Chapter2 Temporospatialorder:amatterfor urbanandregionaldesignandplanning

Theaimofthischapteristoidentifythemannerinwhichthinkingabouttimespacein thecontextofurbanandregionaldesignandplanningmayreflectboththephysical transformation processes that are central to the material object of that domain as wellasthetemporospatialcharacteristicsofactivityandmobilitybehaviourofpeople. TorstenHgerstrandaskedwhataboutpeopleinregionalscience?inthepaper inwhichhedevelopedhisbasicprinciplesfortimegeography(Hgerstrand,1970). This same question can be asked for the domain of urban and regional design and planning.Backthen,Hgerstrandsquestiondidnotstandaloneandwasjoinedby, for example, sociologist Herbert Ganss plea for Planning for People, not Buildings (Gans, 1969) and architect Jan Gehls plea to pay attention to Life Between Houses (Gehl, 1971). To position Hgerstrands work within urban and regional design and planningIwilltreatitinthischapterbyplacingitbetweenChapinscomprehensive work on Urban Land Use Planning of the 1960s and 1970s (Chapin, 1957; Chapin, 1965; Chapin and Kaiser, 1979) and several grand theories in the social sciences of the following decades which incorporated time geography in their writings (Parkes andThrift,1980;Giddens,1984;Harvey,1990). BothInaKlaasenandPaulDrewehaveargued,inspiredbyKevinLynch,amongst others,thatthequestionWhataboutpeopleinurbanandregionaldesignandplan ning? automatically leads to the question what about time in urban and regional design and planning? (Lynch, 1972; Klaasen, 2005b; Klaasen, 2004; Drewe, 2005b). WiththislatterquestionasstartingpointIwilldevelopherethecriteriatoevaluate practicesinurbanandregionaldesignandplanning.Thischapterresultsinasetof criteriaagainstwhichIevaluatetheapproachesofChapters5and6withregardto thewayinwhichtheyaddresstimespace.

2.1
2.1.1

Spatialandtemporalorderinsystems
Systemandenvironment:conceptualstartingpoints

Klaasen states that the fact that we perceive reality as a composite of parts with spatialandtemporaldimensionsmeanswecanconsiderrealityasasystem(Klaasen, 2004:11).A(nopen)systemcanbedefinedbywhatitexistsof: Asetofelementswithcertainvariablecharacteristics(attributes),plus Asetofrelationsbetweentheseelementattributes(structure),plus

Timespacematters

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

Theenvironmentofasystemmaybeunderstoodas Thelargersystemwithinwhichthefirstmentionedsystemisembeddedbe ingsimilarandhierarchicallypositioned(e.g.cityneighbourhood),or Thelargersystemwithinwhichthefirstmentionedsystemisembeddedbe ingsimilarandofthesameorder(e.g.differentpartsofcities),or Dissimilar systems that occupy the same space (and time) (e.g. ecological system,economicsystem,culturalsystem),or The larger system within which (a) dissimilar system(s) is/are hierarchically embedded, 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,betweentwolevelsofsystems.Iconsiderur bansystemsasenvironmentandactivitysystemsasembeddedsystems.

Figure2.1Theenvironmentofasystem:fourtypesofrelations betweensystemandenviron ment.AdaptedfromKlaasen(2004:12)

34

Chapter2Temporospatialorder

2.1.2

Spatialorderandtemporalorder

Thevisualandthusspatialdescriptionofsystemsinfigure2.1andtheirenvironment usesspatialordertodescribetherelationbetweensystemandenvironmentandthe relations between systems. These descriptions are highly simplified spatial models. Klaasen(2005b)rightfullystatedthattherelationbetweenspaceandtimeinurban and regional design and planning is problematic. For an important part, this is be causeofitsrelianceonspatialmodelswithoutgivingmuchattentiontotimeinthe systems its models represent. Temporal order is as important in systems as spatial order.Andaswithspace,timeknowsdifferentarrangementsbetweensystemorder andtheenvironment,ifthelatterisalsodefinedintermsoftime. Setsofelementsandrelationsinsystemsarenotaggregated,butarearranged inrelativespatialortemporalpositions(Angyal,1941(1969)citedbyKlaasen,2004). Assuch,asystemrepresentsperdefinitiontemporalorderandspatialorder.Systems should rather be seen as compositions or patterns if they are only temporally or only spatially ordered. Any system that is both temporally and spatially ordered such as an urban system is by definition constituted by processes rather than compositions.

Figure 2.2 Relations between cyclical and linear temporal phenomena, based on the principle thatincyclicalprocesseswithalinearcomponentthegrainofperceptiondeterminestheper ceptionofaprocessaslinearorcyclical:(a)shiftingdowninlevelofscalefromacyclicaltoa linearperception(FigurebySchaick,2004:72);(b)shiftingupinscalefromacyclicaltoalinear perception(FigurebyKlaasen,2004:14).ForthelineofreasoningseeKlaasen(2004).

35

Timespacematters

Processesareinfirstinstancecharacterisedbymeansoftemporalorder,buthavea 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. Processes on different system levels may influence the spatial and/or temporal orderofarelatedsystemonanothersystemlevel.Processesmaytakeplaceonthe higher system level (change of the system) or on lower system levels (action withinthehigherlevelsystem)orbetweensystemsonthesamelevel(interaction) or between system and environment (adaptation). These processes occur simulta neouslyinreallifesystemsandcanbecharacterisedaccordingtothegrainofob servation,bothtemporalgrainandspatialgrain.Thischapterdevelopstheideathat it is necessary to focus on adaptation of both temporal order and spatial order to understandactivitypatternsinthecontextofurbanandregionaldesignandplanning. 2.1.3 Conceptualisationoftimeinrelationtotemporospatialorder

Thereisnoroomoruseinthisbookforanindepthtreatmentofphilosophicalworks onthenatureoftimeorspace.Thefocusfromthefollowingsectiononwardsison issues of timespace in activity systems and urban systems. There, as well as in the tracingofthetimegeographicalconceptsinsociologicaltheoryinsection2.3,Iwill dealwiththemostimportantnotionsoftimeastheyrelatetonotionsofspaceasfar astheyarerelevanttothisthesis. Inconceptualisingtheorderingoftimeinrelationtospace,itisimportantthough tohighlightthepositionofthisthesisinabriefdiscussiononmajorcategoriesoftime inthecontextofgeography.Thesecategoriescontributetothenotionoftimespace order as it is used in this thesis. I refer here to Parkes and Thrifts (1980) Times, spacesandplacesAchronogeographicperspective.ParkesandThrift(1980:36107) distinguishthreemajorcategoriesoftime:universetime,lifetimesandsocialtimes. Thesetimes,byoperatingtogether,providethebasisforamoreorlesscoherent environmentfordailyliving(ParkesandThrift,1980:108). Universetimeorstandardtimeisthetimerecordedinandmeasuredbycal endarsandclocks,andzonedbytheregionalisationoftheworldintotimezones.This notion of time also includes the understanding of relations between universe item relations,inparticulartheinterrelationbetweenearthmovementsinrelationtothe sunthatisthebasisoftimemeasurement.Lifetimesrefertonotionoftimeasitis inseparablefromtheconceptofself(ParkesandThrift,1980:50).Lifeisacomplex systemofinterlockingitems,relatingtooneanotherperiodicallyandofteninasys tematic or rhythmic manner. (ibid: 51) The concept of life times contains, on a range of time scales, the notions of biological time and circadian rhythms, and the notionofpsychologicalormentalsenseoftime,alsorelatedtoanotionofthepat 36

