Timespace Matters - Chapter 2 Temporospatial order: a matter for urban and regional design and planning

8/9/2019 Timespace Matters - Chapter 2 Temporospatial order: a matter for urban and regional design and planning

1/36


2/36

Timespacematters

34

Asetofrelationsbetweentheseelementattributesandtheenvironmentofthedistinguishedsystem(Harvey,1973:451;citedbyKlaasen,2004:12).

Theenvironmentofasystemmaybeunderstoodas

Thelargersystemwithinwhichthefirstmentionedsystemisembeddedbeingsimilarandhierarchicallypositioned(e.g.cityneighbourhood),or

Thelargersystemwithinwhichthefirstmentionedsystemisembeddedbeingsimilarandofthesameorder(e.g.differentpartsofcities),or

Dissimilar systems thatoccupy the same space (and time) (e.g. ecologicalsystem,

economic

system,

cultural

system),

or

The largersystemwithinwhich (a)dissimilarsystem(s) is/arehierarchicallyembedded, i.e. occupying the same time, but not the same space (e.g. a

gatheringofpeoplewithinacity)

(seefigure2.1fromtoplefttobottomright;adaptedfromKlaasen2004:12).

Inthecaseofthefirsttwo,andofthelatter,onemayspeakofsystemsondifferent

systemlevels.InthisthesisIfocusonthefourthtypeofrelationbetweenenviron

mentandsystem,ormoreaccurately,betweentwo levelsofsystems.Iconsiderur

bansystemsasenvironmentandactivitysystemsasembeddedsystems.

Figure2.1

The

environment

of

asystem:

four

types

of

relations

between

system

and

environ

ment.AdaptedfromKlaasen(2004:12)


3/36

Chapter2Temporospatialorder

35

2.1.2 SpatialorderandtemporalorderThevisualandthusspatialdescriptionofsystemsinfigure2.1andtheirenvironment

usesspatialordertodescribetherelationbetweensystemandenvironmentandthe

relationsbetween systems.Thesedescriptionsarehighly simplified spatialmodels.

Klaasen(2005b)rightfullystatedthattherelationbetweenspaceandtime inurban

and regionaldesignandplanning isproblematic.Foran importantpart, this isbe

causeof itsrelianceonspatialmodelswithoutgivingmuchattentiontotime inthe

systems itsmodels represent.Temporalorder isas important in systemsas spatial

order.Andaswithspace,timeknowsdifferentarrangementsbetweensystemorder

andthe

environment,

ifthe

latter

is

also

defined

in

terms

of

time.

Setsofelementsandrelationsinsystemsarenotaggregated,butarearranged

inrelativespatialortemporalpositions(Angyal,1941(1969)citedbyKlaasen,2004).

Assuch,asystemrepresentsperdefinitiontemporalorderandspatialorder.Systems

should ratherbeseenas compositionsor patterns if theyareonly temporallyor

only spatiallyordered.Any system that isboth temporally and spatiallyordered

such as an urban system is by definition constituted by processes rather than

compositions.

Figure2.2Relationsbetweencyclicaland linear temporalphenomena,basedon theprinciple

thatincyclicalprocesseswitha linearcomponentthegrainofperceptiondeterminestheper

ceptionofaprocessas linearorcyclical:(a)shiftingdownin levelofscalefromacyclicaltoa

linearperception(FigurebySchaick,2004:72);(b)shiftingupinscalefromacyclicaltoalinear

perception(FigurebyKlaasen,2004:14).ForthelineofreasoningseeKlaasen(2004).


4/36

Timespacematters

36

Processesare

in

first

instance

characterised

by

means

of

temporal

order,

but

have

a

directeffectonoraresimultaneouslycharacterisedthroughspatialorder.Thetem

poralorderofprocessesmay,forexample,belinearorcyclical,continuousordiscon

tinuous, routinised or irregular in nature or a combination of such characteristics

dependingonthetemporalgrainofobservation(seeFigure2.2)(Klaasen,2004).For

differentnotionsofspatialorderIrefertoJong(1992).Timespacecanthusbeinitially

definedintermsofprocessesdisplayingtemporospatialorder.

Processesondifferent system levelsmay influence the spatialand/or temporal

orderofarelatedsystemonanothersystem level.Processesmaytakeplaceonthe

higher system level (change of the system) or on lower system levels (action

withinthe

higher

level

system)

or

between

systems

on

the

same

level

(interaction)

orbetweensystemandenvironment (adaptation).Theseprocessesoccursimulta

neously inreallifesystemsandcanbecharacterisedaccording tothe grainofob

servation,bothtemporalgrainandspatialgrain.Thischapterdevelopstheideathat

it isnecessary to focuson adaptationofboth temporalorderandspatialorder to

understandactivitypatternsinthecontextofurbanandregionaldesignandplanning.

2.1.3 Conceptualisation oftimeinrelationtotemporospatialorderThereisnoroomoruseinthisbookforanindepthtreatmentofphilosophicalworks

onthe

nature

of

time

or

space.

The

focus

from

the

following

section

onwards

is

on

issuesof timespace inactivity systemsandurban systems.There,aswellas in the

tracingofthetimegeographicalconcepts insociologicaltheory insection2.3, Iwill

dealwiththemostimportantnotionsoftimeastheyrelatetonotionsofspaceasfar

astheyarerelevanttothisthesis.

Inconceptualisingtheorderingoftimeinrelationtospace,itisimportantthough

tohighlightthepositionofthisthesisinabriefdiscussiononmajorcategoriesoftime

inthecontextofgeography.Thesecategoriescontributetothenotionoftimespace

order as it isused in this thesis. I referhere to Parkes and Thrifts (1980) Times,

spacesandplacesAchronogeographicperspective.ParkesandThrift(1980:36107)

distinguishthree

major

categories

of

time:

universe

time,

life

times

and

social

times.

These times, byoperatingtogether,providethebasis foramoreor lesscoherent

environmentfordailyliving(ParkesandThrift,1980:108).

Universetimeorstandardtimeisthetimerecordedinandmeasuredbycal

endarsandclocks,andzonedbytheregionalisationoftheworldintotimezones.This

notionof timealso includes theunderstandingof relationsbetweenuniverse item

relations,inparticularthe interrelationbetweenearthmovements inrelationtothe

sunthatisthebasisoftimemeasurement.Lifetimesrefertonotionoftimeasitis

inseparablefromtheconceptofself(ParkesandThrift,1980:50).Lifeisacomplex

systemof interlocking items,relatingtooneanotherperiodicallyandoften inasys

tematic or rhythmicmanner. (ibid: 51) The concept of life times contains, on a

rangeof timescales, thenotionsofbiological timeandcircadian rhythms,and the

notionofpsychologicalormentalsenseoftime,alsorelatedtoanotionofthepat


5/36


37

terningof

time

through

complex

feedback

loops

between

potential,

motive,

percep

tion,judgmentandstimuliinandoftimepatterns.Thislastnotionofpatterningcon

nects life times intowhatParkesandThriftcall social times; thisnotionof time is

basedon the idea that social roles,attitudes,values,etc.,eachmove in theirown

characteristic time.Theyvary in theirdurations, in their rhythm,on thedegree to

whichtheyaredominatedbythepastorprojected intothefuture,etc.(Parkesand

Thrift,1980:72).Thereisnosinglenotionofsocialtimethatisuniversal.

Thiscategorisation isnotundisputed.Urry (2000:4)argues inhisSociologybe

yond societies, for example, that thedistinctionbetween universe time and social

time is uncalled for as apparently natural clocktime is in fact socially produced

and

has

exerted

apowerful

role

in

the

subduing

of

nature.

And

that

is

aview

that

comesbackinthisthesis.

Iwillnotcoverallnotionsofuniversetime,lifetimesorsocialtimesinthisbook.

Inparticular,Iwillpay littleattentiontotimeregardinghowitscharacteristicsdiffer

acrosssocietiesandcultures.Withlifetimesintermsofbiologicaltimeorpsychologi

cal time Iwillonlydeal indirectly.Clockandcalendar time is takenasa reference,

althoughlookeduponcriticallyandnottakenforgrantedasagiven.Thefocusofthe

thesiswithin thisbroader conceptualisationof time is ledbymyunderstandingof

timegeographyandsocietalmechanismsaselaboratedintheremainderofthischap

ter.Of these threemain categories, thenotionof social times is thereforemost

central

to

this

thesis.

This

thesis

is

positioned

such,

in

this

range

of

notions

of

time,

thatitlooksnotonlyatthetimespacepatternsofactivitybehaviouritself,butalsoat

theprocesses societalmechanismsthatputastrainonthecoherenceofuniverse

time, lifetimesandsocialtimes,asthey,together,constitutethetemporalenviron

mentfordaily living,asParkesandThriftput it.The ideathatdifferentsocialtimes

andlifetimes,andtoalesserdegreedifferentwaysofmeasuringtime,coexist,coin

cideandmayconflict,andsoformwhatBoelens(2005)callsalayeredreality,within

whichurbanandregionaldesignersandplannersoperate,isinherenttothenotionof

timespaceusedinthetheoreticalframeworkofthisthesis.Attheendofthischapter

Iwillcome tothemechanisms thatplayan importantpart inshaping this layered

reality.

