are by definition representations of a moment in time. Visualization of activity patterns and
network dynamics can provide a base for integrating user aspects in spatial planning processes, for
example time-space use of individual people, collective rhythms of duration of uses and spatial relations
in urban systems in terms of flows of people, goods and information.

3.2 Shifts in relations between layers in layer approaches

The layer approach as a method has been elaborated from within to make the relations between the
layers more explicit. Dauvellier (2001), Werksma (2003) and Teunissen (2002) show that broadening
the view in layer approaches in both vertical and horizontal direction increases the possibilities to
interrelate spatial planning tasks (figure 2). But looking at the layer approach from the outside, one can
raise the question if this is enough; moreover, if these are the right type of relations between layers. Can
the principle of superimposition be fundamentally turned into structuring layer approaches through
linkage?

Figure 2:
Broadening the view in layer approaches in spatial planning. Image by Peter Dauvellier; source:
www.ruimtexmilieu.nl >Filosofie [accessed 31 May 2007]

Three directions are possible: (a) the behaviour of people as binding principle: following the example of
the tourist complex (compare Knaap 1997), (b) place making as binding principle (compare Massey
1994) and (c) the multiplex structure of networks as binding principle (Amin & Graham 1997).

Firstly, theory on tourism and recreation offers a layer approach the tourist complex - that links layers
not through superimposition of elements. In contrast, in this theory a layer approach is built by
combining the spatial structure of an area with the topological, clustered and sequential structure of
activity options, with individual and collective time-space behaviour and with the complex process of
giving interpretative meaning to this structure (figure 3, Knaap 1997, compare Schaick 2005 for the
integration of principles from the concept social space derived from the work of Lefebvre, 1974).
8

Figure 3:
Interwoven network patterns and sequences which create a tourist complex. Knaap (1997)

Secondly, place is the spatial-temporal phenomenon that binds together in real life the urban
subsystems drawn separately in layer approaches. Places and other nodes in networks can be regarded
as pivotal points for individuals, and groups and institutions. The processes relevant for place making
are characteristed by widely differing temporal scales. According to Doreen Massey (1994):
1. Places being conceptualized in terms of the social interactions that they tie together, are not
motionless things, frozen in time. They are processes.
2. Places do not have boundaries in the sense of divisions that frame simple enclosures.
3. Places do not have single, unique 'identities'; they are full of internal conflicts.
4. The specificity of place is continually reproduced, but it is not a specificity which results from
some long, internalized history.
Thirdly, the logic of interrelations in networks can give guidelines for relations within a network-based
layer approach. Networks answer to logics of spatial scale that differ from logics based on geographical
distance and size. Networks of both the same and of different orders interact in urban systems. The
concept of the multiplex city as a binding principle suits this approach: We would argue that the
dominance of partial interpretations concentrating on paradigmatic examples, or specific time-space
samples, is making it increasingly problematic to hold sight of the idea of the urban as the co-presence
of multiple spaces, multiple times and multiple webs of relations, tying local sites, subjects and
fragments into globalizing networks of economic, social and cultural change. (Amin & Graham 1997)
According to Amin & Graham (1997) the multiplex city answers to the following logics of spatial
(dis)organisation: (a) the thickness of copresent interaction, where intense face-to-face interactions
within urban space coexist with mediated flows of communication, and contact via technical media to the
broader city and beyond, (b) the unique place density and boundedness of the city, (c) the importance of
urban heterogeneity, and (d) the concentrated and complex institutional base within cities.

Summarizing the findings, the conclusion emerges that two major lines of approach can be followed in
redeveloping layer approaches in line with the principles and concepts derived from the working and
9

structure of dynamic urban networks. First, the user angle needs to be rebuilt. Second, the layer
approach needs to be rebuilt from relational principles.

