SpringerLink
Log in

Scale and Where the Three Prongs Can Meet

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Asian Megacity Region

Part of the book series: The Urban Book Series ((UBS))

  • 315 Accesses

Abstract

The importance of scale in research and planning for the MCR in the develo** world is no longer debatable. This is especially true in the current era of globalization and technological advances transforming traditional scalar hierarchies and creating multiple spatialities. The aspatial, network-based, representational, and discursive roles of scale are also becoming increasingly more consequential. I see scale as the third prong in a coherent tri-pronged approach to sustainable development in the Asian MCR that should be used in conjunction with the other two prongs, as discussed in the previous chapter. I recognize that scale remains a confounding concept, although a paradigmatic shift toward conceptual inclusivity by reconciling its many facets, seems to be taking place in the literature. In this chapter I offer an overview of this shift, followed by a brief look at the framework of the MCR from a bi-scalar perspective, and, given the need to recognize the diversities among (and within) the spaces in the MCR, conclude with one example of how elements of the three prongs can converge into a coherent approach for sustainable planning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
EUR 29.95
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
EUR 85.59
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
EUR 106.99
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
EUR 106.99
Price includes VAT (Germany)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free ship** worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Interestingly, in context of the comment that ‘scale is intrinsic to nearly all geographical inquiry’, McMaster and Sheppard (2004) offer what they call a ‘lay example of the importance of scale’ in the realm of fiction, from a novel Lewis Carroll penned in 1893.

  2. 2.

    Note that Marston (2000, p. 220) in discussing this classification, describes operational scale as corresponding to ‘the level at which relevant processes operate’, suggestive of a separation of level from spatial extent as described by Lam (2004).

  3. 3.

    Considering the wish to find a ‘joint language’ for geographic concepts (such as scale, in the current context), it was interesting to find the content of the Lam and Quattrochi framework (1992) variously described as ‘definitions’, ‘meanings’, ‘uses’ (Lam 2004), ‘connotations’ (Marston 2000, p. 220), and ‘types’ (Sheppard and McMaster 2004a, b).

  4. 4.

    As McKinnon (2010, p. 26) observed, the “sense of the transformation of scalar relations over time is central to the scalar structuration approach…”.

  5. 5.

    In this context it may be interesting to note the following observation by Adam Moore (2008, p. 204):

    Possibly the only point about which geographers are in agreement is that scale is not a fixed or given category, rather it is socially constructed, fluid and contingent (Marston 2000). However, …this now near ritual nod toward social constructivism tends to obscure rather than illuminate, different theoretical approaches to scale.

    Moore (2008) identified ‘two diffuse but discernible trains of thought’ on the definition and attributes of scale, ‘that roughly align[ed] along materialist-idealist lines’ (p. 204). The former viewed scale as ‘material socio-spatial entities,’ that Neil Smith described as ‘platforms for specific kinds of social activity…platforms of absolute space in a wider sea of relational space’ (2000, p. 725 as cited in Moore 2008, p. 204). The idealist line of thinking, on the other hand, is said to have represented a ‘post-structuralist’ perspective, as it introduced the representational (scale as a ‘representational trope’) and discursive elements in the construction and identification of scale that did not necessarily correspond to the material conditions but had the potential to affect the material world (Jones et al. 2017; McKinnon 2010; Moore 2008; Kurtz 2003; Howitt 2003; Jones 1998; Kelly 1999). For an insightful discussion that explains, and seeks to reconcile, much of the apparent materialist-idealist/post-structuralist conflict, see McKinnon (2010).

  6. 6.

    For a discussion on the distinction between ‘duality’ and ‘dualism’ as pertains to human geography, see Kellerman (1987), who referring to Gregson (1986), viewed “…duality as a structure” to be “sharply distinct from… dualism, which puts side by side or makes antagonists of individuals, society, agency and structure, subject and object” (1987, p. 269). Kellerman saw ‘duality’ as a process, ‘dualism’ as a dichotomy.

  7. 7.

    A minor observation: although Neumann (2009) uses the term ‘constructivism’ to discuss Manson’s conceptualization of the scale continuum, Manson (2008, p. 777) himself labeled it as ‘constructionism’.

  8. 8.