2.2 Whataboutpeople?:activitysystemsandurbansystems

2.2.1 AlatestartTheideaofembeddingknowledgeofactivityandmobilitypatternsofpeopleinthe

oryandpracticesofthedomainofurbanandregionaldesignandplanningwasnot

fundamentaltotheideasofthedomainwhenitaroseattheendofthe19th

century

inGermany, theUKand theNetherlands,andelsewhere.Researchonactivityand

mobilitypatternsofpeople in the contextofurbanplanningonly startedwith the


6/36

Timespacematters

38

introductionof

the

systems

approach

to

planning

in

the

decades

after

World

War

II

(seeChapter3).Untilthendemographyhadbeenthemajorconcernforsociological

surveyson cities spatialorganisation in addition to engineeringdriven surveyson

aggregatetrafficvolumes.

TheworkoftheAmericanurbanplannerFrancisStuartChapinJr.waspivotal in

bringingtheconceptof activitysystemsto lightandforthatreason Idevotesome

spaceandtimetohisworkhere.However,alargepartofthissectionwillconcernthe

work of Torsten Hgerstrand, whose ontology of activity andmobility behaviour

provestohavebeenquiteinfluentialforthegrandtheoriesofsociologyinsection2.3.

2.2.2 ActivitysystemsandspatialorderChapin introduces theconceptofactivitysystemsasoneofseveralkeyurban land

usesystems for thedomainofurbanplanning in thesecondeditionof theseminal

workonUrbanLandUsePlanning(Chapin,1965).Chapinisalsoamongstthefirstto

systematically study theseactivity systems (Chapin,1968).Activity systemsarede

finedbyChapinasbehaviourpatternsofindividuals,families,institutions,andfirms

whichoccur inspatialpatternsthathavemeaning inplanningfor landuse(Chapin,

1965: 224).Of particular interest to this thesis is one type of behaviour pattern,

namelythedaytodaytemporospatialactivitypatternsofindividualpeople.

Infirst

instance,

Chapin

shows

here

to

be

concerned

with

activity

systems

as

they

are spatiallyordered; a spatialmodel (map)may represent that spatialorder (see

Figures2.3,2.4and2.5).Chapinssuppositionisthatchangesinactivitysystems,for

examplebypeoplemovinghouse,reciprocallyinteractwithchangesinlandusesys

tems.Howthatinteractiontakesplacewasoneofhiskeyconcerns.Ontheonehand,

Chapin refershere toactivity systemsand landuse systemsasequivalent systems

(seeabove)while implying,ontheotherhand,anurban (ormetropolitan)environ

mentthatformsasystem inwhichthosesystemsareembedded.Thatenvironment

maybeseenaseitheraphysicalsystem,economicsystemorasocialsystemwitha

certainspatialandtemporalorderwhichcreatesthestableconditionsforthatactiv

itysystem

to

be

embedded

in

it.

Activitysystemsaresystemsorderedonthree levels:thatofthe individual,that

ofanindividualsnetworks,andtheaggregateleveloftheenvironment.The ideaof

routinisedbehaviourasanindicatorofsocialspace(i.e.thenetworklevel)inurban

ecologicaltheorytowhichChapinsworkmaybeattributedhadbeenpreceded

bytheworkofPaulHenryChombartdeLauwewithadepictionoftheroutinesofa

youngParisiangirlduringtheperiodofayear(ChombartDeLauwe,1952)(seeFigure

2.3).Chapindevelopedhisideasonactivitysystemsonlyfullyintherunninguptohis

thirdeditionofUrbanLandUsePlanning(Chapin,1974;ChapinandKaiser,1979)and

hefocusedonoutcomesonthenetwork levelandtheaggregate level,whilebasing

hisfindingsondatacollectionontheindividuallevel.

Chapinsworkwasunique in theway itconnected thethenprimarilyeconomy

based theories of location choice, urban structure and urban growthwith activity


7/36


39

behaviourin

terms

of

both

input

and

output

for

the

metropolitan

system

as

well

as

in

termsof social, routinisedbehaviour (seeFigure2.4and2.5).Buthisworkon the

individuallevelactivitysystemremainedsomewhatawkwardlydisconnectedfromhis

workon landuse systems (cf.Chapin,1974).While the former focused largelyon

spatialorder, the latter focused largelyon temporalorder.As a consequence, the

temporalorderofactivitysystemsand itsrelation tospatialorderremainedsome

whatofablackboxinurbansystemstheory.

Figure2.3Trajectoriesduringoneyearofayounggirlofthe16th

arrondissement.Thecentral

triangle has at its corners: the home, piano lessons and political science lessons. Source:

ChombartDeLauwe(1952:106)

Figure2.4Inputandoutputinurbansystems.Interactioninprocessingactivities.TheFigureto

theleftpresentslinkagesintermsofoutputrelations.Clearlytheinputofoneplantmaybethe

outputofanotherplantinthemetropolitanarea.Asshownhere,thetofromrepresentationof

withininteraction

involves

approximately

the

same

areas.

The

dotted

pattern

suggest

that

theseareasmaybetreatedasoneclassoflanduseinlanduseplanning.(Chapin,1965:233)


8/36


9/36


41

haviourin

terms

of

aggregates

and

in

terms

of

mass

probabilistic

behaviour

as

was

usedinmuchurbansystemstheory.Hgerstrandaimed

toeliminateimprecisethoughtprocesseswhichconceptuallydeceiveusintohan

dlingpeopleaswehandlemoneyorgoodsoncewecommencetheprocessofag

gregationWhat [he had] inmind is the introduction of a timespace concept

whichcouldhelpustodevelopakindofsocioeconomicwebmodel.Themodel

wouldbeaskedwhatsortsofwebpatternsareattainableifthethreadsintheweb

(i.e. the individuals)may not be stretched beyond agreed levels of liveability.

(Hgerstrand,1970:8)

Thecentral

question

he

put

forward

was:

what

about

people?

(Hgerstrand,

1970).

AtthecoreofHgerstrandsthinkingistheideaoftimespacetrajectories.Theseare

universalbeingfollowedbyallhumansplusallnaturalandmanmadephenomena

(Pred,1977).Tofurtheranswerhisownquestion,Hgerstrand(1970:11)developsa

comprehensive taxonomy of constraints for activity and mobility behaviour by

whichthechoiceforpeopletotakecertaintimespacetrajectoriesarelimited:

Threelargeaggregationsofconstraintsimmediatelypresentthemselves.Thefirst

ofthesecouldbetentativelydescribedascapabilityconstraints,thesecondascou

pling constraints, and the third as authority constraints. (Hgerstrand, 1970: 11)

Severalothergeneralconstraints impingeupon the individual's freedomofaction,

forexample:

the

indivisibility

of

each

individual

(no

person

may

be

at

two

different

places simultaneously); the limited ability of anyhuman being toundertakemore

thanonetaskatatime;thefactthatmovementisalwaystimeconsuming;andthe

factthateverysituationisinevitablyrootedinpastsituations(Pred,1977:208).The

factthatmovementinspaceisalsomovementintimeandthatthehumanlifespanis

finite,completesthissetofmoregeneralconstraints(seeGiddens,1984:111).

Alltheseconstraintsarefundamentallytemporospatialinnatureasdemonstrated

byHgerstrands, thenhighlyoriginal,visualsystemofannotation todescribeboth

behaviourandconstraints(seeFigures2.6through2.9).Atfirstglance,itismainlyin

capabilityconstraintsandincouplingconstraintsratherthaninauthorityconstraints

wherethe

domain

of

urban

and

regional

design

and

planning

comes

into

play.

Al

though the focushere isondailypaths in timespacebasedpredominantlyon the

timescaleof24hours,Hgerstrandstaxonomyalsoappliestoothertimescalessuch

asthetimescaleofthelifepath(cf.Giddens,1984).

Capability constraints are thosewhich limit the activities of the individual be

causeofhisbiologicalconstructionand/orthetoolshecancommand.(Hgerstrand,

1970:12)According toHgerstrand, themost importantcapabilityconstraintscon

cernthenecessitytosleepand toeatatregular intervalsandminimumnumberof

hours.Suchconstraintsare thebasis for theconceptof the timespaceprism,origi

nallyoperationalised intermsofthe principleofreturnbyLenntorp (1976),which

shape

and

volume

indicates

the

timespace

budget

available

for

activities

(see

Figure

2.6).Thetimespacebudget intheformoftheprism iscentraltoHgerstrandscon

ceptualisation of temporospatial behaviour. Besides sleeping and eating which


10/36

Timespacematters

42

largelydetermine

the

height

of

the

prism

within

a24

hour

scale

this

principle

prism

is shaped by the availablemeans of transportation formoving between places of

activity,determining thewidthof theprism.Forexample, figure2.7demonstrates

thedifferenceinreachforapersonwalkingorcycling.

Thesecondtypeofconstraintsconcernswhere,when,andforhow long,thein

dividualhas tojoinother individuals, tools,andmaterials inorder toproduce,con

sume,andtransact.Heretheclockandthecalendararethesupremeantidisorder

devices.Wemayrefertoagroupingofseveralpathsasabundle(Hgerstrand,1970:

14) (Figure2.8).AlthoughHgerstrandpays relatively little attention to the spatial

locationaspectwithinthesetypesofconstraints,itisofcoursethelocationofactivi

ties,in

time

as

well

as

in

space,

that

determine

the

degree

to

which

these

types

of

constraints limit thepossibilities for an individualpersonsbehaviour.Hgerstrand

considers the possibility to overcome these constraints to some degree by using

communicationtechnologies(seeFigure2.8),aconcept laterelaboratedasextensi

bility(e.g.Janelle,1973;Adams,1995;Kwan,2000a).