4. Concluding remarks: embedding network dynamics in layer approaches

The ideas presented in section 3 can be building stones for a revised concept for layer approaches. If
such a concept based on dynamic urban networks can indeed be construed, it will offer a
multidimensional framework for layer approaches both in spatial planning and urban (and regional)
design. Layer approaches will then be based on perspectives rather than spatially superimposable
layers. Distinctions will be made between planning and design tasks derived from (a) accessibility
profiles within physical networks, (b) relational place making, (c) the spatial configuration of urban
rhythms based on collective activity patterns and (d) potential temporal-spatial activity patterns of people
and of production and consumption cycles. All this of course in the context of sustainability, in particular
focusing on sustainability in terms of future use value.

Criteria for the use value of space relate to both the presence of sufficient activity-carrying elements and
the spatial interrelation between the activity carriers (the functional-spatial structure). This means that
the activity carriers belonging to different public policy sectors must be seen in relation to one another;
for example, how do interventions in the area of public housing affect desirable or undesirable
developments with regard to economic activity carriers, and vice versa? (Boer 1990: 95 ff.) Relevant
from the perspective of individual users of the physical system is what potential temporospatial activity
patterns are possible considering the siting of the activity carriers with regard to one another; and, for
institutions, what is their temporospatial users base (where the users may in some cases be other
institutions), e.g. for the distribution and delivery of goods etc. (Klaasen 2004: 70)

Four primary, complementary and interdependent ingredients for redeveloping layer approaches can be
derived from the perspectives and the critiques in this paper: (1) potential individual activity patterns, (2)
functional-spatial networks reflecting aggregate activity patterns of people, goods and information, (3)
places as relational spatial elements and (4) physical networks consisting of physical nodes and links.
Taking a lesson from our critique on the current application of the layer approach it would be wise to
regard these ingredients not as separable layers but as different perspectives for looking at urban
situations. Spatial plans can then be developed through relating these layered perspectives.

This paper has been developed within the context of the Network Cities Research Programme funded by the Delft
Centre for Sustainable Urban Areas.

References
Amin, A. & Graham, S., 1997, The Ordinary City, In: Transactions of the Inst. of British Geographers, Nr 22: 411-429
Barabsi, A.L., 2002, Linked: The New Science of Networks, Cambridge (UK), Perseus
Boer, N. A de, 1990, Stedebouwkundige Planvorming. Internal publication Faculty of Architecture, TU Delft
Buttimer, A., 1971, Society and Milieu in the French Geographic Tradition. Chicago, Rand McNally and Co.: AAG
Monograph, No. 6.
Castells, M., 1996, The Rise of The Network Society; Second Edition 2000, Oxford, Blackwell Publishers.
Dauvellier, P., 2001, Bodemverbonden Ruimte, In: Levende Stad Deel 3, Lagen en Dimensies, Pijlers voor
Netwerkverstedelijking. Den Haag, Ministerie van VROM.
10

