In a spatial context, if both have the same role and influence? Whether the development of the area affected or affect a transformation? How to characterize and measure it?
Well, I am not sure if my answer is directly in accordance with your question but I would like to point out a very Important aspect of Transformation (in spatial terms).. I am trying to write a paper on this topic..
A complete or "absolute" change doesn’t qualify as transformation. The past and the future (i.e. the state or product before and after the change) are always related; hence ‘partial change’ is transformation. Urban Transformation is not just the catalyst, nor does it comprise of only methods of change, by-products or evolution story, but is the synthesis of all of these. Hence, Urban Transformation is a process of developing this synthesis between the history, idea, impetus, factors, methods and by-products of development.... This is my hypothesis, from where I am trying to proceed forward...
The land use land cover changes in a region are often caused by the development of region, which involves both state-led macro developmental programmes and micro-developmental interventions by various social classes
Well, Transformation of region can be conceived in many ways and there are different forms by which you can define it. However, predominantly the transformation of regions has been explained in terms of demographic & economic transformation and land use characteristics.
Often, in the literature the regions has been delineated on the basis of degree of transformation, in particular the fringes zones in the metropolitan areas has been defined quantitatively as a function of change in the occupational pattern and conversion of agriculture land in to built-up area.
Regions in question, by Gore is one of the interesting books which talked about the perspective of changes in the region.
thanks
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Urban/Rural Sociology