Figure2.6Thetimespaceprism.Source:WuandMiller(2001:4)


11/36


43

Figure 2.7 The difference in reach between apersonwalking and aperson cycling. Source:

Lenntorp(1978);reproducedbyParkesandThrift(1980:252)

Thethirdtypeofconstraints,relatedtoauthority, ismoredifficulttograsp. It isof,

relevance to thedomainofurbanandregionaldesignandplanning intermsofau

thoritybeinginformedbythepackingcapacityofplaces(seebelow;cf.Pred,1977;

Giddens,1984)

as

well

as

in

terms

of

differentiating

between

public,

parochial

or

privatespaces,e.g.inhowitcreatesforbiddenplacesthroughrequiringpaymentfor

entryorformalrulesofaccesssuchascyclingbeingforbiddenonhighways.Thistype

ofconstraintreferstotheconceptofacontrolareaoradomain.atimespaceen

titywithinwhich thingsandeventsareunder thecontrolofagiven individualora

givengroup.Thepurposeofdomainsseemstobetoprotectresources,naturalas

wellasartificial,toholddownpopulationdensity,andtoformcontainerswhichpro

tectanefficientarrangementofbundles,seen from the insidepointofviewof the

principal. In timespace,domainsaredescribedascylinders the insidesofwhichare

eithernotaccessibleatallorareaccessibleonlyuponinvitationoraftersomekindof

payment,

ceremony,

or

fight.

(Hgerstrand,

1970:

16)

(see

figure

2.9)


12/36

Timespacematters

44

Figure2.8Bundlesoftimespacetrajectoriesandarudimentaryvisualisationoftheextensibility

concept.Source:Hgerstrand(1970)

Figure2.9ThenestingofseveraldomainsSource:Hgerstrand(1970)

2.2.4 Temporalorderandspatialorder:timespaceHgerstrandsontologyofactivityandmobilitybehaviourwidensthe ideaoforder

inactivitysystems (seealsoHgerstrand,1985,andLenntorp,2004,on pocketsof

localorder). In contrastwithChapins initialdefinitionof activity systems,Hger

strandfindsthatoneneedsnotonlythespatialpattern, i.e.spatialorder,tounder

standactivitysystems,butalsothepattern intime, i.e.temporalorder.Thusspatial

orderandtemporalordercannotbeseenasfullyseparatespheres,butthenneedto

beseenasahomology(Kellerman,1987):timespace.Thisshiftfromspacetotime

space isnotone to take lightly. Ithasseveral implicationsregardinghow tounder

standurban

systems.

Such

implications

can,

in

first

instance,

be

traced

in

sociological

theoryontimespace,asIwilldointhefollowingsections.


13/36


45

2.3 Timespaceinsociologicaltheory:Implicationsoftimegeography

2.3.1 ThetracesoftimegeographyHgerstrandsworkwouldnothaveproliferatedasithas,ifnotforbeingadoptedto

enrichseveralofthegrandertheoriesinthesocialsciencesofthelastthreedecades

of the twentiethcentury.However, letmebegin tostate that it isnotmypurpose

heretotreatthegrandtheoriesofsocialscienceforalltheirdetail.Iaminterestedin

onething

only:

the

traces

left

by

time

geography

in

such

work,

and

the

implications

andcriticismsasaresultoftheimplicationsoftimegeographyasabuildingblockfor

understandingtimespace inthecontextofurbanandregionaldesignandplanning.

BoLenntorponeofHgerstrandsdiscipleshasdoneasimilartracingexerciseby

comparing theentry for timegeography inthe1981and1994editionsoftheDic

tionaryofHumanGeography (Lenntorp,1999),butsuchanapproach focusingona

singulardomain is too limited todrawout the key concepts that areof relevance

here.Iamratherinterestedinthewiderscopeoftimegeography.

After introducing initial traceswithin thedomainof geography itself, Iwillde

scribe the appropriation and influence of the ideas from time geography in three

bodiesof

sociological

work:

in

the

work

of

Anthony

Giddens,

in

the

work

of

David

Harveyand intheworkofManuelCastells.Iwillconcludethisreviewofthetraces

thattimegeographyhasleftinsocialsciencetheorybyidentifyingsomeoftheimpli

cations for thinking aboutdesign and about planning aswell as about the roleof

communication and transport technologies. Note that an indepth, similar line of

argumentation, althoughwithout the focus on time geography,wasdevelopedby

Lash andUrry (1994). Their book complements the argumentation herewith rich

referencetosociological literatureandanempiricalanalysisofsocialchange; italso

highlightstherelevanceofpayingattention,insociology,totransportation,informa

tionandcommunicationtechnology.

2.3.2 GeographyandtimegeographyThemajordomaininwhichthetracesofHgerstrandstimegeographycanbetraced

isgeographyitself.Notethatit,infact,thecoretheoreticalworkontimegeography

cannot only be attributed to Hgerstrand, but is, at and from its beginning, also

shapedanddisseminatedbyotherssuchas,notably,BoLenntorp(1976,1978,1999,

2004).Threetracesareofdirectrelevancehereforthewaytheyhavesetthestage

for timegeography tobeconnected intoadebateon the relationbetweensociety

andspace.However,thischapterdoesnotallowforamoredetailedaccountthana

concise introductiontosomeofthekeyauthorsand literature.Besidesahistoryof

ideas,this isalsoahistoryofsocialandprofessionalconnectionsbetweenresearch

ers.


14/36

Timespacematters

46

AnneButtimer

met

Torsten

Hgerstrand

at

the

end

of

the

1970s

when

she

workedonTheDialogueProjectabout thehistoryofgeography inSwedenatLund

University. Buttimersworkhad focused thus far and focused thenon historiesof

geographic thought.HerPhDthesisonSocietyandMilieu inFrenchgeographypro

videdherlaterworkwithaframeworkrestingintheworkofFrenchgeographerVidal

deLaBlachewhoisgenerallyknownforhistheoreticalcontributiontoanecological

geography and the introduction of the conceptof genre de vie (Buttimer, 1971;

VidaldelaBlache,1922;VidaldelaBlache,1911).ThismadeherreceptiveofHger

strandswork. ThusButtimerwas concernedwith connecting time geographywith

phenomenological theory and sociological theory notably the concept of social

spaceused

by

Chombart

de

Lauwe,

exemplified

in

her

widely

cited

paper

on

dyna

mismof lifeworld (ChombartDeLauwe,1952;Buttimer,1976). In thatpaperBut

timer defines how time geography combinedwith phenomenological thought

providesthreenovelavenuesforstudyinthreemajorresearchareas:senseofplace,

social space,and timespace rhythms.Similar concernshad,during the sameyears,

inspired thework of Henri Lefebvre, French sociologist and philosopher,who has

been in turn influential for theworkofDavidHarvey (Lefebvre, 1974 (1991)) (see

below).

TommyCarlstein,workingdirectlywithHgerstrandinthe1970s(seePred,1977),

isasecondpersonthroughwhomitispossibletotracethelegacyoftimegeography.

His

own

work

mainly

extended

on

Hgerstrands

by

aiming

to

refine

the

types

of

constraintsthatcanbeidentified.Oneisofparticularinteresthere,namelythecon

ceptoftimespacepacking,whichistermedecologicalconstraintsbyGiddens:

Thepackingofmaterials,artefacts,organismandhumanpopulation insettlementspacetime

Thepackingoftimeconsumingactivitiesinpopulationtimebudgets Thepackingofbundlesofvarioussizes,numbersanddurationsinthepopu

lation system, i.e. group formation because of indivisibility and continuity

constraintsofindividuals

(Giddens,

1984:

116;

cf.

Parkes

et

al.,

1978,

Vol.

2:

146

161).

Howeverforthe largepart, it isnot ina long lineofworkofhisown,butrather in

bringing the subject to light for others, in particular for Nigel Thrift, in which

Carlsteinscontributionlies(seeThrift,1977).MuchofNigelThriftsworkinwhichhe

refers to time geographyoften in collaborationwithothers such asDonParkes,

John May or Ash Amin has been concerned with bringing the discourse in

geographywithasingularlyspatial focus inconfluencewithdiscourse ingeography

(aswellasotherdomains)witha singularly temporal focus. It isparticularly in the

1970sthatThriftswork isdominatedbyreferencetotimegeography.Duringthese

years,hecoeditsthethreevolumeworkonTimingSpaceSpacingTime(Parkeset

al., 1978) and coauthors the comprehensivework Times, Spaces and Places AChronogeographic Perspective (Parkes and Thrift, 1980). The core of these two


15/36


47

projectswas

to

place

time

firmly

in

the

minds

of

human

geographers

where

the

discourse isratherdominatedbyconcernsoverspace(ParkesandThrift,1980:xi).

Timegeographyisseenaspivotalindoingthat,butaccordingtoParkesandThriftit

needstobebroadenedtoawiderunderstandingoftimeingeographyforwhichthey

reserve the term chronogeography.Muchof theircontribution toa geographyof

time lies inconnectingthephilosophicaldebateonwhattime istotacklingtime in

geographicalresearch.Theydistinguishbetween(i)universetimes,familiarbyhowit

isrecordedincalendarsandclocks,(ii)lifetimes,whichcanbedividedintobiological

andpsychologicaltime,and(iii)socialtimes,derivedfromgroupuseandawareness

of frequency, duration and sequence of relations among socially relevant times

(Parkesand

Thrift,

1980:

37).

Another

contribution

lies

in

the

introduction

of

the

term

timing space as the maintenance or adjustment of the space context by time

manipulationand isboundby reference touniverse time (ParkesandThrift,1980:

109);andof therelatedtermofspacingtime. Withthenotionofspacingtimethe

focus shifts to the intervalbetween events and the recurrence of events. Spacing

becomestheadjustmentofevent(or item)relationsandthereforeoftime.(Parkes

andThrift,1980:116)Thesedualconceptsprovideamajorstepforwardintermsof

theproductionormakingoftimesandspacesincomparisontoHgerstrandswork.

In light of these concepts, Parkes and Thrifts also gives more substance to

Hgerstrands ideas by introducing a vocabulary of markers, pacemakers, and

Zeitgebers

(Parkes

and

Thrift,

1980:

19

21).

However,

in

connecting

their

comprehensivetreatmentoftimeasitrelatestophysicalspaceandsocialspace,they

loosemuchof the clarity and simplicitywhichmakesHgerstrands framework so

graspableandelegant(seeFigure2.10)(cf.Pred,1977).

Muchof Thrifts laterwork ishighly theoretical innature and veers intomany

other subjects thathave littledirect relation to timegeographyor theoryon time

space.But there are twobooks from theearly2000s inwhich Thrift reasserts the

importanceheattachestohis initialconcernfortimespace. InTimespaceGeogra

phies of Temporality JohnMay andNigel Thriftbring together a collectionofnew

essaysonthetheme.Somewhatdisappointingly,itagaindivergesinmanydirections

(ThriftandMay,2001). It isof interest, though, todrawattention to theessayon

Rhythms of the City byMike Crang in that volume (Crang, 2001). Linking Hger

strands thinking to that of Elizabeth Grosz and Henri Lefebvres Rhythmanalysis

(Grosz,1995;Grosz,1999;Lefebvre,1995)andusingBakhtinsvocabulary (Bakhtin,

1930s(1981)),Crangdevelopstheconceptofthe chronotope:aunityoftimeand

placeaplacenotnecessarilyofsingulartimebutaparticularconstellationoftem

poralitiescomingtogetherinaconcreteplace(Crang,2001:190)(cf.Chapter6).So,

CrangheredevelopsthenotionoftimespacerhythmsasButtimerintroduceditas

anavenueofresearchas theproblemofasimultaneouslycoexistingpluralityof

rhythms;i.e.ofthecityasrhythmsandurbanlivingasrhythmiccomposition(Crang,

2001:191).Thisbringstheideasofharmonisationandsynchronisationofrhythmas

wellas

conflicts

over

mastering

ones

own

time

(cf.

Rinderspacher,

2002)

(see

Chap

ter6)centraltoanyargumentonageographyoftimespace.


16/36

Timespacematters

48

Figure2.10Socialspace,physicalspaceandtimeintheecologyofthecity.Thecomprehensive

treatment

of

time,

as

it

relates

to

physical

space

and

social

space,

makes

losing

much

of

the

clarityandsimplicitywhichmakesHgerstrandsframeworksograspableandelegant.Source:

ParkesandThrift(1980:361)


17/36


49

Alast

account

of

time

geography

and

how

it

informed

the

development

of

new

con

ceptsoftimespacewithinthedomainofgeographyitselfconcernsthedevelopments

underthebanneroffeministgeography,inparticularthestrandofresearchassoci

atedwith transportgeographyand geographyofeveryday.There isanawkward

relationshipbetweenfeminismandtimegeography.Ontheonehand,thereisfierce

criticismof the inherent masculinity in timegeography (Rose,1993),whileon the

otherhandtimegeographyisusedinseveralfeministgeographicaccountstomakea

gendersensitiveagendavisible (e.g.Kwan,2000c).Thepotentialoftimegeography

to enlighten gender issues in geographywas recognised early on, for example by

PalmandPred (1974).However,as in theaccountsabove, Iamherenotasmuch

interestedin

applications

of

time

geography

as

much

as

Iam

interested

in

the

influ

enceoftimegeographyonthedevelopmentofconceptsingeography.

Astimegeography,feministgeographyneedstobeseennotasasubdisciplineof

geography, but as amodeof thinking that pervades virtually all subdisciplinesof

geography (seeGregory,Johnston,Pratt,WattsandWhatmore,2009).Thisenlight

ensthefactthattimegeographicconceptshaveemergedinfeministtransportgeog

raphywhichemergedwith thesocalled quantitativerevolution ingeography (see

HansonandHanson,1981),geographyofeveryday life (PalmandPred,1974),but

also a form of feminist time geography proper (Kwan, 2002; Kwan, 1999;

DroogleeverFortuijnetal.,1987).

Figure2.11Thedifferences in timespace trajectoriesemergingfrom themappingofmultiple

timespacetrajectoriesofgroupsofwomenfromAsianAmericansandfromAfricanAmericans.

Source:Kwan

and

Lee

(2003)

(original

in

colour)


18/36

Timespacematters

50

Centralto

the

notion

of

feminist

geography

is

the

notion

of

differences

and

this

is

alsowhere time geography is enriched by feminist geography. And this notion of

differenceextendsbeyondthemalefemaledistinction,extendingintodebatesabout

racial differences, the position of elderly and disabled people and the position of

childrensgeographies(e.g.Kwan,2002;Karsten,2002).Asecondkeyconceptfrom

feministgeographycontainsthenotionsofpersonalaccessibilityandplaceaccessi

bility,conceptsthathavegainedmuchmeaningsincetheintroductionoftimegeog

raphy(cf.WeberandKwan,2003;Kwan,Murray,O'KellyandTiefelsdorf,2003;Dijst,

1995).

TheworkbyMeiPoKwanisexemplaryofhowtheseconceptsgetcombinedina

feministtime

geography

(e.g.

Kwan,

2000b).

She

also

demonstrates

the

importance

ofvisualisationandatheorisationoftheuseofgeographicinformationtechnologies

thatfocusontheoryratherthanon technique (cf.KwanandLee,2003) (seeFigure

2.11).Moreover,hervisualworkdemonstrates the importanceofpatternsas they

differbetweengroupsemergingfromtheaccumulationofmultipletimespacetrajec

tories.What infactcomesto lightwiththis lastaccountoftimegeography isthata

geographyoftemporospatially determineddifferencesinaccessibilityisanimportant

partofwhattimegeographyhastoofferthroughoutthedomainofgeography.

2.3.3 TimegeographyinstructurationtheoryAsalreadybecameclearfromtheaccountsoftimegeographywithingeography, its

conceptshaveextendedbeyondthedomainofgeography intothedomainofsocial

theory.Althoughsome lamentthis(e.g.Lenntorp,1999),timegeographywouldnot

haveplayedtherole ithasnow, if ithadnot. It isthetheoryofstructuration,as it

wasdevelopedbyGiddens,whichtookonfirstinthismannertheconceptsfromtime

geography.Andtounderstandhowthisevolveditisnecessarytotakealookatakey

personinlinkingtimegeographywithstructurationtheory:AllanPred.

AllanPredwasmaybeoneof themostactive inadvocatingHgerstrandswork

bothinsideandoutsidethedomainofgeography(e.g.Pred,1977).Predworkedwith

Hgerstrandduring

much

of

both

their

careers.

Allan

Pred

stood

for

the

embedding

of time geography in a social notion of space and found starting points for it in

Hgerstrandsconceptual framework.Predadvocated theconfluenceof timegeog

raphyand social theory,andheexpressed thisatastage that structuration theory

wasstillonlyinitsinfancy(Pred,1981;ThriftandPred,1981;Giddens,1979):

itisanentreatyforhumangeographerstodirectlyaddressthatmostcentraland

challengingsetofquestionsconfrontingallofthesocialsciencesandhistory:the

dialecticbetweensocietyand individual; therelationbetween the individualand

thecollective,oneandmany,subjectandobject,Iandyou,usandthem;thein

terplaybetweenindividualbehaviourandexperience,theworkingsofsociety,and

societalchange


19/36


51

and

ifonelooksbeyondtheimmediatelyapparent,onefindsinHgerstrandstime

geographyahighlyflexiblelanguageandevolvingphilosophicalperspectivewhose

coreconceptsofpathandprojectreadily lend themselves todialectical formula

tionsconcerningtheindividualandsociety.

(Pred,1981:56)

InaperiodinwhichPredaswellasThriftperceivethatthereisagrowingconsensus

in social theoryalong these lines (Pred,1981;Thrift,1983),AnthonyGiddenspub

lisheshiselaboratetheoryofstructuration(Giddens,1984).AlthoughGiddenshim

selfseesstructurationtheoryasanovelresearchprogrammeforsociology,the2009

editionoftheDictionaryofHumanGeographystatesthatstructurationtheorywas

alwaysmoreofsensitisingdevicethanaresearchprogramme(Gregoryetal.,2009:

725). Amongst a range of other theoretical constructs, structuration theory intro

ducestwomajorideasfortacklingtheagencystructuredualityinsocialtheory:

The importanceofseekingtodialectically linkstructuraldeterminist(objectivist)andvoluntarist(subjectivist)approachesbydevelopingatransforma

tional/recursivemodelforsocial(inter)action;andthat

Timeandspacearecentraltotheconstructionofallsocialinteractionand,therefore,totheconstitutionofsocialtheory(Thrift,1983:112).

Timegeography iscentral inGiddensconceptualisationoftimeandspace,although

Giddensalsoacknowledgesitslimitations(Giddens,1984:132133).Giddensgoesto

quitesomelengthtoexplaintheconceptsoftimegeography.BydoingthatGiddens

setshimselfapartfrommuchofhiscontemporariesinthesocialsciencesinhischap

teronTime,spaceandregionalisationinTheConstitutionofSociety:

Mostsocialanalyststreattimeandspaceasmereenvironmentsofactionand

acceptunthinkingly

the

conception

of

time,

as

measurable

clock

time,

charac

teristicofmodernWesternculture.[S]ocialscientistshavefailedtoconstruct

theirthinkingaroundthemodesinwhichsocialsystemsareconstitutedacross

timespace. [I]nvestigation on this issue is onemain task imposed by the

problemoforderasconceptualisedinthetheoryofstructuration.Itisnot

aspecific type areaofsocial sciencewhichcanbepursuedordiscardedat

will.Itisattheveryheartofsocialtheory

As Ihave already addressed the central conceptsbrought forwardbyHgerstrand

himself,IwillfocushereonhowGiddensextendedonandcritiquedthoseconcepts.

The firstplacewhereGiddensextendson time geography iswherehe frames the

notionof

capability

constraints

by

introducing

the

concept

of

timespace

convergence

as itwasdevelopedby thegeographerand transport scientistDonald Janelle (Gid


20/36

Timespacematters

52

densrefers

to

Janelle,

1969;

see

also

Janelle,

1966,

for

the

original,

or

Spiekermann

andWegener,1994,forarenewedviewoftheconcept).Bytimespaceconvergence,

Janelleimpliesthat,asaresultoftransportinnovations,placesapproacheachother

intimespace;thatis,thetraveltimerequiredbetweenplacesdecreasesanddistance

declines insignificance(Janelle,1969).InGiddensviewtimespaceconvergence isa

usefulconcept toplot thechanges in theouterboundsoftimespaceprisms. It fails

however, Giddens says, to indicate themajor discrepancies between and within

social communities as to how they are differently affected by shrinking of such

virtualdistances(Giddens,1984:114).

WhywouldGiddensbe interested inJanellesconcept? Inmyviewbecause it is

embeddedin

arudimentary

model

of

spatial

reorganisation

(see

Figure

2.12);

atype

ofmodelGiddens isaiming toconstruct fromasociologicalviewpoint fleshingout

thetimespacestructuringofthesettingof interactionwhichtendstoappear in

writingsasgivenmilieuxof social life (Giddens,1984:116),asopposed to froma

technological viewpoint (cf. Lash andUrry, 1994). This concepthas later been ex

tendedbyJanelle inapaper inwhichhe identifiesseveralkeyspacetimeadjusting

technologiesthathavesimilar powerfortransformationthoughothermechanisms

e.g.compression,extensibility(JanelleandGillespie,2004)thanonlyacceleration.

Figure2.12Aprocessofspatialreorganisationinwhichtimespaceconvergenceandadaptation

arekeyconcepts(Janelle,1969)


21/36


53

Althoughin

principle

Giddens

is

right

in

his

critique

of

the

concept,

in

my

view,

Gid

dens leavesthistechnologicalangletoosoontofocusonhismajorextensionofthe

timegeographical framework: theconceptof regionalisation.Regionalisation refers

tothedependenceofthecontinuityofsociallifeoninteractionswithotherswhoare

either copresent in time and/or space or who are absent in time and/or space

(Gregoryetal.,2009:726).

The leaving of the technological angle byGiddens is,moreover, remarkable in

lightoftwokeyconceptsmechanismsofspatialreorganisationinGiddensstheo

risationof structuration (Giddens,1984)andmodernity (Giddens,1990):distancia

tion thestretchingofsocialsystemsacross timespace (Giddens,1984:377)and

disembedding

the

lifting

out

of

social

relations

from

local

contexts

of

interaction

and their restructuring across indefinite spans of timespace (Giddens, 1990: 21).

Thesemechanismsare inmyview,which issupportedby Janelleswork, inherently

althoughnotexclusivelytechnologicalinnature.

ThesecondplacewhereGiddensstartstoextendontheconceptsoftimegeog

raphyhedoessobyadoptingecologicalconstraintsconcernedwiththepackingof

timespace(seeabove)(Giddens,1984:116).Giddensmovestheseunderthebanner

ofauthorityconstraintsasconcerningthepacking,i.e.inhabitingormovingthrough,

andconstitutionof domains;asrepresentingthe overallorganisationofcapability

andcouplingconstraints.Here,beforedevelopinghisconceptsofregionalisationas

intimately

related

to

a

dynamic,

social

conceptualisation

of

place

as

locale

and

presenceavailability,Giddensdevelops anumberof critical viewpointsonHger

strandsframework.InsummaryGiddensfindsthat:

Timegeographyrepresentsanaveanddefectiveconceptionofthehumanagent in itscorporeality independentofthesocialsettingswhichtheycon

frontintheirdaytodaylives;fromthisfollowsthatthenatureandoriginof

projectswhichtheypursueremainunexplicated.

Forthatreason,Hgerstrandsanalysestendtorecapitulatethedualismofactionandstructure,albeit innovelformbecauseofhisconcernwithtime

and

space.

Stations,

domains,

etc

appear

as

givens.

Thus

little

emphasis

is

placedonthetransformativecharacterofallhumanaction,eveninitsmost

utterlyroutinisedforms.

The concentration solely upon constraining properties of the body in itsmovement through timespace isunwarranted.All typesof constraintsare

also typesofopportunity,media for theenablementofaction.Moreover,

thenotionofconstraintsiscultureboundwithitsfocusonscarcityandeffi

cientuseoftimeandspaceasresources.

Timegeographyinvolvesonlyaweaklydevelopedtheoryofpower.TheconstraintsasHgerstrandproposesthemareallmodalitiesoftheengendering

andsustainingofstructuresofdomination.

(Giddens,1984:117118)


22/36

Timespacematters

54

Thiscritique

is

the

basis

for

Giddens

to

explain

his

concept

of

regionalisation.

As

this

isatthecoreofGiddenstheory, it is impossibleheretodrawacomprehensivepic

tureofthecharacteristicsandtheimplicationsoftheconcept.Ilimitmyselftoabrief

outline,whichmaythusregrettablybetosomedegreeflawed.

It is inoneofthekeyconceptsthatHgerstrandusestodescribeauthoritycon

straints thatGiddensplaceshis conceptof regionalisation of timespace:domains.

ForHgerstrandthesewerecontrolareas,butGiddensextendsonthisdefinition,in

lightofhis critique that it is toomuch seenasa given.Giddens seesdomainsas

dynamic regions thatare shaped in continuous interactionbetween agentanddo

main.Thus,regionalisationoftimespace is themovementof lifepaths throughset

tingsof

interaction

that

have

various

forms

of

spatial

demarcation

(Giddens,

1984:

116).Despitethisratherindirectdefinition,Giddenscontinuesthatthepropertiesof

domains canbe subjected todirect study in termsof coupling constraintswhicha

givendistributionofstationsandactivitybundlescreatesfortheoverallpopulation

whoseactivitiesareconcentratedwithin thosedomains. (Giddens,1984:116) He

continues to identify the process of regionalisation: it should be understood not

merelyaslocalisationinspacebutasreferringtothezoningoftimespaceinrelation

to routinised social practices (Giddens, 1984: 119; cf. Zerubavel, 1981, and other

workbyZerubavel).

Structurationtheoryhasbeenhighly influential inprovidingarangeofnewcon

cepts

and

contextualising

of

preceding

concepts

for

sociology

and

geography,

though

isnotwithoutcriticism.JeremyRoseprovidesausefulconciseoverview(Rose,1998);

Archer develops an elaborate critique arguing formore amore realist approach

(Archer,1995).Oneofthe issueshighlightedbyRoseisthatthedynamicsofagency

andthoseofstructureunfoldondifferenttimescalesandthuscanandneed tobe

conceptuallyseparatedratherthanbroughtinconfluenceasGiddensdoes(cf.Archer,

1990);moreover,thatGiddenstendstonegatetherelevanceofstructureandprivi

legesagency.

Incontrast,BrunoLatourfindsthatGiddensdoesnottaketheimplicationsofthe

confluenceofstructureandagencyfarenoughbyproposingformsofmediationbe

tween structure and agency; Latours proposal for actornetwork theory however

doesnotpayattentiontotheissuesoftemporalandspatialorderingofferedbyGid

dens (see Latour,2005; cf.Boelens,2009).Others critiqueGiddens fornotpaying

sufficientattentiontopowerrelationsintermsofpoliticsandeconomy(e.g.Harvey,

1990:102).Or forhis focusonontologywithoutpaying sufficientattention to the

implications formethodology,describing itasGiddenss failure toprovideaviable

epistemology(Hekman,citedinRose,1998)andhislackofcriticalstanceintermof

normativeconcepts(Bernstein,citedinRose,1998).Thus,althoughGiddenssworkis

helpful inprovidingamoredetailedvocabularyon timespace,hedoesnotprovide

thefulloronlystorytobetoldabouttheimplicationsoftimegeography.


23/36


55

2.3.4 TimegeographyintheworkofDavidHarveyDavidHarvey isthesecondofgrandtheoryproducersafterGiddenstoposition

Hgerstrand central in hiswork.Harvey finds time geography to be the simplest

descriptorofdailypractices (Harvey,1990:211). In thatcapacity,Harveypositions

timegeographyatthebasisofhistreatmentoftheexperienceofspaceandtimeas

it is characteristic forpostmodernity (Harvey, 1990, Part III,p.201 ff), afterhaving

introduced the conditionofpostmodernity (thecentral themeofhiswork) firstas

thepassagefrommodernitytopostmodernityincontemporaryculture,andasthe

politicaleconomic transformation of late twentiethcentury capitalism. Harveys

centralargument

is

that

there

has

been

asea

change

in

cultural

as

well

as

in

politi

caleconomicpracticessincearound1972andthatthisseachangeisboundupwith

theemergenceofnewdominantways inwhichweexperiencespaceandtime;but

that these changes ... appear as surface appearance rather than as signs of the

emergenceofsomeentirelynewpostcapitalistorevenpostindustrialsociety(Harvey,

1990:vii).ItmaybeclearthatwiththeimportanceHarveyattachestoexperiencing

spaceandtimeheisalsocriticaloftimegeography.Harvey(1990:211212)states:

Hgerstrandsschemeisausefuldescriptorofhowthedailylifeofindividualsun

foldsinspaceandtime.Butittellsusnothingabouthowstationsanddomains

are

produced,

in

the

way

it

palpably

does.

It

also

leaves

aside

the

question

of

how

andwhycertainsocialprojectsand theircharacteristic couplingconstraintsbe

comehegemonic,anditmakesnoattempttounderstandwhycertainsocialre

lationsdominateothers,orhowmeaninggetsassignedtoplaces,spaces,history,

andtime.Unfortunately,assemblingmassiveempiricaldataontimespacebiogra

phiesdoesnotgetattheanswerstothesebroaderquestions,eventhoughrecord

ofsuchbiographies formsausefuldatum forconsidering the timespacedimen

sionofsocialpractices.

To provide an answer to this critique, Harvey proposes to consider the socio

psychologicalandphenomenological approaches to timeandspace thathavebeen

putforward

by

writers

such

as

de

Certeau,

Bachelard,

Bourdieu

and

Foucault

(Harvey,

1990:213);asimilarmovetowardsphenomenologyasButtimerproposed(Buttimer,

1976).RemarkablyHarveysworkontimespaceshowsanalmostcompleteneglectof

Giddenswork on distanciation and structuration, concepts that are important to

Giddens understanding of timespace.Harvey shows outright criticism onGiddens

being a macrosocial theorist (Harvey, 1990: 102), but by building in part on

Bourdieusnotionofpractices andhisnotionof time (Bourdieu,1977),Harvey re

mains,inmyview,quiteclosetosomeofthekeynotionsofstructurationist theory,

perhapsnotwithregardtoitsideaofreflexiveaction,butinparticularwithregardto

itsconceptualisationof timespace.However,Harveysworkdiverges fromGiddens

workwithhisfocuson representationsofspace,aconceptheborrowsfromHenri

Lefebvresworkonsocialspace(Lefebvre,1974(1991)).


24/36

Timespacematters

56

Inconnecting

his

thinking

about

timespace

to

Lefebvres

notion

of

social

space

andBourdieusnotionofpracticesandof time (cf.above theworkofPredandof

Buttimer), Harvey exposes some of the centralweaknesses of the annotations of

behaviour intimegeography, inparticularwithregardtothesocialnatureof (tem

poro)spatialpractices.InspiredbyLefebvrestriadofconceptsonsocialspacespa

tialpractice(perceivedspace),representationsofspace(conceivedspace)andrepre

sentational spaces (lived space) (Lefebvre, 1974 (1991): 3839) Harvey takes an

important conceptual step by developing a grid of spatial practices along these

threedimensions (seeTable2.1).Thefourthdimensionheusestodelineatespatial

practicesisdefinedbymoreconventionalunderstandingsofspatialpractice:acces

sibilityand

distanciation

(cf.

Giddens,

1984),

appropriation

and

use

of

space,

the

dominationandcontrolofspace(seeaboveforthediscussionondomains),andthe

productionofspace in termsofhownew technologicalandothersystemsarepro

duced.

He highlights that these dimensions are not independent of eachotherwith,

particularly, relations between distanciation anddominationor appropriation; and

appropriationanddomination(Harvey,1990:222).Harveyspurposewiththisgridis

nottoattemptanysystematicexplorationof thepositionswithin it[but] to find

somepointofentrythatwillallowadeeperdiscussionoftheshiftingexperienceof

spaceinthehistoryofmodernismandpostmodernism(Harvey,1990:222).Interest

ingly

Harvey

also

exposes

the

weaknesses

of

his

own

work

with

this

scheme.

With

his

furthermorealmostexclusivefocusonrepresentationsofspaceinculturalexpres

sionsofspatialandtemporalorderasaresultofhispostmodernstancehefails,

withintentImustsay,toprovideneitheranempirical(episteme)noratechnicalview

of knowledge (techne; cf. Chapter 3) on temporospatial practices, particularwith

regardto theproductionofspace.However,heputssomethingelse inplace.After

having introducedHgerstrandsconceptsof timegeography,Harvey in fact leaves

themaside intermsofreferencingalmost immediately.Hisreasonsforthiscan

befound inhisstatementthat it isafundamentalaxiomof[the]enquirythattime

and spacecannotbeunderstood independentlyof socialaction.Harvey focuses

thusonpower relationsbeing always implicated inspatialand temporalpractices

whichpermitustoputtheseratherpassivetypologiesandpossibilities[indicatedin

thegrid]intothemoredynamicframeofhistoricalmaterialistconceptionsofcapi

talist modernisation (Harvey, 1990: 223225); in my view an almost Giddensian

move.

There, inhisanalysisofsocialaction intermsofpower,Harveyfindsanew de

scriptorofhowdailylifeunfolds.And,althoughitlargelyrefrainsfromtheindivid

ualleveltowhichHgerstrandwassoferventlyattached,itbuildsthoughnotexclu

sivelyontheintegraltemporospatialnatureofdaytodaypracticesasitwasdevel

opedbyHgerstrand.Thisnewdescriptoristheconceptoftimespacecompression:


25/36


57

Accessibilityand

distanciation

Appropriation

anduseofspace

Dominationand

controlofspace

Productionof

space

Materialspatial

practices

(experience)

Flowsofgoods,

money,people,

labourpower,

information,etc.;

transportand

communications

systems;

market

and

urbanhierarchies;

agglomeration

Landusesand

built

environments;

socialspacesand

otherturf

designations;

social

networks

of

communication

andmutualaid

Privateproperty

inland;stateand

administrative

divisionsofspace;

exclusive

communitiesand

neighbourhoods;

exclusionary

zoningandother

formsofsocial

control(policing

andsurveillance)

Productionof

physical

infrastructures

(transportand

communications;

built

environments;

landclearance,

etc.);territorial

organisationof

social

infrastructures

(formaland

informal)

Representations

ofspace

(perception)

Social,psychological

andphysical

measuresofdistance;

mapmaking;

theories

ofthefrictionof

distance(principleof

leasteffort,social

physics,rangeofa

goodcentralplace

andotherformsof

locationaltheory)

Personalspace;

mentalmapsof

occupiedspace;

spatialhierarchies;

symbolic

representation

ofspaces;spatial

discourses

Forbiddenspaces;

territorial

imperatives;

community;regionalculture;

nationalism;

geopolitics;

hierarchies

Newsystemsof

mapping,visual

representation

communicationetc.;newartistic

andarchitectural

discourses;

semiotics.

Spacesof

representation

(imagination)

Attraction/repulsion;

distance/desire;

access/denial;

transcendence

mediumisthe

message.

Familiarity;

hearthand

home;open

places;places

of

popular

spectacle

(streets,squares,

markets);

iconographyand

graffiti;

advertising

Unfamiliarity;

spacesoffear;

propertyand

possession;

monumentality

andconstructed

spacesofritual;

symbolicbarriers

andsymbolic

capital;

constructionof

tradition;spaces

ofrepression

Utopianplans

imaginary

landscapes;

sciencefiction

ontologiesand

space;artists

sketches;

mythologiesof

spaceandplace;

poeticsofspace;

spacesofdesire

Table

2.1

A

grid

of

spatial

practices

inspired

by

Henri

Lefebvres

conceptualisation

of

social

space.Source:Harvey(1990:220221)


26/36

Timespacematters

58

Figure2.13Theaccelerationoftravelling inFranceoveraperiodof200yearsasdepictedby

EmileCheyssonin1889(Cheysson,1889;depictedinBretagnolle,2003)


27/36


59

Imean

to

signal

by

that

term

processes

that

so

revolutionise

the

objective

qualities

ofspaceandtimethatweareforcedtoalter,sometimes,inradicalways,howwe

representtheworldtoourselves[noteagainthefocusonrepresentationofspace,

JvS].Iusethewordcompressionbecauseastrongcasecanbemadethatthehis

toryofcapitalismhasbeencharacterisedbyspeedupinthepaceoflife,whileso

overcomingspatialbarriers that theworldsometimesseems tocollapse inwards

uponus.(Harvey,1990:240)

The timespace compression conceptwas and still is very compelling, for a part,

exactlybecause it isassociatedwithvisualdepictionsofa shrinkingworld. Itcon

juresupmuchstrongerthantheannotationsofHgerstrand,Giddensoranyother

geographeror

sociologist

aview

of

timespace

that

acknowledges

the

role

of

tech

nology (artefacts,cf.Simon,1969), theproductionof technologyand its territorial

effectsasitorganisesspacearoundnetworks(cf.Dupuyetal.,2008).However,often

sinceHarveyintroducedtheconceptoftimespacecompressionasadescriptor,ithas

beeninterpretedexclusivelyintermsofaccessibilityanddistanciationshrinking

(see the firstcolumnofspatialpractices inTable2.1) rather than inother typesof

(temporo)spatialpracticesasHarveyoriginallyintended.

Timespace compression is in those cases reduced to and translated into time

spaceconvergence,whichisafaultyconceptualisation oftimespacecompressionasI

willexplicatebelow.Moreover, ifconsideredonly in those terms, the ideaof time

spacecompression

was

not

particularly

new,

as

Emile

Cheysson

depicted

the

idea

of

a compressed France already at the end of the 19th century (see Figure 2.13)

(Bretagnolle, Paulus and Pumain, 2002). In Hgerstrands terminology, that faulty

conceptionoftimespacecompressiononlyconcernscapabilityconstraints,whereas

Harvey implies significance for both coupling and authority constraints aswell.As

such it is thenotionof timespacepacking (seeabove)rather thanbutnotapart

fromdistanciationthatisofrelevancetotheconceptoftimespacecompression.

2.3.5 TheNetworkSocietyWith

Giddens

and

Harvey,

the

sociologist

Manuel

Castells

belongs

to

the

grand

theo

ristsofthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcentury.Althoughherefrainsfromreferring

toHgerstrandIwillshowthatCastellsworkstillbelongsherewiththetracesoftime

geography insocialtheory.CastellsTheRiseof theNetworkSociety isgenerallyre

gardedasoneofthemostinfluentialworksofthelate20thcenturyonhowsocieties

andcitieswithinthemaredevelopingandmaybedevelopingforagoodpartofthe

21stcentury(Castells,1996(2000)). In ithehasoutlinedafundamentallynew con

textforplanning(AlbrechtsandMandelbaum,2005).

KeytoCastellsthesisistheconceptualdistinctionbetweenaspaceofplaces

the historically rooted spatial organisation of our common experience (Castells,

1996(2000):

408)

and

aspace

of

flows

the

material

organisation

of

time

sharing

social practices that work through flows (Castells, 1996 (2000): 442). These two


28/36

Timespacematters

60

spacesneed

to

be

seen

as

separate

ordering

mechanisms

(logics;

Castells,

1996

(2000):408)fortheeconomic,social,politicalandphysicalorderingofcities.Castells

claimisthatthespaceofflowsisreplacingthespaceofplacesasprimaryordering

mechanism; sonot that it is replacing itper seasCastellshasbeenoftenwrongly

interpreted. It is, inCastellsview, becoming thedominantspatialmanifestationof

powerandfunctioninoursocieties(Castells,1996(2000):409);thespaceofflowsis

notplacelessthoughitslogicis(Castells,1996(2000):443).Thecontentofthespace

of flows concept,Castellsexplains, canbedescribed through three layers,which I

summarisehere,thatprovidethematerialsupportforit:

Acircuitofelectronicexchanges that form thematerialbasis for theprocesses,beingstrategicallycrucialinthenetworkofsociety,i.e.thenetworkof

communicationexpressedintechnologicalinfrastructure(infirstinstancein

formation technology)whichdefines thenew spacemuch as railwaysde

finedregionsandmarkets;andasrulesofcitizenrydefinedcities.

The nodes and hubs of the space of flows, i.e. specific placeswithwelldefinedsocial,cultural,physicaland functionalcharacteristics; thesenodes

andhubsarefoundinparticularcitiesthatareembeddedinahierarchically

organisedglobalnetworkofcities.

The spatial organisation of the dominant managerial elites (rather thanclasses);

articulation

of

cosmopolitan

elites

(through

forming

symbolically

secludedcommunitiesandbydesigningsymbolicenvironmentsofglobally

unifiedspatialformsandlifestyles)andsegmentation/disorganisation ofthe

localmassesastwinmechanismsofsocialdominationinsociety.

(Castells,1996(2000):442445)

Thoughhaving formulatedhis thesisprimarily from theviewpointof spatialorder,

Castellsdevelops an intricate link to temporal order, as the conceptsof time and

space are inherently linkedwhen acknowledging the existenceof themechanisms

embeddedinthespaceofflows.Centralistheideathatthetransformationoftime

under

the

information

technology

paradigm,

as

shaped

by

social

practices,

is

one

of

thefoundationsofthenewsocietywehaveentered,inextricablylinkedtotheemer

genceofthespaceofflows(Castells,1996(2000):460).However,Castellssomewhat

mystifieshisconceptualisation oftimebyintroducingthetermtimelesstime[as]the

dominant temporality of our society (Castells, 1996 (2000): 494). In fact, Castells

reliesheavilyonaneclecticreadingofGiddenswork,onthatofHarveyandonoth

erssuchasJohnUrrytocometoanempiricallyexplicatednotionoftime.Thatnotion

oftimeIwouldsayisfarfromtimeless,butenshrinedincomplexinteractionsof

differentmechanismsoftimespaceordering.

Keynotions thatCastells identifiesas timeless timeare the following (Castells,

1996(2000):465481)againsummarised,but leavingouthisconceptualisation of

timeasherelatesittodeathandwar:


29/36


61

The idea of realtime interactions and transactions in economic systems[notethatthisisanultimateformoftimespaceconvergence,JvS];

Thenotionofflextimeinnetworkedenterprisesseenasflexibleformsofmanagementcombinedwithintensifiedperformanceof labourforexample

related to the adaptability of firms tomarket demand and technological

changesbyslowingdownorspeedingupproductandprofitcycles[notethat

thisisrelatedtothenotionoftimespacecompressionasdevelopedbyDavid

Harvey,JvS];

The shrinkingandtwistingof lifeworkingtime;hoursspentforpaidworkremainingatthenucleusofdaytodaylifeofmostpeople,thoughgenerally

theamount

of

hours

quantitatively

declining

while

showing

increasing

diver

sity indurationofworkinghours [note that this combinesmechanismsof

timespaceindividualisationandflexibilisation,JvS](cf.below)

Theblurringofthelifecyclewhichwouldinitsultimatestateleadtosocialarrhythmia; Castells proposes to hypothesise that thenetwork society is

characterisedbythebreakingdownoftherhythms,eitherbiologicalorso

cial,associatedwiththenotionofthelifecycle(Castells,1996(2000):476)

(cf.Lefebvre,1995)(i.e.timespaceindividualisation;cf.below)

ForCastellsthecombinationoftheseprocessesoftransformationoftemporalorder

resultsin

timeless

time,

occurring

when

the

characteristics

of

agiven

context,

namelytheinformationalparadigmandthenetworksociety,inducesystemicpertur

bation in the sequentialorderofphenomenaperformed in that context (Castells,

1996(2000):494).Inmyviewhetriesheretounifythedifferentmechanismsoftem

poralordering inawaythatmystifiesratherthanclarifies. Iwilldrawoutthesedif

ferentmechanismsinmoredetailbelow.

2.3.6 Implications:mechanismsoftemporospatialadaptationandcartographyIn theprecedingparagraphs Ihavedevelopedadetailedaccountof tracesof time

geographyin

geographic

and

social

theory.

It

is

necessary

to

stand

still

here

at

two

implications of having outlined these traces. The first implication concerns the

mechanismsofspatialandtemporaltemporospatialtransformationsoradapta

tionsinJanellesterms(seesection2.1fortheroleofadaptationinsystemsthinking).

The second implication concerns the cartography, i.e. themapping, of timespace.

Letsstartwiththelatter.Harveydemonstratestheimportanceofrepresentationsin

howweconceptualisespaceandtime.Butherefrainsfromidentifyingafundamental

problematicofrepresentationsofspace.Namely,cartographypartiallyinformedby

thefieldof informationvisualisationforthedevelopmentofthematiccartography

producesprincipallyspatialmodels(i.e.on/asmaps)wheretimecanbedepictedonly

indirectly

by

morphing

space,

colour,

symbol,

scale

type

or

other

cartographic

tech

niques(Klaasen,2005b;seee.g.alsoKraakandMaceachren,1994).Althoughthereis


30/36

Timespacematters

62

aconsiderable

body

of

literature

on

cartography

of

timespace

phenomena

(see

e.g.

Vasiliev, 1997; Koussoulakou and Kraak, 1992; Axhausen and Hurni, 2005), these

showasignificantbiastowardsvisualisingtimeprimarilyastravelduration,neglect

ingthestationaryaspectsoftemporospatialbehaviour;despiteactivitiesinparticular

places,asidentifiedbyHgerstrand,beingkeytounderstandingactivityandmobility

behaviour.ForcompellingexceptionsseeFigures2.14and2.15;theauthorsofthese

visualisations,however,signal largedifficulties incollectingandprocessingthedata

necessary todevelop such visualisations of rhythms rather than distances (Janelle

andGoodchild,1983;GoodchildandJanelle,1984)(cf.Chapters5and6).

Thereisafundamentalstrengthintimespacemapsastohowtheymaycombine

differentnotions

of

time.

Timespace

maps

displaying,

for

example,

timespace

con

vergence,areabletomakevisibletheintuitiverelationbetweentimespacedistance

indaytodaylifeandthetransformations ofthetechnologicalconditionsfortravers

ingthosedistancesonadaytodaybasis;timespacemapsthusrendervisibleasig

nificantpartof the structurationof timespaceasconceptualisedbyGiddens.How

ever,thereisafundamentalbiasintimespacecartography,namelythebiasofmeas

urabilityofdistancesinbothtimeandspacewhichneglectsotherlesseasilymeas

urabletypesofrelationsbetweentemporalandspatialorder.Suchothertypesof

orders rhythm for example are often socially rather than technologically con

structed,althoughtheyareoftenstillmediatedbytechnology(information,including

monitoring

technology,

communication

technology,

transport

technology,

etc.).

Moreover, in thereductionoftemporalphenomena totwotimescales (onefor

traveldistanceandone fortransformation), timespacemappingsoftimespacecon

vergence neglectmany of the intermediaryscale orderings of time and space on

which timespaceconstraints tend to work suchasweeklyor seasonal rhythmsof

activity andmobility.Moreover, suchmappings tend to generalise timespacephe

nomena such that they render invisible the differences between how timespace

transformationsresult indifferenteffectsfordifferentgroupsofpeople(cf.thecri

tiquebyHgerstrandthat liesatthebasisofhisquestionwhataboutpeople?,but

also Giddens critique on Hgerstrand above). Thesemechanisms work together,

effectingfundamentalchanges inthefourtypesofconstraintsidentifiedbyGiddens

as embedded in time geography: capability, coupling, authority and packing con

straints.Iwillexplicatebelow.

Whentheoristsspeakofthe speedingupor accelerationofcontemporary life

to identify the condition of postmodernity (e.g.Virilio andDerian, 1998;Harvey,

1990), they often do not distinguish how thesemechanisms are related to those

different types of constraints. As has become clear in this chapter, distinguishing

betweentheseconstraintsasseparatecategories isnotthesameasthembeing in

dependent fromeachother.Yetwithout suchadistinction it isdifficult to identify

wheretheopportunitieslieforthedomainofurbanandregionaldesignandplanning

andwhichareclearlyoutsidetheworkingsofthatdomain.Therefore Iproposethe

schemein

Table

2.2

for

linking

constraints

to

different

mechanisms

of

timespace

adaptation.


31/36


63

Figure2.14

The

shift

over

aperiod

of

24

hours

in

spatial

distribution

of

activity

patterns

by

type

ofactivity(Janelleetal.,1998:130)(originalincolour)


32/36

Timespacematters

64

Figure2.15Temporalorderingofurbanspaceshowing tractsof timeuse inparticularplaces

(Janelleetal.,1998:126)

Timespaceconvergenceandtimespacecompressionhavebeendiscussedearlierthis

chapter,but it isnecessarytoherebrieflyprovideamoredetaileddefinitionofthe

conceptsoftimespaceflexibilisationandtimespace individualisation(alsoseeChap

ter1forexamples).Timespaceflexibilisation referstotheuncoupling(disembedding)

ofactivities

from

alocal

temporal

or

spatial

order.

This

can

be

an

effect

of

the

disap

pearanceorshiftingoftemporalmarkers(orZeitgebers;seeParkesandThrift,1980;


33/36


65

e.g.work

time

leisure

time

balance)

or

spatial

markers

(e.g.

the

shift

of

centre

func

tionsto edge locations;Garreau,1991);or itcanbeaneffectoftheemergenceof

newnetsof relationsbetweendistanciatedactors (seee.g. thespaceofflowscon

ceptdevelopedbyCastells,1996(2000)).

Ofadifferentorder,timespaceindividualisationreferstothepossibilitiesforpeo

ple todiversify their activitypatternsonboth adailybasis and/ordivergent from

theirsocialculturallydependentcontextandhabits.It iscloselyrelatedtotheproc

ess of disembedding associatedwith timespace flexibilisation, but differs in that

respectthatitisconcernedwiththedegreetowhichpeoplearecapableofgoverning

theirowntime.Assuchitisrelatedtobothnotionsoffreedomofactivitychoice(cf.

Chapin,1968)

for

example,

related

to

participation

in

the

labour

market

by

women

andfreedomofmobility.Thelatterismediated,forexample,bycarownership.

Thesefourmechanismsarenotunavoidablyunidirectionali.e.increasinglymov

ing towardsmore converged, compressed, individualised or flexible timespace. By

seeingtheseconceptsasmechanismsratherthanonlyintermsofprocessesoftrans

formationitispossibletoopenupinquiriesaboutthenongeneralised,differentiated

effectsofthesemechanismsthroughoutpopulations.Andaboutthepossiblerolesof

urbanandregionaldesignandplanning.

Timespaceconstraints Primarilymediatedby

(notethattheseare

technologically,socially,politically

and/oreconomicallyconstructedin

aprocessofstructuration

influencedbytheotherconstraints

themselves)

Mechanismoftimespace

adaptation

Capability Transportationand

communicationtechnology

Timespaceconvergence

Coupling Locationandregionsofactivitiesin

timeandspace,economicrules

Timespaceflexibilisation

Authority Socialrulesanddemarcationof

regions

Timespaceindividualisation

Packing Sizeandidentityoflocales Timespacecompression

Table2.2

The

suggested

relation

between

timespace

constraints

and

mechanisms

of

timespace

adaptation


34/36

Timespacematters

66

Withthe

scheme

in

Table

2.2

the

argument

is

reinforced

that

the

mechanism

of

time

spaceindividualisationisoutsidethedomainofdirectinfluenceofurbanandregional

designandplanning.This tablealsoputs forward that the threeothermechanisms

areinsomewayoranotherrelatedtospatialandtemporalorderingswhichmaybe

influencedbythephysicalspatialtransformationseffectedthroughdesignandplan

ningofcities.Thisshiftnowopensupthesubjectofthischapterto thequestion if

thedomainofurbanand regionaldesignandplanning is capableof responding to

suchanintricateconceptualisation oftimespace.

2.4 Conclusion:Whatabouttime?2.4.1 RecapitulatingthekeyideasinthischapterThischapterstartedofwithdefiningtemporalandspatialorderascharacteristicsof

systemsingeneralandactivitysystemsandurbansystemsinparticular.Thechapter

subsequentlyoutlined thekey conceptsof time geography in lightof thequestion

inspiredbyTorstenHgerstrandwhataboutpeopleinurbanandregionaldesignand

planning? Idemonstrated that theseconceptscanbeseen intermsof activitysys

temsaspartofawider systemsbasedviewofurbanplanning;and that timeand

spaceneedtobeseenasahomology:timespace.

BasedonHgerstrandsworkI introducedthe ideaoftimespaceconstraintsfor

peoples activity andmobilitybehaviour including threedifferent types: capability,

couplingandauthorityconstraints.A fourthcategory,namelypackingorecological

constraints was shown to contribute to amore complete understanding of con

straintsforthedomainofurbanandregionaldesignandplanning.Ofthesefour,at

firstglance, the fourmain typesofconstraintscapability,coupling,authorityand

packing are all of concern to urban and regional design and planning although in

differentways.

Bytracingtheseelementsoftimegeographyintheworkofthreekeysocialtheo

ristsGiddens,HarveyandCastells Iexplicatedthattheseconstraintsaredirectly

linkedto

different

mechanisms

of

structuration,

each

mediated

by

technology.

Thus

I

showedthatinsteadoflookingattimeintermsoftimespaceorder,timespaceinthe

contextofurbanandregionaldesignandplanningneedtobe lookedupon interms

oftimespaceordering,i.e.structuration.

Ihave identified twomajorcategoriesof implicationsoftheway inwhichsocial

theorylookeduponthetimespaceactivityandmobilitybehaviourofpeople.Thefirst

implication is that it isofkey importance toattach relevance to representationsof

timespace inthevisibilityand interpretationofthatbehaviour.Thesecond implica

tion is concernedwith the linking of the explanatory concepts of timespace con

straints forbehaviour to someof the keymechanismsof timespace structuration,

transformationand

adaptation

of

both

society

and

individual

behaviour

or

action

as


35/36


67

identifiedin

social

theory.

Together

these

implications

provide

aconcise

framework

tolookupontheapproachesdescribedinChapters5and6.

2.4.2 ValueoftimegeographyforurbanandregionaldesignandplanningBecauseHgerstrandsdescriptorsofbehaviourofpeople intimespacehad inspired

muchgeographicandsocialtheorythatlaterprovedtobeinfluentialonproclaiming

the networksocietyasanewcontextforplanning, Isoughtoutthetracesoftime

geographywithin the largerdomainofgeographyand in social theory.Severalau

thorswithin geographyextendedonHgerstrands concerns seekingoutnew ave

nuesof

research,

amongst

whom

are

quantitative

geographers,

phenomenologists

andfeministgeographers.Theirbodyofwork ledtoattachingrelevancetonewno

tionsoftimesuchasrhythms,unequalopportunities,diversityandthe introduction

ofafourthtypeofconstraint,packingconstraints.Withinthegrandsocialtheories

ofGiddens,HarveyandCastellsIdrewoutthetracesoftimegeographyintheidenti

ficationofa seriesofmechanisms throughwhich theordering structurationof

timespaceintimeandovertimeandonaseriesoftimescalesunfolds.

Sowhatabouttimeinurbanandregionaldesignandplanning?Ifitwereeasyto

translate immediately such theorisations into issues of concern for urban and re

gionaldesignandplanning,thisthesiswouldnotconcernitselfwiththatquestion.It

turnsout

it

is

not

that

easy.

In

Chapter

3Ipoint

out

several

plausible

explanations

for

thelackofsuchtranslationsfromwithinthedomainofurbanandregionaldesignand

planningitself.

Iaimedinthischaptertoalsobuildabridgebetweenthedomainsofsocialthe

oryandurbanandregionaldesignandplanning.Forthatreason,letsgobacktotime

geography for amoment andHgerstrands question on what aboutpeople?. In

particularforAllanPred,timegeographysrelevance lay largely,butnotexclusively,

initsrelevanceforandapplicationinsocialaswellasphysicalplanning:Infact,since

1966,whentheResearchGrouponHumanGeographicProcessandSystemsAnaly

siswasformedatLund,thetimegeographicresearchofHgerstrandandhisassoci

ates[had]

been

mainly

funded

by

Swedish

government

agencies

concerned

with

regionaldevelopmentpolicies,nationwidephysical planning, andurbanisation and

settlementpolicies.(Pred,1977:211)Predsexamplesincludeawiderangeofplan

ningapplications,notonlyphysicalplanning,butingeneral:planningpolicies,ifthey

aretobegoalconsistentratherthancounterproductive, requiretheacquisitionofat

least an elementary understanding of the peopleinvolving process relationships

whichtheirimplementationwillbothaffectandbeaffectedby(Pred,1977:213).In

hisview,andinmine,timegeographydeliverssomeofthiselementaryunderstand

ing.


36/36

Timespacematters

Documents

Timespace Matters - Chapter 2 Temporospatial order: a matter for urban and regional design and planning