    It is debatable whether it is appropriate for this 10-million threshold to be universally applicable, which may be a better fit at this time for the more populous continents of Asia and Africa than of Europe and Australia. In the latter cases, cities and urban agglomerations demonstrating all or many of the characteristics related to finance, influence, networking, and other matters commonly attributed to megacities, may carry much smaller population loads.

  9. 9.

    Obviously, here I am making a subjective distinction between ‘denoting’ and ‘delineating’, giving the former a process-based, and the latter an administrative/ jurisdiction-based, connotation.

  10. 10.

    The question is, even if appropriate, are these words necessary or are they redundant? Is it realistic, or is it naïve, to expect that in light of the recent shifts in thinking on the nature (and unevenness) of the rural-urban interfaces/ linkages across the city-regional landscapes, the need for micro-level examination is already established in the planning and academic community that requires no convincing?

  11. 11.

    This description gives it a somewhat different connotation than my conceptualization of the spread region and its spaces but does not affect the underlying argument.

  12. 12.

    Simon et al. (2006) considered the ‘notion of progressive, unidirectional convergence [as] too simplistic’, instead they opined that ‘significant forces of divergence’ were contributing to ‘new forms of diversity at different levels’ (2006, p. 7; emphasis in original).

  13. 13.

    Referring to a previous work (Allen et al. 1999 as cited in Allen 2003) in which they had added two other important flows—natural resources, and waste and pollution—to Douglass’ framework, Allen (2003, p. 143) observed that local policies and strategies, regional and national policies, and international processes might drive the dynamics of these flows.

  14. 14.

    This is the granular component of the observational scale (McMaster and Sheppard 2004, p. 5) as in Fig. 5.2.

  15. 15.

    In addition to the literature, my thinking has also been shaped by my observation of one of the Asian MCRs, NCR, Delhi in India.

  16. 16.

    In this context, elements of a conceptual framework by Pieterse (2011) comprising ‘three critical meta-domains of sustainable infrastructure, inclusive economy, and efficient spatial form (with land-use implication)’—come to mind. Although conceived in the context of cities, the underlying elements can also be argued to be applicable to sustainable planning for the city regions. For example, Pieterse divided the infrastructural into two parts: social (e.g., health, education, and housing) and bio-physical (e.g., roads, transportation, information-communication technology, energy, water, and sanitation). Both should be among the foci for a multidimensional analysis of the city region at a micro-scale, thus rendering importance to the selection of the granular level of observation.

  17. 17.

    At a meta level, it is interesting that every item on the list invariably leads to the question of data availability. It is important to recognize that the essentiality of such data will need to be clear in the minds of all the governmental and nongovernmental actors in order to start and facilitate a process that would address the data issues. In other words, to translate concepts into practice we need data support, but a clear idea as to the ‘why’ and the ‘what’ of this support is essential for its fruition.

  18. 18.

    I am aware of the fraught nature of terms/concepts such as communication, consensus, discourse, and dialogue in the planning literature. I have always been drawn to some of the basic elements in Communication/Collaboration or Critical Planning Theory (CPT); however, my intention is not to advocate any particular planning approach.

References

  • Allen A (2001) Urban sustainability under threat: the restructuring of the fishing industry in Mar del Plata, Argentina, Development in Practice, 11(2–3):152–173  

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen A (2003) Environmental planning and management of the peri-urban interface (PUI): perspectives on an emerging field. Environ Urban 15:135–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen A (2006) Understanding environmental change in the context of rural-urban interactions. In: McGregor D, Simon D, Thompson D (eds) The peri-urban interface: approaches to sustainable natural and human resource use. Earthscan, London, pp 30–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen, A, da Silva, NLA, Corubolo, E (1999) Environmental problems and opportunities of the peri-urban interface and their impact upon the poor. Draft for Discussion. Development Planning Unit. UCL, London, UK. Available from www.ucl.ac.uk/dpu/pui

  • Allen A, You N (2002) Sustainable urbanisation: bridging the green and brown agendas. Development Planning Unit (dpu). University College, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Amin A (2004) Regions unbound: towards a new politics of place. Geogr Ann 86:33–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenner N (2000) The urban question: reflections on Henri Lefebvre, urban theory and the politics of scale. Int J Urban Reg Res 24:361–378

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenner N (2001) The limits to scale? Methodological reflections on scalar structuration. Prog Hum Geogr 25:591–614