Chapter2Temporospatialorder

terningoftimethroughcomplexfeedbackloopsbetweenpotential,motive,percep tion,judgmentandstimuliinandoftimepatterns.Thislastnotionofpatterningcon nects life times into what Parkes and Thrift call social times; this notion of time is based on the idea that social roles, attitudes, values, etc., each move in their own characteristic time. They vary in their durations, in their rhythm, on the degree to whichtheyaredominatedbythepastorprojectedintothefuture,etc.(Parkesand Thrift,1980:72).Thereisnosinglenotionofsocialtimethatisuniversal. This categorisation is not undisputed. Urry (2000: 4) argues in his Sociology be yond societies, for example, that the distinction between universe time and social time is uncalled for as apparently natural clocktime is in fact socially produced andhasexertedapowerfulroleinthesubduingofnature.Andthatisaviewthat comesbackinthisthesis. Iwillnotcoverallnotionsofuniversetime,lifetimesorsocialtimesinthisbook. Inparticular,Iwillpaylittleattentiontotimeregardinghowitscharacteristicsdiffer acrosssocietiesandcultures.Withlifetimesintermsofbiologicaltimeorpsychologi cal time I will only deal indirectly. Clock and calendar time is taken as a reference, althoughlookeduponcriticallyandnottakenforgrantedasagiven.Thefocusofthe thesis within this broader conceptualisation of time is led by my understanding of timegeographyandsocietalmechanismsaselaboratedintheremainderofthischap ter. Of these three main categories, the notion of social times is therefore most centraltothisthesis.Thisthesisispositionedsuch,inthisrangeofnotionsoftime, thatitlooksnotonlyatthetimespacepatternsofactivitybehaviouritself,butalsoat theprocessessocietalmechanismsthatputastrainonthecoherenceofuniverse time,lifetimesandsocialtimes,asthey,together,constitutethetemporalenviron mentfordailyliving,asParkesandThriftputit.Theideathatdifferentsocialtimes andlifetimes,andtoalesserdegreedifferentwaysofmeasuringtime,coexist,coin cideandmayconflict,andsoformwhatBoelens(2005)callsalayeredreality,within whichurbanandregionaldesignersandplannersoperate,isinherenttothenotionof timespaceusedinthetheoreticalframeworkofthisthesis.Attheendofthischapter I will come to the mechanisms that play an important part in shaping this layered reality.

2.2 Whataboutpeople?:activitysystemsandurbansys tems

2.2.1 Alatestart Theideaofembeddingknowledgeofactivityandmobilitypatternsofpeopleinthe oryandpracticesofthedomainofurbanandregionaldesignandplanningwasnot fundamentaltotheideasofthedomainwhenitaroseattheendofthe19thcentury in Germany, the UK and the Netherlands, and elsewhere. Research on activity and mobility patterns of people in the context of urban planning only started with the 37

Timespacematters

introductionofthesystemsapproachtoplanninginthedecadesafterWorldWarII (seeChapter3).Untilthendemographyhadbeenthemajorconcernforsociological surveys on cities spatial organisation in addition to engineering driven surveys on aggregatetrafficvolumes. TheworkoftheAmericanurbanplannerFrancisStuartChapinJr.waspivotalin bringingtheconceptofactivitysystemstolightandforthatreasonIdevotesome spaceandtimetohisworkhere.However,alargepartofthissectionwillconcernthe work of Torsten Hgerstrand, whose ontology of activity and mobility behaviour provestohavebeenquiteinfluentialforthegrandtheoriesofsociologyinsection2.3. 2.2.2 Activitysystemsandspatialorder

Chapin introduces the concept of activity systems as one of several key urban land use systems for the domain of urban planning in the second edition of the seminal workonUrbanLandUsePlanning(Chapin,1965).Chapinisalsoamongstthefirstto systematically study these activity systems (Chapin, 1968). Activity systems are de finedbyChapinasbehaviourpatternsofindividuals,families,institutions,andfirms whichoccurinspatialpatternsthathavemeaninginplanningforlanduse(Chapin, 1965: 224). Of particular interest to this thesis is one type of behaviour pattern, namelythedaytodaytemporospatialactivitypatternsofindividualpeople. Infirstinstance,Chapinshowsheretobeconcernedwithactivitysystemsasthey are spatially ordered; a spatial model (map) may represent that spatial order (see Figures2.3,2.4and2.5).Chapinssuppositionisthatchangesinactivitysystems,for examplebypeoplemovinghouse,reciprocallyinteractwithchangesinlandusesys tems.Howthatinteractiontakesplacewasoneofhiskeyconcerns.Ontheonehand, Chapin refers here to activity systems and land use systems as equivalent systems (see above) while implying,onthe otherhand, anurban(or metropolitan) environ mentthatformsasysteminwhichthosesystemsareembedded.Thatenvironment maybeseenaseitheraphysicalsystem,economicsystemorasocialsystemwitha certainspatialandtemporalorderwhichcreatesthestableconditionsforthatactiv itysystemtobeembeddedinit. Activitysystemsaresystemsorderedonthreelevels:thatoftheindividual,that ofanindividualsnetworks,andtheaggregateleveloftheenvironment.Theideaof routinisedbehaviourasanindicatorofsocialspace(i.e.thenetworklevel)inurban ecologicaltheorytowhichChapinsworkmaybeattributedhadbeenpreceded bytheworkofPaulHenryChombartdeLauwewithadepictionoftheroutinesofa youngParisiangirlduringtheperiodofayear(ChombartDeLauwe,1952)(seeFigure 2.3).Chapindevelopedhisideasonactivitysystemsonlyfullyintherunninguptohis thirdeditionofUrbanLandUsePlanning(Chapin,1974;ChapinandKaiser,1979)and hefocusedonoutcomesonthenetworklevelandtheaggregatelevel,whilebasing hisfindingsondatacollectionontheindividuallevel. Chapins work was unique in the way it connected the then primarily economy based theories of location choice, urban structure and urban growth with activity 38

Chapter2Temporospatialorder

behaviourintermsofbothinputandoutputforthemetropolitansystemaswellasin terms of social, routinised behaviour (see Figure 2.4 and 2.5). But his work on the individuallevelactivitysystemremainedsomewhatawkwardlydisconnectedfromhis work on land use systems (cf. Chapin, 1974). While the former focused largely on spatial order, the latter focused largely on temporal order. As a consequence, the temporal order of activity systems and its relation to spatial order remained some whatofablackboxinurbansystemstheory.

Figure2.3Trajectoriesduringoneyearofayounggirlofthe16tharrondissement.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 within interaction involves approximately the same areas. The dotted pattern suggest that theseareasmaybetreatedasoneclassoflanduseinlanduseplanning.(Chapin,1965:233)

39

Timespacematters

Figure2.5Routinisedbehaviour.Illustrativehouseholdactivitypatternsfrompilotstudy.These diagramsshowspatialpatternsoftwotypesofactivitiesasdeterminedfrominterviewswitha simple random sample of households in a census tract flanking downtown Durham, North Carolina. The [left] Figure shows recreation patterns, and the [right] Figure shows visiting patterns.Theactivityplacesareindicatedbyblackdots,andplacesofresidencearedesignated byplussigns.Locationsareplottedtothecentroidofthegridcell.Thedottedlinedelimitsthe CBD.(Chapin,1965:249)

2.2.3

Timegeography:unpackingtheblackboxoftemporalorder

Despite the critique expressed above, Chapin must be credited asbeing the first to developasurveyinstrumenttostartunpackingtheblackboxthattheindividuallevel activitysystemhadbeeninurbansystemstheory;anapproach,whichheperfectsin later years using a choiceoriented, behaviourist approach to activity behaviour (Chapin,1968;Chapin,1974;seeDijst,1995).Thisapproachconceivesofapersons activitiesintheurbansceneastheresultofacomplexandvariablemixofincentives andconstraintsservingtomediatechoicewithsomeactivitiestraceabletopositive choices,andsomeattributabletonegativechoicesinthesensethatconstraintsover shadow opportunities for choice. (Chapin, 1974: 9) With regard to constraints for behaviour,Chapinbythenbuildsontherathernonbehaviouristontologyofac tivityandmobilitybehaviourofferedbywhatbecameknownastimegeography. Despite his spatialpattern definition of activity systems (see above), Chapin somewhat oddly limited his empirical work exclusively to studying the relation be tweenmotivations,personalcharacteristicsandpersonalrolesinrelationtoactivity patterns,neglectingthephysicalspatialconditionsunderwhichactivityandmobility behaviourunfolds(Dijst,1995:42).ItwastheworkofTorstenHgerstrandthatlaid down the basis for negating that neglect in later geographical studies, while also sheddinglightonthenatureoftemporalorderinactivitysystems. TorstenHgerstrand,aSwedishgeographerwhohadbecomeknownforhiswork onInnovationdiffusionasaspatialprocess(Hgerstrand,1967;atranslationbyAlan PredofHgerstrand'sdissertationof1953),wascriticalofmuchofthecontemporary economic theory on human behaviour; in particular of the modelling of human be 40

