IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cog/urbpla/v6y2021i3p136-151.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Straddling the Fence: Land Use Patterns in and around Ports as Hidden Designers

Author

Listed:
  • Lucija Ažman Momirski

    (Faculty of Architecture, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia)

  • Yvonne van Mil

    (Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands)

  • Carola Hein

    (Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Ports are clearly demarcated structures on land and water. They are fenced in, easily recognizable on satellite and orthophoto images, and they have specific functions. This apparent clarity of ports, their function and outline, in relation to nearby urban and rural areas, becomes more complex when explored through the lens of land use, that is the existing and planned future functional dimension or socio-economic purpose of the land. In contrast to urban and rural areas, where land use has been mapped and defined for centuries, the use and function of land and water in port areas has long been multifunctional and not defined on land use maps. This raises questions about the role and understanding of port territory in relation to neighboring spaces, past, and present. This article first defines land use and describes its historical development. Scholars from various disciplines, including geographers, planners, and economists, have addressed the issue of land use in port areas. Land use patterns have emerged over time and are based on earlier demarcations of port areas and distinctions between port and city. As shown by the historical port city borders in Hamburg, Rotterdam, and Koper, these delimitations can change over time, by location and by function. The land use register has only recently been harmonized at the European level. European and national registers distinguish existing and planned land use in port areas differently. Mixed uses prevail in new port interventions, creating a new kind of permeability or porosity; that is, areas where port, urban and rural functions merge. New land use porosity is a particular state of land use (on both sides of the boundaries of port areas) that goes beyond the physical boundaries marked by fences. Land use porosity effectively creates land use continuity, a functional porosity that serves as a hidden blueprint for future planning. Understanding land use porosity can provide a foundation for novel approaches to the development of transition strategies that are needed to address contemporary challenges, including climate change and sea level rise, digitization, and new work and life practices in port city regions. In conclusion, we note that due to the porosity of land use patterns, the separation between the present port and the city is beginning to crumble. However, this process has yet to be made fully visible and used as a basis for design.

Suggested Citation

  • Lucija Ažman Momirski & Yvonne van Mil & Carola Hein, 2021. "Straddling the Fence: Land Use Patterns in and around Ports as Hidden Designers," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(3), pages 136-151.
  • Handle: RePEc:cog:urbpla:v6:y:2021:i:3:p:136-151
    DOI: 10.17645/up.v6i3.4101
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cogitatiopress.com/urbanplanning/article/view/4101
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17645/up.v6i3.4101?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Louis Albrechts, 2006. "Shifts in Strategic Spatial Planning? Some Evidence from Europe and Australia," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 38(6), pages 1149-1170, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lucija Ažman Momirski & Yvonne van Mil & Carola Hein, 2021. "Straddling the Fence: Land Use Patterns in and around Ports as Hidden Designers," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(3), pages 136-151.
    2. McGreevy, Michael & Harris, Patrick & Delany-Crowe, Toni & Fisher, Matt & Sainsbury, Peter & Baum, Fran, 2019. "Can health and health equity be advanced by urban planning strategies designed to advance global competitiveness? Lessons from two Australian case studies," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 242(C).
    3. Kwasi Gyau BAFFOUR AWUAH & Felix N. HAMMOND & Colin A. BOOTH & Jessica E. LAMOND, 2014. "Evolution And Development Of Urban Land Use Planning: Analysis From Human Action Theory Perspective," Theoretical and Empirical Researches in Urban Management, Research Centre in Public Administration and Public Services, Bucharest, Romania, vol. 9(2), pages 35-67, May.
    4. Hussain, Zahid & Nadeem, Obaidullah, 2021. "The nexus between growth strategies of master plans and spatial dynamics of a metropolitan city: The case of Lahore, Pakistan," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    5. Miaoxi Zhao & Yuexi Yao & Galuh Syahbana Indraprahasta, 2023. "Reflection on Guangzhou’s Strategic Spatial Planning: Current Status, Conflicts, and Dilemmas," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-21, October.
    6. Louis Albrechts, 2010. "More of the Same is Not Enough! How Could Strategic Spatial Planning Be Instrumental in Dealing with the Challenges Ahead?," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 37(6), pages 1115-1127, December.
    7. Tuna Taşan‐Kok, 2010. "Entrepreneurial Governance: Challenges Of Large‐Scale Property‐Led Urban Regeneration Projects," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 101(2), pages 126-149, April.
    8. Tsou, Ko-Wan & Cheng, Hao-Teng & Tseng, Fu-Yi, 2015. "Exploring the relationship between multilevel highway networks and local development patterns—a case study of Taiwan," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 160-170.
    9. Dan Greenwood & Peter Newman, 2010. "Markets, Large Projects and Sustainable Development: Traditional and New Planning in the Thames Gateway," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 47(1), pages 105-119, January.
    10. Krzysztofik, Robert & Dulias, Renata & Kantor-Pietraga, Iwona & Spórna, Tomasz & Dragan, Weronika, 2020. "Paths of urban planning in a post-mining area. A case study of a former sandpit in southern Poland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    11. Shahrooz Kavousi & Yashar Salamzadeh, 2016. "Identifying and Prioritizing Factors Influencing Success of a Strategic Planning Process: A Study on National Iranian Copper Industries Company," Asian Social Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 12(8), pages 230-230, August.
    12. Marjolein Spaans & Wil Zonneveld, 2016. "Informal Governance Arrangements in the Southern Randstad: Understanding the Dynamics in a Polycentric Region," Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG, vol. 107(1), pages 115-125, February.
    13. Chung-Yim Yiu & Ka-Shing Cheung, 2021. "Urban Zoning for Sustainable Tourism: A Continuum of Accommodation to Enhance City Resilience," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-15, June.
    14. Krisztina Varró, 2014. "Spatial Imaginaries of the Dutch–German–Belgian Borderlands: A Multidimensional Analysis of Cross-Border Regional Governance," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(6), pages 2235-2255, November.
    15. Crystal Legacy, 2010. "Investigating the Knowledge interface between Stakeholder Engagement and Plan-Making," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 42(11), pages 2705-2720, November.
    16. Peter Newman, 2007. "Strategic Spatial Planning: Collective Action and Moments of Opportunity," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(10), pages 1371-1383, August.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cog:urbpla:v6:y:2021:i:3:p:136-151. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: António Vieira or IT Department (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cogitatiopress.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.