    Google Scholar 

  • Cao C, Lam NS-N (1997) Understanding the scale and resolution effects in remote sensing and GIS. In: Quattrochi DA, Goodchild MF (eds) Scale in remote sensing and GIS. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, pp 57–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Castree N, Demeritt D, Liverman D, Rhoads B (eds) (2009) A companion to environmental geography. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Coombes M (2014) From city-region concept to boundaries for governance: the English case. Urban Stud 51:2426–2443

    Google Scholar 

  • Davoudi S (2008) Conceptions of the city regions: a critical review. Proc Inst Civ Engineers: Urban Des Plan 161:51–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Delaney D, Leitner H (1997) The political construction of scale. Political Geogr 16:93–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson R (1964) The city region in Western Europe. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglass M (1998) A regional network strategy for reciprocal rural-urban linkages : an agenda for policy research with reference to Indonesia. In: Tacoli C (ed) Rural-urban linkages. Earthscan, London, pp 124–154

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedmann J, Douglass M (1975) Agropolitan development: towards a new strategy for regional development in Asia. In: Proceedings of a seminar, UN Centre for Regional Development, Nagoya

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory D (1993) Geographical imaginations. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregson N (1986) On duality and dualism: the case of structuration and time geography. Prog Hum Geogr 10:184–205

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, J (2015) In retrospect, in snapshot, in prospect. In Jones KE, Lord A, Shields R (eds) City-regions in prospect? Exploring points between place and practice. McGill Queen’s University Press, Montreal & Kingston, London, Chicago, pp 20–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison J, Heley J (2015) Governing beyond the metropolis: placing the rural in city-region development. Urban Stud 52:1113–1133

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison J, Hoyler M (2015a) Megaregions: foundations, frailties, futures. In: Harrison J, Hoyler M (eds) Megaregions: globalization’s new urban form? Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, pp 1–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Harrison J, Hoyler M (eds) (2015b) Megaregions: globalization’s New Urban Form? Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar

    Google Scholar 

  • Hesse M (2015) Megaurban regions: epistemology, discourse patterns, big urban business. In: Harrison J, Hoyler M (eds) Megaregions: globalization’s new urban form? Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, pp 29–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilling, D (1989) Alan B. Mountjoy: an appreciation. In Potter RB, Unwin T (eds) The geography of urban-rural interaction in develo** countries: essays for Alan B. Mountjoy. Routledge, London and New York, pp 1–10

    Google Scholar 

  • Howitt R (1993) A world in a grain of sand: towards a reconceptualisation of geographical scale. Aust Geogr 24:33–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Howitt R (1998) Scale as relation: musical metaphors of geographical scale. Area 30:49–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Howitt R (2002) Scale and the other: Levinas and geography. Geoforum 33:299–313

    Google Scholar 

  • Howitt R (2003) Scale. In: Agnew J, Mitchell K, Toal G (eds) A companion to political geography. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 138–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonas AEG (2006) Pro scale: further reflections on the ‘scale debate’ in human geography. Trans Inst Br Geogr 31:399–406

    Google Scholar 

  • Jonas AG (1994) Editorial. Environ Plan D: Soc Space 12:257–264

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones JP, Leitner H, Marston SA, Sheppard E (2017) Neil Smith’s scale. Antipode 49:138–152

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones M, MacLeod G (2004) Regional spaces, spaces of regionalism: territory, insurgent politics and the English question. Trans Inst Br Geogr 29:433–452

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones KT (1998) Scale as epistemology. Political Geogr 17:25–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Kellerman A (1987) Structuration theory and attempts at integration in human geography. Prof Geogr 39:267–273

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly PF (1999) The geographies and politics of globalization. Prog Hum Geogr 23:379–400

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurtz H (2003) Scale frames and counter-scale frames: constructing the problem of environmental injustice. Political Geogr 22:887–916

    Google Scholar 

  • Lam NS-N (2004) Fractals and scale in environmental assessment and monitoring. In: Sheppard E, McMaster R (eds) Scale & geographic inquiry. Blackwell, Malden, MA, pp 23–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Lam NS-N, Quattrochi DA (1992) On the issues of scale, resolution, and fractal analysis in the map** sciences. Prof Geogr 44:89–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Lefebvre H (1991) The production of space (trans: Nicholson-Smith D). Oxford and Cambridge, MA, Blackwell

    Google Scholar 

  • Leitner H, Miller B (2007) Scale and the limitations of ontological debate: a commentary on Marston, Jones and Woodward. Trans Inst Br Geogr 32:116–125