Chapter2Temporospatialorder

haviour in terms of aggregates and in terms of mass probabilistic behaviour as was usedinmuchurbansystemstheory.Hgerstrandaimed
toeliminateimprecisethoughtprocesseswhichconceptuallydeceiveusintohan dlingpeopleaswehandlemoneyorgoodsoncewecommencetheprocessofag gregation What [he had] in mind is the introduction of a timespace concept which could help us to develop a kind of socioeconomic web model. The model wouldbeaskedwhatsortsofwebpatternsareattainableifthethreadsintheweb (i.e. the individuals) may not be stretched beyond agreed levels of liveability. (Hgerstrand,1970:8)

Thecentralquestionheputforwardwas:whataboutpeople?(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) Several other general constraints impinge upon the individual's freedom of action, forexample:theindivisibilityofeachindividual(nopersonmaybeattwodifferent places simultaneously); the limited ability of any human being to undertake more thanonetaskatatime;thefactthatmovementisalwaystimeconsuming;andthe factthateverysituationisinevitablyrootedinpastsituations(Pred,1977:208).The factthatmovementinspaceisalsomovementintimeandthatthehumanlifespanis finite,completesthissetofmoregeneralconstraints(seeGiddens,1984:111). Alltheseconstraintsarefundamentallytemporospatialinnatureasdemonstrated by Hgerstrands, then highly original, visual system of annotation to describe both behaviourandconstraints(seeFigures2.6through2.9).Atfirstglance,itismainlyin capabilityconstraintsandincouplingconstraintsratherthaninauthorityconstraints where the domain of urban and regional design and planning comes into play. Al though the focus here is on daily paths in timespace based predominantly on the timescaleof24hours,Hgerstrandstaxonomyalsoappliestoothertimescalessuch asthetimescaleofthelifepath(cf.Giddens,1984). Capability constraints are those which limit the activities of the individual be causeofhisbiologicalconstructionand/orthetoolshecancommand.(Hgerstrand, 1970: 12) According to Hgerstrand, the most important capability constraints con cern the necessity to sleepand to eatatregular intervals and minimum numberof hours. Such constraints are the basis for the concept of the timespace prism, origi nallyoperationalisedintermsoftheprincipleofreturnbyLenntorp(1976),which shapeandvolumeindicatesthetimespacebudgetavailableforactivities(seeFigure 2.6).ThetimespacebudgetintheformoftheprismiscentraltoHgerstrandscon ceptualisation of temporospatial behaviour. Besides sleeping and eating which 41

Timespacematters

largelydeterminetheheightoftheprismwithina24hourscalethisprincipleprism is shaped by the available means of transportation for moving between places of activity, determining the width of the prism. For example, figure 2.7 demonstrates thedifferenceinreachforapersonwalkingorcycling. Thesecondtypeofconstraintsconcernswhere,when,andforhowlong,thein dividual has to joinother individuals, tools, and materials in order to produce, con sume,andtransact.Heretheclockandthecalendararethesupremeantidisorder devices.Wemayrefertoagroupingofseveralpathsasabundle(Hgerstrand,1970: 14) (Figure 2.8). Although Hgerstrand pays relatively little attention to the spatial locationaspectwithinthesetypesofconstraints,itisofcoursethelocationofactivi ties,intimeaswellasinspace,thatdeterminethedegreetowhichthesetypesof constraints limit the possibilities for an individual persons behaviour. Hgerstrand considers the possibility to overcome these constraints to some degree by using communicationtechnologies(seeFigure2.8),aconceptlaterelaboratedasextensi bility(e.g.Janelle,1973;Adams,1995;Kwan,2000a).

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

42

Chapter2Temporospatialorder

Figure 2.7 The difference in reach between a person walking and a person cycling. Source: Lenntorp(1978);reproducedbyParkesandThrift(1980:252)

Thethirdtypeofconstraints,relatedtoauthority,ismoredifficulttograsp.Itisof, relevance to the domain ofurbanand regional design and planning in terms of au 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 tity within which things and events are under the control of a given individual or a givengroup.Thepurposeofdomainsseemstobetoprotectresources,naturalas wellasartificial,toholddownpopulationdensity,andtoformcontainerswhichpro tect an efficient arrangement of bundles, seen from the inside point of view of the principal. In timespace, domains are described ascylinders the insidesof which are eithernotaccessibleatallorareaccessibleonlyuponinvitationoraftersomekindof payment,ceremony,orfight.(Hgerstrand,1970:16)(seefigure2.9) 43

Timespacematters

Figure2.8Bundlesoftimespacetrajectoriesandarudimentaryvisualisationoftheextensibility concept.Source:Hgerstrand(1970)

Figure2.9ThenestingofseveraldomainsSource:Hgerstrand(1970)

2.2.4

Temporalorderandspatialorder:timespace

Hgerstrandsontologyofactivityandmobilitybehaviourwidenstheideaoforder in activity systems (see also Hgerstrand, 1985, and Lenntorp, 2004, on pockets of local order). In contrast with Chapins initial definition of activity systems, Hger strandfindsthatoneneedsnotonlythespatialpattern,i.e.spatialorder,tounder standactivitysystems,butalsothepatternintime,i.e.temporalorder.Thusspatial orderandtemporalordercannotbeseenasfullyseparatespheres,butthenneedto beseenasahomology(Kellerman,1987):timespace.Thisshiftfromspacetotime space is not one to take lightly. It has several implications regarding how to under standurbansystems.Suchimplicationscan,infirstinstance,betracedinsociological theoryontimespace,asIwilldointhefollowingsections. 44

Chapter2Temporospatialorder

2.3 Timespaceinsociologicaltheory:Implicationsoftime geography

2.3.1 Thetracesoftimegeography Hgerstrandsworkwouldnothaveproliferatedasithas,ifnotforbeingadoptedto enrichseveralofthegrandertheoriesinthesocialsciencesofthelastthreedecades of the twentieth century. However, let me begin to state that it is not my purpose heretotreatthegrandtheoriesofsocialscienceforalltheirdetail.Iaminterestedin onethingonly:thetracesleftbytimegeographyinsuchwork,andtheimplications andcriticismsasaresultoftheimplicationsoftimegeographyasabuildingblockfor understanding timespace inthe context of urban and regional designandplanning. BoLenntorponeofHgerstrandsdiscipleshasdoneasimilartracingexerciseby comparingtheentryfortimegeographyinthe1981and1994editionsoftheDic tionaryofHumanGeography(Lenntorp,1999), but such an approach focusing on a singular domain is too limited to draw out the key concepts that are of relevance here.Iamratherinterestedinthewiderscopeoftimegeography. After introducing initial traces within the domain of geography itself, I will de scribe the appropriation and influence of the ideas from time geography in three bodies of sociological work: in the work of Anthony Giddens, in the work of David HarveyandintheworkofManuelCastells.Iwillconcludethisreviewofthetraces thattimegeographyhasleftinsocialsciencetheorybyidentifyingsomeoftheimpli cations for thinking about design and about planning as well as about the role of communication and transport technologies. Note that an indepth, similar line of argumentation, although without the focus on time geography, was developed by Lash and Urry (1994). Their book complements the argumentation here with rich referencetosociologicalliteratureandanempiricalanalysisofsocialchange;italso highlightstherelevanceofpayingattention,insociology,totransportation,informa tionandcommunicationtechnology. 2.3.2 Geographyandtimegeography

ThemajordomaininwhichthetracesofHgerstrandstimegeographycanbetraced 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 time geography to be connected into a debate on the relation between society andspace.However,thischapterdoesnotallowforamoredetailedaccountthana conciseintroductiontosomeofthekeyauthorsandliterature.Besidesahistoryof ideas,thisisalsoahistoryofsocialandprofessionalconnectionsbetweenresearch ers. 45

