Translated from German to English - www.onlinedoctranslator.

com

Sinz, Manfred

book part

region

Provided in cooperation with:

ARL – Academy for Spatial Development in the Leibniz Association

Suggested Citation:Sinz, Manfred (2018): Region, In: ARL - Academy for Spatial Research and
Regional Planning (Ed.): Handbook of Urban and Spatial Development, ISBN 978-3-88838-559-9,
ARL - Academy for Spatial Research and Regional Planning, Hanover , pp. 1975-1984,

https://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0156-55991848

This version is available at: http://

hdl.handle.net/10419/225845

Standard Terms of Service: Terms of use:

The documents on EconStor may be saved and copied for your own Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your
scientific purposes and for private use. personal and scholarly purposes.

You may not reproduce, publicly display, make publicly available,
distribute or otherwise use the Documents for any public or
commercial purpose.
If the authors have made the documents available under open
content licenses (in particular CC licenses), the rights of use granted
in the license mentioned there apply in deviation from these terms of
use.
You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes,
to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available
on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in
public.
If the documents have been made available under an Open
Content License (especially Creative Commons Licenses), you
may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated
license.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/de/
Manfred Sinz
region

p. 1975 to 1984

URN: urn:nbn:de:0156-55991848

CC License: BY‐ND 3.0 Germany

In:

ARL – Academy for Spatial Research and Regional Planning (ed.):

Dictionary of urban and spatial development

Hanover 2018

ISBN 978-3-88838-559-9 (PDF version)

The ARL is a member of the Leibniz Association

Manfred Sinz

region

structure

1 expression

2 theoretical concepts
3 Types of Regions and Formation of

4 Regions Regions of Spatial Planning

literature

The term region is used depending on the scientific,

are. Region formation takes place under empirical-analytical or

normative-programmatic aspects as well as according to similarity

1975
region

1 expression

In general, a region is understood to be a contiguous, medium-sized subspace within an

overall space that can be defined on the basis of certain characteristics. In everyday
language, the termregionor the attributeregionalusually used when conditions or processes
are to be described that concern more than the local context, but are located below or
beyond the state level.
Originally the word derivesregionfrom Latin from –regional: "direction, area, area, area"
orbrisk: "straighten, steer, lead". Depending on the context in which the term region is used
in German today, it has different interpretations and applications.

In politics and administration, the concept of the region came up late. The traditional
levels of administrative divisions (▷ Administration, public) do not contain elements
designated as regions in Germany. Where they have been introduced as an additional level
of administrative hierarchy in the past, e.g. B. in France, Belgium, Italy or Spain, they
primarily serve the manifestation of efforts aimed at decentralization and autonomy. The
planning regions defined by the federal states in Germany through laws or ordinances (▷
State planning, state development;▷ Regional planning) are said to be in the field of
▷ Spatial planningFulfill tasks for which the existing administrative units are not or no
longer suitable due to their spatial layout, without having to change the existing
administrative structure and its three hierarchical levels (municipalities, districts,
administrative districts) below the state level.
In the economic and social context, regions are often mentioned; the spatial units in
which the economy and society are also spatially organized in a variety of ways are officially
referred to as districts, areas or areas (sales, representative, chamber of industry and
commerce, court, etc.) and are usually classified according to administrative or technical
points of view. Where regions are explicitly mentioned, the focus is on the analytical and
planning element (labour market regions, spatial planning regions), the cross-border aspect
(EUREGIO) or a spatial program (regions as development areas or action areas).

In the cultural context is the wordregionfrequently modern synonym for homeland,

language area or▷ Landscape. Occasionally, this is also linked to political or ideological
concepts of the region, which aim at the internal cohesion of ethnic groups or religious
communities and their demarcation from the outside, up to and including their separation
from a superordinate state association.
domain of the termregionis the scientific context. In addition to geography, for which
the region is a constitutive element of its own object of knowledge, many disciplines have
developed and used terms related to the region. Separate branches of regional science have
developed in economics and social sciences (▷ Regional Economics), but also legal and
administrative sciences, history and linguistics have developed regional concepts.

1976
 region

“The concept of the region has undergone a far-reaching reassessment in the more
recent sociological discussion. Today, 'region' is no longer understood only as a formal, ie
subject-neutral classification concept, but also as a constitutive element of economic and
socio-spatial structure formation. Region is not a formal 'container' for economy and society,
but an interdependence and action context based on institutional and spatial proximity. On
this basis, the region also gains new importance for politics and planning” (Blotevogel 2005:
366).

The theoretical discussion of the concept of regions has always revolved around the
question of whether there are natural or "true" regions that are equally well suited for very
different purposes of analysis and action. The view that such "universal regions" exist in the
sense of holistic, singular realities was primarily represented by geographers who are
interested in regional studies and in the so-called regionalism discussion. In France and the
United States, regional delimitations were introduced with this claim and anchored
administratively (regions géographiques, state economic areas). As early as 1959 there were
proposals for a regional subdivision for the area of the European Economic Community, in
which all spatially significant factors should be reflected and which should therefore be
equally suitable for analytical, administrative and planning purposes.

Such attempts to demarcate objective regions in the sense of natural, social, economic
or cultural areas independently of (knowledge) interests are countered by the fact that
regions always represent purposeful spatial divisions, the demarcation of which must be
different depending on the real facts or intentions involved . Accordingly, regions are an
intellectual construct that is generated through the selection of identification and
delimitation criteria related to a specific cognitive interest or problem. The question of the
scientific value or the social relevance of regional delimitations can therefore only be
answered depending on the underlying purposes of knowledge or action and in relation to
specific addressees.
The formation of regions as a conceptual process of abstraction and generalization
tends to simplify problems by reducing complex ecological, economic or social system
connections to their spatial dimension and thus making them easier to understand
(Weichhart 1996: 33). This reduction in complexity can be an extremely effective means of
solving everyday problems in a practical way, also in the context of spatial planning and
state planning. In each case, however, it must be asked whether a spatial abstraction
actually helps to better understand the social or economic problem context. In addition,
there is reason to assume that modern, functionally differentiated societies can no longer be
captured as well in spatial aggregates as was the case for pre-modern, hierarchically
structured societies. Today's individuals, groups, institutions or companies often have far-
reaching, heterogeneous and discontinuous reference areas of very different characteristics
without recognizable hierarchies and without clear regional demarcations.

1977
region

The fact that universally valid or multifunctional regional delimitations are nevertheless
repeatedly postulated and, in particular, practically designed for the purposes of spatial
analysis and planning, is probably related to the fact that in reality there are often
similarities between regional delimitations that are based on extremely different criteria.
There are often spatial coincidences between natural, cultural, social and economic
structural patterns that are the result of historical interaction processes. Last but not least,
the identification and naming of certain geographic areas as a region leads to a momentum
of its own that is sometimes also intended, towards the alignment of internal structures and
the stabilization of external borders.
For some time there has been increasing talk in science and politics of a renaissance of
the regional and of a reawakened regional consciousness. The causes of the European
integration process and the increasing▷ Globalizationof economic interdependencies. Both
lead to an objective loss of national or state autonomy and controllability. In this context,
regions should offer manageable spaces for identification and action as a kind of counter-
model to supposed or actual tendencies towards centralization and alienation in politics and
society. As a reason for the increase in importance of regional organizational models, it is
also assumed that hierarchically organized unitarian states are increasingly reaching the
limits of their capacities to cope with ever more complex tasks and to solve the ever-
increasing number of conflicts of interest.