    Google Scholar 

  • Manson SM (2008) Does scale exist? An epistemological scale continuum for complex human-environment systems. Geoforum 39:776–788

    Google Scholar 

  • Marston S (2000) The social construction of scale. Prog Hum Geogr 24:219–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Marston S, Jones JP, Woodward K (2005) Human geography without scale. Trans Inst Br Geogr 30:416–432

    Google Scholar 

  • McKinnon D (2010) Reconstructing scale: towards a new scalar politics. Prog Hum Geogr 35:21–36

    Google Scholar 

  • McMaster RB, Sheppard E (2004) Introduction: scale and geographic inquiry. In: Sheppard E, McMaster R (eds) Scale & geographic inquiry. Blackwell, Malden, MA, pp 1–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore A (2008) Rethinking scale as a geographical category: from analysis to practice. Prog Hum Geogr 32:203–225

    Google Scholar 

  • Neumann RP (2009) Political ecology: theorizing scale. Prog Hum Geogr 33:398–406

    Google Scholar 

  • Paasi A (2004) Place and region: looking through the prism of scale. Prog Hum Geogr 28:536–546

    Google Scholar 

  • Parr J (2005) Perspectives on the city-region. Reg Stud 39:555–566

    Google Scholar 

  • Pieterse E (2011) Recasting urban sustainability in the South. Development 54:309–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Purcell M (2003) Islands of practice and the Marston-Brenner debate: toward a more synthetic critical human geography. Prog Hum Geogr 27:317–332

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruddell D, Wentz EA (2009) Multi-tasking: scale in geography. Geogr Compass 3(2):681–697

    Google Scholar 

  • Sayre NF (2005) Ecological and geographical scale: parallels and potential for integration. Prog Hum Geogr 29:276–290

    Google Scholar 

  • Sayre NF (2009) Scale. In: Castree N, Demeritt D, Liverman D, Rhoads B (eds) A companion to environmental geography. Malden, MA, Wiley-Blackwell, pp 95–108

    Google Scholar 

  • Schafran A (2014) Rethinking mega-regions: sub-regional politics in a fragmented metropolis. Reg Stud 48:587–602

    Google Scholar 

  • Schafran A (2015) Beyond globalization: a historical urban development approach to understanding megaregions. In: Harrison J, Hoyler M (eds) Megaregions: globalization’s new urban form? Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK, pp 75–96

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard E, McMaster RB (2004a) Scale and geographic inquiry: contrasts, intersections, and boundaries. In: Sheppard E, McMaster R (eds) Scale & geographic inquiry. Blackwell, Malden, MA, pp 256–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard E, McMaster RB (eds) (2004b) Scale & geographic inquiry. Blackwell, Malden, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Shields R (2015) Re-spatializing the city as the city-region? In Jones KE, Lord A, Shields R (eds) City-regions in prospect? Exploring points between place and practice. McGill Queen’s University Press, Montreal & Kingston, London, Chicago, pp 53–72

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon D, McGregor D, Thompson D (2006) Contemporary perspectives on the peri-urban zones of cities in develo** areas. In: McGregor D, Simon D, Thompson D (eds) The peri-urban interface: approaches to sustainable natural and human resource use. Earthscan, London, pp 4–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith N (2000) Scale. In: Johnston RJ, Gregory D, Pratt G, Watts M (eds) The dictionary of human geography. Blackwell, Malden, MA, pp 724–727

    Google Scholar 

  • Tacoli C (2003) The links between urban and rural development. Environ Urban 15:3–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobler WR (1988) Resolution, resampling, and all that. In: Mounsey T (ed) Building database for global science. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 129–137

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner MG, Dale VH, Gardner RH (1989) Predicting across scales: theory development and testing. Landscape Ecol 3:245–252

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu J (2016) Contentious space and scale politics: planning for intercity railway in China’s mega-city regions. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 2016. Victoria University, Wellington and Wiley, Australia Ltd., pp 1–17

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental Studies, Huxley College of the Environment, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA, USA

    Debnath Mookherjee

Authors
  1. Debnath Mookherjee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Debnath Mookherjee .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Mookherjee, D. (2020). Scale and Where the Three Prongs Can Meet. In: The Asian Megacity Region. The Urban Book Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-42649-1_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation