- Email: [email protected]
Dutch Transport Geography Page
Journal of Transport Geography 16 (2008) 447–448
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Transport Geography journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jtrangeo
Dutch Transport Geography Page
Transport Geography in The Netherlands Dutch transport geography lacks a dedicated institutionalized forum where its practitioners meet and interact, such as the Transportation Geography Specialty Group (USA), the Transport Geography Research Group (UK), or Arbeitskreis Verkehr (Germany). Hence, this report will be of a slightly different character than those prepared by US, UK and German colleagues for this journal in recent years. Below I will provide my situated assessment of contemporary transport geography in the Netherlands. A characterization of Dutch transport geography should, I believe, include at least such words as diverse, interdisciplinary, policy relevant and productive. The diverse and interdisciplinary nature becomes clear when the identity and specialities of the various concentrations of transport geographic research in the Dutch academic landscape are considered. The groups at the University of Amsterdam (around Luca Bertolini) and the Radboud University Nijmegen (headed by Rob van der Heijden) are embedded in spatial planning groups and focus on issues of accessibility and the coordination of spatial development and transport and urban planning among other things. The group centred on Harry Timmermans at the Eindhoven University of Technology also operates in an urban planning setting, but work mostly on analysing and modelling of activity-travel patterns. Bert van Wee and colleagues are also in a technical university (Delft) but have a more general focus on passenger and freight transport, logistics and policy-making. At the Free University, Piet Rietveld and Peter Nijkamp run a very successful program combining transport geography with regional science and (transport) economics. Finally, Martin Dijst and colleagues at Utrecht University are part of an urban geography group. They tend to analyse activity-travel patterns and use of information and communication technologies (ICTs). Some of their work is influenced by the ‘mobility turn’ in the broader social sciences (Cresswell, 2006; Urry, 2007). In other words, the boundaries between transport geography and (transport-oriented) research in other disciplines are fluid and permeable. As such, Dutch transport geography closely resembles its Anglo-American counterparts (Goetz, 2006). Another similarity with Anglo-American transport geography is a strong focus on generating policy relevant knowledge. This partially reflects the strong ties of many transport geographers with academics and practitioners in the planning field, yet also that the societal merits and valorisation of scientific knowledge are becoming more important considerations in the allocation of research funding. This last point is well exemplified by the
doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2008.07.004
TRANSUMO program (2004–2009), in which many academic and non-academic (transport) researchers, governmental organizations and private companies collaborate to accelerate the transition towards sustainable mobility (www.transumo.nl). Transport geography’s policy-relevance is also evident from the fact that another research cluster exists within the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), which conducts scientific assessments and policy evaluations for the national government. Whilst lacking a dedicated institutionalised forum, transport geographers tend to cooperate intensely with one another and with colleagues abroad. Cooperation is often in the form of joint publications. Examples include the numerous books co-edited by Peter Nijkamp and recent special issues in such journals as Transport Policy (Bertoloni et al., 2008) and Urban Geography (Schwanen et al., 2006). Together with Mei-Po Kwan (Ohio State University), the Utrecht group is also the central node in an international research network about ICT, everyday life and urban change (www.geo.uu.nl/mobilizingICT). The above attests to Dutch transport geography’s voluminous output and its visibility in academic journals in geography, transport studies and urban planning: the Netherlands must have about the highest number of transport geography publications per inhabitant per annum of the world. Add to this that usually at least several Dutch transport geographers present papers at the annual international conferences of the AAG, RGS/IBG, TRB and ERSA and one cannot but conclude that the field thrives in the Netherlands. On a more critical note, the criticism that transport geography has not kept up with the philosophical and theoretical diversification of human geography in general (cf. Hanson, 2000; Goetz, 2006) has at least some validity in the Netherlands. Arguing that Dutch transport geography is predominantly positivist would be inaccurate. Nonetheless, insights from, say, feminist/critical theory, post-structuralism or the aforementioned mobility turn have as yet found rather limited response; there is a risk of Dutch transport geography and other fields within the discipline gradually drifting apart. This is not without problems, because transport geography in the Netherlands – and elsewhere – has much to gain from critical and social theory, especially in an era when the environmental, economic and social aspects of mobility are attracting increasing attention. References Bertoloni, L., Le Clerq, F., Straatemeier, T., 2008. Transportation planning in transition. Transport Policy 15 (2), 69–72.
448
DTG Page / Journal of Transport Geography 16 (2008) 447–448
Cresswell, T., 2006. On the Move: Mobility in the Modern Western World. Routledge, New York and London. Goetz, A., 2006. Transport geography: reflecting on a subdiscipline and identifying future research trajectories: the insularity issue in transport geography. Journal of Transport Geography 14 (3), 230–231. Hanson, S., 2000. Transportation: hooked on speed, eyeing sustainability. In: Sheppard, E., Barnes, T.J. (Eds.), A Companion to Economic Geography. Blackwell Publishers, Malden, MA, pp. 468–483. Schwanen, T., Dijst, M., Kwan, M.-P., 2006. Introduction: the internet, changing mobilities and urban dynamics. Urban Geography 27 (7), 585–589. Urry, J., 2007. Mobilities. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Tim Schwanen Department of Human Geography and Planning, Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80.115, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands Tel.: +31 30 2534437; fax: +31 30 2532037 E-mail address: [email protected]
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Transport Geography journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jtrangeo
Dutch Transport Geography Page
Transport Geography in The Netherlands Dutch transport geography lacks a dedicated institutionalized forum where its practitioners meet and interact, such as the Transportation Geography Specialty Group (USA), the Transport Geography Research Group (UK), or Arbeitskreis Verkehr (Germany). Hence, this report will be of a slightly different character than those prepared by US, UK and German colleagues for this journal in recent years. Below I will provide my situated assessment of contemporary transport geography in the Netherlands. A characterization of Dutch transport geography should, I believe, include at least such words as diverse, interdisciplinary, policy relevant and productive. The diverse and interdisciplinary nature becomes clear when the identity and specialities of the various concentrations of transport geographic research in the Dutch academic landscape are considered. The groups at the University of Amsterdam (around Luca Bertolini) and the Radboud University Nijmegen (headed by Rob van der Heijden) are embedded in spatial planning groups and focus on issues of accessibility and the coordination of spatial development and transport and urban planning among other things. The group centred on Harry Timmermans at the Eindhoven University of Technology also operates in an urban planning setting, but work mostly on analysing and modelling of activity-travel patterns. Bert van Wee and colleagues are also in a technical university (Delft) but have a more general focus on passenger and freight transport, logistics and policy-making. At the Free University, Piet Rietveld and Peter Nijkamp run a very successful program combining transport geography with regional science and (transport) economics. Finally, Martin Dijst and colleagues at Utrecht University are part of an urban geography group. They tend to analyse activity-travel patterns and use of information and communication technologies (ICTs). Some of their work is influenced by the ‘mobility turn’ in the broader social sciences (Cresswell, 2006; Urry, 2007). In other words, the boundaries between transport geography and (transport-oriented) research in other disciplines are fluid and permeable. As such, Dutch transport geography closely resembles its Anglo-American counterparts (Goetz, 2006). Another similarity with Anglo-American transport geography is a strong focus on generating policy relevant knowledge. This partially reflects the strong ties of many transport geographers with academics and practitioners in the planning field, yet also that the societal merits and valorisation of scientific knowledge are becoming more important considerations in the allocation of research funding. This last point is well exemplified by the
doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2008.07.004
TRANSUMO program (2004–2009), in which many academic and non-academic (transport) researchers, governmental organizations and private companies collaborate to accelerate the transition towards sustainable mobility (www.transumo.nl). Transport geography’s policy-relevance is also evident from the fact that another research cluster exists within the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), which conducts scientific assessments and policy evaluations for the national government. Whilst lacking a dedicated institutionalised forum, transport geographers tend to cooperate intensely with one another and with colleagues abroad. Cooperation is often in the form of joint publications. Examples include the numerous books co-edited by Peter Nijkamp and recent special issues in such journals as Transport Policy (Bertoloni et al., 2008) and Urban Geography (Schwanen et al., 2006). Together with Mei-Po Kwan (Ohio State University), the Utrecht group is also the central node in an international research network about ICT, everyday life and urban change (www.geo.uu.nl/mobilizingICT). The above attests to Dutch transport geography’s voluminous output and its visibility in academic journals in geography, transport studies and urban planning: the Netherlands must have about the highest number of transport geography publications per inhabitant per annum of the world. Add to this that usually at least several Dutch transport geographers present papers at the annual international conferences of the AAG, RGS/IBG, TRB and ERSA and one cannot but conclude that the field thrives in the Netherlands. On a more critical note, the criticism that transport geography has not kept up with the philosophical and theoretical diversification of human geography in general (cf. Hanson, 2000; Goetz, 2006) has at least some validity in the Netherlands. Arguing that Dutch transport geography is predominantly positivist would be inaccurate. Nonetheless, insights from, say, feminist/critical theory, post-structuralism or the aforementioned mobility turn have as yet found rather limited response; there is a risk of Dutch transport geography and other fields within the discipline gradually drifting apart. This is not without problems, because transport geography in the Netherlands – and elsewhere – has much to gain from critical and social theory, especially in an era when the environmental, economic and social aspects of mobility are attracting increasing attention. References Bertoloni, L., Le Clerq, F., Straatemeier, T., 2008. Transportation planning in transition. Transport Policy 15 (2), 69–72.
448
DTG Page / Journal of Transport Geography 16 (2008) 447–448
Cresswell, T., 2006. On the Move: Mobility in the Modern Western World. Routledge, New York and London. Goetz, A., 2006. Transport geography: reflecting on a subdiscipline and identifying future research trajectories: the insularity issue in transport geography. Journal of Transport Geography 14 (3), 230–231. Hanson, S., 2000. Transportation: hooked on speed, eyeing sustainability. In: Sheppard, E., Barnes, T.J. (Eds.), A Companion to Economic Geography. Blackwell Publishers, Malden, MA, pp. 468–483. Schwanen, T., Dijst, M., Kwan, M.-P., 2006. Introduction: the internet, changing mobilities and urban dynamics. Urban Geography 27 (7), 585–589. Urry, J., 2007. Mobilities. Polity Press, Cambridge.
Tim Schwanen Department of Human Geography and Planning, Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80.115, 3508 TC Utrecht, The Netherlands Tel.: +31 30 2534437; fax: +31 30 2532037 E-mail address: [email protected]