Timespacematters

Anne Buttimer met Torsten Hgerstrand at the end of the 1970s when she worked on The Dialogue Project about the history of geography in Sweden at Lund University. Buttimers work had focused thus far and focused then on histories of geographicthought.Her PhDthesis on SocietyandMilieuinFrenchgeography pro videdherlaterworkwithaframeworkrestingintheworkofFrenchgeographerVidal deLaBlachewhoisgenerallyknownforhistheoreticalcontributiontoanecological geography and the introduction of the concept of genre de vie (Buttimer, 1971; VidaldelaBlache,1922;VidaldelaBlache,1911).ThismadeherreceptiveofHger strands work. Thus Buttimer was concerned with connecting time geography with phenomenological theory and sociological theory notably the concept of social spaceusedbyChombartdeLauwe,exemplifiedinherwidelycitedpaperondyna mism of lifeworld (Chombart De Lauwe, 1952; Buttimer, 1976). In that paper But timer defines how time geography combined with phenomenological thought providesthreenovelavenuesforstudyinthreemajorresearchareas:senseofplace, social space, and timespace rhythms. Similar concerns had, during the same years, inspired the work of Henri Lefebvre, French sociologist and philosopher, who has been in turn influential for the work of David Harvey (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,organismandhumanpopulationinset tlementspacetime Thepackingoftimeconsumingactivitiesinpopulationtimebudgets Thepackingofbundlesofvarioussizes,numbersanddurationsinthepopu lation system, i.e. group formation because of indivisibility and continuity constraintsofindividuals (Giddens,1984:116;cf.Parkesetal.,1978,Vol.2:146161). Howeverforthelargepart,itisnotinalonglineofworkofhisown,butratherin bringing the subject to light for others, in particular for Nigel Thrift, in which Carlsteinscontributionlies(seeThrift,1977).MuchofNigelThriftsworkinwhichhe refers to time geography often in collaboration with others such as Don Parkes, John May or Ash Amin has been concerned with bringing the discourse in geography with a singularly spatial focus in confluence with discourse in geography (as well as other domains) with a singularly temporal focus. It is particularly in the 1970sthatThriftsworkisdominatedbyreferencetotimegeography.Duringthese years,hecoeditsthethreevolumeworkonTimingSpaceSpacingTime(Parkeset al., 1978) and coauthors the comprehensive work Times, Spaces and Places A Chronogeographic Perspective (Parkes and Thrift, 1980). The core of these two 46

Chapter2Temporospatialorder

projects was to place time firmly in the minds of human geographers where the discourseisratherdominatedbyconcernsoverspace(ParkesandThrift,1980:xi). Timegeographyisseenaspivotalindoingthat,butaccordingtoParkesandThriftit needstobebroadenedtoawiderunderstandingoftimeingeographyforwhichthey reserve the term chronogeography. Much of their contribution to a geography of timeliesinconnectingthephilosophicaldebateonwhattimeistotacklingtimein 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 (ParkesandThrift,1980:37).Anothercontributionliesintheintroductionoftheterm timing space as the maintenance or adjustment of the space context by time manipulation and is bound by reference to universe time (Parkes and Thrift, 1980: 109);andoftherelatedtermofspacingtime.Withthenotionofspacingtimethe focus shifts to the interval between events and the recurrence of events. Spacing becomestheadjustmentofevent(oritem)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: 1921). However, in connecting their comprehensivetreatmentoftimeasitrelatestophysicalspaceandsocialspace,they loose much of the clarity and simplicity which makes Hgerstrands framework so graspableandelegant(seeFigure2.10)(cf.Pred,1977). Much of Thrifts later work is highly theoretical in nature and veers into many other subjects that have little direct relation to time geography or theory on time space. But there are two books from the early 2000s in which Thrift reasserts the importanceheattachestohisinitialconcernfortimespace.InTimespaceGeogra phies of Temporality John May and Nigel Thrift bring together a collection of new essaysonthetheme.Somewhatdisappointingly,itagaindivergesinmanydirections (Thrift and May, 2001). It is of interest, though, to draw attention to the essay on Rhythms of the City by Mike 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) and using Bakhtins vocabulary (Bakhtin, 1930s(1981)),Crangdevelopstheconceptofthechronotope:aunityoftimeand placeaplacenotnecessarilyofsingulartimebutaparticularconstellationoftem poralitiescomingtogetherinaconcreteplace(Crang,2001:190)(cf.Chapter6).So, CrangheredevelopsthenotionoftimespacerhythmsasButtimerintroduceditas an avenue of research as the problem of a simultaneously coexisting plurality of rhythms;i.e.ofthecityasrhythmsandurbanlivingasrhythmiccomposition(Crang, 2001:191).Thisbringstheideasofharmonisationandsynchronisationofrhythmas wellasconflictsovermasteringonesowntime(cf.Rinderspacher,2002)(seeChap ter6)centraltoanyargumentonageographyoftimespace. 47

Timespacematters

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)

48

Chapter2Temporospatialorder

Alastaccountoftimegeographyandhowitinformedthedevelopmentofnewcon ceptsoftimespacewithinthedomainofgeographyitselfconcernsthedevelopments underthebanneroffeministgeography,inparticularthestrandofresearchassoci ated with transport geography and geography of everyday. There is an awkward relationshipbetweenfeminismandtimegeography.Ontheonehand,thereisfierce criticism of the inherent masculinity in time geography (Rose, 1993), while on the otherhandtimegeographyisusedinseveralfeministgeographicaccountstomakea gendersensitiveagendavisible(e.g.Kwan,2000c).Thepotentialoftimegeography to enlighten gender issues in geography was recognised early on, for example by Palm and Pred (1974). However, as in the accounts above, I am here not as much interestedinapplicationsoftimegeographyasmuchasIaminterestedintheinflu enceoftimegeographyonthedevelopmentofconceptsingeography. Astimegeography,feministgeographyneedstobeseennotasasubdisciplineof geography, but as a mode of thinking that pervades virtually all subdisciplines of geography(seeGregory,Johnston,Pratt,WattsandWhatmore,2009).Thisenlight ensthefactthattimegeographicconceptshaveemergedinfeministtransportgeog raphy which emerged with the socalled quantitative revolution in geography (see Hanson and Hanson, 1981), geography of everyday life (Palm and Pred, 1974), but also a form of feminist time geography proper (Kwan, 2002; Kwan, 1999; DroogleeverFortuijnetal.,1987).

Figure 2.11 The differences in timespace trajectories emerging from the mapping of multiple timespacetrajectoriesofgroupsofwomenfromAsianAmericansandfromAfricanAmericans. Source:KwanandLee(2003)(originalincolour)

49

Timespacematters

Centraltothenotionoffeministgeographyisthenotionofdifferencesandthisis also where 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 feministtimegeography(e.g.Kwan,2000b).Shealsodemonstratestheimportance ofvisualisationandatheorisationoftheuseofgeographicinformationtechnologies thatfocusontheoryratherthanontechnique(cf.KwanandLee,2003)(seeFigure 2.11). Moreover, her visual work demonstrates the importance of patterns as they differbetweengroupsemergingfromtheaccumulationofmultipletimespacetrajec tories.Whatinfactcomestolightwiththislastaccountoftimegeographyisthata geographyoftemporospatiallydetermineddifferencesinaccessibilityisanimportant partofwhattimegeographyhastoofferthroughoutthedomainofgeography. 2.3.3 Timegeographyinstructurationtheory

Asalreadybecameclearfromtheaccountsoftimegeographywithingeography,its conceptshaveextendedbeyondthedomainofgeographyintothedomainofsocial theory.Althoughsomelamentthis(e.g.Lenntorp,1999),timegeographywouldnot haveplayedtheroleithasnow,ifithadnot.Itisthetheoryofstructuration,asit wasdevelopedbyGiddens,whichtookonfirstinthismannertheconceptsfromtime geography.Andtounderstandhowthisevolveditisnecessarytotakealookatakey personinlinkingtimegeographywithstructurationtheory:AllanPred. Allan Pred was maybe one of the most active in advocating Hgerstrands work bothinsideandoutsidethedomainofgeography(e.g.Pred,1977).Predworkedwith Hgerstrandduringmuchofboththeircareers.AllanPredstoodfortheembedding of time geography in a social notion of space and found starting points for it in Hgerstrands conceptual framework. Pred advocated the confluence of time geog raphy and social theory, and he expressed this at a stage that structuration theory wasstillonlyinitsinfancy(Pred,1981;ThriftandPred,1981;Giddens,1979):
itisanentreatyforhumangeographerstodirectlyaddressthatmostcentraland challengingsetofquestionsconfrontingallofthesocialsciencesandhistory:the dialectic between society and individual; the relation between the individual and thecollective,oneandmany,subjectandobject,Iandyou,usandthem;thein terplaybetweenindividualbehaviourandexperience,theworkingsofsociety,and societalchange

50

Chapter2Temporospatialorder

and
ifonelooksbeyondtheimmediatelyapparent,onefindsinHgerstrandstime geographyahighlyflexiblelanguageandevolvingphilosophicalperspectivewhose core concepts of path and project readily lend themselves to dialectical formula tionsconcerningtheindividualandsociety.

(Pred,1981:56) InaperiodinwhichPredaswellasThriftperceivethatthereisagrowingconsensus in social theory along these lines (Pred, 1981; Thrift, 1983), Anthony Giddens pub lisheshiselaboratetheoryofstructuration(Giddens,1984).AlthoughGiddenshim selfseesstructurationtheoryasanovelresearchprogrammeforsociology,the2009 editionoftheDictionaryofHumanGeographystatesthatstructurationtheorywas alwaysmoreofsensitisingdevicethanaresearchprogramme(Gregoryetal.,2009: 725). Amongst a range of other theoretical constructs, structuration theory intro ducestwomajorideasfortacklingtheagencystructuredualityinsocialtheory: Theimportanceofseekingtodialecticallylinkstructuraldeterminist(objec tivist)andvoluntarist(subjectivist)approachesbydevelopingatransforma tional/recursivemodelforsocial(inter)action;andthat Timeandspacearecentraltotheconstructionofallsocialinteractionand, therefore,totheconstitutionofsocialtheory(Thrift,1983:112). TimegeographyiscentralinGiddensconceptualisationoftimeandspace,although Giddensalsoacknowledgesitslimitations(Giddens,1984:132133).Giddensgoesto quitesomelengthtoexplaintheconceptsoftimegeography.BydoingthatGiddens setshimselfapartfrommuchofhiscontemporariesinthesocialsciencesinhischap teronTime,spaceandregionalisationinTheConstitutionofSociety:
Mostsocialanalyststreattimeandspaceasmereenvironmentsofactionand acceptunthinkinglytheconceptionoftime,asmeasurableclocktime,charac teristicofmodernWesternculture.[S]ocialscientistshavefailedtoconstruct theirthinkingaroundthemodesinwhichsocialsystemsareconstitutedacross timespace. [I]nvestigation on this issue is one main task imposed by the problemoforderasconceptualisedinthetheoryofstructuration.Itisnot a specific type area of social science which can be pursued or discarded at will.Itisattheveryheartofsocialtheory

As I have already addressed the central concepts brought forward by Hgerstrand himself,IwillfocushereonhowGiddensextendedonandcritiquedthoseconcepts. The first place where Giddens extends on time geography is where he frames the notionofcapabilityconstraintsbyintroducingtheconceptoftimespaceconvergence as it was developed by the geographer and transport scientist Donald Janelle (Gid 51

Timespacematters

densreferstoJanelle,1969;seealsoJanelle,1966,fortheoriginal,orSpiekermann andWegener,1994,forarenewedviewoftheconcept).Bytimespaceconvergence, Janelleimpliesthat,asaresultoftransportinnovations,placesapproacheachother intimespace;thatis,thetraveltimerequiredbetweenplacesdecreasesanddistance declinesinsignificance(Janelle,1969).InGiddensviewtimespaceconvergenceisa usefulconcepttoplotthechangesintheouterboundsoftimespaceprisms.Itfails however, Giddens says, to indicate the major discrepancies between and within social communities as to how they are differently affected by shrinking of such virtualdistances(Giddens,1984:114). WhywouldGiddensbeinterestedinJanellesconcept?Inmyviewbecauseitis embeddedinarudimentarymodelofspatialreorganisation(seeFigure2.12);atype of model Giddens is aiming to construct from a sociological viewpoint fleshing out thetimespacestructuringofthesettingofinteractionwhichtendstoappearin writings as given milieux of social life (Giddens, 1984: 116), as opposed to from a technological viewpoint (cf. Lash and Urry, 1994). This concept has later been ex tendedbyJanelleinapaperinwhichheidentifiesseveralkeyspacetimeadjusting technologiesthathavesimilarpowerfortransformationthoughothermechanisms e.g.compression,extensibility(JanelleandGillespie,2004)thanonlyacceleration.

Figure2.12Aprocessofspatialreorganisationinwhichtimespaceconvergenceandadaptation arekeyconcepts(Janelle,1969)

52

Chapter2Temporospatialorder

AlthoughinprincipleGiddensisrightinhiscritiqueoftheconcept,inmyview,Gid densleavesthistechnologicalangletoosoontofocusonhismajorextensionofthe time geographical framework: the concept of 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 by Giddens is, moreover, remarkable in lightoftwokeyconceptsmechanismsofspatialreorganisationinGiddensstheo risation of structuration (Giddens, 1984) and modernity (Giddens, 1990): distancia tion the stretching of social systems across timespace (Giddens, 1984:377) and disembeddingtheliftingoutofsocialrelationsfromlocalcontextsofinteraction and their restructuring across indefinite spans of timespace (Giddens, 1990: 21). Thesemechanismsareinmyview,whichissupportedbyJanelleswork,inherently althoughnotexclusivelytechnologicalinnature. ThesecondplacewhereGiddensstartstoextendontheconceptsoftimegeog raphyhedoessobyadoptingecologicalconstraintsconcernedwiththepackingof timespace(seeabove)(Giddens,1984:116).Giddensmovestheseunderthebanner ofauthorityconstraintsasconcerningthepacking,i.e.inhabitingormovingthrough, andconstitutionofdomains;asrepresentingtheoverallorganisationofcapability andcouplingconstraints.Here,beforedevelopinghisconceptsofregionalisationas intimately related to a dynamic, social conceptualisation of place as locale and presence availability, Giddens develops a number of critical viewpoints on Hger strandsframework.InsummaryGiddensfindsthat: Timegeographyrepresentsanaveanddefectiveconceptionofthehuman agentinitscorporealityindependentofthesocialsettingswhichtheycon frontintheirdaytodaylives;fromthisfollowsthatthenatureandoriginof projectswhichtheypursueremainunexplicated. Forthatreason,Hgerstrandsanalysestendtorecapitulatethedualismof actionandstructure,albeitinnovelformbecauseofhisconcernwithtime 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 its movement through timespace is unwarranted. All types of constraints are also types of opportunity, media for the enablement of action. Moreover, thenotionofconstraintsiscultureboundwithitsfocusonscarcityandeffi cientuseoftimeandspaceasresources. Timegeographyinvolvesonlyaweaklydevelopedtheoryofpower.Thecon straintsasHgerstrandproposesthemareallmodalitiesoftheengendering andsustainingofstructuresofdomination. (Giddens,1984:117118)

53

Timespacematters

ThiscritiqueisthebasisforGiddenstoexplainhisconceptofregionalisation.Asthis isatthecoreofGiddenstheory,itisimpossibleheretodrawacomprehensivepic tureofthecharacteristicsandtheimplicationsoftheconcept.Ilimitmyselftoabrief outline,whichmaythusregrettablybetosomedegreeflawed. ItisinoneofthekeyconceptsthatHgerstrandusestodescribeauthoritycon straints that Giddens places his concept of regionalisation of timespace: domains. ForHgerstrandthesewerecontrolareas,butGiddensextendsonthisdefinition,in light of his critique that it is too much seen as a given. Giddens sees domains as dynamic regions that are shaped in continuous interaction between agent and do main. Thus, regionalisationof timespace isthe movement of lifepaths through set tings of interaction that have various forms of spatialdemarcation (Giddens, 1984: 116).Despitethisratherindirectdefinition,Giddenscontinuesthatthepropertiesof domains can be subjected to direct study in terms of coupling constraints which a givendistributionofstationsandactivitybundlescreatesfortheoverallpopulation whose activities are concentrated within those domains. (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). Structurationtheoryhasbeenhighlyinfluentialinprovidingarangeofnewcon ceptsandcontextualisingofprecedingconceptsforsociologyandgeography,though isnotwithoutcriticism.JeremyRoseprovidesausefulconciseoverview(Rose,1998); Archer develops an elaborate critique arguing for more a more realist approach (Archer,1995).OneoftheissueshighlightedbyRoseisthatthedynamicsofagency andthoseofstructureunfoldondifferenttimescalesandthuscanandneedtobe 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 critique Giddens for not paying sufficientattentiontopowerrelationsintermsofpoliticsandeconomy(e.g.Harvey, 1990: 102). Or for his focus on ontology without paying sufficient attention to the implications for methodology, describing it as Giddenss failure to provide a viable epistemology(Hekman,citedinRose,1998)andhislackofcriticalstanceintermof normativeconcepts(Bernstein,citedinRose,1998).Thus,althoughGiddenssworkis helpful in providing a more detailed vocabulary on timespace, he does not provide thefulloronlystorytobetoldabouttheimplicationsoftimegeography.

54

Chapter2Temporospatialorder

2.3.4

TimegeographyintheworkofDavidHarvey

DavidHarveyisthesecondofgrandtheoryproducersafterGiddenstoposition Hgerstrand central in his work. Harvey finds time geography to be the simplest descriptor of daily practices (Harvey, 1990: 211). In that capacity, Harvey positions timegeographyatthebasisofhistreatmentoftheexperienceofspaceandtimeas it is characteristic for postmodernity (Harvey, 1990, Part III, p.201 ff), after having introduced the conditionof postmodernity (thecentral theme of hiswork) first as thepassagefrommodernitytopostmodernityincontemporaryculture,andasthe politicaleconomic transformation of late twentiethcentury capitalism. Harveys centralargumentisthattherehasbeenaseachangeinculturalaswellasinpoliti caleconomicpracticessincearound1972andthatthisseachangeisboundupwith theemergenceofnewdominantwaysinwhichweexperiencespaceandtime;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 areproduced,inthewayitpalpablydoes.Italsoleavesasidethequestionofhow and why certain social projects and their characteristic coupling constraints be comehegemonic,anditmakesnoattempttounderstandwhycertainsocialre lationsdominateothers,orhowmeaninggetsassignedtoplaces,spaces,history, andtime.Unfortunately,assemblingmassiveempiricaldataontimespacebiogra phiesdoesnotgetattheanswerstothesebroaderquestions,eventhoughrecord of such biographies forms a useful datum for considering the timespace dimen sionofsocialpractices.

To provide an answer to this critique, Harvey proposes to consider the socio psychological and phenomenological approaches to time and space that have been putforwardbywriterssuchasdeCerteau,Bachelard,BourdieuandFoucault(Harvey, 1990:213);asimilarmovetowardsphenomenologyasButtimerproposed(Buttimer, 1976).RemarkablyHarveysworkontimespaceshowsanalmostcompleteneglectof Giddens work on distanciation and structuration, concepts that are important to Giddens understanding of timespace. Harvey shows outright criticism on Giddens being a macrosocial theorist (Harvey, 1990: 102), but by building in part on Bourdieus notion of practices and his notion of time (Bourdieu, 1977), Harvey re mains,inmyview,quiteclosetosomeofthekeynotionsofstructurationisttheory, perhapsnotwithregardtoitsideaofreflexiveaction,butinparticularwithregardto its conceptualisation of timespace. However, Harveys work diverges from Giddens workwithhisfocusonrepresentationsofspace,aconceptheborrowsfromHenri Lefebvresworkonsocialspace(Lefebvre,1974(1991)).

55

Timespacematters

In connecting his thinking about timespace to Lefebvres notion of social space and Bourdieus notion of practices and of time (cf. above the work of Pred and of Buttimer), Harvey exposes some of the central weaknesses of the annotations of behaviourintimegeography,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 sibility and distanciation (cf. Giddens, 1984), appropriation and use of space, the dominationandcontrolofspace(seeaboveforthediscussionondomains),andthe production of space in terms of how new technological and other systems are pro duced. He highlights that these dimensions are not independent of each other with, particularly, relations between distanciation and domination or appropriation; and appropriationanddomination(Harvey,1990:222).Harveyspurposewiththisgridis nottoattemptanysystematicexplorationofthepositionswithinit[but]tofind somepointofentrythatwillallowadeeperdiscussionoftheshiftingexperienceof spaceinthehistoryofmodernismandpostmodernism(Harvey,1990:222).Interest inglyHarveyalsoexposestheweaknessesofhisownworkwiththisscheme.Withhis furthermorealmostexclusivefocusonrepresentationsofspaceinculturalexpres sionsofspatialandtemporalorderasaresultofhispostmodernstancehefails, withintentImustsay,toprovideneitheranempirical(episteme)noratechnicalview of knowledge (techne; cf. Chapter 3) on temporospatial practices, particular with regardto theproduction ofspace.However, he puts something else in place.After having introduced Hgerstrands concepts of time geography, Harvey in fact leaves themasideintermsofreferencingalmostimmediately.Hisreasonsforthiscan befoundinhisstatementthatitisafundamentalaxiomof[the]enquirythattime and space cannot be understood independently of social action. Harvey focuses thus on power relations being always implicated in spatial and temporal practices whichpermitustoputtheseratherpassivetypologiesandpossibilities[indicatedin thegrid]intothemoredynamicframeofhistoricalmaterialistconceptionsofcapi talist modernisation (Harvey, 1990: 223225); in my view an almost Giddensian move. There,inhisanalysisofsocialactionintermsofpower,Harveyfindsanewde scriptorofhowdailylifeunfolds.And,althoughitlargelyrefrainsfromtheindivid ualleveltowhichHgerstrandwassoferventlyattached,itbuildsthoughnotexclu sivelyontheintegraltemporospatialnatureofdaytodaypracticesasitwasdevel opedbyHgerstrand.Thisnewdescriptoristheconceptoftimespacecompression:

56

Chapter2Temporospatialorder

Accessibilityand distanciation Flowsofgoods, money,people, labourpower, information,etc.; transportand communications systems;marketand urbanhierarchies; agglomeration Appropriation anduseofspace Landusesand built environments; socialspacesand otherturf designations; socialnetworks of communication andmutualaid Dominationand controlofspace Privateproperty inland;stateand administrative divisionsofspace; exclusive communitiesand neighbourhoods; exclusionary zoningandother formsofsocial control(policing andsurveillance) Productionof space Productionof physical infrastructures (transportand communications; built environments; landclearance, etc.);territorial organisationof social infrastructures (formaland informal) Newsystemsof mapping,visual representation communication etc.;newartistic andarchitectural discourses; semiotics.

Materialspatial practices (experience)

Representations ofspace (perception)

Spacesof representation (imagination)

Social,psychological andphysical measuresofdistance; mapmaking;theories ofthefrictionof distance(principleof leasteffort,social physics,rangeofa goodcentralplace andotherformsof locationaltheory) Attraction/repulsion; distance/desire; access/denial; transcendence mediumisthe message.

Personalspace; mentalmapsof occupiedspace; spatial hierarchies; symbolic representation ofspaces;spatial discourses

Forbiddenspaces; territorial imperatives; community; regionalculture; nationalism; geopolitics; hierarchies

Familiarity; hearthand home;open places;placesof 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)

57

Timespacematters

Figure2.13The accelerationoftravellinginFranceoveraperiodof200years asdepicted by EmileCheyssonin1889(Cheysson,1889;depictedinBretagnolle,2003)

58

Chapter2Temporospatialorder

Imeantosignalbythattermprocessesthatsorevolutionisetheobjectivequalities ofspaceandtimethatweareforcedtoalter,sometimes,inradicalways,howwe representtheworldtoourselves[noteagainthefocusonrepresentationofspace, JvS].Iusethewordcompressionbecauseastrongcasecanbemadethatthehis toryofcapitalismhasbeencharacterisedbyspeedupinthepaceoflife,whileso overcoming spatial barriers that the world sometimes seems to collapse inwards uponus.(Harvey,1990:240)

The timespace compression concept was and still is very compelling, for a part, exactly because it is associated with visual depictions of a shrinking world. It con juresupmuchstrongerthantheannotationsofHgerstrand,Giddensoranyother geographerorsociologistaviewoftimespacethatacknowledgestheroleoftech nology(artefacts,cf. Simon, 1969), theproduction of technology and its territorial effectsasitorganisesspacearoundnetworks(cf.Dupuyetal.,2008).However,often sinceHarveyintroducedtheconceptoftimespacecompressionasadescriptor,ithas beeninterpretedexclusivelyintermsofaccessibilityanddistanciationshrinking (see the first column of spatial practices in Table 2.1) rather than in other types of (temporo)spatialpracticesasHarveyoriginallyintended. Timespace compression is in those cases reduced to and translated into time spaceconvergence,whichisafaultyconceptualisationoftimespacecompressionasI will explicate below. Moreover, if considered only inthose terms, the idea of time spacecompressionwasnotparticularlynew,asEmileCheyssondepictedtheideaof 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 conception oftimespace compression only concernscapability constraints, whereas Harvey implies significance for both coupling and authority constraints as well. As such it is thenotion of timespace packing (see above) rather than butnot apart fromdistanciationthatisofrelevancetotheconceptoftimespacecompression. 2.3.5 TheNetworkSociety

WithGiddensandHarvey,thesociologistManuelCastellsbelongstothegrandtheo ristsofthesecondhalfofthetwentiethcentury.Althoughherefrainsfromreferring toHgerstrandIwillshowthatCastellsworkstillbelongsherewiththetracesoftime geographyinsocialtheory.CastellsTheRiseoftheNetworkSocietyisgenerallyre gardedasoneofthemostinfluentialworksofthelate20thcenturyonhowsocieties andcitieswithinthemaredevelopingandmaybedevelopingforagoodpartofthe 21stcentury(Castells,1996(2000)).Inithehasoutlinedafundamentallynewcon textforplanning(AlbrechtsandMandelbaum,2005). KeytoCastellsthesisistheconceptualdistinctionbetweenaspaceofplaces the historically rooted spatial organisation of our common experience (Castells, 1996(2000):408)andaspaceofflowsthematerialorganisationoftimesharing social practices that work through flows (Castells, 1996 (2000): 442). These two 59

Timespacematters

spaces need to be seen as separate ordering mechanisms (logics; Castells, 1996 (2000):408)fortheeconomic,social,politicalandphysicalorderingofcities.Castells claimisthatthespaceofflowsisreplacingthespaceofplacesasprimaryordering mechanism; so not that it is replacing it per se as Castells has been often wrongly interpreted. It is, in Castells view,becoming thedominant spatial manifestationof powerandfunctioninoursocieties(Castells,1996(2000):409);thespaceofflowsis notplacelessthoughitslogicis(Castells,1996(2000):443).Thecontentofthespace of flows concept, Castells explains, can be described through three layers, which I summarisehere,thatprovidethematerialsupportforit: A circuit of electronic exchanges that form the material basis for the proc esses,beingstrategicallycrucialinthenetworkofsociety,i.e.thenetworkof communicationexpressedintechnologicalinfrastructure(infirstinstancein formation technology) which defines the new space much as railways de finedregionsandmarkets;andasrulesofcitizenrydefinedcities. The nodes and hubs of the space of flows, i.e. specific places with well definedsocial,cultural,physicalandfunctionalcharacteristics;thesenodes andhubsarefoundinparticularcitiesthatareembeddedinahierarchically organisedglobalnetworkofcities. The spatial organisation of the dominant managerial elites (rather than classes); articulation of cosmopolitan elites (through forming symbolically secludedcommunitiesandbydesigningsymbolicenvironmentsofglobally unifiedspatialformsandlifestyles)andsegmentation/disorganisationofthe localmassesastwinmechanismsofsocialdominationinsociety. (Castells,1996(2000):442445) Though having formulated his thesis primarily from the viewpoint of spatial order, Castells develops an intricate link to temporal order, as the concepts of time and space are inherently linked when acknowledging the existence of the mechanisms embeddedinthespaceofflows.Centralistheideathatthetransformationoftime undertheinformationtechnologyparadigm,asshapedbysocialpractices,isoneof thefoundationsofthenewsocietywehaveentered,inextricablylinkedtotheemer genceofthespaceofflows(Castells,1996(2000):460).However,Castellssomewhat mystifieshisconceptualisationoftimebyintroducingthetermtimelesstime[as]the dominant temporality of our society (Castells, 1996 (2000): 494). In fact, Castells reliesheavilyonaneclecticreadingofGiddenswork,onthatofHarveyandonoth erssuchasJohnUrrytocometoanempiricallyexplicatednotionoftime.Thatnotion oftimeIwouldsayisfarfromtimeless,butenshrinedincomplexinteractionsof differentmechanismsoftimespaceordering. Key notions that Castells identifies as timeless time are the following (Castells, 1996(2000):465481)againsummarised,butleavingouthisconceptualisationof timeasherelatesittodeathandwar: 60

Chapter2Temporospatialorder

The idea of realtime interactions and transactions in economic systems [notethatthisisanultimateformoftimespaceconvergence,JvS]; Thenotionofflextimeinnetworkedenterprisesseenasflexibleformsof managementcombinedwithintensifiedperformanceoflabourforexample related to the adaptability of firms to market demand and technological changesbyslowingdownorspeedingupproductandprofitcycles[notethat thisisrelatedtothenotionoftimespacecompressionasdevelopedbyDavid Harvey,JvS]; Theshrinkingandtwistingoflifeworkingtime;hoursspentforpaidwork remainingatthenucleusofdaytodaylifeofmostpeople,thoughgenerally theamountofhoursquantitativelydecliningwhileshowingincreasingdiver sity in duration of working hours [note that this combines mechanisms of timespaceindividualisationandflexibilisation,JvS](cf.below) Theblurringofthelifecyclewhichwouldinitsultimatestateleadtosocial arrhythmia; Castells proposes to hypothesise that the network society is characterisedbythebreakingdownoftherhythms,eitherbiologicalorso cial,associatedwiththenotionofthelifecycle(Castells,1996(2000):476) (cf.Lefebvre,1995)(i.e.timespaceindividualisation;cf.below)

ForCastellsthecombinationoftheseprocessesoftransformationoftemporalorder results in timeless time, occurring when the characteristics of a given context, namelytheinformationalparadigmandthenetworksociety,inducesystemicpertur bation in the sequential order of phenomena performed in that context (Castells, 1996(2000):494).Inmyviewhetriesheretounifythedifferentmechanismsoftem poralorderinginawaythatmystifiesratherthanclarifies.Iwilldrawoutthesedif ferentmechanismsinmoredetailbelow. 2.3.6 Implications:mechanismsoftemporospatialadaptationandcartography

In the preceding paragraphs I have developed a detailed account of traces of time geography ingeographic and social theory. It isnecessary 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. the mapping, of timespace. Letsstartwiththelatter.Harveydemonstratestheimportanceofrepresentationsin howweconceptualisespaceandtime.Butherefrainsfromidentifyingafundamental problematicofrepresentationsofspace.Namely,cartographypartiallyinformedby thefieldofinformationvisualisationforthedevelopmentofthematiccartography producesprincipallyspatialmodels(i.e.on/asmaps)wheretimecanbedepictedonly indirectlybymorphingspace,colour,symbol,scaletypeorothercartographictech niques(Klaasen,2005b;seee.g.alsoKraakandMaceachren,1994).Althoughthereis 61

Timespacematters

aconsiderablebodyofliteratureoncartographyoftimespacephenomena(seee.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,signallargedifficultiesincollectingandprocessingthedata necessary to develop such visualisations of rhythms rather than distances (Janelle andGoodchild,1983;GoodchildandJanelle,1984)(cf.Chapters5and6). Thereisafundamentalstrengthintimespacemapsastohowtheymaycombine different notions of time. Timespace maps displaying, for example, timespace con vergence,areabletomakevisibletheintuitiverelationbetweentimespacedistance indaytodaylifeandthetransformationsofthetechnologicalconditionsfortravers ingthosedistancesonadaytodaybasis;timespacemapsthusrendervisibleasig nificant part of the structuration of timespace as conceptualised by Giddens. How ever,thereisafundamentalbiasintimespacecartography,namelythebiasofmeas urabilityofdistancesinbothtimeandspacewhichneglectsotherlesseasilymeas urabletypesofrelationsbetweentemporalandspatialorder.Suchothertypesof orders rhythm for example are often socially rather than technologically con structed,althoughtheyareoftenstillmediatedbytechnology(information,including monitoringtechnology,communicationtechnology,transporttechnology,etc.). Moreover,inthereductionoftemporalphenomenatotwotimescales(onefor travel distance and onefor transformation), timespace mappings of timespace con vergence neglect many of the intermediaryscale orderings of time and space on which timespace constraints tend to work such as weekly or seasonal rhythms of activity and mobility. Moreover, such mappings tend to generalise timespace phe nomena such that they render invisible the differences between how timespace transformationsresultindifferenteffectsfordifferentgroupsofpeople(cf.thecri tiquebyHgerstrandthatliesatthebasisofhisquestionwhataboutpeople?,but also Giddens critique on Hgerstrand above). These mechanisms work together, effectingfundamentalchangesinthefourtypesofconstraintsidentifiedbyGiddens as embedded in time geography: capability, coupling, authority and packing con straints.Iwillexplicatebelow. Whentheoristsspeakofthespeedinguporaccelerationofcontemporarylife to identify the condition of postmodernity (e.g. Virilio and Derian, 1998; Harvey, 1990), they often do not distinguish how these mechanisms are related to those different types of constraints. As has become clear in this chapter, distinguishing betweentheseconstraintsasseparatecategoriesisnotthesameasthembeingin dependent from each other. Yet without such a distinction it is difficult to identify wheretheopportunitieslieforthedomainofurbanandregionaldesignandplanning andwhichareclearlyoutsidetheworkingsofthatdomain.ThereforeIproposethe scheme in Table 2.2 for linking constraints to different mechanisms of timespace adaptation. 62

Chapter2Temporospatialorder

Figure2.14Theshiftoveraperiodof24hoursinspatialdistributionofactivitypatternsbytype ofactivity(Janelleetal.,1998:130)(originalincolour)

63

Timespacematters

Figure 2.15 Temporal ordering of urban space showing tracts of time use in particular places (Janelleetal.,1998:126)

Timespaceconvergenceandtimespacecompressionhavebeendiscussedearlierthis chapter,butitisnecessarytoherebrieflyprovideamoredetaileddefinitionofthe conceptsoftimespaceflexibilisationandtimespaceindividualisation(alsoseeChap ter1forexamples).Timespaceflexibilisationreferstotheuncoupling(disembedding) ofactivitiesfromalocaltemporalorspatialorder.Thiscanbeaneffectofthedisap pearanceorshiftingoftemporalmarkers(orZeitgebers;seeParkesandThrift,1980; 64

Chapter2Temporospatialorder

e.g.worktimeleisuretimebalance)orspatialmarkers(e.g.theshiftofcentrefunc tionstoedgelocations;Garreau,1991);oritcanbeaneffectoftheemergenceof new nets of relations between distanciated actors (see e.g. the spaceofflows con ceptdevelopedbyCastells,1996(2000)). Ofadifferentorder,timespaceindividualisationreferstothepossibilitiesforpeo ple to diversify their activity patterns on both a daily basis and/or divergent from theirsocialculturallydependentcontextandhabits.Itiscloselyrelatedtotheproc ess of disembedding associated with timespace flexibilisation, but differs in that respectthatitisconcernedwiththedegreetowhichpeoplearecapableofgoverning theirowntime.Assuchitisrelatedtobothnotionsoffreedomofactivitychoice(cf. Chapin,1968)forexample,relatedtoparticipationinthelabourmarketbywomen andfreedomofmobility.Thelatterismediated,forexample,bycarownership. Thesefourmechanismsarenotunavoidablyunidirectionali.e.increasinglymov ing towards more converged, compressed, individualised or flexible timespace. By seeingtheseconceptsasmechanismsratherthanonlyintermsofprocessesoftrans formationitispossibletoopenupinquiriesaboutthenongeneralised,differentiated effectsofthesemechanismsthroughoutpopulations.Andaboutthepossiblerolesof urbanandregionaldesignandplanning.
Timespaceconstraints Primarilymediatedby (notethattheseare technologically,socially,politically and/oreconomicallyconstructedin aprocessofstructuration influencedbytheotherconstraints themselves) Transportationand communicationtechnology Locationandregionsofactivitiesin timeandspace,economicrules Socialrulesanddemarcationof regions Sizeandidentityoflocales Mechanismoftimespace adaptation

Capability

Timespaceconvergence Timespaceflexibilisation Timespaceindividualisation Timespacecompression

Coupling

Authority

Packing

Table2.2Thesuggestedrelationbetweentimespaceconstraintsandmechanismsoftimespace adaptation

65

Timespacematters

WiththeschemeinTable2.2theargumentisreinforcedthatthemechanismoftime spaceindividualisationisoutsidethedomainofdirectinfluenceofurbanandregional design and planning. This table also puts forward that the three other mechanisms areinsomewayoranotherrelatedtospatialandtemporalorderingswhichmaybe influencedbythephysicalspatialtransformationseffectedthroughdesignandplan ningofcities.Thisshiftnowopensupthesubjectofthischaptertothequestionif the domain of urban and regional design and planning is capable of responding to suchanintricateconceptualisationoftimespace.

2.4
2.4.1

Conclusion:Whatabouttime?
Recapitulatingthekeyideasinthischapter

Thischapterstartedofwithdefiningtemporalandspatialorderascharacteristicsof systemsingeneralandactivitysystemsandurbansystemsinparticular.Thechapter subsequently outlined the key concepts of time geography in light of the question inspiredbyTorstenHgerstrandwhataboutpeopleinurbanandregionaldesignand planning? Idemonstratedthat theseconcepts canbe seen in terms of activity sys tems as part of a wider systemsbased view of urban planning; and that time and spaceneedtobeseenasahomology:timespace. BasedonHgerstrandsworkIintroducedtheideaoftimespaceconstraintsfor peoples activity and mobility behaviour including three different types: capability, coupling and authority constraints. A fourth category, namely packing or ecological constraints was shown to contribute to a more complete understanding of con straintsforthedomainofurbanandregionaldesignandplanning.Ofthesefour,at first glance, the four main types of constraints capability, coupling, authority and packing are all of concern to urban and regional design and planning although in differentways. Bytracingtheseelementsoftimegeographyintheworkofthreekeysocialtheo ristsGiddens,HarveyandCastellsIexplicatedthattheseconstraintsaredirectly linkedtodifferentmechanismsofstructuration,eachmediatedbytechnology.ThusI showedthatinsteadoflookingattimeintermsoftimespaceorder,timespaceinthe contextofurbanandregionaldesignandplanningneedtobelookeduponinterms oftimespaceordering,i.e.structuration. Ihaveidentifiedtwomajorcategoriesofimplicationsofthewayinwhichsocial theorylookeduponthetimespaceactivityandmobilitybehaviourofpeople.Thefirst implication is that it is of key importance to attach relevance to representations of timespaceinthevisibilityandinterpretationofthatbehaviour.Thesecondimplica tion is concerned with the linking of the explanatory concepts of timespace con straints for behaviour to some of the key mechanisms of timespace structuration, transformationandadaptationofbothsocietyandindividualbehaviouroractionas

66

Chapter2Temporospatialorder

identifiedinsocialtheory.Togethertheseimplicationsprovideaconciseframework tolookupontheapproachesdescribedinChapters5and6. 2.4.2 Valueoftimegeographyforurbanandregionaldesignandplanning

BecauseHgerstrandsdescriptorsofbehaviourofpeopleintimespacehadinspired muchgeographicandsocialtheorythatlaterprovedtobeinfluentialonproclaiming thenetworksocietyasanewcontextforplanning,Isoughtoutthetracesoftime geography within the larger domain of geography and in social theory. Several au thors within geography extended on Hgerstrands concerns seeking out new ave nues of research, amongst whom are quantitative geographers, phenomenologists andfeministgeographers.Theirbodyofworkledtoattachingrelevancetonewno tionsoftimesuchasrhythms,unequalopportunities,diversityandtheintroduction ofafourthtypeofconstraint,packingconstraints.Withinthegrandsocialtheories ofGiddens,HarveyandCastellsIdrewoutthetracesoftimegeographyintheidenti fication of a series of mechanisms through which the ordering structuration of timespaceintimeandovertimeandonaseriesoftimescalesunfolds. Sowhatabouttimeinurbanandregionaldesignandplanning?Ifitwereeasyto translate immediately such theorisations into issues of concern for urban and re gionaldesignandplanning,thisthesiswouldnotconcernitselfwiththatquestion.It turnsoutitisnotthateasy.InChapter3Ipointoutseveralplausibleexplanationsfor thelackofsuchtranslationsfromwithinthedomainofurbanandregionaldesignand planningitself. Iaimedinthischaptertoalsobuildabridgebetweenthedomainsofsocialthe oryandurbanandregionaldesignandplanning.Forthatreason,letsgobacktotime geography for a moment and Hgerstrands question on what about people?. In particularforAllanPred,timegeographysrelevancelaylargely,butnotexclusively, initsrelevanceforandapplicationinsocialaswellasphysicalplanning:Infact,since 1966,whentheResearchGrouponHumanGeographicProcessandSystemsAnaly siswasformedatLund,thetimegeographicresearchofHgerstrandandhisassoci ates [had] been mainly funded by Swedish government agencies concerned with regional development policies, nationwide physical planning, and urbanisation 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.

67

Timespacematters

68