3 Region types and region formation

Regions can be identified and delimited in various ways. A distinction must be made
between an empirical-analytical approach and normative-programmatic approaches.
Blotevogel suggests speaking of “regions of analysis and description” in the first case, and of
“regions of activity or program” in the second. In addition, he defines the type of “regions of
perception and identity” (Blotevogel 2005).
Analysis and description regions are based on a formal spatial classification approach.
Here, regions are analytical constructs for the spatial ordering of objects. The regionalization
processes used for this are among the elementary working methods in the spatial sciences.
The formation of regions represents a variant of the classification of spatial elements, in
which the requirement for spatial connection (contingency or common boundaries) of the
spatial units to be formed must also be taken into account. The empirical-analytical region
formation can be based on the principles of similarity or interdependence. From a technical
point of view, variance analysis methods that use factors or Principal component analysis,
cluster analysis and gravitational and potential models are used.

According to the principle of similarity, certain basic spatial units such as municipalities,
measuring points or grid elements are combined to form regions or spatial types that are as
homogeneous as possible, taking into account one or more characteristics. One speaks here

1978
 region

also of structural regions. In contrast to homogeneous regions, homogeneous space types

can also be spatially disjoint, which is why, strictly speaking, they should not be called
regions.
Examples of homogeneous regions relevant to spatial planning are natural spatial units,
landscapes, language areas or, more generally, areas of the same regional consciousness.
Examples of homogeneous room types or categories are densely populated areas, agglomeration
areas (▷ Agglomeration, agglomeration space), rural areas (▷ Rural areas), industrial regions,
tourist regions or problem areas or development areas (▷ Area categories). The simplest case of
spatial typing according to the principle of homogeneity is the classification of basic spatial units
(e.g. municipalities) according to a single characteristic (e.g. population density), as is customary
for cartographic representations.

Contiguous regions are delimited more frequently according to the interconnectedness

principle than according to homogeneity criteria. In doing so, those spatial elements that
are functionally related to each other are combined into a region. In practice, functional
regions are usually defined by interdependencies between centers and the spatial elements
that surround them and are interactively oriented towards them. One then speaks of nodal
regions or areas of entanglement. Not all spatial interaction relationships are clearly
directed or organized hierarchically. This leads to overlapping or nested functional regions
when attempting to differentiate. Interdependencies between many equal spatial elements
are rarely used to define regions or spatial types.

Examples of functional regions that are relevant to spatial planning are commuter and labor
market regions, central local interconnected areas or catchment areas or areas of responsibility
of infrastructure facilities and institutions. Practically all administrative spatial units belong to the
category of center-related functional regions or were so at the time of their formation. This also
applies to city regions (▷ City Region), urban-rural associations or metropolitan areas (▷
Metropolitan area), whereby the action orientation in the formation of the region plays an
important role (▷ Governance).

In addition to the analytical-descriptive concept of the region, the termregion

increasingly used in the normative-political context. The type of activity or program regions
is based on a socio-scientific understanding of the region and serves the socio-economic
structure formation in spatial terms. Such regions are created through the actions of people
(individuals and groups) and social organizations (e.g. companies, associations,▷ Local
authority) and their interactions (Blotevogel 2005). Modern administrative territorial units
also see themselves as activity and program regions.

Insofar as methodological approaches in the sense of comprehensible criteria are used

at all in the demarcation of regions for administrative or programmatic purposes, the
principle of similarity and the principle of interdependence are usually pursued at the same
time. Interweaving often also causes homogenization (of the hinterland), or structural
homogeneity is a prerequisite for the formation of a functional region. Examples of this
mixed type are most of the planning regions or action areas of funding programs.