Dupuy, G., 1991, LUrbanisme des Reseaux Thories et Mthodes, Paris, Armand Colin diteurs.
Dupuy, G., 2000, A Revised History of Network Urbanism. In: OASE 53 Netwerkstedenbouw, Nijmegen, Sun.
dRO Amsterdam, 1996, Amsterdam Open Stad, Structuurplan 1996, Gemeente Amsterdam
Hagerstrand, T., 1970, What about people in Regional Science? Ninth European Congress of The Regional Science
Association Copenhagen 69, Copenhagen, Regional Science Association.
ste
Heeling, J.; Meyer, V.J..& Westrik, J., 2002, De Kern van de Stedebouw in het perspectief van de 21 eeuw. Dl. 1.
Het ontwerp van de stadsplattegrond. Amsterdam, SUN.
Hoog, M. de, Sijmons, D, & Verschuren, S., 1998, Herontwerp van het Laagland In: Het Metropolitane Debat,
Bussum, THOTH.
Klaasen, I.T. (ed.), 1993, Het Stromende Stadsgewest, plananalyse derde Eo Wijers-prijsvraag, Delft, Publikatieburo
Faculteit Bouwkunde.
Klaasen, I.T., 2002, Modelling Reality, In: Ways to Study and Research - Urban, Architectural and Technical Design,
edited by T.M. de Jong & D.J.M. van der Voordt; pp.181-188. Delft, Delft University Press.
Klaasen, I.T., 2004, Knowledge-based Design: Developing Urban and Regional Design into a Science, Series
Design/Science/Planning, Delft University Press, Delft / Techne Press, Amsterdam
Klaasen, I.T., 2005, Putting Time in the Picture The Relation between Space and Time in Urban Design and
Planning, In: Hulsbergen, E.D., Klaasen, I.T. & Kriens, I (eds) Shifting Sense - Looking Back to the Future in Spatial
Planning. Series Design/Science/Planning Delft: Techne Press/ Amsterdam, Techne Press, pp. 181-196.
Knaap, W. van der, 1997, The Tourists Drives: GIS oriented methods for analysing tourist recreation complexes,
PhD Thesis, Wageningen University.
Lefebvre, H., 1974 [translation 1991] The Production of Space, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing.
Lynch, K., 1972, What Time is This Place? Cambridge (Massachusetts), MIT Press.
Massey, D., 1994, A Global Sense of Place. In: Massey, D., 1994, From Space, Place and Gender. Minneapolis,
University of Minnesota Press.
Ministerie VROM, 2000, Vijfde Nota over de Ruimtelijke Ordening 2000 / 2020, PKB deel 1 Ruimte Maken, Ruimte
Delen, Den Haag, Ministerie VROM.
Ministerie VROM, 2006, Nota Ruimte Ruimte voor Ontwikkeling. Den Haag, Ministerie VROM.
Priemus, H., 2004, From a Layers Approach towards a Network Approach: A Dutch Contribution to Spatial Planning
Methodology In: Planning, Practice & Research, 19 (3), pp.267-283.
Priemus, 2007, The Network Approach: Dutch Spatial Planning between Substratum and Infrastructure Networks', In
European Planning Studies, 15:5, pp. 667-686.
Provincie Noord-Holland (2002) Ontwerp Streekplan Noord-Holland Zuid. Haarlem, Provincie Noord-Holland.
RPD (Rijksplanologische Dienst), 2001, Ruimtelijke verkenningen 2000, Het belang van een goede ondergrond, Den
Haag, Ministerie VROM.
Schaick, J. van, 2005. Integrating the Social and Spatial Aspects of the Urban System, In: Hulsbergen, E.D.,
Klaasen, I.T. & Kriens, I (eds) Shifting Sense - Looking Back to the Future in Spatial Planning. Delft: Techne Press,
pp. 251-264.
Schaick, J. van, 2007, Changing Times Changing Cities: On changing constructions of time in relation to space.
In: Atlantis nr.2, pp. 18-24.
Schuur, J., Janssen, L. Klaver, S., Pieterse, N. & Snellen, D., 2007, De Ruimtelijke Vraagstukken van de Toekomst
voor de Beleidsagenda van Nu. Den Haag: Ruimtelijk Planbureau, Bilthoven: Milieu en Natuurplanbureau.
Teunissen, A., 2002, Dynamiek gerichte planning, In: De steden begrensd, Amsterdam, Stichting Planologische
Diskussiedagen.
Vidal de la Blache, P., 1922, Principes de gographie humaine, Paris, Armand Colin.
Werksma, H., 2003, Ge(s)laagde ruimte de Lagenbenadering: een Ontwikkelingsgerichte Uitwerking. Presentation
at Ruimteconferentie (October 2003, Rotterdam), Ruimtelijk Planbureau. Available at
www.inro.tno.nl/LagenBenadering/ConditionerendePlanning/ConditionerendePlanning.htm [acc. 31 May 2007].