1979
region

In the practice of regional and state planning, heuristic methods are usually used for
region formation and spatial typification, in which variance analysis techniques and
classification methods can offer a data-supported initial solution, but in the further course of
this many additional, often politically motivated considerations come into play. This applies
both to the planning regions of the federal states, which are stipulated in the Spatial
Planning Act and in the relevant state laws, without the delimitation criteria to be observed
being explained in more detail. In principle, it also applies to the determination of
regionalised support areas, which are identified and delimited in a first step according to
socio-economic criteria with the help of indicators, but their final shape is the result of
political negotiation processes. For the purposes of European regional policy (▷ European
regional policy) proposed “macro-regions” such as B. the Baltic Sea region or the Danube
region are primarily political-geographical constructs that aim to promote large-scale, cross-
border cooperation.
Regions of perception and identity are lifeworld types of regions. They are constituted by
social communication (face-to-face, mass media, politics, culture) and are based on the
cognitive-emotional representation of certain spaces in the consciousness of individuals or
on collective views and judgements. The strengthening of group identities and the need for
demarcation as a prerequisite for finding one’s own identity (▷ Identity, spatial). A
connection to one's homeland and folklore are traditional characteristics of this type of
regional formation, which are now also supported by marketing campaigns, e.g. B. for
tourist regions (▷ City and regional marketing). At the local level, many people identify with
their neighborhood, their "Kiez" or their "Veedel". Regions of perception and identity are
increasingly also reference areas of an active regionalism, which as a social movement
wants to fight against the dissolution of boundaries and resist the state's access to the
generally valid.

4 regions of spatial planning

The purposes for which regions are delimited and used in spatial research and spatial
planning can also be of a more analytical-descriptive or more political-normative and
administrative nature. In the first case one speaks of analysis regions, in the second case of
planning or administrative regions. The demarcation of program regions or action areas
also pursues normative purposes. In the practice of spatial planning and state planning,
descriptive purposes and normative elements are generally mixed up when delimiting
regions.
The 38 territorial units of the Federal Spatial Planning Program of 1975 and the
proposals for a system of balanced functional areas in the Federal Republic of▷ Federal
spatial planning). A system of regional development centers that is necessarily related to
this was not operationalized in the program. In the controversial discussion about the
territorial units, it became clear that the size and shape of such regions is an implicit
benchmark for the question of the (interregional)▷ Equality of living conditions represent.

1980
 region

Spatial planning at federal level has been using so-called spatial planning regions for the
purposes of spatial planning reporting for some time (see Fig. 1;▷ Reports on urban and
spatial development). These are functional regions composed of circles and powerful central
locations (▷ Central location) of the highest level (regional centers) as labor market and
supply centers. In many cases, the demarcation of the spatial planning regions coincides
with administrative districts or state planning definitions with regard to analysis, planning
and program areas. Spatial planning regions are either identical to labor market regions or
are made up of them (with certain allocation deviations at regional level).

Figure 1: Spatial planning regions of the BBSR

Source: BBSR 2015

1981
region

There are clear indications that the central interdependence areas of the spatial
planning regions are now being overlaid by a system of higher-ranking metropolises, which
are increasingly developing into centers of large economic regions of European importance.

Most states of the Federal Republic of Germany have created legal foundations for
regional planning, which is considered part of state planning and understood as a state task
or as a joint task of the state and self-government. Planning regions were set up as analysis
and program areas of regional planning, some of which are identical to administrative
spatial units such as administrative districts or districts or are made up of these or
municipalities. The delimitation of planning regions is usually based on functional criteria
and takes into account the interlinking areas of the central locations. In the course of
regional and administrative reforms, attempts have been made in some countries to create
better correspondence between planning regions and administrative spatial units.

In addition to the planning regions, city-surroundings associations, voluntary municipal

associations and cross-border cooperation areas (▷ Cooperation, cross-border) to the
planning-relevant regional delimitations. Especially informal planning (▷ Informal planning)
such as regional development concepts (▷ Regional development;▷ Regional management)
often refer to such non-administrative spatial divisions.
In contrast to the spatial planning regions of the federal government and the planning
regions of the federal states, the analysis and program regions of which the▷ European Unionfor
regional political purposes (▷ Regional economic policy) served, usually not functionally
delimited, but correspond to e.g. B. in the Federal Republic of Germany the administrative levels
of municipalities, districts, administrative districts and countries. The classification of territorial
units for statistics (nomenclature des unités territoriales statistics, NUTS) of the European Union
shows significant differences in grain size from member country to member country at all four
levels (▷ European spatial development policy). Both the mostly non-functional demarcation and
the lack of transnational comparability pose a significant validity problem for regional policy and
spatial planning analyzes as well as the strategies and programs of the European Union based on
them.

Irrespective of this more methodological problem, the discussion of regional concepts at

the European level has gained significantly more political importance since the community
started expanding and deepening the European Union. In the Maastricht Treaty on the
European Union, the establishment of an advisory committee made up of representatives of
regional and local authorities, known as the "Committee of the Regions", was agreed (Art.
198a-c; Council of the European Communities / KOM EG 1992). The current 353 members
from all 28 EU countries are either elected officials or key players in local and regional
government in their home region. The Committee is consulted by the Council or the
Commission of the EU on matters of regional importance or issues opinions on its own
initiative. Germany is represented by the federal states, each with one or two members, and
by the three municipal umbrella organizations in the Committee of the Regions. Other EU
Member States send mainly local representatives or are only represented on the committee
by some of their regions and municipalities.

1982
 region

literature

BBSR - Federal Institute for Research on Building, Urban Affairs and Spatial Development (ed.) (2015): Ongoing room monitoring

tion – room boundaries. http://www.bbsr.bund.de/BBSR/DE/Space observation/Space

demarcations/Space regulation regions/space regulation regions_node.html (20.11.2015).

Blotevogel, HH (2005): Region. In: Ammon, U.; Dittmar, N.; Mattheier, KJ; Trudgill, P. (ed.):
Sociolinguistics. Volume 1, Part 1. Berlin, 360-369.
Council of the European Communities; KOM EG – Commission of the European Communities
(Ed.) (1992): Treaty on European Union. http://europa.eu/eu-law/decision-making/ treaties/
pdf/treaty_on_european_union/treaty_on_european_union_de.pdf (31.07.2015).

Weichhart, P. (1996): The region – chimera, artefact or structural principle of social systems? In:
Brunn, G. (ed.): Region and region formation in Europe. Concepts of research and
empirical findings. Baden-Baden, 25-43. = Publication series of the Institute for European
Regional Research 1.

Bartels, D. (1975): The demarcation of planning regions in the Federal Republic of Germany -
an operational task. In: Marx, D. (ed.): Balanced function spaces. Hanover, 93-116. =
Research and meeting reports of the ARL 94.
BBR - Federal Office for Building and Spatial Development (ed.) (2000): The new economy of
Region and regionalization. Bonn. = IzR - Information on spatial development 9/10.2000.

BBR - Federal Office for Building and Spatial Development (ed.) (2003): Action area region -
regional governance. Bonn. = IzR - Information on spatial development 8/9.2003.

Blotevogel, HH (1996): Towards a "Theory of Regionality": The Region as a For-

research object of geography. In: Brunn, G. (ed.): Region and region formation in Europe.
Concepts of research and empirical findings. Baden-Baden, 44-68. = Publication series of the
Institute for European Regional Research 1.

Blotevogel, HH (2000): On the boom in regional discourse. In: IzR - Information on space
development 9/10.2000, 491-506.

Fürst, D. (2003): Upgrading of the region as a level of social self-regulation. In: Zibell, B.
(Ed.): On the future of space - perspectives for city, region, culture, landscape. Frankfurt
am Main, 49-69.
Isard, W. (1956): Regional science, the concept of region and regional structure. In: Papers and
Proceedings of the Regional Science Association 2, 13-26.

Loesch, A. (1938): The nature of economic regions. In: Southern Economic Journal 5, 71-78.

1983
region

Wiechmann, T. (2000): The region is dead - long live the region! In: Space research and space
58, 173-184.

Processing status: 11/2016

1984